Nathan

I disagree with pretty much 100% of your post, but perhaps most with this statement. Perhaps you don't deal with any young, wealthy New Yorkers, but I do all the time, and I can assure you that your personal preferences, no matter how strongly held, don't neatly project on to them as a group. Sure, some wealthy people are too impatient to wait for a table -- some poor people are too impatient too. But plenty of millionaires are are just fine with it. We're not talking about standing on line with a black hood and handcuffs on. If you go to Upstairs you can wait in the market or downstairs. You can have a cocktail while you wait. You can talk to the people you came with, or you can flirt with other waiting customers. You can conduct business on your Treo. You can send one person ahead to get on the waiting list and the rest of the group can show up later on. At a lot of places where they make you wait for tables, they'll even take your cell number and call you, so you can go to a nearby bar and hang out. Not to mention, most places have informal ways for regulars to make fake reservations, in other words they'll put you at the front of the line. And even if you wait 30-45 minutes for a table at one of these places you're still in and out in less time than at a fine-dining restaurant. I assure you, there are plenty of millionaires dining at Upstairs. I know one who ate there two days ago -- and she's in her fifties. Plus, plenty of people wait half an hour for tables at fine-dining restaurants where they have reservations -- it happens all the time. People wait. ← A millionaire - they're a dime a dozen these days - is quite a bit different than the investment banker who's making $5 million a year. I would believe that a person like that had a "fake reservation" - but not that that person would wait on line for an hour under any circumstances. BTW - under the category of "fake reservations" - do you also get situations where the right amount of money in the right hands will take you "to the head of the line"? That seems to work in various restaurants in various parts of the world. Whatever - I'm sure that there is an updated version of "Fully Committed" lurking there. For those of you unfamiliar with Fully Committed - it was an off Broadway show about reservations and seating in a very popular restaurant - doesn't sound like much meat for a show - but it was hilarious. Robyn ← with all due respect, you have no clue what you're talking about. young i-bankers is exactly what I know...and some of them are waiting for two hours for a table at Little Owl like anyone else (and no amount of money will ever get you to jump the line there...they have too much integrity for that)....or even lining up at Tartine with a bottle of wine just like anyone else. frankly, I don't think you understand downtown Manhattan at all. edit: btw, having lived in South Florida, I completely agree that no one making 5 million there would ever wait in line anywhere...but then most people there make L.A. denizens look substantive and cerebral.

I don't know. considering that apps are like $6 or $7...they couldn't do that without losing money. you're better off just not eating half of it.

brunch at Pastis actually gets people from the neighborhood...unlike dinner. I liked Buddha Bar more than Morimoto..but that's not saying much.

Bruni is biased against knowledgeable sommeliers?

I think you mean Beyoglu (I confused it with Pasha on this board awhile back). Did he ever have anything to do with Turkish kitchen?

He gave Porterhouse a good review...and The Modern and GR reviews were more lukewarm then downright negative.

Your definitions are obvious only to you. 1. what the heck does the fact that Per Se opened before he took the job have to do with anything. he still reviewed Per Se de novo (which apparently is the only review that counts in your book)... 2. on what planet is Gilt a traditional luxury restaurant while Robuchon and Per Se are not? there was nothing traditional about Gilt besides the cost. I don't see your case for The Modern either. As for a fricking steakhouse? that doesn't even pass the smell test. Le Cirque? Um, your own criteria excluded pre-existing and pre-reviewed restaurants. (oh wait, I see, you want to stick to fancy server-wear...well, actually, a lot more places have opened that fit that definition...begin with Philippe and Frederick's and go from there...heck, maybe Wolfgang's for all I know) Eleven Madison Park merely changed chefs? um, wtf? seriously. I'd say that a restaurant that changes chefs and serves different food, entirely different food, might well be considered a new restaurant. but maybe that's just the planet I'm on. but I'll tell you what, take Le Cirque off your list and I'll take EMP off mine. sounds even to me. finally, Cru is Italian inspired? I'd say that it's more Bouley inspired than anything else. so I don't get that exclusion. of course, it's more likely that the place you meant to say was A Voce. but since you brought it up...add Cru to Country, RTR and GR. in that case, Bruni has given half of those restaurants three stars.

lol...based upon the restaurants that you're excluding from that definition (Robuchon, Per Se, Masa, Perry Street) as well as your arbitrary exclusion of completely revamped existing restaurants (Picholine, Eleven Madison Park)...it's clear that only three "traditional" non-Italian luxury restaurants have opened during Bruni's tenure: Country, Russian Tea Room and Gordon Ramsay. (you don't get to exclude the foregoing and then not also exclude Gilt and The Modern.) so he's batting 33%. so you're proving what exactly? a sample has to have more than three members to have statistical significance you know....and it's not like the Russian Tea Room really counts.

I'm all for dumping the stars and following the same format as the other Times' reviews. A written review and the addition or non-addition of a "Critic's pick" signifier.

I recall the review perfectly well. What Bruni said was essentially that Keller's and Benno's ability to somehow make even a vegetarian menu great was the truest demonstration of his skill. Indeed, Chang couldn't do that!

