Stars: Here and Elsewhere

Many media outlets, including this blog, use stars to rate restaurants. I’ve posted explanations of the star system before, but recently it struck me how much different the various “star systems” are, despite their surface similarity.

This can cause quite a bit of confusion. In the Michelin Guide, one star is a significant honor, but in The New York Daily News one star means “disappointing”. The New York Times system is somewhere in between: one star means “good”. Three stars or more always signifies an extremely good restaurant, except in Time Out New York, where the scale goes up to six, and therefore three is just mediocre.

I thought it was time that all of these systems were summarized in one place. First, here’s a summary, with the systems listed roughly in declining order of pedigree. Beneath the name of each source, I provide a link to a page, or pages, where it’s explained in more detail:

Source	Range	Explanation
Michelin Guide [see here]	1–3	***       Excellent cuisine and worth the journey ** Excellent cooking and worth a detour * A very good restaurant in its category
New York Times [see here, here]	0–4	**** Extraordinary *** Excellent ** Very Good * Good Zero     Satisfactory, Fair or Poor
New York Magazine [see here]	0–5	***** Ethereal; almost perfect **** Exceptional; consistently elite *** Generally excellent ** Very good * Good Zero     (No explanation)
New York Daily News [see here, here]	1–45	(No explanation) **** Sheer perfection ***½    Truly exceptional *** Outstanding **½ Great night out ** A safe bet *½ Hit or miss * Disappointing
Time Out New York [see here]	1–6	(No explanation)
Bloomberg [see here]	0–4	**** Incomparable food, service, ambience *** First-class of its kind ** Good, reliable * Fair Zero     Poor

I listed the Michelin system first, for though it is relatively new to New York, it has been employed in Europe since the 1930s. To be a “Michelin-starred” restaurant is an internationally recognized honor, and it’s a distinction many European tourists rely on. However, it’s the system that New Yorkers pay the least attention to.

The newspaper and magazine systems all operate on the same basic idea, though the meaning of a rating varies widely, depending on how high they go (four, five, or six), how low they go (one or zero), and whether they accommodate half-stars (only the Daily News does).

The New York Times is the dean of the star-bestowing media. It has been handing out stars since 1963. At the other extreme is Bloomberg, which seems to have inaugurated its star system just a few weeks ago with a three-star review of Jean Georges.

But most of the others are pretty new, too. New York Magazine’s star system debuted in 2006. The current system in the Daily News dates from the summer of 2007, after a lengthy period when the paper had no restaurant reviews. Time Out New York’s peculiar six-star system bowed in mid-2006.

New York Times

Although the Times system is 45 years old, it has changed often. Leonard Kim, the eGullet Society’s star system historian, has charted its many tweaks. The original system was just three stars, with the fourth added in 1964. In 1971, critic Raymond Sokolov added a separate rating of one-to-four “triangles” for service, atmosphere and décor. The triangles were dropped in 1973.

There’s more to the Times stars than the cryptic explanation printed in the newspaper every week. Thanks again to Leonard Kim, we know that Mimi Sheraton’s typical rating was one star (almost half of her reviews), with about 20–25% two stars, and another 20–25% zero stars. Three and four stars were given out quite infrequently. Kim thinks that “this is the most sensible system.”

Under Sheraton’s successor, Bryan Miller, the percentage of zero-star reviews dropped to around 10–15%, with one or two stars being handed out with about equal frequency (35–40%). Under the next critic, Ruth Reichl, two-star reviews were given out over half the time. She also gave out three stars a fairly generous 15% of the time, while zero-star reviews became a great rarity (4–5%).

William Grimes brought the stars back under control, reducing the frequency of three-star awards and increasing the frequency of one star. However, he continued Reichl’s practice of giving out zero stars only rarely. Bruni’s frequencies are more-or-less comparable to Grimes’s, but Bruni comes down hard on luxury restaurants while being quite generous with two-star ratings for extremely casual places.

Because the zero-star rating is so seldom used, some of the other ratings have lost their nominal meanings. For decades, one star has supposedly meant “good,” but Frank Bruni’s one-star reviews seldom sound good. It’s the rare restaurant nowadays that would be pleased to receive just one star. The Times’s zero-star reviews carry an additional label: Satisfactory, Fair, or Poor. (No other paper does this.) Bruni has given “Poor” only twice, he has never given “Fair,” and his “Satisfactory” reviews never sound very “satisfied.”

