Nathan

Gordon Ramsay has introduced a new prix fixe lunch and afternoon menu in the London Bar: http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/the-l...-bar/menu1.html according to Grub Street, the portion sizes have been increased (they better...two regular courses from the London Bar wouldn't feed anyone) in addition, there is a new "bites" menu as well. http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/the-l...-bar/menu3.html

have you been there since January? That's when it really started....

Obviously there is no alternative universe in which we can test that hypothesis, but I think that "bad location" is often used as an excuse for "bad execution." Lonesome Dove had no trouble pulling in diners when it opened. I suspect that many of those diners found inconsistent execution and poor service—as I did, and as most critics did—and chose not to become regulars.I mean, it's not as if he opened at St. Nicholas Avenue and 145th Street. The restaurant was extremely easy to get to, in a safe, popular, prosperous, and heavily populated neighborhood. It was near numerous subway lines, and within walking distance for anyone in Chelsea, Flatiron, and Union Square — fairly hip areas that are home to a wide variety of extremely successful restaurants. To paraphrase Frank Sinatra, if you can't make it there, you can't make it anywhere. ← it was on a relatively benighted block...the fact that two or three blocks away is restaurant row doesn't change that. and that's just not a neighborhoody area.....(five blocks either way is another story)...Flatiron/Murray Hill is often a restaurant graveyeard.

I'm afraid I just don't get this. There are many successful restaurants in a five-block radius of that location. And the fact is that New Yorkers will travel to quite inconvenient locations (which this wasn't, by any means) if the restaurant is great. Even Love himself concedes that the service was not acceptable when the place opened. He may have fixed it later on, but not before it was panned by virtually every critic in town. ← that was a bad location for that specific restaurant. I kind of analogize it to Jacques-Imos...(a somewhat comparable restaurant (not in type of cuisine of course))...which is doing just fine in its location.

Does Bruni ever do a review you don't approve of? Having eaten at A Voce...I think three stars might be a little strong. Ditto for three for Bar Room at the Modern (contrawise, I would have been amazed and probably supported three for Ssam Bar). He vastly overrated that Filipino place in SoHo (I didn't know that at the time of the review cause I hadn't been there yet.) I'm sure there are more if I went over the archives. Too many of his reviews don't have enough on the food (although he has been significantly better on this over the last six months). There's no slideshow this time. He doesn't do one every week. ← Rich was joking....

oh gosh. this is very naive. you're reading vastly too much into an ad. look, the Times is a major corporation. here's how this ad would have worked. the ad/pr department decides to do an ad referencing the dining suggestion (among other things). they call up Bruni for a pithy quote (or e-mail him). he either comes up with one on the spot....or calls or emails them back with one...the ad editor...calls him up (or e-mails) and says...can we rephrase your quote this way? and Bruni says "how about this way..." (alternatively, Bruni gives them five different quotes and says "pick one"). and there you have it. all done in about twenty minutes. no deep thought put into it. just catchy copy. edit: my point here is that they weren't trying to get people to "talk about the Times" either....cause the group of people who would be intrigued by the Bruni reference and wonder if it was a policy change or would find it controversial....numbers approximately 8 people...total. and they're all posting on this thread. folks, this group is very insular and self-selected. there are a lot of foodies in NY, sure, and about 99.9999% of them could care less what Bruni calls himself in an ad

I just got around to reading the Sfoglia review. This is one of his best actually. Detailed explication of the cooking...the multiple references to shredded carrots in the sauce of one dish was a nice touch...illustrating deftness and care in the kitchen. Of course, that's to be expected, he has a sure hand with Italian food....I think it's the only place where he feels entirely comfortable (he's comfortable with Asian cuisines...but in a different way, his approach there is more of an enthusiastic amateur willing to try everything and love it). There's one other thing this review illustrates -- Bruni's largesse toward small "mom and pop" (in this case, literally) restaurants. He didn't like it last summer but simply put them on notice in the DJ to get their act together....and it's clear that he wouldn't have given them a formal review at all if they hadn't....but since they did, they were rewarded..handsomely.

I like Peasant...but I could see how someone could find it bland. With that said, I could see it as a restaurant doing very well in CA....its ingredient-driven. If you do go there...get anything that comes from the oven...

thats cause most people here have never had custard, a butter burger or even a chicago-style dog before.

the Shake Shack is quite good...but frankly, it wouldn't be a big deal for you. it's more that it offers things that are hard (or impossible) to otherwise find here. (i.e. butter burgers and Wisconsin custard, Chicago hot dogs...etc....I think you have options short of coming to NY to find those)

and the menu? for that matter, how would Montrachet be different? (maybe it's time for a new thread -- defining neighborhood restaurant characteristics)...on second thoughts...some people might find that offensive...

so what would Wallse be like if it was in midtown or the UES?

there is a very simple answer that explains 90% of it: 9/11...or 11/9 in your parlance.

Tim Love emailed me a few days ago to complain about my review of LD. He felt the review was misinformed in all respects except the poor service, which he insisted had been fixed. He also complained that people reviewing the restaurant didn't understand West-of-Mississippi cuisine. The email did not suggest that the restaurant was about to close, although clearly Love must have known. ← interesting...you're not the first person here that he has directly responded to. I wished him will and had a pretty good initial experience there. I do think he made some poor menu choices combined with an unfortunate location.

according to Eater, LD has closed.

