Café Gray - Closed Now, But 2009...

[Fat Guy]

Some restaurants are reviewed within two or three months, and some are not. Per Se (where the gulf between the meal the regular Joes get and the meal Bourdain and Ruhlman get is as wide as Keller is tall) was given in excess of four months (seven months if you count from the first opening) and ADNY still has not been reviewed even though a new chef has been in place since May. Fairness requires that each restaurant be taken on its own terms, and that the relevant and knowable factors receive consideration.

[rich]

One of the interesting lines of the review stated "...you can't take the four stars out of the chef...". Does it mean Bruni deducted two stars for service and ambiance? The review reads similar to the Babbo disertation in that he found very little fault with the food, but problems in the inedible areas.

Bruni obviously criticizes the service, but comes down harder on the restaurant layout. Maybe he deducted a star for each.

Edited December 17, 2004 by rich (log)

[Felonius]

Has anyone tried lunch yet? How does the lunch menu differ from the dinner menu in terms of selection and/or prices?

I need to go back and give CG a second try.

[Fat Guy]

I haven't seen the current lunch menu yet, but I saw several draft lunch menus pre-opening. There were a few of the same dishes from the dinner menu plus several more casual, less expensive lunch-like items of the composed salad and upscale sandwich/panini variety. I remember thinking to myself that trying the short-rib sandwich needed to be a high priority in my life.

[Todd36]

Some restaurants are reviewed within two or three months, and some are not. Per Se (where the gulf between the meal the regular Joes get and the meal Bourdain and Ruhlman get is as wide as Keller is tall) was given in excess of four months (seven months if you count from the first opening) and ADNY still has not been reviewed even though a new chef has been in place since May. Fairness requires that each restaurant be taken on its own terms, and that the relevant and knowable factors receive consideration.

←

If the restaurant is open and charging full menu price, then it can be reviewed. If the restaurant feels it is unfair to reviewed close to its opening, then it is unfair to charge full menu prices during that time. Other variations on the theme are: please don't review us after midnight (even though we are open until 4AM, our entire experienced sushi chef staff walks out at midnight, and no, we don't discount as a result) or please don't review us on Tuesday's, the regular chef isn't here, or we don't get fresh vegetable deliveres that day...Everybody can say their review is based on something unfair.

I fyou don't want to be reviewed, don't open and charge full price.

[oakapple]

If the restaurant is open and charging full menu price, then it can be reviewed.  If the restaurant feels it is unfair to reviewed close to its opening, then it is unfair to charge full menu prices during that time.

←

Let's get something straight: it's not the restaurant that feels it's unfair; the comment is coming from this forum. What the restaurant thinks about it isn't public information.

There is a long tradition that new restaurants aren't reviewed until they've been open a little while. There is a practical reason for this. The Times has only 52 reviewing slots per year. A second review of the same restaurant (and not all restaurants get a second review) will most likely be several years after the first. It is therefore more helpful to defer a review until any early jitters are worked out.

Whatever you may think of Café Gray's two-star rating, the restaurant is doing good business, so clearly there are plenty of people who are willing to pay what Gray Kunz is charging.

[Fat Guy]

Jim Quinn, the Philadelphia-based restaurant critic, has a great line that -- I hope I'm getting this right -- "As long as restaurants are willing to charge by the meal, they need to be willing to be reviewed by the meal." And that's entirely correct. There are no excuses.

Reality, however, is not an excuse. It's just reality. It is what it is. And reality teaches that all restaurants open on a quality curve of one kind or another. To that extent, when you go to a restaurant in its first few months of operation, you are paying a premium in order to be one of the first. Any experienced diner -- indeed anybody who even thinks about it for five seconds -- knows that you go to a restaurant in its first couple of months for a lot of reasons, but one of those reasons is never "because it's not going to get any better."

It is not a restaurant critic's job to make or accept excuses. It is, however, a restaurant critic's job to try to provide a valuable review. Sure, one could review a restaurant after four visits on its first four days in operation. But that would be publishing a review wholly for the sake of the principle that "there are no excuses" and not at all for the sake of the principle that the review should make sense.

