2007 Michelin New York

[Sneakeater]

I could easily see you not liking it. It's VERY uptown.

I've always thought of it as the uptown equivalent of THOR (when Gutenbrunner was there): a sort of fun version of "serious" cooking, in a high-energy, fun (for the neighborhood) setting.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[docsconz]

Outliers in the one star category either way are almost certainly debatable within a margin of error. The only real surprise inclusion to me in the two stars and up arena was the two stars given to Del Posto. The other restaurants in that category are debatable regarding their relative merits.

[icecreamparty]

i think that for foreign tourists

of which new york has unprecedented numbers

especially those with money

of which there are currently unprecedented numbers

(a cause de euro)

michelin guide is still the most important guide in the world

even if new yorkers may prefer others,

it certainly showed itself to be as or more accurate than any of the current ratings

best

[Luckylies]

I could easily see you not liking it.  It's VERY uptown.

I've always thought of it as the uptown equivalent of THOR (when Gutenbrunner was there):  a sort of fun version of "serious" cooking, in a high-energy, fun (for the neighborhood) setting.

←

I have sucha love/hate with uptown. Hated Le Cirque/ loved le Bernardain. Is it old uptown or new uptown ie. Do young people and hot girls get treated like merde?

I'm a midtown laborer these days, so my impression of myself is shifting..I may be losing my badass....

On topic. I can't believe Jewel bako kept it's star. Good on Jack, but really, the only thing fresh coming out of that place is the fish....

[Sneakeater]

ON TOPIC:

DITTO re Jewel Backo. I don't think that place is going to survive 2007, star or no star.

OFF TOPIC:

davidburke & donatella is the new Uptown. Hot girls and even young people get treated like or (that last word is supposed to be French). As long as they're rich-looking and kempt enough.

[robyn]

Robyn:

I live in NY.  are there 40 or so restaurants in NY that are better than DB&D...yes, imo there are (and I've been VIP'ed out the wazoo at DB&D thanks to people in my party being certain notable individuals)

I travel on a regular basis.  When I do so I consult all relevant food sources (this includes Michelin...if applicable....egullet, various regional guides and even Frommers and Fodors on occasion (I'm going to Venice, Florence and Verona next week and the advice I'm getting from EG exactly replicates the listings in Frommers))....the one thing that I never ever consult is Zagat.

←

Perhaps no one understands what I'm saying. When you travel - do you make a reservation for every meal you're going to eat? Or plan every minute of every day? I don't (usually just a couple of big deal meal reservations and maybe some theater tickets). The rest is up in the air. So I walk out of a museum in a particular city I don't know well (if at all) at noon. There's a cute little shopping street nearby. So I want to eat lunch "in the neighborhood".

At which point 1 of 2 things happens. I take the Zagat's or Michelin red guide out of my purse and search the neighborhood I'm in for a likely place to eat. Or I spot a likely place - and look it up in the Zagat's or Michelin red guide (not for a critical review - but to get a general idea whether the place is a dump or a hidden gem or something in between).

I'll give you a good example of this. We were leaving the Cantor Museum during a recent trip to Palo Alto. Looked up a place for lunch - and lo and behold - the Cool Cafe *in the museum* had a nice write-up in Zagat's. So we took a look. Had a nice lunch. Now this cafe was mentioned in a NYT article (which was posted on the wall) - but I don't think I would have found it without a Zagat's in my purse.

Do these little books that I slip into my purse take the place of reading more in-depth critical reviews - especially when I'm making big deal reservations? No (I'm particularly partial to those in local media - which I read on line - and chat boards - but use others on occasion). But they are very handy travel guides. That's all I'm saying.

As for your statement that you'd never consult Zagat's - perhaps you've never had occasion to visit a city where it was useful. I thought it was pretty useful - for example - in Tokyo. Too bad the Osaka guide is only in Japanese. Guess I'm just not orthodox about things. If there's something portable that will help me get even one decent meal in an unfamiliar city - I'll buy it.

