diversedancer wrote:I've always been a defender of the defenseless.

Maybe the definition of "renovations" is substantially flexible? As in "Closed while we try to end the lease on one of our fryers and see if we can live without one of the dishwashers" or even "Closed while our vendor removes the soap and hand-towel dispensers from our bathroom and we find a less costly supplier"? Just a thought. It ventures into half-truth at that point.

Drover wrote:

diversedancer wrote:And yes, I know I'm personally an idiot for going up against multiple moderators and a charter member. I've always been a defender of the defenseless.

I'm sure the burden weighs heavily on your shoulders.

Hahaha. I lol'd

I just realized this person was the one that speculated about the San Soo Gab San staff showing prejudice towards non Asians. So yeah, good times...

cilantro wrote:(Please excuse any typos -- am posting from Idlib Province and trying to dodge crossfire. Also, can't seem to get 5G here, wtf. Oh shit, incomi

Ha ha ha!

How about one or more of the following?

high prices
bad management
bad service
bad food
not enough staff
lack of credit
lack of rent payment
failed health inspections
bad partnership
equipment replacement costs
bad Yelp or Trip Advisor reviews
on going neighborhood construction
lack of good parking
after a fire
after a flood
plumbing replacement

chicagostyledog wrote:How about one or more of the following?

high prices
bad management
bad service
bad food
not enough staff
lack of credit
lack of rent payment
failed health inspections
bad partnership
equipment replacement costs
bad Yelp or Trip Advisor reviews
on going neighborhood construction
lack of good parking
after a fire
after a flood
plumbing replacement

These are reasons they lie? They seem more like reasons they close.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

chicagostyledog wrote:How about one or more of the following?

high prices
bad management
bad service
bad food
not enough staff
lack of credit
lack of rent payment
failed health inspections
bad partnership
equipment replacement costs
bad Yelp or Trip Advisor reviews
on going neighborhood construction
lack of good parking
after a fire
after a flood
plumbing replacement

These are reasons they lie? They seem more like reasons they close.

=R=

You are correct. These are some reasons restaurants close. No restaurant owner would post "Closed due to bad food" or "Sorry, our partnership failed." As you mentioned, owners fabricate a reason and post "Closed for renovations." Why? I have no idea. Possibly shame, feelings of failure, embarrassment.

If I were to close a restaurant, I'd post:
Thanks so much for your business.
We've decided to take a vacation.
An indefinite vacation.
Take care and be well.

CSD

chicagostyledog wrote:If I were to close a restaurant, I'd post:
Thanks so much for your business.
We've decided to take a vacation.
An indefinite vacation.
Take care and be well.

Love it!

=R=

Artie wrote:

Panther in the Den wrote:This recently happened at...
Hackney's
9550 123rd St, Palos Park

Dammit! I discovered the existence of that location last summer but had yet to make the trip. I haven't had a Hackneyburger since the Printer's Row location turned over. Now I have to find a reason to get up north before it's too late.

Didn't County BBQ on Taylor recently reopen about 2 years of being closed for renovations after a fire?

leek wrote:Didn't County BBQ on Taylor recently reopen about 2 years of being closed for renovations after a fire?

I don't know. But in case it isn't obvious, when I started this thread I wasn't referring to renovations or temporary closings that were due to fire or related to insurance in any way. In those matters, the delays are frequently beyond the operator's control.

=R=

Another one to put on the "Closed for Remodeling" Death Watch (hereinafter referred to as CFRDW™): all three locations of Señor Pan, even though two of them have been open no more than three years.

They claim they will re-open April 1st. I suspect that will turn out to be an April Fools joke.

Drover wrote:Another one to put on the "Closed for Remodeling" Death Watch (hereinafter referred to as CFRDW™): all three locations of Señor Pan, even though two of them have been open no more than three years.

They claim they will re-open April 1st. I suspect that will turn out to be an April Fools joke.

Sure enough, April 1st has come and gone and they are all still closed. To be fair, I drove by the Elston and Lawrence spot and it still looks very much like it's occupied by a going concern rather than a former business that's slowly fading away.

I hadn't seen this post until today - but I'll weigh in as an owner who has both 1) closed for renovations and re-opened and 2) closed for renovations and then never re-opened.

the answer is simple: we just aren't sure what's going to happen yet, but continuing to operate in the same fashion that isn't working (for whatever reason) is the definition of insanity. We closed for renovations at BBQ Supply (northside) and re-opened 2 times. We had no intention of closing those instances, we just legitimately were remodeling/expanding. Then, last year, I needed to replace 3 key team members - had 3 other projects going on, now live in another state, and we did in fact need to make a few repairs.. so we did it all at once.. however, once the repairs were done - the staffing issues weren't resolved so we called it quits.

I don't think there is a single answer to the initial question - but closing for "remodeling" generally means major changes are happening - sometimes remodeling is included, and other times it's just a nice way to explain you're in transition, not 100% done, and will most likely return.

It does seem that quite often the transition doesn't go well, and then you're done for good. At least there is a last ditch effort to save the place, nothing is harder than closing a restaurant you have worked very hard on.

my two cents, carry on

Amen to rubbbqco's post. As a small business owner (not in the restaurant business) I can sympathize.

Running your own business is tough. Often change is needed. The closed for remodeling signs can mean anything from "we've lined up contractors and financing for a major rehab" to the triumph of hope over experience.