Some papers don’t reprint the definitions every week, but the Times does, along with this blurb: “Ratings range from zero to four stars and reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration.”

That blurb has changed over the years. In 1974, it said, “The restaurants reviewed here each Friday are rated four stars to none, based on the author’s reaction to cuisine, atmosphere and price in relation to comparable establishments.” The words “comparable establishments” were dropped in 1984, though you could argue that the system in spirit still operates that way.

Bruni has explained what the stars mean to him:

There are no assigned percentages for food versus service versus ambience. The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant. The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement.

This cannot be the full explanation, because you’ll read two-star reviews in which he sounds extremely excited (e.g., Franny’s), and you’ll read other two-star reviews that sound like he hates the place (e.g., Gordon Ramsay). That’s because there is an unwritten “rule of expectation.” An expensive luxury restaurant expects to get at least three stars, and his review is written in light of that. In his Ramsay review, it sounded like he was “taking away” the implied third star. A two-star rating is supposed to mean “very good,” but the tenor of the review was “not good at all.”

There seems to be an unwritten rule that a three-star restaurant needs to have most, if not all, the trappings of “traditional luxury.” Frank Bruni has relaxed that requirement on occasion, but you haven’t seen a three-star pizzeria yet. There also seems to be an unwritten rule that there can be no more than half-a-dozen four-star restaurants at any given time. Four stars means “extraordinary,” and by its nature, it can’t often be given out.

None of the New York media updates obsolete ratings systematically, but the Times at least tries. In the first three months of 2008, four of Bruni’s reviews were updates, including two that Bruni himself had previously reviewed. New York’s Platt, as far as I know, has never updated any of his own ratings in several years on the job. However, with only 52 reviewing slots per year, most of them covering just a single restaurant, the Times often goes many years between updates, even when there have been significant intervening events.

For instance, the Times’s blurb for three-star Oceana says, “The good ship Oceana — a two-story town house decorated to resemble a yacht — has found a new surge of energy.” That “surge” dates from William Grimes’s 2003 review. The chef who supplied that surge of energy, Cornelius Gallagher, left Oceana in 2006, but the obsolete review remains in place. Major shakeups at three-star restaurants are infrequent enough that you’d think the Times could take note of them, but apparently Mr. Bruni doesn’t think so.

Two other changes over the years have limited the paper’s ability to keep its ratings updated. Up to the end of Bryan Miller’s tenure, the critic normally reviewed two restaurants per week. When Ruth Reichl arrived in 1993, she switched to one longer review of a single restaurant per week, dramatically reducing the paper’s bandwith to update previously given ratings. Frank Bruni has revived the custom of the double review, but he uses it only a handful of times per year.

The other change is in the way that casual, inexpensive restaurants are handled. Historically, the Times restaurant critic’s beat had a clear emphasis on “fine dining.” That became more explicit in 1992, when Eric Asimov started the “$25 and Under” column. Asimov used to cover serious, though inexpensive, restaurants. His successor, Peter Meehan, has been marginalized. His column now appears only every other week, and it is usually relegated to extremely humble eateries in the outer boroughs. As a result of this change, Frank Bruni now covers everything from delis to high-end French luxury palaces.

The Times does not give star ratings to its “$25-and-under” restaurants. New York has a separate star system for casual places (signified by one-to-five “hollow” stars). No other media outlet has a separate rating system, or indeed a separate critic, for casual dining.

Other Media

Since all of the other star systems are fairly new, there is nothing like the kind of historical perspective we have at the Times.

New York Magazine

The New York Magazine star system debuted with the January 1, 2006, issue. Adam Platt retroactively put star ratings on 101 restaurants, including many that he’d never reviewed himself. He surely couldn’t have paid the minimum of three contemporaneous visits that the Times requires of its critics.

All reviews since then have been rated on Platt’s zero-to-five system. The only explanation given for a five-point scale, rather than the traditional four, is that, “We chose to use five stars, instead of three or four, because the more levels of discrimination, or so the thinking goes, the more useful the list.” But despite having an extra step on his ladder, Platt has actually given three stars less frequently than Bruni. And except in his 101-restaurant retroactive list, he has yet to give out five stars, while he has given four only once.

The Others

The New York Daily News re-instated its restaurant reviewing column in August 2007, with Danyelle Freeman (a/k/a “Restaurant Girl”) handing out the stars. Initially, she used a one-to-four system, with half-stars allowed. In April 2008, she abruptly switched to a five-star system without an explanation, retroactively re-rating all of her previous reviews. Her system doesn’t go down to zero, so a one-star rating from Freeman is like a zero-star rating from Bruni or Platt.

