The Rise of the Virtual Restaurant

Ricky Lopez owns four restaurants: Top Round Roast Beef in San Francisco and three that exist only within the Uber Eats delivery app.CreditCreditCayce Clifford for The New York Times
Ricky Lopez owns four restaurants: Top Round Roast Beef in San Francisco and three that exist only within the Uber Eats delivery app.CreditCreditCayce Clifford for The New York Times
TT

The Rise of the Virtual Restaurant

Ricky Lopez owns four restaurants: Top Round Roast Beef in San Francisco and three that exist only within the Uber Eats delivery app.CreditCreditCayce Clifford for The New York Times
Ricky Lopez owns four restaurants: Top Round Roast Beef in San Francisco and three that exist only within the Uber Eats delivery app.CreditCreditCayce Clifford for The New York Times

Food delivery apps are reshaping the restaurant industry — and how we eat — by inspiring digital-only establishments that don’t need a dining room or waiters.

At 9:30 on most weeknights, Ricky Lopez, the head chef and owner of Top Round Roast Beef in San Francisco, stacks up dozens of hot beef sandwiches and sides of curly fries to serve hungry diners.

He also breads chicken cutlets for another of his restaurants, Red Ribbon Fried Chicken. He flips beef patties on the grill for a third, TR Burgers and Wings. And he mixes frozen custard for a dessert shop he runs, Ice Cream Custard.

Of Mr. Lopez’s four operations, three are “virtual restaurants” with no physical storefronts, tables or chairs. They exist only inside a mobile app, Uber Eats, the on-demand meal delivery service owned by Uber.

“Delivery used to be maybe a quarter of my business,” Mr. Lopez, 26, said from behind Top Round’s counter, as his staff assembled roast beef and chicken sandwiches and placed them in white paper bags for Uber Eats drivers to deliver. “Now it’s about 75 percent of it.”

Food delivery apps like Uber Eats, DoorDash and Grubhub are starting to reshape the $863 billion American restaurant industry. As more people order food to eat at home, and as delivery becomes faster and more convenient, the apps are changing the very essence of what it means to operate a restaurant.

No longer must restaurateurs rent space for a dining room. All they need is a kitchen — or even just part of one. Then they can hang a shingle inside a meal-delivery app and market their food to the app’s customers, without the hassle and expense of hiring waiters or paying for furniture and tablecloths. Diners who order from the apps may have no idea that the restaurant doesn’t physically exist.

The shift has popularized two types of digital culinary establishments. One is “virtual restaurants,” which are attached to real-life restaurants like Mr. Lopez’s Top Round but make different cuisines specifically for the delivery apps. The other is “ghost kitchens,” which have no retail presence and essentially serve as a meal preparation hub for delivery orders.

“Online ordering is not a necessary evil. It’s the most exciting opportunity in the restaurant industry today,” said Alex Canter, who runs Canter’s Deli in Los Angeles and a start-up that helps restaurants streamline delivery app orders onto one device. “If you don’t use delivery apps, you don’t exist.”

Many of the delivery-only operations are nascent, but their effect may be far-reaching, potentially accelerating people’s turn toward order-in food over restaurant visits and preparing home-cooked meals.

Uber and other companies are driving the change. Since 2017, the ride-hailing company has helped start 4,000 virtual restaurants with restaurateurs like Mr. Lopez, which are exclusive to its Uber Eats app.

Janelle Sallenave, who leads Uber Eats in North America, said the company analyzes neighborhood sales data to identify unmet demand for particular cuisines. Then it approaches restaurants that use the app and encourages them to create a virtual restaurant to meet that demand.

Other companies are also jumping in. Travis Kalanick, the former Uber chief executive, has formed CloudKitchens, a start-up that incubates ghost kitchens.

Yet even as delivery apps create new kinds of restaurants, they are hurting some traditional establishments, which already contend with high operating expenses and brutal competition. Restaurants that use delivery apps like Uber Eats and Grubhub pay commissions of 15 percent to as much as 30 percent on every order. While digital establishments save on overhead, small independent eateries with narrow profit margins can ill afford those fees.

“There’s a concern that it could be a system where restaurant owners are trapped in an unstable, unsuitable business model,” Mark Gjonaj, the chairman of the New York City Council’s small-business committee, said at a four-hour hearing on third-party food delivery in June.

