Neighborhood Places

[Daniel]

If Jean Georges is in the lobby of your building and you are loaded, isnt that your neighborhood place.

[Sneakeater]

I've often wondered if one might classify urban restaurants on the basis of how far in advance you'd be willing to plan and reserve ahead.

←

I think this is really really good.

[Nathan]

I believe this is the first time in history that someone here has cited Bruni as an authority to make a point. So, yeah, Bruni's definition of a "neighborhood restaurant" may possibly not jibe with mine. Point?

[oakapple]

I believe this is the first time in history that someone here has cited Bruni as an authority to make a point.  So, yeah, Bruni's definition of a "neighborhood restaurant" may possibly not jibe with mine.  Point?

←

The point is that "neighborhood restaurant" is a term of art in the food business. It actually does mean something, and professional writers use it in a reasonably predictable way. Misuse of it is no more correct than if you say "sautéed" when you really meant "broiled." If you don't think Frank Bruni can be counted upon to use the language correctly, feel free to cite some other writer.

The last review cited, by the way, was Amanda Hesser. The next one before that (which I didn't cite) was William Grimes, a zero-star review. We can go back as far as you'd like.

Edited October 5, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Leonard Kim]

With that invitation ...

Grimes is the most interesting case, with the most extensive discussions of what defines "neighborhood restaurants." There are 22 restaurants he discusses in these terms (which is about double Bruni's % of reviews).

Reading these, Grimes seems to have an idealistic vision in terms of atmosphere, ambition, etc. ". . . neighborhood restaurant, an important but ill-understood institution. A real neighborhood restaurant is not only in, but of, the blocks around it. It fits stylistically. The food does not aim too high, but what it aims at, it hits. It's the kind of place that always seems like a good idea."

The following restaurants are more or less explicitly identified as "neighborhood restaurants" by Grimes though sometimes accompanied by some comment as to how the restaurant is better than what might expect from a "neighborhood restaurant": Fleur de Sel (**), Village (*), Wallse (**), Tocqueville (**), 71 Clinton Fresh Food (**), Chanterelle (*** "In a city of neighborhoods, they created a neighborhood restaurant almost without equal"), Coup (*), Red Cat (*), 'Cesca (** "a little more stylish than a common neighborhood restaurant"), Cafe des Artistes (** "a kind of neighborhood restaurant for Manhattan's upper crust"), Parish & Company (*), Blue Ribbon Sushi (Brooklyn, *), Lentini (* "Lentini has aspirations that I would call neighborhood-plus. Location and atmosphere make it a neighborhood restaurant. Some of the dishes do, too. . . But look more closely at the menu, scan the ambitious wine list and its equally ambitious prices, and it becomes clear that Mr. Lentini wants to be more than a nice little local standby."), Verbena (* "I can see no reason for dinner at what is, at heart, a nice little neighborhood restaurant to take more than two and a half hours."), Ouest (**), Tappo (*), Azafran (*), Jean-Luc (*), Barrio (*), Vox (*), Arezzo (*), 92 (*)

Plus there are two comparisons to the neighborhood restaurant "vibe" at opposite extremes:

Marika (SATISFACTORY "Marika, for all its glamour, retains the feel of a neighborhood restaurant.)

Bouley Bakery (**** "Despite its expansion and the fireworks in the kitchen, Bouley Bakery retains the feel of a small neighborhood restaurant. Diners feel comfortable showing up in shirtsleeves, and the staff shrewdly maintains a delicate balance between informality and the more disciplined level of service implicit in the food and decor. . . . ATMOSPHERE: Elegant and intimate, with a slightly casual, neighborhood feel.")

Miller and Reichl, with far more reviews, only use the phrase a couple of times (Reichl about 7 times I can count and Miller only 3) and with the same basic "archetypal" understanding of the term.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Sneakeater]

(Can Leonard Kim get any more awesome as a poster?)

Not taking sides, but just observing: Grimes's account of Bouley Bakery would seem to give some credence to Nathan's characterization of Perry Street is "neighborhood place" (which is what started this whole discussion).

Of course, it could also be noted that Grimes didn't say Bouley Baker was a neighborhood place, but only that it was like one. (Good thing this is a semantic discussion, so I can say something like that without fear of being laughed out of the thread.)

Edited October 5, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Red Cat (*),

←

Wait: you're saying that Grimes reviewed Red Cat (and gave it one star) and then Bruni felt Red Cat was worth RE-REVIEWING?

That may be single most bizarre thing he's done.

[daisy17]

MORE bizarre than Da Silvano? No way.

Funny that Red Cat should be on that list; I always describe it as a really good neighborhood restaurant that's not in my neighborhood.

[Sneakeater]

MUCH more bizarre than Da Silvano.

Wanna fight?

[Sneakeater]

I mean, Da Silvano is notable as this celebrity magnet. It's a place that people outside New York have probably heard of. And, when it first opened ten or fifteen or whatever years ago, its food was pretty highly lauded. So a reevaluation doesn't seem out of the question to me.

