Asiate

[bourdain]

When a restaurant review closes with the reviewer suggesting that next time she'll "order a glass of sake, stay for the gougeres (amuses), then feign illness and steal across Columbus Circle to Jean Georges for a meal that never disappoints" ?

That's called a bad review.

[Lesley C]

You get two reviews in one: one star for Asiate, and four stars for Jean-Georges!

There was a snippy undertone throughout that write-up that came out roaring in the last line. Oh, but wait a minute, Mr. Vongerichten did contribute a rather flattering blurb for the dustjacket of Cooking for Mr. Latte.

Now granted, that's a catty comment, but that's exactly the kind of criticism she is going to face for tossing in such unnecessary comparisons.

[Daniel]

I was really unimpressed with Amanda Hessler's review of Asiate. While so much attention was spent describing the dining room, how she felt in the elevator, how she liked the waiter, how she liked the view, not much time was spent on the food.

She quickly runs through the her selections and really doesnt back up any of her criticism. She said that many dishes needed work, but didnt say with the exception of the pasta in parchment paper,. which ones, or more importantly how. She said,"There are reasons nouvelle cuisine went away, and this dish is one" Why, how, please explain.. How does a potato look forlorn in a thick truffle sauce? I would interpret that vision differently.

All in all, Amanda reminded me of a yenta aunt of mine who was most likely looking around the restaurant listening in on peoples conversations, or more concerned about what seat she had, as opposed to what she was actually ordering. Although i have never been to Asiate, I am not deterred by her review in anyway.

[Fat Guy]

If you want to see an open-minded veteran restaurant-reviewer's take on Asiate, you'll find some pretty stark contrasts between Hal Rubenstein's review in New York Magazine and Amanda Hesser's effort. Needless to say, I think Rubenstein comes a lot closer to hitting the mark.

[Pan]

Do you think so for reasons other than liking the cuisine more?

I haven't been to Asiate and don't plan on going because I usually don't like Euro-Asian fusion cuisine or spending a lot of money for it, but I dissent from the practice of giving a place 1 star on decor and location alone. For me, it's all about the food. As I've mentioned before, my order of priority in judging a place is (1) food; (2) price; (3) service; distant (4) decor, ambiance. Price and service can be flip-flopped in that list without any problem. I do recognize that hasn't been the way things have been done at the Times, but as far as I'm concerned, that's too bad.

[JosephB]

Do you think so for reasons other than liking the cuisine more?

I haven't been to Asiate and don't plan on going because I usually don't like Euro-Asian fusion cuisine or spending a lot of money for it, but I dissent from the practice of giving a place 1 star on decor and location alone. For me, it's all about the food. As I've mentioned before, my order of priority in judging a place is (1) food; (2) price; (3) service; distant (4) decor, ambiance. Price and service can be flip-flopped in that list without any problem. I do recognize that hasn't been the way things have been done at the Times, but as far as I'm concerned, that's too bad.

At a certain level, decor and ambiance are integral to the dining experience. It's definately legitimate to give weight to the decor.

[Fat Guy]

Since we've already had a hundred or so discussions of the meaning of the star ratings, suffice it to say that -- from a totally non-judgmental perspective, ignoring what should be or what could be -- the stars are emphatically not all about the food. They are a shorthand system for indicating a combination primarily of food quality and level of luxury. In their planning stages, restaurants very carefully consider whether they are aiming to be four, three, two, one, or no-star establishments. The chefs they hire, the amount of money they spend on decor, their ingredients budgets, their wine programs, the number of waitstaff, their prices . . . all these things flow from a conception of being in a certain star catgegory. There's no question in my mind -- and I assume this is obvious to any observer who pays attention to this sort of thing -- that Asiate's creators were attempting to build a three-star restaurant.

Of course, that's no guarantee of three stars. Critics are not there simply to convey a restaurant's desired star rating to the public; they need to judge whether a restaurant has delivered. But a restaurant's plan establishes the baseline from which to work, and if a critic can't speak that language then we are left with a failure to communicate.

On every front, Asiate has all the trappings of a three-star restaurant. If it doesn't live up to its promise, fine, it gets two stars. But a one-star review of Asiate is an insult. It is the equivalent of saying the restaurant has been a complete failure in almost every way imaginable -- and indeed that seems to be what Hesser (incorrectly) thinks.

The Mandarin Oriental's management could have opened a fucking steakhouse on the 35th floor and made money hand over fist. With that view, they could have gotten away with anything. Instead, they chose to make a major investment in a serious restaurant, a decision for which they deserve recognition not ridicule and scorn.

The Time Warner Center's opening represents one of the most significant moments in New York's restaurant history. It is a changing of the guard, and a potential renaissance. As Lutece and La Cote Basque shut out their lights, several of the most ambitious restaurants ever are preparing to open. It is absolutely essential that the media -- especially the New York Times -- cover this series of openings with the utmost care and seriousness. No allowances should be made for sub-par performance, but the critics need to comprehend what they're seeing and explain it to their readers. Asiate has taken its lumps, but the Times really needs to get its shit together and appoint a permanent critic for the impending reviews of Per Se, Cafe Gray, Masa, and Rare, not to mention several other key openings around town. These reviews need to be handled well. The Times owes it to the public, the restaurant world, the cause of excellence, and itself.

