@SQC (Closed)

[Rosie]

We LOVED the food at SQC, 270 Columbus Ave, New York City. Chef Scott Campbell's small bistro serving contemporary American cuisine was worth the drive from NJ and the $30 it cost us to park! Service was attentive and we were made to feel very welcome. On Monday nights all wine is half price. I don't know how long this promotion will last but we had two bottles of wine for $36: a David Bruce Pinot Noir and a Heron Merlot.

The food was delicious and every "slate" as that is what his food is served on was licked clean. We started off with tender fried calamari with a cilantro lemon grass dipping sauce; French fries; tuna sashimi stacked with avocado and popcorn ( I could have done without the popcorn) and a vegetable napoleon. While waiting for our appetizers we munched on various flat breads and rolls which were accompanied with a large head of roasted garlic.

For entrees we had a fabulous slab of tuna served with spinach; seared sea scallops with risotto of morels, asparagus and sweet pea coulis; and miso cod with asparagus and artichokes. We shared a decadent chocolate gateau with hot chocolate ice cream for dessert and ended our dinner with Chef Scott's famous Valrhona hot chocolate with a scoop of cold ice cream. Do try this place. 212-579-0100.

[Suvir Saran]

How did you like the Valrhona hot chocolate?

[Rosie]

Chocolate is my favorite vegetable and the hot chocolate was extraordinary.

[VivreManger]

Thanks for the review. I have checked the website and the menu seems admirably varied, suitable for the diverse demands of a party of 6, ranging from 12 to 80.

Do you have any idea how well Scott Campbell does venison? Do you remember if it was on the menu when you went?

Also the upper west side noise question. How noisy was it that Monday night? Are there any quiet corners?

[Rosie]

There are some banquets in the corner but the seating is tight. I think venison was on the menu but we didn't have it. He has a website at

http://www.sqcnyc.com/

The room was quiet enough for me but we dined very early (5:15 PM) and the restuarant was full when we left.

[Fat Guy]

Had a very good meal at SQC tonight: well-executed fried oysters, smoked beef tenderloin, three very well made ice creams, tremendously good hot chocolate, professional service, all in an attractive and comfortable (except for the strange chairs) setting.

As seems almost inevitable at UWS restaurants these days, we were seated near a totally inconsiderate family with a poorly behaved child. But, when our bill was presented, we got a nice surprise: the manager apologized for the disturbance and comped dessert and coffee. A very nice hospitality move and we'll surely be back.

[Pan]

Does SQC stand for something, or is that the full name of the restaurant? Where is it? Based on the menu, what is the rest of the cuisine like? American, it would seem?

[Fat Guy]

The name of the place is actually @SQC but everybody calls it SQC.

SQC = the chef's initials: Scott Q. Campbell (formerly of Vince & Eddie's, and also Avenue)

Location = 270 Columbus Avenue, between 72nd & 73rd Streets (the location that used to be Perettis back in the day)

Cuisine = contemporary American, with a greater-than-average use of Asian accents. Menus: http://www.sqcnyc.com/menu.html

It's not what I'd call a destination restaurant but it's at the upper end of quality and stylishness for a local place and it totally overshadows the gazillions of brain-dead restaurants in that neighborhood.

[Pan]

Very attractive website. Thanks, Fat Guy.

[clg]

You're description makes me want to give @SQC a secnod chance. My first time was a very disappointing brunch experience -- miniscule portions that cost far too much (the hot chocolate was fantastic ... but didn't quite make up for leaving hungry and empty pocketed).

I do really like their sister restaurant "Avenue" a little further up on Columbus, so maybe it was just a singular bad meal.

Thanks!

[slkinsey]

@SQC is my main hangout, because many of the people I work with are in that aria. Scott is a great guy. I have consistently found his place a good value for well-executed "upper-middle-brow" American bistro-type food.

If I had known you were going I would have told you to drop my name and order one of the drinks the bartender and I came up with.

The hot chocolate is deadly, isn't it? It's even better with a scoop of that bitter caramel ice cream in it.

[desal]

As a suffering UWSider, I do think SQC serves an important purpose as a reliable mid-tier, mostly inexpensive, quality restaurant. I do think they excel in brunch vs. dinner...I've had multiple dissappointing dinners there. I've also noticed much inconsistency....the fries can be great one day, limp the other. Same for the burgers. The service is typically very good.

[bilrus]

@SQC is my main hangout, because many of the people I work with are in that aria.

Is that some sort of Opera pun?

[slkinsey]

@SQC is my main hangout, because many of the people I work with are in that aria.

Is that some sort of Opera pun?

HEE HEE HEE!

Now there's the old subconscious at work in a typo, for sure!

[slkinsey]

As a suffering UWSider, I do think SQC serves an important purpose as a reliable mid-tier, mostly inexpensive, quality restaurant. I do think they excel in brunch vs. dinner...I've had multiple dissappointing dinners there. I've also noticed much inconsistency....the fries can be great one day, limp the other. Same for the burgers. The service is typically very good.

Interesting, I think they're better at dinner than brunch, and I've rarely been disappointed there. But there are certain things I don't order (the burger being one of those things). I also often eat at the bar because my friends and I are friendly with the bartender, and so we probably get some special attention.

