Woodburning Barbecue Houses in Chicago

The thread where this discussion took place is locked so I guess it's time to start a new one. [Locked thread is a Great Neighborhood Restaurant nominating thread - moderator]

G Wiv wrote:Uncle John's BBQ is the only other Chicago BBQ joint, aside from Honey 1, using straight (100%) wood with both Barbara Ann's and Lem's using a mix of charcoal and wood.

Santander wrote:Neither is my favorite, certainly, but at discrete moments of time* at least Ribs 'N Bibs on 53rd street in Hyde Park and Smokin M's in Forest Park claimed to have been using exclusively wood-burning "aquarium" smokers.

I believe Santander is correct about Ribs 'n' Bibs (I don't know about Smokin' M's, plus it's not in Chicago). The other day I saw them tending the fire, which appeared to be made entirely of split logs. According to the pitman they burn a mix of hickory and oak exclusively. They use a little charcoal to get the fire going in the morning but after that it's nothing but wood in their traditional Chicago glass and steel pit. So it seems that Ribs 'n' Bibs, in business over 40 years, may be Chicago's oldest wood burner by a wide margin.

Ribs 'n' Bibs
5300 S Dorchester Av
Chicago
773-493-0400 ("Git to the phone!")
Sun-Thu 11am-midnight, Fri-Sat 11am-1am

Peter,

Thanks for the followup on Santanders info, really interesting info about Ribs 'n' Bibs. I'm looking forward to a visit.

On my one visit to Smokin' M's they were burning straight wood in an Aquarium smoker.

Enjoy,
Gary

I was reviewing a recorded conversation with Mack at Uncle John's, and he mentioned that although he prefers wood, he sometimes reverts to charcoal. He said,

"Most of the time I use wood, and the wood here in Chicago is mostly mulberry and oak and elm and sometimes you might get hickory but most of the time it's mulberry."

I was surprised that mulberry is used at all (I'd think it'd be too soft), but there's no arguing with Mack's product.

P&P, which I wrote about in the Reader, uses some charcoal but whole logs were plainly visible as well in the pit.

P & P BBQ Soul Food
3734 W. Division
773-276-7756

Rene G wrote:(I don't know about Smokin' M's, plus it's not in Chicago).

I don't know what fuel they use, either, but surely denying that Smokin' M's is Chicago barbecue unnecessary, anti-suburban quibbling? I'm surprised that somebody who spends so much time touring the southern suburbs would stoop to it.

I have always assumed that, unless otherwise specified, "Chicago" in the sense of discussion of restaurants on this board, is equivalent to "Chicagoland" and means the entire metropolitan area, especially when used as an adjective.

LAZ wrote:I don't know what fuel they use, either, but surely denying that Smokin' M's is Chicago barbecue unnecessary, anti-suburban quibbling? I'm surprised that somebody who spends so much time touring the southern suburbs would stoop to it.

I have always assumed that, unless otherwise specified, "Chicago" in the sense of discussion of restaurants on this board, is equivalent to "Chicagoland" and means the entire metropolitan area, especially when used as an adjective.

I was responding to statements in another thread and only provided the briefest possible quotes. A link to the other thread was provided for those who wished to read the full exchange. Perhaps I should have included Santander's next sentence.

Santander wrote:The existence of other neighborhood BBQ joints on Chicago's South and West sides that are not covered on our board makes Gary's interesting statement true only for what we know, that is, what is covered on LTHForum, and in Chicago proper, as opposed to the outlying area.

In my response (as well as the thread's title) I was trying to make it clear I was limiting myself to Chicago proper and wasn't referring to the outlying areas. First, because when G Wiv referred to "Chicago BBQ joint[s]" I thought it very possible he was speaking only of establishments in the city. Second, because I have little knowledge of suburban barbecue.

Clearly the term "Chicago" can be ambiguous. I'm sure I'm not always consistent but when I say Chicago I tend to mean the city proper. I'll often say "in the city" or something similar to avoid confusion. If I'm referring to the whole region I'll often say "Chicago area" or even "Chicagoland." Case in point: I originally used "Chicago" in the title of a recent thread on a suburban chicken restaurant but changed it to "Chicago(land)" after I decided it was misleading.

