NYT Articles on Food, Drink, Cooking, and Culinary Culture (2002–2005)

[Dave H]

A neighborhood restaurant is, well a neighborhood restaurant. There are plenty of one star neighborhood restaurants throughout NYC. There really is no reason to write about them since no one will make a trip to dine at a one star neighborhood restaurant except the neighborhood that the restaurant is on.

Except I'm not sure the concept of "neighborhood" applies here in the way you're using it. Manhattan is an incredibly compact place. (Or really we're not talking about Manhattan proper, but rather the "restaurant area" of the city, which without too much overgeneralization is Manhattan from the southern fringes of Harlem down, plus certain gentrified and/or longstanding-ethnic neighborhoods in the Long Island Boroughs, i.e. Park Slope, Williamsburg, Astoria, Flushing, Jackson Heights, etc.)

Now, if someone asked I'd say my neighborhood is the East Village--and even the East Village is made up of probably four or five quite distinct restaurant neighborhoods. But the radius of "middlebrow" or "$40 and under" or "Platonic ideal of a one-star" places I draw on--for purposes of argument let's put that as any place I might conceivably walk to on a nice weekend evening--encompasses the EV, West Village, Union Square area, Flatiron, LES, SoHo, NoLIta, Chinatown, and stretching a tad, Tribeca, Meatpacking, and maybe even Williamsburg or Koreatown. That's maybe half of Restaurant City, and probably responsible for a bit more than half of the places I'm most interested in. If you throw the subway system in (all the major restaurant areas in Brooklyn and Queens--at least the ones I know about--are not-so-coincidentally right on the subway), I can be anywhere in Restaurant City within half an hour, except maybe the UWS and I'm not sure that really counts.

Given that most of these sorts of places are liable to have hour long waits most weekend nights; given that I have friends to meet and places to go many of those neighborhoods; and given how fabulous it is to walk in New York, it's hugely helpful to me to have a working knowledge of as many one-star caliber places in that radius as I can. And I suspect I'm far from alone.

The neighborhood already knows about its restaurants, shops, etc. So its really a waist of paper.

What?? How is the neighborhood supposed to know them??

Menupages lists 311 restaurants in the East Village. Granted only one in five of them is worth having an opinion about, but that's 60 restaurants, and even then how are you supposed to know which 60 those are? Not to mention the way even quite good restaurants in Manhattan will pop in and out of existence in the span of a year or two.

Of course the NYT isn't going to be able to cover more than a fraction of these places; that's what egullet, Chowhound, New York/newyorkmetro, and even Zagat's is for. But by the same token, I can't go to all of them either. If the Times can highlight a few of the more notable ones, and provide a more discriminatory and in-depth review than many of the other outlets, they've done a significant service. Of course they already do that with the $25 and Under column, but more depth, more writeups and slightly higher brow places wouldn't hurt.

[oakapple]

A neighborhood restaurant is, well a neighborhood restaurant. There are plenty of one star neighborhood restaurants throughout NYC. There really is no reason to write about them since no one will make a trip to dine at a one star neighborhood restaurant except the neighborhood that the restaurant is on. The neighborhood already knows about its restaurants, shops, etc. So its really a waste of paper.

I think the pejorative term "neighborhood restaurant" is over-used. It properly applies to restaurants that are of no likely interest outside of those who live/work in the neighborhood, and I agree the Times generally should not bother reviewing these.

But Ici, which Bruni reviewed this week, transcends its neighborhood, because of its proximity to BAM, which in turn draws audiences from all over the city. If you've ever gone restaurant-hunting near BAM, you'll know the options aren't obvious or abundant. Ici will definitely be on my list the next time I see something at BAM (which is about once a year).

Your argument falls down for other reasons, too. I agree with those who pointed out that, if you live near the subway, a pretty wide swath of the city can be reached in 30 minutes or less. In a sense, all of Manhattan below Harlem is my "neighborhood." I don't believe I must have a two-stars-or-higher experience to justify a trip of that distance.

By the way how could it possibly be possible for this restaurant and V to have one star each?

V is trying to be a two or three-star restaurant, and in Bruni's view has failed at it. Ici is attemping something a lot simpler, and in Bruni's view has succeeded at it. Anomalies like this abound. You can never tell from the rating alone whether XYZ is a solid N-star restaurant, or an N+1 or N+2 restaurant that fell down on the job. To know that, you have to read the text of the review.

The Times's published criteria also state that the critic takes price into account. Exactly how this is done isn't specified, but V Steakhouse is a pricey place. Bruni is effectively telling us: "V isn't bad, but for that price, if you want a steakhouse, you can do a lot better." Ici is a bargain restaurant — in real terms, probably one of the least expensive that the main critic has ever reviewed. Bruni is telling us: "For its modest ambitions, this place is a gem."

