interviews
EAT OFFBEAT
by Manal Kahi
June 15, 2019
This interview with Manal Kahi, co-founder and CEO of EAT OFFBEAT, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
EAT OFFBEAT is a New York City based catering company that works exclusively with refugees.
How did you get started on this work? I know the crux of the business is in hiring refugees, are there particular guidelines about who qualifies as a refugee?
Manal: We're a catering company. We deliver authentic meals that are entirely conceived, prepared, and delivered by refugees here in New York City. Basically the model is we hire talented refugees who are looking to be in the food industry.
They happen to be with the UNHCR, they happen to be refugees by status – but they are chefs by nature.
We train them, for those who haven't had a professional culinary training or haven't had experience working in profession kitchens – we train them so they become profession chefs, we help them scale their recipes and then we deliver their dishes. It's the way they make it at home but they prepare it at our commercial kitchen and we deliver that to mostly offices and private parties or events all over New York City.
image via EAT OFFBEAT
Does hiring a refugee have any complications or benefits?
Manal: Complications? Not necessarily. They are usually referred to us by the IRC, the International Rescue Committee, and maybe that's a good place to answer your question of how we decide they're refugees.
We have a partnership with the IRC, which is one of nine resettlement agencies in the U.S. They help refugees. They help them even before coming here, they provide assistance to refugees filing for refugee status back home.
And once someone is approved they go through the very lengthy security process. They get to the U.S. and the IRC is mandated by the government to assist them in the settlement process. That includes picking them up at the airport, finding accommodations. Part of the assistance they provide is also finding jobs or employment and this is where we come in. Whenever we're hiring they send us candidates who are looking for a job who are recently resettled or who simply just want to be in the food industry. And that's how we hire.
So to answer your question on definition of who is a refugee for us, it's really whoever gets referred to us by the IRC.
Are you hiring full-time or part-time?
Manal: There's a good mix of both. It's a blend. Anyone who's a chef, who has items on the menu, who is contributing to the menu, that's a full-time position, because we need that chef to be at the kitchen whenever we get an order. We have a few positions that are more part-time.
How many people are you working with at the moment?
Manal: We're close to thirty people day to day.
Wow.
Manal: And that includes every function. That's chefs, sous chefs, delivery operators, customer service, everything all together. And it's a mix of refugees but also a couple of Americans. Especially on administrative functions.
Are you looking to expand beyond New York City?
Manal: Not necessarily and definitely not right now. We would never say "Never", that might happen an some point but for now our focus is really on New York City alone.
Are you set up as a for-profit business or a 501c3?
Manal: We are a for-profit business.
Do you feel like you're mission driven?
Manal: We are definitely mission driven. Definitely heavily mission driven. It's what guides us, it's what defines us, and it's part of who we are. At the same time we see ourselves as a food company first, we are definitely food centric, we're people centric, and the mission is very heavy. But it's very important that we are making money because that's the only way we can actually achieve our mission and keep hiring people and keep paying them decent wages.
Business is super important but for us it doesn't makes sense unless there is the social mission part attached.
Can you tell me a little bit about your own background?
Manal: I'm originally from Lebanon. I came here as a graduate student in 2013. My background was in environmental management. My goal was to go a bit more into international climate affairs. I was working on climate affairs in the Middle East and I wanted to go international. That's part of why I chose to come to New York, to be close to the U.N., multi-national institutions or organizations. And then when I came here, I was a bit disappointed with hummus in grocery stores –
I heard.
Manal: So that's really what sparked the idea initially. I started making my own. I got my grandmothers recipe and when that became successful here we thought why not commercialize it.
The first step was the hummus, the next step was...
Manal: Exactly the first step was the hummus and clearly the idea was not just make hummus and sell it, it was initially to have it made by refugees here who were being resettled here in New York City who wanted to share their hummus recipes with the rest of New York and commercialize that. That was really the idea early on. Then after that we went to studying the market, looking at the idea and we thought it was much better to go global. We though why not open it to any refugees coming from all over the world and discover these recipes that, just like hummus, are so much better when their homemade or made by someone who knows how it should taste.
We hire based on talent and passion for food regardless of where people come from, but so far it's been very diverse.
Do you think that it's hard for refugees to find work placement?
Manal: From what I see, my own personal opinion, it's different when you're an immigrant versus when you're a refugee. The only difference is, mainly when you're an immigrant you made the choice yourself, so very often you would have taken English classes, you made the choice as to where to go and when to go and why to go. But when you're here as a refugee very often you actually had to.
And why that makes it a bit harder is because when you come as an immigrant, when it's you're own choice, you may have come as a student, you have a bit more leeway and a bit more time to give it more consideration and decide whether you're going to go and what you're going to do exactly. Whereas if you come as refugee very often you just have to flee and you have to make it work with whatever.
I wouldn't say it's extremely hard to find a job. Jobs are available. It's similar to anyone who's looking for a job. It is definitely much harder to find a job that is a decent wage and a good job that makes you proud and that brings your dignity back – because very often you don't have transferable skills, you probably don't speak the language, so if you had training as an accountant before coming here it's much much harder to find a job as an accountant than to find a job at something else you're not necessarily passionate about.