Time Out New York instituted a six-star scale, which has never been explained, but its critics are fairly promiscuous with three and four-star ratings, making the TONY ratings entirely meaningless in relation to everyone else’s.

Bloomberg seems to have inaugurated a new zero-to-four star system with an April 2008 three-star review of Jean Georges, but it is too new for us to draw any conclusions.

This Blog

The rating system on this blog is similar to that employed by The Times. I award zero to four stars, with one star intended to signify a good restuarant, not “fair” (Bloomberg) or “disappointing” (NYDN). However, I endorse Adam Platt’s comment that “one star for a restaurant with elite aspirations is really not much better than no star at all.” Unlike the Times, I use half-stars, and I give separate ratings for service and ambiance, in addition to an overall rating.

Momofuku Ko

Note: This is a review of Momofuku Ko in its former location on First Avenue. In November 2014, the restaurant moved to 8 Extra Place.

*

The hassle of obtaining a reservation of Momofuku Ko has quickly become the stuff of legend—and that’s for a restaurant barely over a month old. After finally wrestling this bear to the ground, I can finally answer the question: Is it worth it?

Not that my opinion matters, because MoKo has MoJo (hat tip: The Pink Pig). If, by any chance, there were a negative review—and I haven’t seen one yet—it would hardly make a difference for the restaurant that seemingly can do no wrong. In this week’s New York, MoKo earns four stars from Adam Platt (conferred by the frothing critic after just one visit). At the Paper of Record, Frank Bruni is taking his time, but the smart money is betting on another four-star review.

Irrelevant though our verdict may be, the short answer is: Yes, MoKo really does deserve all of that attention. And yes, if you care at all about food, it really is worth your while to jump through hoops to become one of the approximately 32 guests that are served six nights a week. (They are closed Tuesdays.)

The ten-course tasting menu is not the best we’ve had in New York, but it is pretty darned close. And you get it for $85, which is at least $50 per person less than what you’d pay elsewhere for comparable quality. What you lose is the comfort and coddling that the better restaurants offer. You’re seated at a bar on wooden stools; those with back problems needn’t apply.

The chefs also serve the food, assisted by two servers who have to navigate a narrow space and sometimes can’t quite keep up with the demand. Peter Serpico, the restaurant’s executive chef, served most of our courses. He seemed to have very little enthusiasm for that part of the job. Two other chef–servers seemed more cheerful, but our sense was that the real joy for them is in the cooking.

Chef–owner (and media darling) David Chang was in the house. For about the first half of the meal, he was behind the counter doing mostly prep work, along with three other chefs. A photographer from Bloomberg news was snapping photos; everyone lightened up considerably after he left. Chang later disappeared, though we saw him again briefly before we left. There appeared to be two other employees behind the scenes, washing dishes and doing other prep work.

The two non-chef servers had an awful lot to do: greeting and seating guests; checking and returning coats; taking and delivering beverage orders; clearing plates (but not always); and setting silverware (but not always). Though the restaurant’s 14 seats were never completely full at any time during our meal, that is still a lot for two servers to do. Silverware didn’t always arrive when it should, and we detected some uncertainty among the staff about who was responsible for clearing plates.

Want a cappuccino after dinner? Sorry…they only have espresso.

The entrance, unlabeled and easily missedI am not suggesting that service is bad here, but merely pointing out the gulf between Momofuku Ko and traditional three- and four-star restaurants. The service routine will improve with time, but MoKo will probably never offer the kind of pampering and coddling that many diners expect at this price level. It’s not an “occasion place,” but if future menus are as good as the one we had, I would happily go again. And again.

The beverage program is continuing to improve. There’s now a respectable wine list, with bottles as low as $32, as well as those in the hundreds. There is now a premium wine pairing at $85, in addition to the standard wine pairing at $50 that was available before. We ordered the premium wine pairing and were impressed with the choices, which included two sakes, a sparkling rosé, one red, and a number of whites.

Wine pairings are always a crap-shoot. At their best, you get provocative wines from producers off the beaten path—great wines that compelment the food, and that you never would have chosen yourself. At their worst, you get dull, generic wines that make you wish you’d just ordered a “blow-the-doors off” full bottle. The pairings at Ko are firmly in the first category. At $85, the wines are mostly young; you’re not getting anything like the 1962 Madeira we were served at Per Se. But it is still one of the more impressive wine pairings we’ve had, and well worth it.

