Hassle Fee

[DV8]

When I was in Chicago I visited a burger bar called Zuma, which looked much like a dive, biker bar if it wasn't for the massive horde of people, from all walks of life, waiting for a spot to eat one of their great burgers. Their menu was precise, didn't allow substitutions and if you wanted ingredients off the burger, you had to pay a "hassle fee" of 2 dollars per item you wanted to take off. I loved the idea. It seems, New Yorkers are going a step further. I approve!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12873443

[Jeff Hauze]

Ordering off the menu, or making unreasonable requests? Yeah, that deserves a fee.

Asking a chef to not put on one particular item (not add something they don't have), on a burger that should be cooked to order, and getting a fee for that? Yeah, that's asshattery of the highest order and deserving of a bullet in the brainpan. You're not being asked to make a new thing from scratch, or add something you don't have...you're being asked not to put lettuce on a bun.

Edit: Now, if a customer were doing something like ridiculous like "I want a Greek burger, but can I have no black olives in the hamburger that was already mixed with black olives?" Whole other story. Simply asking somebody to leave a topping off a burger though, that's giving the staff less work to do, not more.

[Bonefish]

I'm with Jeff. Having worked in the industry for a while, it's pretty fucking easy to put or not put something on the goddamned burger. And I don't think it's really a big deal for someone to request you leave something like, tomatos off, especially if they are allergic to them.

And $2? Seriously?

[Bishop]

Depends on how precise the menu is, to me. If they don't blanket every burger with the stereotypical tomato/lettuce/red onion/pickle that almost every fucking restaurant in America does, and they have every sort of option, on a precise burger. Well, doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Almost seems like a joke. "You don't want bacon on that bacon cheeseburger, even though there's a cheeseburger right under it with no bacon, for 50¢ less? Ok, that will be $2 to not put bacon on the bacon cheeseburger instead of ordering a cheeseburger."

[3278]

Substitutions don't bother me personally; I've never been a cook or chef, and I've never spent time with anyone whose substitutions I found unreasonable. I suspect etiquette in this regard in Michigan is somewhat different from that found in New York City. That said, I support the right of restaurant owners to make whatever restrictions they choose on the service they provide [unless and until that right infringes on another's rights], just as I support the rights of customers to not eat there if they so choose.

But what I think most of all is this: it sure is nice to live in a civilization where something like this is even a consideration.

[Bonefish]

I mean, I think it's cool that they have the right to do this and all, I just think it's pretty fucking asinine for a burger joint. I mean, it's a goddamned burger, adding cheese or bacon ain't that fuckin' hard.

Now, in the case of things that are prepared in advance and require long prep times? Yeah, I can totally see why you just put your foot down and say no. That makes sense. But charging me two bucks to remove something?

And It may not matter if the place's menu is precise enough, I guess. But I don't like tomatoes or lettuce, and don't want them on my goddamned burger.

[Raygun]

When I was in Chicago I visited a burger bar called Zuma, which looked much like a dive, biker bar if it wasn't for the massive horde of people, from all walks of life, waiting for a spot to eat one of their great burgers. Their menu was precise, didn't allow substitutions and if you wanted ingredients off the burger, you had to pay a "hassle fee" of 2 dollars per item you wanted to take off. I loved the idea. It seems, New Yorkers are going a step further. I approve!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12873443

Hmm. I would have thought that with you being in one of the more densely populated areas of the world (or maybe you're not in Amsterdam anymore?), that this kind of thing would be pretty old hat. I guess what I mean is that when you make a certain food item that a lot of people enjoy and you want to get a lot of them in and out fast, the "fuck you, pay me" method would be the way to go.

And It may not matter if the place's menu is precise enough, I guess. But I don't like tomatoes or lettuce, and don't want them on my goddamned burger.

I imagine someone saying "There's a Burger King four blocks that way. Get to steppin'."

[DV8]

Depends on how precise the menu is, to me.

The burgers were very precise and they had a large selection.

Personally, I'm a supporter of the notion that if you don't like the way people make food, or if you don't like what is being sold, go to a place you do like. The idea that restaurants should be able to make a variety of the same dish to satisfy all kinds of different needs or requests is nonsense, especially a high volume or high end one.

[3278]

The idea that restaurants should be able to make a variety of the same dish to satisfy all kinds of different needs or requests is nonsense, especially a high volume or high end one.

