375440 Tue Feb 27 10:16:53 -0800 2007 54 33 Food Media and News 0 2333742 SF Chronicle restaurant reviewer Michael Bauer once again complains that SF diners don't dress like we're going to a funeral: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=26&entry_id=13856 He misquotes himself. What he actually said was, "Unfortunately, some restaurant patrons look as if they came from a $50-a-night hotel. While some look as elegant as the surroundings, others seem content to wear wrinkled Dockers." http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/04/15/PK216691.DTL Tue Feb 27 10:16:53 -0800 2007 11369 Robert Lauriston 1 2333803 I put this as a topic on Not About Food (Jacket and tie places -- love 'em or loathe 'em?)and got lots of replies, both pro and con. http://www.chowhound.com/topics/368135 Tue Feb 27 10:27:03 -0800 2007 2333742 11362 Brian S 1 2333920 Is it really a restaurant critic's job to comment on other customers, which is to say, his readers? If many people in San Francisco would rather spend money on restaurants than on suits, and their idea of dressing up is changing from jeans and a T-shirt into khakis and a shirt with a collar, what's that to him? As a San Francisco reviewer (for the free SF Weekly), that seems wildly inappropriate to me. The only time I've ever mentioned how people were dressed was to say, "Don't let the often intimidatingly well-groomed, Armani-suited crowd at [Perbacco's] bar scare you off — there are plenty of schlubby S.F. foodies in wrinkled Dockers in the back." Tue Feb 27 10:50:14 -0800 2007 2333742 11369 Robert Lauriston 2 2334233 I don't see there's anything wrong with a restaurant critic commenting on the way customers dress. I for one hate to see men wearing baseball caps indoors. Tue Feb 27 11:50:04 -0800 2007 2333920 24711 dty 3 2334267 I don't recall ever having seen that at a nice restaurant in SF. It's not like people here have no standards. People dress differently at $100-a-head restaurants than they do at $10 dives. You just don't see a lot of suits and ties unless it's a business meeting or a funeral. Tue Feb 27 12:00:39 -0800 2007 2334233 11369 Robert Lauriston 4 2334454 well, I have seen men wearing baseball caps (and jeans and tennis shoes) downstairs at Chez Panisse, and I personally found it annoying. some people here *don't* have standards IMO. I agree with you that a suit and tie isn't necessary at most SF places, but OTOH, I don't mind the comments from a reviewer to give me a sense of the place. Though granted that probably wasn't Bauer's intent; he was just complaining. Tue Feb 27 12:44:25 -0800 2007 2334267 10158 susancinsf 1 2334487 I think the onus for the dress code is more on the restaurants than the patrons. If a restaurant wants me in a suit and tie, then they should say so. If they don't have a dress code, then I will go with "casual" in mind. My clothes aren't grubby, greasy or threadbare, but I do like wearing comfortable jeans, a nice polo shirt or button down Oxford and loafers as my "fashion" for the evening when I dine out. I have a suit and tie, so they need to tell me if I should wear it. But, for goodness sake, don't have a dress code and then not enforce it. Tue Feb 27 12:50:50 -0800 2007 2333742 10633 Seth Chadwick 2 2335656 You make an excellent point, Seth. What really chaps my cookies (how's that for a mixed 'hound metaphor?!?) is when a restaurant makes a big deal about their dress code, you go to the trouble to adhere to it, and arrive only to find that the restaurant does absolutely nothing to enforce the policy they made such noise about. #1 offender in my book is SF's Crustacean. We were visiting in the restaurant's earlier days and wanted in on the buzz. We called for reservations and were told in no uncertain terms that they did not allow jeans, collarless shirts or anything remotely casual. Bah! There were patrons in velour jogging suits as well as jeans and crew neck shirts. The meal was fine, but the attitude was a joke and the Anh family has not and never will see another penny from me since. Tue Feb 27 17:23:38 -0800 2007 2334487 10576 GroovinGourmet 3 2335688 The restaurant can be a little flexible. Once I saw a genteel, elegant man show up accompanied by five ladies who probably spend half their time fighting off offers from top model agencies. All were well dressed and expensively dressed. But the man was wearing jeans, and there was a strict no-jeans code. They let the group in. They proceeded to order a sumptuous feast washed down with bottle after bottle of ths most expensive wine. The restaurant was glad to have them. Tue Feb 27 17:34:31 -0800 2007 2335656 11362 Brian S 4 2336082 I don't