 few years and
seem to be doing really well. On the other hand there’s a spot between 14th &
15th on Valencia that went through 3 restaurants in 3 years.

The places that are succeeding are all second or third efforts - maybe
experience really pays off?

------
trimbo
I don't disagree with the problems outlined. But, for this particular case,
start and end with the fact that the restaurant has 3.5 stars on Yelp and
people were consistently dissatisfied with the food and service?

SF has incredible 4-5 star restaurants of all price levels. So who wants to
eat at a very expensive 3.5 star one when there's a Michelin Star place 5
minutes away?

If SF's problems are so insurmountable, how do other good restaurants do it,
even ones not owned by some major group?

~~~
flaque
This argument is silly. If restaurants are harder to run, the average quality
of the place goes down. The existence of high quality restaurants does not
refute the possibility of the average going down.

~~~
mcv
Maybe, but if staff is in short supply, it makes sense that they will prefer
to work for restaurants that can afford their wages.

------
lebanon_tn
I'm reminded of this part of David Chang's take on "the next global food
mecca" being Houston, a city in many ways the complete opposite of SF:

 _I 've always wondered where the food in a Blade Runner-like future would
appear first and what it would taste like—and I genuinely believe it's here.

Partly that's due to a demographic reality: By some measures, Houston is the
U.S.A.'s most ethnically diverse city (a bunch of New Yorkers just choked on
their halal kebabs reading that, but it's true), and when you get a collision
of immigrants, the food scene is guaranteed to be bonkers.

Houston also has cheap commercial and residential rents—oh, and no state
income tax—which means broke-ass cooks and chefs can afford to live and open
here. Zoning laws are more permissive than an Amsterdam brothel. And customers
have cash to spend._

Source: [https://www.gq.com/story/david-chang-houston-food