Does anybody still go to . . .

[Fat Guy]

. . . Vong?

With all the talk about how terribly, horribly, painfully difficult it is to open a successful high-end restaurant in New York City, I've been wondering about successful high-end restaurants that somehow manage to stay in business even though they seem to be irrelevant nowadays.

I'm starting with Vong, hoping to understand who's eating there and why. Anybody know? And what are the other restaurants in this category: expensive food, high-concept design, still in business, but not a place you'd ever really want to go . . .

[oakapple]

. . . Vong?

With all the talk about how terribly, horribly, painfully difficult it is to open a successful high-end restaurant in New York City, I've been wondering about successful high-end restaurants that somehow manage to stay in business even though they seem to be irrelevant nowadays.

I'm starting with Vong, hoping to understand who's eating there and why. Anybody know? And what are the other restaurants in this category: expensive food, high-concept design, still in business, but not a place you'd ever really want to go . . .

←

My one and only experience with Vong was about 2 years ago. My thinking was, "It's a Vongerichten restaurant that I've never been to. I want to check it off the list." It wasn't a disappointing meal in any sense, though obviously it's no longer ground-breaking, and JG's association with it is, by now, strictly nominal.

The word "irrelevant" in the post meant, I presume, "irrelevant to foodies." I think that "foodies" (it's an awful term, but I don't have a better one) probably comprise a miniscule fraction of the dining public. I suspect that even the places that people like us still consider "relevant," like Babbo, draw most of their revenue from guests who aren't serious connoisseurs.

There are many "old school" places that fit the bill, like One if By Land, Cafe des Artistes, Four Seasons, 21 Club, Petrossian, Russian Tea Room, Tavern on the Green. They all pre-date the "big box Asian" theme (of which Vong was among the first), but they'd all be considered "high concept" if they opened today.

[Nathan]

La Grenouille

Cafe des Artistes

Shun Lee, Philippe, etc.

virtually all of the douchebagging district restaurants (Spice Market, Morimoto et al)

Tavern on the Green

Aureole

Barolo

Tao

Cafe Carlyle

One if By Land Two if By Sea

any Steven Hanson restaurant

in some cases its tourists (I'd bet that's a lot of Vong's business, others it's Eurotrash (Barolo -- its a big UN hangout, various places in midtown close to central park, Da Silvano's, Bruno's, Frederick's), others its B&T/tourists (the entire MP, OIBLTIBS), and for others its an older, monied, non-foodie crowd who like to go to places they're familiar with (Cafe des Artistes, Cafe Carlyle, Shun Lee).

now obviously, none of these places rely upon exclusively one crowd or the other...but they do happen to have one or more groups that stand out (at least to my knowledge....I've never eaten at Shun Lee (I have had delivery) but the only people I know who eat there are people who grew up in the city and it's the place where their parents go).

Edited September 8, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

as for the original question about Vong: I'll note that the restaurant is a facsimile of the Le Colonial chain (or maybe it's the reverse...I don't know which opened first). I've been to them in a number of cities (ran in the same circle as some of the ownership)....they were very trendy when they opened, tended to become coke/nightlife hangouts, usually had adequate food (I'm betting Vong was/is better), and eventually became tourist traps combined with a bit of a Euro crowd.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Aureole, which carries a Michelin star, doesn't quite seem to fit the rest of your list. Come to think of it, Fiamma Osteria (a Hanson restaurant) has a Michelin star too.

You'd be surprised how many business lunches and dinners there are, where people are looking for dependable unadventurous fare. Vong, which is smack in the middle of East Midtown, is perfect for that.

Edit: I'm not sure whether FG is looking for places that were formerly relevant (certainly true of Vong), or for places that never were relevant to begin with (most of Hanson's empire).

Edited September 8, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

Aureole, which carries a Michelin star, doesn't quite seem to fit the rest of your list. Come to think of it, Fiamma Osteria (a Hanson restaurant) has a Michelin star too.

You'd be surprised how many business lunches and dinners there are, where people are looking for dependable unadventurous fare. Vong, which is smack in the middle of East Midtown, is perfect for that.

←

well, I included Aureole because it doesn't seem like foodies go there. but, I know plenty of people who do eat there (partners and the like)...i.e. not really foodies but people who generally eat well (they seem to be identical to the group of Zagat voters that I know).