I know it's frustrating for customers, but often we should try to give the (sometimes desperate) restaurant owners the benefit of the doubt.

rubbbqco wrote:I don't think there is a single answer to the initial question - but closing for "remodeling" generally means major changes are happening - sometimes remodeling is included, and other times it's just a nice way to explain you're in transition, not 100% done, and will most likely return.

Your post made me realize that "closed for remodeling" is never a lie. Because the very word "model" has more than one definition. It may mean a business model. Someone who has closed a place due to the need for a major reconsideration of his business model has, indeed, legitimately closed his place for remodeling. Not just the kind some people think.

Even Stanley's tried the "Closed for Remodeling" gamut today. That lasted about 11 seconds before the actual motive became widely known, I'd guess disclosed by employees who came in to learn they no longer had jobs. Really classy.

Drover wrote:Another one to put on the "Closed for Remodeling" Death Watch (hereinafter referred to as CFRDW™): all three locations of Señor Pan, even though two of them have been open no more than three years.

They claim they will re-open April 1st. I suspect that will turn out to be an April Fools joke.

Well what do you know, a restaurant (a mini-chain of restaurants no less) actually beat the CFRDW™ odds. A little behind schedule but true to their word, all three locations have recently re-opened.

Artie wrote:

Panther in the Den wrote:This recently happened at...

Hackney's
9550 123rd St, Palos Park

They closed and were doing actual repairs but after a month decided not to reopen.

I am thinking the renovations had exceeded their intended budget? Maybe I am naïve?

Not naïve at all. That's exactly what happened...

Hackney's at 123rd Street and LaGrange Road has been closed for over a month. An outgoing message said the restaurant would be closed until further notice as the owners dealt with some building maintenance issues. On Tuesday, however, Mike Masterson, the son of the original owners, announced the sad news on the restaurant's Facebook page.

"With heavy hearts, we announce that after 33 years of serving customers at our Palos Park Location on 123rd and LaGrange Rd, we made the difficult decision to permanently close our doors. Due to increased costs for significant maintenance on our building, we deemed it impractical and unrealistic to continue operating at this location, especially as Mike is nearing retirement. It has been our privilege to serve our community for the last 33 years. We express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to our loyal customers, our dedicated employees, and the Palos Community."

https://patch.com/illinois/palos/hackne ... reat-years

Auction is next weekend = http://demolitionsales.com/sales.htm

Even as multiple closings -- of Pete Miller's and other Sonas Hospitality properties -- were being reported publicly, the flagship's website says nothing more than "Sorry, we're currently undergoing maintenance. Please check back soon."

And this is just super classy, too . . .

chicagotribune.com wrote:The closings were announced to workers during Monday service, [former GM, Cory] Robinson said. The owners of Sonas Hospitality have decided to reduce their portfolio and “more or less retire,” he said, which led to the closures.

=R=

This is interesting as five restaurants, apparently under common ownership, are being closed. I don't know how many employees are involved, but Illinois requires employers with 75 or more full-time employees to give 60 days notice of pending closures or mass layoffs.

https://www2.illinois.gov/dceo/WorkforceDevelopment/warn/Pages/default.aspx

WARN only applies to full-time employees. I suspect the hospitality industry can get around that.

Was working for a place in S.Fla. It was a Sunday, we'd done 300+ for brunch, and the owner thanks me as I leave. Next day I come to work and there's a chain on the door. My toolbox full of knives and kitchen gadgets plus all of my reference materials are inside. And Tuesday was payday. I got neither. Took me months to get my stuff and never got the $. When I reported them to the state labor board I was told it was a right to work state and that I should be happy that's all I lost.

There is a special place in hell for pieces of shit that do this to their employees.

George R wrote:This is interesting as five restaurants, apparently under common ownership, are being closed. I don't know how many employees are involved, but Illinois requires employers with 75 or more full-time employees to give 60 days notice of pending closures or mass layoffs.

I'd be shocked if each restaurant wasn't a separate entity and therefore 5 distinctive employers are involved, none reaching the threshold, despite common ownership across the entities. What good would it be to pay lobbyists to write the laws if they're not going to give you a way out?

bweiny wrote:

I'd be shocked if each restaurant wasn't a separate entity and therefore 5 distinctive employers are involved, none reaching the threshold, despite common ownership across the entities. What good would it be to pay lobbyists to write the laws if they're not going to give you a way out?

I expect they are separate legal entities for liability reasons. Giant corporations are often composed of hundreds if not thousands of sub-entities. However IRS, for example, has rules of ownership attribution to prevent large groups from using gambits such as this to manipulate the tax laws to reduce taxes. It's likely Illinois has similar rules for taxes and other purposes.

The application of such rules is complex, especially if ownership percentages vary when there are outside partners. But if one group owns 50% or more of each of the separate entities then they probably would be treated as one.

Since we don't know the details, the only way to find out would be if the State chose to investigate. They would first have to determine if the restaurants should be treated as one group for purposes of the notice law, and, if so, then look at the number of employees including whether the rules for part-time versus full-time were followed.

It's 75 full-time employees. Really unlikely that each location would have 15 full-time employees.

That's 75 full-time employees for the entire business which means six restaurants (one is staying open) + HQ staff. As I said above it's really unknowable without an investigation.