Urena

[tan319]

the pic in the paper doesn' look that lousy.

Bright, yes but...

[rich]

the pic in the paper doesn' look that lousy.

Bright, yes but...

←

Let's remember the person reviewing this and the publication where he works have a special fondness for decor, music, bathrooms, carpeting, lighting and most other things that have nothing to do with food. Even to the point of mentioning his girlfriend's willingness to overlook a suitor's bad teeth or hooked nose if his personality was nice - in a strange metaphor about Urena's food vs. ambiance issues.

My opinion is that he and his publication focus too much on that issue. This is a perfect example of why food and decor/service ratings should be separate. I don't think anyone can argue Urena would have be given three (with the outside shot of four) if the decor suited the reviewer better.

Urena's food review was better than some of the critic's four-star choices, but once again he decided to go with two. It's his "everything I can't figure out" category. If you believe what he says half the time, then Urena is a perfect candidate for a re-review since decor problems are the easiest to "fix."

If you believe what he says the other half - that stars almost always stay constant - then he will stay home with a few brews and watch the Knicks lose 60 games this season.

[oakapple]

Let's remember the person reviewing this and the publication where he works have a special fondness for decor, music, bathrooms, carpeting, lighting and most other things that have nothing to do with food.

Complaints about Urena's decor have figured in every professional review that has appeared so far (NY Times, NY Mag, NY Daily News), as well as several eGullet posts. It is fair to say that, as far as this issue is concerned, the Times is not alone.

My opinion is that he and his publication focus too much on that issue. This is a perfect example of why food and decor/service ratings should be separate. I don't think anyone can argue Urena would have be given three (with the outside shot of four) if the decor suited the reviewer better.

Frank Bruni doesn't focus on that issue more than other critics, although it is certainly true that he has a bathroom fetish. Bruni's emphasis, like most intelligent critics, reflects the fact that most people aren't indifferent to the surroundings in which they dine. This is the first time in Bruni's tenure when I got the impression—but it is only an impression, not a certainty—that a restaurant serving three-star food was docked a star for non-food reasons.

On the other hand, I would strenuously argue that there is no shot whatsoever that Urena would have been even remotely considered for four stars, no matter what the decor. For if Urena's food is considered four-star worthy, then there are surely dozens of four-star restaurants in New York, and that would imply a very different reviewing system than the one we have.

Urena's food review was better than some of the critic's four-star choices, but once again he decided to go with two. It's his "everything I can't figure out" category. If you believe what he says half the time, then Urena is a perfect candidate for a re-review since decor problems are the easiest to "fix."

This reflects a fundamental understanding. While Frank Bruni showed considerable enthusiasm for Urena's food, he did not say that it was better than some of his four-star choices. Frank Bruni has awarded four stars only three times: Per Se, Masa, and Le Bernardin. Urena's food is better than which of these?

If it is true that the decor is the only thing standing between Urena and three-star status, then you would be right that Urena would be a perfect candidate for a re-review if the decor is upgraded. But you must remember that the critic's enthusiasm for a place is based on many factors. Bruni was over-the-moon for Sripraphai, but that doesn't mean he thought it was better than the three or four-star restaurants he has reviewed.

Edited March 30, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Let's remember the person reviewing this and the publication where he works have a special fondness for decor, music, bathrooms, carpeting, lighting and most other things that have nothing to do with food.

Complaints about Urena's decor have figured in every professional review that has appeared so far (NY Times, NY Mag, NY Daily News), as well as several eGullet posts. It is fair to say that, as far as this issue is concerned, the Times is not alone.

My opinion is that he and his publication focus too much on that issue. This is a perfect example of why food and decor/service ratings should be separate. I don't think anyone can argue Urena would have be given three (with the outside shot of four) if the decor suited the reviewer better.

Frank Bruni doesn't focus on that issue more than other critics, although it is certainly true that he has a bathroom fetish. Bruni's emphasis, like most intelligent critics, reflects the fact that most people aren't indifferent to the surroundings in which they dine. This is the first time in Bruni's tenure when I got the impression—but it is only an impression, not a certainty—that a restaurant serving three-star food was docked a star for non-food reasons.