Rene G wrote:First, because when G Wiv referred to "Chicago BBQ joint[s]" I thought it very possible he was speaking only of establishments in the city. Second, because I have little knowledge of suburban barbecue.

Peter,

I think you are being modest about your suburban BBQ knowledge, but yes, Chicago, at least as I use the term, refers to Chicago only. Chicagoland means, of course, surrounding area and might include Exsenator's which burns mostly wood with a starter fire of charcoal.

Exsenator's Wood Pile



I should note that, like Peter, I'm not sure I'm always consistent but when I say Chicago I tend to mean city proper.

Enjoy,
Gary

Exsenator's BBQ
3349 W. 159th
Markham, IL
708-333-1211

Rene G wrote:Clearly the term "Chicago" can be ambiguous. I'm sure I'm not always consistent but when I say Chicago I tend to mean the city proper. I'll often say "in the city" or something similar to avoid confusion. If I'm referring to the whole region I'll often say "Chicago area" or even "Chicagoland."

I don't think anyone's very consistent, but I rarely see anyone except city dwellers limiting the use of "Chicago" to mean inside-city-limits-only.

I remember when the fights in barbecue threads were about barbecue.

Speaking of P&P (which so far, only I am), the Tribstew went there yesterday.

LAZ wrote:

Rene G wrote:Clearly the term "Chicago" can be ambiguous. I'm sure I'm not always consistent but when I say Chicago I tend to mean the city proper. I'll often say "in the city" or something similar to avoid confusion. If I'm referring to the whole region I'll often say "Chicago area" or even "Chicagoland."

I don't think anyone's very consistent, but I rarely see anyone except city dwellers limiting the use of "Chicago" to mean inside-city-limits-only.

I'm hesitant to stick my toe in this one, as I am one of your aforementioned Chicago-dwellers and am perhaps proving your point, but it seems reasonable and useful to me that, on a Chicago-area message board, many would make a distinction between Chicago proper and its environs, for geographical informativeness. I personally use the narrow definition of "Chicago" meaning "within city limits" and the more expansive "Chicago area" to mean Chicagoland.

Binko wrote:

LAZ wrote:

Rene G wrote:Clearly the term "Chicago" can be ambiguous. I'm sure I'm not always consistent but when I say Chicago I tend to mean the city proper. I'll often say "in the city" or something similar to avoid confusion. If I'm referring to the whole region I'll often say "Chicago area" or even "Chicagoland."

I don't think anyone's very consistent, but I rarely see anyone except city dwellers limiting the use of "Chicago" to mean inside-city-limits-only.

I'm hesitant to stick my toe in this one, as I am one of your aforementioned Chicago-dwellers and am perhaps proving your point, but it seems reasonable and useful to me that, on a Chicago-area message board, many would make a distinction between Chicago proper and its environs, for geographical informativeness. I personally use the narrow definition of "Chicago" meaning "within city limits" and the more expansive "Chicago area" to mean Chicagoland.

I am a suburbanite and when I say "Chicago" I mean the city proper. When I am referring to the entire metro area, I say either "Chicagoland" or "the Chicago area" but I'm just anal that way

=R=

hm, is edison park chicago or is it just edison park?

MBK wrote:hm, is edison park chicago or is it just edison park?

Edison Park is in Chicago. It's the name of the Neighborhood.

ronnie_suburban wrote:I am a suburbanite and when I say "Chicago" I mean the city proper. When I am referring to the entire metro area, I say either "Chicagoland" or "the Chicago area" but I'm just anal that way

If you were in, say, Oklahoma, and somebody asked where you live, what would you say?

I agree that there's sometimes a useful distinction to be made between the city of Chicago and -- as the chronically redundant put it -- the greater Chicagoland metropolitan area, but I don't see that as appropriately applied to a style of cooking. For example, some people here like to talk about "suburban Chinese," as if there were no restaurants serving fat egg rolls and chop suey within city limits, and no authentic Chinese food in the suburbs.