disagree that a restaurant needs to be flexible, but by the same token, I can drop some decent money, too. If all it takes to have the dress code waived is a few bottles of expensive wine, I would like the reservation agent taking my call to tell me, "We don't allow jeans or t-shirts, but if you are planning on spending more than $300 a person, we will look the other way." Tue Feb 27 19:43:17 -0800 2007 2335688 10633 Seth Chadwick 3 2337539 This tangent is irrelevant since there's not one San Francisco restaurant left with a dress code. Harris' was a longtime holdout but they probably decided they weren't going to go bankrupt over it. I believe the French Laundry is the only restaurant in the greater SF Bay Area that requires a jacket (but no tie). Wed Feb 28 09:46:48 -0800 2007 2335656 11369 Robert Lauriston 4 2347924 Even the above-mentioned Crustacean? They had a dress code the last time I was there (a couple of years ago). Of course, there are better reasons to boycott Crustacean, the main one being the mediocre, overpriced food. Fri Mar 02 22:39:38 -0800 2007 2337539 10159 Ruth Lafler 4 2424828 Does Trader Vics require a jacket? The one in Beverly Hills use to which I thought was funny because it was literally filled with real prostitutes at the bar on some occasions and they were not wearing a dress code so to speak. Tue Mar 27 08:03:22 -0700 2007 2337539 52212 Lori SF 1 2335058 Frankly, its sounds somewhat refreshing that a place such as Perbacco has well-dressed patrons. Maybe it is not Bauer's place to complain about other peoples dress, but since it is a blog, he has succeeded in generating conversation about the subject. I am not fan of Michael Bauer, but I do agree with his premise on this point. Tue Feb 27 14:56:00 -0800 2007 2333742 43891 poulet_roti 2 2335552 In his review of Masa's when Ron Siegel was there, Bauer gave the impression that the two main reasons he didn't give it four stars were that you had to go through the hotel lobby to reach the bathroom and that they weren't turning away tourists in wrinkled Dockers. Tue Feb 27 16:55:56 -0800 2007 2335058 11369 Robert Lauriston 3 2336242 I didn't read the review, but assuming you are correct, his assertion is absurd. Tue Feb 27 20:57:26 -0800 2007 2335552 43891 poulet_roti 1 2335226 As I replied in Bauer's blog, there is a big difference between "dressing up" and dressing well. There are lots of people wearing nice jeans and shirts who IMO are better dressed than others wearing shlubby suits and ugly ties. Personally I think that at all but the most exclusive places, strict dress codes beg for abuse. You want me to wear a jacket? Ok, if i decide to eat at your establishment (instead of going to one of the other three thousand or so places in town without the attitude), get ready for the equivalent of a technicolor dreamcoat. Tue Feb 27 15:37:54 -0800 2007 2333742 41818 Grubbjunkie 2 2424837 I thought that was well put and funny! Then I saw that it was you. Hi honey. Tue Mar 27 08:06:38 -0700 2007 2335226 52212 Lori SF 1 2335697 Some of these posts raise an interesting question: should a restaurant reviewer take off stars for bad ambience, or should the rating be based on food alone? Tough question. (Generally, I think the latter.) Tue Feb 27 17:35:58 -0800 2007 2333742 11362 Brian S 2 2337476 I tend to disagree with this. Dining out involves more than just eating. IMO the ratings should reflect the overall experience, not just one aspect, and the review should contain enough information about what was good and bad so the reader can understand the basis for the overall rating. They should also disclose any clear bias so the reader can decide for themselves if they care about something the reviewer sees as negative (scruffy dressers, etc.). Wed Feb 28 09:33:48 -0800 2007 2335697 41818 Grubbjunkie 3 2337510 Bauer's complaint isn't about a particular restaurant. It's about the casual culture of the SF Bay Area. The Chronicle rates food, service, and atmosphere separately from zero to four stars, and combines them for an overall rating. Wed Feb 28 09:40:21 -0800 2007 2337476 11369 Robert Lauriston 1 2335771 You have to take Michael Bauer and any critic with a grain of salt and understand their biases...so you can agree or ignore. MB likes upper-mid-range cali-conti-ish food generally accessible to the midwestern palette and people to dress nice. He doesn't get low end, ethnic that's not w/i a certain palette bandwidth and hip or fun. His career linked up well with the rise of the quality upper-mid restro in SF...but he's getting a little dated now. I think it's appropriate that a critic lets readers know the general attire so you're not