oakapple

I do realize that no one is suggesting that these restaurants have four-star ratings from the NYT's restaurant critic of this, or any, moment. My point is that people are fairly glib about tossing around comments like "X is capable of producing four-star food." "Y is a four-star pastry chef." "Z is every bit as ambitious as Jean Georges." Over on the NY forum, Rich makes those same comments about the chefs at Tasting Room and The Grocery. Obviously, there is always room for debate about the stars, but I think the blurring of boundaries between haute and casual started in, oh, around 1965 or so. David Chang didn't so much shatter the boundaries, as take just another itsy bitsy incremental step.

Even assuming that to be true, it's not the same thing as saying that David Chang is a four-star chef. There are currently five 4* restaurants in NYC. But the list of chefs, some of whose dishes are 4* quality would be much higher. To be a 4* chef, it does not suffice that you hit the top level some of the time. You have to hit it very nearly all of the time. This, too, is probably an exaggeration. And even if there are one or two dishes on the Bouley Upstairs menu that would be at home in a 4* restaurant, most of them would not be. Until he gets four stars, he isn't. You're wildly exaggerating the quality of the food at these places. Yes, they are very good, and we should be very happy they exist. But to suggest you're going to walk into Degustation and have a four-star meal is just not reality.

Actually, I'm in the second camp (it has existed for a long time), not the first. But if it has existed for a long time, then it's not a "new" paradigm. If the name of the phenomenon were changed to Old Paradigm, then I'd have no argument with the concept. I'd put it a different way. I've counted only about 3 forum contributors who buy into FG's concept hook, line and sinker. The number expressing some degree of reservation with it is far larger. At any given point in history, visiting chefs have flocked to whatever handful of restaurants happened to have the buzz at that particular time.

"Adventurous" isn't exactly the right word for the Ssam Bar menu. True, Chang uses ingredients in combinations not normally seen together. In its day, so did Vong, and many other Asian Fusion places, and that trend is clearly no longer novel.Offal is the one adventurous thing at Ssam Bar, because offal has never gone mainstream. There are still a lot of people who cringe at the idea of a veal head terrine. But like most restaurants that serve offal (e.g., Babbo), Ssam Bar does not depend on its patrons being willing to stick their necks out that far. There's nothing really adventurous about the other things you mentioned. Aside from the steak-and-potatoes set, is there anyone out there who'd say: "Wow, Sichuan peppers! This guy Chang is really far out." The haute/casual dichotomy has been blurring for a very long time. There are plenty of NYC restaurants with serious chefs in a casual atmosphere. Tasting Room is a perfect example. There's probably another half-dozen of them on the Lower East Side alone.Yet another example would be Landmarc: a serious chef in a casual setting with a ground-breaking wine program. Or Hearth, also in the East Village. Foodies were raving about dining at the pass at Hearth, long before Momofuku Ssam Bar was a glimmer in David Chang's eye. Momofuku Ssam Bar seems to me unique, because Chang has almost totally stripped away every amenity other than the food. I can't think of another restaurant where the chasm is so wide between the quality of the food and the quality of every other amenity. To take the other purported examples in turn: At Degustation, like Ssam Bar, patrons sit around a bar. But in every other respect, Degustation has the feel of a real restaurant. The seating is more comfortable; they take reservations; the service is more polished; the wine list is more serious; it's not really all that cheap. Room 4 Dessert, of course, is a dessert bar, which means you've probably already had dinner somewhere else. It's not at all cheap, given that it's dessert. They accept reservations and have a far more serious beverage program than MSB. If there's a trend, it's that pastry chefs are becoming celebrities in their own right, and opening stand-alone restaurants. R4D, P*ONG, and the forthcoming Tailor are examples. I've said it before, but Bar Room and Bouley Upstairs are casual "front rooms" attached to to traditional formal restaurants. There are plenty of NYC restaurants that have this, including Aquavit, Gramercy Tavern, Le Cirque, Gordon Ramsay, and Jean Georges. And that's not counting places like Babbo, where you can walk in casually any night, belly up to the bar, and have the full menu. In other cases, serious chefs have opened casual outposts some distance away from their "mother ship." For instance, Kurt Gutenbrunner, has the formal restaurant Wallse, in the West Village, and the casual sister restaurant, Blaue Gans, in TriBeCa. In some cases, almost the identical dish is offered at both restaurants, but far cheaper at the latter. Another such example is Michael Psilakis, who operates the formal Anthos in East Midtown, and casual Kefi on the Upper West Side. So: If the paradigm is serious cuisine in casual settings, there's a long list of restaurants doing it, and it's hardly new. The 2 or 3 people who actually believe in the New Paradigm insist that their hand-picked examples are truly ground-breaking, and there's nothing else like them. Actually, it's been going on a long time.