[Pan]

My attitude about decor and ambiance is, if the food is good and the service doesn't suck, pleasant decor and ambiance are an added source of enjoyment. On the other hand, if you're paying a lot of money for mediocre-to-poor food and the service sucks, the decor and ambiance don't save the restaurant for me in any way.

[Pan]

Eloquent statement, Steven.

[slkinsey]

Do you think so for reasons other than liking the cuisine more?

I haven't been to Asiate and don't plan on going because I usually don't like Euro-Asian fusion cuisine or spending a lot of money for it, but I dissent from the practice of giving a place 1 star on decor and location alone. For me, it's all about the food. As I've mentioned before, my order of priority in judging a place is (1) food; (2) price; (3) service; distant (4) decor, ambiance. Price and service can be flip-flopped in that list without any problem. I do recognize that hasn't been the way things have been done at the Times, but as far as I'm concerned, that's too bad.

That's not the way anyone does it who subscribes to the star system model. I can understand that you have other priorities in evaluating a restaurant, and I'm not saying that I disagree with them. But those priorities are not really germane to a discussion of whether or not the decor at Asiate should merit at least a one star rating in the NY Times. The assumption behind such an assertion is that the food is at least within the range of "one star quality." There are plenty of unstarred places making food in the one star range that will not earn a star primarily due to reasons not having to do with the food (decor, location, service, etc.). Similarly, one can understand that there are places that are perhaps making what one would judge "very good one star food" who will be bumped up to two stars based on decor, service, etc. The one thing that does not tend to figure into this kind of rating system is price. The reviewer might mention that a two star place is charging three star prices, but would be unlikely to bump it down to one star based on this evaluation. In my view, it goes a little something like this:

Things like service, decor, etc. will figure most prominently in those "judgment call" areas.

[Fat Guy]

Sam, you can nail that to the door of the new critic's office.

[Daniel]

That was insightful and really well said. You the man.

[Daniel]

Sorry still getting the posting down. I was referring to Stephen's explanation on why the Times better get its act together.

[Fat Guy]

Don't worry, Daniel. Nobody suspected that you were saying Sam was in any way insightful.

[Pan]

Sorry still getting the posting down. I was referring to Stephen's explanation on why the Times better get its act together.

Oh, I thought you were referring to Sam's explanation of the star system, which was pretty damn good.

[SobaAddict70]

Perhaps she'll say something one of these days with respect to this review. We'll just have to wait and see.

Soba

[Daniel]

Don't worry, Daniel. Nobody suspected that you were saying Sam was in any way insightful.

I dont know how insightful it was , but i know enough not to disagree with a man who is packing charts.

[Bux]

I didn't get it. At the basic level the review didn't compute. Let me back track. We had a quick lunch there. My initial reaction to the place and my meal was that they were aiming at the high end of three stars. It's even possible that in their own minds they were aiming at four. For a new restaurant, I don't feel it's really fair to complain about inconsistencies, but I'd like to note that I think on numerous items throughout the meal they left impressions of two, three and even a moment or two, of four stars. The bulk of the impression was one of three stars, but it was soft and sometimes you're only as strong as your weakest link. Fortunately, I don't get paid to award stars. It's a good restaurant, or more accurately a very good restaurant that has some weaknesses and some of those are in the food, but it also has some brilliant moments and most of those are in the food as well. The great view and the handsome interior are for the most part a bonus. Prices didn't seem to be out of line with what you'd pay for comparable food elsewhere. The prix fixe lunch menu is an absolute bargain, but you should note that the wine list is pricey, although not unexpectedly so.

What I didn't get about Ms. Hesser's review is akin to what bothered Daniel when he said she doesn't back up her criticisms. As a result, the dishes she felt worked, which she described well enough for me to desire, left a much stronger impression than those she dismissed. They also sounded like the ones I'd order anyway. Unfortunately I spotted the lone star well before I read the text and that left me knowing we saw too different restaurants, or that we were two very different diners. Hal Rubenstein seemed very easy to please. Too easy.

I disagree that this was one of the best reviews we've read since Ruth Reichl left, which is strange since I wasn't a fan of William Grimes. Maybe it's just that my dining didn't begin with a whoosh. I took a modern hotel elevator up to some upper floor, in a building whose floor numbers I'm told, don't necessarily mark the actual floor. Is Asiate really one of the most elusive reservations in town? Do real New Yorkers think the clouds start this low. My parents lived on the 27th floor (of another building, where they count differently perhaps) and I don't ever recall clouds outside the window. Was I really a fair weather son? I am totally at a loss to understand with whom she felt a cameraderie or why. I've never felt I had much in common with the people who chose the same restaurants I do. I'm not sure cameraderie has ever been a tactile thing for me. Maybe it's just that I was the only one headed for the restaurant in that elevator. Maybe I don't know good writing when I read it. I know what I like and yes, my taste is in my mouth.

