Nathan

the following should not be deemed as constituting a legal opinion or advice in anyway whatsoever: I'll put it this way: there are significant issues with deliberately recruiting only female sommeliers. I have a hard time believing he has the approval of counsel. Hooters is inapposite. lawyers for Hooters have argued (rather convincingly) that Hooters is not solely a restaurant but rather akin to a strip club that also serves food and that its female-only waitstaff are necessary for its commercial survival. in other words, Hooters has asserted (admitted?) that customers go to Hooters for its severs' pulchritude, not for its wings. I don't see Le Cirque as making this sort of argument.

there is a glossary on the back of the Lupa menu. wines at Lupa (like all Batali/Bastianich restaurants (except for Bar Jamon/Casa Mono and I presume the theater district bistro)) have always been served by the quartino or bottle. in my experience this is actually one of the most praised aspects of dining at their restaurants (the pricing of the quartinos is comparable to the glass price for many of the same wines at other restaurants). I'm a little surprised you found this discomfiting. I will say that in my experience the best things on the menu at Lupa are whatever version of the pork shoulder dish they're serving (the preparation rotates) and the ricotta gnocchi (the best in the city imo). I also had a fantastic salad of pork shoulder, lightly braised fennel (still with plenty of crunch), red onion, olive oil and a light citrus vinagrette last week. alas, the sweetbreads were eh...

"It probably just comes down to an individual choice of what level of importance ambiance plays in having a good meal - and everyone has a different degree of tolerance. I have a friend who goes nuts if his water glass isn't constantly filled and that wouldn't bother me at all unless I was eating at a place in the Sahara. Different strokes... " Word. Bruni, of course, is not writing for egullet. He's writing for the average, somewhat sophisticated but not overly foodie NY Times restaurant review reader. Decor and service is going to matter a great deal to that reader as part of the overall "dining experience."

I'll put it this way...the room at Urena is bright enough that you consistently notice it the entire time that you are there. Most ambience issues are noted and forgotten (i.e. the kitchen having the best view at Cafe Gray) once you get into the food. That's impossible at Urena. I don't think it's just lighting to get them to 3 stars....its lighting plus service....

I agree that it is a problem with the star system...whether it outweighs the merits of the star system is a separate question. going back to Urena...I don't think Bruni was indicating that the food at Urena is "better" than the cooking at Del Posto...however, dollar for dollar the food may well be better at Urena...but than that's always true of luxe places...diminishing returns are inevitable...which is why luxe places always have to offer more than just food to justify the prices.

rich, a couple points: 1. the decor at Urena is lousy, really lousy. its a serious distraction from the food. and it looks really cheap. I've never seen a restaurant with a sharper discontinuity between the food and the room. 2. he also commented on the amateurishness of the service. all of these are factors that go into the dining experience for most people, maybe not for you (I don't care that much either). 3. Del Posto was aiming for the stars and charging much more. Urena is clearly aimed at two stars -- Bruni basically said that "you have a three star restaurant if you just figure out the ambience and service" if I were them I'd be exhilarated, he could have gotten away with giving them one star. if Del Posto was charging Urena's prices and wasn't so consciously aimed at four stars you might have seen a much more favorable review...in terms of what he said about the food. you can't compare these restaurants in a vacuum.

the review seemed to be saying that Urena has the worst ambience of a restaurant of its caliber in NY...thus the emphasis. I remember thinking something along that line when I was there.

many of the ingredients are Spanish based...he never said that it was "traditional" Catalan or the like. but would one be flabbergasted to find this type of cooking in Spain today? no. labels have their uses, they're even necessary...but their exact definitions tend to be in flux. Bruni described Urena as using ingredients associated with Spain but utilizing modern French techniques .... that's pretty accurate in my opinion. as for the stars...I think it was clear that the review basically stated that this was 3, almost 4 star cooking (especially considering the prices) brought down by the decor...the criteria for Times stars clearly states that other factors besides food are taken into account.

I have to say, having been to Urena, that Bruni's review was exactly on point. Indeed, was he cheerleading for a restaurant, practically begging people to go? Two stars for a restaurant with the most negative comments on decor he's ever given (and not positive comments on service either -- the service I had was fine) says something about how much he liked the food...(a judgment I agree with)...

actually, the chicken soup is the best thing I've had on the menu....best chicken soup I've ever had. it's all about the broth.

I was there for lunch on Monday as well...the sea scallop (touched with sea salt) was the single most unctious item I have had in a long, long time....