In the restaurant’s early days, the menu is pretty much the same for everybody, but there are alternatives for most courses, to offer variety for second-time guests or to accommodate diners with dietary restrictions. We reported only one such restriction (my girlfriend doesn’t eat scallops) but we were served alternatives for four out of ten courses. By switching plates, we were able to sample fourteen dishes between us.

 
English muffin with pork fat and pork rinds (left); Fluke sashimi with spicy buttermilk & poppy seeds (right)

The first item—technically the amuse-bouche—was a miniature English muffin slathered in whipped pork fat, with dried pork rinds on the side. Some reviewers have raved about the muffins, but we weren’t quite as impressed. Chang has proved you can pair pork with anything; so what? The wine pairing was a sparkling rosé.

We adored the first savory course: Long Island fluke sashimi with spicy buttermilk and toasted poppy seeds. The cool, bracing freshness of the fluke worked perfectly with the spicy heat of the buttermilk. The wine pairing was a nice Chablis—and that comes from folks who aren’t Chablis fans.

 
Berkshire pork belly & oyster in kimchi broth (left); Louisiana crawfish in a Georgia pea soup (right)

The next course was split. I had the Berkshire pork belly with a Long Island oyster, Napa cabbage and kimchi consommé. You’ll never go wrong when David Chang serves pork (we saw him shucking the oysters), but I must confess I don’t quite get the fuss over the kimchi that many other critics have raved about.

My girlfriend had the Louisiana crawfish in a Georgia pea soup with crumpet mushrooms. The flavor contrast here might have even been better than the pork/oyster combo, but the crawfish should have been a little warmer. And it was probably just a goof, but we had to ask for spoons.

The wine pairing here was a sake.

 
Hen egg, caviar, potato chips (left); White asparagus, caviar, asparagus purée (right)

Another split course came next, again with white wine.

There’ve been snickers about “hen eggs” (anyone ever hear of a rooster egg?), but they can call it anything they want when it’s this good. A lightly smoked egg was supported here with hackleback caviar and candied lemon zest. At the edge of the plate, a pile of fingerling potato chips added very little to the effect.

We saw the chef lavishing plenty of attention over lovely white asparagus stalks, which were grilled, sauced with an asparagus purée and garnished with caviar. This bland and overly salty creation couldn’t compete with the intensity of the hen egg.

 
Scallop (left); Soft-shell crab (right)

While we were eating our caviar, we watched as the chef decapitated live soft-shell crabs and put them the frying pan, their legs still squirming. We did our best to ignore the crabs’ fate, but it wasn’t a sight for the squeamish.

This was another split course, with the crab served to me and the scallop to my girlfriend, even though she is the one who doesn’t eat scallops. The scallop was served with radishes, the crab with ramps, and both dishes had a other ingredients we couldn’t write down fast enough. The wine pairing was a Chardonnay.

The crab didn’t have much flavor, and it was also difficult to eat. Even though my girlfriend doesn’t eat scallops, I persuaded to try a bite, and she agreed it was the more enjoyable of the two.

Shaved foie gras, lychee, pine nut brittle, riesling gelée

If MoKo has fired a “shot heard ’round the world,” it’s surely the dish that came next: shaved foie gras over lychee, pine nut brittle and a riesling gelée. The ingredients join in your mouth, leaving a startling sensation of the foie gras melting and melding with its unlikely companions.

The wine pairing was a sweet sake.

 
Deep-fried short rib as it came out of the fryer (left); and as served on the plate (right)

The deep-fried short ribs are almost as big a hit. They’re slowly braised overnight, then quickly finished in the deep fryer. The chef trims away the ends, a waste that we considered practically criminal, given how tender they are. I would happily eat a meal comprising nothing but the ends Momofuku is throwing away.

There’s also daikon radish and pickled mustard seed on the plate, but the short rib is the star. The wine pairing was our only red wine of the evening, a Cabernet Sauvignon.

 
Miso soup with grilled rice (left); Lychee sorbet (right)

The last few courses weren’t quite as interesting. The last savory course was a miso soup with grilled rice and pickled vegetables. I believe the rice is slathered in more pork fat. The palate cleanser was a lychee sorbet over sesame crumble.