On the other hand, I would strenuously argue that there is no shot whatsoever that Urena would have been even remotely considered for four stars, no matter what the decor. For if Urena's food is considered four-star worthy, then there are surely dozens of four-star restaurants in New York, and that would imply a very different reviewing system than the one we have.

Urena's food review was better than some of the critic's four-star choices, but once again he decided to go with two. It's his "everything I can't figure out" category. If you believe what he says half the time, then Urena is a perfect candidate for a re-review since decor problems are the easiest to "fix."

This reflects a fundamental understanding. While Frank Bruni showed considerable enthusiasm for Urena's food, he did not say that it was better than some of his four-star choices. (Frank Bruni has awarded four stars only three times: Per Se, Masa, and Le Bernardin. Urena's food is better than which of these?)

If it is true that the decor is the only thing standing between Urena and three-star status, then you would be right that Urena would be a perfect candidate for a re-review if the decor is upgraded. But you must remember that the critic's enthusiasm for a place is based on many factors. Bruni was over-the-moon for Sripraphai, but that doesn't mean he thought it was better than the three or four-star restaurants he has reviewed.

←

Marc, I'm not saying Urena has no decor issues. I haven't been, but you're right - almost every critic has mentioned it. My point in that paragraph was in my opinion the NY Times and its critic go overboard in this area - more than most of the other critics. (He spoke about decor issues in 10 of 24 paragraphs.) That's why I said this is the perfect example why food and ambiance and service should be awarded separate stars.

The last two have a different level of importance for each individual. Some don't care how the food tastes as long as their water glasses are filled and are served on Royal Dalton with indirect lighting. For me, I couldn't care less if I had to fetch my own water from an oustide well or if I was served on $10 plates from Crate & Barrel - and I don't even know what a sconce is, nor do I want to. To me the food is the thing.

If you're correct in saying that Urena has no shot at four, then Del Posto has less than no shot. His review of Urena's food was close to perfect - only mentioning one dessert and 1/3 of one entree as "problems." He was a lot more critical of Del Posto in that respect.

And in his other two 4-star reviews (I'm not counting Masa because its menu is so different), he was also critical of a dish or two.

[Nathan]

rich,

a couple points:

1. the decor at Urena is lousy, really lousy. its a serious distraction from the food. and it looks really cheap. I've never seen a restaurant with a sharper discontinuity between the food and the room.

2. he also commented on the amateurishness of the service.

all of these are factors that go into the dining experience for most people, maybe not for you (I don't care that much either).

3. Del Posto was aiming for the stars and charging much more. Urena is clearly aimed at two stars -- Bruni basically said that "you have a three star restaurant if you just figure out the ambience and service"

if I were them I'd be exhilarated, he could have gotten away with giving them one star.

if Del Posto was charging Urena's prices and wasn't so consciously aimed at four stars you might have seen a much more favorable review...in terms of what he said about the food. you can't compare these restaurants in a vacuum.

[oakapple]

If you're correct in saying that Urena has no shot at four, then Del Posto has less than no shot. His review of  Urena's food was close to perfect - only mentioning one dessert and 1/3 of one entree as "problems." He was a lot more critical of Del Posto in that respect.

And in his other two 4-star reviews (I'm not counting Masa because its menu is so different), he was also critical of a dish or two.

←

The Times has not been completely transparent about its star criteria, but the empirical evidence makes one thing abundantly clear: restaurants are reviewed against expectations for their peer group. Del Posto is built for four stars, and priced accordingly. It's therefore graded on a tougher curve than a restaurant like Urena.

You therefore can't count the number of "problems," and presume that it converts via mathematical formula into a certain number of stars. When the critic reviews a restaurant with four-star aspirations, very picky defects are going to be reported. When the critic reviews a humbler restaurant, such defects either aren't reported, or might even be described as charming (see the Al Di La review).

Edited March 30, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

Nathan and Marc, I agree with what both of you have said regarding comparing restaurants with aspirations. And that's why I think the star system doesn't work. I think the food should have the final say and not whether you spend $12 million to tile floors with some Italian marble that probably came from Nutley, NJ.

This is the Urena thread so I'm not going rail about the star system. I think all of us agree for the most part - it's just the application of stars that creates a problem (at least for me).