But Red Cat deserves two reviews in five or six years why?

Edited October 5, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

And, when it first opened ten or fifteen or whatever years ago,

←

Thirty years ago. Holy shit. At a certain point in one's life, one's sense of time turns to shit.

[oakapple]

(Can Leonard Kim get any more awesome as a poster?)

←

No, he cannot. However, I have the same quibble as SE:

Of course, it could also be noted that Grimes didn't say Bouley Bakery was a neighborhood place, but only that it was like one.

I noticed that "problem" in the Grimes oeuvre, which was why I didn't quote him. When he uses such a phrase, it's not clear whether he thinks that X is a neighborhood restaurant, or if he is merely making a comparison. Edited October 5, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[daisy17]

No, no fighting. (Nathan, that goes for you too.) I've never given this much thought to the NY Times restaurant reviews, ever, this is making my head spin.

Now I can't help myself. When was the last Da Silvano review? I don't know how to answer the question about Red Cat. It just strikes me as more relevant, maybe for reasons that I can't explain. Da Silvano serves food, yes, that's true, but I can't believe that Bruni can't find something more interesting to write about. The Red Cat re-review may seem odd, I get that, but since I like the place it doesn't bother me. I'd be interested to know what the Times reviewers themselves have said over the years about what makes them return to a place to review it again. Hoping Leonard Kim is still reading this thread.

[Nathan]

leaving aside Bouley Bakery, Grimes considered Chanterelle to be a neighborhood restaurant! (I wouldn't go that far.)

well, it sounds like there is no critical consensus as to what this "term of art" means.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Now I can't help myself.  When was the last Da Silvano review?  I don't know how to answer the question about Red Cat.  It just strikes me as more relevant, maybe for reasons that I can't explain.  Da Silvano serves food, yes, that's true, but I can't believe that Bruni can't find something more interesting to write about.  The Red Cat re-review may seem odd, I get that, but since I like the place it doesn't bother me.  I'd be interested to know what the Times reviewers themselves have said over the years about what makes them return to a place to review it again.  Hoping Leonard Kim is still reading this thread.

←

Frank Bruni did address that question in his blog.

Part of his explanation makes perfect sense:

I do think it’s important, especially in the cases of prominent restaurants, to make an effort, no matter how random and flawed, to go back periodically to determine whether the initial published appraisals and existing star ratings seem to hold true.

But that criterion doesn't really explain why he re-reviewed The Red Cat. All he says is that the original rating (*) seemed to be wrong, and was worth upgrading. I thought that the Red Cat re-review was a questionable use of space, but who's to say? Bruni admits that there are probably many restaurants that would get a different rating if they were re-reviewed, and most of them can't be.

One of the former critics—I think it was Reichl or Sheraton—said that there were definitely restaurants she wished she could go back and review, but there were just too many new restaurants to cover, and it wouldn't be acceptable to keep going to the same places over and over again. It must be remembered that Bruni is the first NYT critic to have a blog. It gives him the platform to comment on meta-reviewing issues, which his predecessors didn't have.

FYI, Da Silvano's original review was by Ruth Reichl in 1998.

Edited October 5, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

you know, looking at Grimes' reviews, he appears to implicitly take the position that I did early in this thread:

that "neighborhood place" is a descriptor of form, not quality.

[Leonard Kim]

Thanks, but Marc deserves the credit for the bright idea of searching "neighborhood restaurant" in the Times reviews which is freely available information.

I did try to be careful to separate Bouley Bakery and Marika which Grimes only compares to the "neighborhood restaurant" idea vs. the others which he actively identified as being neighborhood restaurants, sometimes with qualification, though I tried to include those (I think I left out his characterization of Wallse as a "glorified neighborhood restaurant.")

I have something to say about re-reviews and Bryan Miller in particular, but that'll have to wait.

[Pan]

I've often wondered if one might classify urban restaurants on the basis of how far in advance you'd be willing to plan and reserve ahead.

←

I think this is really really good.

←

I do, too. And further to oakapple's comments about Sripraphai, I would plan in advance and travel over an hour to Flushing to meet some friends for a great dinner at Spicy & Tasty, so I consider that a destination restaurant (as does some substantial portion of their clientele). Especially considering that Grand Sichuan St. Marks (which gets a fair amount of out-of-neighborhood eat-in diners but is clearly to a large extent - especially in terms of takeout and delivery orders - a neighborhood restaurant) is about two blocks away from me. Spicy & Tasty is just that much better and has that much more extensive a Sichuan-style menu. I don't get dressed up to go there, and in fact, would be best advised NOT to wear anything too valuable, because that red oil really stains!

[docsconz]

All of this goes back to my assertion that a neighborhood restaurant can be a destination restaurant while a destination restaurant is not necessarily a neighborhood restaurant.

[Leonard Kim]

re: Red Cat

Bruni's re-review says, "ATMOSPHERE A quietly stylish cross between a neighborhood tavern and a snazzier destination restaurant."