 
Cereal milk panna cotta (left); Deep-fried apple pie (right)

Everyone at MoKo seems to get one of two desserts, so we were pleased to be able to try both. The more interesting of the two is a cereal milk panna cotta with brittle chocolate and an avocado purée. The alternative was a deep-fried apple pie, which was just fine, but not all that far removed from the McDonalds version. On the whole, the desserts didn’t have the same level of invention as the savory courses.

There were no outright duds among the fourteen items we tasted. Setting aside the hype, there were several extraordinary dishes, a number of others that were merely good, and four or five that really ought to be better. A couple of dishes (the foie gras, the short ribs) have already gone platinum, and may be on the hit parade for a long time to come. The lesser stars will, I am sure, give way to new flights of Momofuku fancy.

Not since Per Se has a new restaurant been the subject of such over-heated attention. But sometimes places are hyped because they’re really worth it, and this is one of them. If you don’t mind hard, backless benches and occasionally inartful service, Momofuku Ko is just about everything it’s cracked up to be.

Momofuku Ko (163 First Avenue between 10th & 11th Streets, East Village)

Food: ★★★
Service: ★★
Ambiance: ★★
Overall: ★★★

Chop Suey

Note: Chop Suey closed in October 2008.

The chef Zak Pelaccio has come a long way since he was a cult hit at the Chickenbone Cafe in Williamsburg. His fans followed him to 5 Ninth in the Meatpacking District (from whence he later departed), and then to Fatty Crab a few blocks away.

Since then, he has turned his solid reputation into self-parody, cashing in one “consulting chef” gig after another. Chop Suey is the latest of these. It features one of Pelaccio’s trademark multi-Asian menus, along with one of the best views in the city, assuming you find it charming to look out on the bright lights of Times Square. Frank Bruni did, awarding one star in The Times.

Chop Suey is more than just a great view. The Renaissance Hotel did a lovely job with the renovation. The décor is stylish, comfortable, and understated—as it should be when you’ve got the most famous view in America. With only 78 seats, a majority of which were empty at 8:15 p.m. on a Saturday evening, you can actually have a quiet and unhurried meal here.

If only the food matched the view

That assumes the food is worthwhile, which it isn’t. Pelaccio’s menu seems phoned in. That’s the problem with a “consulting chef” who doesn’t stick around to edit out the clunkers, or even to ensure his vision (if he had one) is faithfully executed. We had three appetizers and three entrées between us, and there was only one item I’d recommend. That’s too low a ratio of successes to failures, especially when dinner for three runs to almost $250 (including tax and tip).

 
Crispy Rock Shrimp (right); Curry Leaf Fried Chicken Wings (right)

Crispy Rock Shrimp($18) would have been unobjectionable, but a bed of stringy, cold, allegedly braised pork belly was just strange. Curry Leaf Fried Chicken Wings ($15) seemed no different to us than the Hooters variety.

Steamed Rice Cakes (left); Atlantic Halibut (right)

If you saw Steamed Rice Cakes ($12) on the menu, would you expect something resembling the photo above? I sure didn’t. I’m a simple guy: “rice cake” implies “rice” and “cake,” and the dish included neither. But it was the evening’s only hit. There were gnocchi in there, along with spicy pickled vegetables and a Korean pork bolognese.

Moving to the entrées, an Atlantic Halibut sous vide ($28) was lovely enough, although boring. I detected none of the promised Prosciutto di Parma, and the clam medley underneath it was pointless.

 
Ginger Chicken (left); Beef Short Ribs (right)

My son wasn’t fond of the Ginger Chicken ($32), also cooked sous vide, nor of the ginger tempura dumplings that came with it. Beef Short Ribs ($30) were a horror show: sliced too thin, overwhelmed with chili sauce, and not tender enough. We thought it was impossible to ruin short ribs. Now we know better.

The other “consultant” at Chop Suey is pastry chef Will Goldfarb. Perhaps he has done a wonderful job with the desserts…but perhaps not. We weren’t willing to roll the dice again.

With this wonderful space and this gorgeous view, the Renaissance Hotel deserves a far better restaurant than this. It’s time to fire the consultants and start over again.

Chop Suey (714 Seventh Avenue at 48th Street, 2nd floor of the Renaissance Hotel, Theater District)

Food: Disappointing
Service: Acceptable
Ambiance: Wonderful
Overall: Not Recommended

Brasserie 8½

 

It might seem odd to recomend a restaurant because it is empty. But aside from the very good food, that is one of the principal attractions of Brasserie 8½—at least at dinner.

