Jump to content


Photo

Atera


  • Please log in to reply
337 replies to this topic

#61 Orik

Orik

    Advanced Member

  • Technocrat
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,063 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:06 PM

Selfishly, I hope the place drowns in a sea of hype and provincialism, so that Lightner returns to the PNW. His cooking at Castagna was excellent, and Portland is a much shorter trip than NYC.


I wouldn't count on that. If his cuisine (derivative as it might be) is that good, and his business partners don't screw it up (which is likely) then he's going to survive the warm nyc welcome and then get michelin stars that can keep a restaurant that size permanently full.
I never said that

#62 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,773 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:35 PM


It's quite brilliant how the chef does that. He...well, he doesn't cut its feet off.


At Rouge et Blanc, the whole roasted squab comes with both feet and the head.

Think these chefs watch too many episodes of NCIS.

#63 Suzanne F

Suzanne F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,413 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:45 AM


It's quite brilliant how the chef does that. He...well, he doesn't cut its feet off.


At Rouge et Blanc, the whole roasted squab comes with both feet and the head.


Didn't even notice that on the menu there last night. But it was just as well--three of us had a terrific experience there with just small plates, a bottle of bubbly, and dessert.

Because it's allowed doesn't mean it isn't creepy. -- Sneakeater, April 10, 2014

 

notorious stickler -- NY Times
deeply annoying and nitpicking -- Molly O'Neill, One Big Table


#64 Jesikka

Jesikka

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 12:41 AM


Plotz has jumped on the openly biased Atera PR Wagon: Plotz on Atera. Sneak, can you eat here already and report?


Your link takes me to Sell Sex Toys From Home. Did Plotz forget to put a penny in the meter?


Glad to provide some fun in your otherwise boring day! It sounds way better than my link...

#65 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 39,530 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:35 PM

Because we all know you can believe every Henry Blodget tout.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#66 jmoranmoya

jmoranmoya

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 11:16 PM

The comments on Henry's review are just priceless!! The 1% Diner

#67 Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,074 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:05 AM

The comments on Henry's review are just priceless!!


J, Especially those with reference to how liberal Portland is.
_________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pete/Houston
SOAC . . .
. . "for the discreet and refined enjoyment of uncommon wine . .
. . . . and victuals and the companionship accruing thereto" . . . .

#68 Suzanne F

Suzanne F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,413 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 01:18 AM

The funniest thing to me is that the food doesn't look appreciably different than it did when the place was Compose.

Because it's allowed doesn't mean it isn't creepy. -- Sneakeater, April 10, 2014

 

notorious stickler -- NY Times
deeply annoying and nitpicking -- Molly O'Neill, One Big Table


#69 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,277 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

I hope you don't mean to imply what I think you mean to imply (though, if not, why post). Wouldn't be very sticklerish of you.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#70 Suzanne F

Suzanne F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,413 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 01:59 PM

I hope you don't mean to imply what I think you mean to imply (though, if not, why post). Wouldn't be very sticklerish of you.


?? Not sure what you're hinting at.

What I said was that the food looks much the same as it did at Compose. My only implication is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, no matter how much money is spent.

Because it's allowed doesn't mean it isn't creepy. -- Sneakeater, April 10, 2014

 

notorious stickler -- NY Times
deeply annoying and nitpicking -- Molly O'Neill, One Big Table


#71 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,277 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 02:11 PM


I hope you don't mean to imply what I think you mean to imply (though, if not, why post). Wouldn't be very sticklerish of you.


?? Not sure what you're hinting at.

What I said was that the food looks much the same as it did at Compose. My only implication is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, no matter how much money is spent.


Yeah, that's what I thought. But have you tasted the food or even seen more than grainy photos on the Forbes blog? The idea that we can judge a place in any way by looking at the plating in a photo - I'm not even sure we can judge the plating of the food by looking at the plating of the food in a photo - is preposterous. Lots of young chefs plate in that way now. I've seen it at the month old Chantecler in Toronto and at McCrady's. I had a Sean Brock dish that was clearly inspired, plating wise, by a dish I saw a photo of on UE's blog from Mirazur. I saw more "nautralistic" flourishes at Ssam bar two weeks ago and the curved, off-center line at 400 Coups in Montreal. And yet the food at none of those places tastes remotely similar. This stuff is the new high and tight tower in the middle of a big white plate. It seems that we have it out for this guy here, in the most subtle, snarky way, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

ETA: Insofar as the point is that these guys want a restaurant cooking in a certain style, that much is obvious from the CVs of the guys they've hired. The question of how different the food is from how it was before isn't answered by that, however (two guys cooking in a broadly similar style still have food that is more dissimilar than it is alike).