Clearly it's not nonsense, though, since so many high-volume or high-end restaurants do make up varieties of the same disk to satisfy the different needs or requests of their customers. Perhaps there are stores for which it is simply too much effort, or for whom the disruption is unprofitable, and those stores might well make the decision not to allow substitutions [for example, the restaurant which makes up the components of its meals in advance, and can't simply take all the pumpkin our of the mango/pumpkin salsa], but the concept of substitutions itself is not prima facie nonsense.

Ana and I both have a variety of food allergies; I'd be annoyed with a restaurant which didn't allow us to have some things removed from our meals. I'd feel that restaurant has a right to do so if they so choose, but there's a decent chance I wouldn't be able to eat there.

[DV8]

Hang on; what I thought was nonsense was the idea that a restaurant should do it. If they do it it's a bonus, to expect it is for the birds.

[AtemHutlrt]

Nah, sorry, anyone criticizing Kuma's for this is just completely fucking wrong. First of all, the "no substitutions" thing is kind of one of their gimmicks. It's part of the appeal. They freely advertise the fact, and almost everyone who goes there is well aware of it. You might as well criticize Ed Debevic's for having rude waiters.

Beyond that, I absolutely believe they do this almost out of necessity. Yeah, maybe you've worked in restaurants before, and didn't think substitutions were a problem, but, Kuma's is crazy popular, and really small; they employ only a small number of cooks at any time to feed many hundreds of people very complicated burgers. Logistically, substitutions are muy no bueno.

Also, their burgers are quite gourmet. It's like going to a super-upscale restaurant and ordering a tasting menu; you can't make substitutions, because that kind of ruins the whole point. And they've got probably 30 fucking [completely delicious] burgers; if you can't find something you like, or aren't allergic to, maybe you shouldn't be going to restaurants.

Part of my opinion on this, though, may be shaped by how I view restaurants in general. I don't generally go to restaurants because I'm just hungry, and want some random thing to eat. I prefer to eat out rarely, and go to decent places to get things I can't [or won't] prepare myself. In that spirit, I don't like substituting anything, because I like to get the full gestalt of whatever dish the chef has designed. Anthony Bourdain is of the opinion that, when at a decent restaurant, one shouldn't even look at the menu, but rather request that the chef make whatever they consider their top dish. I like that idea, though, obviously, things like food allergies and being a pussy who only eats certain things, makes this non-ideal for some people.

[Serious Paul]

Ana and I both have a variety of food allergies; I'd be annoyed with a restaurant which didn't allow us to have some things removed from our meals. I'd feel that restaurant has a right to do so if they so choose, but there's a decent chance I wouldn't be able to eat there.

Isn't that an example of how the free market works?

3278 and child go to eatery. Eatery does not meet their demands. 3278 and child find new place to spend time and money on.

Like Atem I tend to pick on more than just "I want [food x]".

[Bonefish]

Beyond that, I absolutely believe they do this almost out of necessity. Yeah, maybe you've worked in restaurants before, and didn't think substitutions were a problem, but, Kuma's is crazy popular, and really small; they employ only a small number of cooks at any time to feed many hundreds of people very complicated burgers. Logistically, substitutions are muy no bueno.

That could indeed be a mitigating factor. I'm not familiar with the place's menu...well, now I've looked over it, and I honestly cant see any burgers that have lettuce and tomato on'em. Which pretty much makes my complaint null and void.

It's not the specific place I have a problem with, it's when this sort of thing goes too far out of control. I can totally understand that some meals are prepared in ways that make substitutions and alterations pretty much impossible, but I would be fucking annoyed as hell if I went to a place that refused to, say, remove the goddamned lettuce and tomatoes. I'm just going to throw that shit away, let's not waste it.

Look, if a half-literate mexican(ok, he's honduran) can fix me a kick-ass burrito exactly how I want it, in a truck, while there's thirty other guys asking for shit, I don't think this is too difficult.

[AtemHutlrt]

Ok, yeah, maybe it's a little overstated to say that it's too difficult for them to handle substitutions, but I do see how it'd more of a hassle for them than, say, the average Applebee's.

I guess the only thing I really have to say on the subject is: next time you're in Chicago, stop at Kuma's*, order a Neurosis burger, fall into a pleasure-coma, and try to think of some way it could be improved by adding or subtracting anything.

*or you can go to Lockdown, which is just as good, and does not, as far as I recall, have a hassle fee. Mmmm. Fancy Chicago burgers.