In Cafe Gray we have one of the world's greatest chefs, some positively outstanding cuisine and a service situation that clearly needs work. Given the high likelihood that the service situation will be resolved and the long lag between reviews, waiting another couple of months is just the most sensible thing to do. Because if in three months Cafe Gray is truly a three-star restaurant, there will still be a two-star review out there for ages. There is no cost involved in waiting. In a couple of months, if there has not been improvement, a two-star review makes sense no matter who the chef is and no matter where the restaurant should be going. The Times is often the last local news source to ring in with a review, so it's not like there's an institutional rush to press -- and it makes for a better review. It has nothing to do with making excuses for Cafe Gray, and everything to do with making the review better.

Of course, this is all academic if the two-star review really came -- as I think it might have -- from Frank Bruni's attempt at architecture and design criticism, or his commentary on mission and identity, or a combination.

Let me also mention that holding off on a review under appropriate circumstances is hardly abnormal or shocking. Critics say "I'm going to give this place a little while longer" all the time.

I think the waiting issue is a bit of a red herring, so I'll make this my last post on the subject, because I think there are a lot of other points with respect to Cafe Gray that deserve more attention, like some of the best individual dishes in town at any restaurant with any number of stars, like one of the best pastry departments out there, like the breakfast, lunch and bar offerings, and like the chef's table and banquet space. I also think, as I've said before, that there's a big issue of defining and accepting Cafe Gray for what it is: it's not Lespinasse reborn -- a reality that may disappoint some and anger others. Rather, Cafe Gray is an attempt to create a type of restaurant that doesn't have a clear precedent. Nothing Gray Kunz does is simple.

[Andy Lynes]

Cafe Gray sounds like it has some similarities to The Wolseley in London which opened a year or so ago and is also a modern interpretation of the grand European cafe. It's open for breakfast, lunch, afternoon tea and dinner, although the menu it doesn't feature "fusion" (for want of a better word) food.

In the UK, many of the restaurant critics are climbing over each other to be the first to review a new opening, the idea of waiting any time at all is alien to most of them. I don't think that is a particularly healthy thing as it encourages diners to be constantly looking for novelty and moving on to the latest thing rather than cherishing and supporting the best of what they already have.

So from a UK perspective, that the NY Times waited two months (plus the "friends and family" soft opening period) seems an act of almost super-human patience. In my opinion, ten weeks should be enough time for any restaurant to get its act together. If it's a keeper, then there is a possibility that ten years down the line it will still be improving, but I see no reason why a reviewer shouldn't form a valid and meaningful opinion after a matter of weeks after a place has opened.

Given that NY Times reviews take into account "food, ambience and service", it seems entirely appropriate for Bruni to comment on architecture and design as they have a significant impact on ambience. I can also see nothing wrong with a restaurant reviewer making mention of the mission and identity of an establishment. If either were unclear or incoherent, as Bruni claims here, then they to will have a significant impact on every aspect of the restaurant's operations and again be fair game for the reviewer.

Restaurateurs and chefs know that they face the possibility of a review early in the life of a new venture, especially one as high profile as Cafe Gray. If you've made a $6million dollar investment and you know that a bad review from the Times could affect your turnover (which I'm guessing it would), then it seems obvious that you would take every possible measure to ensure you come out of it smelling of roses. If you are not able to do that, then maybe you deserve the bad review.

It's also worth remembering that reviews are a service to the reader and not the industry. Their primary purpose is to help potential diners decide where to spend their hard earned cash, not promote a restaurant or help shore up or build a chef's reputation. They will always be a snapshot in time; if the resulting picture is an unflattering one, that's unfortunate but the reviewer has still done his or her job.

[oakapple]

Many people have noted that:

A) The kitchen is wide open; and,

B) It blocks the spectacular view of Central Park

I thought this was a mistake, and so did Frank Bruni—not the open kitchen itself, but the idea of using it to block the view. Can anyone give a reasonable explanation why any sane designer would have thought this was a good idea?

