NY Times Raves Over Green Zebra

You'll need a password to read the story. Its free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/dinin ... html?8hpib

Yes, I was just reading this. You know, I love it when the New York press portrays Chicagoans as meat eating hicks. I know that people will disagree with me, but I found the Times article by Apple back in March/April that pretty much equated Chicago's food offerings with hot dogs incredibly offensive. Now today's comment:

But a new restaurant, Green Zebra, offers what amounts to four-star vegetarian food almost exclusively. In business since April, it is not in New York or San Francisco, but in Chicago, a city best known for its steak houses and hot dogs (which are piled so high with pickles, lettuce and tomatoes that everyone jokes that they are the citizenry's primary source of vegetables).

I grew up in New York and this uninformed garbage is what leads my relatives to say things like, 'Well, of course, Melissa likes Chicago, she doesn't really like big cities."

Wow,

I went a couple months ago (during all those rains we had in spring) and enjoyed my meal incredibly. As for the article, I didn't recognize most of the dishes mentioned. I guess they really do keep a seasonal menu. Time to go back and sample summer at Green Zebra!

Hey MAG, being from the east coast myself, I'd say there's a general lack of understanding at what a big and exciting city Chicago is. I was very surprised to find such a vibrant city for music, dining, etc. when I moved here a decade ago - I've never looked back.

vegmojo

Which is why I hate the Coen bros. and Woody Allen. If I have to endure one more movie about people's funny accents or certain people's affinity for potted meats, I might go on the offensive. Rant over, sort of.

It's kind of odd that Johnny Apple would choose to talk smack, he being a solid, fat, shit-kicking midwesterner himself. The rest of the hacks they have there never surprise me - MAG, you are exactly right about the faux-surprise displayed every 6 months when they "discover" an Avec or now, Green Zebra, and proclaim Chicagoans to be less barbaric than suspected. Ugh!

When I was at Zagat, I had to fend off questions like "Why do all Chicago restaurants serve pizza and ribs?" on a regular basis. I suppose I could have asked why there are so many below par trattorias in the E. 60s and 70s, but the effort was never there. That said, New York does have better Italian, it also has better pastrami (Katz's) and japanese and I guess more "fine" dining options - although from a best of the best perspective I think Trio under the Aschatz regime is better than anything in NYC.

Chicago has better:

Mexican (also amusing how the Times runs their annual "good mexican on Lexington or Jackson Heights/Corona or fill in the blank" article"), Chinese, BBQ/Southern, Street (dog, i-beef, fried seafood), LItho/Polish. (maybe leave this off the cv).

what are our other relative strengths? I never came across a pizza puff in new york either, so there's one more.

MAG wrote:I grew up in New York and this uninformed garbage is what leads my relatives to say things like, 'Well, of course, Melissa likes Chicago, she doesn't really like big cities."

Melissa:

I too grew up near and in Manhattan, all within a few miles of Times Square (living on both sides of the Hudson) and all my relatives still live back there. I find that, aside from the inevitable jokes and taunts and the genuine sense of being from the centre of the universe,* the vast majority of real (Metro-)New Yorkers I know really like Chicago and praise it mightily once they get out here a bit; they recognise it as a real city, marvel at how much more liveable it is in many ways and are fascinated and/or amused by how what sometimes looks so familiar can be so different.

But then there are the super-New Yorkers, the sort who have to make the tired jokes about 'Long Guyland' and 'Joysey' (the places to which most non-wealthy New Yorkers end up moving at some point) and always need to take a haughty posture toward rube-filled places like Chicago or places that are not to be taken seriously, like L.A.

Well, over the years, I've discerned a pattern: the majority of these 'hyper-New Yorkers' aren't from New York.** They're almost always from places no native New Yorker could find on a map (even the older ones)... genuine rubes, not because of where they're from but for how they think...

And, to address chowist focus, could anyone give more details on Green Zebra or links to available reports? (I refuse to read the New York Times... an old grudge...)...

Antonius

* I confess, I still have a sense of being from there that interferes with the feeling of being a Chicagoan, despite 15 years here and the great affection and respect I have for this city... What's born in the blood can't be beat out of the bone, as my grandmother from "the City" used to say...

