Has Formal Dining Finally Jumped the Shark?

[oakapple]

stereotypes are simply statistical generalizations.  many are valid (in a statistical sense), some are not.  it's fair to say that most people at Ssam Bar are downtowners.  it's fair to say that few downtowners went to Mix.  it's fair to say that Mix had a lot more tourist and B&T patrons than Ssam Bar.  and for the few downtowners who went to both....well a pair of $500 jeans will make you feel comfortable in a lot of different contexts.

←

But Nathan, your responses always seem to assume that you can invariably tell—just by looking at them—where people have come from, how they got there, what they do, their likes and dislikes, where else they dine, and so forth. I find that very difficult to believe.

[Nathan]

stereotypes are simply statistical generalizations.  many are valid (in a statistical sense), some are not.  it's fair to say that most people at Ssam Bar are downtowners.  it's fair to say that few downtowners went to Mix.  it's fair to say that Mix had a lot more tourist and B&T patrons than Ssam Bar.  and for the few downtowners who went to both....well a pair of $500 jeans will make you feel comfortable in a lot of different contexts.

←

But Nathan, your responses always seem to assume that you can invariably tell—just by looking at them—where people have come from, how they got there, what they do, their likes and dislikes, where else they dine, and so forth. I find that very difficult to believe.

←

the following is a statistical generalization and there are, of course, plenty of exceptions:

people wear uniforms. period.

walk down to the L train platform at Union Square on Sunday evening: look at the people coming down the stairs...one can pick out with a pretty high rate of accuracy who is going east and who is going west....just from clothing and hair styles (female hair styles (and the quality of the cut and color) say far far more than 99% of straight men realize.....in fact, I'd say that when it comes to uniforms in general most straight men are completely clueless (how's that for a valid stereotype?))

[Nathan]

I'm not sure L'Atelier is a good basis for discussion because it's not a New York restaurant, but a Paris restaurant with copies stamped out across the world. L'Atelier as renegade for informality actually makes sense in the context of Paris, a city with 1/4 the population and one or two dozen restaurants whose price and formality levels are matched in NY only by Per Se if at all. Whereas in the context of NY, L'Atelier is a weird mishmash that makes no sense whatsoever, but people still go because it's Robuchon and after all it isn't like there aren't tons of New Yorkers who can afford it.

Of course a similar argument could be applied to all of Ducasse's NY ventures, past and future.

←

well, it makes sense only on one level....the food is actually really really good. unfortunately, it's not $190 tasting menu good.

[Fat Guy]

it's fair to say that most people at Ssam Bar are downtowners.  it's fair to say that few downtowners went to Mix.  it's fair to say that Mix had a lot more tourist and B&T patrons than Ssam Bar. 

←

I don't agree with those statements at all. But I suppose there's no way to document the claims factually one way or the other. Still, to me, at a more fundamental level, the whole notion of a "downtowner" is suspect.

If you examine a few randomly selected people who live downtown, you'll most likely find that 1- some of them work in Midtown and have a child in school on the Upper East Side, therefore giving them three neighborhoods in which they operate with frequency, 2- some of them have lived in several locations around the city, 3- most of them are not from New York City originally, 4- their ages range from 0 to 120 just like anywhere else in the city, 5- some of them are artsy types who conform to the hip, downtown stereotype and some of them are white-collar professionals who live in multi-million-dollar condos and maybe even vote Republican, 6- they all have MetroCards and travel around the city to do stuff.

Meanwhile, if you examine a few randomly selected Upper East Siders, you'll find that plenty of them live there because it's cheap and convenient, but that they do most of their going-out downtown -- at least, if you talk to Upper East Side restaurateurs, they'll complain that this is exactly the behavior pattern that makes it so hard to operate an interesting restaurant on the Upper East Side.

The city is far more blended and ecumenical than the broad brushstrokes indicate. One can call Chelsea a "gay neighborhood" but Chelsea is not even majority gay. Rather, Chelsea is a gay neighborhood because in most of America X% of the population is gay but in Chelsea 10X% of the population is gay. It's the same when you look at the groups that define neighborhoods like the East Village. It's not that a majority of East Village residents conform to a stereotype. It's that more of them conform to that stereotype than in the next neighborhood up. In that sense, many neighborhoods are defined by their minorities.

The point being, while location is critical to restaurants, no type of dining is the exclusive possession of a given neighborhood's population. And if a given type of dining is concentrated in a given neighborhood, it's never a permanent state of affairs.