It's also not good food writing for me, when it's not clear why she doesn't like a specific dish. By the way, one of us had that pasta and prawn in parchment and the criticism was exactly that the prawn was mushy. The pasta, remarkably, was not and the flavor was richly satisfying. There was a problem with the prawn and we wondered about the chef's intentions. Had he wanted it to disolve just a bit more so it would resemble soupe de poisson completely? It was however the biggest problem with the food. The benign-sounding vegetable appetizer looks like a circus parading across the plate, but in the next three sentences dismissing the dish, we don't hear about how it tastes. I gather she felt the dishes are overly complex, but it's too subjective a feeling and we don't get the details that might make us agree. The two dishes she likes, come across strong enough to support two stars. I"m left with the sense that it's a matter of "I'm the reviewer, and I get to hand out the grades." Not good writing, or at least not good restaurant reviewing in my opinion. That overly subjective single star smacked once more of "I'm the new kid on the block and you better understand I'm tough." This time around I have no friends in the kitchen to make me pull my punches. In a lesser setting, I would give the food at least two stars.

[Daniel]

I am going there tonight.. Has anyone been there recently. Other then Amanda.

[Daniel]

This place not so good. The service was excellent. The room was pretty, but in terms of the view, wasn't too blown away. Ended up getting a great look at the biography sign. The olsen twins tonight at 8! Got the tasting menu with the wine course. It was certainly good, but great? I dot think so. Maybe I am tired of the Asian fusion but it certainly doesn't even stand out in that genre.

The best thing I had was the dessert. It was like a foam cheesecake with blueberry puree on the bottom. It was really refreshing served with a Muscat. But I certainly could have lived without it.

One thing that has been really bugging me lately is the lack of nice chopsticks at these places. All these places hand out these broke ass wooden chopsticks. They took the time to get the german flatware, they have thirty dam forks on the table, three spoons, gorgeous little wooden boxes to keep all the food, million dollar bathrooms for christ sake,, and then they hand you these take out splintering pathetic chopsticks. Dont get it.

[Pan]

One thing that has been really bugging me lately is the lack of nice chopsticks at these places. All these places hand out these broke ass wooden chopsticks. They took the time to get the german flatware, they have thirty dam forks on the table, three spoons, gorgeous little wooden boxes to keep all the food, million dollar bathrooms for christ sake,, and then they hand you these take out splintering pathetic chopsticks. Dont get it.

That really is odd.

Thanks for the report.

[hshiau]

One thing that has been really bugging me lately is the lack of nice chopsticks at these places.  All these places hand out these broke ass wooden chopsticks.  They took the time to get the german flatware, they have thirty dam forks on the table, three spoons, gorgeous little wooden boxes to keep all the food, million dollar bathrooms for christ sake,, and then they hand you these take out splintering pathetic chopsticks.  Dont get it.

My wife and I went there tonight for dinner. Everything started really well. The service was very professional and knowledgeable.

My wife had the 3 course with the seared foie gras, the wagyu beef, and a mango souffle. The foie was just ok. The texture was a bit coarse and not what I expect from a good seared foie gras. It was topped with eel, which ended up better than the foie. The wagyu beef was the big disappointment...a bit dry and tough. Totally not what I expected. The souffle however was magnificent, although my wife thought it was a bit too sweet.

I had the tasting menu. Started with a cold amuse in an egg, then the ceasar salad soup, which was very nice. Then came a bento box with the same throwaway wooden chopsticks. A couple of the items were very good (don't remember everything) but the rest was just ok. In fact, while most of the meal was good, there were no wow's for me.

The real disappointment was the service later on. Things got a little busier and the server stopped paying any attention to us. We sat for a long period of time before ordering dessert. He never asked about coffee. After we were done and were sitting around for awhile with empty glasses of water, he finally asked if we needed anything else...maybe some coffee. After the coffee, it then took about 20 minutes before we got the check. No petite fours, nothing.

I don't know if the wait staff are more stressed out with the convention in town (the restaurant was full) but I thought the service in the last hour and a half was inexcusable.

[docsconz]

I haven't read too much about this restaurant's food that makes me really want to go there over so many other restaurants in NYC. I've been to the space. It is nice, but somewhat crowded.

If I had all the time in the world to try different restaurants in NYC, I would want to try it for myself, but unfortunately I don't. As a result this is way down on my list.

[oakapple]

I don't know if the wait staff are more stressed out with the convention in town (the restaurant was full) but I thought the service in the last hour and a half was inexcusable.

Asiate has been full since it opened — one-star review or not. All of the Republican Convention's main events take place in the evening, so if you had dinner there and the place was full, it wasn't because of the convention.

[hshiau]

Asiate has been full since it opened — one-star review or not. All of the Republican Convention's main events take place in the evening, so if you had dinner there and the place was full, it wasn't because of the convention.

Near us, there were 3 tables of convention attendees. Maybe they were blowing off the main events?