This still suffers from the flaw that you're making generalized assumptions about people's reasons for going there. Statements about the chef, the menu, and the ambiance can be easily verified, tested, and debated. Statements about the mind-set of the patrons cannot.I've no issue with "youthful," for while it may or may not be definitionally valid, anyone can walk into the restaurant and verify whether it is true.

I thought Momofuku Ssam Bar was great—for what it is—and I'm 47. There are certain regular forum contributors who repeatedly make gross over-generalizations about the clientele of certain restaurants. They are nearly always wrong, or at least grossly over-stated. Age, at least, is usually ascertainable at sight. Bald assertions about Momofuku Ssam Bar patrons' foodie knowledge or neighborhood-of-residence take the absurdity even farther, because they require mind-reading.

Three of the five restaurants FG named in his article—MSB, Degustation, and Bar Room—are indeed idiosyncratic, though I think the commonalities among them are over-stated. I'll not comment on R4D, since even FG himself agrees it is a marginal example.I don't think there's anything idiosyncratic at all about Bouley Upstairs. It is simply the casual outpost attached to a more formal restaurant, a phenomenon of which there are numerous examples in New York. The only difference is that it's across the street, instead of being in the same physical building. To the extent the paradigm exists, I find Nathan's definintion about 100 times more intelligent than Frank Bruni's. The problem with Bruni's definition is that he can't explain the phenomenon without insulting other types of restaurants, with which he is very clearly uncomfortable (starchy, effete, fussy—all pejorative terms). My only quarrel with Nathan's definition is a fault also shared with Bruni's definition. Bruni said "savvy," Nathan said "knowledgeable." Whichever word you use, it implies you know something about the clientele's "knowledge," when in fact you really don't. All of the other criteria are ascertainable without having to be a mind-reader. I would also assert—though he never came out and said it—that Frank Bruni believes "savvy" people would never waste their time on places like The Modern or (heaven forfend) Le Perigord. Savvy people have many different tastes. More likely, Bruni is just projecting his own mental state onto many other people whom he really knows nothing about.

I agree with the first two. I don't recall the third coming up on the original thread. It's also unmeasurable. We can all look at a Momofuku Ssam Bar menu and see what elements are there. We can't survey the diners as to their level of knowledge.The other problem with "packed" is that it doesn't narrow anything down, since so many places are packed that have none of the other purported elements of the paradigm. In contrast, many lights with red, yellow, and green are in fact traffic lights.

If the New Paradigm exists at all—as you know, I don't think it does—there would need to be clear criteria to identify the next one when it appears. This criterion would be useless, since it applies equally well to Bubba Gump's Shrimp Co.But I do think the ever-shifting descriptors attached to the paradigm give strong evidence of its non-existence. It's a culinary Rorschach Test. People see whatever they want to see, and call it a paradigm.

The purported new paradigm is totally unmoored from any reality. According to Frank Bruni's review this week, Resto has acquired a huge audience. Is Resto new paradigm? Little Owl was packed before the Times reviewed it. Al di La, same deal. Dinosaur Barbecue, same deal. Per Se at the TWC was packed from Day One, before any reviewer had written about it. For that matter, Olive Garden and ESPN SportsZone at Times Square always seem to be packed, but Bruni hasn't reviewed them yet.Back to reality: Momofuku Ssam Bar got tons of publicity, even before Frank Bruni lifted his pen—e.g., this Eater post in early January. Just google Momofuku, and you find that the David Chang publicity machine was in high gear all along. Momofuku Ssam Bar was packed, not because it is new-paradigm, or any kind of paradigm, but because it is good, and because the chef is a savvy self-promoter.

There are many reasons for Zagat's success. The breakout of food, decor, service & cost — good idea though it is — doesn't entirely explain it. It also helps that Zagat is compact and easy-to-absorb. It rates many more restaurants than the Times, and it rates them far more often (annually). I also think the mythology that it's a "survey" — the people's choice, rather than the opinion of a paid critic — gave Zagat something no one else had.I think Bruni says something about the service, if only briefly, in most of his reviews. His "aloof" comment must be taken in light of Bruni's overall hostility to traditional luxury service. He has to give four stars on occasion, and no restaurant is perfect. Even in four-star reviews, he usually expresses mild displeasure at something or other.

Do you think that restaurant customers in general are unaware that the Times published a rave review? Or do you think that Ssam Bar is an unusual phenomenon, to which the norm doesn't apply?Personally, I suspect that the Times review and the Beard Award have both brought in new customers. How could they not? These new customers might remember nothing in detail about the review or the stars, but they'll be aware that the Times loved it.

