The full guide will list 100's of restaurants. Only a small subset get either stars or bibs.

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/ ... orees.html

Just some house-related analysis to give some perspective:

Only Schwa and Vie have both a GNR & a Michelin star. (Good calls, dicksond & dmnkly!)

Restaurants that received a Michelin star or two, but failed to obtain a GNR when nominated: Charlie Trotter's (I believe), Bonsoiree (which failed the GNR process twice).

Restaurants that received a Michelin star and/or Bib but had its GNR revoked: Frontera, Topolobampo (The GNR was for both Frontera and Topolobampo, correct?), Lula Cafe, Paramount Room

Restaurant that barely held on to its GNR, though seems to some like a huge omission for Michelin (although it could have been due to a fire): Avec

Restaurants that are not slam-dunk GNRs, but received Bibs: Hopleaf, Mixteco Grill

Restaurants that received a Bib and are solid GNRs (for now): Mado, Smak-Tak

*Opinions as to which restaurants are "solid" and "barely held onto a GNR" are my own.

Edited to add Schwa.

My question is as follows: Were any restaurants really and truly cheated out of a star be it because of their clearly superior cooking or the lifetime achievement award mentality that Michelin often adopts?

Les Nomades--a place I haven't even been to--seems most likely to fit the latter camp. One could make an argument, for the likes of the Publican, GatG, Frontera or even LTH favorites like TAC. I don't fully buy it though. When I compare these restaurants to the one-stars I've been to in France and Spain, they're not really on the same level. I love, love, love the Publican, but I can see why, in a vacuum, it didn't receive a star.

What's most frustrating about the Michelin starred list is the windfall effect. Places like L&E--I won't even comment on Crofton on Wells--certainly got a bit lucky. From my perspective, on no planet is L&E better than Publican or Avec. Given the caliber of the restaurants that actually received stars, I can make a pretty strong argument as to how Publican/Avec got "screwed".

So, in a vacuum, I don't see any glaring omissions and think the list is fine from that regard. When you consider who Michelin did bestow stars upon, however, then it gets a bit more dicey.

Some perspective from the original (I think) LA list announced in '07 for the '08 guide. If nothing else, the reviewers appear to be consistent, right down to the leak:

http://la.eater.com/archives/2007/11/09 ... re_out.php

Note no stars for the very good AOC and Lucques, which for me mirrors the dissing of Avec and North Pond here. Two for Spago and one for the hopelessly outdated and mediocre Valentino in Santa Monica blows away any overrating on the Chicago list. Maybe they erred in favor of underrating, which is easier to defend. The numbers for a region that is much more geographically expansive and diverse and somewhat larger in terms of sheer population compared to Chicago really make it look as if Michelin was probably unduly glum about SoCal dining, IMO.

Compared to LA/SoCal, Chicago fared well at all levels. Chicago clearly did great at the highest levels, but I still see a disconnect between the top and the bottom.

BryanZ wrote:From my perspective, on no planet is L&E better than Publican or Avec. Given the caliber of the restaurants that actually received stars, I can make a pretty strong argument as to how Publican/Avec got "screwed".

So, in a vacuum, I don't see any glaring omissions and think the list is fine from that regard. When you consider who Michelin did bestow stars upon, however, then it gets a bit more dicey.

Bryan - I generally agree with you, but not on Publican v. Longman & Eagle. Publican is classic, casual Kahan, lots of meat, hearty dishes. But they're not particularly complex, refined or original (albeit satisfying and well-executed). The last meal I had a L&E blew me away precisely because I couldn't believe the creativity, refinement and cooking chops that were being exhibited in that postage-stamp-sized kitchen at L&E. Maybe it was a one-off, and I intend to go back to find out - but it totally exceeded my expectations and, so far, was one of my best meals this year. If L&E consistently puts out meals like my last one there, then I would agree with the Michelin star, albeit ekeing in for the one-star, to be sure.

I am stunned that Mercat a la Planxa didn't get a star, or Hot Chocolate for that matter didn't get at least a Bib Gourmand.

jesteinf wrote:Perhaps leaving out Arun's will earn the guide some credibility.

Josh, you just earned yourself a two year subscription to the Local Beet! Thanks!!

And BTW, does Paul Kahn mean the Clash, or just generally a clash?

BryanZ wrote:So, in a vacuum, I don't see any glaring omissions and think the list is fine from that regard. When you consider who Michelin did bestow stars upon, however, then it gets a bit more dicey.

