Triangolo

[thereuare]

Not being a big fan of dining in the city (i'm tired of the 'we're doing you a favor by letting you eat here' attitude, along with the overcrowding and the trend of turning everything 'nuveau') i was very pleasantly surprised by the meal i had here on Friday nite.

We had a reservation for a group of 6 but when we arrived informed them that we'd only be a party of 5... "no problem". Two people in our party were running late... no pressure or attitude from the staff, they were just happy that we chose to eat at their restaurant that evening! Our friends called to give an update on their arrival and the owner brought the phone over to our table so they could speak to us.

Once they arrived we ordered a couple of bottles of wine and placed our orders. The cuisine is italian, with the menu consisting mainly of pasta dishes along with a few chicken and veal selections, and a fish of the day... however, the staff is very accomodating and appear to be willing to make whatever you'd like if the ingredients are on hand. My request for a veal dish on the menu to be made with chicken instead of veal was met with an "of course."

Everyone at the table seemed to enjoy their meal. Prices were reasonable (appetizers ~$9, ~$16 pasta dishes, ~$18 meat dishes) and it was refreshing to eat at a place where you actually felt appreciated. A real neighborhood place that i will be returning to. CASH only.

Edited July 21, 2003 by thereuare (log)

[mogsob]

I could not disagree more. Triangolo is at best a very ordinary neighborhood Italian restaurant (and not even one of the better ones in a 4 block radius), and at worst, well, just bad. Friendly service is not a substitute for ordinary food.

Besides, where are you eating that you get such attitude? Perhaps you are taking your dining recommendations from Page Six? There are plenty of great restaurants in New York with no attitude at all. Also, "nuveau" went out in the 1980s. Is this code for "the portions are too small"?

[thereuare]

Perhaps you are taking your dining recommendations from Page Six?

No, just from my wife

My 'nuveau' reference was brought about from a recent memory at Dos Caminos, which i describe as nuveau Mexican. Perhaps some people like it, but i didn't (and yes, i did leave hungry).

Edited July 22, 2003 by thereuare (log)

[Pan]

FYI, the word is nouveau. I wouldn't correct you except that you've used the wrong spelling twice. I hope you find the information useful and not annoyingly nitpicky.

[thereuare]

I'm trainable... thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

[phaelon56]

I, on the other hand, am not very trainable but then again, I'm not married (that may be why).

(i'm tired of the 'we're doing you a favor by letting you eat here' attitude, along with the overcrowding and the trend of turning everything 'nouveau')

I dine in the city so rarely these days (and it will indeed be even less frequently as I am in the process of moving away from the area) that it's less of an issue for me but I'm always glad to hear of a place that really has a good attitude re/service. Yes..... friendly and accomodating service does not always equate with above average food but I go out to eat for the total experience (and because I'm often too lazy too cook). I'd rather have average food and the warmth and friendliness than somewhat above average food that's served up with condescending attitude.

Edited July 23, 2003 by phaelon56 (log)

[Bux]

Perhaps it's time for my two cents and a reminder that there's no accounting for personal taste -- in food and in the way we approach restaurant dining. I really enjoy dining out, especially in New York. I suppose I run into my share of attitude, but mostly it doesn't bother me that much and lets me appreciate it all the more when I don't run into it, which is most of the time. Maybe I just don't pay all that much attention to anything but the food. Unless I like the food, I'm not likely to return or talk about the restaurant. I enjoy the total experience as well, but the food sets the limit of the experience. If the service and ambience are perfect, I will enjoy the food 100%. Otherwise I will enjoy it less. Thus condescending attitude can turn a meal with food that rates a 98 into a 65 experience, but nothing can improve a restaurant where the food is worth a 60.

I think, over time, we all decide who's going to post the reviews that lead us to a new restaurant. When thereuare says he's not a fan of dining out in the city, I suspect we don't share similar dining interests. I quickly get the sense that the restaurant in question is also not operating at full capacity. I don't think poplular restaurants are necessarily condescending, but I do think the staff is likely to be frazzled. I sympathize with them and don't find the attitude others do perhaps. I think USC is a good example to cite. It might be a restaurant where the service is better than the food, but it's a place where the food is damn near perfect. Why settle for better than average where there are restaurants like that?

[tommy]

Why settle for better than average where there are restaurants like that?

price?

additionally, anyone who has dined in NYC a decent amount of times and not come across "attitude", at least the kind that i'm understanding is objectionable to thereuare, is probably pretty lucky.