No one can fault the space, with its grand staircase, drawings by Matisse and Giacometti, and tables that are both comfortable and generously spaced. With the restaurant only 10% full, my friend and I were able to enjoy a quiet conversation, as well as food that deserves a lot more attention than it has been getting.

The name is a cute take-off on the address: it’s at 9 West 57th Street. The restaurant is in the basement, so they call it “Brasserie 8½.” However, the place really isn’t really a “Brasserie” in any normal sense of the word.

When it opened in 1980, critics found the food uneven and occasionally overworked. In The Times, William Grimes awarded one star. Reviews in New York and The New Yorker were similar. But management stood by chef Julian Alonzo is still in place, which in this era is remarkable all by itself. Perhaps with eight years’ experience he has edited out the clunkers, or perhaps we just got lucky with our choices.

 

I loved an asparagus soup ($12) that was as tasty as it was striking to look at, with an oval-shaped glass bowl and concentric circles of green and white foam.

An entrée of Sautéed Diver Sea Scallops “Benedict” ($29) offered three plump scallops, each with a vegetable purée beneath, a fried egg on top, and hunks of crisp braised pork belly in between. This pun on “Eggs Benedict” isn’t unique to this restaurant, but when it’s as well executed as this, who cares if it’s original?

I assume that Brasserie 8½ does a brisker lunch business, which is typical of restaurants in this part of town. I also assume that a self-promotional YouTube video that was posted late last year is part of an attempt to drum up business. If our meal was at all indicative, then management is entitled to crow about it as much as they please.

Brasserie 8½ (9 West 57th Street between Fifth & Sixth Avenues, West Midtown)

Food: **
Service: *½
Ambiance: ***
Overall: **

Ago

Note: Ago was rumored to be closing at the end of January 2009, to give way to a new Italian concept under Jean-Georges Vongerichten’s management. That deal fizzled, and Andrew Carmellini’s hit Italian restaurant, Locanda Verde, replaced it.

The first time I visited Ago (pronounced Ah-go), I only got as far as taking a quick look and picking up a menu. Yesterday, I dropped in for dinner. I was seated immediately, but it was in the front area, where restaurants usually seat their walk-ins. The bar was doing a brisk business, so it was noisy and not at all charming.

Last week, the menu offered a rib-eye steak grilled on the wood-burning oven, for $34. Yesterday, it appeared on the menu as “M.P.” (possibly now a t-bone) and I ordered it without asking the price, which turned out to be a stunning $54—a rather dramatic increase, wouldn’t you say? Given that the menu is just a loose sheet of paper that is clearly being frequently reprinted, why can’t the price of this item be included?

Leaving the price aside, it was a wonderful hunk of meat, with the wood-burning oven imparting a wonderful smokey flavor. But was it worth $54, given that Wolfgang’s offers more-or-less comparable quality for $15 less, just two blocks away? The potatoes are included here, but as they come on the same plate, they quickly get soggy from wallowing in the steak’s juices.

The server was friendly and reasonably attentive, though he missed out on the chance to sell me a second class of the barbera d’asti, by failing to note that the first glass I’d ordered ($14) was empty. When he finally came around, I decided it was time to leave.

Ago (379 Greenwich Street at N. Moore Street, TriBeCa)

Food: *
Service: *
Ambiance: *
Overall: *

State of the Bouley Union

 
Restaurant Bouley (left); In case you were wondering… (right)

David Bouley, chef/owner of three successful TriBeCa restaurants, is throwing his whole restaurant empire into a state of turmoil.

The flagship, Bouley, will be moving into new quarters in the old Mohawk building, a block away. His bakery, now located across the street, will move into the old restaurant space. That will create room for the restaurant Upstairs to expand into all three floors of that building. (I wonder if they’ll still call it “Upstairs”?)

Bouley’s Austrian-themed restaurant, Danube, will close, to be replaced by Secession, a French brasserie. Lastly, he’ll be creating a three-story Japanese restaurant, Brushstroke, in the space formerly occupied by Delphi, which had been the oldest restaurant in TriBeCa. The place closed last year after it couldn’t agree to a new lease with its landlord.

These changes are supposed to happen in the course of this year. Mind you, all of these restaurants, existing and to be, are literally within one block of the current Bouley space. If David Bouley is a control freak, he won’t have to go far to check up on any of his projects.

So how is the state of the Bouley union? Let’s begin with the flagship, Bouley. I was able to get a nice wide-angle shot (above), because there are no cars outside. This is one of the Community Board’s major complaints about the place. Notice the sign outside, “No Double Parking.” At the moment, there’s no single parking there either.

