Sneakeater

No, I think the antecedent would be something like: "Most people serious about food would never consider braving the impossibly restrictive door policy at this sceney new restaurant, and that's a shame, because . . . ." OR alternatively: "This attempt at a fashionable lounge/restaurant failed to attract the scenesters, and the food people never took it seriously, and that's a shame, because . . . ."

Here in NYC (where weinoo's quote comes from), it's almost always lounge/restaurants in fashionable downtown locations with really cool decor and very expensive cocktails that are packed with scenesters, and would be packed even if they served dogfood tapas (which most of them do). But every once in a while, there are a couple that, for some unknown reason, actually bother to have good food.

That phrase is perfectly appropriate in the context I'm sure it was used: a restaurant that would be successful for reasons other than the food, but that also has food that, while not hitting the heights, is better than just acceptable. There are plenty of examples. Pastis in New York comes to mind.* How else would you succintly express that? Such restaurants are never aimed at people like us (who primarily care about food), so whether "we" want "more" is a moot point. But it's useful for us to know which "scene" restaurants have food you'd want to eat. ________________________________________________________ * If I remember right, the passage you quoted came from a note on The Kenmare in New York. Which is odd, as most people I know who've eaten there have said that the food is not better than it needs to be, but rather much worse than you'd expect from the executive chef.

Oh, what would you call it? New American. A pretty good version of what everybody in Brooklyn serves.

How could I forget Minetta Tavern?

Franny's Prime Meats Rye (the cocktails are better than the food) Ma Peche Fatty 'Cue EMP

I'm only speculating, but I have a feeling that another problem with LOS NY is that the LOS people opened it with partners they don't have in LV -- and the partners are helping call the shots. I'm not sure the people behind LOS would have chosen, by themselves, to open in such an expensive location (where they are now is sort of the opposite of being "off the strip", as they are in LV). And I'm not sure they'd have chosen, by themselves, to dumb down the food, as has reportedly happened (perhaps on the assumption that they couldn't recoup their presumably high real estate costs serving challenging food). My impression is that when NYC (and Paris) restaurants open branches in LV, the directive is to replicate (except maybe heighten) the original experience to the fullest extent possible. That doesn't appear to be what's happening with LOS NY.

First, there's a reason that many of us are suspicious of chain restaurants to begin with, no matter how exalted the nominal "chef" is. But second, the criticism here isn't that the chef is absent. It's that she spent insufficient time training the New York kitchen staff. Nobody expects her to be here (or to have a closed circuit TV hook-up, the way Thomas Keller does with per se). But we do expect her to have spent adequate time getting her remote kitchen up to speed (which means, for a restaurant like LOS, operating at the highest possible level -- not just adequately). And third, to the extent famous-chef chain restaurants succeed, it's because the nominal "chef" takes care to hire first-rate chefs de cuisine. (I don't have to name the many obvious examples.) Maybe the LOS people scoured America for a Thai chef equal to the restaurant's lead chef (it must be obvious by now I don't know her name) -- but I've heard no reports they have. There's no sign they put the effort in finding a first-rate chef de cuisine that, say, Daniel Boulud does to insure the quality of the restaurants that bear his name. If you care about quality, opening a branch is hard work, and takes a whole lot of care and attention. I just don't see that happened here.

Actually, just to be completely accurate, isn't it true that LOS started somewhere in California and then moved to Las Vegas? (And I mean moved -- they didn't open a branch there, as they've done in New York, but relocated the restaurant.)

From most reports, the danger isn't that the New York branch will drain the Las Vegas one. It's that the Las Vegas operation has put too little into the New York branch. (I've heard the chef was only over here in New York a few weeks -- which makes you wonder how heavily the local cooks were trained.) To be clear, this isn't based on personal experience with the New York branch. I haven't been yet. But what I've heard isn't making me want to rush over. And I LOVED the Las Vegas restaurant.

Maybe not for cocktails.

Sure, Torrisi is different from other restaurants. But it's different in ways that make it WORSE -- a lot of inconvenience with very little payback. Paradoxically, if Torrisi operated like a normal restaurant, people would notice that, but for the price, it's nothing special. It would be like Franky's: also overrated, but not hyped to the point where perfectly good but not out-of-the-ordinary food gets called "poetry" in the New York Times. If people aren't writing as much about New York City restaurants any more, I think it's because there's not much to write about. Owing to the economy, restauranteurs have pretty much stopped attempting to open top-level places. They only open up mid-level places tricked up in one way or another to seem special, when they really aren't. How much is there to say? I also think that falling for a place like this is a disservice to Momofuku, which actually did what these other guys pretend to do -- serve unique and special food at the mid-level. When I compare Torrisi to Ssam Bar in its glory days, it makes me sad.