My concern with Bruni is more with his work as a whole than with any particular review. Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that when he reviews a seriously important restaurant, he nails it. Then I don't mind if he lets his hair down and has fun with Sascha, The Waverly Inn, and Robert's Steakhouse.But it's far more discouraging when the only great writing he does, is on the restaurants that don't matter very much. ← fwiw, we agree.

But where I disagree with you on this is that to me, the question isn't what rubric the Times puts these reviews under. It's whether they work. The Sasha and Waverly Inn reviews were precious, pretentious pieces of shit that failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of valid reviewing. The fact that they were in a "Styles" section doesn't change that. The Robert's review, on the other hand, worked. Again, irrespective of whether it was in a "Styles" section. The fact that the Times may demoninate the food section as a "Styles" section doesn't absolve the restaurant reviews from the basic requirements of reviewing, or restaurant reviewers from basic requirements of competance in the field. It's still a review. ← I generally agree with this...but it doesn't go to my point.

You're asking me that question? :shock: I have probably posted more off-beat, humorous (attempted) comments on eGullet than anyone. Somehow I don't think the Times was attempting to be funny with that ad - I think they were trying to portray an individual as something he's not. That's not funny, humorous, it's (quoting SE here) just bullshit. ← there's not a single doubt in my mind that the ad was tongue-in-cheek. not a doubt.

I don't believe this has much to do with sensationalism or tabloid journalism as much as it has to do with the basic function of a newspaper in providing accurate reporting as well as gravitas. There's plenty of room for entertainment and opinion. The Times (and other new outlets) are basically downplaying or sublimating good accurate reporting which engenders trust and lends gravitas to their coverage (of whatever)-- in favor of "personality reporting" that amounts to reporting imbued with the so called life experience and personality of the person doing the reporting. There are some very talented reporters/writers who can pull this off and maintain a standard of accuracy and detachment a good reporter needs to accurately convey information and perspective. A review (of anything) is always part objective and part subjective. The fact that the paper itself "brags" that their reporter on global climate is in fact, a musician who plays with an environmental activist like Pete Seeger is indicative of how the current management "sees" the role of reporters. How anyone could possibly read a piece on global warming and feel comfortable that the paper is presenting a subject with accuracy and expertise is beyond me. Restaurant reviewing is not as serious as general news reporting. I agree. However, isn't it more important that its reviews (as opposed to feature writing or blogging are imbued with perspective and experience as well as overall expertise? (one can provide this and be witty and entertaining in the process). To use someone you note as an example Mimi Sheraton is more than qualified to write reviews of restaurants. She is also an entertaining writer. While her writing is personal she does not let her personality get in the way of the task at had--reviewing a restaurant. I feel that while he has his moments, Bruni's writing is awkward and one wonders what how to take his comments--does he really know what he is talking about? I agree he knows his cinema and musical theatre! There's just way too much debate over Bruni at this point to make even his fans feel comfortable that he has credibility as a restaurant and food critic. ← But there are two separate issues. Bruni's competence as a restaurant reviewer: I think most here agree here its low. The appropriateness of the Robert's review: that's what there's been disagreement about. I don't see one as having much to do with the other. ← of course. my point is that the argument for the appropriateness of the Robert's review (and that of the Waverly Inn and Sascha) rests a good deal on the fact that restaurant reviews at the Times rest in a section which is entertainment focused and where casual, familiar writing is encouraged. If that review was in the Arts or News sections I think the criticisms would have more validity.

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology? Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined. ← dude, that wasn't literal! seriously, how can you read it that way? edit: it was an ad for goodness sakes...I am more certain of this than anything that I have ever posted on egullet....that this was not intended to be literal...and you guys are the only ones taking it that way (I think oakapple gets it). ← So now we're saying the ads the Times prints about itself aren't true or are not to be taken literal? The paper that claims everyday "All the News That's FIT to Print," is in the business of misleading the public? I always thought the Times believed in the term "truth in advertising?" At least their many editorials on that sobject indicated such. Okay - so I believe what the Times prints when? Self promotion ads - no; restaurant reviews - no; sports - sometimes (at least when Dave Anderson is writing); arts and entertainment - ???; hard news - yes, unless the reporter(s) is just writing his/her version of the events. Hmmmm - seems all clear to me now. ← are you unfamiliar with the concept of humor? frankly, I find this all to be absolutely ridiculous.

in fact, the image of Bruni as the intrepid investigative reporter is darn funny...(think back to Reichl and maybe the joke will become clear). egullet sometimes suffers from an overabundance of literalism...and this thread is no exception.

whoops! you're right.

I don't take restaurant reviews "seriously" in that sense. Fine dining is a form of entertainment, and the restaurant reviews themselves ought to be entertaining. Bruni is not writing "news," and his pieces shouldn't be compared to Woodward & Bernstein.Nevertheless, his screw-ups, errors, and misjudgments are open to legitimate criticism. So what, question mark? I don't think the section of the newspaper matters very much. Period. Whether you like the piece or not, comma, its suitability doesn't change if it moves to another section of the paper. Period. ← I agree with most of this...I disagree that the section of the newspaper doesn't matter... a. I have been told that it matters a great deal by more than one Times employee. b. you're not going to see breezy, familiar writing in the Politics or Washington sections.

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology? Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined. ← dude, that wasn't literal! seriously, how can you read it that way? edit: it was an ad for goodness sakes...I am more certain of this than anything that I have ever posted on egullet....that this was not intended to be literal...and you guys are the only ones taking it that way (I think oakapple gets it).

I've had both of those as part of a group and they are terrific...albeit not as interesting or certainly as "haute" as other items.