66

[Sneakeater]

The prices for a la carte items, by the way, are very reasonable, especially for this sort of place.

←

It's interesting that you should make that comment. I guess it depends on what you mean by "this sort of place."

I went to 66 pretty frequently when it first opened. But that was mainly for buzz/novelty value (I loved Richard Meier's decor). But after a while, I just couldn't get past the thought that I didn't like the food much or even any better than at my favorite places a few blocks away in Chinatown. Where it's much cheaper.

So I guess it depends on whether you mean "New York Chinese place" or "well-designed place affiliated with famous chef".

Edited March 27, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[therese]

So I guess it depends on whether you mean "New York Chinese place" or "well-designed place affiliated with famous chef".

←

The latter, believe me.

I actually expected the food to be much worse and more expensive than it was, so my impression was shaped to some extent by low expectations.

[oakapple]

According to eater:

There hasn't been a person in 66 since last Spring. Place is toast....

←

Eater usually has pretty good sources, but this report is just plain wrong. 66 wasn't a big hit by Vongerichten standards, but I've eaten there quite a few times, and it pulls in a decent crowd. Whether it's enough to cover expenses is a whole other question, and I'm not saying anything about the restaurant's future, but Eater's quote is not even close to literally true.

[Sneakeater]

So I guess it depends on whether you mean "New York Chinese place" or "well-designed place affiliated with famous chef".

←

The latter, believe me.

I actually expected the food to be much worse and more expensive than it was, so my impression was shaped to some extent by low expectations.

←

It's also funny you should say that. Because I always thought there was sort of an overreaction against 66. I stopped going there once the novelty wore off because I didn't think it was a good value. But I never thought it was bad. To the contrary, I thought it was good (very good even). Just not good enough (or better enough).

[ckkgourmet]

It's also funny you should say that.  Because I always thought there was sort of an overreaction against 66.  I stopped going there once the novelty wore off because I didn't think it was a good value.  But I never thought it was bad.  To the contrary, I thought it was good (very good even).  Just not good enough (or better enough).

←

I agree. Despite all the negative press (e.g. the infamous "spent condom" dumpling review), I thought that 66 was generally quite good. I went there at least a dozen times after it opened for lunch, and perhaps 3 times for dinner. On all but two occasions I was extremely pleased with what I had. I remember admiring the scallion pancakes in particular. But I haven't been there for at least a year, so I cannot comment about the place in the present tense. I have the sense that if 66 fails it will be because it attempted to win the NYC glitterati restaurant popularity contest and, somehow or another, lost. But perhaps one reason for its failure is simply its location. The glitterati obviously have recently concentrated their bling and buzz to the North, near JGV's other restaurant in the Meatpacking.