Every time Frank Bruni writes a one or even zero star review, many people will immediately dismiss the restaurant in question (perhaps without even reading the review.) If that's the case, does it really make sense to invest time and effort into a restaurant that few people will consider?

You're almost certainly wrong about the one-star reviews. Remember, the definition of one star is "good." One-star reviews aren't necessarily bad reviews, and indeed, sometimes they are almost glowing. Amanda Hesser's review of Landmarc was a good example.

Zero-star reviews are fairly rare. Offhand, I can recall only two so far this year. There are some well publicized restaurants that the critic probably feels he must review, even if he has only bad news to deliver. Certainly the Times's movie, theater, music, and book critics don't limit themselves to favorable reviews. Why should the restaurant critic?

Edited July 23, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

There are quite a few justifiable points and perspectives that have been raised here, but I wonder if the Times as an institution actually has any interest in clarifying, refining, or improving the system. It would seem that the answer is no. Frank Bruni probably has some sort of idea regarding what the stars mean to him, though whatever his theory is becomes less coherent with each review, but it doesn't seem that in the past decade there has been anybody in a supervisory position to provide overall guidance. Now, we don't even have Asimov writing $25 and under consistently. It seems they'll just let anybody in the circle of regular food section contributors do it in any given week. So under those circumstances it would be not only academically suspect but also downright reckless to start awarding stars when in any given week the review could come from Eric Asimov, Dana Bowen, the Lee brothers, Amanda Hesser, Sam Sifton . . . The scary thing is that the average eGulleter is thinking a lot more and a lot more intelligently about the Times reviewing system than anybody at the Times seems to be anymore.

[slkinsey]

Let's not allow this interesting conversation to turn into another debate on the star system.

I guess the point I was making is that I'd like to see more serious reviews of places like @SQC. They're perhaps not doing things quite as "important" as Landmarc with their wine program, etc. But the chef has legitimate chops, they take food and the dining experience seriously, and they have had a fair amount of press coverage. One can eat there very well for around 60 dollars. In short, @SQC is a restaurant worth knowing about -- and it's the kind of place I'd like to know about if I didn't already. Despite this, there has been no NYT review of @SQC of which I am aware. It's really too expensive and upscale for a <$25 review, and perhaps it is the case that there simply wasn't room in the schedule of places costing 3 times as much for an @SQC "big review" around the time it opened.

So... no review of @SQC and how many other places just like it? These are places that interest me. I love fine dining, and I love cheap eats -- but fundamentally I am a "middle dining" person and I feel like my demographic is underserved with reviews.

[xyz123]

One star=good. There are literally thousands of restaurants spread throughout

the boroughs that are good. I originally said that unless a neighborhood restaurant is serving great interesting food , it’s a waist of paper to write about it . The Ici review seemed to have as many negative dishes as positive ones. The positive dishes dint seem to be anything exiting, which makes it an average neighborhood restaurant, nothing to write about.

Pan, there are many restaurants that have two stars and are worthy of a trip

Wd50, 71 Clinton, Esca, Blue Hill, Aureole, Balthazar, and I’m sure I have left out a whole bunch of others that I cant think of at the moment.

[oakapple]

One star=good. There are literally thousands of restaurants spread throughout the boroughs that are good.

The fact that there is a one-star rating available implies that it will be used sometimes — and not, I hope, solely for the purpose of slapping down restaurants that should have been two or three stars had they gotten their act together. Otherwise, why have the rating? Unfortunately, because there are far more "good" restaurants than reviewing slots available, not all can get reviewed. This doesn't mean that none of them are newsworthy. Ici's proximity to BAM, coupled with the connection to Rocco's and other well known restaurants, made it a plausible candidate.

The Ici review seemed to have as many negative dishes as positive ones. The positive dishes dint seem to be anything exiting, which makes it an average neighborhood restaurant, nothing to write about.

The context of the Bruni review was clearly quite favorable — not, as you imply, merely neutral or average. And as I noted, the condescending "neighborhood" label clearly misses the point. Even Bruni noted the contradiction:

Ici has the intentions and soul of a neighborhood bistro, not a destination restaurant, although it turns out to be a very pleasant destination.

Edited July 23, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Checked with the NY Times and it was confirmed the reason for Ici was the television connection. Thought the review waxed poetical - not my kind of writing, but that's just a personal choice. All in all is was fine, but I think it further clouded Bruni's concept of the star system.

I'm afraid there's no simple solution to the $25 and under problem vs. the main reviews. I think it would terrible to award stars to that category however, since the Times can't even determine (with any certainty) how stars are given in its main category.