Delivery apps may also undermine the connection between diner and chef. “A chef can occasionally walk out of the dining room and observe a diner enjoying his or her food,” said Shawn Quaid, a chef who oversaw a ghost kitchen in Chicago. Delivery-only facilities “take away the emotional connection and the creative redemption.”

Uber and other delivery apps maintain that they are helping restaurants, not hurting them.

“We exist for demand generation,” said Ms. Sallenave. “Why would a restaurant be working with us if we weren’t helping them increase their orders?”

Delivery-only establishments in the United States date to at least 2013, when a start-up, the Green Summit Group, began work on a ghost kitchen in New York. With Grubhub’s backing, Green Summit produced food that was marketed online under brand names like Leafage (salads) and Butcher Block (sandwiches).

But Green Summit burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, said Jason Shapiro, a consultant who worked for the company. Two years ago, it shut down when it couldn’t attract new investors, he said.

In Europe, the food-delivery app Deliveroo also started testing ghost kitchens. It erected metal kitchen structures called Rooboxes in some unlikely locations, including a derelict parking lot in East London. Last year, Deliveroo opened a ghost kitchen in a warehouse in Paris, where Uber Eats has also tried delivery-only kitchens.

Ghost kitchens have also emerged in China, where online food delivery apps are widely used in the country’s densely populated megacities. China’s food delivery industry hit $70 billion in orders last year, according to iResearch, an analysis firm. One Chinese ghost kitchen start-up, Panda Selected, recently raised $50 million from investors including Tiger Global Management, according to Crunchbase.

Those experiments have spread. Over the last two years, Family Style, a food start-up in Los Angeles, has opened ghost kitchens in three states. It has created more than half a dozen pizza brands with names like Lorenzo’s of New York, Froman’s Chicago Pizza and Gabriella’s New York Pizza, which can be found on Uber Eats and other apps.

CloudKitchens, which Mr. Kalanick founded after leaving Uber in 2017, has leased kitchen space to several established restaurants in Los Angeles, including the farm-to-table chain Sweetgreen, to try the delivery-only model. The Los Angeles facility is one of several ghost kitchens used by Sweetgreen, whose chief executive, Jonathan Neman, has spoken enthusiastically about them.

And Kitchen United, a ghost-kitchen company in Pasadena, Calif., is working with brick-and-mortar restaurants to set up delivery-only establishments. It aims to establish 400 such “kitchen centers” across the country over the next few years.

When it comes types of food, “consumers don’t appear to be saying they’re looking for additional options,” said Jim Collins, Kitchen United’s chief executive. “They appear to be looking for new modes of consumption.”

For Paul Geffner, the growing popularity of food-delivery apps has hurt. He has run Escape From New York Pizza, a small restaurant chain in the Bay Area, for three decades, relying on delivery orders as a major source of revenue.

After he offered delivery through the apps in 2016, his business teetered. Two of his five pizzerias, which together had generated annual profits of $50,000 to $100,000, lost as much as $40,000 a year as customers who had ordered directly from Escape From New York switched to the apps. That forced Mr. Geffner to pay the commissions.

“We saw a direct correlation between the delivery services and the reduction of our income,” Mr. Geffner said. “It was like death by a thousand cuts.”

In May, he closed the two locations. Later that month, one was replaced with a kitchen that mostly does delivery.

Mr. Lopez opened Top Round, a franchise that originated in Los Angeles, in 2017 in San Francisco’s Mission neighborhood. For the first eight months, he said, he lost tens of thousands of dollars.

Last year, Uber approached Mr. Lopez and told him there was demand for late-night orders of burgers and ice cream in his area. Uber, which does not provide financial help to virtual restaurants, has claimed that the digital operations increase sales for restaurateurs by an average of more than 50 percent.

Now he uses Top Round’s kitchen to serve hundreds of new customers across San Francisco. Though he wouldn’t disclose financial information, Mr. Lopez said he had hired another employee to handle the influx of delivery orders. Those orders have stabilized the restaurant’s income so that he no longer works 110-hour weeks just to keep the business afloat.

“We used to close at 9 p.m., but demand has pushed us to stay open later — we close at 2 a.m. now,” Mr. Lopez said. “Most of the night, the kitchen is banging.”

