rich

Seriously - is this door thing something new? When I went (the second day they were ever open - and that's before the fire), I just opened the door myself and walked inside.

Wait a minute, I opened the door myself (very serious here) and recieved nothing. They owe me - I'm calling tomorrow - I understand there are a lot of open tables in the next month or so - should have no problem with my comp.

It counts for me in two respects: cleanliness and timing. And by timing I mean a reasonable amount of time between courses and when I first sit down - wait staff shows up within a few minutes to take drink orders - follows up giving menus and taking orders. Aside from that I'm on my own. On a scale of 1-10 (highest) ambiance is about 1. I can have a great time if the food is good under just about any circumstances. On the other side, if the food isn't good no amount of ambiance will save the day - not even $12 million Italian marble floors, blue oak doors, deconstructed Caesar Salad, ketchup foam served over fois gras or any other gimmick that's out there.

And Del Posto does - $29+tip valet parking.

Never BG - you're absolutely correct. Too many chefs are resting on too many laurels in this town (and others, I'm sure). It's time they learned how to cook again instead of appearing on TV, selling books, cookware, knives, pens, bobble head dolls, sinks, toilet bowls, toothpaste etc., etc. Nobody gets free lunch - not even the chef who prepares it.

Nathan and Marc, I agree with what both of you have said regarding comparing restaurants with aspirations. And that's why I think the star system doesn't work. I think the food should have the final say and not whether you spend $12 million to tile floors with some Italian marble that probably came from Nutley, NJ. This is the Urena thread so I'm not going rail about the star system. I think all of us agree for the most part - it's just the application of stars that creates a problem (at least for me).

Complaints about Urena's decor have figured in every professional review that has appeared so far (NY Times, NY Mag, NY Daily News), as well as several eGullet posts. It is fair to say that, as far as this issue is concerned, the Times is not alone. Frank Bruni doesn't focus on that issue more than other critics, although it is certainly true that he has a bathroom fetish. Bruni's emphasis, like most intelligent critics, reflects the fact that most people aren't indifferent to the surroundings in which they dine. This is the first time in Bruni's tenure when I got the impression—but it is only an impression, not a certainty—that a restaurant serving three-star food was docked a star for non-food reasons.On the other hand, I would strenuously argue that there is no shot whatsoever that Urena would have been even remotely considered for four stars, no matter what the decor. For if Urena's food is considered four-star worthy, then there are surely dozens of four-star restaurants in New York, and that would imply a very different reviewing system than the one we have. This reflects a fundamental understanding. While Frank Bruni showed considerable enthusiasm for Urena's food, he did not say that it was better than some of his four-star choices. (Frank Bruni has awarded four stars only three times: Per Se, Masa, and Le Bernardin. Urena's food is better than which of these?)If it is true that the decor is the only thing standing between Urena and three-star status, then you would be right that Urena would be a perfect candidate for a re-review if the decor is upgraded. But you must remember that the critic's enthusiasm for a place is based on many factors. Bruni was over-the-moon for Sripraphai, but that doesn't mean he thought it was better than the three or four-star restaurants he has reviewed. ← Marc, I'm not saying Urena has no decor issues. I haven't been, but you're right - almost every critic has mentioned it. My point in that paragraph was in my opinion the NY Times and its critic go overboard in this area - more than most of the other critics. (He spoke about decor issues in 10 of 24 paragraphs.) That's why I said this is the perfect example why food and ambiance and service should be awarded separate stars. The last two have a different level of importance for each individual. Some don't care how the food tastes as long as their water glasses are filled and are served on Royal Dalton with indirect lighting. For me, I couldn't care less if I had to fetch my own water from an oustide well or if I was served on $10 plates from Crate & Barrel - and I don't even know what a sconce is, nor do I want to. To me the food is the thing. If you're correct in saying that Urena has no shot at four, then Del Posto has less than no shot. His review of Urena's food was close to perfect - only mentioning one dessert and 1/3 of one entree as "problems." He was a lot more critical of Del Posto in that respect. And in his other two 4-star reviews (I'm not counting Masa because its menu is so different), he was also critical of a dish or two.

Let's remember the person reviewing this and the publication where he works have a special fondness for decor, music, bathrooms, carpeting, lighting and most other things that have nothing to do with food. Even to the point of mentioning his girlfriend's willingness to overlook a suitor's bad teeth or hooked nose if his personality was nice - in a strange metaphor about Urena's food vs. ambiance issues. My opinion is that he and his publication focus too much on that issue. This is a perfect example of why food and decor/service ratings should be separate. I don't think anyone can argue Urena would have be given three (with the outside shot of four) if the decor suited the reviewer better. Urena's food review was better than some of the critic's four-star choices, but once again he decided to go with two. It's his "everything I can't figure out" category. If you believe what he says half the time, then Urena is a perfect candidate for a re-review since decor problems are the easiest to "fix." If you believe what he says the other half - that stars almost always stay constant - then he will stay home with a few brews and watch the Knicks lose 60 games this season.