[Bux]

Many people have noted that:

A) The kitchen is wide open; and,

B) It blocks the spectacular view of Central Park

I thought this was a mistake, and so did Frank Bruni—not the open kitchen itself, but the idea of using it to block the view. Can anyone give a reasonable explanation why any sane designer would have thought this was a good idea?

←

It beats the hell out of me. On the otherhand, I don't know what alternative schemes were presented or attempted. On the whole, it was hardly a factor in my appreciation, or lack thereof, in a meal last month for us.

[Fat Guy]

I assure you that Cafe Gray's designer, Diego Gronda of the Rockwell Group, is quite sane (for a designer, at least). I would characterize him as visionary. I think the decision that he and Kunz made to put the kitchen between the diners and the windows can be derived from what he said (reported in the Daily Gullet) at the Time Warner Center architecture symposium that was held in the early days of the project: "Design needs to mutate ahead of its own time. Design should always surprise, provide unexpected emotions as an antidote to everyday life's monotonous rhythm. A design constant, therefore, must be to seek and find new ways to sensually engage people in an environment.

I can think of no better word than "monotonous" to describe the design theory that requires taking a restaurant's view and building the dining room around it. And at V and Per Se, one of the first things I noticed at dinner time was that there isn't all that much of a view because, at night, Central Park is a black mass. I also found that the view is interesting for a few minutes, but isn't particularly animated. I like it -- who wouldn't? -- but it lacks motion.

Placing the "action" (that's the design term for this sort of thing) of the kitchen between the diners and the windows is, to me, one of the most attractive and dramatic design features of Cafe Gray. This will, I think, emerge over time as a good decision, especially as people start using Cafe Gray as the "abstraction of brasserie" it is intended to be -- stopping in for breakfast, grabbing a quick bite at lunch and enjoying dinner from time to time -- and not as an attempt to capture a Lespinasse-like experience. If Cafe Gray succeeds, it will be because people have learned to love a new kind of restaurant.

In that, I am reminded of the opening of Jean Georges, when Ruth Reichl, then the Times critic and the last visionary dining critic the Times had, declared, "This is an entirely new kind of four-star restaurant."

She recognized and explained that, "Mr. Vongerichten has examined all the details that make dining luxurious and refined them for an American audience. The changes are so subtle that they are easy to miss, but nothing, from the look of the dining room to the composition of the staff to the pacing of the meal, follows a classic model."

And, she added, "Most important, Mr. Vongerichten has returned the focus to the food."

Cafe Gray strikes many of the same notes with me: it is a reinvention of three-star dining. I think the Cafe Gray layout represents a bold statement that the restaurant isn't about the view, but is, rather, about the food. As Hal Rubenstein wrote in New York Magazine, "If you came only for the view, head up to the bar on the 35th floor of the Mandarin Oriental for a cocktail before your reservation. When you’re ready to have more of your senses activated, come to Café Gray."

[Andy Lynes]

If you're going to Cafe Gray as a Lespinasse fan and hoping to witness the resurrection of Lespinasse, you're going to be disappointed.

←

my belief is that going to Cafe Gray in search of "the Lespinasse experience" is a recipe for disappointment. Cafe Gray is not Lespinasse.

←

That Cafe Gray is not that signature Lespinasse-level fine-dining establishment is no insult to Cafe Gray. That's not what Cafe Gray is supposed to be.

←

there's a big issue of defining and accepting Cafe Gray for what it is: it's not Lespinasse reborn

←

This will, I think, emerge over time as a good decision, especially as people start using Cafe Gray as the "abstraction of brasserie" it is intended to be... and not as an attempt to capture a Lespinasse-like experience.

←

So if I read you right Steven, what you're saying is that Cafe Gray is in fact not Lespinasse?

[NYCCHEF]

One thing that nobody speaks of. At Cafe Gray, the elevators are at the front left of the space, in the kitchen. When Gray looked at the space, this was something that he could not change. The elevator is the way that the raw food is delivered to the restaurant. If he were to put the kitchen at the back of the space, he would have to drag the food through the dining room to make it to the kitchen. So, it is design out of necessity.