Well said and well put.

Also interesting that Vie is the only suburban starred restaurant.

jesteinf wrote:Also interesting that Vie is the only suburban starred restaurant.

Crofton is a suburban restaurant too. It just happens to be downtown.

I agree completely with aschie30 in regards to L& E, let me tell you, it blew away my uninspired, and almost bland set menu at Avenues(they only had two menus, meat and veg), I had Friday night, and for the $600 price tag, I couldn't have been more underwhelmed and disappointed. My meal at Everest was slightly better, but neither one even came close to Sixteen or Tru, where service was incredible. Im a huge of fan of Bonsoiree, so I am glad they made it. Imagine what I could do with $600 at L&E?

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:Also interesting that Vie is the only suburban starred restaurant.

Crofton is a suburban restaurant too. It just happens to be downtown.

I love Evil Kenny.

nicinchic wrote:I agree completely with aschie30 in regards to L& E, let me tell you, it blew away my uninspired, and almost bland set menu at Avenues(they only had two menus, meat and veg), I had Friday night, and for the $600 price tag, I couldn't have been more underwhelmed and disappointed. My meal at Everest was slightly better, but neither one even came close to Sixteen or Tru, where service was incredible. Im a huge of fan of Bonsoiree, so I am glad they made it. Imagine what I could do with $600 at L&E?

Alinea only has one menu...and they got three stars.

jesteinf wrote:Also interesting that Vie is the only suburban starred restaurant.

Vettel reported that Naret & Co. only ventured approximately 20 miles out of the city (their estimate), so many suburban restaurants didn't make the distance cut. Now, whether that 20 mile radius was drawn purposefully, after careful research, or from a good case of suburbanitis, I don't know.

I was surprised that Moto didn't receive a star (particularly given that Otom received a Bib Gourmand nod). It would have been a second GNR/Michelin restaurant. And unless one counts Takashi, no Asian restaurants.

Did the 20 mile limit exclude Carlos?

My fascination with Michelin and the outsiders' perspective is definitely tempered by the fact that they really didn't seem to "get" Chicago or its dining scene as much as I'd hoped. I say this mainly because I feel like the overall list is very short and leaves a fair amount worthy places out. Yes, there are also a couple star recipients that I believe shouldn't be there at all but I'm guessing that'd be true for any of us...about any similar list.

The silver lining is that many great places in town won't now be swarmingly busy with tourists!

=R=

aschie30 wrote:

jesteinf wrote:Also interesting that Vie is the only suburban starred restaurant.

Vettel reported that Naret & Co. only ventured approximately 20 miles out of the city (their estimate), so many suburban restaurants didn't make the distance cut. Now, whether that 20 mile radius was drawn purposefully, after careful research, or from a good case of suburbanitis, I don't know.

I interpreted the 20 mile remark to be the result, not the design. That is, Vie is 20 miles from downtown and it turned out to be the furthest restaurant they chose to include. I think we'll know more when the full book is released and we can see the full range of restaurants that are included, but not starred.

Darren72 wrote:The two biggest surprises to me are Ria (a restaurant virtually ignored on this site) and Longman and Eagle. I like L & E a lot, but I wouldn't consider it destination dining or in the same league as many of the other single-star restaurants.

I am just glad that a Michelin star rated restaurant sells Old Style.

ronnie_suburban wrote:My fascination with Michelin and the outsiders' perspective is definitely tempered by the fact that they really didn't seem to "get" Chicago or its dining scene as much as I'd hoped. I say this mainly because I feel like the overall list is very short and leaves a fair amount worthy places out. Yes, there are also a couple star recipients that I believe shouldn't be there at all but I'm guessing that'd be true for any of us...about any similar list.

The silver lining is that many great places in town won't now be swarmingly busy with tourists!

=R=

Ronnie, when my wife and researched restaurants in France for a recent trip, one theme that emerged was that the Michelin list is, shall we say, controversial there also. Not controversial in the sense of who got 3 stars and who got 2, but that the 1 and 2 star restaurants were not nearly as great and exciting as many other places. I don't follow the Paris dining scene, but I could imagine a lot of people there saying the same thing about Michelin as you did above. Just a thought.

Darren72 wrote:

aschie30 wrote:

jesteinf wrote:Also interesting that Vie is the only suburban starred restaurant.

Vettel reported that Naret & Co. only ventured approximately 20 miles out of the city (their estimate), so many suburban restaurants didn't make the distance cut. Now, whether that 20 mile radius was drawn purposefully, after careful research, or from a good case of suburbanitis, I don't know.