 
Restaurant Upstairs (left); At Danube, “Do you think someone’s going to blog about us?” (right)

Business is brisk at Upstairs (above left). This was the first night of the year that the outdoor tables were in use. Over at Danube (above right), a gaggle of employees loitered outside.

  
The old Delphi space will house the new restaurant Brushstroke, and apparently, Luxury Lofts up above

The space that will be Brushstrokes still looks like the vacant hulk that was Delphi. It isn’t a very appealing sight. Note the sign for “Luxury Lofts” next door. Doesn’t look very luxurious, does it?

This restaurant has not had an easy gestation. In February, a committee of Community Board 1 twice voted to deny Brushstroke a liquor license, based on years of complaints about the way Bouley runs his restaurants. Bouley put on a charm offensive with the full Community Board, and miraculously, they voted in favor of recommending a liquor license. (They almost never override the committee vote.)

Here it gets creepy. The very next day, the Buildings Department issued a Stop Work Order at the Delphi site “after finding that a floor joist had been removed without providing shoring.” That seems almost too coincidental. Could it be that someone in the area who had opposed the liquor license filed an anonymous tip?

 
There’s no work being done here, after the Dept. of Buildings found unsafe conditions

It looks like this restaurant still has a long way to go. I don’t think we’ll see Brushstroke before 2009.

France Makes a Comeback

 

In today’s Times, Florence Fabricant reports that traditional French restaurants are making a comeback (“There’ll Always Be a France, Especially in New York”).

Evidence:

• Daniel Boulud has just opened Bar Boulud, with a classic French bistro and charcuterie menu.
• Later this month, Alain Ducasse will open Benoit in the former La Côte Basque space. Ducasse already opened another French restaurant this year, Adour, in the former Lespinasse space.
• Next Monday, Brasserie Cognac opens in West Midtown. Rita Jammet, who owned La Caravelle, is on hand as a consultant.
• Keith McNally, who owns perhaps the most successful casual French restaurant in New York, Balthazar, is converting Minetta Tavern (in Greenwich Village) into a French bistro.
• Later this year, David Bouley will convert his three-star Austrian Danube into a French brasserie, Secession. Bouley is also moving his eponymous flagship French-inspired restaurant to a new space about a block away from its current location.

What’s notable is not merely that these restaurants have a nod to the French tradition, but that many of them are overtly traditional, serving the old standards (lobster thermidor, cassoulet, duck à l’orange) that were considered dinosaurs a short while ago.

Bouley told Fabricant, “I see traditional food coming back. It’s also newly popular in France, and it’s great to see. I have an emotional connection to that food, to my grandmother’s cooking: some of my family comes from Arras and Tours. And I love the tradition — braising rabbits and boning fish tableside, but in a relaxed atmosphere.”

These new restaurants lack the “jacket-and-tie mandatory” atmosphere of their “Le” and “La” predecessors, but in many other ways they’re throwbacks.

I, for one, am delighted. It’s not that these restaurants are uniformly excellent. I love some of them (Le Périgord, Le Veau d’Or) and have been underwhelmed at others (La Grenouille, Adour). It’s just fascinating to see that restauranteurs are giving New Yorkers something different by giving them something traditional.

Frank Bruni, who usually finds French food so dull, is going to have to brush up on Escoffier.

Momofuku Ko: Shame on Adam Platt

We’ve roasted and skewered the Times’ Frank Bruni more than the law allows, but he’s the model of rectitude compared to New York’s Adam Platt, who bestowed four stars on Momofuku Ko after just one visit.

Platt concedes that critics are “normally” supposed to pay multiple visits before passing judgment. Why break that rule? Apparently because it’s so hard to get in:

The murmuring, deferential patrons who manage to find a spot at the modest, twelve-seat bar are chosen at random, by a computerized system that seems designed not to entice people to dine at Momofuku Ko but to drive them away. These seats can be booked only a week in advance, and only by logging on to the Momofuku Website. The computer begins taking reservations each morning at ten o’clock, and thanks to the legions of devoted and increasingly frantic Chang groupies (the 30-year-old chef was just nominated for his third James Beard award, and has been the subject of many glowing profiles in many glossy magazines), they’re gone not in minutes but in seconds. Under these trying conditions, getting in the door once, let alone the three times most critics prefer, could take months or even years.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. I have Ko reservations this Friday, and I didn’t “have the services of many diligent assistants willing to peck at their keyboards like gaming zombies for an entire week.” I did it myself.

