Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ooh, yeah - touched you last (etc)


To attempt to draw a line under this (in case there is anyone left reading who has yet to lose the will to live) my point is that you've spent the last page stirring up a pointless row by way of utterly meaningless and facile comparisons - in order to piss over a new local business that hasn't even opened yet.


Don't be a dick.


If you must be a dick, do it somewhere else where it will cause less grief to some people who haven't spend the last god knows how long working to make something happen.

The key will be whether sufficient people think the Patch, when it is properly up and running, offers value. This will be some composite of food quality (of sourcing, of cooking and of range, and frequency the menu changes) together with dining ambience (tables large enough and not too crowded, chairs comfortable, lighting good, decoration, temperature etc.) and service quality - how orders are taken and delivered, level of menu 'customisation' offered, staff attentiveness (enough but not too much), speed at which e.g. bills are brought and so on.


At the moment the jury is clearly out on all of these, and will be for some time until things settle, but discussing prices (as a factor of value) is surely otiose until the full delivery can be assessed.


If it delivers like the Fat Duck it will be cheap, if it delivers like the Harvester it won't be.


[And by the way, for those of us living locally - its location will be a plus point - not having to travel into town for a good meal is worth something in the value equation to me - although luckily existing outlets in ED already do offer that as well}.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> To attempt to draw a line under this (in case

> there is anyone left reading who has yet to lose

> the will to live) my point is that you've spent

> the last page stirring up a pointless row by way

> of utterly meaningless and facile comparisons - in

> order to piss over a new local business that

> hasn't even opened yet.

>

> Don't be a dick.

>

> If you must be a dick, do it somewhere else where

> it will cause less grief to some people who

> haven't spend the last god knows how long working

> to make something happen.


Not trying to piss over a new business.. by any means.


Jerome wrote:- (may sound harsh but there are surely hundreds of restaurants in London which charge these prices).


I said that's right..


I gave Gordon Ramsey as an example of a restaurant with similar prices for a 3 course meal.


But suggested The Patch was not exactly on the same footing but seemed expensive for what it is.

Views already expressed by others here on EDF.


You disputed that such a meal could be bought in a Gordon Ramsey Rest. for ?41.. and you would raise ?41.00

and laugh at me through the Window.


I gave examples and proved you could.


And you would not back down and made it personal calling me a Tit, a Dick.


You are not exactly exempt from posting confrontational comments.


But I suppose when someone is in a corner, It's is understandable.


DulwichFox

One last time. Try to understand.


A set lunch at GR will cost you getting on for THREE TIMES the price of a set lunch somewhere locally (Patch looking to be on a par with other upper-priced places) By the time you've factored in wine, upwards of at least FOUR times more expensive I would say.



Is one thing that is THREE or FOUR times more expensive than another - in any way - worthy of comparison.


How does, say, a ?200k property stack-up against one costing ?600k? Are they the same?

Prices at The Patch seem fairly similar to Palmerston/Franklins/Toasted/Crooked Well to me. Really don't understand what all the fuss is about. None of us have tasted their food, so have absolutely no idea if it's priced accordingly.


(and lunch at Gordon Ramsay is ?55, no matter what the stubborn old fox claims)

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> How does, say, a ?200k property stack-up against

> one costing ?600k? Are they the same?



Depends where they are. ?600k in Belgravia will not get you much


Whereas ?200k on the outskirts of Salford would buy you a decent home...


DF

Just remember. The views of The Fox are not necessarily the views of the individual behind the Fox. I'm guessing the man behind the fur knows he's plain wrong on this one. It's ok, he's allowed to hold his hand up. But Fox, you ARE a grump and the odd ray of sunshine from you at times would be most welcome.

I think it would be more encouraging if the people behind the Patch engaged with the forum and told us their plans etc. Have found their communications throughout their development and opening etc a bit weird and confusing. But in the meantime, they seem to be more active on their facebook page so would check in there for updates https://www.facebook.com/dulwichpatch?ref=ts&fref=ts. Looks like a grand opening on the 11th, maybe?


Personally I think the menu looks lovely but pricey so will be only visiting on special occasions if reviews are good after the proper opening, unless I somehow win the lottery. Would have been great to have a more affordable local but ah well.

Some top London restaurants won't even give you a price for a main course these days. ?80-90 for 3 courses plus service and you're over 100. You can attribute whatever you want to the main but will we settle for 55/60 quid, hence 16 is a fair bit less than 60, so no way can anyone compare Ramsey etc with ED.


Whether 16 is reasonable or not depends upon a lot of factors but as I suggested on page 1 if they can match Franklin's or Palmerston standard then I think it's a fair price and they could do well, hopefully.

From looking at menus they're more expensive than the Crooked Well and Franklins. At over ?18 for a main and ?7 for a dessert I can't see myself going there. But guess they've worked out that East Dulwich has enough people who can afford (and want to pay) these sorts of prices for a local gastropub for them to make a success of it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...