Underappreciated NYC Restaurants

[oakapple]

Keen's steakhouse. Amongst NYC steakhouses, it is one of the best but isn't nearly as high on the radar.

←

This comment shows how you can get very different suggestions, depending on your definition of "underappreciated." Chowhounders love Keens. When someone asks for a steakhouse recommendation on CH, you can bet your life Keens will come up.

5 Ninth

←

So what exactly is the criterion for "underappreciated," then? 5 Ninth is packed to the gills every time I've been by; they've even kept me waiting for at least 20 minutes twice in a row for a reserved table.

←

Here again, I think 5 Ninth remains a hot restaurant, as it has been since it opened. Its underappreciated status is solely in the sense that the discussion on this board lately has not mentioned it very much.

[Mayur]

Point taken. But I *do* see Esca as being underappreciated in the foodie community in general, whereas I feel like 5 Ninth just happens not to have been mentioned on an eG thread in a while. The latter strikes me as a bit too specific vis-a-vis the idea of "underappreciated."

Ironically, I haven't been to Upstairs at Bouley since just after it opened because I'm terrified of how crowded it's likely to be; same reason I never go to Landmarc for dinner, or Tomoe or Ushikawaru... well, ever. How's that Yogi Berra quote go, again?

[Sneakeater]

It took me a long time to work up the courage to go to Bouley Upstairs for that same reason.

But what I finally found was that (not surprisingly) you can get two seats pretty reliably if you go early or late, and you're apt to be able to luck into a solo seat at the sushi bar (full menu served) just about any time.

And, of course, it's not like there aren't plenty of other options in the immediate area. (Once a friend and I whiled away our time on the wait list at Blaue Gans by walking over to Upstairs and then Landmarc to check on the lengths of their wait lists. By the time we found out the wait was too long at each of those places, too, Blaue Gans was ready to seat us.)

[Sneakeater]

PS -- FWIW, I see what you all mean about the difference between 5 Ninth and Esca. All I'll say in my defense is that, from the discussion on this board, you'd think that all Zak Pelaccio is good for is a very tasty mid-priced white-boy riff on Malaysian food. Which, while not a big deal, is just a skewed view of what's going on in New York.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Luckylies]

I guess DW forget how to cook and he now serves "bad" food. I wonder where he buys that "bad" food? Maybe he met Colonel Sanders on Chambers Street.

←

um, maybe?

No really, the food quality has slid over time. There are too many factors that can contribute to the decline of a restaurant to guess what the reason may be. The last time I was there the flavors were "off" and the meats were not "on". the room was still lovely, and the service quite nice, but otherwise a truly unremarkable meal. The menu also shows no evolution over the years which is just boring. Great technique on straight foreward food only works if both parts of the equasion are in play. Chanterelle hasn't been bringing it's A game for a while now.

[Sneakeater]

Let me say one other thing about 5 Ninth and why I think it counts as "underappreciated."

It is obvious that 5 Ninth is a very commercially successful restaurant. But I don't think the reasons for its success have anything to do with the criteria that people who frequent sites like this impose. I'm not suggesting that any restaurant that opens in the Meatpacking District is bound to succeed: Sascha Lyon can tell you how wrong that is. But they don't succeed or fail primarily on the basis of the quality of their food.

For that reason, I think the quality of the food at 5 Ninth can tend to get lost among people like us (whatever "people like us" might mean). I'm sure that most of us actively avoid that neighborhood. So I think it's useful to be reminded that this very good restaurant -- to return to my idee fixe, I personally enjoy it as much as Hearth, for my own undoubtedly idiosyncratic reasons -- exists there.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Pan]

See Post #13 above.

It isn't a big deal, obviously.  But to the extent that this site hopes to present a balanced account of the real-life NYC dining scene (and not just the fairly random preferences of a bunch of posters), it's useful to try to think of the "other" places.[...]

←

That's been a lost cause almost since the word "go," because the entire categories of low-end and "Outer Borough" restaurants are grossly underrepresented here.

