oakapple

What we have here is a culinary Rorschach Test, with everyone seeing what they want to see. If FG's last sentence is true, then we have a paradigm with an "inner circle" consisting of exactly two restaurants, one of which came into existence practically by accident, and the other serving only dessert. This sounds, not like a paradigm, but two rather unusual restaurants.I have been to Ssam Bar and R4D, and don't see a whole lot of similarity, aside from the fact that both have mostly bar seating (R4D exclusively so). R4D is both avant-garde and witty, with Will Goldfarb visible all the time, and interacting directly with diners. R4D also has a much better wine program and comprehension of the connection of wine to food. Though not fancy, it is a more refined space than Ssam Bar. And I wouldn't exactly call it "cheap" either. Great, but not cheap. Ssam Bar, as good as it is, isn't witty or avant-garde at all; chef Chang is mostly in the background; and the wine program sucks. Bouley Upstairs and the Bar Room, as I suggested upthread, are part of a trend, but not the one suggested here. Their kin are Nougatine, the Enoteca at Del Posto (recent review here), and the lounge menus at Daniel, Le Cirque, Gilt, and Gordon Ramsay. If Alain Ducasse re-opens in NYC, apparently he is planning a similar bifurcated concept. I'm hoping to try Degustation tomorrow night.

I am reasonably sure that Bruni was already out. I can't say where I read that, but I think it's pretty widely known (and in general I am far from up-to-date on such things).There is this piece, in which Bruni wrote: "nothing says lovin' like a stud muffin at the oven." That's not something a straight guy writes.

Gilt under Liebrandt was about as expensive as Daniel and Jean Georges, with luxurious service and a very serious wine program. It's hard to believe anyone would put together a restaurant like that, and not be aiming at three stars (or indeed four). And I think Frank Bruni, like most of us, is well aware of that.

I haven't noticed such a soft spot. Just ask Paul Liebrandt. Bruni calls 'em as he sees 'em.But I agree with the 1-star call on Varietal. The trouble is, it might be the kind of restaurant that "needs" two. In Dave H's terminology, the "which-category" of Varietal is two stars, but the "how-good" is just a star. It's clear that he did, because they're in the first person, and if it were someone else, they'd be credited. The style is also quite recognizable.

His orientation is irrelevant. But Bruni is indeed openly gay, and it adds a layer of humor to the review if you happen to know this.

I don't mind the one-star rating if the steak is, in fact, as good as he says. When I visited, it was not. Even the best steakhouses, alas, serve a mediocre hunk of beef sometimes. Given the price premium and out-of-the-way location, I won't be giving them a second chance anytime soon. By the way, the subject of critic anonymity comes up here from time to time. This is one restaurant where, I would guess, Bruni was not recognized on most of his visits, or indeed, conceivably all of them.

I do sorta see the similarities shared by the places you're mentioning. But because there are so few of them that everyone agrees on, I remain a little skeptical that there is an actual trend here.

You don't design a rating system for one restaurant. I'm not convinced that Ssam Bar is so anomalous that it breaks the system.I could make a long list of restaurants that are one-of-a-kind for different reasons. If you're going to have a rating system at all (and I know some people think we shouldn't), the exceptions just have to fit in somehow. I actually think that Ssam Bar's excellence would be more apparent if it had four stars on the $25-and-under scale, instead of having two stars on the fine-dining scale.

I think you've misapprised the "Miller system." Just like Bruni, Miller would deliver zero, one, and two-star "smackdown" reviews to underperforming luxury restaurants.The Modern has garnered a number of positive reviews from reputable journalists, and it also has a Michelin star. You could put together a credible case that Bruni got that one wrong. It's probably too soon to tell about Gordon Ramsay; it's been open for only three months. I agree with you about the others.

Another problem is that the one and two-star categories have gotten somewhat corrupted. Literally, two stars means "very good." When you read the text of Bruni's Le Cirque review, it doesn't really sound that good. The reason is that Le Cirque is (in Bruni's opinion) an under-performing three-star restaurant. The system would actually be clearer if the only choices for Le Cirque were three or zero. If Le Cirque is charging three-star prices and can't sincerely be recommended at that level, it should get zero. Then, two stars really would mean "very good."

If you separate how-good from which-category, the implication is that the best restaurant of each kind gets four stars. I've no objection to a system that works that way, but it would instantly invalidate all of the existing ratings. For that reason, among others, I don't really see it happening.New York Magazine's system of parallel star ratings for casual restaurants is the best solution I've seen that stays more-or-less within the traditional parameters (and hence, is something I could actually see the Times doing). The $25-and-Under ceiling should be raised, and the editors should more rigorously enforce the boundaries. Frank Bruni, or whoever is in that job, should stick to fine dining. If that bores him (and I believe it does), he is in the wrong job. I do think that separate ratings for food, service, and ambiance would help to clarify the basis for the ratings.

And which exact ethics rule says that a review of a steakhouse in a strip club can't be on Page 1 of the dining section?

Robert's Steakhouse has garnered praise from a number of serious food journalists. It so happens I liked the scenery better than the food when I dined there, but I seem to be in the minority. The fact that it's in a strip club shouldn't make it ineligible to be reviewed.There are complaints on this thread every time Bruni reviews a steakhouse, because some people think that steakhouses should never be reviewed, but I think it's a legitimate genre. Unless the Times is going to pay someone to review only steakhouses, they're part of Bruni's territory. Claiborne, Sheraton, Reichl et al reviewed them too. The review itself won't win any awards for excellence in culinary journalism, but none of Frank Bruni's pieces ever will.

I think it has happened gradually, as old restaurants close (or get demoted), and new ones get the top ranking. I haven't seen a report yet from anyone who has dined at both Royal Hospital Road and The London Hotel. Are they in fact equal?

Probably not, but I assumed the poster was referring to Lutece as it originally was. What Soltner would do today is imponderable. If Daniel opened de novo, I don't think it would get four stars from Frank Bruni. As it is, Daniel is the only remaining four-star restaurant that he hasn't either reviewed or re-reviewed. Based on some offhand comments Bruni made in a Diner's Journal write-up of Café Boulud, Daniel could be at risk.

I sort of thought Fatty Crab did meet the paradigm. Although I've been to most of the restaurants named so far, clearly I am not getting it. I agree that Perry St. doesn't fit what FG was literally looking for. It's not what I'd call cheap, for one thing. But Perry St. does exemplify the general trend for putting haute cuisine in more casual surroundings than it traditionally appears.

What about Lutece? Would that still get four stars today? ← It has been many years since a restaurant in that genre has had four stars, so you have to assume that it can't happen any more.Beyond that, the current critical environment (and I don't just mean Frank Bruni) isn't favorably disposed to that kind of restaurant. So, even if someone wanted to, they'd be a fool to open another Lutece, and believe they had a shot at four stars.

So far, it still looks like a short list of places with very tenuous similarities, while other apparently similar places are conveniently excluded because they don't support the desired conclusion.

Uni and truffles weren't mentioned in the Bruni review, and I don't recall seeing them on the menu when I was there. But I hear that Chang is experimenting every day, so perhaps they're in one day, out the next. The artisanal hams FG mentioned are good examples.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

Places like The Four Seasons can run on reputation more-or-less indefinitely. The question is whether a new place of that kind could exist.

Whoever started this thread wasn't clear about what he meant by "annoying." But I didn't take it as a synonym for "bad." I think the more compelling suggestions are those restaurants that have some annoying traits, amongst other attributes that would actually make them worth coming back for. Otherwise, what's the difference between "annoying" and just plain "bad"?