The restaurant didn't apply those stars to itself. Why is it beholden to them? ← Restaurants have a peculiar love-hate relationship with their stars. I have to assume that Frank Bruni's two-star review of Momofuku Ssam Bar was good for business. But the upshot is that new customers are going to visit the restaurant expecting a "two-star experience" — whatever you think that means.Obviously, David Chang isn't beholden to anyone else's expectations, but he's running a business, which he is trying to expand. Anyone who does that can't ignore customer perceptions. Like it or not, those perceptions are affected by the number of stars the Times awards.

I entirely agree with FG that knowledge is always better than ignorance. But I also think that if it makes a huge difference what you order, or when you go, that's an indication of mediocrity—or worse. Of course, mediocrity is common in the restaurant industry (and everywhere else), so this is a recurring problem. But I don't think the answer is to blame the diner. ("You didn't do your research." "You just don't get this restaurant." "That's not what David Chang is about.") The answer is to blame the restaurant. Obviously, it is also helpful to distinguish the restaurant's virtues and sweet spots, so that those who haven't gone yet won't be caught unaware.

doesn't the first sentence negate the last couple? since price is officially taken into account doesn't it conceivably follow that a restaurant which would be one-star if it was expensive become a two star if it's cheap? ← "Conceivably" sets a rather low bar, so yes, it does conceivably follow. But the Times doesn't say how the various factors are weighted, and actual critic behavior drifts over the years. Leonard Kim has documented how various critics' star weightings and reviewing practices change over time, without any "official utterance" from the paper that they're changing their policy. The official description of "what the stars mean" has also been changed on occasion, though it's not clear to me that any reviewer actually started doing his or her job differently because of it.Bruni himself has said that the stars are basically just a measure of how "excited" he is about returning to the restaurant. So yeah, he's within his rights to give two stars to Resto. He's also within his rights to give it four. And we're within our rights to point out the mess he's making.

What it started out to be no longer matters. I do agree that the EV isn't a business-lunching destination. That does not mean that 100% of the dinner menu must be abandoned at lunch. Many restaurants have different offerings at lunch. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.If he's not actually serving "real Ssam" at lunch, then frankly he's earned whatever criticism he gets when people come into a restaurant called "Ssam Bar," even at lunch, and are disappointed.

Today, Frank Bruni reviews Resto, awarding two stars. There's good and bad in this. I've suggested that Bruni should spend more time on restaurants that haven't gotten as much publicity as they deserve. Resto fits the bill. Though not totally ignored, it hasn't gotten the widespread critical attention of, say, Anthos. I haven't dined at Resto, but if it's as good as he said, I'm glad he made the effort to bring it to our attention. In the past, this restaurant would have fallen squarely in Eric Asimov's $25 & Under beat. But with Peter Meehan now reviewing taco trucks, places like Resto are Bruni's to cover. More commonly, they just don't get covered at all. Resto is a rare exception. The Times reviewing criteria say that the stars take price into account. Today, Frank came right out and said that Resto, despite some serious limitations, gets two stars mainly because it's so cheap. Unfortunately, this leads to the two-star category being all-but meaningless. The fact is, Resto's two-star chops are rather flimsy. It should be one star, and would be if one star meant what the paper says it means: good. Given that Belgian food is rare, Bruni missed an opportunity to do a useful double-review — say, Resto and the recently relocated Markt. In a Critic's Notebook piece, Bruni covers Marc Vetri's two Italian places in Philadelphia. Just as he did with Mozza a few weeks ago, he took an out-of-town trip, to a city where the Times doesn't usually cover restaurants, and all he could come up with was an Italian place. The story was interesting, and at least the restaurants did seem to be the kind that warrants attention from the NYT's chief critic. But once again, it's Italian.

No reason you can't do all of the above, really. ← Well sure, if you're into stress, acid reflux and perpetual inner turmoil! ← I'm feeling quite calm today. And any visit I pay to MSB would almost certainly be at dinner—though, curiously, this thread has now made me curious about lunch.

I think we all agree about the first sentence. But it does not mean that a restaurant's business model is off-limits to rational criticism. Chang's adoring fans seem to cut him a lot of slack that would not ordinarily be granted to others.I visited Ssam Bar at dinner, and liked it. I have no axe to grind against the restaurant, or against David Chang. But what he's doing at lunch is dumb. Or at least, it appears to be. Now, if someone wants to argue that this is really smart, let's have that discussion. Instead, we have posts that say, "You don't get David Chang. You have to accept David Chang on his own terms." Or words to that effect. As if he is obeying some kind of natural law by serving mediocre food at lunch. Or as if he grew up in a foreign culture where, by custom, lunch was always served this way. Or as if he is a Great Artist, and Great Art must not be questioned. None of this is so. Momofuku Ssam Bar is a totally invented concept, and it came about mostly by accident. Fifteen minutes from now, that concept could be something else entirely, depending on David Chang's mood when he wakes up.