[oakapple]

walk down to the L train platform at Union Square on Sunday evening: look at the people coming down the stairs...one can pick out with a pretty high rate of accuracy who is going east and who is going west....just from clothing and hair styles (female hair styles (and the quality of the cut and color)

←

But how do you even know that? Do you pick a statistically significant random sample—better yet, a sample chosen by someone else, to eliminate selection bias—make a note of your guess, and then approach the person to find out if you're correct? I would be very surprised if you do. It appears you're simply assuming you have this skill that most of us are skeptical that you, or indeed anyone, would have.

[Nathan]

it's fair to say that most people at Ssam Bar are downtowners.  it's fair to say that few downtowners went to Mix.  it's fair to say that Mix had a lot more tourist and B&T patrons than Ssam Bar. 

←

I don't agree with those statements at all. But I suppose there's no way to document the claims factually one way or the other. Still, to me, at a more fundamental level, the whole notion of a "downtowner" is suspect.

If you examine a few randomly selected people who live downtown, you'll most likely find that 1- some of them work in Midtown and have a child in school on the Upper East Side, therefore giving them three neighborhoods in which they operate with frequency, 2- some of them have lived in several locations around the city, 3- most of them are not from New York City originally, 4- their ages range from 0 to 120 just like anywhere else in the city, 5- some of them are artsy types who conform to the hip, downtown stereotype and some of them are white-collar professionals who live in multi-million-dollar condos and maybe even vote Republican, 6- they all have MetroCards and travel around the city to do stuff.

1. individual neighborhoods have different median ages.

2. sure. that's why, for example, the UES is seen as a "starter neighborhood"...but there are far more cases of people moving downtown when they can afford it than moving uptown from downtown.

3. that's true of Manhattan in general. most people here are transplants.

4. considering the cost of downtown real estate...of course. but even there there are variances. one bedrooms in my building rent for $3,900 (as of last month). even if I didn't know my neighbors, that datum alone is enough to conclude that most people in my building are "white collar professionals". (the truly "hip" people live in Brooklyn.) but, do white collar professionals who live in the WV or Chelsea dress differently than white collar professionals who live on 84th and 2nd? somewhat when it comes to work clothes. Brooks Brothers v. Paul Smith. Ann Taylor v. Bei. when it comes to non-work clothes....the differences are vast. there's a reason that you can always spot many young men from the UES/Murray Hill in downtown bars and restaurants. they're the ones wearing non-fitted button-down shirts tucked into khakis.

Meanwhile, if you examine a few randomly selected Upper East Siders, you'll find that plenty of them live there because it's cheap and convenient, but that they do most of their going-out downtown -- at least, if you talk to Upper East Side restaurateurs, they'll complain that this is exactly the behavior pattern that makes it so hard to operate an interesting restaurant on the Upper East Side.

oh, trust me, we know they do they're going out downtown. in NoLIta Bar Martignetti or Vig Bar are good examples of UES bars. in the WV Tortilla Flats, the White Horse and Automatic Slims are examples of UES bars (heck, so is Chumley's believe it or not).

The city is far more blended and ecumenical than the broad brushstrokes indicate. One can call Chelsea a "gay neighborhood" but Chelsea is not even majority gay. Rather, Chelsea is a gay neighborhood because in most of America X% of the population is gay but in Chelsea 10X% of the population is gay. It's the same when you look at the groups that define neighborhoods like the East Village. It's not that a majority of East Village residents conform to a stereotype. It's that more of them conform to that stereotype than in the next neighborhood up. In that sense, many neighborhoods are defined by their minorities.

The point being, while location is critical to restaurants, no type of dining is the exclusive possession of a given neighborhood's population. And if a given type of dining is concentrated in a given neighborhood, it's never a permanent state of affairs.

←

I completely agree with this. but it doesn't contradict me at all.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

walk down to the L train platform at Union Square on Sunday evening: look at the people coming down the stairs...one can pick out with a pretty high rate of accuracy who is going east and who is going west....just from clothing and hair styles (female hair styles (and the quality of the cut and color)

←

But how do you even know that? Do you pick a statistically significant random sample—better yet, a sample chosen by someone else, to eliminate selection bias—make a note of your guess, and then approach the person to find out if you're correct? I would be very surprised if you do. It appears you're simply assuming you have this skill that most of us are skeptical that you, or indeed anyone, would have.