Is there anything you've learned in the process of working with refugees about the refugee process?
Manal: One thing we've learned is that simply by providing a work environment and an atmosphere where people form a community, and they help each other even indirectly by being part of that kitchen and part of that community, people start to integrate and adjust and get adapted to their new lives much easier than when they're isolated and do not have a supportive community around them.
I see it happening in our kitchen.
I see a very high level of resilience that I think is notable and particular. All of our chefs, you can just see it, they're ready to do whatever it takes to succeed and they're very committed to the work they are doing. They are also very adaptable. Whenever we have a problem, something going wrong, everyone is very involved in the work and passionate about it and finds a solution. I think there's that added characteristic that is very common among everyone who's on our team.
What are your goals moving forward?
Manal: We have three goals. The first is to provide quality jobs to talented refugees who want to be in the food industry. The second is more about New Yorkers – it's about introducing New Yorkers to this menu and off the beaten path cuisines and somehow connect them, build bridges, between them eating our food at their homes or offices and us cooking in the kitchen. And the third ultimately is about changing the narrative around refugees, showcasing a different and more positive story.
What do you think the current narrative is around refugees?
Manal: That's a good question. Very often the narrative is around a more negative rhetoric, "they are stealing our jobs, not contributing to the economy, taking resources away." Or if it's positive it's all about how vulnerable the community is and how they always need charity, they always need help. Those are two concepts we are trying to change or at least provide one example where it's not necessarily the case, and we really push our customers to shift perspectives a bit, change perspectives a bit. Because in our case we refugees, we immigrants, are actually helping New Yorkers discover something new. It's all about shifting the table on that.
We're a 'for profit' we're not a 'non-profit'. Part of that is to show our chefs are contributing to the economy. They are contributing to making a richer food scene here in New York. They're active contributors to the economy. They're adding value. They're bringing value. And that's the other thing we want to highlight. They're not relying on charity, they're not taking they are contributing, they're paying their taxes.
The narrative becomes less about pity and charity and more about contribution and resilience.
Manal: Exactly!
Seeing people for who they are and what they have to bring rather than the status they came with.
image via EAT OFFBEAT
interviews
An Interview with Jeffrey Shumaker
by Max Moinian
May 31, 2018
Who are you and where are we?
My name is Jeffrey Shumaker and we are in Bryant Park by my office.
What’s your favorite privately-owned public (POP) space in Manhattan?
One of my favorites is Grace Plaza. It was recently renovated with an Amanda Burden touch: many types of seating, movable and fixed, and lots of planting. POPS can be controversial, viewed as privatizing public space. Unfortunately there are many POP’s I don’t like, built under the original rules which had virtually no design requirements whatsoever. These spaces need to serve the public, but we need somebody to own them, otherwise no one will take care of them. They’re often lost in limbo.
You mentioned Amanda Burden. What were her main goals that you aligned with during your time at the DCP?
I think the main thing she brought to the Department of City Planning and to the city was a pedestrian and human perspective. Even in the work we presented to her. They were otherwise generic diagrams about rezoning or changing a neighborhood. No surprise the community wouldn't understand what you were talking about. A lot of credit goes to Amanda and the Urban Design office in bringing the work down to the human, through sketching and clearly communicating intent on proposed changes. Not just from the air, from a helicopter view, but from the ground. That’s the vantage point that people live and experience the city from.
The intention is to make legible drawings. But does the act of drawing perspectives rather than plans change the design?
Absolutely. It definitely changes the design. It forces you to get into the qualities of things that only you as a person can really appreciate. When you draw from the air you’re focusing more on the roofs of buildings, mechanical, and other things. From the ground you start looking at use, transparency, materiality, street trees, the design of the sidewalk. All the things you wouldn’t see from above.
During your master’s at MIT, what was the urban crisis everyone was talking about?
That’s a good question. Compared to what’s happening in the world now, it was a relatively happy time. I worked with Dennis Frenchman on projects in China. I think the crisis was the rapid development of cities, and not necessarily in the best way.
What are some of your favorite planner jargons?
Resilience, sustainability, livability, equity. Not to say that they’re not important. With PlaNYC, the whole city was viewed through these lens and it was groundbreaking when it was first released in 2007. What I am saying is that
We should not be exclusive. You want people to understand the process so that they can advocate for better planning and design in their own communities.
Public realm is a good one. When you speak to communities often times they dont even understand what you’re talking about when you use the term “public realm.”
What’s the alternative?
Public life, public space, streets, parks -- call it what it is, what people can identify with.
Can you talk about autonomous vehicles (AV)?
Everything cycles back around. For example, street car designs might be useful for AV: the idea of dedicated zones to move efficiently. We’re looking at older streets to inform future ones. Maybe using different technologies now, but the design is essentially the same.
In this rendering, there’s no difference between the sidewalk and the road. There’s a kid on a scooter in front of a car. When you’re speculatively designing future streets, who is at the table and how is safety discussed?
Those renderings were very aspirational. There’s a big role for urban designers to play in preparing cities for this technology when it’s ready. There’s still a lot of work to do before we get to truly safe streets. And there’s always a risk that the technology may fail. But I think it’s important to be optimistic about what the future could be.