As for DB&D - I had a terrific meal there a bit more than 2 years ago. The way NY restaurants change - I haven't a clue what it was like 6 months later - much less today. Perhaps the frenzied pace of New York restaurant "musical chairs" explains why Michelin in New York feels compelled to grant stars to restaurants like A Voce which has been open for what - maybe 6-7 months now? And to continue its star for Cafe Boulud - even though its chef is now the chef at A Voce and Cafe Boulud has a new chef. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Do you think that Michelin should wait a decent amount of time - like - for example - a year - before it awards stars to new restaurants? And should it take them away when the chef who earned the star leaves? Robyn

[zabar816]

I just don't understand how Del Posto can possibly be on the same level as Daniel or Masa.

I have dined at Del Posto and it was nice but not nearly as good as my experiences at Daniel or Masa. They are just for me at least in completely different categories.

[raji]

This is what Augie had to say about it...

"Without going too deep into the list I will simply mention three places unique to New York that I believe should be experienced by all, are worth traveling for, and could only exist here: Blue Hill, Savoy, and Hearth.

So I guess on their second attempt rather than seeming crazy the folks at Michelin just seem not to understand New York. Then again, if your goal is to understand New York, would you look to the French for advice in the first place?"

http://augieland.blogs.com/

[Nathan]

I'm rather confused as to what is so NY about Blue Hill, Savoy and Hearth. The first two are NY versions of contemporary California cuisine.

[Nathan]

Robyn:

I've only perused Zagat in two locales...NY and the midwest.

I found it highly unreliable for both.

It may be better in other places.

I do question why A Voce has been around long enough to get a star but not EMP under Humm.

CB is a different matter since ultimately Bouloud is responsible for the restaurant and menu....and that hasn't changed.

[Nathan]

on the other hand, augieland most certainly seems to agree with the high ranking of Del Posto:

http://augieland.blogs.com/augie_land/2006...osto_933_b.html

[docsconz]

I'm rather confused as to what is so NY about Blue Hill, Savoy and Hearth.  The first two are NY versions of contemporary California cuisine.

←

Only in style, but then contemporary California cuisine of that ilk is really a take off of Mediterranean cuisines. One thing that makes them of New York is their reliance on New York produce. Savoy is particularly good and Blue Hill raises a lot of their own.

[Nathan]

well yeah, they use local produce when possible...that's pretty Californian (or pretty European really)....and this is unique how?

it's no different than thousands of restaurants on the West Coast...restaurants up and down the East Coast, Roots in Milwaukee, L'Etoile in Madison....etc.

(I happen to think that Savoy is an underrated and forgotten restaurant (in general) but there is nothing unique or uniquely NY about it.)

[augieland]

I'm rather confused as to what is so NY about Blue Hill, Savoy and Hearth.  The first two are NY versions of contemporary California cuisine.

←

The pedigree of the chefs and the menus driven by indigenous ingredients make all three only possible in NY.

Edited October 25, 2006 by augieland (log)

[docsconz]

well yeah, they use local produce when possible...that's pretty Californian (or pretty European really)....and this is unique how? 

←

It's called "terroir."

[Fat Guy]

On the one hand, every restaurant is unique. On the other hand, no restaurant is unique. Several of us seem to be talking past one another on the uniqueness point. One thing I think we can all agree on, though, is that New York City is unique. Does Michelin "get" New York or not? I think the answer is no -- indeed, I don't think Michelin "gets" anyplace but France and maybe BeNeLux. The rest of the empire seems pretty weak.

[Nathan]

"The pedigree of the chefs and the menus driven by indigenous ingredients make all three only possible in NY."

True and utterly banal.

Yeah, every decent restaurant in the world that uses local ingredients is unique. So? They all deserve a star?