And I happen to like Hearth very much, though I'm certainly open to considering restaurants at a similar price point that have similarly dependable food and service.

[Sneakeater]

OTOH, Chowhound does pretty well by low-end and outerborough places, but not as well with what you might call mainstream restaurants.

Maybe it's difficult for a single board to do both.

[zpzjessica]

Maya is a fabulous high-end Mexican restaurant on the UES (64th St/1st Ave). There is always a long wait so I recommend reservations. They bring freshly-made guacamole (some of the best I've ever had!) to your table and continue to refill it like it was the bread basket.

The food is incredible - it is hearty Mexican food on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from tacos and burritos. The decor is lovely and the prices are very reasonable for NYC.

Enjoy

[Pan]

OTOH, Chowhound does pretty well by low-end and outerborough places, but not as well with what you might call mainstream restaurants.

Maybe it's difficult for a single board to do both.

←

Maybe, but I would never call high-priced restaurants "mainstream"; the main stream is represented by low- and mid-priced restaurants, because most people rarely if ever patronize high-end restaurants.

[Nathan]

In NY?

I don't think that's true at all.

When I catch a weekend dinner with non-foodie (and not especially well-off by city standards) friends they seem to pick places like Lucy's (profoundly mediocre but still in the $25-30 an entree camp)

[Sneakeater]

I guess I think of the "mainstream" as mainly being occupied by poor-value mid-to-upper-mid-price places.

[Nathan]

yup

The B.R.Guest restaurants are the prototypical NY mainstream restaurants. (if I had a penny for every time someone mentioned the "amazing brunch at Blue Water Grill"....)

Edited February 5, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

But just to be clear, what the "mainstream" ISN'T, IMO, is, say, anything in Jackson Heights or Flushing. Or even, say, my beloved Tulcinga del Valle on 10th Ave.

(I hope it's clear that "mainstream" isn't being used in any kind of qualitative sense here.)

Edited February 5, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Eatmywords]

I know it's a dinosaur but what about Aureole?

Good, bad, ok, still open after 20yrs........barely a peep on here (one pg of posts sprd out over 5yrs.....last one April/06)

[freshherbs]

my vote goes to Savoy

[Pan]

In NY?

I don't think that's true at all.

When I catch a weekend dinner with non-foodie (and not especially well-off by city standards) friends they seem to pick places like Lucy's (profoundly mediocre but still in the $25-30 an entree camp)

←

How often do these "not especially well-off by city standards" people go to such restaurants? If they go more than occasionally, they are well-off or perhaps in danger of going bankrupt. The average New Yorker isn't a wealthy stockbroker, lawyer, or businessman with an expense account. The average New Yorker either makes prepared foods or cooks dishes made with ingredients bought in the supermarket, or goes to cheap chains, diners, or so-called "ethnic" restaurants most of the time. Your "mainstream" is skewed toward the upper-income half of the population, at least. I sure don't know many people who regularly go to places where entrees are $25-30. In fact, I'm not sure if I know ANY such people offline!

Edited February 6, 2007 by Pan (log)

[oakapple]

I sure don't know many people who regularly go to places where entrees are $25-30. In fact, I'm not sure if I know ANY such people offline!

←

In the universe of restaurants that Frank Bruni reviews — which is also the universe of restaurants that attract the majority of posts on eGullet — a $25-30 entree price is average. In the more general universe of the 20,000-odd NYC restaurants, $25-30 entrees are expensive.

Nathan says:

When I catch a weekend dinner with non-foodie (and not especially well-off by city standards) friends they seem to pick places like Lucy's (profoundly mediocre but still in the $25-30 an entree camp)

There is no correlation between spending $25-30 on entrees, and being a foodie. If those facts were correlated, then One if By Land and Cafe des Artistes would be out of business.

[GordonCooks]

I know it's a dinosaur but what about Aureole?