I've always sat facing the kitchen...that's where most of the seats are.

so i shouldn't even think about trying to wedge in on a weekend? u.e. ← I've eaten there several times on a weekend and never had a problem (granted that I tend to eat at 3 not 1 on Saturday or Sunday)...its busy but so long as you're just one or two people it's not a problem...

There is no overlap whatsoever between the Bar Room menu and the dining room. In fact, I believe they even have separate kitchens. The Bar Room menu is intended to be creative takes on dishes from Kreuther's native Alsace. The dining room is much more ambitious in scope. They are two entirely different restaurants, only sharing the same bathrooms, coatcheck and executive chef.

The old Clarke's is a NY landmark. So is Nathan's Hot Dogs. That doesn't mean it merits one of Frank Bruni's 52 reviewing slots this year.The fact that the Times has such a large circulation base is the very reason why this review is so meaningless. I really question who will be interested in this review, given the way it turned out. As it is, the Financial District does not really attract diners, except for those who already have some non-food reason for being there. Had he chosen to review a restaurant he could actually recommend, it might have had some value. Frank Bruni is in no danger of becoming another Andrea Strong. His one, two, and even three-star reviews contain plenty of complaints.Long before Bruni took over, the zero-star rating had become a statistically insignificant rarity. I don't know why Bruni decided to review this restaurant, but I'd be surprised if the reason was, "I haven't written a zero-star review lately, and I thought it was overdue." Gimme a break. Given that Bruni does not purport to review every available restaurant, every review—regardless of the number of stars—should fulfill a journalistic purpose. I've no problem with the idea of a zero-star review, but I object to this one in particular. The main critic seldom covers this type of restaurant, and the Times devotes practically no coverage to restaurants below Chambers Street. So, why not pick a place that he could write about with some enthusiasm? ← I would think that he picks the restaurant to review before knowing the number of stars it will garner. Given that, wasn't/isn't there a possibility that J.P.C. is the best restaurant below Chambers?

You're all wrong. First, he did mention the burgers. Second, P.J. Clarke's is a historical NY landmark...as much as say Keen's (and he noted that the steaks and raw bar were fine at Clarke's)....unlike Red Lobster. This review will be of interest to many people. Last time I checked, the NY Times had a larger circulation than just egullet subscribers. Third, why review a place that you're going to give only a satisfactory rating too? Cause you have to have a few of those. Otherwise, everyone here would be attacking Bruni for only giving good reviews and for grade inflation. Look, there are many legitimate things to criticize Bruni for (including within this review), but sometimes I think he can't win....and you oversell your points because of it. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he only reviews good restaurants he'll be attacked for being Andrea Strong and purportedly never finding a restaurant he doesn't like (besides Morimoto)...if he gives a bad review it was a waste because he should have saved the space for a good restaurant.

yup...its very bouley. as I noted above, the PR was misleading...it's a very fine restaurant...just forget all the molecular stuff...

I genuinely, non-rhetorically, honestly don't get that. Why would that be any different from unfavorable contrasts between Del Posto and Babbo if Mario were the chef? Or unfavorable contrasts between Jovia and Sumile? Or between any of a number of other cases where the same chef runs two restaurants and you like one much more than the other? ← stylistic...I have met or read quite a few people who much prefer Lupa to Babbo (and I can see their argument)...often their arguments for Lupa tend to work along the lines of "Ladner's cooking is simple and rustic while Batali uses too many ingredients in an over-the-top way at Babbo"... the latter-criticism is already applied to Del Posto (it certainly appears to be more like Babbo than Lupa)...and I'm not saying the criticism doesn't have validity...merely that some would be shocked to discover that the Lupa and Del Posto menus were created by the same person.

So if Del Posto fired Batali and replaced him with....say Lidia???? ← Mark Ladner is officially the chef at Del Posto. ← Now it makes sense. How can a person with a non-Italian surname be expected to prepare Italian food? If he's the chef - what do they call Batali? The Pope? Or just "Papa?" ← Heh. I will point out that I am (or will be) amused by unfavorable contrasts between Lupa and Del Posto considering that Ladner is technically responsible for both menus and kitchens. (My surmise is that he has a relatively free hand in the Lupa kitchen but that Mario and Lidia have considerable input at Del Posto.)

So if Del Posto fired Batali and replaced him with....say Lidia???? ← Mark Ladner is officially the chef at Del Posto.