By that definition there should be five hundred starred restaurants in the U.S. alone (just under that criteria).

thousands in Italy and France.

never mind that this sort of restaurant is better in California anyway...because they have better local ingredients (in most categories) year round.

btw, the Tasting Room is perhaps the most direct exemplar of this kind of cooking in NY. too bad it's not that good.

the thing is, I'm a huge fan of ingredient-driven cooking...which is why I love Yasuda (which some friends of mine find boring and uncreative), Italian cooking...etc. And Savoy is very good. So is Blue Hill (and I think it should have gotten a star....) but just because their vegetables are from the east coast doesn't automatically make them star worthy. in the past five years this country has become filled with restaurants notable for sourcing local ingredients.

Edited October 26, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

"The pedigree of the chefs and the menus driven by indigenous ingredients make all three only possible in NY."

I need to revisit this statement. I first read it as saying that only in NY could a restaurant driven by indigenous NY ingredients be possible. Which is true, if tautological and trite.

But if what you actually meant was that only in NY could accomplished chefs open a restaurant predicated upon local ingredients...well, this is so wrong that it's not even wrong.

[docsconz]

"The pedigree of the chefs and the menus driven by indigenous ingredients make all three only possible in NY."

True and utterly banal.

Yeah, every decent restaurant in the world that uses local ingredients is unique.  So?  They all deserve a star?

By that definition there should be five hundred starred restaurants in the U.S. alone (just under that criteria).

thousands in Italy and France.

never mind that this sort of restaurant is better in California anyway...because they have better local ingredients (in most categories) year round.

btw, the Tasting Room is perhaps the most direct exemplar of this kind of cooking in NY.  too bad it's not that good.

the thing is, I'm a huge fan of ingredient-driven cooking...which is why I love Yasuda (which some friends of mine find boring and uncreative), Italian cooking...etc.  And Savoy is very good.  So is Blue Hill (and I think it should have gotten a star....)  but just because their vegetables are from the east coast doesn't automatically make them star worthy.  in the past five years this country has become filled with restaurants notable for sourcing local ingredients.

←

I certainly disn't say that makes them star-worthy. i said that makes them "only in New York". That they do what they do well makes them worth consideration for stars.

I would like to see some evidence for your assertion about the Tasting Room's source materiels. I know where Savoy gets much of their produce from as it comes from my backyard (practically) and I personally know many of the farmers who supply them. That doesn't a priori make the restaurant starworthy, but I know they have good ingredients that are different from California. Also by virtue of the fact that the seasons (at this point in time anyway) are so much more distinct than they are in California, so is the seasonality of their menu.

There are a number of reasons why restaurants have gone to sourcing local ingredients, not the least of which is that the quality of local ingredients has increased dramatically in many parts of the country and the fact that by doing so they preserve some degree of distinctiveness and regionality compared to a more global style. It also makes sense in other ways but this discussion is veering away from the topic which is Michelin. The bottom line is that restaurants shouldn't be awarded Michelin stars simply because of where they source their ingredients. The important thing is what they do with those ingredients.

[oakapple]

I agree with Nathan that the Michelin guide has the best published New York ratings, although I agree with Fat Guy that they ought to be a lot better.

Any expert list is going to have some choices that you disagree with. Somebody thinks that davidburke & donatella should have a star; another thinks Sushi Yasuda; another thinks Eleven Madison Park; another thinks Blue Hill.

I was surprised by the number of demotions. I expected a few, but not this many. Was 2006 the precise year that Nobu stopped being consistently good? Somehow I doubt it. Nobu's star last year was probably just wrong in the first place. It's hard for me to say what happened with Danube, March and Scalini Fedeli. I've been to all of them, but they don't get reviewed very often, so it's hard to say what happened. I've considered JoJo and BLT Fish overrated for a long time, so I was surprised they were ever starred to begin with. That leaves Lo Scalco, for which there was an obvious reason: it closed.

Of the newly starred restaurants, Del Posto's deuce is the most surprising. I wouldn't have given it even one, but some reviewers—not just Michelin—have been smitten, so it's not an outrageous decision. The stars allotted to A Voce, Country, and Perry St seem to be legit, given the positive critical buzz those restaurants have received.