[jaquavella]

I assure you that Cafe Gray's designer, Diego Gronda of the Rockwell Group, is quite sane (for a designer, at least). I would characterize him as visionary. I think the decision that he and Kunz made to put the kitchen between the diners and the windows can be derived from what he said (reported in the Daily Gullet) at the Time Warner Center architecture symposium that was held in the early days of the project: "Design needs to mutate ahead of its own time. Design should always surprise, provide unexpected emotions as an antidote to everyday life's monotonous rhythm. A design constant, therefore, must be to seek and find new ways to sensually engage people in an environment.

I can think of no better word than "monotonous" to describe the design theory that requires taking a restaurant's view and building the dining room around it. And at V and Per Se, one of the first things I noticed at dinner time was that there isn't all that much of a view because, at night, Central Park is a black mass. I also found that the view is interesting for a few minutes, but isn't particularly animated. I like it -- who wouldn't? -- but it lacks motion.

Placing the "action" (that's the design term for this sort of thing) of the kitchen between the diners and the windows is, to me, one of the most attractive and dramatic design features of Cafe Gray. This will, I think, emerge over time as a good decision, especially as people start using Cafe Gray as the "abstraction of brasserie" it is intended to be -- stopping in for breakfast, grabbing a quick bite at lunch and enjoying dinner from time to time -- and not as an attempt to capture a Lespinasse-like experience. If Cafe Gray succeeds, it will be because people have learned to love a new kind of restaurant.

In that, I am reminded of the opening of Jean Georges, when Ruth Reichl, then the Times critic and the last visionary dining critic the Times had, declared, "This is an entirely new kind of four-star restaurant."

She recognized and explained that, "Mr. Vongerichten has examined all the details that make dining luxurious and refined them for an American audience. The changes are so subtle that they are easy to miss, but nothing, from the look of the dining room to the composition of the staff to the pacing of the meal, follows a classic model."

And, she added, "Most important, Mr. Vongerichten has returned the focus to the food."

Cafe Gray strikes many of the same notes with me: it is a reinvention of three-star dining. I think the Cafe Gray layout represents a bold statement that the restaurant isn't about the view, but is, rather, about the food. As Hal Rubenstein wrote in New York Magazine, "If you came only for the view, head up to the bar on the 35th floor of the Mandarin Oriental for a cocktail before your reservation. When you’re ready to have more of your senses activated, come to Café Gray."

←

We visited twice last week. Once for dinner when Chef was in attendance. While the service was not as yet polished, it was attentive. Our special dietary problem was handled smoothly. The venue is clearly not Lespinase but one can sense the beginings of a very successful venture in its own right. The intense flavors, a hallmark of Lespinase, were apparent. Our return for a Saturday lunch before the opera was not as successful. Chef was not in attendanc, and we were seated where we could observe the kitchen. Both waiter and kitchen seemed unable to cope with the dietary problem. Despite the fact that the restaurant was empty, the food preperation was tardy and not well organized, clearly the maestro needs to be present personally to insure proper orchestration at this early point. We all need to withhold criticism and give the operation, new concept and all, sufficient time to come togeather. We look forward to return visits in a few months

[Bux]

. . . . . 

And, she added, "Most important, Mr. Vongerichten has returned the focus to the food."

Cafe Gray strikes many of the same notes with me: it is a reinvention of three-star dining. I think the Cafe Gray layout represents a bold statement that the restaurant isn't about the view, but is, rather, about the food.

. . . . .

←

For me, l'Atelier de Joël Robuchon in Paris succeded in being about the food by removing many aspects of fine dining while paring down the necessary ones of calm and focus on the food. There is little to remind you of the traditional haute cuisine dining experience at Robuchon's counter, but everything you need to enjoy the food is there and without distraction. The design of the space is quiet and subdued and the service is pared down to it's minimal elements. The food come across the counter. At Cafe Gray on the evening we were there early in November, there was barely a move made by a front of the house employee that was not distracting from the moment we arrived. I could overcome the glitz of the decor and although it seems a shame to deny the view, I've never chosen a restaurant for the view and Central Park is a black hole at night, but we could not have less enjoyed the evening for the service. A litany of all the errors would be one I would not believe if I read it from someone else's pen.

