oakapple

'Twas I that said something like that, although I didn't really mean what you're suggesting. Yes, of course Landmarc will pull in people from the neighborhood. What I meant was that I believe Landmarc is designed to cast a much wider net, and so in that sense it's not truly a "neighborhood restaurant." I also think that all of the critical attention Landmarc's getting reflects that it's more than just a neighborhood restaurant---it's good enough to justify an outing, even if you don't live or work nearby.

Because most people are willing to fill in the missing words "...subject to the limitations of the way we polled." It's patently obvious that a list of the "50 best" of anything not concretely measurable is merely one point of view. Human beings make such lists all the time. It is so well understood that this is just one point of view, that I don't think you can accuse them of fundamental dishonesty.

Once again, the writer is falling into the same trap as Marcus and a few others. You think that the typical reader is too dumb to understand what the survey is really about. Since you've figured out exactly how the survey was done, why do you assume that most others can't do the same? The survey is "deceiving people" only if they are too stupid to understand where the data came from. You figured it out. So can other people. Most rating systems, including Michelin and the New York Times, consider other factors (décor, ambiance, service). Is the phrase "overall experience" really so unclear to you? It simply means everything that you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, from when you walk in the door, to when you leave.

The neighborhood that is the meatpacking district has changed multiple times since it was undeveloped wilderness a few hundred years ago. It didn't go straight from wilderness to meat markets and hookers. There were steps in between. We naturally long for the neighborhood of our youth, but why should it be frozen in the state that you coincidentally happen to have encountered it, when that was just one of many that it had? It reminds me of the subway fans who get all misty-eyed for the Els.

I ambled into Landmarc today for lunch. It was about 1pm, and the restaurant was around 1/3rd full. It actually got a tad busier by the time I left, but the downstairs was still well under 1/2 full. I took a look upstairs, where only 2-3 tables were occupied. There is a gorgeous 3/4ths-enclosed booth that the manager said is available for parties of 6. I don't like to drink before the evening. The ample selection of half-bottles of wine was duly noted, but the staff did not mind that I preferred tap water. I ordered the asparagus soup (yummy) and steak au poivre. Not much can be done to improve an age-old recipe like steak au poivre. Landmarc served a thick piece of meat, crusty on the outside and cooked to a perfect medium rare on the inside, topped with onions. The pepper sauce got the job done, but it was a bit runny and soaked the bottom layer of french fries. The fries that the sauce didn't get to were crisp and medium-thickness. Service was attentive and efficient at the beginning of the meal, but visits to my table seemed to tail off near the end. They kept me waiting for the steak a bit longer than they should, but all was forgiven once I tasted it. The manager did make a point of coming around to every table and saying hello. For a place that doesn't take reservations for parties less than six, both the placement and the size of the bar seem to be a miscalculation. It's at the back of the restaurant, so patrons who want to wait at the bar before their table is ready have to pass through the downstairs dining area. There are only five bar stools, so I suspect it will get crowded back there, potentially a distraction for those who've already been seated. I don't know if Landmarc will take a cell phone number and call you when they're ready. If so, I suspect Buster's Garage, the NASCAR-themed sports bar across the street, will pick up a lot of the overflow. I read in the minutes for Community Board 1's monthly meeting that there have already been compaints in the neighborhood about the noise at the newly-opened Buster's.

Because I truly don't understand why all the fuss? It is simply a list of "50 best" something-or-other; such lists abound, and no great harm to the consuming public ensues. I do understand that it isn't as "objective" as, say, a list of the 50 tallest buildings. But given the credentials of the voters, it is nevertheless of some slight interest. Your blood pressure would probably go way down if you'd stop worrying that the "vast majority" of the readers of this survey are not as smart as you. I think people can figure out, just as you did, that FL isn't objectively the best restaurant in the world, merely that in one particular survey it polled that way.

I'm a big fan of opentable. I'm wondering what are the economics to the restaurant? The New York list includes a fair number of successful places that probably don't need OpenTable. I'm thinking of such places as: WD-50, Oceo, Hearth, BLT Steak, davidburke & donatella, Public, Bouley, Craft, Chanterelle, Daniel, Artisanal, Gramercy Tavern, Oceana, Ouest, and Veritas, to name a few. Does anyone know what the restaurants pay? Do the restaurants feel that it pays for itself? Is OpenTable aggressively recruiting the restaurants, or are the restaurants coming to OpenTable?