I wasn't counting business lunches/dinners. obviously midtown is replete with expensive restaurants that survive upon the business/business-visitor trade. given Vong's location you're right that it almost certainly gets some of that.

edit: Fiamma, of course, has the reputation of being the only decent/good Hanson restaurant. but the chef has left and I haven't had any recent reports. it's certainly a bit of an exception compared to the others due to its having some credibility. I do know someone with the Hanson group who works with all of their restaurants around the country (but based in NY) who verifies that the Hanson restaurants in NY generally rely upon out-of-towners....I don't know if that applies to Fiamma though.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[chefadamg]

If Aureole is not relevant in your opinion..I just wasted 2 minutes of my time reading this IRRELEVANT post. I've got news for all the "foodies" who believe new restaurants chasing so called avant garde techniques determine relevance. When Tailor/WD 50/Alinea etc. are out of business...and YES, I'm afraid they will all go out of business in the near term. Aureole and that old fogie Charlie Palmer will continue it's "ho-hum" march into that foodie land of irrelevance.

[BigboyDan]

OK, I'll ask the question for all of us non-NYers: where is the "douchebagging district", and why is it so named?

[oakapple]

OK, I'll ask the question for all of us non-NYers: where is the "douchebagging district", and why is it so named?

←

Nathan is referring to the Meatpacking District. I think it's a nickname he invented, but I knew instantly what he meant. As the name implies, it was formerly an industrial meat packing district, but it is now primarily a club/restaurant/retail area. Nathan thinks that only tourists and the so-called "bridge & tunnel crowd" go there, which of course is not true at all, but to an extent it has that reputation. It is certainly hard to find a restaurant there that any of the food community takes seriously, although Spice Market was very favorably reviewed by multiple critics when it opened.

There is also the matter of defining that neighborhood properly. Morimoto, which he named, is not technically in the Meatpacking district, though it is close by and might be said to appeal to the same crowd. But Del Posto and Crafsteak are across the street, and they're in a very different class.

[oakapple]

If Aureole is not relevant in your opinion..I just wasted 2 minutes of my time reading this IRRELEVANT post. I've got news for all the "foodies" who believe new restaurants chasing so called avant garde techniques determine relevance. When Tailor/WD 50/Alinea etc. are out of business...and YES, I'm afraid they will all go out of business in the near term. Aureole and that old fogie Charlie Palmer will continue it's "ho-hum" march into that foodie land of irrelevance.

←

WD-50 has had a pretty good run, so I wouldn't be so fast to write its epitaph. But to put the comment a little more judiciously, the "foodies" definitely have distinct preferences from society at large. "Intellectual cuisine" has a limited audience, but it can be very difficult to get into some of these places, as anyone who's tried to snag a reservation at El Bulli or The Fat Duck will attest. Edited September 9, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[BigboyDan]

The era of "novelle cuisine" was an effort to realign caloric needs with that which was necessary for its patrons, meaning that the 1970's revolution of French fare had a purpose behind the fashion. The Chez Panisse "lead" revolt of processed food served in restaurants (adding a local product sensibilty as well), had value beyond its cultural message. But, I do not really see WD-50, The Fat Duck, Pierre Gagniere, El Bulli, etc. offering their patrons, past the sustenance, much more than novelty.

Edited September 9, 2007 by BigboyDan (log)

[chefadamg]

WD-50 has had a pretty good run, so I wouldn't be so fast to write its epitaph. But to put the comment a little more judiciously, the "foodies" definitely have distinct preferences from society at large. "Intellectual cuisine" has a limited audience, but it can be very difficult to get into some of these places, as anyone who's tried to snag a reservation at El Bulli or The Fat Duck will attest.

←

I LOVE Wd-50..as a chef, the staff is an inspiration. There is one BIG preference for the majority on these threads. (And I would certainly include myself in that majority) And that preference is a search for something NEW. And I think it's important to understand that "relevence" is NOT the same thing. And I dont believe this recent phenomenom is "intellectual" at all...quite the contrary. It's as "base" as we can get...it's our basic reaction to stimuli. Or, our lack of reaction to PREVIOUS stimuli already encountered. (i.e. our lack of excitement for Aureole)Why do we react to a droplet of mango juice encapsulated in itself? Afterall..its just mango juice?

[Timh]

The derisive tone in "the tourists go there" is elitist and ridiculous. If not for them the restaurants sink. Guess who fills the chairs at virtually all Michellin 3 star spots, yes, its tourists. You think the locals frequent any of these places(frequent being the key word )? Are places like Katz's still relavent? As long as these spots continue to serve quality food, the fact that the concept may seem dated is more for those needing"scene".