** There are exceptions, many of whom are media stars who like to play up the chic of being a New Yorker at the expense of the rest of the world. But even amongst them are many non-New Yorkers... Of course Woody Allen is a native but the vast majority of the people that have appeared on Saturday Night Live, which for long years wallowed in the infantile Long-Guyland and Joysey humour were imports from elsewhere, trying, I suppose, to be thought of as New Yorkers by virtue of their posture.
_____________
This is an addition after the original post:

I don't mean to imply that "New Yorkers who act like jerks" are all not from New York and ergo there are no jerky New Yorkers. I just mean to call attention to the fact that, despite their local pride and even chauvinism, most New Yorkers I've known really like Chicago if they get to know it at all (and I think that comes in at least part from the fact that they appreciate real urbanity, and this city is a real urbs in horto). The attitude "New York is da best -- everything else is the barbarian hinterland" is found among some New Yorkers but also commonly among -- and is expressed especially vociferously by -- what seem to be New Yorker wanna-bes.

A

Actually, it is a bizarre, sloppy and sort of stupid article when you read it carefully. Inconsistent, and while it is generally positive about Green Zebra, I bet it made McClain sort of crazy.

It mostly ignores his work at Spring, tending to focus on his (long ago) time at Trio. There are repeated comments about the meat and fish on the menu, which seems to be a big issue for the reviewer. And the fact that he openly questions whether Green Zebra can get peak produce in the winter is pretty ballsy. Come on, what decade does he live in? Can you say "greenhouse" and "air freight"?

It states Chicago is about hot dogs (with lettuce???) and steaks, but then mentions 4 high end places in the country that serve good vegetarian options, and one is CT's.

To some degree, he is playing to his audience with the stereotypical Chicago references, but you underestimate the sophistication of the readership of the Times food section. They all know about CT's, Trio, etc, and there have been extensive articles about Chicago as one of the best food destinations. And people who are interested in a high end veg-focused place are not going to be NY rubes either.

Mostly I think the article shows that the writer is none too sophisticated regarding restaurants, showing an equal degree of disrespect to his readers, McClain, and Chicago. Plus, either he has serious doubts about the viability of a good vegetarian place, or he thinks his readers will. Either way, I would expect more of a focus on the place, and the food, and less speculation about other stuff in a well done review.

For reference, Bittman is the columnist who writes the Minimalist, which is mostly about cooking. He rarely does restaurant reviews. Just compare it to any of Frank Bruni's reviews.

dicksond wrote:For reference, Bittman is the columnist who writes the Minimalist, which is mostly about cooking. He rarely does restaurant reviews. Just compare it to any of Frank Bruni's reviews.

d:

Any idea where he's from?

A

Antonius wrote:
Any idea where he's from?

A

No, but his Minimalist column, about food and preparation, is often good. I think the point about focusing on produce in season is carried over from there and he does not completely get how things are different for a high end restaurant.

I do like to check and read the Times Food and Dining section (the comparisons to the Trib are in a different topic here, so I will not go there), but I do not follow the pedigree of the writers. Probably should.

On this topic, there was a strange multi-restaurant review in a recent issue of the Wine Spectator that purported to be comparing WS reviews of 3 places in New York with NYT reviews. It turned out to be explaining the WS review process and, too briefly, how it differed from the Times. I was hoping for a detailed exposition on the methodolgy of a reviewer, but no dice. The big conclusion was that WS gives much more weight to wine service, and sometimes evaluates the cuisine differently, thus the higher ratings for these places.

Of course, the real difference is that beyond wine, WS is a lifestyle periodical that aims to show us how to live a glamorous lifestyle, while the Times (God bless them) actually tries to do serious food and drink criticism. So the WS always gushes about restaurants, and only (semi)seriously reviews wine. Their restaurant reviews are of use evaluating wine lists, though one can assume a certain level of competence in the kitchen. But I took the article to be a response to serious questions about their restaurant reviews.

All restaurant reviewers must bow to the New York Times, at least in the US. All wine reviewers to Robert Parker. Do not underestimate the power they hold over our dining and drinking lives.

dicksond wrote:Actually, it is a bizarre, sloppy and sort of stupid article when you read it carefully. Inconsistent, and while it is generally positive about Green Zebra, I bet it made McClain sort of crazy...