Today's New York Post reports on Page Six that:

What you are saying effectively is that all data points, opinions, are equal. No, I am saying that before I invest in a "major meal," I gather information from more than one source. A worldwide poll of 300 extremely well qualified diners strikes me as a reasonable source to consider---among many. Obviously, I do not weigh all opinions equally.

I don't think the NYT even claims consistent application. They don't claim inconsistency, either. They are silent on the question. And as far as I know, their ratings have no more definition than "good," "very good," "excellent" and "extraordinary" for one- through four-star ratings respectively. About all you can say is that, if you look at the list of restaurants historically awarded N stars, you get a general sense of what that means, with the caveat that occasionally a weird rating appears out of nowhere that doesn't fit the historical pattern. Hesser's Spice Market review isn't the first time that has happened. I agree---it's actually a whole lot clearer. And pace Marcus's hand-wringing, it's just as relevant as any other restaurant-rating system. It's just another data point.

"Fatal" to whom, exactly? Really, you're taking this far too seriously. The star rating system also has very well known flaws and limitations. Perhaps I should say it has flaws that ought to be well known by any sensible person. You have to do your own due diligence, and it's nobody's "fault" if you have a one-star experience at an establishment that somebody thought worthy of three. It has happened to all of us. This poll is merely another way--among many--of highlighting restaurants worthy of recognition. Of course, in such a list some errors are inevitable, but it is human nature to make lists, and no economically feasible process could produce the degree of scientific precision that you're hungering for.

The Hesser review is consistent with other reviews of Landmarc. I did find her comments a bit precious---referring it to as a "friendly neighborhood restaurant." Murphy didn't open Landmarc to serve dinners to the neighborhood. Not that he won't be happy to serve those who live nearby, but about 70% of TriBeCa's restaurants would have to close if that were what they were counting on. TriBeCa is rather sparsely populated. It's a destination. The LA Times article ("A dining frenzy takes Gotham") today, which included a "Hot List" of 8 restaurants, including Landmarc, had it right: In other words, the whole city is Landmarc's "neighborhood."

Ill-served, by what standard? Out-of-date, by what standard? Leaving aside Balthazar, which I must agree is laughable in the context, the other NYC restaurants mentioned are Gramercy Tavern, Daniel, Jean Georges, and Craft. There's nothing outrageous about those four restaurants. Extremely fine restaurants, one and all. Two of them are 4-star, and two 3-star, but the line between those two categories is very fuzzy indeed, as often noted here. All in all, New York is reasonably represented by these restaurants. Of course, you could make a good argument for others, but the only thing you can expect from such a list is that it is rational, and that standard has been met.

There is not any serious danger of that. I mean, it's not as if someone's going to say, "Hmmm, shall it be El Bulli or L'Atelier tonight?" They're in different countries, almost a thousand miles apart. Let's not wring our hands over the fact that there's no scientific way to identify the 50 best restaurants in the world. Heck, there's no scientific way to identify the 50 best restaurants in one city. We're not the only ones who've figured out that it's an impressionistic list. Readers will realize that you could have a meal to die for at just about any of these places.

I guess things aren't going too well. I got an e-mail tonight from Playbill online, offering dinner tickets for $75 apiece (reg. $125), brunch tickets for $45 (reg. $65), or dessert tickets for $25 (reg. $45). If you're interested—not that I would personally recommend it even at these reduced prices—go to http://www.broadwayoffers.com and enter code CFRAPPX. Or, call telecharge at (212) 947-8844 and mention code CFRAPPX. Chefs, menus, musical, guests, and performance dates are listed here.

A gimmick concept called "Chef's Theater" opened last week at the Supper Club, 240 W. 47th St. According to the website: In a clever two-part review in the New York Daily News, drama critic Howard Kissel discusses the entertainment ("Theater With Dinner"), and restaurant critic Pascale Le Draoulec discusses the food ("Dinner With Theater"). You can access both here. Neither critic is impressed. Kissel writes: And Le Draoulec writes:

I am very sorry to say that I don't. It is a very reasonable question, but the Per Se fire has been a much-discussed topic, and I can't recall where I saw the comment.

I read that he's taking action against the original contractors, who knew (or should have known) that the wall behind the ovens was not built to code. I'm sure he also has business interruption insurance, and of course fire insurance.

Forgive my ignorance, but what went wrong for Tourondel at Cello?