If somebody came on this board and asked, "Where are the best places for Italian beef in Chicago?" would all of you Chicago-means-within-city-limits purists refrain from mentioning Johnnie's? (In a recent discussion elsewhere, one of you -- you know who you are -- brought up Johnnie's when the subject was beef in downtown Chicago! )

We have never yet been able to agree on a satisfactory definition of just what constitutes Chicago barbecue, and I doubt we ever will, but to claim that it stops at the city borders is, as I said in my earlier post, quibbling.*

*Although Rene G's explanation of what he was responding to lets him off the hook in that instance.

LAZ wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I am a suburbanite and when I say "Chicago" I mean the city proper. When I am referring to the entire metro area, I say either "Chicagoland" or "the Chicago area" but I'm just anal that way

If you were in, say, Oklahoma, and somebody asked where you live, what would you say?

That's easy . . .

I'd say I'm from the "Chicago area."

However, if someone saw me wearing my Cubs hat and asked me if I was from Chicago -- as happened during a recent vacation -- I'd likely say "yes" and not bother getting more specific than that.

=R=

Isn't charcoal made from wood? So aren't these all woodburning barbecue houses?

LAZ wrote:If somebody came on this board and asked, "Where are the best places for Italian beef in Chicago?" would all of you Chicago-means-within-city-limits purists refrain from mentioning Johnnie's? (In a recent discussion elsewhere, one of you -- you know who you are -- brought up Johnnie's when the subject was beef in downtown Chicago! )

Funny you should mention Johnnie's. Before I edited it for brevity, my original post included it as an example of a sentence I would never form: "Johnnie's is my favorite beef in Chicago." It grates on my ears, purely out of geographical pedantry, I guess. I would be compelled to say "Chicago area." If someone posed to me the above question, I would of course mention Johnnie's--who wouldn't--but with the explanatory "if you include the near suburbs" or "it's in nearby Elmwood Park" or something of the sort. To me, it's like asking someone for their favorite pizza in New York City, and somebody pointing you to, say, Grimaldi's in Hoboken. Once again, I'd be apt to say "Well, it's not exactly New York City, but if you're willing to hop on the PATH...."

ronnie_suburban wrote:I'd say I'm from the "Chicago area."

However, if someone saw me wearing my Cubs hat and asked me if I was from Chicago -- as happened during a recent vacation -- I'd likely say "yes" and not bother getting more specific than that.

When I tell people in other cities that I'm from Chicago, they often tend to think I mean a suburb of Chicago. They always ask what town I live in because Uncle Joe is from Streamwood, then I have to explain that when I say I'm from Chicago, I mean the City of Chicago proper. This always grates on my nerves because I've never lived in a suburb in my life. Their reaction is usually predictable. Either I get a look of shock that I actually live in the big bad city or a look of admiration because I live in the big bad city.

stevez wrote:When I tell people in other cities that I'm from Chicago, they often tend to think I mean a suburb of Chicago.

Yep. I got this all the time in college--and I was in faraway Evanston! Eventually, I learned to answer "I'm from Chicago, near Midway, in the city" to nip the follow-up question in the bud.

In view of the number of posts from visitors to Chicago, it seems a service to those unfamiliar with the city to clarify which establishments are located within the city limits.

Josephine wrote:In view of the number of posts from visitors to Chicago, it seems a service to those unfamiliar with the city to clarify which establishments are located within the city limits.

You would think that posting the address of a place, as is the custom on LTH, would be good enough to address that issue.

LAZ wrote:We have never yet been able to agree on a satisfactory definition of just what constitutes Chicago barbecue, and I doubt we ever will, but to claim that it stops at the city borders is, as I said in my earlier post, quibbling.*

*Although Rene G's explanation of what he was responding to lets him off the hook in that instance.

LTH,

It is amazing how easily a thread gets sidetracked/hijacked. No one is saying BBQ stops at the Chicago border, I occasionally include Speed Queen in my 'local' BBQ discussions and Zaffiro's when discussing thin crust pizza, but Chicago, or Chicago proper as I often use, means city limits.

