Yes I “fret” about the aesthetics of every restaurant that I frequent. If I don’t like that about it, I won’t return.
Aesthetics strongly affect my dining experience. It’s the quality of “looking the way it should”; looking “genuine”; and in that context, appealing. I take into account the type of restaurant and area. For example, I like the rough-hewn ambience at the tiny but special Mien Trung, Thai Papaya, and Pho Hoa LV, for instance. In between there was Troy’s CM. Very dated but very real. Those are “for real” places, which is part of their attraction (to me}. Their genuine (as opposed to, say, franchise mass produced) atmosphere is part of the pleasure of eating at places like that.
And Convoy? Well, Convoy St. itself is pretty gross and disgusting, visually, you’ll have to admit (I think). In terms of the streetside appeal of the district overall, the aesthetics suck. Luckily, the remarkable concentration in a single geographical area of a huge number of all kinds of Asian restaurants makes up for it. And most of the restaurants I’ve been to there (I’m no Convoy Conquest) do have pleasing aesthetics inside.
On the opposite extreme, I pay a lot of attention to the aesthetics of a fine restaurant. Along with the food quality and service, the architecture and furnishings are a draw (or a drag). I’m willing to pay the price for high-end style and class at such places, knowing full well that some of the cost reflected in their menu prices goes towards that well-tended ambience. And that’s fine with me.
Direct answers to your questions: (1) I like the way Sab-E-Lee used to look; and (2) I haven’t eaten anywhere on Convoy since re-openings started.