It’s a call to action.
Those renderings are part of a conversation we’ve been having with the City. To remind them that now is the time to lay the groundwork for this technology when it gets here.
Did the vision of a shared street start from another discipline? Is the car company telling you this is the vision?
It was very much internal. Based on my experience at the City and with DOT, but mostly internal. It was our idealized vision of what could be.
All of the major car companies have a research wing looking at the future city, showing nice images of pedestrian-friendly, smart cities. You have to wonder: what are they in it for? Are they sincere in wanting to make cities better for everybody? I think there’s a need for strong government and regulation to counter that.
I doubt you were talking about AV when you were in school. What do you think prepared you for this work?
Trends change, the terms we use change, but the fundamentals are the same. Fascinating to me now that I’m working internationally is that from the ground, cities are very similar. The character, design, and neighborhoods are different, and you celebrate those differences. But having places to sit, good sidewalks, plants, places of interest…that is everywhere.
Nanshan Center, by KPF
LVGEM Baishizhou Master Plan Shenzhen (c) KPF
Elements that every city needs, but is there a model that you can just drop on cities?
That’s a good question, and it’s a tough one. Good urban design principles may be basic to you and me, but sometimes it’s important to state the obvious.
What are the principles that carry over form public to private practice?
Certainly in this country, cities are fighting for every last dollar, and need to be smart about leveraging private development for the benefit of the public. New York has become an expert at this, for public space, subway improvements or waterfront access, there are many ways...
At the City, you can’t realize anything without the private sector. We depend on them for affordable housing, parks... But when you’re working for the City you’re a public servant. You are ultimately working for the public. In the private sector, you work for clients and you can only push things so far. But, no matter where you work, you are always trying to find a balance between doing what’s best for the private property owner and what is best for the city and the public.
Some people may think that government work is actually more restricted.
In a way, yes. There are many layers to it. A lot of the work we did was never shown publicly, it was really meant to keep the conversation going for us. Sometimes the City is your client, and that could be the best of both worlds. The smarter developers realize that generally what’s good for the city is good for the bottom line.
Planners have been repairing past mistakes. But now there’s a big shift into thinking about the future … I don't know if that existed as much before?
I haven't really thought of that. A lot of the work I was doing was essentially how do we bring a sense of urbanity back into places. Infilling surface parking, mixing uses… Now, given the challenges of climate change, technology, cities are just trying to keep up, let alone get ahead. It forces everybody to think differently, in more immediate and longer terms about where cities are going.
Is it cyclical? Or do we keep refining big waves?
Maybe the waves are getting smaller and faster. All the disruptive technologies are happening at a pace that cites can't keep up with. At least with the kind of zoning we have in New York, which is frankly old-fashioned.
Do you think there are too many rules?
Yes I do. The physical zoning resolution just keeps getting thicker and thicker. Its three very large volumes. We don't tend to take out, we just keep adding to it.
Was there a point where you shifted into thinking more about the future?
City agencies aren't necessarily known for being the most proactive or progressive, but the Bloomberg administration was different. The now famous Bloomberg pilot project: we don't have to change the rules to try it, and if it works, then we change the rules. A good example of this is micro-unit housing. We removed the minimum unit size requirement and held a design competition. Some very creative designs showed how outdated the rule was. Carmel Place was built and is very successful, and we ultimately changed the rule citywide.
What is going on in New York City right now?
I think the affordability crisis gives a sense of urgency that is understandable and warranted. There is a need to create lots of affordable housing fast. The rush is too fast for many neighborhoods. As much as everybody wants affordable housing, there is pushback. Anytime you talk about neighborhood change people get very defensive. Particularly when it’s their neighborhood. In theory everybody wants affordable housing and nobody wants to shut the door on newcomers.
But we’re at a tipping point: so many people want to be here, which shoots up prices. Even in East New York, the first neighborhood under the de Blasio administration to be rezoned. Investment was brought there for the first time in a very long time. And the minute the City announced its plans to rezone, speculators started buying and flipping property. Then you see the values go up, and up, and up. It’s a tough issue. Cities have gotten so expensive and exclusive. If people can’t afford to live here, what kind of city are you left with?
Are you a fan of infill development projects?
Yes. I think it achieves a lot of urban design goals. I think most would agree now that the tower in the park model was just anti-urban. It created campus conditions. You're either in it or you're not. And in talking to NYCHA residents and tenant associations over the years...there is a strong sense of us vs. them, people who live in the development vs. those who live outside. That’s not an urban position.
I understand the defensive nature against an infill proposal and the valid fear of losing one’s home, but the status quo is just not sustainable. Without more Federal money, NYCHA has to figure out how to generate income on its own. I think there's a way to do it that could keep everyone in place, probably even add affordable housing along with market rate units. Create better communities with less space -- better quality, not quantity. So they're not campuses. So they're part of the urban fabric.
Do you think there’s a need for more private planning firms?
Definitely. There are very few firms you could go to for planning and urban design that really get it. That understand and focus on the zone between the city and regional scale and the building scale. I think ultimately more firms and more competition is better for cities.