I interpreted the 20 mile remark to be the result, not the design. That is, Vie is 20 miles from downtown and it turned out to be the furthest restaurant they chose to include. I think we'll know more when the full book is released and we can see the full range of restaurants that are included, but not starred.

Not for nothing, but at least 1/2 of the SF stars, and both of the 3-stars, in the SF book are in Napa Valley or the South Bay/Silicon Valley, at least 60 miles and 90 minutes away. Only 1 of the 3 2-stars is in SF, Coi.

Darren72 wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:My fascination with Michelin and the outsiders' perspective is definitely tempered by the fact that they really didn't seem to "get" Chicago or its dining scene as much as I'd hoped. I say this mainly because I feel like the overall list is very short and leaves a fair amount worthy places out. Yes, there are also a couple star recipients that I believe shouldn't be there at all but I'm guessing that'd be true for any of us...about any similar list.

The silver lining is that many great places in town won't now be swarmingly busy with tourists!

=R=

Ronnie, when my wife and researched restaurants in France for a recent trip, one theme that emerged was that the Michelin list is, shall we say, controversial there also. Not controversial in the sense of who got 3 stars and who got 2, but that the 1 and 2 star restaurants were not nearly as great and exciting as many other places. I don't follow the Paris dining scene, but I could imagine a lot of people there saying the same thing about Michelin as you did above. Just a thought.

This matches up with my experience, too. For the most part, the no-star places we ate in Paris were the most exciting. The 3's were solidly 3's. The 1's and 2's were much more 'hit or miss' for us. Perhaps I was naive in thinking that the Chicago guide would somehow be different.

=R=

I doubt anyone missed this, but in case... last year the Five Favorite Affordable Restaurants list was published by the CEO of Underwriters Laboratories.

Haters gotta hate.

G Wiv wrote:

aschie30 wrote:FWIW, there's a lot of support on the Twitterverse for Twin Anchors (always good to step away from LTH for a different perspective).

I weigh in with Kevin Pang on the Tribune blog about Twin Anchors and its Bib Gourmand award. Twin Anchors and the merits of "Meat Jello"

Where did the "toss peanuts on the floor" thing come from? Have you actually been to Twin Anchors in the last 10 years? Be honest.

Kennyz wrote:I doubt anyone missed this, but in case... last year the Five Favorite Affordable Restaurants list was published by the CEO of Underwriters Laboratories.

Well, speaking for me, myself, and I, personally, there's nowhere I would even consider going unless it were personally vouched for by the CEO of Underwriters Laboratories.

GAF wrote:I was surprised that Moto didn't receive a star (particularly given that Otom received a Bib Gourmand nod). It would have been a second GNR/Michelin restaurant. And unless one counts Takashi, no Asian restaurants.

Did the 20 mile limit exclude Carlos?

If I'm not mistaken, Schwa is a GNR/Michelin recipient.

Not for nothing, but at least 1/2 of the SF stars, and both of the 3-stars, in the SF book are in Napa Valley or the South Bay/Silicon Valley, at least 60 miles and 90 minutes away. Only 1 of the 3 2-stars is in SF, Coi.

On the other hand, none of the Michelin NY restaurants are outside the city limits and only a handful are outside Manhattan in Brooklyn/Queens.

I'm completely gobsmacked by the L&E thing - both dinners and the brunch I had there were tepid at best and the service was non-existant. Don't get me wrong: credit where credit is due - the menu at L&E could be considered creative, but everything was executed so poorly I'm shocked that there are people that have had great meals there. Throw in the really, really bad (there's no other word for it - just 'bad') service and I'm astonished.

I'm completely shocked that these guys could get a star and Avec and the Bristol could be left out. I get that both Avec, the Bristol, The Publican, et al have the 'casual dining' thing with communal tables that doesn't necessarily subscribe to the Michelin M.O. But if the Michelin critics wanted a creative menu, great service AND their own table - they could have given a star to Lula...I just don't get it.

Avec appears to have been left off because of the fire, per this interview

What happened with avec—why didn't it get a star?
They had the fire and we were not able to go back there as much as we wanted to. We closed our selection at the beginning of September so we didn't have time. It was very good before the fire, but we couldn't go back. We didn't know if it was going to re-open or not so we didn't want to print a restaurant that we didn't know if it was going to be open. Obviously now that it's re-opened our inspectors will go there.