Should all Signature restaurants ban children under 10?

[ransom]

Do you think all signature restaurants should ban children under 10 (like Victoria and Alberts)?

 

[Sandi]

Absolutely not. My DD, who is now 13, has been going to WDW signature restaurants since she was 2. I think that's part of the reason she has very expensive and adult tastes in food. I can understand why V&A put in the ban, but it would be very disappointing to see it spread to the other signature restaurants. DD13's favorite restaurants are Jiko and Cali Grill; she didn't care for the food at Artist Pointe, but liked the atmosphere (we dined there last for our 12th anniversary when she was 9).

Some kids can't handle themselves in settings such as more fancy restaurants -- indeed, many adults cannot.

 

[haley123]

.

 

[lilyv]

No. Victoria and Albert is appropriate. The rest are unnecessary.

 

[3for Me]

I also voted no. Isn't Disney (for the most part) based on family? I know that Disney is for everyone, but let's face it the majority of visitors are there with young children. I totally understand the V & A thing and I think it is great, but to start banning children from a variety of restaurants could be problematic.

 

[SSRFred]

I'm saddened that V&A's was necessary. Patron's should know better than to disrupt the meals of others. I've walked out of many Signature restaurants to allow my 2,3,4,5 year old time to calm down before returning. I say let the kids go to V&A's, just charge them the going rate for a seat. It's no different than the Opera.

 

[miller2470]

I think that it would be wrong for children 10 and under to be banned. I think that as a parent, you know how your children act in such places, and it is the parents responsibilty to decide accordingly. Dont punish those of us who have raised our children with manners and self control in public places. The signiture dining is part of the magic for us, we always look forward to a nice relaxing meal.

 

[kbmaggs]

I don't want to see kids banned from all sig restaurants, but Victoria & Alberts is no place for children. Our last meal there was interrupted a number of timed when Mommy and Daddy took turns taking out the whining, understandably bored toddler. By that time the damage is done.
That being said, I do think that parents should have the option of enjoying a nice meal with their children. Kids learn acceptable behavior only through having the opportunity to practice such.
Perhaps several of the more upscale restaurants could be "adult only" (however you define that) and all of the rest could be more child-oriented than they are now... .

 

[scrump]

No, I think V&A's is appropriate, but banning themn from all signature restaurants is a bit much.

 

[N10CJT]

I don't think so. At the very least, signature restaurants might help children out of their shells with opportunities to try different things (that generally aren't that different).
The one thing I would say is that they should be held to the same standards as adults in such places. If a kid is screaming or running around, that's not fair to others trying to enjoy their evening, and a family that can't control a child should be asked to leave immediately.
That said, I didn't have any problems with children at signature restaurants when I was there in November. In fact, at Flying Fish, a child from an adjacent table really made our dinner better by sidling over to talk to us. His parents apologized for bothering us, but he was sweet and we loved the fact that he engaged us.

 

[Booyakasha]

I think that the Signature restaurants need to make the dining experience better for their guests. That means asking parents with pooly behaved children that are disturbing other guests to get them under control or leave. It also means inforcing the dress code. A drastic measure like banning at all to the sigs is not appropriate at Disney

B.

 

[OKW Lover]

Although I voted yes, I'd be willing to accept a compromise - restrict it to adults only for ADR's after a certain time (perhaps 8:00 pm).

I'd also vote in favor of certain places requiring a party to have young children with them before they can eat there. Chef Mickey's comes to mind.

 

[stellablue]

Although I voted yes and was VERY happy about the V&A restriction, I would not agree with putting age restrictions on all signature restaurants all the time.

Kids are not leppers and I don't think they should be banned from everything "grown-up." It's not a practical move for Disney either.

However, I do like the idea of having age restrictions after a certain time of evening at some of these places if that would be possible. This way its still for all to enjoy-children can attend at certain times and grown ups can also have a grown up environment at certain hours if they choose.

What I don't understand is how come they are able to have age restrictions without causing a big fuss on the Disney Cruises? I have to say I have never been on one of these, just seen the travel Channel special and read about them. I think I've heard that they have age restrictive restaurants and even areas of the ship. I've never heard anyone complain about this. I realize that the environments are very different from WDW, but they also seem to promote "family vacations."

 

[stellablue]

Although I voted yes, I'd be willing to accept a compromise - restrict it to adults only for ADR's after a certain time (perhaps 8:00 pm).

*Yes, I totally agree!*

I'd also vote in favor of certain places requiring a party to have young children with them before they can eat there. Chef Mickey's comes to mind.

I just wondered what you meant by requiring a party to have young children w/them before they can eat? I was a little confused.

 

[raidermatt]

I just wondered what you meant by requiring a party to have young children w/them before they can eat? I was a little confused.

I think OKW means that since you would be restricting the ability of people with children to make ADR's and get tables at over a dozen restaurants, places like Chef Mickey's should reserve space just for people with kids to even things out.

Not saying I'm on board with that, but I think that's whay they mean.

I voted no. I think it wasn't really necessary at V&A, but I think it would overkill to do it anywhere else.

 

[M-I-C-K-E-Y]

Ban children at all signature restaurants? No

Ban children at some signature restaurants? Sure, sounds reasonable.

Ban non-parent adults at some non-signature restaurants? Sure, sounds reasonable as well!

 

[simonkodousek]

V&A's is just too expensive a meal to have young children becoming rowdy, and possibly ruining someone else's evening. As to the Signature restaurants; no. These restaurants are WAYYY less expensive than V&A, plus are located in kid-friendly areas in the resorts.

 

[2infinityandbeyond]

WDW wants us all to stay onsite to dine. If kids under 10 were banned from the signatures, you'd see more families with kids who want a semi-upscale meal go offsite to get it. So I don't think it would ever happen.

 

[familyS]

I voted no.

V&A is really in a category all by itself. JMO

 

[Colleen27]

WDW wants us all to stay onsite to dine. If kids under 10 were banned from the signatures, you'd see more families with kids who want a semi-upscale meal go offsite to get it. So I don't think it would ever happen.

I think that's it in a nutshell. I know that I'd be considerably less interested in staying onsite if Disney made some or all of the nicer restaurants adults only. For us, good food is a big part of the fun of travel, and not being able to enjoy that with our kids would be a big push towards staying offsite, renting a car, and enjoying our dinners elsewhere.

Restricting kids at V&A is reasonable, though I'm surprised it was necessary. I've always thought a lack of a child's menu was a pretty clear message and I'd have thought that would be enough for parents to get the point, but I guess some were too dense for that sort of subtlety.