1. I don't know if he was saying that...if he was, I think he's absolutely right. The current 20-40 generation of foodies is probably the most knowledgeable and demanding one in history. Considering what we're exposed to how could we not be? (that there are individuals with amazing lifelong stores of culinary knowledge is obvious -- think Wells or Richman.) 2. Your criticism of Bruni's Per Se remarks is valid. Of course, it also runs counter to your general argument. The interesting thing about Bruni is that his culinary tastes (with the exception of Asian cuisines) are fundamentally conservative. He didn't get Alinea or Gilt and didn't like the more avant garde aspects of Per Se. (I do think that a lot of people find those menu descriptions to be too precious.)

of course, I know of some pretty experienced (and not necessarily young) diners who prefer the Bar Room to The Modern proper. people have been saying the same thing about the Tavern Room at GT for years. I agree with your grading comment...see above.

put differently, of course Bruni prefers casual dining. he's in touch with the contemporary zeitgeist in that respect. I don't see the problem (his culinary acumen is a separate issue). but the fact of the matter is that he has handed out four and three stars to a number of haute, luxury restaurants. it's not like he gave four stars to Ssam Bar and two to Per Se. (you might be able to make the argument that he is more demanding of luxe establishments than casual ones -- which I think is true and even defensible on value grounds -- but that's not the argument you've been making.) but you haven't produced evidence that he has a blanket antipathy to formal dining. Bruni said that there is a category of diners who don't like stuffy and overpriced restaurants. nowhere does he say that all formal restaurants are stuffy and overpriced.

The only category mentioned was "stuffy" and "overpriced"...without specific examples...a category which is prima facie worth denigrating. I do find it interesting that you automatically assumed that Daniel fit in this category. Personally, I was thinking Cafe des Artistes. Anyway, I'm gathering from the above that you are withdrawing your characterization of Bruni's review as a "polemic"

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. You said "all true," so apparently I've convinced you that Bruni isn't favorably disposed to traditional "luxury" dining, and that hostility was on display in the Ssam review.The Ssam review wasn't written primarily to launch an assault on fine dining. He started that assault the day he arrived, and this was merely the latest installment. What's noteworthy is that those comments were totally unnecessary. It's possible to write a glowing review of Ssam Bar without denigrating other categories of restaurants; others have done it. The trouble is that high-end restaurants are a big part of his job; indeed, the main part of it. I'm sure there is a whole category of diners for whom Ssam Bar is as close to "fine dining" as they ever get, or want to get. But those diners shouldn't be the principal restaurant critic of the New York Times. Bruni referred to a whole category of restaurants, not one in particular. If Daniel isn't in that category, I don't know what is. I simply chose Daniel as an example, because he has commented on it before.I am guessing he didn't mean "bad, overpriced restaurants." To say that Ssam Bar is better than The Russian Tea Room or Ninja would be a fairly empty statement. ← Funny...I thought that mediocre, overly formal, overpriced restaurants is exactly what he meant. That Bruni is hostile to some formal restaurants is manifestly true (just as he is to some "casual" restaurants....i.e. Freeman's). Nowhere have you produced any evidence that he is opposed to formal or "luxury" restaurants as a category. You keep inserting words into his mouth. The fact that Bruni thinks that some restaurants are "stuffy" or "stratospherically overpriced" is obvious...nowhere has he said that all luxe establishments are so...indeed, he obviously does not think so since he has given some of them four stars. I'd rather work with the facts on the page, not some analysis of Bruni's psyche. Please produce evident that Bruni was referring to the entire category of formal or luxe restaurants. You made the claim. Back it.

I'm tempted to say MNO, but I went to Alain Ducasse last year (for someone else's birthday) and that was a little over the top for me. I've also been to Blue Hill at Stone Barns for a wonderful experience. The view from the Mandarin Hotel bar is impressive. At the other end of the spectrum, no Blue Smoke or casual joints either. I just read Alan Richman's review of the Spotted Pig (Oct ’06) and it sounds too cramped for space for my tastes. Still, who shows up there and when? I like eating dinner at 8:00 instead of midnight. Descriptions of Mr. Chow (W. 57th St location) indicate its high status in the ’80s ... what is it like today? I read that many migrated to Philippe? Buddakan looks and sounds good. How's the food? How's the scene these days? The menu at Buddha Bar doesn't excite me, looks more like a great place for drinks and apps. What about The Post House? Pastis? L’Atelier de Joël Robuchon? The Little Owl? ← Spotted Pig gets some A-list...but almost never at 8 on a Thursday night. Perry Street has a very high celeb quotient...true A-list (think Bruce Willis almost every week, literally). But not a scene. Excellent food. Pastis, Mr. Chow, etc...are all passe...especially on the weekends. Little Owl has a celeb quotient. Waverly Inn, of course, has the highest single celeb concentration. look, your goals are fundamentally opposed to each other. except for the very beginning of a restaurant...when publicists and celebs are acting in a symbiotic relationship....celebs and "scenes" don't go hand-in-hand (leaving aside rappers and athletes). celebs want to avoid people who are looking to see celebs. which is why Thursday night (being part of the weekend)...is a bad night to see them. NY celebs venture out most to low-key neighborhood restaurants (especially the WV) and on weekday evenings (often quite late). eat at Lupa on Sunday night and you might see the entire cast of Crossing Jordan...that sort of thing...

