Zagat Survey 2004 for LA/SoCal

[SWoodyWhite]

I'd forgotten that I'd sent some opinions to Zagat a while back, so I was nicely surprised to find the new Zagat Survey 2004 Los Angles So. California Restaurants in the mail. Two changes in the survey are the inclusion of web site addresses, and the division of the book into regions. No longer is the entire county a single entity, which always struck me as awkward since LA is larger than some states, both in population and area. The book is now divided into:

Los Angeles/Hollywood/West Hollywood

The Westside

South Bay and Long Beach

San Fernando Valley and Burbank

San Gabriel Valley/Pasadena/Glendale

Orange County

I am bothered a little by the introductory comment by Merrill Shindler that "Surveyors overwhelmingly prefer the west for fine dining." I've a strong suspicion that the readers of Zagats LA tend to either live on the Westside, or spend most of their visiting time in that area, and stick close to their home base in their dining choices. As a Long Beach resident, I'm glad to see more representation of my city in the guide; the first edition I picked up featured barely a dozen restaurants; this edition brings the total up to thirty. But this barely compares with the index listings for Santa Monica, which take a full page to list.

My point being that if Zagats wants to sell more copies of their guide to people in Long Beach, or Burbank, or other cities in the county, they're going to have to reach out to these people by including more restaurants in these cities, or at least more easily reached. Otherwise, it will continue to be a Westside-biased publication.

[hollywood]

Good points. I'm still awaiting my "free" copy. Recent copies of the book I can recall have focused on the Westside and a few years ago they suddenly started giving a lot of attention to Pasadena. They did send me the goofy music survey book though.

[Chris Cognac]

I agree and think that most publications (daily breeze excepted) are biased in favor of the west side. Look at the Auto Club magazine.....everything is west side or valley area...The South Bay and Long Beach hardly ever get mentioned....and the L.A. Times.....dont get me started!..I have offered to write columns for both and never received a reply, what a suprise!

[JFLinLA]

and the L.A. Times.....dont get me started!

I think I have to disagree here somewhat. If I review my digests of the LA Times, they've got stuff from all over . . . or at least it seems that way to me. Sure there are plenty of westside fancy places but there are lots of others as well including SGV, SFV, inland empire, Pasadena and, yes, even south bay, Orange County and more.

[russ parsons]

The South Bay and Long Beach hardly ever get mentioned....and the L.A. Times.....dont get me started!..

you probably won't be surprised that we hear about the supposed westside bias all the time. but the hard facts of life are that restaurants follow the money and there's just a greater concentration of spendable money on the westside than anywhere else. it's the same situation in new york with manhattan.

we do try to hit a lot of areas and, frankly, probably the bias works as much in reverse as anything else. since we are so conscious of the perception, we work doubly hard to find worthy places in outlying areas and maybe give a break to some that aren't quite so worthy every once in a while. as someone who lives in long beach, i wish there were more better restaurants here, but there simply aren't. frenchy's is fun, but compared to restaurants on the westside, it's a neighborhood spot (not that there's anything wrong with that). my wife and i go to 555 steakhouse a lot because i like their wine list. it's been reviewed. what's left?

when you multiply this situation by the various "microclimates" in los angeles--the valley, the SGV, orange county, the far valley, malibu ... not to mention the inland empire, palmdale, etc., it's a tough situation.

and i'd like to point out that today's main restaurant review is downtown.

also, i am not speaking as an official spokesperson for the times. just my two bits as someone who's been in the trenches.

[Fat Guy]

So Woody did any of your quotes make it into the guide? Anybody else?

[SWoodyWhite]

Frankly, I don't even remember which restaurants I submitted comments on, and my ego isn't based on getting three or four words quoted for a review. And since I'm moving to Delaware before the month ends, I'm not likely to be using this year's LA edition to advise me on restaurant choices.

Although, as I was reading over the Long Beach reviews and numbers yesterday while partner Bruce drove us to our errands, we were reminded that we want to drop by Lashers (22-21-23-$38, 3441 E. Broadway) before we leave. Someone included the line "Thursday is wine lover's night," sounds like a good time to drop by and see old friends.

[Chris Cognac]

and the L.A. Times.....dont get me started!

I think I have to disagree here somewhat. If I review my digests of the LA Times, they've got stuff from all over . . . or at least it seems that way to me. Sure there are plenty of westside fancy places but there are lots of others as well including SGV, SFV, inland empire, Pasadena and, yes, even south bay, Orange County and more.

I stopped reading the Times due to the fact that it really seams to be centered in the Valley, westside area and the South Bay does seam do get neglected alot. L.A. is a huge place and its almost impossible for a publication to really "cover" all the area's. I think that is why its better to read a smaller publication such as the Daily Breeze, Long Beach Press Telegram for better "local" coverage. I might be biased on that though!