out of place but to comment about the lack of jackets/slacks etc on the left coast is pointless, as it should be. Tue Feb 27 17:52:05 -0800 2007 2333742 27275 ML8000 2 2336091 It would also be pointless to criticize lack of jackets in Phoenix in June (when temps hover at 110 F plus). But I am sure that one day I will see that in the local media ... and a critic's reputation will suddenly take a nose dive. Tue Feb 27 19:46:46 -0800 2007 2335771 10633 Seth Chadwick 3 2336385 I don't disagree tha the jackets can be a chore outdoors, but good grief - since when is the ac inside any building in the urbanized southwest set at under 65 degrees in the summer? And if I can wear stockings and heels, then the guys can darn well carry a jacket to wear. Tue Feb 27 22:01:53 -0800 2007 2336091 11599 Alice Letseat 4 2336630 Jackets are inappropriate when it is 110 outside. should customers really be encouraging restaurants to overspend on cooling bills, not to mention over contribute to climate change, by overdressing in the heat? I *never* wore stockings and heels in the summer when I lived in AZ. baseball hats indoors bug me, but I do think it is possible to dress nicely (for men) without wearing a suit or tie. Wed Feb 28 02:54:05 -0800 2007 2336385 10158 susancinsf 5 2337589 Look, I'm going to respectfully disagree. I wasn't suggesting we all encourage restaurants to be (any more) environmentally inappropriate than they already are. But the fact is, the bulk of the population in this region insists on awfully frigid commercial temps. And the business owners indulge them. Furtherrmore, CARRYING a jacket into a darn cold interior is hardly "inappropriate." It's inappropriate outside, sure. And what I was saying is that it is, in all fact, not hideously uncomfortable to wear heels in whatever temperature. (Cute little heeled sandals are HOTTER than canvas shoes? And spare me the flip-flop argument.) Wed Feb 28 09:55:48 -0800 2007 2336630 11599 Alice Letseat 6 2339567 well, perhaps I should have eliminated the last argument by clarifying that I NEVER wear heels (indeed, I didn't wear heels with the very formal dress I recently wore for my daughter's wedding. flats worked fine). and am sure not about to start when I visit my Phx friends in July! Stockings OTOH, IMO are just are plain wrong when it is that hot outside, and I think it is unkind to both genders to perpetuate the 'we have to suffer, why shouldn't they?' argument. That said, I think it is quite possible to look nice without the stockings, or the jacket and tie. btw, on my last visit in July there was at least one ocaision when my choice of tables for a late dinner was to sit next to smokers by the bar, or to sit outside. (on a patio that was spritzed with water) Thank goodness I was not dressed for winter! Wed Feb 28 17:34:42 -0800 2007 2337589 10158 susancinsf 5 2340558 "baseball hats indoors bug me..." and they bug me and Miss Manners, too. Since gentlemen do not wear hats indoors, wearing one announces "I am a lout". And when the bill is worn turned around backwards, they also announce "I am not a grownup". Thu Mar 01 04:36:04 -0800 2007 2336630 13619 Sharuf 6 2343390 yes, it really is the lack of manners that bugs me, not the style issue... Thu Mar 01 16:43:37 -0800 2007 2340558 10158 susancinsf 5 2405077 Baseball caps indoors equal bad form? I've seen plenty of women, both young and old, wearing hats (elegant as they may be) to church, restaurants, performances, etc. Is a ball cap really any more disrespectful? This is a matter of social norms. These "norms" vary by generation, location, socio-economic class, etc. As such, if any expectations exist, I think it's the responsibility of a restaurant to establish a dress code and, more importantly, to enforce it. A universal standard does not exist, and therefore individuals will apply their own standards. A restaurant without a dress code takes a gamble, as do all patrons, particularly in cities such as SF. Really, if one believes foie gras will taste differently if consumed while looking at patrons in jeans, etc., perhaps one should choose their restaurants more carefully. :) Tue Mar 20 15:27:04 -0700 2007 2336630 59644 jrhsfcm 6 2407417 Yes, baseball caps ON MEN indoors is bad form. Wed Mar 21 10:41:34 -0700 2007 2405077 24711 dty 6 2409954 --"I've seen plenty of women, both young and old, wearing hats (elegant as they may be) to church, restaurants, performances, etc. Is a ball cap really any more disrespectful?"