←

all that's being demonstrated here is that most straight men are indeed oblivious to fashion cues. of course you can do a taxonomy of NY...just like any other city (ask someone from SF to explain a "Marina girl"). and I picked the L train because it's one of the most blatant examples in the city.

(the kids with flagrantly dyed hair, tattoos on their arms, boots with long stalkings, retro rocker hair etc. are going east....the people wearing Marni are going west....)

if you really wanted to do a test...it'd be easy. we don't have to ask them anything...just watch which train they get on.

[Fat Guy]

I won't go on all day debunking these ridiculous generalizations, both because it's not all that relevant to the topic and because it doesn't seem to help, but one more round:

1.  the median age downtown is definitely lower.

The age differences are not all that significant.

Age distribution for Manhattan Community District 8

Under 5 years 9,853 - 4.5%

5 to 9 years 7,126 - 3.3%

10 to 14 years 6,017 - 2.8%

15 to 19 years 5,131 - 2.4%

20 to 24 years 12,403 - 5.7%

25 to 44 years 89,609 - 41.3%

45 to 64 years 56,030 - 25.8%

65 years and over 30,894 - 14.2%

Age distribution for Manhattan Community District 3

Under 5 years 6,975 - 4.2%

5 to 9 years 7,497 - 4.6%

10 to 14 years 8,446 - 5.1%

15 to 19 years 9,975 - 6.1%

20 to 24 years 15,109 - 9.2%

25 to 44 years 59,637 - 36.3%

45 to 64 years 34,667 - 21.1%

65 years and over 22,101 - 13.4%

District 8 is Yorkville and the Upper East Side, and District 3 is the East Village, Lower East Side and Chinatown. If anything, I'd have to guess Chinatown pulls the District 3 ages down a bit, such that if you exclude Chinatown you may get very similar distributions.

2.  sure.  that's why, for example, the UES is seen as a "starter neighborhood"...but there are far more cases of people moving downtown when they can afford it than moving uptown from downtown.

Needless to say, if you believe every neighborhood is a predictable monolith, it's kind of hard to argue that a neighborhood can be the older neighborhood but also the starter neighborhood. Yet, since neighborhoods are diverse, it really is possible to be both, and indeed all the established neighborhoods have pockets of both types of people. If the Upper East Side is only a starter neighborhood, and if nobody is moving there from other neighborhoods, who's buying all the multi-million-dollar apartments on the Upper East Side? Recent immigrants from China's Fujian province? I doubt it. Again, this sort of generalization doesn't reflect the diversity of preferences in New York City. I know lots of people who now live on the Upper West and Upper East Sides, who had their first apartments in the East Village. While there are pockets of starter apartments -- Normandy Court, etc. -- on the Upper East Side, it absolutely is not a "starter neighborhood." Come on. It's the most established, establishmentarian neighborhood in New York, with the greatest concentration of schools, wealth, etc. Fifth and Park Avenue prewar coops are some of the most expensive real estate anywhere. TriBeCa now has some of the most expensive individual buildings, but the luxury neighborhoods of the Upper East Side overall are still some of the most desirable addresses.

3. that's true of Manhattan in general.  most people here are transplants.

I'm sure the data are compiled somewhere, and maybe I'll check the actual numbers, but I can say that my observation today just by walking around was that it's pretty obvious that the people walking on Madison Avenue in the 90s this morning were more likely to have been born in New York City than the people walking on Astor Place.

[oakapple]

all that's being demonstrated here is that most straight men are indeed oblivious to fashion cues.

←

I am, of course, not oblivious to those clues, despite being a straight guy. But when I look around the room at Momofuku Ssam Bar, I don't seen the same uniform, homogenous, trivially-identifiable crowd you profess to see. Yeah, the guy with flagrantly dyed hair, tattoos on their arms, boots with long stockings, retro rocker hair, etc., is statistically somewhat more likely to be going to certain places than others. But they don't all go there, and not everyone going there looks like that, and most Ssam Bar patrons don't look like that.

FG's example put it well. Chelsea is a more gay neighborhood than average, but not every Chelsea resident (or even a majority) is gay, and not all gays live in Chelsea.

Edited September 7, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Busboy]

No that the thread is devolving into a series of tangents on fashion, demographics and the definition of "formal," I'd like to pick my own nit and suggest that the topic title relies on an erroneous definition of the phrase "jump the shark."