Edited July 23, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Bux]

Why settle for better than average where there are restaurants like that?

price?

additionally, anyone who has dined in NYC a decent amount of times and not come across "attitude", at least the kind that i'm understanding is objectionable to thereuare, is probably pretty lucky.

Price? More expensive than Triangolo. Appetizers around $12 and main courses around $28. I didn't mean to compare the two as in the same price range. I just meant to say that one should not have to settle for less than excellent food just to avoid attitude. In fact, I suspect more diners find attitude at the expensive places rather than the inexpensive ones.

[tommy]

Price? More expensive than Triangolo. Appetizers around $12 and main courses around $28. I didn't mean to compare the two as in the same price range. I just meant to say that one should not have to settle for less than excellent food just to avoid attitude. In fact, I suspect more diners find attitude at the expensive places rather than the inexpensive ones.

i thought you were asking why one wouldn't go to a place like USC, which has good food and good service, rather than a lesser place. i think "price" is a good reason why they wouldn't. i'm assuming USC is a bit more expensive than Triangolo.

a lot of people "settle" for "less than excellent" food for a lot of reasons. condescending service being just one. count me as one of those people. if you'd like, i can explain it all to you, but i'm sure you actually understand and your question is just rhetorical.

although, i find most of the nasty service comes from mid-range places. very strange, considering they generally aren't special enough to return to.

Edited July 23, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Bux]

You raise a good point and it's a complex issue. My point was only to say that there exist in NY places that offer good food and good service. Price is always a valid point. Most of the time, most of us eat out, we set a price point at which we'd like to eat. We'll frequently be willing to eat for less, but rarely willing to pay more. So, the issue I see is how we weigh the value of the food vs. the rest of what goes into the evening.

At almost every price point, I've know people who will put up with surly service for the quality of the food. That goes for dives in Chinatown where the price can't be beat and the food is excellent and it also goes for places like the uptown delis famous for pastrami and for Peter Lugar. In fact sometimes it seems like putting up with the service is the draw since those delis are not all that great.

As for settling for less than you have to, I guess I feel there's a restaurant at every price range that supplies good food without attitude. Perhaps my problem is that I don't run into attitude all that often and when I do, I don't really care as long as it doesn't interfere with my food. If the foods are equal, I'll return to the restaurant that treats me best. That's why it's strange to find attitude in places where the food is not special. Maybe it's inexplicable, but I actually find less attitude where the food is really special.

People with attitude have to eat and need jobs. I'm just happy to run into them where they have little affect on my life. There's little a host or maitre d' can do to ruin my meal if I don't let him. I worry when I run into traffic court judges with an attitude and guys in bureaucracies. They can really ruin my day.

[tommy]

it seems that different people have different levels of tolerance for food quality, nastiness, and cost.

[Pan]

condescending attitude can turn a meal with food that rates a 98 into a 65 experience, but nothing can improve a restaurant where the food is worth a 60.

I couldn't agree more, Bux. Well said!

[thereuare]

So that i have a list to consult in the future, what would you recommend in NYC (any area within Manhattan) but not Asian-esque (no Chinese, Korean, Thai, Indian, etc) that would cost under $100/couple including drink, appetizer, and entree? I'm talking for the average items on the menu, please don't recommend a restaurant that is prefaced by "it can be done if you stick with the lower priced items."

I made this request awhile back and was basically told it was too difficult of a proposition, but juding by the comments above it sounds like it's an easy task... please advise so i won't have to scramble next time.

[Pan]

When you say "drink" I'm assuming a glass of wine apiece.

We can start with some Italian restaurants in the East Village. Try Il Bagatto, Col Legno, and Lavagna. I've never paid more than $40-something, and that was when I went to Lavanga or Il Bagatto with 2-4 friends and shared a bottle of $40-something wine. OK, I may have paid closer to $50 when I also got a caipirinha before a meal at Il Bagatto, had a full-course meal, _and_ split a $40-something bottle of wine 5 ways. But I got dessert, too. Your request doesn't include a primo piatto, secondo piatto, and dessert. Appetizer + primo or secondo + dessert + a glass of wine apiece is easily under $50 at all three of these places, regardless of what dishes you order - but of course you could get an expensive bottle of wine if you choose to.

[mogsob]

Interesting. In any list of restaurants with attitude, I would have thought Il Bagatto would have nearly topped the list (along with Babbo, Balthazar, Daniel). A few simple rules for eating out in NY:

1. Never go to a restaurant unless it has been open for one year. Few restaurants, if any, hit their stride until they have been open for several months, and if their is any kind of buzz about it, you can be assured that you will be ignored, sat next to the kitchen/loos, and served cold food. Wait for the shiny happy people to move on to the next hot place before you go.

