Best Chef in Boston?

[alexurzopia]

I've been wondering who amounts to the best overall chef in Boston. We have our share of celebrities (Ming Tsai, Todd English), but we also have a bunch of great only-in-Boston chefs (Ana Sortum, Jody Adams, Ken Oringer). Also, why does it seem like so few chefs in Boston move on to New York?

Also, how does our sushi rate with New York?? (Oishii, FuGakYu)

[glauer]

hmm, I don't think there is such a thing as "best" chef, neither in Boston nor anywhere else. There are great ones, good ones and not so good ones. What do you think would make one "The Best"?

Regarding the sushi question, I have only eaten at Oishii and was rather unhappy. More "innovation" than perfection. Certainly not at the level of the better NYC places.

[alexurzopia]

hmm, I don't think there is such a thing as "best" chef, neither in Boston nor anywhere else. There are great ones, good ones and not so good ones. What do you think would make one "The Best"?

Regarding the sushi question, I have only eaten at Oishii and was rather unhappy. More "innovation" than perfection. Certainly not at the level of the better NYC places.

←

good point, let me rephrase. when i mean "best chef", i essentially mean, which one of the well known chefs in boston, who have not yet expanded their restaurants to other cities, would be most likely to survive in a more competitive restaurant environment, such as new york.

as far as my thinking goes, i feel that Ana Sortum of Oleana has the level of food necessary, as well as the specific style of cuisine, to be successfull in New York. Chefs like Jody Adams I feel though, don't quite have what it takes to be successfull in New York. Even Ming Tsai I think, lacks the "refinement" necessary.

generally, i almost feel like there is a vicious cycle which takes place, which limits reknown food from appearing at obscure parts of the globe. having just eaten in Kansas City, Boston, New York, and Paris, i can safely say that the level of refinement and sophistication taking place is occuring in reverse order of the cities i listed. Paris is ultimately more advanced overall. New York is trailing a couple of minutes behind, Boston following, then ultimately newcomers like Kansas City.

This expansion of ideas and refinement can be seen in many things. Subtleties in service, plating of food, even how the menu is written. Ultimately too, the overall price has been an indication. The nicest meal one can buy in Kansas City will be inherently cheaper than its equivalent in Boston, and so on and so forth.

Because of this, it seems that many chefs are gravitating to the concentric center of these levels of food. The vast majority of the big names always gravitate to places like New York and Paris, while Kansas City is a breeding ground for rising stars.

I may be wrong, but i have been consistently amazed by the differing levels of high end, reccomended restaurants in many of these cities.

Any thoughts?

[orangeman747]

alexurzopia,

I too have been to Kansas City and Boston this summer ( I live near Boston).

I think that you are right that kansas city, while still with good food, is not very near the top. however, in kansas city, because the high-end restaurants are limited, there is not as much drive for the restaurants to be better because they do not have as much competition. Whereas, in boston, we have a large food scene, though its true that at many times we keep it "on the down low" and dont let too much out.

that said, restaurants like no. 9 park do have a very high level of refinement, however refinement is a very intersting thing because it doesnt mean fancier or anything, it just means that they have gotten down what they do to a science. if you get what you do down to a science, then you are highly refined... could a lobster shack that serves perfect lobsters be refined????

but you have listed some excellent chefs in boston, but i agree, there is no "best"

PS. ming tsai and todd english are more celebrities i think than people delivering the best food in boston.

PSS. i LOVE oishii

[alexurzopia]

alexurzopia,

I too have been to Kansas City and Boston this summer ( I live near Boston).

I think that you are right that kansas city, while still with good food, is not very near the top. however, in kansas city, because the high-end restaurants are limited, there is not as much drive for the restaurants to be better because they do not have as much competition. Whereas, in boston, we have a large food scene, though its true that at many times we keep it "on the down low" and dont let too much out.

that said, restaurants like no. 9 park do have a very high level of refinement, however refinement is a very intersting thing because it doesnt mean fancier or anything, it just means that they have gotten down what they do to a science. if you get what you do down to a science, then you are highly refined... could a lobster shack that serves perfect lobsters be refined????

but you have listed some excellent chefs in boston, but i agree, there is no "best"

PS. ming tsai and todd english are more celebrities i think than people delivering the best food in boston.

PSS. i LOVE oishii

←

well said.

the only clarifications i need to make are re "refinement" and the celebrity chef scene in Boston. i in no way mean to suggest that a refined restaurant, is better or worse than any other restaurant. refinement, in my mind, is along the same lines as decor, service, or something else. no. 9 park is an excellent example of one of the more refined restaurants in Boston, however, it also represents one of the "best restaurants in boston" according to many critics, publications, etc... if I were to go to Alain Ducasse in New York, which is considered one of the "best restaurants" in New York, the level of refinement there would be higher than in Boston. You brought up an interesting point, that restaurants in places like Kansas City have little incentive to improve, or take their stuff up a notch. The only problem I see with that would be that many of the great restaurant cities in America were once Kansas City like places, until an amazing restaurant came in and suddenly a new level of cuisine was "the cool thing to do". A perfect example would be Chicago. Chicago was a restaurant made up primarily of steakhouses and less well known eateries, at least until 18 years ago, when Charlie Trotters opened. Since then, a bunch of restaurants debatebly up to par with Trotters have gathered, making Chicago one of the hippest restaurant scene locations. It takes a chef with drive not requiring material incentive, such as how much energy they NEED to put into the food, to draw followers wanting to raise the bar. These are all very rough draft ideas, just tell me what you think.

Re the celebrity chef thing, i would say we can both agree that celebrity means only VERY partially signifies a good cook. When I mentioned celebrities, I didnt mean to say they were the superior chefs, just that they definitely had elements that could qualify for top chef.

I have more to say but I'm tired of typing.

adios

[ryanj]

I definitely agree that the level of food sophistication here in Boston is not equal to some of the other larger cities; New York, Chicago, LA, San Fran. Not to say this is a bad thing. However, God bless her, Barbara Lynch is in the paper every day because she is one of the few chefs making waves in this city. Ken Oringer as well. But Toro was done five years ago in Chicago as Avec, Same with the Butcher Shop. Boston, to me, seems a half a step behind the curve of food revolutions.

The sheer amount of restaurants here, which probably only numbers 2,500, equaled with the amount of seasoned and professional servers and cooks, I think, takes Boston down a little. Moving here from Chicago, I found it easier to staff a restaurant than in Boston. To hire one server, we will go through 50-60 applications before we find a qualified one with a little wine and food knowledge. I have heard the same things from managers and chefs at other restaurants here. Chicago has 8,000 restaurants, NYC 20,000. You just seem to have a deeper labor pool in cities like those.

[gini]

I am consistenly amazed that people continue to compare a city of 600,000 residents to cities of 3 million residents (Chicago) or 8 million (NYC).

Why not compare apples to apples here? Atlanta, New Orleans, San Francisco - these are the cities to compare Boston with. Boston just can't physically compete with NY or LA. There are reasons why it is always half a step behind Paris - there are fewer chefs, fewer patrons, fewer options.

Anyway, I think that Boston has good food - not great food. I also don't think there is a best chef in Boston or a best restaurant. But there are certainly some good eats.