Jumping the shark does not (necessarily) have anything to do with a decline in popularity or a shift in trend or public perception. An institution that has jumped the shark is one that has peaked and entered an irreversible decline in quality, usually marked by cheap gimmickry and lowbrow stunts, the result of creative exhaustion or greed for greater public approval. The moment at which an institution jumps the shark is the moment at which the first awful gimmick (one not followed by an adept recovery -- everything has peaks and valleys) is revealed to the world.

For example, all right-thinking people know that "The Simpsons" jumped the shark when the creators killed off Maude Flanders; M*A*S*H jumped when Hawkeye became insufferably self-righteous. Both shows, however, remained popular for long after: the Simpsons is limping into its 112th season, M*A*S*H only died when Alan Alda, in one of TVs first mercy killings, pulled the plug on his own show.

Whether or not one can wear flip-flops to Babbo or what the implied dress code differences between Mix and Momofuku are have nothing to do with the shark-jumping aspects of formal dining.

Now, if Alain DuCasse's after-dinner offering a choice of 12 different fountain pens with which to sign your four-figure (five figure?) check had presaged the collapse of "formal dining" into a morass of expensive pretense, that would signal a good old shark-jumping.

But, until the you start discussing the quality of the restaurants rather than the garb of the patrons, that's not the discussion your having (even though the discussion is an interesting one).

Just feeling editorial today, I guess.

[Fat Guy]

For example, all right-thinking people know that "The Simpsons" jumped the shark when the creators killed off Maude Flanders; M*A*S*H jumped when Hawkeye became insufferably self-righteous.  Both shows, however, remained popular for long after: the Simpsons is limping into its 112th season, M*A*S*H only died when Alan Alda, in one of TVs first mercy killings, pulled the plug on his own show.

←

While those are valid examples, the metaphor specifically refers to "Happy Days," when Fonzie literally jumped over a shark while on water skis.

[Busboy]

For example, all right-thinking people know that "The Simpsons" jumped the shark when the creators killed off Maude Flanders; M*A*S*H jumped when Hawkeye became insufferably self-righteous.  Both shows, however, remained popular for long after: the Simpsons is limping into its 112th season, M*A*S*H only died when Alan Alda, in one of TVs first mercy killings, pulled the plug on his own show.

←

While those are valid examples, the metaphor specifically refers to "Happy Days," when Fonzie literally jumped over a shark while on water skis.

←

True. But Happy Days always annoyed me, so I went for the shows that had more intellectual and emotional resonance for me and my fellow intellectuals on the board.

More on topic: in terms of driving the culinary scene -- the actuall cooking, that is -- has there been a marked change in whether trends coming down from the top (Asian Fusion-wise) or or bubbling up from the street (truffle pizza-wise)?

[Nathan]

I won't go on all day debunking these ridiculous generalizations, both because it's not all that relevant to the topic and because it doesn't seem to help, but one more round:

1.  the median age downtown is definitely lower.

The age differences are not all that significant.

Age distribution for Manhattan Community District 8

Under 5 years 9,853 - 4.5%

5 to 9 years 7,126 - 3.3%

10 to 14 years 6,017 - 2.8%

15 to 19 years 5,131 - 2.4%

20 to 24 years 12,403 - 5.7%

25 to 44 years 89,609 - 41.3%

45 to 64 years 56,030 - 25.8%

65 years and over 30,894 - 14.2%

Age distribution for Manhattan Community District 3

Under 5 years 6,975 - 4.2%

5 to 9 years 7,497 - 4.6%

10 to 14 years 8,446 - 5.1%

15 to 19 years 9,975 - 6.1%

20 to 24 years 15,109 - 9.2%

25 to 44 years 59,637 - 36.3%

45 to 64 years 34,667 - 21.1%

65 years and over 22,101 - 13.4%

District 8 is Yorkville and the Upper East Side, and District 3 is the East Village, Lower East Side and Chinatown. If anything, I'd have to guess Chinatown pulls the District 3 ages down a bit, such that if you exclude Chinatown you may get very similar distributions.

2.  sure.  that's why, for example, the UES is seen as a "starter neighborhood"...but there are far more cases of people moving downtown when they can afford it than moving uptown from downtown.