Mostly I think the article shows that the writer is none too sophisticated regarding restaurants, showing an equal degree of disrespect to his readers, McClain, and Chicago...I would expect more of a focus on the place, and the food, and less speculation about other stuff in a well done review.

Mark Bittman writes well.

Rest assured that from a chow perspective, however, he is entirely irrelevant. And the recipes he writes up, are, well , uh, why not say it--irrelevant too.

Personally, having now drawn my sword, I too now know the pleasures of being a critic--create nothing, endlessly expound.

dicksond wrote:All restaurant reviewers must bow to the New York Times, at least in the US. All wine reviewers to Robert Parker. Do not underestimate the power they hold over our dining and drinking lives.

I don't know about this.
Reviewers can be a very independent and cranky lot and most choose to rely on their own opinions/experience/biases in writing reviews. (Which is not to say there havent been times when I thought a writer took a stance simply because the NYT took another -- but that's another story.) That's always been my operating m.o. anyway.

Bittman does have experience writing restaurant reviews. He spent a few years as one of the Times' reviewers in Connecticut.

Chicago has better:

Mexican (also amusing how the Times runs their annual "good mexican on Lexington or Jackson Heights/Corona or fill in the blank" article"), Chinese, BBQ/Southern, Street (dog, i-beef, fried seafood), LItho/Polish. (maybe leave this off the cv).

what are our other relative strengths? I never came across a pizza puff in new york either, so there's one more.
_____________________________________

Being a transplanted native New Yorker myself, I can chime in on this subject with some measure of reliability, I think. I've never fallen victim to the whole Chicago vs New York thing. Both cities are wonderful (and awful) in their own right, and have, for reasons of immigration, economics, and geography, developed particular and at times peculiar styles all their own, unique even among the rest of the country. As far as food, I prefer, for example, the NYC style pizza slice, a decent bagel or knish, and a slow-grilled kosher hot dog with mustard and kraut (things which, admittedly, are becoming harder to find in NYC). Of course, that's why I love this group - all it takes in Chicago is a bit of an intrepid soul to find the real stuff, and you'll be rewarded handsomely. I'll affirm that NYC can't touch Chicago when it comes to Mexican, Polish, or Korean food. Chicago might be the only city that offers these three particular cuisines in such variety and authenticity. As far as pizza - I'll gladly take the trip to D'amato's or Sicilia to get my fix for a "real" slice of Sicilian bakery pizza. For bagels, bialys, chopped liver, rye bread, lox, etc... Kaufman's and the NY Bagels and Bialys on Dempster stand up to anything in Brooklyn or the Lower East Side, and Kaufman's pumpernickel bagels with onion maybe even surpass what NYC can offer. Hon Kee on Argyle has the type of Cantonese BBQ and soups I used to enjoy in NYC's Chinatown before it became postmodern (and at 1970's prices, too!!). I only keep mentioning New York because for me, that's the standard - I grew up eating there and developed my particular tastes from the food on offer. I am not a fine dining person by any means, but the times I've treated myself - at Blackbird, MK, and Arun's - I was blown away and totally delighted with the experiences at these great restaurants. The point of all this being - New Yorkers can be snobby, pigheaded bastards, but with some justification; there's really a great, at times genre-defining, level of food on offer there. But as one who has taken to Chicago like a moil to foreskin, I can honestly say that Chicago has its own grand traditions and a range of cuisine which would shatter any preconceived notions about the "meat and potatoes" nature of this burg. I, for one, am going to enjoy myself and quietly smirk at my friends back east who have no idea what they're missing (and, in most cases, enjoy a cigarette afterwards as well!! take that!!)

Rebbe

I must admit that I'm a little taken aback by the defensiveness of some of the posters in this thread. I have to agree with the Rabbi. As a guy who lived in New York and its near suburbs for almost ten years, I think that Chicago fares quite favorably to it on many culinary levels.

I certainly hope that Chef McClain is more appreciative of the Times' comparison of his menu to some of the finest places that city has to offer as a compliment rather than the backhanded sleight some of you have perceived it to be.

I wouldn't trade Chicago and its unique combination of urbanity and friendliness for New York ever again.

And as a frequent Chicago steak eater, I take no offense in this city being defined as a place where one can get great old style steaks and chops. I ate far more dogs at Papaya King in Manhattan than I have at Gold Coast in Chicago.

Personally, I appreciated Bittman's article.