Apparently the "gimmick" is still working, but the current owners are tired of working the gimmick: “My in-laws opened in the 1930s, during the depression,” said Christine Marchi. The clientele is loyal but it’s time to shut down. “It’s been 90 years! Don’t you think we deserve it?” Marchi said. Ms. Marchi has probably literally worked in the same restaurant for her entire life, and may want to try something else. Should she be denied that choice? Perhaps the latest generation of Marchis has no interest in running a restaurant, or at least not the one that their (great?) grandparents started 90 years ago where the menu never changes and there is no room for culinary creativity.
There should have been changes to the menu and that could have kept them afloat.
Did you even read what the owner said..??
I'm going to guess "no" on that one, Aaron.
ArchGuy, the restaurant was apparently doing fine as it was, but the owners
of the restaurant shut it down because they were tired of running it. Short of forcing the now former owners to keep running the restaurant whether they want to or not, how do you propose the restaurant be kept open as it was?
And besides that, if there is one city on this planet outside of perhaps Rome that is unlikely to be greatly affected by the closure of a single, small, family-owned and -operated Italian restaurant, it is New York City. Marchi's may have been great, but NYC will still be just fine without it.