Their entire review system needs to be revamped so more restaurants get into print. First, I think the Diner's Journal should not be a prelude to a major review - that's tantamount to giving a restaurant two reviews. At least that minor adjustment would allow for fifty-two more "reviews."

The "Old Gray Lady" needs a facelift - the lines are beginning to show on more than her face.

Edited July 23, 2004 by rich (log)

[Pan]

Pan, there are many restaurants that have two stars and are worthy of a trip

Wd50, 71 Clinton, Esca, Blue Hill, Aureole, Balthazar

Are you offering to treat me? Why not look at it this way: The Times wants to appeal to different segments of its audience. You don't want to eat at 1-star restaurants, whereas most of the restaurants I eat at are "$25-and-under" or 1-star, and yes, I will travel on occasion for really good ones.

[Pan]

think the Diner's Journal should not be a prelude to a major review - that's tantamount to giving a restaurant two reviews.

We're generally in agreement. I've started a thread on the "Diner's Journal" column, so that we can discuss its function further.

Edited July 24, 2004 by Pan (log)

[oakapple]

As I understood it, some people questioned whether the Times should "waste" paper reviewing "neighborhood restaurants." xyz123 was emphatic in this:

A neighborhood restaurant is, well a neighborhood restaurant. There are plenty of one star neighborhood restaurants throughout NYC. There really is no reason to write about them since no one will make a trip to dine at a one star neighborhood restaurant except the neighborhood that the restaurant is on. The neighborhood already knows about its restaurants, shops, etc. So its really a waist (sic) of paper.

In my view, this is a fallacy for several reasons:

1) Many neighborhoods attract visitors from all over town for other reasons, and once they're there, people will want to know their dining options. Ici's neighborhood, for instance, attracts those who are visiting BAM, and in that neighborhood there aren't a whole lot of other choices. So whereas Ici might not be worth mentioning if it were located on the Upper East Side, it is newsworthy for being in an area that has very few other such places.

2) A journey of, say, 20-30 minutes is really not that far to travel for meal out. In New York, to travel such a distance for a date or a casual evening with friends is commonplace. I said earlier that the whole city can be regarded as one large connected neighborhood, because the fact is that many of us treat it that way. xyz123 may feel that he must have at least a two-star experience to justify a 20-minute subway ride, but I don't think he's typical. Many people get tired of the same old places in their immediate neighborhood and have the itch to try something new. As a Times reader, I'm grateful to have such places brought to my attention.

3) Sometimes, a one-star restaurant can be worth a detour, because it does one or two particular things especially well, even though it doesn't qualify for an overall rating of two stars or more. I'm thinking of Franny's for its pizza, or Landmarc for its wine list. It so happens Franny's didn't get a star, because of the stupid dichotomy at the Times between the fine dining and the $25-and-under critic, but several papers in town reviewed it favorably, and it fits perfectly in this category.

4) The Times's rating system contemplates the idea that there will be one-star restaurants in New York. Inevitably, some of these restaurants should have been two or three stars, but the critic finds them under-performing. But surely there is a place for restaurants rated one star that truly meet the description of what one star is supposed to mean, which is "good." I would not be in favor of a system where one star was only used for higher-end restaurants that aren't worth the money. At least sometimes, one star should mean "good, and worth it."

[hathor]

How do you spell pandering?? This is in today's NY Times editorial section: by Tim Zagat

"from the bottom of the island to its northern reaches, there are plenty of restaurants at which a delegate can expect to be fêted like a king, or at least like a Vanderbilt or a Rockefeller".

No suggestions where the protesters should dine.

[BrentKulman]

How do you spell pandering?? This is in today's NY Times editorial section: by Tim Zagat

"from the bottom of the island to its northern reaches, there are plenty of restaurants at which a delegate can expect to be fêted like a king, or at least like a Vanderbilt or a Rockefeller".

No suggestions where the protesters should dine.

Calm down, calm down.

He mentions the pushcarts and the delis, doesn't he.

[Moopheus]

No suggestions where the protesters should dine.

I don't think we're being provided with an expense account.

[tanabutler]

Very strange that he should mention "the French bastions," given the tender feelings between that nation of people who gave Julia Child her freedom (so to speak) and, um, the other people who are arriving in the article that TZ wrote.

Second note: why is "with" capitalized in "Dining With the Enemy?"

This TZ phrase is particularly insulting to just about everyone, including the people who are attending the event:

Lest the delegates begin to think New York only offers "foreign food,"

I thought this was funny:

The club's wine cellar still contains cases of wine belonging to Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Shouldn't those guys get their wine? Talk about bad service.

[oakapple]

This TZ phrase is particularly insulting to just about everyone, including the people who are attending the event:

Lest the delegates begin to think New York only offers "foreign food,"

I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek. You may not like his sense of humor, but it wasn't serious.