You can blame the internet and the blogosphere for accelerating the review cycle. The print media are panting to keep up. Certainly people here don't feel any compunction about commenting on a restaurant right after it opens.

I don't know if this is saying the same thing as LPShanet or not, but (unlike the case with Chinese food) the objection many have against fancy Italian restaurants is not strictly value-based. Many people have a prejudice against fancy Italian restaurants even in Italy. They argue that Italian cuisine has not fostered a restaurant culture, and that anything above the level of tratorria (i.e., ristorantes) serve strained elaborations of the food rather than good versions of the food itself.

Just to amplify, food snobs -- oops, I meant educated diners -- like us would never dream of going to an Italian restaurant and ordering less than a standard Italian four-course meal. But how many "normal" people do you know who voluntarily order a pasta in addition to a main course after an antipasto?

I hope it DESERVES three stars. Sifton is so erratic that I don't particularly care what they GET.

Yeah, Bar Boulud is packed. So is P.J. Clarke's -- and it isn't even good. Even Ed's Chowder House is pretty crowded that late. Picholine's bar (but not dining room) used to be fairly crowded that late (they gave up that business when Bar Boulud opened). Even that place Bar Americain (not the Bobby Flay place in Midtown -- the place that used to be on I think 64th St. east of Broadway) used to do a pretty brisk business that late.

Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems hard for me to believe that the group that has the contract for all of Lincoln Center's restarant concessions would open up a restaurant in Lincoln Center and not target the Lincoln Center audience. I know that people will go where the place is if it's good enough, but who else is on that block of W. 65th St. in the first place? As I've said elsewhere, I think the 10:30 closing time simply reflects Lincoln Center's inability to see beyond the large suburban component of its audience (which is, of course, why it finds it hard to attract a younger more urban crowd).

As another remote-hands commentator (I'll get there often enough eventually), I think it bears noting that Lincoln may be trying to do two things. One is to be the (high-end) commissary for Lincoln Center. As Oakapple says, a place that upper-middle-class people will comfortably go to whenever they're seeing a program at Lincoln Center. It would be almost impossible to do that and be a four-star restaurant. Four-star food, service, and prices would be overkill, more than that audience needs or even wants. I think the current Lincoln menu reflects this aspect of the venture. I look at that menu and think that even if every single dish were perfectly prepared, that could still not be four-star food. Now it's possible that the Lincoln also has four-star aspriations in connection with its after-8 o'clock program. They don't close at curtain time. Maybe they'll introduce a high-end tasting menu for that period. We know Chef Benno is capable of it. Even then, maybe Lincoln would get the strange sort of split review that Amanda Hesser gave Masa. (And they'd still have to upgrade their wine list.)

At least as of a couple of years ago, they were still being made -- but in a different formulation and format that I am convinced bore little resemblence to the wonderful original version (which we might STILL hate if we ate them now).

I can't believe the world has come to a point where that sentence almost makes sense.

I've heard some fairly scary things about the coffee prices.

This is good news indeed about the bar menu.

It's been years since I've been, but I just loved the Bottega del Vino (not right by the arena, but not very far away). It's been there for decades, so the only thing that gives me pause in making this possibly outdated recommendation is that they made a failed attempt to open a branch in New York several years ago -- which may or may not be indicative of a drop in quality at the original. The standard high-end place in Verona was always the 12 Apostoli. This is one of those old-school Michelin-starred Italian restaurants that had great ambiance and service but served rarified but soulless versions of local dishes that appealed to French Michelin inspectors but not to, say, me. I'm sure there are some more modern high-end places in Verona now, but really, when I'm in Italy, I don't even think in terms of Michelin. Verona is right in the middle of a splendid wine district. For heavy dishes, Amarone is a great (albeit expensive) pairing. For lighter dishes, Valpolicella Classico is an excellent excellent quaffer. There are several good producers, but to me, Quintarelli is the best -- and some of their wines aren't even that expensive. As for whites, they're making some good Soave again. Gini is a name to remember.

I can see I have to check into this further. Thanks. (She always has the fear that even products that claim to be based on non-grain spirits have a bit of them in there. I don't really know how to allay that.)