Sneakeater

I've never been to the CG location, but comparing it to the NYC branch, I think you had a pretty representative experience. If you couldn't get more water, that's a stike against any restaurant, and of course service varies by who's waiting on you, but in re-reading your description of the whole meal, that's exactly what I would have expected going in. ← Reflects my experiences with the New York Les Halles, too -- from opening years ago till now. I have to make the somewhat snobby observation that going to a distant outpost of a restaurant that used to be associated with a Celebrity Chef because you like his books is sort of asking for trouble.

History, yes. Present, I'm not so sure. When you're dealing with something as amorphous as a trend, I don't think you can cut things too cleanly. Among other things, diners aren't that knowledgeable and tastes aren't that precise. To me, the idea behind Alto was, "It's Italian . . . but it's Austrian." The idea behind these Alsatian or Alsatian-influenced places is, "It's French . . . but it's German." Same impulse, even if Alsace is a bit west of Austria (although not of Germany). (Hey, if Germany had won World War I, Alcase would be in Mitteleuropa.) I think this trend (or trendlet, if you prefer) ties in with other trends we're experiencing. The comfort food trend (because Germanic food tends to be comfortable). The pork trend (no comment necessary).

(We also can't omit Cafe Gray from this discussion.)

I partially disagree. I think the menus at The Modern and especially The Bar Room at The Modern were purposely designed to reflect Kreuther's Alsatian background, precisely to capitalize on this trend. I agree that the trend hasn't had as much success as Asian fusion. But I don't think it's a coincidence that all these Germanic-inflected places (and even dishes) started popping up at around the same time. Ask yourself, how often did you see spaetzle on menus in 1990? How often do you now?

Alto was a riff on the food of the Alto Adige, which as the following thread shows, is more Austrian than Italian: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=97446

It's much bigger (and older) than that. It started with Danube (Bouley sussed that on out, like, EXACTLY). Then Walsee was warmly received, and Cafe Sebarsky was a tremendous hit right out of the box. Then, you started seeing Austrian inflections on more standard menus all over the place. And of course this trend hasn't abated: in the last year there's been Trestle on Tenth, Brasserie Klee, etc. The only misstep so far has been Scott Conant's Alto, which tried to capitalize on this trend in the Italian context by focusing on the cuisine of the Alto Adige, to mass incomprehension if not hostility (such that they had to modify their menu).

WARNING: Ego-Driven Post Alert An interesting thing about Bruni's review -- at least to me -- is that it didn't lessen my desire to eat here at all. It still made the place seem very appealing (and a good value).

Indeed, if a "fusion" restaurant served only traditional French desserts, I'd consider that a flawed menu.

Slightly OT, but I think Yalumba consistently makes some of the best reasonably-priced wines around. Their shiraz-viogner blend is excellent for the price.

BTW, just for the record, traditional French main dishes and traditional Chinese desserts is NOT what "fusion" is all about. Indeed, the very flaw that some of us are pointing to at Varietal is a lack of "fusion" between different parts of the menu.

This is the kind of ego-driven post that I suppose Eater disapproves of. I happened to be in the East Village needing dinner on the night E.U. reopened (to the public) last week under Akhtar Nawab, whose work I enjoyed back at Craftbar. I actually stopped by and looked in. But then I thought to myself, "This is nuts. Given the history here, there's no way Chef Nawab's going to hit the ground running. I'd better give him some time to get settled before I check in." I'm looking forward to trying this place under this chef whose work I've liked, but since I pay for my dinners, I'm not going to throw money away just to be able to say I've been there.* So, guess what I did? I walked over to Death & Co. -- only a few blocks away -- and met some friends for drinks and snacks. I guess this disqualifies me from posting on a food board. I'll post in a few weeks, after I've had a chance to sample the new iteration of E.U. under circumstances that seem more favorable (assuming Chef Nawab is still there in a few weeks). Anyone been yet? ___________________________________________________ * Interestingly, Eater itself subsequently confirmed the wisdom of this decision: http://eater.com/archives/2007/01/eaters_journal_2.php. As did Restaurant Girl: http://www.restaurantgirl.com/restaurantgirl/2007/01/eu.html. I wonder whether they pay for their own dinners?

Hey, you got it right, didn't you?

That's an interesting point. Because as troubling as I find the menu concept at Varietal now, I agree with you that I'd find it a lot more troubling if it were reversed. Why do you think that is?

And db Bistro Moderne, with its Alsatian chef, has a Sunday-night Alsatian menu. PS -- Of course, Lutece.