... and ... These comments are mirror-images of each other. FG suggests that it's our job to adjust to the restaurant. DutchMuse wonders why the restaurant doesn't adjust to its customers. FG celebrates the cult of the chef. David Chang is a genius, so whatever he does must be accepted on its own terms. Shame on those who haven't done their homework. DutchMuse sees the restaurant as a commercial venture, and wonders why the guy in charge is putting out a mediocre product half the time. The "accept him on his own terms" idea can be taken to ridiculous lengths. Chang isn't Michelangelo, and Momofuku Ssam Bar isn't the Sistine Chapel. The lunch menu isn't a religion; it's a business. It's also a work-in-progress, and next week it could be something different than it is today. If it makes sense to change the lunch menu, and if Chang isn't stupid, he'll change it. If it makes no sense, or if he is stupid, he won't.

But in essence, if they're going to a David Chang restaurant, some sort of research has already been done. Just do a little more. ← This perpetuates the unfortunate myth that David Chang's restaurants are somehow a paradigm unto themselves. Obviously, a pre-planned meal at any restaurant implies some level of forethought. That includes very casual levels of planning, such as "Hey, I hear that Momofuku guy won some kind of award. Let's check it out." If you're calling that "research" ... ... okay.The peculiar way David Chang is running his restaurant is counter-intuitive. Offhand, I can't actually think of another one like it; it's certainly not the norm. If it's a "New Paradigm," that paradigm isn't so well known that you can just presume everyone knows about it. Chang is going to have more people like Mimi Sheraton coming in at lunch, and leaving perplexed. He's a big boy, and can decide for himself whether that's what he wants.

Well, why shoudn't the patrons know? They know when they go to a place like Per Se that they're gonna drop some major cash. They know when they go to a Grand Sichuan that they're getting some kind of Chinese food. They know when the go to Joe's Shanghai that they're waiting on line to get soup dumplings, so why shouldn't they know when they go to Ssam bar at lunch, they're pretty much getting a ssam? ← There's always the old "reasonable man" test. If someone goes into Per Se for a quick burger and fries, that's not reasonable. If someone goes into Joe's Shanghai, and doesn't know it's a Chinese restaurant, that's not reasonnable.But it's not normal for a restaurant's lunch menu to be so different from its dinner menu, that it amounts to two different restaurants. One could quite reasonably walk into Ssam Bar, with the very sane assumption that some version of the dinner menu—perhaps slimmed down, but still recognizable—is available at lunch. It is always helpful to be an educated consumer. But restaurant dining shouldn't be a research project. It can be highly rewarding if you happen to have the time and inclination for it (as most of us here do), but it isn't essential at any fine restaurant, and never should be. If you say "X is great...but you have to know when to go, and what to order," it's equivalent to saying "X, for the most part, is mediocre."

You know...I knew someone would say that, but that's not what I was suggesting. You need to read my post in the context of the whole thread.What I said was that Ssam Bar is going to attract more & more patrons who don't know—and can't be presumed to know—that the lunch menu is so fundamentally different that it amounts to a separate restaurant. Those patrons will expect to find the kind of food that gets two stars from the Times and a James Beard Rising Star award. They're not going to find it, and they're going to be disappointed—just as Mimi Sheraton was. My "nosedive" comment needs to be read in that light. I think Sheraton knew that the wrap wasn't meant to be taken apart. She was taking it apart to see how the individual ingredients were prepared—probably an instinctive gesture for someone who used to review restaurants as a professional.

None from me.But he needs to realize that Mimi Sheraton probably isn't the first, and she surely won't be the last, person to visit the "lunch restaurant," expecting something more like the "dinner restaurant." That's what the "normal" patron is going to assume, and Mimi is surely more savvy than most. As Chang's reputation builds, he cannot continue to assume that every visitor knows "the history" of the restaurant. I don't run Chang's business for him. He's going to have to decide whether he wants to keep deflating people's expectations. There's clearly no reason why some of the dinner menu couldn't be served at lunch also. The fact that different people are in the kitchen at lunch is irrelevant. That's what recipes and training are for. Jean-Georges Vongerichten has built a whole industry out of recipes that other people execute on his behalf. As Chang opens more & more Momofukus all over town, he's going to have to find ways to ensure that the product doesn't take a nosedive when he is physically absent.

That's true of many restaurants.