As the food boards attest, there are already people who’ve dined at Ko more than once, and the place is still under a month old. It’s difficult, but not that difficult, to get in. It certainly wouldn’t take “even years” to visit three times. As Platt paid his lone visit in the restaurant’s third or fourth week of existence, you’d have to conclude he didn’t try very hard.

If it takes “months,” so what? Four years ago, it took Frank Bruni more three months to review Per Se, which in the day was just as hard to get into (I would argue that it was harder) as Momofuku Ko. Bruni was obligated to take his time, particularly before giving out four stars, and he took that obligation seriously.

Platt’s breathless over-eagerness is shown by the timing of his review, posted late yesterday (Tuesday). His reviews are normally posted in line with New York’s publication cycle, with new issues hitting newsstands every Monday. It seems he was more concerned with making Eater.com’s Week in Reviews than with writing responsible criticism.

You may be thinking, “Wait a sec! What about this very blog, New York Journal, which routinely reviews restaurants after only one visit?”

Well, I respectfully submit that there are some significant differences between Adam Platt and me. I’m not paid to do this, I spend my own money, I don’t do it full-time, and I don’t have the benefit of “diligent assistants” to make reservations for me.

I also haven’t changed my standards for one restaurant.

The Payoff: Chop Suey

In today’s Times, Frank Bruni awards one star to Chop Suey. He finds the view better than the food:

…sometimes food isn’t the primary consideration in deciding where to eat, and some restaurants have persuasive charms beyond the perimeter of the plate. Chop Suey is all about setting, a second-floor perch in the Renaissance Hotel that juts like a ship’s prow into a bold, brash sea of light.

As expected, he’s not impressed with the idea of consultant-chefs, Zak Pelaccio and Will Goldfarb:

The erratic results underscore the question of just how engaged such consultants get: of whether, once they’ve lofted a few ideas and cashed their paychecks, they feel any real pride of ownership or bother to follow through. I have my doubts. Chop Suey didn’t assuage them.

But there are enough winners to justify a star:

In intent, most dishes are more distinctive than the lowest-common-denominator tourist grub prevalent in this patch of town. Some are more distinctive in actuality, too.

The char siu — roasted pork with Hong Kong noodles as thin as angel-hair pasta — is described on the menu as “twice caramelized,” and the dominoes of tender pork demonstrate why. They have crisp, sweet surfaces and corners.

Crisp pie-shaped slices of scallion pancake are given some fruity zip by an Asian pear mostarda. A thick, juicy hamburger forsakes the usual condiments for kimchi, which does the trick. It’s a Korean Whopper.

As for Korean gnocchi, Chop Suey rushes in where Momofuku Ssam Bar earlier trod, serving steamed rice cakes with a spicy pork Bolognese of sorts. They don’t fall far short of their idols.

We and Eater both win $3 on our hypothetical one-dollar bets.

	Eater		NYJ
Bankroll	$80.50		$91.67
Gain/Loss	+3.00		+3.00
Total	$83.50		$94.67
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Won–Lost	36–15		36–15

Valentine's Day at Country

 

Note: Click here for a more recent review of Country.

It’s a little late to be blogging about Valentine’s Day. I hadn’t planned to say anything about our excellent meal at Country, as we went there last year too, and the format was fairly similar.

This time, there were two four-course menus captioned pour lui and pour elle, though we were allowed to mix-and-match between them—we both had the foie gras, for example. I wonder if any gay couples were offended by the presumption that every couple would be a man and a woman?

Willis Loughhead has taken over as executive chef, replacing Doug Psaltis, who left last November. We’re not exactly sure when Loughhead started. His name was printed on the Valentine’s Day menus, but his appointment wasn’t announced in the Times until April 2. “We’ve changed everything,” he told Grub Street.

Quite a few of the menu items currently shown on the Country website strongly resemble those served on Valentine’s Day, such as the Apple Velouté, the Chicken, the Sea Scallop, and the Bison. It struck us then as a first-class meal (especially for a holiday), though not perhaps the same extraordinary experience that Country seemed to us when it was new.

My girlfriend and I still love Country, and we look forward to sampling Chef Loughhead’s menu again on a more relaxed occasion.

Country (90 Madison Avenue at 29th Street, Flatiron District)

Food: ***
Service: ***
Ambiance: ***
Overall: ***