I took a brief look at Megu about a week ago. The decor just screams "Wow!" It really is a must-see, and they don't mind at all if you come in just to sight-see. Sam Sifton's review pointed out both of the raps against Megu, already noted by others: it is very expensive, and the menu is extremely confusing. On my visit, two drinks and two small pieces of sushi set me back about $45. The bartender offered me hand-ground wasabe, which seemed to require considerable effort. The menu goes on for pages and pages, and an awful lot of the items are unfamiliar to American diners. I pointed to a $55 item and asked the bartender whether it was an appetizer or a main course. He said that he thought it was an appetizer. On Megu's menu, you really cannot tell.

A very reasonable question. The internal memo referred to his past food writings. Whether they demonstrate significant aptitude, as opposed to slight apptitude, is something I'm as eager to know as the rest of us. I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing here. This would seem to argue against a populist, learn-on-the-job take on restaurant reviewing. After all, you're saying that the restaurant review has a much larger impact on a restaurant than an opera critic's review has on an opera company. I'm neither pro- or anti-Bruni yet, since he hasn't written a review yet. I was just observing that the opera critic analogy is not entirely apposite. Having the wrong guy in the restaurant reviewing job has far more serious economic consequences for the industry, than having the wrong guy reviewing opera. Of course, those consequences only kick in if he starts seriously under-rating restaurants. Rating too low is only one of many ways a critic could go wrong. I agree, the Times's principal theater critic is in a similar position of influence to that of the restaurant critic. (Musical theater is reviewed by the theater critic, and opera by a classical music critic---a distinction that is at times arbitrary, but that is how it has evolved.)

About the only difference I can see is that Bruni has done some food writing, albeit only as a sidelight, but at least (arguably) enough to demonstrate an aptitude for the subject. Had Bruni written some opera articles and demonstrated aptitude for that subject, his appointment as an opera critic would be acceptable to me. The situation is also very different, because the Times has several classical music critics, and a bad review can't shut an opera production down the way a bad review can kill a restaurant.

A good deal of them are ambiguous, but it's almost impossible to believe she met him only once. She JGV on June 10, 1998. The quote sounds conversational, though it could have been a phone interview.On May 19, 1999, she wrotes: "Vongerichten cut into his dish...." That sounds like an observation in person. The article suggests she watched him make the dish, not that she was quoting from a recipe: "Over it he lays asparagus and ramps, and seasons the stack with salt, enriched chicken stock and vin jaune . . .. He folds it up firmly but roughly . . . . He heats a saute pan brushed with oil, and then lays the foil package directly on top. It inflates like a balloon . . . . " She quotes him again on September 29, 1999. Again, unclear if she saw him in person. An article on December 1, 1999, describes JGV as "doodling" --- a difficult observation to make without meeting him in person. An article on July 19, 2000, says that JVG gave her a recipe. Not absolute proof of a meeting, but had it come through the mail she'd more likely have said sent, rather than gave. No question that they met on March 27, 2002, when she describes JVG personally delivering a carved pineapple on a silver tray. All in all, it sounds like more than one meeting to me, although it's quite possible that Vongerichten only remembered one. Winsome she may be, but I would imagine he meets many like that.

Andy Lynes wrote: It seems like practically none at all. Prior to the Spice Market review, the only thing she said that was arguably critical, was her comment about the $600 tab for two on Valentine's Day at Jean Georges---a comment she made twice. In the Spice Market review itself, she has some slightly negative comments to make about Mercer Kitchen and 66, but this is just the on-ramp to her 3-star review of Spice Market. Andy quotes about 20 articles that mention him. Wasn't Vongerichten quoted recently as saying he had only met Hesser once, and that about 5 years ago? The articles Andy quoted give the distinct impression that they have met more often than that.

Robyn said: Trouble is, the things you're saying you'd leave out are part of the experience for an many, if not most, diners. You can't eat decorations, but being in a beautifully designed space makes a difference. I do think Zagat has the right idea (if not the right ratings) by rating food, service, and decor separately. If all you care about is food, you can ignore the others. Soba noted that the review of Atelier was "one surprise out of many during Grimes' tenure." Grimes gave it three stars, but as I re-read the review, I don't find a single negative comment. Now, a three-star review is a high distinction in itself (or is supposed to be), and there needn't be anything particularly wrong with any restaurant so honored. But Grimes notes that Atelier has "signed on" to the Daniel program, and Daniel is four stars, so the review ought to tell us what's missing.