Needless to say, if you believe every neighborhood is a predictable monolith, it's kind of hard to argue that a neighborhood can be the older neighborhood but also the starter neighborhood. Yet, since neighborhoods are diverse, it really is possible to be both, and indeed all the established neighborhoods have pockets of both types of people. If the Upper East Side is only a starter neighborhood, and if nobody is moving there from other neighborhoods, who's buying all the multi-million-dollar apartments on the Upper East Side? Recent immigrants from China's Fujian province? I doubt it. Again, this sort of generalization doesn't reflect the diversity of preferences in New York City. I know lots of people who now live on the Upper West and Upper East Sides, who had their first apartments in the East Village. While there are pockets of starter apartments -- Normandy Court, etc. -- on the Upper East Side, it absolutely is not a "starter neighborhood." Come on. It's the most established, establishmentarian neighborhood in New York, with the greatest concentration of schools, wealth, etc. Fifth and Park Avenue prewar coops are some of the most expensive real estate anywhere. TriBeCa now has some of the most expensive individual buildings, but the luxury neighborhoods of the Upper East Side overall are still some of the most desirable addresses.

3. that's true of Manhattan in general.  most people here are transplants.

I'm sure the data are compiled somewhere, and maybe I'll check the actual numbers, but I can say that my observation today just by walking around was that it's pretty obvious that the people walking on Madison Avenue in the 90s this morning were more likely to have been born in New York City than the people walking on Astor Place.

←

sorry, I corrected #1 but apparently not in time. obviously the WV west of Hudson is older than the UES east of Lex...etc.

yes, the UES (along with the very similar Murray Hill) is a "starter neighborhood)...yes, the UES contains some of the most expensive real estate in the city...but overall it (along with the far East Village and the LES) is the cheapest real estate in Manhattan south of 96th.

I completely agree that people on Madison in the 90's were more likely to be born here...but that's not most of the UES.

http://www.tregny.com/manhattan-apt-rental-report.jsp

http://www.citi-habitats.com/media/pdf/rentals2002_2006.pdf

(UES, in the aggregate, is the cheapest neighborhood in Manhattan below 96th. fact. (two bedrooms are cheaper in the EV however))

and it's not just rentals.

http://www.citi-habitats.com/media/pdf/bw2006.pdf

but, 75% of the housing in Manhattan is rental. so, yeah, rent actually does matter the most. with that said:

the most expensive zip code in NY is in Tribeca, 10013:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06zip_new...thisSpeed=20000

here's a NY Times article on the subject. in a nutshell, your dollar goes 20-25% further on the UES and it's the "cheap" neighborhood to buy in...they go on to describe how this is a shock to those who have lived here for a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/realesta...nyt&emc=rss

the median price per square foot for the WV is now $1,304. source: http://localism.com/article/31063/Manhatta...eenwich-Village

from the times article:

""But it's also a comparative bargain, and that singular fact, aided by more plentiful inventory, is luring those who would prefer to live elsewhere. It's an odd concept to those who have lived in New York for more than a minute. Less than a generation ago, the Upper East Side was anything but a backup choice."

"Like many other brokers and buyers interviewed for this article, Ms. Kunen estimated that a dollar goes 20 to 25 percent further there than downtown or on the Upper West Side. In some cases, that may be an understatement, according to numbers provided by Miller Samuel, a Manhattan real estate appraiser. As of June 30, the median price of a two-bedroom apartment on the Upper East Side was $1.13 million, compared with $1.34 million on the Upper West Side, $1.41 million in Greenwich Village, and $1.975 million in the SoHo and TriBeCa area."

"But value-savvy buyers aren't necessarily alighting with a bounce in their step."I really didn't want to live up there," said Lori K. Schwartz, 36, a consumer products marketer who wanted to remain near Gramercy Park, where she rented a studio. "I tend to go out more downtown, and honestly it wasn't that hip of a neighborhood.""

[Nathan]

all that's being demonstrated here is that most straight men are indeed oblivious to fashion cues.

←

I am, of course, not oblivious to those clues, despite being a straight guy. But when I look around the room at Momofuku Ssam Bar, I don't seen the same uniform, homogenous, trivially-identifiable crowd you profess to see. Yeah, the guy with flagrantly dyed hair, tattoos on their arms, boots with long stockings, retro rocker hair, etc., is statistically somewhat more likely to be going to certain places than others. But they don't all go there, and not everyone going there looks like that, and most Ssam Bar patrons don't look like that.

FG's example put it well. Chelsea is a more gay neighborhood than average, but not every Chelsea resident (or even a majority) is gay, and not all gays live in Chelsea.