[Fat Guy]

I personally don't confuse newness with relevance. Jean Georges, Babbo, Blue Hill, Sushi Yasuda, Gramercy Tavern, Peter Luger, and many others . . . these are all well-established restaurants that maintain relevance regardless of age. Relevance to whom? I'd say it's a larger group than just "foodies." I'd call it the educated dining public.

[Pan]

The derisive tone in "the tourists go there" is elitist and ridiculous. If not for them the restaurants sink. Guess who fills the chairs at virtually all Michellin 3 star spots, yes, its tourists. You think the locals frequent any of these places(frequent being the key word )? Are places like Katz's still relavent? As long as these spots continue to serve quality food, the fact that the concept may seem dated is more for those needing"scene".

←

Tim, first of all, many New Yorkers go to Katz's. But secondly, we're really talking about different classes of tourists. I think it's pretty likely that the huge bulk of the patronage of the chains around Times Square (Applebee's and the like) are tourists whose idea of a trip to New York doesn't include avoiding the chains that exist everywhere else in the country (instead, those chains probably comfort them in a strange place, I imagine). That's the lowest level, probably. There are various other levels, including tourists who are extremely knowledgeable about gourmet dining. So you're right, there's an overgeneralization, but I don't think anyone is really saying that places are bad because tourists go there. It's more like, there are a bunch of places that serve tourists who are more interested in glitz than quality, because that's what "going to the City" means to them. We've discussed this before on other threads. I know many people who fit into that "B&T" stereotype.

[newguy]

why does a place have to be "relevant" to be open? if you are talking about restaurants being "relevant" there would be 6 places in ny.

[Nathan]

there are tourists with taste and tourists without taste...just like there are NY'ers with taste and NY'ers without taste.

but..."tourist traps"....in any city....are called that for a reason.

what else would you call Tavern on the Green?

[Dryden]

I went to Aureole maybe a year ago. It wasn't good, it wasn't bad. It was just boring. Stylistically similar to a place like Gotham, but just not as refined and not as interesting to my palate. Most of the other folks there, I got the impression, were there very frequently and liked their food to not change very much or challenge them, which isn't a bad thing, but certainly doesn't describe 99% of the people on eGullet.

One if by land - now that's bad.

[oakapple]

why does a place have to be "relevant" to be open?  if you are talking about restaurants being "relevant" there would be 6 places in ny.

←

The number of "relevant" places (as FG defined it) surely numbers at least 100, and perhaps more. Anyone monitoring the message boards (EG, Mouthfuls, Chowhound) can readily find the restaurants that are repeatedly recommended by knowledgeable diners, over and over again. There are a lot of them.

I think the object of the thread—though perhaps it has morphed a bit—was to discuss expensive, high-concept places that were formerly considered trailblazers, but are no longer regarded that way—Vong being a prime example.

[newguy]

The number of "relevant" places (as FG defined it) surely numbers at least 100, and perhaps more. Anyone monitoring the message boards (EG, Mouthfuls, Chowhound) can readily find the restaurants that are repeatedly recommended by knowledgeable diners, over and over again. There are a lot of them.

I think the object of the thread—though perhaps it has morphed a bit—was to discuss expensive, high-concept places that were formerly considered trailblazers, but are no longer regarded that way—Vong being a prime example.

this is exactly what i was referring to, without the sarcasm. vong is no longer "relevant" so it should just close? why? the food was "great" once. maybe it still is for some that have never been there. i'm sure it still turns quite a profit or else it would have closed by now. so it's not "relevant" but it was the first of it's kind 10 years ago, doesn't that make it "relevant" no matter what?

[tracyinfrance]

Being a fairly novice visitor to NYC I have to ask if River Cafe would fall into this category of once being heralded as being a top place, or has it always strictly been for tourists who want a view of Manhatten at night?

We are meeting some friends and it is her 40th birthday and she has never been to NY -she is not the most adventerous of eaters so we need something classical but special and it would be even better if there was amazing views? I know this is getting off the subject a bit, but as the menu needs to be classic rather than avant gard perhaps it is the ol' dinasours which would come to mind?? Any suggestions would be really appreciated!

[Dryden]

River cafe used to have quite good food, and I think it's still pretty well thought of, relative to a lot of the places in this thread. The view, of course, isn't what it once was.