[Bonefish]

Oh, if I go to Chicago, it looks like Zuma's is on the menu: having looked over their menu, It looks fucking great. There's only a few burgers that don't turn my engine(mostly the hot and sweet kinds*). Do they have good fries?


*I understand the theory here, but I still hate sweet + hot, most of the time. I still want to kick my best friend's ass everytime he fucks up a good jalepeno pizza by ordering pinnaples on it, for example!)

[Jeff Hauze]

Dude...any burger that doesn't involve mashed up Fritos and Funnyuns turn your engine.

[Raygun]

There was a place in Dallas called Goff's, a kind of built-in-the-50's, sorta run-down burger joint in a part of town where I spent a lot of time as a youth and general skateboarding vagrant. The guy that ran the place, his name was Harvey, would simply run you down if your hair was too long (Hippie) or you were particularly skinny (Slim) or fat (Godzilla) or funny looking to him, he'd just let you have it. It was part of the charm to the place, to know that Harvey might light you up or refuse to serve you at a whim.

On my first visit there, a friend and I dared each other to go in (it was late and we were really hungry, but to be honest, the place was kinda scary looking to a 13 year-old), and on that occasion, Harvey told my friend to "Get the hell out of here" with a proper stare after he ordered something special (mayonaisse or no lettuce on the works or something). My friend changed his mind and Harvey made the burger for him. Which left us assuming that he must have been in a good mood.

There wasn't much choice there either (plain, works, cheese, relish, maybe a few others), but since he made all the burgers on a mesquite charcoal grill, it didn't really matter. They were good.

[DV8]

...Kuma's...

Kuma's! Right, thank you for the correction. I love that place.

[DV8]

There wasn't much choice there either (plain, works, cheese, relish, maybe a few others), but since he made all the burgers on a mesquite charcoal grill, it didn't really matter. They were good.

I don't become much happier with having a lot of options to choose from, personally. I don't like to walk into the cereal aisle and have to make a choice out of fourty different options. 1) I'm not that fussy and the difference are largely going to be lost on me, especially considering how it's not exactly haute cuisine, just a bunch of sugar in different shapes, and 2) because if I'd have to take it seriously I'd have to spend a lot of time trying to find the right one. I always just end up picking up the first one, because in my experience of things, it really doesn't matter that much.

I'm fairly sure there's a narrow spread of how many (nearly homogenous) product versions there should be. I understand you might want three different versions of peanut butter, smooth, chunky and perhaps a zany one, but do we really need 14 different versions? I'd be okay with between 3 and 5 different variations, but any more and it just gets annoying.

[3278]

There was a place in Dallas called Goff's, a kind of built-in-the-50's, sorta run-down burger joint in a part of town where I spent a lot of time as a youth and general skateboarding vagrant. The guy that ran the place, his name was Harvey, would simply run you down if your hair was too long (Hippie) or you were particularly skinny (Slim) or fat (Godzilla) or funny looking to him, he'd just let you have it. It was part of the charm to the place, to know that Harvey might light you up or refuse to serve you at a whim.

And I think restaurants [and businesses in general] really ought to be able to do things like this. I think the relationship between buyer and seller is mutually voluntary, and open to conditions. If I won't let you cut my hair unless you wear a purple bow tie, that's fair buyer behavior: if you won't cut my hair while wearing a purple bow tie, that's fair seller behavior. If I want to tell you that you can't change a single thing on the menu, and that you have to eat the entire meal I serve you, and that you have to pay a certain amount for the whole affair, and you have to eat the whole thing blindfolded, I should absolutely be able to, just as you should absolutely be able to walk out any time if the Seared Sesame Crusted Ahi Tuna doesn't enchant you.

That's a question of societal liberties, though; what about profitability, the corporation's raison d'être?

Isn't that an example of how the free market works?

From the perspective of profitability, many restrictions don't make economic sense. Refusing to serve anyone with brown hair might be morally justifiable in my view, but the PR fallout and the limitation of your clientele to a small portion of the population wouldn't be worth whatever economic benefits one might realize from no longer serving brownies. McDonald's would not be wise to adopt a prix fixe menu and a blindfold policy; while some people might find the novelty of focusing the senses on the flavor and texture of the food worth $99 [Opaque, San Francisco, highly recommended], the drop in volume of service wouldn't be economically viable for a fast food restaurant.