Yeah, tourists never eat at Nobu. They never shop in SoHo. They never go to the Tenement Museum. I never see any tourists at the restaurants and attractions downtown. Likewise, I never see any New Yorkers in Midtown. ← Steve, my comment was "family-oriented" tourists in the following paragraph for the chains. And those families rarely go the Nobu or the Tenement Museum - most kids just wouldn't be interested. I was being sarcastic with "keep tourists away" part.

Daniel is sort of near Bloomie's - only six blocks (five blocks north, one block west)... As for the 23rd Street location...yes, I think you're right - that area is now riddled with big chain stores, so these are the restaurants to match. Isn't Outback also in that neighborhood? ← What's an Outback? Are you referring to that beef chain? Don't tell me they're in Manhattan too? Aren't there enough bad steak houses in Manhattan? I see the possibilities for another thread.

It's truly one of the most consistent NYC hangouts. Very difficult to get a poor meal there - even if you wnted one. Very underrated, but has always made my top ten.

You could make exactly the same statement about restaurant locations with respect to every New York Time four-star and Michelin three-star restaurant in New York City. They're all also in locations heavily trafficked by tourists: the Time Warner Center, Central Park South, Columbus Circle, the Equitable Center, near Bloomingdale's, etc. The statement is not necessarily accurate, however, with respect to the chains. Looking at your list of examples, TGI Friday's is a good place to start. Not only does TGI Friday's operate ten restaurants in Manhattan, it also originated here. It's as New York as you can get: the first Friday's was at 63rd and First. In addition to its Times Square location, the Olive Garden has a location at 22nd and Sixth. Red Lobster has a location in Elmhurst. Applebee's is in Battery Park, Rego Park, Flatbush, Riverdale and sevearal other locations. ← It seems most of the four-stars use Central Park as their backdrop with the exception of Daniel and LB - even those two are not far away. I don't know who is near Bloomie's. But the real food in NYC is downtown - just to keep the tourists away. The chains pick their spots where family-oriented tourists and natives might gather - that's their main marketing strategy and it works. Other spots are selected based of neighborhood demographics - specifically middle to upper middle family neighborhoods and shopping malls. I think the 22nd and 6th OG is the most interesting choice - my guess is because that area is fast becoming a shopper's mecca and there's no nearby chain competition.

May 1 - start speed dialing a few minutes before 10am.

I think the NY Times gave the Olive Garden two strars, but deducted one because the music wasn't good and the bathroom cubicle doors didn't lock. Eighty posts on the Olive Garden - that says more about its popularity than any comment on the thread.

I would agree - especially when 10 paragraphs (of 24) are devoted to decorating issues. I still believe the NY Times critic focuses way too much on these types of things. That's been his modus operandi since day one with Babbo. Two stars and the only problem he finds with the food is 1/3 of one entree and one dessert - that's a lot emphasis on his date's forgiveness of a hooked nose and bad teeth.

I think there's a surcharge for the butter from those six cows - $42. And if you want butter from one specific cow (your choice) it's $137. That's why all the cows have names.

I could see it now, Screaming Eagle at Wal-Mart with one of those things flying around (television commercial) zapping the price reduction tags. Let's see - next to two-buck Chuck is three-buck Macau (second label of course).

Is this the same set of cookware he was hawking on the Del Posto TVFN special - along with the Batali bobblehead doll? Does he use these in any of his kitchens?

Who needs food when you have a wall of water bottles?

Maybe it's different elsewhere, but here in New York it's really a class thing. I don't live in a cul-de-sac, but I can assure you that nobody in my building would go to (or at least admit to going to) Olive Garden. And if anybody in my office would, it certainly wouldn't be anyone in a professional position. That's not to say that all these people are foodies, much less that they all have equisite taste. Just that they'd have different class-specific bad places to go to. ← This reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote on a (in)famous midtown restaurant. "No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

Of course there is life after death ... why else do we watch reruns of old classics? ← You're right about that. Last night there were two food related classic TV shows I watched. One was a recent re-run - "Law & Order's" episode about the murdering celebrity chef. It was better the second time around - one of the first episodes after Jerry Orbach died. Second was a re-run of the old 50's show (and arguably the best show of the early 50's) - "The Adventures of Superman" with George Reeves who either was murdered or committed suicide - the jury is still out. In this episode, the owner of the diner where the Daily Planet staff eat claims to be a friend of Superman. And virtually the entire episode takes place in the diner, where people are alternately praising or criticizing the food. A fun episode that features a terrific food fight at the end. Except for Noel Neill and Jack Larson everyone else is dead - but not last night. Even watched a few Julia Child reruns two weeks ago during the WNET fund raising telethon - she was alive as ever smaking down that chicken.

Actually, they do that for everyone - it's part of the atmosphere.

And who said there's no life after death?

How about: Now that you're a celebrity chef, does cooking just get in the way of your other activities?

Poor Olive Garden - crying all the way to the bank!