I was in
The owners wanted to go for a feel where you could come sit in and watch people and enjoy a slow meal. But isn't the whole point of the flaneur so that you DON'T have some restricted framework guiding your actions and thoughts? So then, in wanting to achieve what the flaneur achieves, by walking idle around the city and interacting with everything for only short amounts of time, the restaurant actually fails.
I am by no means trying to critique the restaurant but just found it interesting to our discussions in the course. In a metropolis like London, I don't find it surprising at all that some people want to recreate the feel of the old bourgeoisie class in creating this restaurant, but from what we learned about what a flaneur is and how he lives and interacts with his surrounds, it seems incorrect to call this restaurant The Flaneur. Am I wrong in thinking so? Or could the concept of the Flaneur be changing when applied to a metropolis already full of people walking idle, and having a life full of only brief and rapid interactions with everything along its path? Could we call it a new postmodern flaneur character, one that actually sits and doesn't really interact with anything, if only to watch it from afar and actually not partake in the rapid city life? Instead of walking idle and interacting with the city, like the Flaneur in Paris of the 18th and 19th century, maybe London can bring this character some new definition and into the current century.