[Fat Guy]

On a couple of other topics we've been discussing the trend (some agree that it's a trend, others think it's nothing new; I think it's legit) in New York City towards inexpensive, casual restaurants -- often with no reservations -- that serve food that has its roots not in the bistro/brasserie tradition but in haute cuisine. Perhaps it's that the generation of foodies now coming of age is demanding this kind of restaurant, or perhaps it's because there are so many young well-trained chefs out there now, or perhaps it has to do with the increased availability of better ingredients . . . or all those factors and more.

What I was hoping to do here is assemble a list of the best places serving in this style: haute-type cuisine, inexpensive, casual, walk-in . . .

[iriee]

i,ve heard prune restaurant is very good and low priced. i haven't been there but a friend told me it was very good.

[Sneakeater]

To get the ball rolling, the two places that started this discussion obviously were

Bouley Upstairs

Momofuku Ssam

I'd also add

Degustation

which I think fits in here, even though it isn't a walk-in.

This post has been edited by Sneakeater: 27 February 2007 - 10:06 AM

[Sneakeater]

Now that I think of it, I'd also say

Room 4 Dessert

[Sneakeater]

iriee, on Feb 27 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

i,ve heard prune restaurant is very good and low priced. i haven't been there but a friend told me it was very good.

Prune doesn't fit the description of serving "food that has its roots not in the bistro/brasserie tradition but in haute cuisine." THAT'S what's "new" about the places FG is talking about.

[Fat Guy]

The Bar Room at the Modern seems to have pulled in some of this audience for awhile, although I've heard almost nothing but complaints ever since the place got three stars in the New York Times (and my one disappointing meal ever at the Bar Room was I think on the night it got the three stars). Maybe the shift in expectations has done something, or maybe the place just got overwhelmed. I'm not sure -- but it's probably the closest thing Midtown has to a pocketbook-friendly pseudo-haute experience.

[weinoo]

Fat Guy, on Feb 27 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

What I was hoping to do here is assemble a list of the best places serving in this style: haute-type cuisine, inexpensive, casual, walk-in . . .

FG - can you define inexpensive - that may well spawn a discussion of its own!

[Sneakeater]

Fat Guy, on Feb 27 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

The Bar Room at the Modern seems to have pulled in some of this audience for awhile, although I've heard almost nothing but complaints ever since the place got three stars in the New York Times (and my one disappointing meal ever at the Bar Room was I think on the night it got the three stars). Maybe the shift in expectations has done something, or maybe the place just got overwhelmed. I'm not sure -- but it's probably the closest thing Midtown has to a pocketbook-friendly pseudo-haute experience.

It's also sort of in-the-middle in terms of the "haute" rather than "bistro" orientation. It's like a step towards this "thing" you're talking about, but not quite.

[Fat Guy]

There's definitely an article in this. Thanks for helping me write it.

[Nathan]

the food at Bar-Room at the Modern ranges from rustic-traditional (the superb tarte-flambee, the bakeoffe) to more haute.

I think it belongs on this thread though.

as has been noted, Ssam Bar, Bouley Upstairs, Room4Dessert and Degustation are poster-children for this thread. I imagine the upcoming Tailor will fit here.

Chubo was sort of the first of this generation...the problem with Chubo is that it isn't that good. ditto for a now defunct molecular place that had a brief life in the EV.

[oakapple]

I'm already on record with the view that we are exaggerating this alleged trend. However, perhaps I can be persuaded.

If we take David Chang at his word, Momofuku Ssam Bar was practically an accident. He had other intentions for the restuarant. When he found they weren't working, he had to think quickly, and luckily he hit the jackpot.

The notion of a casual "front room" (serving less expensive food than the main dining room, often without reservations) has been around for a while. Examples include the Tavern at GT, the Bread Bar at Tabla, the Cafe at Aquavit, the Cafe at Country, Nougatine at Jean Georges, the London Bar at Gordon Ramsay, the Enoteca at Del Posto, the lounges at Daniel and Le Cirque. As Peter Meehan observed in an article last year, even Keens Steakhouse has a lounge like this.

You could think of Bouley Upstairs as substantially the same concept, except that the building is across the street.

This post has been edited by oakapple: 27 February 2007 - 11:21 AM

[Fat Guy]

Okay but let's not equate good food with haute food. I don't think anybody would contend that the food at Gramercy Tavern's front room is haute. Or the Bread Bar at Tabla. While delicious, the food at those places is much more in the rustic camp. I think the Bar Room at the Modern is the only Union Square group front room that serves a significant number of dishes I'd consider to be haute cuisine.