All I am saying is that those aren't words you'd normally use to describe something you liked. And Bruni fairly consistently uses similar terminology when he reviews or talks about high-end dining establishments.For instance, someone who loves Daniel would probably say that it is fairly priced, not that it is stratospherically priced. In a December 2004 Diner's Journal piece about Cafe Boulud, Bruni had this to say: There's that word "starch" again, clearly indicating he prefers the less formal version of Boulud's cuisine. No one who genuinely liked Daniel wouldn't say it was either "starched" or "self-conscious." You don't say that about things you truly enjoy. ← all true. so how does this make Bruni's review of Ssam Bar a "polemic" against formal dining? edit: of course, Bruni has never referred to Daniel as "stratospherically priced"...so there's a strawman component to your post. indeed, he might very well refer to it as "fairly-priced" if asked.

always tell the bartender ato Babbo that you're waiting for a seat at the bar...not the maitre'd'

When you don't have the information, it is sometimes better not to speculate. In the first place, I agree with Sneakeater that there probably was no "golden age," although there is evidence we may now be in a "dark age."That said, the fact that ratings "yo-yo'd" around may simply mean that the critics were doing their job. As Leonard Kim has repeatedly pointed out, Sheraton and Miller re-reviewed far more often than their successors, so they were in a better position to track year-to-year changes in performance. Obviously, criticism is subjective. There isn't a huge difference between the top end of three stars and the bottom end of four stars. Frank Bruni's demotion of Bouley, for instance, could mean that the restaurant has sagged since Grimes awarded four. Or it could mean that Bruni's tastes are different. Anyone asking for mathematical precision is bound to be disappointed. Bruni is clearly contrasting Momofuku Ssam Bar to another style of restaurant. But in describing that style, he uses the words "starchy" and "effete." Those words are not used as compliments, and they are not dispassionate descriptors. Would you describe something you liked as "effete"?He could quite reasonably have drawn a neutral comparison — describing the difference, without suggesting that the other is undesirable. But that's not his angle. He describes Momofuku Ssam Bar as "unfussy"; in other reviews, he has more than once described traditional luxury dining as "fussy" — again, clearly not a favorable term. No one ever describes a desirable experience as starchy, effete, or fussy. The implication is pretty clear: to Bruni, that type of dining is not appealing. It is even clearer, when you bear in mind that he has said similar things on multiple occasions, so this isn't just a momentary slip-up. There are other signals — "savvy, adventurous diners" refers to people who dine at places like Momofuku Ssam Bar, rather than other places. Those who pay "stratospheric prices" are, in his opinion, less savvy, less adventurous. "Stratospheric," like the rest of his text, is decidedly not neutral. Does this new "generation" even exist? Nathan, its most passionate spokesman here, clearly has much broader dining interests, as is apparent from the wide range of restaurants he comments on. Momofuku Ssam Bar is one example of a restaurant some people want, some of the time. It isn't the only thing they want. ← oh come off it. does anyone dispute that there is such a thing as a "fussy" or "starchy" or stratospherically-priced restaurant? obviously such places exist. how does that make this review a "polemic" (your word...you echoed Gerard's first use of it) against formal dining. I could name several people here that I know personally (which is why I will not name them) who are most certainly part of this "generation."

It is. completely agree on that.

really? here's the Otto wine list. out of the 700+ bottles available...several hundred are under $60 a bottle. http://www.ottopizzeria.com/winelist.html edit: I'd like that fried artichoke recipe too.

good post. there are also places, like the Spotted Pig or Craftsteak, that offer both a "bar menu" and a regular menu at the bar...I imagine that the former is especially aimed at diners waiting for a table.

never, never, never should anyone go to Tao. no NY'ers and no celebs...ergo, no scene beyond tourists and B&T. the OP said he wanted celebs and a scene. Spotted Pig might be the best bet...albeit, the odds of a celeb sighting on a Thursday night is rather spotty (the later you go the better of course....midnight is actually a good time to bump into celebs eating dinner)

The wine by the glass list is indeed superb (though the now defunct della Rovere had something like a 100 Italian wines by the glass). But the Italian wine lists at both Otto and Del Post are much more deep and broad.

I ate here on Friday night. This place is cheap...seriously cheap. unbelievably cheap for Manhattan actually. do they have a sweetheart deal on their rent or something? food was pretty good actually. pastas are a standout -- the portions are large though...it'd be hard to follow a complete appetizer, pasta, entree format here. indeed..some of the entree prices are low enough that I'd question the quality of the meat. we stuck with apps and pastas and were very happy. the wine by the glass list is also excellent and priced well below Manhattan norms.