Sneakeater

1. There's nothing uniquely "Tribeca" about serving three-star food in surroundings that lack traditional formality NOW. But Bouley's been around a long time. And it's only been serving "three-star" food for a short time. 2. The Modern and Gordon Ramsey may have been "described" as austere, but they're nowhere near as spare as Chanterelle. It's not even close.

I was actually going to add a note that restaurants in non-neighborhoods (like Jean Georges and the Time Warner crowd) don't have a "neighborhood vibe" to embrace. But having said that, they're still "Uptown" restaurants.* Popeye's actually is very appropriate to a lot of neighborhoods it's located in. And think of how incongrouous it would seem on, say, the block on Bank St. where the Waverly Inn is. ______________________________________________ * Anticipation of somebody's inevitable mention of the upcoming Landmarc.

I don't consider it better than In N Out. But my opinion of In N Out may be enhanced by its remoteness.

That's the point, though. The menu wouldn't HAVE to be different.

And it wouldn't have the Velvet Underground playing in the background on its website, for another.

It wouldn't have all those Schnabels on the wall, for one thing.

Not to be ridiculous about this, but only to further what at least I think is an interesting conversation, I think that when neighborhoods are "dining destinations", people go there expecting restaurants that reflect the neighborhood (or at least what they think the neighborhood is like). Chanterelle, Bouley, and Danube strike me as different from restaurants you'd find Uptown. Chanterelle more austere, Bouley a bit more casual (and with slightly more avant-garde food), Danube wittier. (As I've said, I think that if Danube had opened Uptown, it would have failed.) People come Downtown for them not just because they're haute restaurants, but because they're haute "Tribeca" restaurants. (Just as I think a lot of people travel to Little Owl not just because it's a very good cute cheap restaurant but because it's a very good cute cheap "Village" restaurant.) The thing is, neighborhood styles change somewhat. I agree that the original Montrachet closed because it failed to maintain quality, not because it failed to keep up with styles. But that doesn't mean that a new place opening up can ignore the neighborhood vibe.

I went to Kefi that night to meet eatmywords and his friends. But they didn't know I was meeting them (or pretended not to know), and the place is much too cramped to have permitted a seat to be added to their fourtop. So I ate at the bar. Kind of perfect for a misanthrope like me: I get to go out with friends, but still eat alone. Since they were finishing up and we were going to go to a bar afterward, I just had one dish. It was the paparadelle-like pasta, except by the time I ordered it, they were out of rabbit and I had it with lamb instead. It's obviously impossible to judge a restaurant by one dish, but I'm going to go out on a limb and do it anyway: This place is ridiculously good for what it is. It's priced like a neighborhood Greek place, but the food exceeds what you get even in most places in Astoria. The careful, schooled cooking; the unexpected touches and flavor accents: it's neighborhood rustic food done by a guy who's a seriously excellent cook.* The price/value ratio is off the hook. I honestly can't think of another place like it. If Kefi were in my neighborhood, I'd be there every night until I got sick of the food. As it is, I'm going to go out of my way to go there for late after-work dinners. That's how (relatively) cheap and good it is. __________________________________________________ * No, this isn't "New Paradigm." Nobody's serving haute dishes here. What it is, is cheap ethnic taken to a whole other level owing to schooled cooking techniques. Like what Franny's would be, if it were cheap instead of fairly expensive.

If the UWS patronized Onera it would still be there.

In just about any neighborhood, there are very few people who dine out several nights a week at places like Bouley or Chanterelle, unless they are doing so to entertain clients. I don't think it has anything to do with being in TriBeCa, or being part of the cognoscenti. ← I think you're underestimating the extent to which restaurants need to be "of" the neighborhoods in which they're located to succeed. First, most places in residential areas need local support to succeed. In the "Neighborhood Place" thread, a lot of people noted that, to well-heeled people who live in the neighborhood, Daniel is a neighborhood place. I'll go one further. Do you think that Daniel would be as spectacularly successful as it is if, instead of being located on the UES, it were in Tribeca? I don't think so. Wrong vibe. It would get much less local support. To take it further, I'd expect that DavidBurke & Donatella wouldn't be successful at all if it were located in Tribeca. Way wrong vibe. I think that place, expensive as it is, caters largely to a neighborhood crowd. And it has the real feel of its neighborhood. Or think of Onera. Psilakis pretty much closed it down, only to reopen it under another name in a diferent neighborhood. He's obviously betting that, while the UWS wouldn't support a place like that, East Midtown will. Do you think he's wrong?

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 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 it's 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.

Agreed SE - so why did the Times print it? ← Because they were engaging in shameful advertising hype. But I don't attribute that section to The Death Of The Times. I attribute it to The Waning Of Print Media.

FWIW, I think that "he's not a critic, he's an investigative reporter" is some of the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

You may not have had the rib-eye. We had an unaged steak. They've since added a much more expensive aged steak, which might be what FG is referring to. The unaged steak was so great that I'm almost frightened to try the aged steak.

I don't know what it means that "Dining and Wine" are listed under "Styles" on the Times's website. Restaurant reviews used to be in the Friday Arts section. Then the Times started the Wednesday food section, and then -- years later -- the restaurant reviews were moved to that section. Does this mean that the Times affirmatively decided to change the standards for restaurant reviews? Or just that they decided to consolidate their food coverage (most likely for reasons of advertising procurement)? And how can we assume that, whatever the Times's intentions, the movement of the reviews into a different section affected standards? I'd be surprised if it did. In other words, I wouldn't give as much importance to what rubric restaurant reviews fall under as you do. (Also, unless you've spoken to people who work at the Times, you really can't have any idea how much importance the "placement" of the reviews actually has. You're basing that on your interpretation of what the placing of restaurant reviews under "Style" means. It may have no basis in the functional operative reality of the New York Times.)

Eater reports today (second hand) that Jared King, late of (my beloved) Oceana, is no longer the chef at Alchemy. Not clear if he was gone (if he is) by the time I ate there last week -- but I'd guess he was.

Telling point, indeed.

To butterscotch -- I wouldn't take everything I read in Eater as gospel.

See my edit above. I put that post in the wrong thread. I apologize. The confusion is ENTIRELY my fault.

Okay, we'll make it harder. Suppose that Bouley is free, has no dress code, you can walk in at any time, the waiters are in blue jeans, you can order as much or as little as you want. On a food qua food basis, Upstairs is still more exciting? ← Having thought it over: 1. If Bouley-level food were served in Bouley Upstairs surroundings with Bouley Upstairs service, I'd probably think the same thing I think about EMP: that the service and (to a lesser extent with EMP) the ambiance are inappropriate to the food. The food at the New Paradigm places is slightly scaled-down, at least on the whole, and also "mixed", bas as well as haute. 2. As Nathan points out, you COULDN'T have Bouley-level food at a place like Bouley Upstairs. You probably couldn't even have Upstairs-level service for food like they serve at Bouley -- the more elaborate food requires a higher technical level of service. And probably, they couldn't permit you to order as little of that Bouley-level food as you want. (Maybe this is why Atelier Robuchon is so expensive.)

I don't think he's the guy who needs to be near Lincoln Center. I agree with you that he should cancel one of those reservations soon.

Seemed worth reposting, from the "Montrachet" thread:

Robyn, I think that's really going over the line into homophobia. I'm glad you find the fact that someone is gay so amusing, though.

I'm pretty positive that if they're not owned by the same company, they're at least franchised from the same company.