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#72 Suzanne F

Suzanne F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,413 posts

Posted 08 April 2012 - 03:54 AM

Why do I have to taste this food to say that it looks pretty much the same as the food at Compose? I saw the food at Compose, and there was little difference in appearance from what I didn't think were such terrible photos. Maybe my screen has better resolution. As for how this food tastes, I do know what my meal at Compose tasted like, but I have no idea what this tastes like and therefore did not comment on it. So I still have no idea what you are getting at -- or what you seem to be accusing me of doing.

Because it's allowed doesn't mean it isn't creepy. -- Sneakeater, April 10, 2014

 

notorious stickler -- NY Times
deeply annoying and nitpicking -- Molly O'Neill, One Big Table


#73 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,277 posts

Posted 08 April 2012 - 03:03 PM

You certainly do have a better screen than the one that I'm using at the moment!

But what do you mean by "plus ca change"? Why comment on how similar the food looks? And why is that funny? The food looks like the food at any number of modern places in any number of cities in any number of countries. This shouldn't surprise - it's clear by looking at the cvs of the chefs that the owners want to serve this kind of food. So, yes, it's going to look similar to that kind of food. Of course, the big change appears to be the initial response to the restaurant. Perhaps your initial comment was simply a descriptive, factual observation. Perhaps.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#74 Suzanne F

Suzanne F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,413 posts

Posted 08 April 2012 - 05:23 PM

You certainly do have a better screen than the one that I'm using at the moment!

But what do you mean by "plus ca change"? Why comment on how similar the food looks? And why is that funny? The food looks like the food at any number of modern places in any number of cities in any number of countries. This shouldn't surprise - it's clear by looking at the cvs of the chefs that the owners want to serve this kind of food. So, yes, it's going to look similar to that kind of food. Of course, the big change appears to be the initial response to the restaurant. Perhaps your initial comment was simply a descriptive, factual observation. Perhaps.



The owners are paying yet again to achieve the same visual effect they got from their first chef; hence "plus ça change."

Looks are the only thing I can comment on. I have not eaten at Atera, nor did I ever eat at Castagna, so I don't know what this chef's food tastes like. And I too "eat with my eyes," so appearances are an important factor in my decision about whether I want to shell out that kind of $$$ for food that looks much like what I (over)paid for before.

It is "funny" to me precisely because the "food looks like the food at any number of modern places in any number of cities in any number of countries." I do not find it surprising, and never said I did. I find that sameness, combined with the discussions of how new and unique this is, as something to laugh at, or at least to shake my head and chuckle about the gullibility of people who thing that dining on twigs and faux rocks is the height of sophistication.

Finally, what's with your BS "Perhaps . . . Perhaps"? If you believe you understand me better than what I say, you need to meet my husband and tell him how to read my truer, deeper inner thoughts.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Because it's allowed doesn't mean it isn't creepy. -- Sneakeater, April 10, 2014

 

notorious stickler -- NY Times
deeply annoying and nitpicking -- Molly O'Neill, One Big Table


#75 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,277 posts

Posted 08 April 2012 - 05:38 PM

See, you said a cigar is not just a cigar. You've essentially made my point:

And I too "eat with my eyes," so appearances are an important factor in my decision about whether I want to shell out that kind of $$$ for food that looks much like what I (over)paid for before.


There's my point - this is a totally different chef with a totally different pedigree serving food that few in NYC are serving. Anyone can copy presentations they've seen on a blog or they've seen in other restaurants. Can you figure out the difference between say coq au vin at Balthazar, Minetta, Les Halles, etc. just by looking? Of course not. I understand your reticence, but you seem to be rejecting someone new, and by all accounts much better and much more experienced, because you had a single bad experience with his predeccessor. It's not just you expressing that on the thread.

It is "funny" to me precisely because the "food looks like the food at any number of modern places in any number of cities in any number of countries." I do not find it surprising, and never said I did. I find that sameness, combined with the discussions of how new and unique this is, as something to laugh at, or at least to shake my head and chuckle about the gullibility of people who thing that dining on twigs and faux rocks is the height of sophistication.


Who's gullible? Orik? UE? The Spanish Hipster? I understand rejecting the cuisine if it's not to your taste, and I understand calling out guys who cook in that style who are poseurs and mimics, I can't believe that you're rejecting an entire style of modern restaurant, that some of our most well dined contributers have lauded, because of those poseurs. Whether trends in plating are more prevelant now than in the past, certainly we've seen trends in plating before (vertical food!) that didn't imply a total rejection of everyone who plates that way.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.