Jump to content

oakapple

Members
  • Content Count

    9,316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by oakapple

  1. I'm just saying he left out the part where he'd admit his restaurant has failed like 5-6 times, and maybe it's just not that great a restaurant.
  2. That's how it works just about everywhere. This place had an illegal gas line modification that wouldn't have passed an inspection, had they bothered to apply for one.
  3. I expect most restaurateurs to be fundamentaly self-serving when they explain why they did what they did. That isn't diabolical. It's business.
  4. There is a clear difference, and it's not ambiguous. When you acquire a building, you acquire it as-is. But if you modify the building, you have to follow the rules.
  5. It's true that unrenovated buildings of that age would not pass code today, if they were held to the standards of new construction. But that wasn't the cause of this fire. As I understand, there was an illegal modification to the gas line, a problem unrelated to the age of the structure. If they'd gotten a permit and done the work correctly, the way they're supposed to, those buildings would still be there.
  6. The need to keep prices down is because he couldn't fill the place up at the prices he wanted to charge. You don't see Carbone or Minetta Tavern dropping entrées. They are just as expensive, and perhaps more so. As I said, this is Colicchio's fifth or sixth reboot in that space. He's the master at making each mulligan sound eminently logical.
  7. Appetizer–Entree restaurants still open regularly. The article is a useful checkpoint on the current state of play in small-plates land, most likely something to laugh about in another 10 years, when the format will have matured yet again. Let's bear in mind: this is something like the fifth or sixth reboot in the Colicchio & Sons space, all undertaken because the previous version was failing. You don't see Gramercy Tavern switching to small plates, do you?
  8. This is usually not a terrible deal, but it is very inconvenient. There are many buildings that would fail this test. Over many years, the pipes develop pinpoint leaks. No one has the time or the money to test all of them, but when something happens, they go in. The trouble is, it takes quite a while to fix. All the test shows, is that there's a leak somewhere. Finding it takes time. A gas leak was found at my apartment building (no fire). So ConEd came in to test, and found that wasn't the only leak. The gas was shut of for four months, while they tested every pipe, one by one.
  9. I agree mostly with that, but there are already several restaurants on this list whose influence is not primarily for their food. With a 50-year horizon, you're bound to get restaurants that were important in their time, but aren't anymore. If it didn't flunk the 50-year cutoff, there's no question that the Four Seasons belongs, even though its importance has almost entirely wasted away.
  10. McNally was repeatedly the first, or very close to the first, destination restaurant in neighborhoods that had previously lacked them, and many others have (with varying success) opened restaurants in a similar style. There shouldn't be two McNally restaurants on the list, but this is Ben Leventhal writing. La Grenouille opened more than 50 years ago, so it doesn't belong by Leventhal's own definition. If you eliminate the time limit, then the mother lode of that genre would be Le Pavillion, which spawned numerous "Le" and "La" restaurants, of which La Grenouille was one.
  11. The thing is, the restaurants on this list aren't just good in and of themselves. What makes them important is their influence on others. Was Yasuda the restaurant that introduced New Yorkers to sushi? Of course not: Kurumazushi had 3 stars almost 20 years earlier, and it was not the first. So, Yasuda didn't inaugurate anything: it was just a damned fine example of its genre, and there are plenty of those not on the list.
  12. Of course. Nevertheless, I think that if he'd called the publicist directly, as you prefer, he would have been whisked directly to his table as soon as he arrived. RL might not be counting on great reviews, but it's not going to provoke bad ones on purpose. Beyond that is a broader principle. He's just doing what he does everywhere. Either NYM wants reviews that pass through the hands of publicists; or, it does not. There are enough examples of the John Mariani / Josh Ozersky model for people to see what that looks like. Apparently they don't want that.
  13. Platt: So it would seem that, even after he got there, and the staff had laid eyes on him, they still didn't realize who he was. That is why he still books under false names.
  14. The door policy is a pretty big part of the schtick at this place. If he just called the publicist, that part of the story wouldn't get told.
  15. When Platt gave up his "anonymity," he specifically said that he still reserves under fake names and doesn't announce himself. All he was doing, really, was to acknowledge that there was no point in trying to pretend that he can conceal his likeness.
  16. There are now two pro reviews of this place (Platt in NY; Rao in Bloomberg). They seem to agree that the food isn't bad, but just might not be worth the hassle of getting in the door.
  17. I don't feel the same pressing need to name one. Or visit one? I've been to a few of them (Franny's, Roberta's, Luksus, Maison Premiere, Vinegar Hill House, . . .).
  18. I don't feel the same pressing need to name one.
  19. My bad: I misinterpreted Soba's post and didn't go back to check. Anyhow, I agree: Daniel stands for the same things Le Cirque stands for, and Le Cirque was there first. Recency effect. In all fairness, a few places are on the list because they staked out a neighborhood as a dining destination, where it wasn't before. That's the case for Roberta's, assuming there is any at all. Clearly, it couldn't have done that in SoHo.
  20. I am not sure what Yasuda or Kurumazushi have contributed, other than being good in and of themselves. It becomes a similar argument to why March isn't included. If Boulud belongs on the list at all, it's for Daniel. Obviously, that restaurant spawned many other successful ones, but they don't exist unless Daniel exists. Le Cirque might have a valid claim in its own right (i.e., independent of Boulud's involvement), but it was never important to "people like Ben Leventhal". Le Cirque also recognizes Sirio, who before he had Le Cirque was maitre d' at Colony, another very impor
  21. March was very good in its heyday, but I'm not sure what it accomplished that "spilled over" to other restaurants, or inaugurated any kind of trend. That's what most of the places on that list have, that it lacks. I don't know how he can call Veritas ephemeral, given the length of its run. Restaurants like Cru and Charlie Bird seem to owe a debt to Veritas. It probably has a better case for importance than March, though I'm not sure if it's T-25. Montrachet is probably more important than Chanterelle, if you consider the "Who's Who?" list of chefs that went through its kitchens. I
  22. I still remember old eGullet posts when Rich argued that the Tasting Room ought to have four stars. An exaggeration, obviously, but the place was indeed way ahead of its time. Probably not top 25, though.
  23. There's always a recency effect in such lists, because the contributors are dominated by people whose horizon doesn't go back more than 10–15 years — and of course, even if you've been around longer than that, more recent restaurants are easier to remember. Does "scene" matter? There was certainly a scene at Florent (albeit a scene I never remotely cared about). As far as food goes it wouldn't be in the top 250, to say nothing of the top 25.
×
×
  • Create New...