lordoftime

[deleted]

Do you ever weigh accessibility when reviewing restaurants? Something I find under-represented in food journalism is the perspective of a new establishment actually being fully wheelchair accessible and up to legal ADA code. Nothing is worse than hearing about a trendy new spot with good reviews, just to realize they skirted code for their building. It really sucks to have to leave your dining experience early just to find a bathroom to use (or in some cases, just going home).

Notable examples are Mabel Grey, Albena, Green Dot Stables.

*Edit: Now I'm double interested in this answer, as now Albena was named no.1 despite the fact that I wouldn't even be able to comfortably dine there with my wife, and the complete lack of information and assistance in asking any questions to them via phone or email to check their accommodations.

This is what keeps the disabled-community invisible, despite making up 20% of our population. I think it's worth reading this article to understand the perspective. Eater did a great job of explaining what it's like, and the subtle oppression that happens. It's more about the treatment and accomodation in the service than physical constraints.

The phone conversation mentioned in the intro is exactly my experience with Albena just a couple weeks ago.

I think service and hospitality are main pillars for restaurant reviews though. It's a large part of what Michelin is based on, along with other things. Hopefully we can get the opinion of the expert tomorrow!

Yes, it's somewhat despicable on the restaurants, architects who designed them, and city's building inspectors fault for any of these incidents. Unfortunately, a system based on enforcement through lawsuits requires money and time that fully employed disabled people don't have time to fight.