Kunz was in attendance and the quality, if not the quantity, of the food was superb. It's a credit to the chef that I thought of the meal in terms of l'Atelier de Joël Robuchon perhaps, but it failed where l'Atelier de JR succeeded except perhaps for the food and the open kitchen. Robuchon was less expensive and Paris is generally not a bargain, especially at the current rate of exchange.

[Fat Guy]

One thing that nobody speaks of. At Cafe Gray, the elevators are at the front left of the space, in the kitchen. When Gray looked at the space, this was something that he could not change. The elevator is the way that the raw food is delivered to the restaurant. If he were to put the kitchen at the back of the space, he would have to drag the food through the dining room to make it to the kitchen. So, it is design out of necessity.

←

There are elements of pragmatism in most designs, but I think it would be an overstatement to say there was no choice in the matter. The service kitchen is only the visible kitchen. There is also an extensive production kitchen that includes areas for savory and pastry prep, walk-ins, dishwashers, etc. I'm pretty sure that, had the service kitchen been situated against the west wall of the restaurant, the flow of product could have gone through the production kitchen and into the service kitchen. There may have been a hallway to cross, but food wouldn't have needed to go through the dining room.

[Suzanne F]

Very brief report, more to come later, including pictures if all works out.

Bond Girl, HWOE, and I ate there last night. We had a 6:30 reservation, and left sometime close to 10, by which time the place had long been full. Gray Kunz was there, expediting. We were seated in the side room, which has a full view of the Columbus Circle construction. HWOE faced the kitchen (visible through an interior window); he hated seeing the lights and bustle. I loved it (but can see his point), and thought the decor of the room we were in rather tacky. I also thought the etched-glass cafe curtains and barware tacky, but at least they clearly (sorry) set the tone of the place as NOT a temple of haute. Christmas Eve prix fixe of 3 courses was $80, with a $6 supplement for the Lobster Salad -- to my mind, a good value overall. (There was also a 5-course menu ($125?), but I'm glad we didn't order it because the portions were full-size, and as it was we left stuffed.)

All three of us loved everything we ate. This is NOT a place for Blue Hill partisans: every dish here hits you smack in the face with wave upon wave of strong flavors -- but all the flavors balanced each other. Citrus and garam masala predominated as thematic flavors, but in a different way in each dish that contained them. And the simplest-seeming dishes without those elements (steamed branzino and a vegetable ragout) still had an incredible depth of flavor from the main ingredients themselves.

As for the service . . . well . . . amateurish is the best I can say.

If I had been reviewing, I'd give it *** for the food, and * each for the decor and service. And I would be thrilled to return.

[Fat Guy]

The side room, with its unobstructed view of the park, is not typically used for regular sittings; it's the private events space. They open it up, though, when the place is packed and there's no event booked.

[Jinmyo]

I'll look back in later for your photographs, Suzanne.

[Bond Girl]

Here's my version, you guys will have to ask Suzanne for the pictures. The lobster salad was paired with a citrus flavor green that balanced one another beautifully, but the star of teh show was Paul's vegetable ragout which has the richness of flavor that is at once refined and complex. It walked a fine balance of intense Indian spices and delicate french restraint. The dish can turn the most avid meat eater into a vegetarian. Suzanne's smoked yellow tail was exciting with an unexpected combination of kaffir lime and subtle sharpness of chili peppers. One of the biggest crimes a chef can commit using too much kaffir lime. It turns the dish into a soapy mess (think Spice Market's Tuna Tartare with Asian Pear-Disgusting!). The kaffir lime in the smoked yellow tail at Cafe Gray played in a perfect harmony of flavors and that is something so rare that has me singing praises all evening.

The main courses ordered were a corn crusted red snapper which was hearty and intense with the sweet cron crust offering a nice crunchy texture to the snapper and ramps in asian spices giving it a twist of unexpected. I had expected my branzino to be somewhat bland, but was anything but. The branzino simply steamed was wrapped around a medly of buttery vegetables sitting in a creamy spinach sauce. Suzanne's short ribs? Well, you'll have to asked her about that as well.