-- According to Miss Manners, that expert on traditional etiquette, ladies may wear hats indoors, but gentlemen may not. There's no real logic to it, that's just the way it is. Thu Mar 22 03:25:54 -0700 2007 2405077 13619 Sharuf 7 2411445 And that's nothing more than a sexist qualification. You're right, there's no real logic to it... and, for some people, you're right: "that's just the way it is." But not everyone feels the same way. Who ultimately makes such arbitrary rules? And, dty, I've seen LOTS of girls wearing baseball caps indoors, too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'd frankly rather be surrounded with dinner companions in ball caps, tshirts, and jeans who are courteous and respectful than those in haute couture who act like complete jerks. Thu Mar 22 12:02:57 -0700 2007 2409954 59644 jrhsfcm 2 2336238 " MB likes upper-mid-range cali-conti-ish food generally accessible to the midwestern palette" Ironically, Bauer has been criticized over at chow.com for stating that the Midwest palate is too bland and that most Midwesterners don't know good food when they taste it. http://www.chow.com/grinder/2143 Tue Feb 27 20:54:25 -0800 2007 2335771 11362 Brian S 3 2347938 Rather ironic that he doesn't recognize himself in that description. Bauer will never give more than two stars to any restaurant that doesn't have a full bar -- apparently it isn't a real restaurant unless you can get blotto on trendy cocktails. This eliminates most "authentic" ethnic restaurants and elevates trendy fusiony and/or Americanized versions of those cuisines. Sure the food is dumbed down, but wheeee, saketinis! Fri Mar 02 22:46:33 -0800 2007 2336238 10159 Ruth Lafler 4 2348003 You know I've never noticed the bar factor in MB's reviews. That's sort of amazing really, as in does he need a few drinks to activate his palette or just relax? I'll have to keep my eye out for that. Fri Mar 02 23:55:54 -0800 2007 2347938 27275 ML8000 5 2348013 Perhaps, but I truly think that his idea of a good restaurant is one that fits into the Western restaurant convention of serving liquor. I don't think he's capable of judging a restaurant within its "foreign" cultural context. Sat Mar 03 00:04:06 -0800 2007 2348003 10159 Ruth Lafler 4 2348704 "Bauer will never give more than two stars to any restaurant that doesn't have a full bar"--not true. He just gave 3.5 stars to Plumpjack Cafe. Sat Mar 03 09:40:03 -0800 2007 2347938 11369 Robert Lauriston 5 2349270 I guess I was exaggerating a little. It's not the bar, per se that he's looking for in a serious restaurant, I was using that as a sort of shorthand for the fact that for him to take a restaurant seriously it has to fit into certain pre-conceived notions of what a restaurant should be that are shaped by his Western cultural expectations. I'll take your word that PJ doesn't have a bar (by which I mean they're fully licensed to serve hard liquor, not that they physically have a bar). But then, it's not ethnic and it does have a huge array of wines available, so its status as a "serious" restaurant is not really in question. Sat Mar 03 13:57:01 -0800 2007 2348704 10159 Ruth Lafler 6 2349288 I think it may be true that he personally has never reviewed an ethnic restaurant that didn't have a wine list. But he recently hired a new critic who has been focusing on the kinds of places Bauer avoids. Sat Mar 03 14:03:13 -0800 2007 2349270 11369 Robert Lauriston 1 2336252 My argument with Michael Bauer is that he is very predictable. In other words, it is generally obvious what he is going to favorably rate based on the lineage or pedigree of the chef. I recall years ago when he went on and on about some place down on Union Street that happened to be operated by the former executive chef at Plumpjack. I forget the name of the restaurant as both meals I had there were equally forgettable. Nevertheless, I knew once learning of the background on the chef, that it would be favorably reviewed and certainly I was correct. Merenda was the name i think. Unfortunately, the chef and his wife seemed like good people but the restaurant was certainly not deserving of high praise. Tue Feb 27 21:01:04 -0800 2007 2333742 43891 poulet_roti 1 2338906 I certainly find myself wishing my fellow patrons would dress with a little more formality and care, especially at places with more formal atmosphere, but it's kind of a vain hope in the US these days. The culture is just getting more casual (and sloppier and ruder and crasser) by the year. I suspect every generation has felt the same about its successors. We just seem to be going to hell a little faster these days. Restaurants have recognized that the customers can't be bothered, and rather than lose the business to competitors, have relaxed their standards. A couple of tony places in Boston suggest but don't insist on jackets on men; few even