Good, bad, ok, still open after 20yrs........barely a peep on here (one pg of posts sprd out over 5yrs.....last one April/06)

←

My last visit was 6+ years ago. I hear it's still not as good as it used to be. It was a favorite many a year ago.

[Nathan]

In NY?

I don't think that's true at all.

When I catch a weekend dinner with non-foodie (and not especially well-off by city standards) friends they seem to pick places like Lucy's (profoundly mediocre but still in the $25-30 an entree camp)

←

How often do these "not especially well-off by city standards" people go to such restaurants? If they go more than occasionally, they are well-off or perhaps in danger of going bankrupt. The average New Yorker isn't a wealthy stockbroker, lawyer, or businessman with an expense account. The average New Yorker either makes prepared foods or cooks dishes made with ingredients bought in the supermarket, or goes to cheap chains, diners, or so-called "ethnic" restaurants most of the time. Your "mainstream" is skewed toward the upper-income half of the population, at least. I sure don't know many people who regularly go to places where entrees are $25-30. In fact, I'm not sure if I know ANY such people offline!

←

Of course it's skewed toward the upper half! Income stratification is a fact of life. People with college and graduate degrees hang out with people with college and graduate degrees. Something like 25% of Manhattan residents make 100K plus. probably another 25% make 70K plus. And generally speaking, people in the upper 50% of Manhattan socialize with same. I have friends in the arts who make less than me....but most people I know make more...and I don't socialize with too many I-bankers. There are probably at least 500 restaurants in the city where the entrees are in the $25-30 range or more. Its not foodies and the very wealthy that's keeping these places in business. It's the middle class in general.

[JohnL]

In NY?

I don't think that's true at all.

When I catch a weekend dinner with non-foodie (and not especially well-off by city standards) friends they seem to pick places like Lucy's (profoundly mediocre but still in the $25-30 an entree camp)

←

How often do these "not especially well-off by city standards" people go to such restaurants? If they go more than occasionally, they are well-off or perhaps in danger of going bankrupt. The average New Yorker isn't a wealthy stockbroker, lawyer, or businessman with an expense account. The average New Yorker either makes prepared foods or cooks dishes made with ingredients bought in the supermarket, or goes to cheap chains, diners, or so-called "ethnic" restaurants most of the time. Your "mainstream" is skewed toward the upper-income half of the population, at least. I sure don't know many people who regularly go to places where entrees are $25-30. In fact, I'm not sure if I know ANY such people offline!

←

Of course it's skewed toward the upper half! Income stratification is a fact of life. People with college and graduate degrees hang out with people with college and graduate degrees. Something like 25% of Manhattan residents make 100K plus. probably another 25% make 70K plus. And generally speaking, people in the upper 50% of Manhattan socialize with same. I have friends in the arts who make less than me....but most people I know make more...and I don't socialize with too many I-bankers. There are probably at least 500 restaurants in the city where the entrees are in the $25-30 range or more. Its not foodies and the very wealthy that's keeping these places in business. It's the middle class in general.

←

The 2007 Zagat's

notes that the average meal for one person is $37.61.

The top twenty restaurants average meal cost is $112.49.

Since this is for dinner with one drink and tip it obviously is lower than the actual check given the alcohol consumption is probably a lot higher.

I would guess that if one were looking at all New Yorkers a lot of folks are going to MacDonald's et al as well as neighborhood places: bars that serve food, pizza places and ethnic establishments and cooking at home a lot.

What is important to note are millions of tourists who support moderate to high end restaurants as well as fast food places including a lot of folks from the surrounding areas coming in for a night on the town or theatre etc.

[Nathan]

"The 2007 Zagat's

notes that the average meal for one person is $37.61.

The top twenty restaurants average meal cost is $112.49."

its a lot higher than that. but I concluded a long time ago that the check averages in Zagat's were under-stated by almost half.

heck, I somehow spent $140 for 2 last night at Little Owl for goodness sakes.