I think you meant Babbo and Del Posto. ← no...I meant Babbo and Lupa. ← You say that Lupa was "clearly intended...to be a 3-star restaurant." Lupa has never had a rated New York Times review. Eric Asimov covered it in $25 & Under on November 10, 1999. If you are correct, then a restaurant with 3-star aspirations wound up with zero stars....zero. If they had been gunning for 3 stars, that would be a total failure. Babbo has been three stars all along, and I don't recall anyone before suggesting that this was a step below their aspirations. We know this isn't the case, because while they were building Del Posto, the owners (the same people) described it as the first all-out push to build a 4-star Italian restaurant. By implication, then, Babbo was not an attempt at a 4-star Italian restaurant. ← I'm sorry...I realize now that I wasn't clear. It wasn't meant as a one-to-one analogy. I merely meant that Babbo and Lupa serve food in the same genre...but one is clearly more casual and a little less refined than the other.

why? it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa. two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant. But they're both making the same type of food. the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant. ← I think you meant Babbo and Del Posto. ← no...I meant Babbo and Lupa.

why? it's like comparing Babbo and Lupa. two restaurants in exactly the same milieu...one is clearly intended to be casual (albeit expensive) and one is intended to be extremely refined and elegant. But they're both making the same type of food. the first is intended to be a 3-star (I think)...the second is clearly aimed at being a four-star restaurant.

I am quite certain that WD-50 was not intended to be a four-star restaurant. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, one of the investors, certainly knows the difference. I suspect they were not surprised to receive precisely what they got, which was two stars. (Which is not to say that they were necessarily pleased with all of William Grimes's specific criticisms.) I've been to Blue Hill twice and WD-50 once. As enjoyable as they are, I see a clear gap between their cuisine, and what you get at Per Se or Alain Ducasse. And that's without considering the ambiance. I do think there's a strong argument for elevating them both to three stars.It's interesting that Rich says the Times puts "too much...emphasis" on ambiance, since the Times has never stated precisely how much weight they attach to all of the various factors that go into a rating. So, how does he know how much emphasis they're attaching to it? I can say that I've not yet seen a credible argument that any New York restaurant is serving food comparable to the current four-star restaurants, aside from restaurants that (in some critic's opinion) failed to receive four stars because of the food. Take Rich's specific examples, Blue Hill and WD-50. The critric (William Grimes in both cases) had specific complaints about the food. Even if the Times system were revised to disregard ambiance, he would not have awarded four stars to either restaurant. Indeed, he didn't even award three. ← Off the top of my head...on one visit the venison tartare with wasabi ice-cream was indubitably tasteless. I could have been eating tofu. Like I said, I enjoy WD-50 a great deal...but neither the food or the service is at a polished four-star level. It's just not. It's not aimed at that. Like I said, check out Alinea or Trio back in the day to see what WD-50 would be if it was intended to be a four-star restaurant. I imagine that Gilt is something like this as well. ← here is what WD-50 might look like if it were intended to be at a four-star level: http://www.alinearestaurant.com/....take a look at the gallery. and jackets are required.

I am quite certain that WD-50 was not intended to be a four-star restaurant. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, one of the investors, certainly knows the difference. I suspect they were not surprised to receive precisely what they got, which was two stars. (Which is not to say that they were necessarily pleased with all of William Grimes's specific criticisms.) I've been to Blue Hill twice and WD-50 once. As enjoyable as they are, I see a clear gap between their cuisine, and what you get at Per Se or Alain Ducasse. And that's without considering the ambiance. I do think there's a strong argument for elevating them both to three stars.It's interesting that Rich says the Times puts "too much...emphasis" on ambiance, since the Times has never stated precisely how much weight they attach to all of the various factors that go into a rating. So, how does he know how much emphasis they're attaching to it? I can say that I've not yet seen a credible argument that any New York restaurant is serving food comparable to the current four-star restaurants, aside from restaurants that (in some critic's opinion) failed to receive four stars because of the food. Take Rich's specific examples, Blue Hill and WD-50. The critric (William Grimes in both cases) had specific complaints about the food. Even if the Times system were revised to disregard ambiance, he would not have awarded four stars to either restaurant. Indeed, he didn't even award three. ← Off the top of my head...on one visit the venison tartare with wasabi ice-cream was indubitably tasteless. I could have been eating tofu. Like I said, I enjoy WD-50 a great deal...but neither the food or the service is at a polished four-star level. It's just not. It's not aimed at that. Like I said, check out Alinea or Trio back in the day to see what WD-50 would be if it was intended to be a four-star restaurant. I imagine that Gilt is something like this as well.