In his Ici review he says the following:

"Ici has the intentions and soul of a neighborhood bistro, not a destination restaurant"

This is just to illustrate that there is, at some fuzzy level, polarized usage of the two phrases (as opposed to being completely independent descriptors.)

And here, from Grimes, is further evidence for "quality-independence" of the "neighborhood" descriptor.

THE outlines of the trend are not clear yet, and I'm not sure what name to give it, but there's something afoot on the dining scene in New York. In the last year or so, a number of talented chefs with strong resumes have chosen a quiet career path, opening small restaurants where everything is modest except the ambitions of the kitchen.

I'm thinking of places like 71 Clinton Fresh Food, Eight Mile Creek or Blue Hill, neighborhood spots with a few tables and banquettes, a distinct point of view and exciting food. They're a little like a sharply written Off Broadway play, or a sneakily clever independent film, so nimble that they make many of their big-budget competitors look obvious and flat-footed.

Annisa is the latest addition to this honor roll.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Sneakeater]

I've never given this much thought to the NY Times restaurant reviews, ever, this is making my head spin.

←

Welcome to the world of people who have no life.

[Sneakeater]

I have something to say about re-reviews and Bryan Miller in particular, but that'll have to wait.

←

While we're waiting (and I know this is more appropriate for the "Bruni and Beyond" thread), I have to say that my wife and I used to joke about how many excuses Bryan Miller seemed to find for revisiting places like Lutece on the Times's nickel.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Leonard Kim]

This has to be my last post on this for a while (it's hard to stop, but I don't want to get tedious, and there's work to be done.)

Anyway -- Ruth Reichl does, in one review, make a clear opposition between the two concepts, and then suggests a third. Please understand I'm not quoting these to prove anything by authority. Language is usage, as we like to say, and it's just interesting seeing the examples.

When Drew Nieporent opened Montrachet 12 years ago, it seemed like a crazy idea. The people living in the area were mostly artists who preferred cozy pubs like Riverrun Cafe. But Mr. Nieporent proved that TriBeCa could support destination (as opposed to neighborhood) dining. Other upscale establishments followed, easily attracting an affluent clientele from all over the city. Meanwhile, different restaurants were devoting themselves to feeding the growing local population. Characterized by good food and a casual attitude, there was not one, from the Odeon to Spartina, where you would feel uncomfortable in jeans.

Now an entirely new sort of TriBeCa restaurant has come along. Originally conceived as a club for people who like to smoke cigars and drink wine, City Wine and Cigar Company is neither a destination restaurant nor a casual one.

[Sneakeater]

Just to state the painfully obvious, what I think is emerging here is that there are two general ways that "neighborhood place" has been used.

One is as an opposite pole from "destination". Reichl seems to use it that way (as does Bruni), and I have have to say it's the way I've always assumed the term was used.

The other way, to which Grimes in his wiggly way seems to subscribe, is that "neighborhood place" is more a matter of style than of quality (such that a "neighborhood place" could also be a "destination" -- the way all the places he mentions in the Annisa review Leonard Kim quoted are).

I think what we have here is the usual "law v. equity" split. The first way of using the term "neighborhood place" has the advantages of being readily comprehensible (you know what it means), consistent, and easy to apply. It's an evaluative phrase that's easy to understand and also useful (in the sense that, when you call someplace a "neighborhood place" in this sense, you're telling people that you don't think it's worth traveling to). On the other hand, it's reductive -- narrower and more black-and-white than reality.

The second way of using the term has the advantages of being more nuanced and also, probably, more accurate. I know what Nathan meant when he called Perry Street a "neighborhood place", and I think it actually spoke to the issue in the context of which he made that assertion (why Perry Street doesn't now, and is unlikely to, have a tasting menu). But it has the problem of being more subjective, unstable, and open to misunderstanding.

I'd also note that part of the reason this has even become an issue is the trend noted in Grimes's Annisa review (and also adverted to in the Reichl review of that Cigar Club that Leonard also quoted -- although Reichl uses different terminology). Now there are a lot of casual, unpretentious places with high culinary aspirations. They look and feel like neighborhood places, but the food is good and unique enough to be "worth a journey" in almost anyone's estimation. It may be that this disjunction between food quality and mode of presentation (at least a disjunction by the old traditional standards) has caused some confusion in the use of "neighborhood place" as a term.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[docsconz]

To broaden this discussion a little bit, El Bulli is actually very casual and comfortable. Is it a "neighborhood" restaurant? Hardly.

Another thought, doesn't it really depend on the neighborhood?

One of he reasons this is even a question nowadays is because of the surging interest in food throughout the U.S. and beyond and the increasingly casual nature of dining. While palaces of formality still exist they are a bit of an anachronism, especially in parts of the U.S. This is just one thhing blurring the lines of something that used to be much more clearly delineated.

I daresay that the distinction is becoming irrelevent.