[FoodZealot]

I just got my copy in the mail last night, and I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the tone of the summaries has tilted over to the positive side. Granted, the 50 words or so hardly begins to cover the full picture of almost any restaurant (unless at the absolute top or bottom). Yet some places that have significant downsides don't even have a "doubters say" or any qualification whatsoever, and the result sounds like a glowing review. Anybody else notice this?

I haven't made up my mind about the new geographic sections, but on first use, I don't like it. For multi-location/chain restaurants, it necessitates lots more flipping to read reviews printed in other sections.

~Tad

[mixmaster b]

I just got my copy in the mail last night, and I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the tone of the summaries has tilted over to the positive side.  Granted, the 50 words or so hardly begins to cover the full picture of almost any restaurant (unless at the absolute top or bottom).  Yet some places that have significant downsides don't even have a "doubters say" or any qualification whatsoever, and the result sounds like a glowing review.  Anybody else notice this?

I haven't made up my mind about the new geographic sections, but on first use, I don't like it.  For multi-location/chain restaurants, it necessitates lots more flipping to read reviews printed in other sections.

~Tad

I noticed that, too. I wrote some really awful stuff about the "teflon" type spots, and took some major swipes at some of the super-trendy places, and most of my comments were ignored. ("Snotty" service at the Ivy made it in, but I bet I was not the only person to write that!)

I think I like the new geography, but it will take some getting used to.

Frankly, I don't even remember which restaurants I submitted comments on, and my ego isn't based on getting three or four words quoted for a review.   

I am much less mature than you, SWoody! I looked through all my votes to see how many of my pithy comments they used!!! (Small amusements, I know.)

My best was regarding Takao on San Vicente:

An "ugly" place, but the "stuff on the plate is beautiful".

Interesting that they added the quotes where they did, as the whole phrase appeared almost exactly as I wrote it. (They deleted the word "little".)

[SWoodyWhite]

An interesting article by Russ' L. A. Times cohort David Shaw can be found here: http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo...-headlines-food

Personally, I've been reading both the Times and Press Telegram for years. The Times is better at national, state, and county-wide coverage, the P/T better for local. But the critics at the P/T are a joke, not worth bothering with. Rudis writes each review from a stock formula that requires him to interview the kitchen as to the contents of each dish, making his reviews PR blurbs rather than honest assessments. Djurklou, who doubles as a theater critic, regularly gets basic facts wrong. Both are inept at putting words together. I will not miss their writing at all.

But, back to Russ' statement that "...the hard facts of life are that restaurants follow the money and there's just a greater concentration of spendable money on the westside than anywhere else." The key word here is spendable, or more accurately spent. I've been to a number of houses on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, where the kitchens alone are larger than the average NYC apartment. These people clearly have money, and lots of it. Do they have many restaurants where they live? This year, Zagat lists three: Ruby's (a local chain), Marmalade Cafe (multiple locations), and Trio Mediterranean Grill (the only single-location operation listed), so I'd say the answer is no. In order to dine out well, these residents have to travel. The same is true, to a lesser degree, of the wealthier enclaves in Long Beach, and there are several. The money is there, but it's not being spent within these neighborhoods on fine dining.

This suggests that it isn't the money that is important for the location of the finer restaurants, but the existance of a culture that puts a value on spending that money on fine dining. "Let's go out to eat" is a phrase more likely to be heard when there are good choices of where to dine to be found, and synergetically the better restaurants gather where the diners are likely to be found. (Yes, I realize I'm now contradicting my earlier comments, but second thoughts are allowed, aren't they?)

The question thus becomes one of how to create that synergy in new locations. Pine Avenue, Long Beach, was moving in that direction, and Broadway and Second Ave. also have their share of dining choices in this city, although parking problems have hampered all three areas. Nearby, on Candlewood in Lakewood, a different synergy has been established, focusing more on chains like Outback, Stuart Anderson, and Red Lobster. (At least Lakewood had the sense to include plenty of parking.) There's even a group of restaurants in North Long Beach, mostly on Atlantic Ave., that are doing a growing business. They might not be what Zagat is looking to survey, but they're there.

(Oh, Russ, regarding 555 East, Bruce and I have also been impressed with their wine list. There was the night we weren't quite so impressed with their cellar, however, as our waiter had to return three times to tell us that they were out of the bottles we had selected! Even the maitre d' was embarrassed; I think if we'd selected a fourth missing vintage he would have grabbed the list from us and pointedly told us "Here, order THIS one!" )