Gilt

[JohnL]

Why is it that every restaurant Liebrandt has been associated with lands flat on its face?  For such an amazing talent it worries me that gilt may face the same consequence.  I have not yet gone to Gilt and I plan on going soon but it just seems to me the this place may suffer the same fate as Papillon did.  I hope not.

←

My guess is Manhattan is a very tough place to do business--especially for anything "experimental."

Location is critical--I believe that WD-50 would have a very tough time in Mid Town

while it has done well downtown.

I would also note that Meigas which did fairly cutting edge Spanish food was downtown (Hudson St) but still failed because it was too far West with little dinner traffic and a lot of lunch traffic comprised of people in advertising and printing businesses--the conventional Italian restaurant that replaced Meigas has thrived on that business.

Midtown also means high rents and a more "conservative" audience.

On the far east side you can find Perigord which to me seems stuck in a time warp--this is a French restaurant right out of the sixties! It is doing well with a very conservative older crowd that lives on Sutton Place etc..

You also have March where Wayne Nish does a pretty good balancing act with modern food that is still somewhat conservative (compared to what WD-50 is doing).

Great and creative chefs are faced with a balancing act.

JGV and Kunz and Keller are three that have found success with menus that

walk that line.

The first time I visited Minneapolis, I noticed that the architecture was more "daring" than most of what we have here in Manhattan. A designer friend of mine explained that the financial stakes are so much higher in NYC that there is a tendency to "play it safe."

Edited January 31, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[oakapple]

Why is it that every restaurant Liebrandt has been associated with lands flat on its face?  For such an amazing talent it worries me that gilt may face the same consequence.  I have not yet gone to Gilt and I plan on going soon but it just seems to me the this place may suffer the same fate as Papillon did.  I hope not.

←

My guess is Manhattan is a very tough place to do business--especially for anything "experimental."

Actually, I think you'd stand a better chance of that in Manhattan than in most cities. The trick is finding the right space, at the right price. If word-of-mouth is favorable, there's practically no neighborhood that intrepid diners won't go to. That's how areas that weren't formerly hospitable to fine dining, like the Meatpacking District, the LES, and now Far West Chelsea, have become hot spots. However, if you open in the space that was formerly Le Cirque, there are certain expectations. One cannot completely ignore the history of that space.

Great and creative chefs are faced with a balancing act.

JGV and Kunz and Keller are three that have found success with menus that

walk that line.

Their situation is different. JGV is so well known now, he could open just about anything anywhere, and the place would fill up on reputation alone. Obviously failure remains a possibility after the lustre has worn off (V Steakhouse), but people will give him a healthy benefit of the doubt because of who he is. Liebrandt doesn't have that luxury.

Keller, of course, was duplicating a model that was already a big hit in Napa. It's not the same thing as creating a concept from scratch. Gray Kunz brought the Lespinasse cachet with him, and he also had the advantage of opening in a highly touted venue, where he caught some of the beneficial glow of the company he was keeping.

Edited February 1, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[docsconz]

There is a lot of negative talk on this thread lately - not about the food or the restaurant "per se', but about the difficulties Liebrandt and the restaurant face. Has there been anything to warrant that other than Bruni's piece? Is the restaurant not doing good business? My impression was otherwise.

[Sneakeater]

You certainly don't get the impression they're doing bad business when you try to get a reservation.

[tan319]

If 'Gilt' does fall flat on it's face, it will be because of self perpetuating rumours like some of the above...

The place is packed.

PEOPLE seem to like the food.

Reviewers and their copycats want to bitch about the wine prices, doesn't seem to be keeping people away.

People ( who are so inclined)HATE that he's a BRIT with an ego.

When people sign leases many times there's incentives, price breaks, I don't think he's stupid.

[Mikeb19]

Unfortunately people are easily swayed by the media. If you've got beef with the media (for any number of reasons, even not giving free dinners...), they will try to bring you down. It's a cruel world out there, often being the best is not enough. From what I've heard so far though, Gilt looks like it will make it past the negative media rumours.

[jasper]

I expect gilt to remain extremely busy being that the place is still new. We will see where the place is in 6 months from now after all the hype is gone. The menu is extremely creative and I dont think price is an issue ( especially with the great location) as long as Liebrandt doesnt listen to all the bullshit going around and maintains his focus, I think the place is going to be just fine.

[JohnL]

There is a lot of negative talk on this thread lately - not about the food or the restaurant "per se', but about the difficulties Liebrandt and the restaurant face. Has there been anything to warrant that other than Bruni's piece? Is the restaurant not doing good business? My impression was otherwise.

←

I don't see the "negativity."

The Times piece was negative and used Gilt as an example of dubious pricing practices.

I think it is pretty clear that this piece was not very well written.