In the case of some restaurants, limiting substitutions or charging for them might be economically worthwhile; several cases have been listed already in this thread of restaurants in which this restriction makes good sense.

Hang on; what I thought was nonsense was the idea that a restaurant should [be able to make a variety of the same dish to satisfy all kinds of different needs or requests]. If they do it it's a bonus, to expect it is for the birds.

This is the notion, then, that I disagree with. I do not believe that the default condition of all restaurants should be "no substitutions." It's not economically beneficial for the majority of restaurants, in my opinion; I think restaurants ought to be flexible by default, and make the choice to restrict or eliminate or penalize substitutions if there is cause to do so.

I don't become much happier with having a lot of options to choose from, personally. I don't like to walk into the cereal aisle and have to make a choice out of fourty different options.

This definitely exists, and it's called the paradox of choice, from a 2004 book by that name. When a friend of ours flew over from the Soviet Union in the late 80s, she discovered she'd forgotten her shampoo, so we went down to our local grocery store, which is the sort of thing that anyone from modern Europe or urban America would marvel at: it's a small-town grocery store with bicycles and power tools and aquariums and 400 different types of olive oil. These things really have to be seen to be believed, as they're a pretty uniquely midwestern American suburban thing, although Walmart has basically made their fortune opening them everywhere else.

Anyway, we took her to the shampoo aisle, and meandered off to do something else, and when we returned, she was just sort of standing there quivering. She didn't know which one to pick. She said, look, where I come from, you buy shampoo. It's in a bottle. It says shampoo on it. How am I supposed to know which of these shampoos is going to work for me?

Well, you explain, it's okay, because it doesn't really matter which one you choose. They all do basically the same thing. And that's when you start to think that maybe something's gone wrong somewhere.

This is basically because of the Mad Men, because of the distillation of marketing into science. Product differentiation moves product. That's how it is. It doesn't actually make buyers happier, but it does make them buy more. So while the ability to buy a cheeseburger without lettuce doesn't necessarily make anyone happier - although I think it actually does make some people happier, and for someone who can't eat lettuce, it's a pretty big selling point - I believe that, as a general rule, it will produce more profit than restriction of that ability.

It makes sense in some cases. I don't think it makes sense in most of them. I could be wrong.

[Bonefish]

In fact, you ARE wrong. Hahaha!

[AtemHutlrt]

In fact, you ARE wrong. Hahaha!

I think this is something we can all get behind, right? I can't even tell what the state of this discussion is anymore, and, I only skimmed his last post, but I'd wager dollars to delicious hamburgers that 32 is WRONG. Maybe even the wrongest. Like, maybe he's so wrong, that he's wrapped all the way around, and he's actually sort of right. That's the kind of power of wrongness he has.

[Bonefish]

I'll get behind you, if you know what I'm saying. Yeah? Yeah? You know what I'm sayin...

[AtemHutlrt]

You mean, like, buttsex? I've heard good things.

[Bishop]

Most of them are true.

[Jeff Hauze]

All except the good part.

[Bonefish]

That's because you're too damn picky, and we keep charging you a hassle fee...

[AtemHutlrt]

"Yeah, can I get this buttsex without the cock?"

"That'll be an extra $2."

[Bonefish]

I guess I need to apologize for de-railing a perfectly serious conversation into buttsex jokes?

[Pdyx]

I think sometimes it's nice to not be presented with too many choices, but the funny thing here is that it seems like this restaurant has a lot of choices, but they're all you get. Which I guess is nice to know. Sometimes it's easier to just have to pick something from a small amount of options. That's that whole thing 32 was talking about. I watched a few TED lectures a few months back about that very thing. Interesting stuff. Used a similar example of people from the Czech Republic shortly after the fall of communism, and how their perception of choice is different.

I think I might share Deev's proclivity towards this restaurant. I like knowing what my limitations are in some senses, but especially so if it appeals to me. And it seems like it's one of those quirky things that makes a place stand out. Probably started from a small thing like when the guy first opened the place he was pretty proud of his menu, then people started coming in and asking for different things and one day he'd had it and said "You don't want pickles on this pickle burger? FINE! That's two extra dollars." And soon it became policy.

It's funny though how at some places adding and removing things can actually save you money if you do it in ways that out-think the menu creators.

[Serious Paul]

Isn't that an example of how the free market works?