specify a code, and I've seen many really schlubbily-dressed patrons dropping $200 a head on dinner all over town. I wish there were more places that cultivate a bygone supper-club ambience where people really dress for dinner. It's one thing that is striking about traveling outside the US, dining out in cities like Milan or Madrid or Buenos Aires, and seeing the casual elegance with which people dress. It really adds something to my enjoyment of a place, but that kind of style is ingrained in the culture. Moaning about America's lack of it in a restaurant review isn't going to change anything. Nowadays I'm just happy when I don't get seated in view of someone's armpit hair, or gnarly toes exposed by flip-flops, or when couples at an adjoining table don't (as I endured at a high-end restaurant in Boston the other night) bicker and call each other foul names over dinner. When that happens, we simply ask to be reseated (which we did the other night). Yeah, kind of sad, but I don't think you should penalize the restaurant for its patrons' bad behavior or slovenly dress sense. I think it is appropriate to identify how the crowd typically dresses, without necessarily placing a value judgment on it. Wed Feb 28 14:37:04 -0800 2007 2333742 10143 MC Slim JB 1 2340094 i'll gladly wear a jacket and strap on a tie if the food is worth it. do it frequently. just hope the front of the house doesn't notice my holey boat shoes. Wed Feb 28 20:21:41 -0800 2007 2333742 10627 steve h. 1 2343126 Bauer is dead wrong. The casual dress in SF speaks to the culinary sophistication, and diversity of Bay Area restaurant patrons. Dress codes come down to money. A restaurant full of men wearing suits is a restaurant full of rich people. Comfortable suits are extremely expensive, and nobody wants to be uncomfortable while eating a nice meal (personally, I like to roll up my sleeves, unbutton my pants, and suck the marrow out of my bones). Bay Area restaurants aren't just full of rich people, we have foodies in all the tax brackets: college students saving up their money for dinner at Chez Panisse, twenty-somethings who blow their rent money at Gary Danko, and working parents who splurge once a year at French Laundry. Food is the priority here, and people who can't afford the "finer things in life," will happily drop big bucks on a great meal. Does that mean we're less sophisticated diners than our east coast, old money, Armani wearing, counterparts? Heck no! If anything, the disproportionate percentage of disposable income we spend on food demonstrates a passion for fine dining that is unparalleled elsewhere. San Francisco diners who fixate on obsequious servers, fine linens, and beautiful people wearing beautiful clothes need to get over themselves, or find a new place to live. My second hand clothing has absolutely no impact on your ability to taste your foie gras (on the other hand, your wife's Chanel no 5 is ruining my meal. The real villains in the restaurant scene are perfume, cologne, and after shave, and all three are popular among the moneyed set. But that's a topic for another thread.) If I could afford to wear a nice suit out to dinner, I would. But I only have so much money left over at the end of the month, and when deciding between a piece of clothing and a piece of kobe, I will always buy the beef. Does that make me an unsophisticated rube? Perhaps. But I'm an unsophisticated rube that eats better than most, and that's all I care about. This article shows just how disconnected Bauer is from the community. The best thing about the Bay Area dining scene is the abundance of mid-priced restaurants serving three star food in a casual, convivial environment. That's what the people want, and that's what the restauranteurs provide. I think it's time for Bauer to retire and leave the critiquing to people who value substance over style. Thu Mar 01 15:30:02 -0800 2007 2333742 10793 Morton the Mousse 2 2343382 Well, actually, it has been my experience that the worst offenders when it comes to scent are 20-something women, not the moneyed set, which just adds insult to injury (I've had much more of a problem from Jean Nate (cheap cologne) than from Chanel), but your point is a good one. Thu Mar 01 16:42:43 -0800 2007 2343126 10158 susancinsf 2 2343409 Totally agree. I wouldn't want to wear a cheap suit, and for the price of a good suit I'd rather have a couple of dinners at my favorite pricey restaurants. Thu Mar 01 16:51:09 -0800 2007 2343126 11369 Robert Lauriston 2 2343804 Mr. Mousse: I am with you in spirit ... I think how nicely I dress for a dinner is mostly between me and my party, and in some occasions maybe slight consideration