[daisy17]

The ones Sneakeater mentions are definitely the ones that instantly come to mind for me too. (For the record, I like Momo I (Noodle Bar) better than Ssam, but that's ok, because you can all go to Ssam and I can have my kimchi stew and brussel sprouts.) And I agree with Nathan that The Modern Bar Room belongs in this category. I haven't been, but I wonder if Varietal fits in here, at least on the sweet side. Many of the inexpensive, casual, walk-in places I love have great food, but I wouldn't call it haute (i.e., Tia Pol, Mary's Fish Camp, Bellavitae).

Not in NY, but Jose Andres/minibar come to mind . . . And while it's certainly not inexpensive, I think that L'Atelier, at least in concept, is along the same lines.

I think my predilection to dining at the bar at some of the best restaurants in the city (Cru, Gotham, Picholine, Gramercy) is my own attempt at creating what Fat Guy is describing.

[Nathan]

oh sure...I think it does come out of the bar dining trend....which is still primarily an uniquely NY phenomenon (do they do this extensively in SF as well?)...but it'll spread.

[Nathan]

oakapple, on Feb 27 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

If we take David Chang at his word, Momofuku Ssam Bar was practically an accident. He had other intentions for the restuarant. When he found they weren't working, he had to think quickly, and luckily he hit the jackpot.

If you read up the Ssam Bar thread you'll find that late-night elaborate chef-driven dishes was the plan all along....what was accidental was being financially forced to start serving those dishes before 10:30 PM.

I do think Bouley Upstairs was a happy accident...a showcase for his cooking school that took off.

[Sneakeater]

daisy17, on Feb 27 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

I think my predilection to dining at the bar at some of the best restaurants in the city (Cru, Gotham, Picholine, Gramercy) is my own attempt at creating what Fat Guy is describing.

Mine too.

[weinoo]

Nathan, on Feb 27 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

oh sure...I think it does come out of the bar dining trend....which is still primarily an uniquely NY phenomenon (do they do this extensively in SF as well?)...but it'll spread.

I think even moreso in SF, as it's a much more casual vibe fitting in with the culture - we love eating at the bar at places like Boulevard, Zuni, even the Slanted Door. And, fwiw, I think Stars was one of the first great bar dining scenes in the country.

[weinoo]

Sneakeater, on Feb 27 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

To get the ball rolling, the two places that started this discussion obviously were

Bouley Upstairs

Momofuku Ssam

I'd also add

Degustation

which I think fits in here, even though it isn't a walk-in.

But, c'mon, we have to not call these places inexpensive (other than Ssam), if you're eating a full meal.

[ned]

I can't believe that I'm the first to mention WD-50.

[Sneakeater]

weinoo, on Feb 27 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

Sneakeater, on Feb 27 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

To get the ball rolling, the two places that started this discussion obviously were

Bouley Upstairs

Momofuku Ssam

I'd also add

Degustation

which I think fits in here, even though it isn't a walk-in.

But, c'mon, we have to not call these places inexpensive (other than Ssam), if you're eating a full meal.

What do you mean? Degustation is listed on New York Magazine's "Cheap Eats" list! [sarcastic smilely]

Seriously, I think you have to be reasonable about what is meant by "inexpensive" in this context. in the context of cooking like this, mid-priced is "inexpensive". To me, for example, what is most powerful about Bouley Upstairs is that it has made me virtually incapable of eating mid-priced food in New York without thinking, at some point during the meal (or after I've paid the check), that I could have eaten better at Bouley Upstairs instead.

This post has been edited by Sneakeater: 27 February 2007 - 12:28 PM

[Sneakeater]

ned, on Feb 27 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

I can't believe that I'm the first to mention WD-50.

This will no doubt start off another endless definitional discussion, but I'm not sure I see why WD-50 isn't just a normal restaurant (serving abnormal food, to be sure).

[BryanZ]

For the quality of food you get they're relatively inexpensive.

[oakapple]

ned, on Feb 27 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

I can't believe that I'm the first to mention WD-50.

With most appetizers around $14-17, and most mains $28-30, WD-50 doesn't qualify as "cheap," even in NYC.

weinoo, on Feb 27 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

But, c'mon, we have to not call these places inexpensive (other than Ssam), if you're eating a full meal.

I don't know what FG meant by "cheap." Here's Bruni on Degustation: "You can easily spend $40 or more to assemble enough modestly priced dishes — maybe four, maybe even five — to fill you." He noted that the five-course tasting menu is $50. By NYC standards, I would call Degustation mid to high-mid priced.

(Of course, I am not taking the quality of the food into consideration. If you love WD-50 or Degustation enough, you might think they're the best-priced bargains in town.)