From the perspective of profitability, many restrictions don't make economic sense. Refusing to serve anyone with brown hair might be morally justifiable in my view, but the PR fallout and the limitation of your clientele to a small portion of the population wouldn't be worth whatever economic benefits one might realize from no longer serving brownies. McDonald's would not be wise to adopt a prix fixe menu and a blindfold policy; while some people might find the novelty of focusing the senses on the flavor and texture of the food worth $99 [Opaque, San Francisco, highly recommended], the drop in volume of service wouldn't be economically viable for a fast food restaurant.

In the case of some restaurants, limiting substitutions or charging for them might be economically worthwhile; several cases have been listed already in this thread of restaurants in which this restriction makes good sense.

I think we're talking past each other here. What I am saying is that if a restaurant doesn't meet your needs you take your dollar and time and go elsewhere. Obviously large and successful chain restaurants like McDonald's have found a business model with massive appeal, but this doesn't preclude other business models from existing, or even being profitable.

So I don't think we're disagreeing at all, rather discussing basically the same exact thing in two slightly different ways.

[Jeff Hauze]

I don't become much happier with having a lot of options to choose from, personally. I don't like to walk into the cereal aisle and have to make a choice out of fourty different options.

I'm fairly sure there's a narrow spread of how many (nearly homogenous) product versions there should be. I understand you might want three different versions of peanut butter, smooth, chunky and perhaps a zany one, but do we really need 14 different versions? I'd be okay with between 3 and 5 different variations, but any more and it just gets annoying.

And I'm totally with you on that. Not quite understanding how that ties in with your original post though. In the original post, we're not talking about *only* limiting the number of cereals. We're talking about telling you in the aisle, when there are only four kinds of cereal, but you can't quite reach one box. And the dude sitting on the shelf right next to it says "Fuck off and die."

[DV8]

Yeah, no. It ties in with the idea that people have become to used to getting their way as a customer. That you can sharpen your demand to a fine edge and still be able to find a product that perfectly fits your particular demand. You want a pickle-flavoured cornflake that has hot-dog sprinkles on it? We've got that! You want to get the Necrosis Burger with Mozzarella but without the onions? We can do that! It's all about bowing to the increasingly picky demands of a customer.

[Jeff Hauze]

Again, agreed. Except I don't quite see the equivalence of "add something we don't have or can't easily make" to "leave off one thing that is added on at the end anyway." Now we're talking about bowing to the increasingly picky demands of the business. There's a happy medium somewhere in there. I'm never a fan of all or nothing approaches, which is exactly what this is. "If you want to make any change whatsoever to the culinary masterpiece I'm deigning to honor you with, then you pay more." I don't see how that's a good thing. Why not simply say "If you want a substitution or addition, there's a fee. If you want a subtraction that isn't overly difficult, no problem." Heck, you get that at fast food restaurants now.

[Pdyx]

It might be a volume issue. If this place is indeed one of those round the corner lines type places, it might be something to do with their work-flow. I've been to really popular restaurants before (like BBQ places in KS and other places) where if you don't know what you're doing in line, they're moving on to the next person.

It's easier for people making the food, then, to simply go with one of the 12 things they know how to make rather than carefully look at an order.

I would guess that this might be part of it.

[3278]

I think we're talking past each other here. What I am saying is that if a restaurant doesn't meet your needs you take your dollar and time and go elsewhere.

That's what I'm saying, too, absolutely. I was quoting your post in support of my post, not to argue against it: we definitely agree.

[FlameBlade]

I'm afraid that I'll have to charge you all a hassle fee for polluting my mind with such discussions about the hassle fee.

Now fork over your soul to me.

[Bonefish]

MY soul is in my cock. Still want it?

[DV8]

Similarly, while I don't smoke, I always found the need to ban smoking from bars and restaurants...ridiculous. If there was such a demand for a non-smoking establishment, wouldn't the market take care of that?

[Bonefish]

Similarly, while I don't smoke, I always found the need to ban smoking from bars and restaurants...ridiculous. If there was such a demand for a non-smoking establishment, wouldn't the market take care of that?

In Charlotte, there's been grousing by various bar owners about the recent ban on smoking in bars. There's even been talk of lifting the ban. Many bars have actually become "private clubs" that "require membership" to get around the ban. Which is funny, because at atleast one of those bars that I frequent, the member list is full of shit: I tried to join, and they doorman told me, politely, that it was just a technicality and not to worry about it.

[3278]

Similarly, while I don't smoke, I always found the need to ban smoking from bars and restaurants...ridiculous. If there was such a demand for a non-smoking establishment, wouldn't the market take care of that?

