THE FASTER LANE / TYLER BRÛLÉ
Cloth or sloth?
If you’re wondering where we are this morning, we’re on a train – a dining car belonging to Swiss Federal Railways to be exact. We pulled out of Geneva a little over an hour ago, the sun is shining, there’s a light dusting of snow up in the Jura mountains and in 90 minutes we’ll roll into Zürich Hauptbahnhof. As it’s just after 10.00, things are pretty cosy with the breakfast crowd lingering over coffee and herbal tea, half-eaten croissants and bowls of muesli. Spread out in front of us we have our own little basket of baked goods, a cappuccino, orange juice, the weekend editions of Les Echos and the FT – all of it spread out on a crisp white linen tablecloth. As mobile breakfast settings go, it’s tough to beat. And when it comes to state-run European rail operators, such a setting is a rarity as dining cars have all but disappeared – almost.
If you’re reading this in the US then you will be familiar with the news that Amtrak recently announced that it’s getting rid of tablecloths all together because research suggested that millennials didn’t respond well to linen. Really? What exactly does that even mean? They didn’t respond well because they were allergic to the fibres? They didn’t like the colour? Or did they really have a problem with the formality of a bit of fabric that can be washed, keeps things in place and is also good for acoustics?
I’m not sure about you but I’m a little tired of one-size-fits-all solutions that are taken on behalf of what is a questionable demographic in the first place. We’re also told that males of this generation are not buyers of blazers or leather-soled shoes. We’re told that they only want to wear sportswear and that there’s not much of a future for the three-button jacket. As for Goodyear-welted soles, you can forget about them. The sad news is that all kinds of businesses buy into such proclamations. Management consultancies distribute this guff to clients far and wide. Ad agencies process this nonsense into campaigns. The retailers who are on the front lines and should know better somehow end up listening to their communication partners and, before you know it, they’ve bought into the entire narrative and have filled their shop floors with garments and gear that no one really wants to wear.
The good news is that, despite what we’re being told, young men do want to wear blazers and proper shoes. And yes, I’m talking about 17 and 18-year-olds who should be wearing Balenciaga sweatshirts but have the sartorial good sense to recognise that there’s a better way. And how do I know this? Because I witnessed it first hand at a high-altitude nightclub last weekend where scores of young men filed past the coat check in their “jankers” (think: high-collared Tyrol-style jackets) and navy flannel blazers looking completely comfortable in the tailoring we’re told their generation’s not interested in. And it’s moments like these when the “research” and “data” falls completely off-piste because you suddenly realise that much of it is generated for or by Anglo-centric outlets that don’t manage to capture the currents in other key markets – mostly because they’re not American or British.
If young men really aren’t wearing blazers or interested in formal wear then why is a retailer like Lodenfrey in Munich doing such a roaring trade in traditional attire? And why is United Arrows in Japan putting so much effort into its Italian tailoring for the funky bunch? It’s because there’s a solid market for such garments but they fall outside the casualisation/anything goes/don’t-bother-making-an-effort narrative that’s somehow gone political. Which brings us back to the white tablecloth set before us. Are we getting rid of fine linen and starched sheets because they make us feel uncomfortable and are out of step with the times? Or is it all just cost-saving and a cultural downgrade dressed up as a generational shift?