←

we largely agree. and I completely agree that Ssam Bar isn't filled with Bushwick types...but people at Ssam Bar are certainly far more likely to be wearing Imitation of Christ than Elizabeth St. John.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Fat Guy]

As I said, it doesn't help, so I'll bow out and hope that the topic gets back to the topic. However, I do think you've drawn pretty much all the wrong conclusions from the articles you've cited.

[oakapple]

The thesis, at any rate, is that in the 2007–08 season, there are none of the major openings that typically are associated with 4 stars or the higher end of 3 stars, and the question is why? In referring to this market segment as "formal dining," I may have created an element of confusion, but I will try to clarify.

Historically, this market segment is associated with relatively formal and expensive restaurants. Obviously "formality" re-invents itself with the times. Some people go into Jean Georges without a tie, whereas in an earlier age that would have been unthinkable. But in relative terms, there's no denying that JG is fairly close to being as formal as it gets in our era. And this year, for the first time since...when???...no restaurants purporting to be in that class are opening.

Perhaps someday a restaurant like Momofuku Ssam Bar will get four stars, and the traditional model will truly be shattered forever. But for now, it hasn't happened. Momofuku Ssam Bar is a two-star restaurant, and it seems that most of this year's high-profile openings are aiming no higher than that level (though Ducasse probably fancies Adour as at least a three-bagger). Most of these restaurants are not merely aiming at more casually-dressed patrons, but they are serving less ambitious food in a more informal setting, and they charging less for it. While there is no law of nature saying that these factors must be correlated, in practice they usually are.

The difference in price between Jean Georges and Momofuku Ssam Bar isn't just for reasons of decor, ambiance, and service. David Chang quite simply isn't attempting to serve as ambitious a menu as JG, Gordon Ramsay, or Per Se. Even if a few dishes hit that level—which is arguable—most do not. And that's why Ssam Bar isn't a four-star restaurant.

[Nathan]

you don't think that Tailor or Ko will be serving "ambitious food"? (well, Tailor already is.

if Ssam Bar has two (I think it should be three), it's not hard to speculate that Ko might be in the running for three

certainly it does appear that no restaurants with four-star aspirations are opening this fall (the unknown Liebrandt restaurant is purportedly aimed at a four-star level...but I'd surmise that spring/summer is the earliest it'll open)

[Dave H]

Atelier isn't a New York restaurant, but the factors that caused Robuchon to open Atelier in Paris are the same factors under discussion on this topic.

Oh, absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point is just that those factors are affecting a fine dining culture in Paris that started at a very different place than fine dining in NY. Hence what seems a bizarre combination of informal and formal in the context of NY fine dining was actually a coherent move toward informality in the context of Paris fine dining.

Robuchon may have conceived of Atelier as a global restaurant, as Ducasse obviously did with Spoon/Mix, but that's a perfect example (as well as a significant source) of the tone-deafness you refer to. Who the hell wants to blow a $400 dinner on a restaurant that proclaims its indifference to local factors like seasonality, local ingredients and local tastes and history? (Parisians, evidently. This is an interesting comment on French anxiety over their place in the current culinary world.)

Also I didn't mean to imply that Atelier isn't exceptionally good. (I've never been, but it seems clear that it is.) When I said people go because it's Robuchon, I didn't mean he was trading on name recognition but that people go to experience the food of the greatest chef of his generation. The point is that very few other chefs could get away with a place like Atelier.

[oakapple]

you don't think that Tailor or Ko will be serving "ambitious food"?  (well, Tailor already is.

←

I'm writing in relative terms. Tailor and Ssam Bar—it's too soon for me to speculate about Ko—are obviously ambitious in an important sense. But I don't think you can say they're consistently striving for, or achieving, the same culinary level as The Modern or Per Se.

That's not to suggest any kind of disappointment about what they've done. It's not about good and bad. They're just putting on a fundamentally different kind of show.

[BigboyDan]

There's the other factor: chef's want to make money.

As far as Robuchon, he wanted out of the Paris three-star rat race (selling Jamin), not out of fine dining - see Robuchon Las Vegas.

Edited September 7, 2007 by BigboyDan (log)

[Nathan]

I'll obviously have more to say after I eat at Tailor...but in terms of the ambition reflected in the menu descriptions...it appears to be every bit as ambitious as WD-50...which is certainly as ambitious (food-wise) as a number of four-star restaurants or restaurants with four-star pretensions.