The New York Times



Developing Nations Blast $300 Bln COP29 Climate Deal as Insufficient

 COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev walks during a closing plenary meeting at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan November 24, 2024. (Reuters)
COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev walks during a closing plenary meeting at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan November 24, 2024. (Reuters)
TT

Developing Nations Blast $300 Bln COP29 Climate Deal as Insufficient

 COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev walks during a closing plenary meeting at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan November 24, 2024. (Reuters)
COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev walks during a closing plenary meeting at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan November 24, 2024. (Reuters)

Countries at the COP29 summit in Baku adopted a $300 billion a year global finance target on Sunday to help poorer nations cope with impacts of climate change, a deal its intended recipients criticized as woefully insufficient.

The agreement, clinched in overtime at the two-week conference in Azerbaijan's capital, was meant to provide momentum for international efforts to curb global warming in a year destined to be the hottest on record.

Some delegates gave the deal a standing ovation in the COP29 plenary hall. Others lambasted wealthy nations for not doing more and criticized the Azerbaijan host for hurriedly gaveling through the contentious plan.

"I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion," Indian delegation representative Chandni Raina told the closing session of the summit, minutes after the deal was gaveled in. "This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document."

United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell acknowledged the difficult negotiations that led to the agreement but hailed the outcome as an insurance policy for humanity against global warming.

"It has been a difficult journey, but we've delivered a deal," Stiell said. "This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing and protect billions of lives.

"But like any insurance policy, it only works if the premiums are paid in full, and on time."

The agreement would provide $300 billion annually by 2035, boosting rich countries' previous commitment to provide $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020. That earlier goal was met two years late, in 2022, and expires in 2025.

The deal also lays the groundwork for next year's climate summit, to be held in the Amazon rainforest of Brazil, where countries are meant to map out the next decade of climate action.

The summit cut to the heart of the debate over financial responsibility of industrialized countries - whose historic use of fossil fuels has caused the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions - to compensate others for worsening damage from climate change.

It also laid bare divisions between wealthy governments constrained by tight domestic budgets and developing nations reeling from costs of storms, floods and droughts.

Negotiations had been due to finish on Friday but ran into overtime as representatives from nearly 200 countries struggled to reach consensus. Talks were interrupted on Saturday as some developing countries and island nations walked away in frustration.

"We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start," said Tina Stege, Marshall Islands climate envoy.

Nations have been seeking financing to deliver on the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels - beyond which catastrophic climate impacts could occur.

The world is currently on track for as much as 3.1 C (5.6 F) of warming by the end of this century, according to the 2024 UN Emissions Gap report, with global greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuels use continuing to rise.

Sunday's deal failed to set out detailed steps for how countries will act on last year's UN climate summit pledge to transition away from fossil fuels and triple renewable energy capacity this decade.

WHAT COUNTS AS DEVELOPED NATION?

The roster of countries required to contribute - about two dozen industrialized countries, including the US, European nations and Canada - dates back to a list decided during UN climate talks in 1992.

European governments have demanded others pay in, including China, the world's second-biggest economy. The deal encourages developing countries to make contributions but does not require them.

The agreement includes a broader goal of raising $1.3 trillion in climate finance annually by 2035 - which would include funding from all public and private sources and which economists say matches the sum needed to address global warming.

Countries also agreed on rules for a global market to buy and sell carbon credits that proponents say could mobilize billions more dollars into new projects to fight global warming, from reforestation to deployment of clean energy technologies.

Securing the climate finance deal was a challenge from the start.

Donald Trump's US presidential election victory this month has raised doubts among some negotiators that the world's largest economy would pay into any climate finance goal agreed in Baku. Trump, a Republican who takes office in January, has called climate change a hoax and promised to again remove the US from international climate cooperation.

President Joe Biden congratulated the COP29 participants for reaching what he called an historic agreement that would help mobilize needed funds, but said more work was needed.

"While there is still substantial work ahead of us to achieve our climate goals, today’s outcome puts us one significant step closer. On behalf of the American people and future generations, we must continue to accelerate our work to keep a cleaner, safer, healthier planet within our grasp," Biden said in a statement.

Western governments have seen global warming slip down the list of national priorities amid surging geopolitical tensions, including Russia’s war in Ukraine and expanding conflict in the Middle East, and rising inflation.

The showdown over financing for developing countries comes in a year scientists predict will be the hottest on record. Climate woes are stacking up, with widespread flooding killing thousands across Africa, deadly landslides burying villages in Asia, and drought in South America shrinking rivers.

Developed countries have not been spared. Torrential rain triggered floods in Valencia, Spain, last month that left more than 200 dead, and the US so far this year has registered 24 billion-dollar disasters - just four fewer than last year.