[Mayhaw Man]

Some of you may want to perform a quick review of the Policy on Discussion of Politics on eGullet.com. Any posts that cross the lines of this policy will be removed, as this is a website that concerns, and more or less only concerns, discussions directly related to food and the subjects surrounding food and dining.

As the policy states:

There are, of course, numerous food issues that are inextricably linked to politics. Some might argue that most food issues have an undeniable political component. Nonetheless, the scope of eGullet does not extend to generalized discussion of politics. This is a food site, and when a topic stops being about food we will end the discussion. Our site is not a forum for such arguments. They invariably result in ill will, fractured friendships, and a diminution of the quality of the food discussion on the site. They are off-topic and they violate our policies.

There is quite a bit of discussion that could be had here that does not directly involve partisan politics and I expect members to keep to those subjects and to avoid the type of conversation that seems to be developing here. Discussing what the average delegate or protester is eating for lunch or dinner is one thing, but debating the reasons why one is a protester and one is a Republican (and the pros and cons of that fact), is expressly forbidden by our policies.

Thanks,

[menton1]

It's amazing, Tim Zagat has always described himself as a "pollster" without publicly expressing personal opinions about restaurants. I guess he forgot that mantra. Shows you what an insult the Zagat Survey is to serious foodies... (and shame on the NY Times)

[Jason Perlow]

I vastly prefer Ed Levine's short peice in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/politics...aign/29LEVI.htm

[Jason Perlow]

And Asimov's:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/politics...ign/29ASIM.html

[SobaAddict70]

In chronological order we have:

Mimi Sheraton

Bryan Miller

Marian Burros (interim)

Ruth Reichl

Eric Asimov (interim)

William Grimes

Marian Burros/Amanda Hesser (interim)

Frank Bruni

Who's your favorite amongst that list of luminaries?

And....if there was an opening tomorrow, who would you like to see fit the position of the main restaurant critic at the Times? (ideally from individuals NOT on the list above, preferably individuals who are food writers or in the industry)

What qualities or criteria do you think the main Times critic should have?

So....if you were part of the hiring committee at the Times, who would you want to be in the spotlight? (besides the obvious candidate, El Gordo. )

Soba

[rlibkind]

In chronological order we have:

Mimi Sheraton

Bryan Miller

Marian Burros (interim)

Ruth Reichl

Eric Asimov (interim)

William Grimes

Marian Burros/Amanda Hesser (interim)

Frank Bruni

←

You forgot Raymond Sokolov, who predates Bryan Miller. (I am showing my age!)

[Pan]

Among eGulleteers, in addition to Fat Guy, Oakapple and lxt (I wish she would post more) come to mind as people who could be interesting critics for the Times.

I liked Asimov's "Under-$25" columns, but I don't feel like I know the work of all of those critics well enough to give an overall preference.

[Bux]

I liked Sokolov and recall being sorry to see him go. Maybe if he stayed longer I'd have grown to be as disappointed with him as the others. Familiarity breeds contempt, or so they say. I've changed over the years, my tastes have changed and my knowledge of food has changed. Each of those critics was writing for a different me at a different time. For me to rate them might be like several different people rating several different restaurants based on visits in different years and maybe under different chefs. I have a hard time choosing between the pigeon and the lobster on any given night and would be reluctant to rate the preparations of each from a given chef on a numerical scale or just against each other. The idea of being asked to do so is often enough to send my off on a tirade bemoaning the value our society places on rating things.

There are critics and eGullet members whose opinions I value and whose writing I enjoy reading and a list of one might not resemble a list of the other.

[Fat Guy]

Let's also not forget Craig Claiborne, who created the mold.

[Suzanne F]

While I've been through all of those reviewers, I can't pick a favorite any more than I could pick a favorite flavor of ice cream; they all brought something different to my palate, and all had plusses and minuses.

Nor could I name any one person who would be good to fill the slot, because I don't know anyone who fulfills my dream list of job requirements (not even me ):

• Has culinary training, in food prep, wine/beverages, and management
  
• Has worked both FOH and BOH
  
• Has top-notch reporting skills; is NOT a memoirist or fiction writer manque
  
• Can spell and use proper grammar; knows how and when to use adjectives, adverbs, etc.
  
• Has traveled extensively throughout the world and eaten both "authentic" and nonauthentic versions of dishes on their home territory
  

Come to think of it, the closest person to fulfilling those reqs (lacking only the first two) is R.W. Apple. But didn't they consider him and didn't he turn it down??

But wait . . . there IS someone we all know, someone with the training, with most of the food experience, who reports well and has already been-there-done-that with both memoir and fiction, who is one hell of a writer, and had travelled -- and eaten -- the world. Can you say . . . ? ? ? ?