oakapple

Just for the heck of it, I decided to do a little research. These are the last 6 occasions when the phrase "neighborhood restaurant" has appeared in a New York Times review, along with the restaurant and the rating: Trestle on Tenth (*) Café d'Alsace (**) Pair of 8's (*) Al di Là (**) Convivium Osteria (*) Landmarc (*) There are a ton of other hits for the phrase "neighborhood restaurant," but I limited the links to occurrences within a rated review. But at least it gives an idea of the kinds of places for which that label has been used, at least in recent history. You'll note that the majority are one-star restaurants, and there are certainly no three-star restaurants in the mix.

You've violated oakapple's law. Posts that end in "Period." are always wrong. Here's the quote: I suppose it comes down to what was meant by "roughly equivalent." Or as another statesman once put it, comma, "It depends on what the meaning of is is.

"Neighborhood restaurant" and "destination restaurant" are opposite poles on a scale, like "Democrat" and "Republican." Some restaurants are hybrids, just as some voters are Independents. But most restaurants are pretty much one or the other. The label "neighborhood restaurant," in my experience, is slightly condescending. It generally means, "not very ambitious." It also means, "not worth the trouble, unless you already had some other reason for being in the neighborhood." I disagree that "destination restaurant" is limited to Michelin two and three-star places. In a NYC context, a "destination restaurant" is a restaurant you'd travel outside of your neighborhood to visit. Sripraphai (zero Michelin stars) is a destination restaurant. The whole Meatpacking District is a destination (hardly anyone lives there). "Destination restaurant" doesn't mean "good," by the way. Obviously most restaurants are in a "neighborhood" of some kind. To call a restaurant a "neighborhood restaurant" because it's in a neighborhood is a tautology. There are a few restaurants that virtually no one visits on a whim (Masa, Per Se). But I would caution against tying the definition to price point. There are some wealthy people who treat Daniel as practically a "neighborhood restaurant," whereas to most of us it's a special occasion to dine there. I would also caution against Nathan's definition, "it deals with the intent of the owners." None of us know for sure what Jean-Georges Vongerichten is thinking, and his comments for the press may not tell the whole story. I think it's a safe bet, though, that when a restaurant hires publicists, is featured in all the fall preview issues, is written up in Gourmet, and gets three stars from the Times, the restaurant was aiming at much more than just its neighborhood. There are some exceptions like Little Owl, which opened under the radar and quickly started drawing folks from outside the neighborhood. Little Owl breaks the mold, but it seems to me that most places fall pretty obviously into one camp or the other.

I think there's a big difference between Perry St and Little Owl, and Sneakeater has nailed it. Perry St, with its hired publicists, Jean-Georges Vongerichten as chef, and broad media coverage, is aspiring to something far more. That it also happens to be suitable for its neighborhood is of course true, but almost beside the point.Little Owl opened under the radar, and it so happens the foodies have discovered it.

The first printing sold out in something like 2-3 weeks. In such a short time, it couldn't have been just tourists snapping them up.eGullet regulars need to remember that we're atypical. The fact that some of us turned up our noses isn't a good indicator of what the general public did.

Every restaurant in the world is literally in a neighborhood of some kind. And every diner in the world is somewhat more likely to patronize restaurants in his or her neighborhood than elsewhere. If those factors alone made Perry St a "neighborhood restaurant," then you could apply that label indiscriminately all over the place.If "neighborhood restaurant" means anything, it means a restaurant that primarily attracts people who are already in the neighborhood for some other reason (they live there, they have business there, they are seeing a show there). I don't think there's any reasonable argument that Perry St is meant to make its living on that type of business. Those towers aren't big enough to support it. Rather, Perry St is drawing crowds from outside of the neighborhood, because it offers an excellent rendition of Vongerichten's cuisine at a much lower price point than the flagship. Yes, of course people who live in that area use it too. That doesn't make it a "neighborhood restaurant," any more than Alain Ducasse is a neighborhood restaurant for the people who live on Central Park South.

My girlfriend and I both bought it, and while it's not the primary reference for either one of us, we don't own Zagat.

I agree. As far as the food goes, Bruni was as enthusiastic as he has ever been.

A much-abused term. Perry St is not a neighborhood restaurant.

It's quite obviously an overt decision to not have a tasting menu here. I mean, it would have been such an obvious thing to do. Maybe they want to avoid the "Jean-Georges lite" moniker.

Has anyone found an online menu? What do they serve, aside from the predictable steakhouse items?