Yeah. I think it's part of the general "Germanic" trend we've been having for the last few years. Although, don't forget, during the early part of my fine-dining life, the best restaurant in New York was Alsatian.

I like Chinese food. I like French food. If I went to a French restaurant that offered only Chinese desserts, I think I'd probably find it disturbing and unenjoyable as a dining concept. To be sure, it could conceivably work. It could conceivably be a stroke of genius rather than a misguided mistake. But if I tried it, and didn't like it, I would say so. And, to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't like it. You seem to be assuming that anything new and different is good for that reason alone, and anyone who doesn't like something that's new and different is just missing the point. You're wrong. "New and different" things get judged on their merits, just like anything else. They can work, or they cannot work. I'm here to tell you that, in my opinion, the combination of "left-of-center-but-basically-traditional" savories and "avant-garde" desserts at Varietal doesn't work. Not because it's new and different, but because for a meal to be satisfying, in my opinion, the chef and the pastry have to be working from the same asthetic. This is not because I'm a hidebound traditionalist. I loved Sam Mason's desserts at WD-50. I love Will Goldfarb's desserts at Room 4 Dessert. But I want meals to make sense. The ones at Varietal don't. This is not because I'm unadventurous. It's not because I don't "get it". It's because I have a good-faith criticism of the structure of the menu here.

But if we aren't arguing about that, what ARE we arguing about? We agree. ← Oh, I forgot: we both went to law school.

I've never been to either of Keller's restaurants, so if this is only about him and his tasting menus I have nothing to say. But to the extent it's relevant, as a point of fact I've had sea urchins on tasting menus at several restaurants. I think this "one bite" stuff is a bit exaggerated. Unless, as I said, it's strictly a Keller thing. In which case, though, it's so idiosyncratic to his two restaurants that I wonder why it's worth making any kind of deal about it.

But if we aren't arguing about that, what ARE we arguing about? We agree.

Of course, part of the problem is that the demagogues on Bruni's blog -- and I think this article was playing to people like that -- like to think that famous chefs and high-end "fine dining" places are actively anti-diner. Which is only more evidence that they don't eat a lot in truly top-of-the-line restaurants.

But Pan, I don't think anyone's arguing that restaurants should necessarily follow Per Se's lead of going "all tasting all the time." I think they're responding to a position that sounds a lot like "tasting menus should be abolished."

Having re-read my last post, it's possible that Robyn and Robert will say that in fact they're arguing for a return to the days when you could go into a restaurant and know what all the dishes were, mostly because they were renditions of or at most variations on classic cuisine. And, perhaps they'd further argue, the new focus on novelty -- I've said elsewhere on this board that a restaurant can't get four NYT stars without that now -- is part and parcel of the chef-centric (and diner-derogating) trend they decry. So maybe it is just a paradigm shift. As I said above, I find the "old" style of dining tremendously satisfying. But there's no getting around the fact that I think Jean-Georges Vongerichten is and long has been the supreme culinary talent in New York -- and it isn't because of his skill at rendering the classics. Especially since there are still places to go to get classic cuisine expertly rendered, I'm happy to be alive at a time when all of this new stuff is available.

That's wonderful news.

I want to pick up on something Nathan said. In the old days, when the top restaurants essentially featured classic French cuisine, you pretty much knew what each dish was, and you ordered what you were in the mood for. That's what I used to do at Lutece, certainly (and still do at places like LCB Brasserie). (I find that kind of dining enormously satisfying, BTW.) And even the places featuring more elaborate cooking than Lutece still used to center on classics. Cuisine has developed in a way where most menu items aren't classic dishes but new dishes, and many of them you can't even conceive of what they will taste like. (I wonder why Robert thinks it better for a dish to have a fanciful name rather than a name that gives you some idea at least of what's in it.) You can order what you think you're in the mood for, given the risks involved in trying to figure what a dish will be like and also the risk of missing something really special that you might otherwise not be attracted to. But you can also let the kitchen select what they think they do best. I'm not saying that the latter course is the only one. I just don't see it as ignorant, or evidence of inexperience, or in any way bad.

You know what? I checked, and I was wrong. What New York law prohibits is non-licensed establishments from letting people bring their own wine in (a law that is almost UNIVERSALLY ignored by "fine dining" establishments awaiting licenses -- they wouldn't be able to stay in business otherwise). Interestingly, the current law is a fairly recent modification. As recently as the 80s, New York law prohibited restaurants from allowing customers to bring in their own wine, period -- license or no, corkage fee or no. That is another law that was frequently disregarded, until it was finally changed.