New policy: No young kids at Victoria & Albert's

[Janet Hill]

Frankly, I don't like people who dislike children. Yes it's a generalization, but we all have at least one. However, I wish there were a few more adult only restaurants at WDW. I can't justify the cost of evening out at V&As and I would love to spend an evening out dining at one of the signature restaurants without the cacaphony of other people's children. When I'm escaping my children (and yes I like to be away from them at times - they can drive me crazy), I don't want to be surrounded by the noise of other people's children.

 

[NMW]

Relax, I only used Yachtsman as an example, because they serve steak, which is available elsewhere. Everyone who replied originally kept saying ALL signature restaurants. I was only saying ONE. So I used an example.

Here's a question. What about a whole new restaurant? What if Disney opened the 18 and over Cafe? All adults, all the time signature dining, but with a lower priced menu than V&A's? Then there would STILL be the same number of restaurants, both signature and non-signature that there are right now, that would still allow kids. Only the new place and V&A's would not.

Would that be a huge offense by Disney and cause parents to rethink their vacation plans?

ETA: Mattsdragon: Great post. I LOL at "next thing you know, people with children are restricted to eating at the McDonalds near the All Star Resorts, and Hitler had his SS goose-stepping down Main St."

I agree about the overreaction. I think it would be nice to have a lower priced eatery for an adult atmosphere. I do not work for Disney, nor do I make their decisions for them. So, until I become CEO, I don't think anyone should worry too much. I just find it immensely interesting that it would offend people that V&A's instituted this policy and that it would even more so if one more out of 97restaurants did the same.

I realize that you only used it as an example, but my point is that ALL signatures at WDW may be special/every trip tradition places to WDW guests with children. If we always stayed at the GF instead of an Epcot resort, for example I may feel that way about Citricos. So therefore, I wouldn't want Citricos to be "that one" that bans children. Our family usually always eats at Yachtsman and Flying Fish. Other families may always do Jiko and Citricos. So wichever "one signature" Disney picked would upset some quests. Would it upset more loyal fans of that restaurant that have children than it would make childless couples happy? I just don't know.

I'm not talking about V&A. I have always thought of that as an "adults only" restaurant and I'm fine with that. I have never even considered taking my children there. Maybe when our youngest is 12-13, I would try it with them, but not now.

As for banning children at all signatures, yes I would be very upset. Dining at Disney is a huge part of our vacation. I think my husband I spend more time planning our ADR's than we do anything else. If all of a sudden several of our favorite places would not welcome our family, yes, I may consider vacationing elsewhere. WDW would seem like a pretty hostile place to me all of a sudden. I know you were advocating for just one, but which one?

I also can't understand people comparing children not allowed to eat at a restaurant to children not allowed to drive a car or go parasailing. Those things are obvious safety issues. A child is in no danger sitting at a table having dinner. I mean honestly, how can people even compare those things? I'm not saying it was you doing the comparing, I just don't have the energy to go back and re-read all the previous posts!

Your idea about an all new restaurant is interesting. I wonder how many takers it would get. Obviously families like ours wouldn't dine there, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't be interested.

 

[robinb]

Here's a question. What about a whole new restaurant? What if Disney opened the 18 and over Cafe? All adults, all the time signature dining, but with a lower priced menu than V&A's? Then there would STILL be the same number of restaurants, both signature and non-signature that there are right now, that would still allow kids. Only the new place and V&A's would not.

I would support that 100%, but I think that even that would cause an uproar. WHAT?!? Little Suzie can't go to the new restaurant?!?

 

[2Princes2Princesses]

.
As for banning children at all signatures, yes I would be very upset. Dining at Disney is a huge part of our vacation. I think my husband I spend more time planning our ADR's than we do anything else. If all of a sudden several of our favorite places would not welcome our family, yes, I may consider vacationing elsewhere. WDW would seem like a pretty hostile place to me all of a sudden. I know you were advocating for just one, but which one?

Your idea about an all new restaurant is interesting. I wonder how many takers it would get. Obviously families like ours wouldn't dine there, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't be interested.

One idea was to do a rotation of them all. Sunday night would be adult night at Citricos, Monday at Artist's Point, Tuesday at Narcoosee's, etc. I think that would be a great idea. That way, people who dine with their kids are not shut out of what may be their favorite restaurant. I suspected that might be part of the uproar of one signature going adults only, which is why I asked about a whole new restaurant.

And I think the parasailing, etc. was compared because there were posts that suggested there should be NO adults only restaurant because "Disney is for kids and parents to do everything together." The examples of parasailing, the tours, and such were used to show that parents and kids are already separated in some activities there and that if WDW were only for families to be together everywhere, all the time, those things would not be available.

My best friend learned to waterski at a very young age. By 6 years old, she could ski on 1 ski and do spins and such. I don't know the age for waterskiing at Disney, but I imagine it is higher than 6. Her parents would not have pitched a fit about her not being allowed, even though she was capable of doing it, maybe more so than some adults who try waterskiing there. She would have just waited until she met the age requirement. I guess that is why I don't get the fury over V&A's. I just don't understand why waiting until they are 10 to go there is such a big deal.