for the restaurant. However, I do think there are plenty of the "sex and the city" types in SF as well. I think some of these "we're less anal/shallow than NY/LA" distinctions a little bit arbitrary ... are seattle diners even more laid back, tolerant and accepting than we are? and portland even more enlightened? Similar discussion here: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/368135 It's easy to ignore what some random other patron [or critic] thinks about how I am dressed, but what I think is interesting is: 1. are nicely dressed people treated better by the restaurant itself [i wouldnt be surprised if say chez panisse and aqua were different in this regard] ... better service, better table etc. 2. have customer service people, whether they are restaurant waitstaff, or the floor staff at nordstroms, "recalibrated" to the reality that there are a lot of wealthy people around here who shop at REI, not Wilkes Bashford. [1,2 also apply to age, not just dress ... when i was in my 20s i was treated pretty badly at aqua and farallon in spite of being in a suit. i would not put up with that kind of service today, unless may be there was some orverarching reason not to cause a scene.] Thu Mar 01 19:16:37 -0800 2007 2343126 16770 psb 2 2344136 You cover many grounds here including the choice between food and rags. Frankly, I see the argument a little differently than those of you who attack "Armani wearing types". I have seen plenty of well or should I say expensively dressed people who eat at the most expensive places and don't know squat about what they are ordering. They seem to assume that because they have the money, they should eat there. Hence, I rarely find myself eating at those establishments. Nevertheless, I interpret the spirit of Bauers comments to be that it is nice to go out and see well-groomed people as opposed to a bunch of scrubs. Problems? Thu Mar 01 21:42:07 -0800 2007 2343126 43891 poulet_roti 3 2345123 I didn't attack the Armani-suited crowd at Perbacco, I mentioned it only because you could easily get the impression looking in the window from the street that everybody in the restaurant was dressed up. In reality, back in the dining room, it's the usual motley San Francisco assortment of different styles of dress. Fri Mar 02 08:54:23 -0800 2007 2344136 11369 Robert Lauriston 4 2345204 Its funny as I had a friend who went there and described the environment to me as somewhat "old school" in an 80's sort of way. Maitre' de at the door, waiters in ties I believe, white shirts - altogether refreshing in my opinion. That food was described as high quality Italian food although I cannot comment myself as have not been there as yet. Fri Mar 02 09:09:52 -0800 2007 2345123 43891 poulet_roti 5 2345419 Lots of reports on the SF board. Fri Mar 02 09:54:37 -0800 2007 2345204 11369 Robert Lauriston 2 2424994 I appreciate everything you said.. However, give me 60.00 and I can look more pulled together than some women I see wearing a 2,000.00 outfit. I feel if you are sophistcated enough to know about good food, what the atmosphere is about and something about the restaurant then you should dress appropriately which has nothing to do with money. A dress code is for those that take it on the other side. Tue Mar 27 08:46:17 -0700 2007 2343126 52212 Lori SF 1 2411493 Just because you put on a tie and jacket doesn't mean you suddenly have class. A boor is a boor no matter what they're wearing. Personally, if I have to wear a jacket while I'm actually eating, there's simply no way I can enjoy the meal. It's impossible to relax like that. Thu Mar 22 12:14:50 -0700 2007 2333742 71935 luniz 2 2411641 "Personally, if I have to wear a jacket while I'm actually eating, there's simply no way I can enjoy the meal. It's impossible to relax like that." If this is the case I suggest you find a good tailor that can help you fit a jacket. Jackets that are well fitted are no less comfortable that a button-up shirt. Thu Mar 22 12:55:26 -0700 2007 2411493 10195 KTinNYC 1 2424928 I guess the purpose of a dress code is for those that have a lack of awareness or just don't care. Just like some companies had to do away with "Casual Fridays" because there were those that took it to a different level, showing up in their sweat pants and a shirt that barely covers them. I personally find it ridiculous seeing people showing up in flip flops, so distasteful.. leave them things for the beach or the park. LA use to be a the casual city, now SF is MORE casual. I feel just because you "can "spend a wad of money does not necessarily mean you "should " dress sloppy. Tue Mar 27 08:30:21 -0700 2007 2333742 52212 Lori SF