The NY Post gave quite a good formal review of Gilt.

In his review Cuozzo noted that Liebrandt faced some difficulties given his foods "experimental" nature but he lauded the cooking and indicated that he hoped Liebrandt would be successful with Gilt.

(he also dealt fairly with the high prices by providing the context that Bruni did not).

I think most posters here seem to be hopeful that Liebrandt can overcome some high hurdles which have been noted. Location, need to charge top prices, finding the right crowd etc.

I would also note that the posters who have actually eaten at Gilt paint a much more positive picture than Bruni.

I also believe that any ambitious endeavor (especially one in a place like Manhattan) is met with some media skepticism.

Also, in this specific case, Liebrandt has encountered some success problems in his earlier efforts. especially at Atlas which was in the same neighborhood as Gilt.

Seems to me that "negative" is the wrong word--I would say "hopeful" is a better fit.

[Jack Rose]

It is remarkable how many postings and comments have been made about Gilt, considering it has been open only a month and a half now. Whether it is plaudits or criticisms, it is refreshing to see so much feed-back.

I have only read the Bruni article in the NY Times and the threads in this forum, but wanted to remark. Firstly, from the photos the Villiard House looks amazing and it is quite a startling transformation from the previous Le Cirque 2000. I worked as a chef there for close to two years, leaving after New Year's 2000 and with the departure of Sottha Khunn and Jacque Torres.

Curiously, who paid for the multi-million dollar renovation and outfitting. Although it was never expressly stated, the Maccioni family certainly did not foot the bill for the 7 million dollars+ transformation in 1997. I could only imagine how these dealings work, but the Palace and conversely its owner the Sultan of Brunei evidently paid the vast majority if not all of that cost. Anyone privy to a similar set-up with Gilt? I also read that there are now only fifteen tables and seating for approximately forty in the converted "Red Room" that was officially known as the Villiard Room that led to the barely open kitchen. What became of the front "Purple Room" that faced Madison Avenue.

As far as price goes and the stellar costs, I think it boils down to relative value for an individual customer. Obviously it is very, very expensive but it is a matter of it being worth the experience to the diner. Le Cirque 2000 was definitely one of the most expensive restaurants of its era, mostly due to its menu being "a la carte" and a substantial mark-up on wine and spirits.

I question the oft-mentioned 92 people in the kitchen. We had a staff of seventy-four in the same space and that was pushing it. With the two room, Le Cirque had around 140 seats depending on table orientation and a significant banqueting operation for the upstairs facilities of the Palace. Twice as much output if not more, plus Le Cirque was union - Local 6 meaning that there were numerous support staff included. Thirty or forty of the staff were included in this number, janitorial, dishwashers, stewards, receivers. We had several employees that visibly did close to no work - either sitting at a desk or sweeping the same serviec entrance stairs every two to three hours. Knowing the premises, I cannot see how this number is even close to theoretically possible - more of a public relations twist put out there to justify inflated prices.

[docsconz]

There is a lot of negative talk on this thread lately - not about the food or the restaurant "per se', but about the difficulties Liebrandt and the restaurant face. Has there been anything to warrant that other than Bruni's piece? Is the restaurant not doing good business? My impression was otherwise.

←

I don't see the "negativity."

The Times piece was negative and used Gilt as an example of dubious pricing practices.

I think it is pretty clear that this piece was not very well written.

The NY Post gave quite a good formal review of Gilt.

In his review Cuozzo noted that Liebrandt faced some difficulties given his foods "experimental" nature but he lauded the cooking and indicated that he hoped Liebrandt would be successful with Gilt.

(he also dealt fairly with the high prices by providing the context that Bruni did not).

I think most posters here seem to be hopeful that Liebrandt can overcome some high hurdles which have been noted. Location, need to charge top prices, finding the right crowd etc.

I would also note that the posters who have actually eaten at Gilt paint a much more positive picture than Bruni.

I also believe that any ambitious endeavor (especially one in a place like Manhattan) is met with some media skepticism.

Also, in this specific case, Liebrandt has encountered some success problems in his earlier efforts. especially at Atlas which was in the same neighborhood as Gilt.

Seems to me that "negative" is the wrong word--I would say "hopeful" is a better fit.

←

I wasn't saying that people were being negative about the restaurant itself or its output. Discussion seemed to have shifted from how wonderful the food is to how difficult it will be for the restaurant to stay in business. Iwas simply wondering if there was some basis for that beyond the Bruni hatchet job. I agree the overwhelming sense from the reports here are that the restaurant is pretty spectacular. I am very much looking forward to it myself, hopefully next time I'm in NYC for any period of time.

[JohnL]

Ya know doc,

You are right--The Bruni piece may be somewhat responsible added to the fact that there is skepticism in the media whenever any new ambitious venture opens here in New York.