I'm not in the restaurant business, but that sounds right to me. Especially with out-of-town tourists, the Michelin guide is surely influential. I've no doubt at all that chefs do indeed put it on their resumés if they've worked at a starred restaurant. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that Zagat ratings do matter to a restaurant's bottom line. (Their accuracy is a whole other ball game.)

As the Michelin folks have explained it, a restaurant can get one star for being exemplary in its category. This explains the stars for places like Spotted Pig, Etats-Unis, Peter Luger, Jewel Bako, etc. I am not saying those would have been my choices—only that that's the meta-theory on which they were selected. But a restaurant can also get one star if it's "haute cuisine," but not "haute enough" for two or three. Hence: March, Gotham Bar & Grill, Gramercy Tavern. The Spotted Pig has expanded since last year's rating, and some people say they haven't kept up the quality. I think Spotted Pig is high on the endangered list to lose its star; Jewel Bako for similar reasons. You can look at other media outlets that rate restaurants on a numerical scale. There are NY Times stars, NY Mag stars, Gayot.com, and Zagat. All of them have flaws. But if a restaurant is rated very highly on all four, you could say there's a consensus about that restaurant. Those existing ratings, taken together, are a benchmark against which Michelin can be judged. It's not a perfect science, but you can get a rough idea whether the Michelin ratings make sense.When last year's ratings came out, Rich tried to argue that Tasting Room serves four-star food, and any guide that fails to award it a star is unreliable. It turned out, if you looked at the sources mentioned above, there was no such consensus for Tasting Room. This doesn't mean that TR's zero-star status was correct. It only means that, based on a consensus of existing media criticism, it was not incorrect. I trust the difference is clear. There were other restaurants that failed to get starred that probably had a more serious complaint, such as Union Square Café, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, and L'Impero.

He implies that price (along with a bunch of other factors) matters at the one-star level. Basically, a restaurant gets one star for being exemplary in its category. This explains how Babbo and Spotted Pig could both be one star. The printed book doesn't really explain that, and you can understand why the average reader would be perplexed.The two and three-star ratings seem to be more "absolute," and there's no indication that price is taken into account at those levels.

What would you change?Edit: According to http://snack.blogs.com/snack/2006/09/hotsnack_michel.html, this year's edition will eliminate the recipes, printing full menus instead. No other changes are mentioned.

I suspect that many other factors dominate start-up costs. It also depends what was in the space previously.

I reiterate that $9 for steakhouse side dishes isn't all that outrageous. Side dish prices of $7 and $8 are fairly common these days. This restaurant is offering some other items at lower price points, and you have to look at the full picture.

I just made a reservation for Friday. I wouldn't normally post about that, except that the telephone agent was unusually friendly and accommodating —she even asked if we had any allergies, or if it was a special event. Most reservation agents in NYC don't ask those questions.

If STK is following the normal steakhouse model, the sides will be enormous, and perfectly ample for sharing. I don't consider soup a side dish, though.At $9, the sides are a dollar or two more than some other steakhouses, but other items are lower, and overall it evens out. Overall, this is a very typical steakhouse menu, except for the unusual option of offering smaller cuts at a lower price point.

Not that I'm aware of. It would be an awfully difficult effect to study, because there are so many other factors that affect a restaurant's success. When Bruni reviews a neighborhood place that wasn't on other reviewers' radar screens, I'm sure there's a noticeable bump in business that is almost certainly attributable to him. At the other extreme, Bruni certainly didn't do Alto or Gilt any favors when he panned them.On the other hand, there are some places that have continued to do quite well despite adverse Bruni reviews (Café Gray, The Modern).

It looks very Meatpacking-esque

According to Eater, Porter House opens today. Follow the link to get a first look at the new décor. There's a 20% discount through October 8 "while they work out the kinks."

Leonard Kim has demonstrated that Frank Bruni doles out ratings in about the same percentages that Grimes does. He has not expressed a statistical opinion on other controversial points, e.g., proportion of "neighborhood restaurants" awarded two stars, a bias against fine dining (Ducasse, Bouley, Alto, The Modern), an emphasis on celebrity-watching (Bette, Le Cirque, Da Silvano, Brasserie LCB), or the choice of dubious review targets (P. J. Clarke's on the Hudson, Freemans, Indochine).There are only a handful of restaurants where I've disagreed with Bruni's actual rating. But the job is a lot more than assigning a rating.

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't think he did. I think he rambled, as he so often does when the food bores him.

Hey, at least I can walk thru that neighborhood with my 11-year-old son at any hour of the evening. That's a huge step forward from what it was. Is it a dining destination? Of course not.Having said that, there a few places on the side streets off of Times Square that are at least decent, e.g., Virgil's BBQ.