2. Never go to a restaurant that has just received 3+ stars from the NY Times. Once such stars are secured, these restaurants tend to bathe in their own reflected glory for several months before realizing that they actually need to do some work.

3. Read Page Six every day. Never go to a restaurant listed therein. Never, ever.

4. Avoid all restaurants whose chefs have shows on FoodTV. High concentrations of actor/waiters there.

5. Get NY Magazine's annual Best of NY issue -- avoid all restaurants listed for four months.

6. If in doubt, eat progressively uptown. Attidude breeds in Soho lofts, and spreads outwards in concentric circles. The further uptown you go, the less attitude you will get.

Restaurants Under $100 For Two

Etats Unis

Il Buco

Savoy

Prune

L'Impero

Tasting Room

Home

Le Gigot

Home

First

[phaelon56]

Tommy said

although, i find most of the nasty service comes from mid-range places. very strange, considering they generally aren't special enough to return to.

Astute observation and so true. It is a bit odd, isnt it?

Thereuare - I can't offer a list but can say that I had a great meal at Gus' Figs on or about east 28th near 8th (just up the block from FIT).

[thereuare]

That's a list of one, which is perfectly acceptable.

If it's good enuff for you, i'd venture that it's good enuff for me!

Thanks!

[SobaAddict70]

to mogsob's list, I'd add the following:

Le Zie

Lupa

Le Jardin Bistro

Cornelia Street Cafe

Zarela

Florent

Jarnac

Wallse

Meet

Country Cafe (on Thompson Street, between Prince and Spring; French bistro, quite unknown)

[juuceman]

When you say "drink" I'm assuming a glass of wine apiece.

We can start with some Italian restaurants in the East Village. Try Il Bagatto, Col Legno, and Lavagna. I've never paid more than $40-something, and that was when I went to Lavanga or Il Bagatto with 2-4 friends and shared a bottle of $40-something wine. OK, I may have paid closer to $50 when I also got a caipirinha before a meal at Il Bagatto, had a full-course meal, _and_ split a $40-something bottle of wine 5 ways. But I got dessert, too. Your request doesn't include a primo piatto, secondo piatto, and dessert. Appetizer + primo or secondo + dessert + a glass of wine apiece is easily under $50 at all three of these places, regardless of what dishes you order - but of course you could get an expensive bottle of wine if you choose to.

we've hased out the il bagatto attitude and failure to stand by their reservations issue before so i won't go into it.. sufficient to say that they wouldn't have been so accomodating of you're friends' lateness..

lavagna is great.. my favorite east village italian.. they take reservations and are pretty good about honoring them in a timely manner.. and letting you sit and chill while the rest of your party arrives.. it's under a hundred bucks per couple..

[mogsob]

to mogsob's list, I'd add the following:

Le Zie

Lupa

Le Jardin Bistro

Cornelia Street Cafe

Zarela

Florent

Jarnac

Wallse

Meet

Country Cafe (on Thompson Street, between Prince and Spring; French bistro, quite unknown)

Lupa violates the FoodTV Rule

Wallese violates the Page Six Rule

Meet sounds like it violates that Page Six Rule, but can't recall

Otherwise, I agree on Le Jardin, Florent (food just ok, but always open), and Country Cafe.

[SobaAddict70]

Otherwise, I agree on Le Jardin, Florent (food just ok, but always open), and Country Cafe.

I don't read the Post (I refuse to, actually, because the paper is so freakin' conservative/Republican/mind-numbingly predicatable!!!), so Page Six doesn't apply to me.

Besides, these restos are places where one can go and get a good meal for $100 for two, which is what thereuare wanted in the first place, I believe. I've never had attitude at Lupa. Other views may vary.

Soba

[Bux]

So that i have a list to consult in the future, what would you recommend in NYC (any area within Manhattan) but not Asian-esque (no Chinese, Korean, Thai, Indian, etc) that would cost under $100/couple including drink, appetizer, and entree?  I'm talking for the average items on the menu, please don't recommend a restaurant that is prefaced by "it can be done if you stick with the lower priced items."

I made this request awhile back and was basically told it was too difficult of a proposition, but juding by the comments above it sounds like it's an easy task... please advise so i won't have to scramble next time.

Not including tax and tip? Even USC could be included.

[thereuare]

$100/couple 'out the door'

[badger0412]

All

Small question if I may - can someone enlighten me as to what Page 6 and the Page 6 rule might be?

Thanks

Ignorant Brit