Remember the press pre and post opening for Ducasse, also for Per Se (could Keller pull it off--in a mall yet?") and more recently the Del Posto stuff?

Look what they did to Rocco! (look what Rocco did to himself).

However--as I noted earlier--The Post gave Gilt a pretty good review. (with the Times losing some local impact as they try to go national-- the Post seems to be moving upmarket ).

....and posters here have been complimentary. Liebrandt does seem to have gotten his act together and deserves a shot at stardom so hopefully.....

In the end--time will tell.

[docsconz]

Remember the press pre and post opening for Ducasse, also for Per Se (could Keller pull it off--in a mall yet?") and more recently the Del Posto stuff?

←

While this isn't the topic for Del Posto, what did the press do to that restaurant other than build it up? I think Mario has pretty much received a free ride on that one from the press so far - it seems they have their favorites.

[flyingsaucier]

I heard Bruni is coming up with the review this wednesday. Let's see his opinion about this new "Molecular" joint. After all, his opinion can change a lot of un-educated "foodie wannabe"s mind about dining there, no?. The review just pretty much benefit the only the ones who can afford to dine there. It's like having FB dictate which expensive clothes to wear this spring. Get out of town.

ps. gambling is prohibited, but does anyone wanna bet how many stars:)?

[foodexile]

ps. gambling is prohibited, but does anyone wanna bet how many stars:)?

←

3

[oakapple]

ps. gambling is prohibited, but does anyone wanna bet how many stars:)?

←

I'm already on record with a three-star prediction, and I'll stick to that.

[ASM NY]

ps. gambling is prohibited, but does anyone wanna bet how many stars:)?

←

I am hoping it gets 3 stars or better (unlikely), but I am going to be a contrarian and bet on 2 stars.

[BryanZ]

I would say 3 makes the most sense. In my opinion it will be more interesting to see what Michelin says of the place next year.

[tan319]

I'm hoping and wagering 3

[Sneakeater]

Why would you "hope" for 3 stars for a restaurant unless you own it? Why would you care?

[oakapple]

Why would you "hope" for 3 stars for a restaurant unless you own it?  Why would you care?

←

We tend to derive satisfaction when our opinion is backed by others, particularly in so public a medium as the New York Times. We also derive satisfaction from seeing that a chef whose work we admire has earned the critical acclaim that we believe he deserves.

On a selfish level, perhaps we want a restaurant to receive favorable reviews so that it will be successful, and we'll be able to continue enjoying it for years to come. I'm not sure that critical acclaim actually has much to do with staying power, but we often hope will be the case.

[Sneakeater]

Tan319 hasn't reviewed Gilt, so I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) he hasn't eaten there. I understand wanting your own opinion confirmed, but I thought that didn't come into play in this case.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Bux]

People also care because they respect the chef, or his philosophy, or simply because the know the chef, the owner or some of the staff. In other words, for the highest and lowest of motives.

[Sneakeater]

But even the highest motives you posit seem low to me.

Remember, people aren't saying "I hope this restaurant I haven't yet eaten in turns out to be good." They're saying "I hope this restaurant I haven't yet eaten in gets lots of stars (i.e., is recognized by an influential critic as good)," presumably so lots of consumers will then be induced to pay money to go to it.

In other words, they're saying, "I hope this restaurant is foisted on the paying populace as good -- whether it's actually good or not (because I have no way of knowing)." Still seems low to me.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

In other words, they're saying, "I hope this restaurant is foisted on the paying populace as good -- whether it's actually good or not (because I have no way of knowing)."  Still seems low to me.

←

That seems to me an awfully ungenerous reading of what has been posted here. People are simply rooting for a well regarded chef who's had some hard knocks in the past. I would think, until demonstrated otherwise, that the people who are predicting and/or hoping that Gilt will receive 3 stars, also believe (based on whatever information they have at their disposal) that those stars will be deserved. I do not believe that anyone here is rooting for Gilt to receive unwarranted acclaim. Edited February 7, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[docsconz]

In other words, they're saying, "I hope this restaurant is foisted on the paying populace as good -- whether it's actually good or not (because I have no way of knowing)."  Still seems low to me.

←

That seems to me an awfully ungenerous reading of what has been posted here. People are simply rooting for a well regarded chef who's had some hard knocks in the past. I would think, until demonstrated otherwise, that the people who are predicting and/or hoping that Gilt will receive 3 stars, also believe (based on whatever information they have at their disposal) that those stars will be deserved. I do not believe that anyone here is rooting for Gilt to receive unwarranted acclaim.

←

Well said, Mark. I hope it has a good review, gets high stars and lives up to them because I want another restaurant in NYC that deserves them.