There are some exceptions to the "free market" general rule, and I would think one of them would have to be "measurable harm." It's all well and good to let the market take ten years adjusting to a newfound desire for gold paint on cars, but would we make the same argument for delaying the introduction of airbags? And we absolutely might, but it's worth considering.

[AtemHutlrt]

Similarly, while I don't smoke, I always found the need to ban smoking from bars and restaurants...ridiculous. If there was such a demand for a non-smoking establishment, wouldn't the market take care of that?

There are some exceptions to the "free market" general rule, and I would think one of them would have to be "measurable harm." It's all well and good to let the market take ten years adjusting to a newfound desire for gold paint on cars, but would we make the same argument for delaying the introduction of airbags? And we absolutely might, but it's worth considering.

I sure love me a super-objective 32 post, where you're like, "X is a reasonable course of action for reasons A, B and C. But maybe it's not. It's worth considering." You'd be the least successful TV pundit of all time.

Anyway, these [airbags and secondhand smoke] feel like very different issues to me, but I'm having trouble deciding why that is.

[Nicephorus]

This definitely exists, and it's called the paradox of choice, from a 2004 book by that name....This is basically because of the Mad Men, because of the distillation of marketing into science. Product differentiation moves product. That's how it is. It doesn't actually make buyers happier, but it does make them buy more. So while the ability to buy a cheeseburger without lettuce doesn't necessarily make anyone happier - although I think it actually does make some people happier, and for someone who can't eat lettuce, it's a pretty big selling point - I believe that, as a general rule, it will produce more profit than restriction of that ability.

This can be a pain in the ass for the stroes. A grocery store can have up to 50,000 items to track. In some ways, it's a free market thing. Who is to say that company B can't make peanut butter because company A already does? Then if copmany B also makes 1000 other items that the store buys, maybe they think it's better to just stock it rather than pissing off company B.

There's still room for boutique stores that go in the opposite direction - carry a limited number of items but do a fair amount of pre-selecting so that what's offered isn't crap (theoretically). Partially down that road is the grocery chain Trader Joe's which stocks 4,000 items - for many categories, you have 2-3 choices or even one and that's it. In that vein it's good but it's also a bit of a hipster store and some things are over priced - for mos tpeople that's makes it a good place to go monthly to get the few things there they like but not worth over priced staples.

[AtemHutlrt]

I was in Chicago a couple weeks ago, and stayed with a friend who lives in Ukrainian Village, so naturally we had dinner at Lockdown. It's really hard to describe these places to someone who hasn't had been, but they're just otherworldly.

I had this, the Lockdown Warden, and it was the best burger I've ever eaten. One of the best meals I've ever had, and I'm not easy to please.

I remember a quote from, I think it was the head of Dogfish Head Brewery, which said that one of the great virtues of beer is that it's possible for essentially everyone to be a beer connoisseur because you can buy a six-pack of the finest beer in the world for $9.99, whereas with, say, wine and whiskey, one must spend hundreds of dollars for the super-premium options. It's pretty much the same thing with burgers, which is why beer and hamburgers are the two greatest products of human ingenuity. The end.

[DV8]

* DV8 Makes notes for the next time he's in Chicago. *

[AtemHutlrt]

And I very much recommend getting the macaroni and cheese instead of french fries because, well...just trust me on this one.

There's also Hot Doug's, world-renowned purveyor of gourmet hotdogs and sausages.

[Raygun]

There's also Hot Doug's, world-renowned purveyor of gourmet hotdogs and sausages.

Bourdain went there in an episode of his show. Everything about that place except the line out the door looks awesome.

[AtemHutlrt]

There's also Hot Doug's, world-renowned purveyor of gourmet hotdogs and sausages.

Bourdain went there in an episode of his show. Everything about that place except the line out the door looks awesome.

I've been there a couple times, on the weekend, no less, and never seen a line. I think I probably got really lucky there, though. That's also one advantage Lockdown has over Kuma's. Kuma's has been famous for so long, and is such a tourist destination, that there's always a line out the door. And you know where I definitely don't recommend eating in Chicago? Pizzeria Uno. Everyone on the planet seems to think it's the place for deep-dish pizza, and, as a result, you're going to wait at least an hour and a half for a table on an average night. And their pizza is just, well, it just sucks. Stick to Lou Malnati's if you want the Chicago deep-dish pizza experience.