The one thing that frustrates me about that place is how Scott will have a great item on the menu that sells well, then he'll rotate it off -- which is fine -- but it will never comes back, which is very frustrating. He used to have a pan seared fillet of salmon on a bed of wild mushrooms that was served with a little cup of truffled stone ground grits. It was brilliant! Haven't seen it in over a year. Ditto for a starter that was a bowl of button mushrooms, morels and escargots in a garlic broth topped with breaded/fried (lamb?) sweetbreads and a parmesan tuille. Loved it -- haven't seen it in over a year. Sigh...

[Fat Guy]

I respect a chef who changes his menu often, even if I might be personally pissed off that a favorite item has disappeared.

I did find, just eyeballing things, that the portion sizes were a bit small -- this is probably one way SQC holds the line on prices. But it's not like you leave hungry if you eat three courses.

Ultimately the place can't totally escape UWS restaurant syndrome, which seems to affect even the best restaurants and chefs: UWSiders claim they want nice restaurants in the 'hood, but they're unwilling to behave in such a way as to support those restaurants; they won't spend money on weekday lunch, they want to be able to bring their kids, they want to be able to order just an entree, they want everything on the side, etc. But SQC put out a really good meal last night, and I'll definitely want to give it another try.

Sam, since you've taken it upon yourself to educate the bartender, can you teach him how to make a gimlet that doesn't suck?

[slkinsey]

Hee! Which bartender was it? Did he have a beard and ponytail? The other guy's not so hot.

I agree about the UWS syndrome, BTW. Scott and I have discussed a number of times the fact that he has to tailor his offerings to what UWSers are willing to spend and the fact that they tend to perfer their food more straightforward than complicated.

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure who made the drink. But the guy in the suit, who appeared to be the manager, was the one who served it at the table. He shook it up tableside and poured it there. Not sure if he mixed it, though.

[slkinsey]

Yea. He didn't mix it, for sure.

The one big problem with @SQC is that they can't seem to keep an FOH guy for more than a few months. They have had some really good ones, but personality conflicts with the owners seems to be a recurring issue.

[kjohn]

You mean wife of the owner?

[herbacidal]

Ultimately the place can't totally escape UWS restaurant syndrome, which seems to affect even the best restaurants and chefs: UWSiders claim they want nice restaurants in the 'hood, but they're unwilling to behave in such a way as to support those restaurants; they won't spend money on weekday lunch, they want to be able to bring their kids, they want to be able to order just an entree, they want everything on the side, etc.

would it be accurate to say that UWSiders may not want restaurants as much as they might like bars that aren't divey and inappropriate for youngsters that serve good, slightly touched-up bar food?

[Fat Guy]

I don't think so. There are plenty of Upper West Siders who genuinely know good food and want good food. Or, rather, want the option of good food. But on the whole they're not willing to take neighborhood restaurants seriously. If all of a sudden the clientely at Gramercy Tavern started behaving like the clientele at SQC, Gramercy Tavern couldn't stay in business using its current model. Wine sales would plummet, not enough people would be willing to shell out for the three-course prix-fixe, 2/3 of the customers would skip dessert, people would bring kids, they'd resent needing reservations, they'd want a different meal pace, etc. And plenty of those people at Gramercy Tavern live on the Upper West Side. But they don't treat their local restaurants the way they treat the downtown destination places.

[slkinsey]

would it be accurate to say that UWSiders may not want restaurants as much as they might like bars that aren't divey and inappropriate for youngsters that serve good, slightly touched-up bar food?

No, not really. I don't think that accurately describes many of the UWS successes like Ouest, SQC, etc. Restaurants that serve even decent food are succeeding hugely on the UWS, because there just weren't any until recently. I just think they don't want to pay too much for it. Since the UWS is a center for a certain WASPy intelligentsia that frowns upon the monied classes, there may also be some institutional aversion to things that seem too "upper class" (i.e., Upper East Sidey) which makes UWSers prefer things a little more downscale and straightforward.

[Fat Guy]

You see the UWS as WASPy? I thought the Judaically-driven intellectual culture on the UWS saw the UES as WASPy. At least that's the accusation I contend with from UWSiders whenever I reveal that I live in Carnegie Hill.

The UES has restaurant problems of its own, of course. The lack of good cheap ethnic places, especially up near me, is really painful. And there's a lot of super-expenisve mediocrity. Because while UWSiders want excellence but won't pay for it; UESiders will pay the asking price for mediocrity so long as the restaurant is well heeled, quiet, comfortable, etc.

Do we need a thread on "the restaurant culture of NY neighborhoods"?

[slkinsey]

Yea... maybe you're right. Perhaps it's more Jewish than WASPish culturally. More to the point, perhaps, is that the UWS is liberal middle and upper-middle class while the UES is conservative upper-middle and upper class. This is one reason why there are so many more housing projects, drug clinics, homeless shelters, etc. on the UWS. It's all the college professors and that ilk (commies, every last one of 'em!) living there who are exactly the people who don't want to spend big money on high cooking and "suit and tie" dining environments