oakapple

Like the original list, this list mixes up places that make the list for totally unrelated reasons.

The place sounds really interesting. Not sure I'll make it all the way up to Hudson, though.

There's two things you can complain about.

One is that Lafayette is not the correct kind of restaurant. This is a little concerning; what if instead he were charging plutocrats $1,000 a plate, sourcing the absolute best ingredients, and cooking to the best of his abilities? You'd still be unhappy because it'd be a restaurant not optimally suited to your needs.

If it's not good for what it is (or as good as it should be, anyway), that's a different issue. Though I'd think at his price point, there are limitations on the input end in what he can do.

 
Well, about 99 percent of food board posts are selfish: people are writing about their own dining preferences, not the world's. It so happens that there are enough common preferences to make mutual comprehension possible. Nevertheless, of course it's selfish.

Carmellini's career satisfaction and rate-of-return are his problems, not mine. There are plenty of templates available, for taking his known talents, and doing better with them than he has done. Whether he would make more or less money...frankly, I don't care.

Of course, people should be happy for him: chef made good. But if he chooses to do so by embracing mediocrity, we ought to call him on it. I mean, when the critics review a new film (or book, or show), they never say, "It's great, because it's going to be profitable." That's not the role of criticism.

So I just ate at Corton and that has 3 stars and is, as we know, extremely ambitious, and also extremely good. But it was mostly empty. And that's extremely depressing, because if I were an ambitious chef who gave a damn, and saw that, how could I not throw my toque in the air?

Corton was designed to be a "non-money-losing" operation. Its owner has plenty of other outlets, and as long as it didn't lose money, he didn't insist that it particularly make money. Paul Liebrandt wants to cook the best food he can, and we are all better off for it. Let's hope that he stays in the game. Corton has been raising prices over the last couple of years, which suggests he can get away with it. The city needs more like him.
 

As one of those people who rarely ventures above 14th, I think it's clear that Lafayette and places of that ilk are what survives down here economically. Your total market isn't just residents, or foodies, it's fashion and style and jetsetters and celebrities. It's no accident there's a Dutch in Miami.

I don't think that really tells you anything about Corton. Regardless of where it's located, that type of restaurant attracts a destination crowd (assuming it attracts anybody), not a neighborhood crowd. It is certainly long past debate that destination diners will come to Tribeca.
 

And that's the way we are going. Outstanding F3 food is a brand that isn't relevant downtown any longer unless you sneak it in.

The reference to F3 is a red herring. In the original Wilfrid post that kicked off this debate, he said nothing about F3. This is merely about AC performing at the level we think he's capable of. F3, of course, is one direction he could have gone, but not the only direction.

As I mentioned upthread, Wylie Dufresne and Cesar Ramirez trained in F3 restaurants. Nothing in their backgrounds suggested that restaurants like WD~50 and Brooklyn Fare would emerge—until, of course, they did. Another possibility would be to build a "Lafayettish" restaurant, but make it the best damned Lafayette it could be. He hasn't done that either.

Now, I get the argument that it's his career, and he can do whatever the heck he wants with it. But as consumers—and hopefully better educated ones—we really ought to be saying, "You know what? This is really just average stuff." And certainly, the critics ought to be saying that.

Is the point that his comparative advantage is in running a fancy kitchen vs running a restaurant group, or is it just that we'd be happier if he opened another CB?

That's really not the point.

New York has a ton of one/two-star places: Carmellini himself has opened several. And NYC has numerous restaurants in this genre, so Lafayette doesn't give the city anything really new, just more of what it's already got.

Yet: Carmellini is capable of doing more ambitious stuff. Chefs who can do that don't grow on trees, so it's a pity that he's working in a humbler sphere. No one said that he should open another CB. The city's already got one of those. It would be even better if he did something unique.

The world won't end. Lafayette could still be good, within its modest ambitions. I already mentioned that I liked it, and my mom loved it. I'd go back. But it's still a pity.

It does say something about the environment we're in, that intelligent "foodies" are trying to argue that he chose to be mediocre because it's harder. If he can fool smart people like that, perhaps it explains why he does what he does.