[Sneakeater]

Maybe these "mainstream" people aren't eating out a lot. But when they do, they're not going to obscure ethnic places, much less obscure ethnic places that they have to take long subway rides to get to. It takes curiosity and dedication far beyond what most "mainstream" people have to seek out and appreciate places like that.

When there was the big bust-up here over Sripraphai getting two stars from the Times (a rating I agree with), robyn said something about how she didn't think places like that should even get reviewed by the Times, since her Manhattan-professional children (whom she viewed as exemplifying the Times's readership) would never take the subway out to Queens to eat in a cheap Asian restaurant. I disagreed with that pretty strongly: I don't think the Times's arts and restaurant coverage should be limited to what "mainstream" people go to. But robyn does have a point about what "mainstream" people are interested in.

I commented above that it historically has been hard for the same community to cover both "chowhound" type places and "mainstream" (or maybe in this context I should say "haute") type places. I think the reason for this is that the people passionate about each type of place tend to get too ideological. I know "chowhound" types whom I simply cannot get to go to Devi, because they "know" they could do so much better at someplace like Mina's. They appear to view a place like Devi as an affront, someplace that only fools would patronize. OTOH, you sometimes get the feeling in communities like this one that people undervalue -- or, more accurately but more academically, underprivilege -- the excellent cheap ethnic places. Hence the controversy whenever one of them gets two NYT stars.

As I said, it's hard for one community to cover both.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Also, most cheap "neighborhood" places -- the kind you go to when you just don't feel like cooking, but which don't charge the kind of prices we're talking about -- aren't worth talking about. They're just white noise. Maybe Pan lives in a neighborhood where a lot of the cheap places are interesting ethnic places, but many people don't. They're stuck with the kind of bar food JohnL referred to. And even those who do might not be adventurous enough to eat "interesting" ethnic food every time they don't feel like cooking.

[JohnL]

Maybe these "mainstream" people aren't eating out a lot.  But when they do, they're not going to obscure ethnic places, much less obscure ethnic places that they have to take long subway rides to get to.  It takes curiosity and dedication far beyond what most "mainstream" people have to seek out and appreciate places like that.

When there was the big bust-up here over Sripraphai getting two stars from the Times (a rating I agree with), robyn said something about how she didn't think places like that should even get reviewed by the Times, since her Manhattan-professional children (whom she viewed as exemplifying the Times's readership) would never take the subway out to Queens to eat in a cheap Asian restaurant.  I disagreed with that pretty strongly:  I don't think the Times's arts and restaurant coverage should be limited to what "mainstream" people go to.  But robyn does have a point about what "mainstream" people are interested in.

I commented above that it historically has been hard for the same community to cover both "chowhound" type places and "mainstream" (or maybe in this context I should say "haute") type places.  I think the reason for this is that the people passionate about each type of place tend to get too ideological.  I know "chowhound" types whom I simply cannot get to go to Devi, because they "know" they could do so much better at someplace like Mina's.  They appear to view a place like Devi as an affront, someplace that only fools would patronize.  OTOH, you sometimes get the feeling in communities like this one that people undervalue -- or, more accurately but more academically, underprivilege -- the excellent cheap ethnic places.  Hence the controversy whenever one of them gets two NYT stars.

As I said, it's hard for one community to cover both.

←

You make some very interesting points. i think that regardless of income, people into food (foodies) seek out establishments that excel in quality and will travel to experience this. I agree there are probably two rather distinct categories divided by what they are willing to spend on a meal (more important IMOP than HH income) for that experience.

There are also those who see and appreciate both categories and will travel for inexpensive meals as well as expensive.

I do agree that attempting to apply a standards and rating system that accurately assesses both categories--say from fast food to local and inexpensive ("ethnic" cuisine establishments) and so called High end or "Haute" establishments is fraught with problems.

I believe that as with wine ratings any system must apply ratings (stars, toques, points whatever) based on peer group comparisons and standards. Al restaurants are not equal and the paradigm by which they are assessed shouldn't be either.