Desserts left me very happy with a airy hazelnut souffle served with vanilla ice cream sitting in an intense orange sauce, we were all tickled by the cassis sorbet and the lip puckering lime sorbet. The chocolate tart was exceptional, but then again its a chocolate tart and I am not a fan of milk chocolate.

There is something about the restaurants in the Time Warner building that seemed to favored the drabness of ashy brown wood paneling that reminds of a cheesy 1970's airport lounge. Per Se has it and so does Cafe Grey. I almost expect to hear lounge dental music coupled with flight information being called over the muffled speakers.

The service was not perfect, but who really cares? It's a cafe after all.

I'm definitely going back.

[Bux]

This is NOT a place for Blue Hill partisans: every dish here hits you smack in the face with wave upon wave of strong flavors -- but all the flavors balanced each other. Citrus and garam masala predominated as thematic flavors, but in a different way in each dish that contained them.

←

I suspect you're very wrong in that aspect. We would give both restaurants very high marks for food. I'm very much a Blue Hill partisan, as I understand Ya-Roo is as well. There are some distinct differences in the food and in the seasonings, but if they don't share the same gentle quality, they share an attention to balance and subtlety that's far more the feature of each cuisine. There are some subjective differences and I don't want to debate which is actually the more accomplished cuisine, suffice it to say that my opinion is that I can't understand an educated diner not appreciating and respecting either cuisine as representing excellence.

Taste in decor may be even more personal than in food, but there the differences are striking and Blue Hill comes up a personal favorite, even though, or possibly because it was obviously designed on a lower budget. One of the reasons I'm not eager to focus on the issue of the view at Cafe Gray is that I would enjoy Kunz's food more in Blue Hill's setting than in the Cafe Gray setting and Blue Hill is in an English basement in Greenwich Village with two small windows up front offering a mole's eye view of calves and ankles. Service is a dead horse issue I won't beat again here to any degree.

[Suzanne F]

I didn't say that one must pick between BH and CG; it's just that the underlying flavor sensibilities seem to be diametrically opposed, and that it might be difficult for someone who vastly prefers one to completely enjoy the other. Some people prefer subtle flavors; some prefer gutsy ones. That's fine, and if someone likes both, that's fine too.

FWIW, Webster 11 (the industry standard) defines "partisan" as

a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; esp. : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

That's what I was thinking of; I would never accuse you, Bux, of that kind of behavior. Certainly not vis-a-vis BH.

As for the "view issue" -- as a former line cook, I like being able to see what is going on in the kitchen. But because I know what they're doing, I am also able to tune it out. The majority of the dining public don't have that knowledge, and many cannot tune out the distraction. HWOE, as a "normal" person had reasonable objections to having to look AT the kitchen; whether or not one wants to look PAST it is another question entirely, in my mind. Frankly, at that elevation, I think one has a better view of traffic than of park. Who needs that?

Edited December 26, 2004 by Suzanne F (log)

[Felonius]

Placing the "action" (that's the design term for this sort of thing) of the kitchen between the diners and the windows is, to me, one of the most attractive and dramatic design features of Cafe Gray. This will, I think, emerge over time as a good decision, especially as people start using Cafe Gray as the "abstraction of brasserie" it is intended to be -- stopping in for breakfast, grabbing a quick bite at lunch and enjoying dinner from time to time -- and not as an attempt to capture a Lespinasse-like experience. If Cafe Gray succeeds, it will be because people have learned to love a new kind of restaurant.

Interesting perspective, but I still think it was a very odd design decision. I think I'll head down there tonight (my second visit) and try the bar with the hopes that the blizzard will allow for at least one seat.

[Todd36]

Was at the bar Thursday night. They do a good job with mixed drinks and they do serve the full menu at the bar (I did not eat anything). They had a good business and were drawing an older, well dressed crowd.

[Felonius]

I did manage to find a seat at the bar tonight for dinner. I had the white truffle and mushroom risotto and the herb crusted venison with pasta and juniper sauce. The venison was some of the best I've ever had, even more tender than most beef filets. The food was excellent, certainly on par with the top contenders in NYC. This was only my second visit, but the quality of tonight's meal ensured that I will soon return to Cafe Gray.