Although receiving stars for the first time, Sushi of Gari, Devi, and Kurumazushi aren't new, and I have trouble believing that they actually got any better over the last year. It just took the Guide an extra year to catch on to them. By the way, I don't have a problem at all with Devi's star.

[Nathan]

dosconz...we agree.

It was Augieland that asserted that those three restaurants all merited stars merely for sourcing local ingredients.

[augieland]

dosconz...we agree.

It was Augieland that asserted that those three restaurants all merited stars merely for sourcing local ingredients.

←

I simply assert that if you are offering a travel guide, as Michelin is, it would be a mistake to overlook three restaurants operating at a level superior to their counterparts which can only be experienced in the place you are referencing.

Sourcing local ingredients doesn't make you a destination restaurant (or Californian). Getting more out of local ingredients (who said vegetables?) than anyone else makes you a great restaurant. Limiting yourself to the ingredients of an area and elevating them beyond the abilities of your contemporaries makes you a unique destination spot, worthy of a note in a travel guide for that area.

Edited October 26, 2006 by augieland (log)

[oakapple]

dosconz...we agree.

It was Augieland that asserted that those three restaurants all merited stars merely for sourcing local ingredients.

←

I simply assert that if you are offering a travel guide, as Michelin is, it would be a mistake to overlook three restaurants operating at a level superior to their counterparts which can only be experienced in the place you are referencing.

←

Thanks to Augie for clarifying. This, indeed, is what I thought he was saying in the first place.

When last year's ratings came out, everyone had their favorite examples of the "unjustly overlooked," and I think Blue Hill was one of the most meritorious of these.

[oakapple]

There's been a lot of press coverage of the guide. One of the better articles is in the New York Sun. Jennifer Leuzi writes that "appearing in the book boosts business by as much as 25%." I don't know her source for that stat, but it seems believable to me. Given the obvious elation of the starred chefs—and the sour grapes of those passed over—I think it is indeed very good for business. The article says that the 2006 guide sold 100,000 copies. That's a lot of people making dining decisions, and presumably relying on the guide to some extent.

Leuzi says that there are 100 restaurants added and 80 eliminated, amounting to a 20% turnover, which is much higher than I expected. You may love the inspectors or hate them, but there clearly is an element of serious thought that has gone into this.

Frank Bruni says that the guide's Italian choices are peculiar. He has no quarrel with Del Posto at two stars, but he wonders about the exclusion of Felidia, L'Impero, and Alto. He is "extremely surprised" to find that Urena is totally absent from the guide.

In a shockingly ill-informed post, Mister Cutlets suggests that "Messrs. Boulud, Bouley, and Takayama are no doubt having lousy afternoons." That is true, perhaps, of David Bouley, who lost a star at Danube. But the new guide had no surprises for Daniel Boulud or Masa Takayama — their restaurants are precisely where they were a year ago. Masa is probably feeling pretty good about his two stars, as there aren't many Asian restaurants with more than one Michelin star.

Edited October 26, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[raji]

In a shockingly ill-informed post, Mister Cutlets suggests that "Messrs. Boulud, Bouley, and Takayama are no doubt having lousy afternoons." That is true, perhaps, of David Bouley, who lost a star at Danube. But the new guide had no surprises for Daniel Boulud or Masa Takayama — their restaurants are precisely where they were a year ago. Masa is probably feeling pretty good about his two stars, as there aren't many Asian restaurants with more than one Michelin star.

←

Well he's saying that Masa probably feels like he deserves an upgrade from 2 to 3 stars, the definition being "Exceptional Cuisine and worth the journey". Where else in America do you have a restaurant like that one.

I don't think Mr. Takayama would appreciate your last line... "Masa is probably feeling pretty good about his two stars, as there aren't many Asian restaurants with more than one Michelin star." makes me feel like he should be happy to have 2 because Asian restaurants can't hang in the upper echelon with Euros. Based on some of their ratings, I don't think Michelin "gets" japanese or asian in general...

Edited October 26, 2006 by raji (log)