This post has been edited by oakapple: 27 February 2007 - 12:33 PM

[weinoo]

Sneakeater, on Feb 27 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

...in the context of cooking like this, mid-priced is "inexpensive".

Now this makes sense!

[ned]

I haven't been two WD-50 in over a year. The price isn't really what I was thinking about. More the aesthetics of the front of the house experience. This is to say, the interior, the tenor the waitstaff strikes, the sartorial expectations. It's not a formal restaurant. Neither starchy nor fussy.

[Nathan]

weinoo, on Feb 27 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

Nathan, on Feb 27 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

oh sure...I think it does come out of the bar dining trend....which is still primarily an uniquely NY phenomenon (do they do this extensively in SF as well?)...but it'll spread.

I think even moreso in SF, as it's a much more casual vibe fitting in with the culture - we love eating at the bar at places like Boulevard, Zuni, even the Slanted Door. And, fwiw, I think Stars was one of the first great bar dining scenes in the country.

cool...that's what I was wondering.

I've eaten pretty extensively in Chicago, Atlanta, South Florida, etc...and there's no bar dining to speak of...I was wondering if CA was different...it makes sense that it would be.

[Nathan]

we're talking about haute-based food with luxe ingredients...it'll never be "cheap"...but can it be much lower-priced than a four-star? absolutely.

if I had to throw a definition out there -- the food is haute based in some sense (i.e. not just rustic or home-cooking style), prepared in a manner that bespeaks extensive classical knowledge and/or training on the part of the chef (anyone want to take a bet that Wylie couldn't make every single thing on the La Grenouille savory menu on almost a moment's notice?), luxe ingredients are used where appropriate, at a quality level that is at least three-star if not approaching four-star, but served in an informal and casual surrounding.

this is the trend that I believe FG, Bruni, et al are speaking of.
for purposes of this thread I think FG wants to limit the discussion to places where the price is correspondingly depressed to match the surroundings (ruling out L'Atelier...which I think otherwise fits).

[KarenSherwood]

As a long-away soon-to-be visitor, I'd LOVE to see an approximate definition of 'inexpensive' relative to this thread. :) I got to sneak out maybe once every month for a splurge dinner (over $50 per person) in 1984. How would that figure in today's NYC scene, at maybe $75 per person? (excluding wine & tip)

[oakapple]

ned, on Feb 27 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

I haven't been two WD-50 in over a year.  The price isn't really what I was thinking about.  More the aesthetics of the front of the house experience.

Nowadays, this isn't really that unusual in New York. BLT Fish, Perry St., and A Voce are three examples of restaurants that serve three-star food in settings that aesthetically would formerly have been considered casual. I don't think those are the kinds of places FG was referring to.

Nathan, on Feb 27 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

we're talking about haute-based food with luxe ingredients...it'll never be "cheap"...but can it be much lower-priced than a four-star?  absolutely.

if I had to throw a definition out there -- the food is haute based in some sense (i.e. not just rustic or home-cooking style) ... at a quality level that is at least three-star if not approaching four-star, but served in an informal and casual surrounding.

I'm curious what you consider to be the luxe ingredients at Momofuku Ssam Bar. I agree with Bruni about "Chang’s wicked grasp of flavor and unerring sense of balance." But there's a pretty big gulf between luxe ingredients and french fries, and Chang is somewhere in that middle ground—probably on the luxurious side of the midpoint, without quite getting there (or trying to). If any reviewer were inclined to award three stars when the food justified it — irrespective of ambiance or formality — it's Frank Bruni. And he awarded two stars.

[oakapple]

KarenSherwood, on Feb 27 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

As a long-away soon-to-be visitor, I'd LOVE to see an approximate definition of 'inexpensive' relative to this thread. :) I got to sneak out maybe once every month for a splurge dinner (over $50 per person) in 1984. How would that figure in today's NYC scene, at maybe $75 per person? (excluding wine & tip)

For the overall NYC market, I would say that an inexpensive three-course meal these days is under $30 (excluding tax, tip, and beverages), mid-price is $30-60, expensive is $60-90, and luxury is >$90.

When FG asked his question, I don't think he meant literally cheap, but "cheap haute-cuisine" — which could, in fact, be mid-priced or even expensive, as long as it's "cheap for what you get."

You need to bear in mind that discussion of truly cheap eats is under-represented on eGullet. The demographic here is skewed towards people who are more willing than the general population to spend large amounts of money on dining out. So you find eGullet people who regard Bouley Upstairs as "cheap," even though the average person wouldn't say so.