Edited March 30, 2006 by rich (log)

[Nathan]

I agree that it is a problem with the star system...whether it outweighs the merits of the star system is a separate question.

going back to Urena...I don't think Bruni was indicating that the food at Urena is "better" than the cooking at Del Posto...however, dollar for dollar the food may well be better at Urena...but than that's always true of luxe places...diminishing returns are inevitable...which is why luxe places always have to offer more than just food to justify the prices.

[rich]

which is why luxe places always have to offer more than just food to justify the prices.

←

And Del Posto does - $29+tip valet parking.

[philadining]

I think that Urena has tolerated the insults about the garish, over-lit decor of his place, because he's waiting for a visit from one of the resident maniacs here on eGullet who would appreciate the extra light for taking pictures. But has anyone obliged? Nooooo.... If we just post some well-lit pics, he can finally turn the brightness down to a reasonable level.

[Eatmywords]

Geez, they had all the warnings in the world about this stupid lighting. How could they not have known (esp with a culinary simpleton like Bruni in office) that they'd get shelled for distractions such as these come review time? So easy to fix/adjust!

I remember when we were there I mentioned to her (Alex's wife) that a lighting adjustment would recreate the room for the better. She agreed and cited a semi incompetent, unreliable electrician. Crazy!

The review is bitter-sweet. Fantastic they got 2 but to think the difference for a third might have been a couple of dimmers (for the most part). It's a bit sad.

Would've made them the Cinderella restaurant of the year!

Oh well, 2 is better than 1 or none.

[iheartoffal]

Why are people so caught up on the decor? When I go out to eat, my primary concern is the food on the plate...everything else (including the service most of the time) is just peripheral. If I'm enjoying my food and the company, I probably won't even notice the room at all, unless it's decorated with pictures of roadkill and lit with strobe lights.

I keep reading reviews by people who say that the ambience ruined the meal for them. I'd expect that from people who don't go out to eat for the food, but not from people on here.

[Sneakeater]

If the lights are too bright, it makes it harder to enjoy the company.

In general, I can't believe that even the most food-obsessed person is unaffected by the way the room looks and feels or the service. Are you saying that it means nothing to you if you have to wait a long time between courses, if you have to go through time-consuming contortions to get your order taken or to get the check and leave, or if they take your wine and put it somewhere and then fail to keep everybody's glasses full?

If I'm paying more than bargain prices, service and ambiance definitely count.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

If I'm paying more than bargain prices, service and ambiance definitely count.

←

It counts for me in two respects: cleanliness and timing. And by timing I mean a reasonable amount of time between courses and when I first sit down - wait staff shows up within a few minutes to take drink orders - follows up giving menus and taking orders. Aside from that I'm on my own. On a scale of 1-10 (highest) ambiance is about 1.

I can have a great time if the food is good under just about any circumstances.

On the other side, if the food isn't good no amount of ambiance will save the day - not even $12 million Italian marble floors, blue oak doors, deconstructed Caesar Salad, ketchup foam served over fois gras or any other gimmick that's out there.

[Sneakeater]

On the other side, if the food isn't good no amount of ambiance will save the day - not even $12 million Italian marble floors, blue oak doors, deconstructed Caesar Salad, ketchup foam served over fois gras or any other gimmick that's out there.

←

ABSOLUTELY no disagreement there.

Not even a wall of glass bottles.

[iheartoffal]

What I meant is that, with the given that the food is excellent at particular restaurant, I'm less likely to focus on the service...even less so on the decor. I didn't mean that service or decor shouldn't factor into one's evaluation of a place.

It's just that--based on reviews I've read here and elsewhere--some people seem to be offended, even traumatized by the decor at Urena, so much so that it's ruined an otherwise good meal for them. It just makes no sense to me.

Edited March 31, 2006 by iheartoffal (log)

[oakapple]

It's just that--based on reviews I've read here and elsewhere--some people seem to be offended, even traumatized by the decor at Urena, so much so that it's ruined an otherwise good meal for them.  It just makes no sense to me.

