Isn't this the same as the Broken Window Fallacy?

They want to force people to use economically inefficient services, small restaurants versus large cafeteria, to create more economic "activity". Which would be analogous to celebrating the waste of breaking a perfectly good window, because fixing/replacing the window generates economic activity. Is that fair?

This is under the (I think reasonable) assumption that a cafeteria designed for 500-1000 people is probably more efficient than the dozens of smaller scale restaurants needed to match that supply.