←

I haven't seen "traumatized" or "ruined" in any review. But most people, to at least some degree, want efficient service and attractive, comfortable surroundings when they're paying fine dining prices. The fact that it keeps getting mentioned in review after review suggests that Urena really missed the boat, in a way that goes far beyond petty complaints about the paint, the artwork, or the carpeting.

[Nathan]

I'll put it this way...the room at Urena is bright enough that you consistently notice it the entire time that you are there.

Most ambience issues are noted and forgotten (i.e. the kitchen having the best view at Cafe Gray) once you get into the food.

That's impossible at Urena. I don't think it's just lighting to get them to 3 stars....its lighting plus service....

[Sneakeater]

Although I'd say that Cafe Gray is DEFINITELY a place where ambiance/decor/serivce issues affect people's opinion of the place. Look at the most recent reviews in the Cafe Gray thread.

I'm not talking about the kitchen's blocking the window. I'm talking about the way it looks, feels, and operates like a noisy, uncomfortable upper-mid-priced cafe but charges "fine dining" prices. It definitely seems to bother people (very much including me), even though no one has anything particularly bad to say about the food -- and many think the food is great.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

Maybe Urena is just one of those places we've all discussed and debated in the past - a restaurant that serves three or possibly four-star food in one-star surroundings.

There are a few places aside from Cafe Gray that have been mentioned over time that fall into the less than stellar ambiance, but terrific food category; WD-50, Tasting Room (my personal example), Babbo, Sri, Di Fara, Peter Luger, Saul, Roberto's, Sapori d'Ischia, Annisa, Blue Hill, Pearl Oyster Bar, Al di La and probably a few I missed. I think a few people have recently complained about ADNY's tired look (aside from the non-working bathrooms).

And then there are others that serve less than stellar food in great surroundings: One If By Land, River Cafe, Four Seasons, Spice Market, Cafe de Artistes, Del Posto, Matsuri, Water Club, Tavern on the Green, Morimoto and a few more that I missed.

It probably just comes down to an individual choice of what level of importance ambiance plays in having a good meal - and everyone has a different degree of tolerance. I have a friend who goes nuts if his water glass isn't constantly filled and that wouldn't bother me at all unless I was eating at a place in the Sahara. Different strokes...

[Nathan]

"It probably just comes down to an individual choice of what level of importance ambiance plays in having a good meal - and everyone has a different degree of tolerance. I have a friend who goes nuts if his water glass isn't constantly filled and that wouldn't bother me at all unless I was eating at a place in the Sahara. Different strokes... "

Word.

Bruni, of course, is not writing for egullet. He's writing for the average, somewhat sophisticated but not overly foodie NY Times restaurant review reader. Decor and service is going to matter a great deal to that reader as part of the overall "dining experience."

[oakapple]

"It probably just comes down to an individual choice of what level of importance ambiance plays in having a good meal - and everyone has a different degree of tolerance. I have a friend who goes nuts if his water glass isn't constantly filled and that wouldn't bother me at all unless I was eating at a place in the Sahara. Different strokes... "

Word.

Bruni, of course, is not writing for egullet.  He's writing for the average, somewhat sophisticated but not overly foodie NY Times restaurant review reader.  Decor and service is going to matter a great deal to that reader as part of the overall "dining experience."

←

I would add that Rich's "different strokes" observation applies to the food, too. It's not as if we are exactly unanimous about that element, either.

[rich]

I would add that Rich's "different strokes" observation applies to the food, too. It's not as if we are exactly unanimous about that element, either.

←

Oh, absolutely. I included restaurants in both categories where I don't necessarily agree, but those observations have been made in posts. It's fun to voice and hear differing views on restaurants and people here have changed my mind on a few.

I will try Urena shortly based on reviews here and will not try Morimoto for the same reason. Del Posto and Gilt are still up in the air and my inclination changes daily. And I was totally impressed with WD-50 - a restaurant I was "iffy" about until reading the posted reviews.

With so many NYC restaurant options, you need to take your lead from someplace - so it might as well be this place.

[Pan]

An example of disagreement about food is that, at least based on my lunch there a few years ago, I would indeed consider River Cafe stellar. But I guess we'd be better off not going on that tangent in the Urena thread...

[Sneakeater]

I was going to say the same thing . . . .