As an aside, it always seems suburbanites who take such issue with the subject. Just let me say, once and for all, us city dwellers love and respect you and all your fine eating establishments, really we do, really. (No, I mean it, really)

Enjoy,
Gary

Speed Queen Bar-BQ
1130 W Walnut St
Milwaukee, WI 53205
414-265-2900

Zaffiro's Pizza & Bar
1724 N Farwell Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53202
414-289-8776

Josephine wrote:In view of the number of posts from visitors to Chicago, it seems a service to those unfamiliar with the city to clarify which establishments are located within the city limits.

It's a service to everyone to provide a complete address whenever you're talking about a specific restaurant.

But that folks who will blithely tell tourists to head down to 69th Street for barbecue or to Humboldt Park for Mexican food should feel a need to caution them about crossing the city line seems absurd.

FWIW, Binko, when I asked a New York friend to recommend some restaurants in Manhattan, his list mostly concentrated on Queens. Now, if I were asked to recommend a place in the Loop, it would never occur to me to suggest somewhere in Uptown, let alone Schaumburg.

I probably wouldn't say, "Johnnie's is my favorite Italian beef in Chicago," either, but I wouldn't feel compelled to point out that it's not really in Chicago if somebody mentioned it in a list of great Chicago beef stands, or if asked about my favorite "Chicago beef stands." And I bet city dwellers would howl if someone suggested that Johnnie's is better because suburban beef must be intrinsically better than or different from city beef.

Like it or not, Chicago is a metropolis, and the suburbs are part of it. Heck, until 1889, three quarters of the city was in the suburbs.

Tangentially, I find most often that when Chicagoans -- excuse me -- Chicagolanders ask me where I'm from, they don't really want to know where I live or even where I was born, but where my grandparents came from. When I first moved here and met people while out on business, they would say "Where are you from?" and I would respond with the name of my company. And they'd say, "No, where are you from?" And I'd say, "I grew up in Detroit." (I actually grew up 1 mile outside Detroit city limits, but....) And they'd say, "Are you Greek? Are you Italian?"

LAZ wrote:FWIW, Binko, when I asked a New York friend to recommend some restaurants in Manhattan, his list mostly concentrated on Queens.

I would consider that odd.

Anyhow, enough. For me, it's a useful geographic distinction, (i.e. I cast no aspersions on the culinary or cultural import of the suburbs by making the distinction.) Your usage varies. That's fine.

LAZ wrote: But that folks who will blithely tell tourists to head down to 69th Street for barbecue or to Humboldt Park for Mexican food should feel a need to caution them about crossing the city line seems absurd.

It's not absurd if you weigh public transportation (including taxi availability) into the bargain.

Exsenator's looks great - a Markham field trip is certainly in store. Thanks for the R&B info, Rene. As both you and Gary have pointed out, my geographic consideration was in response to the other thread, and should not exist as an independent speculation or source of contention. I'll eat great BBQ anywhere, and Chicago vs. Chicagoland vs. "Chicago-based" (about which I think we have a wonderfully enlightened and encompassing view) nomenclature can be applied phenomenologically - whatever works for the individual.

Josephine wrote:

LAZ wrote: But that folks who will blithely tell tourists to head down to 69th Street for barbecue or to Humboldt Park for Mexican food should feel a need to caution them about crossing the city line seems absurd.

It's not absurd if you weigh public transportation (including taxi availability) into the bargain.

It's a heck of a lot easier to get a taxi in Rosemont than in Grand Crossing. And you can get there on the L.

LAZ wrote:But that folks who will blithely tell tourists to head down to 69th Street for barbecue or to Humboldt Park for Mexican food should feel a need to caution them about crossing the city line seems absurd.

i don't know a lot of people who would recommend humboldt park for mexican food (maybe for Maiz?), but can i point out that if they did no city line would be crossed--both of the above are in chicago?

this thread has jumped the shark.

so one noticeable absence from the above list is Smoque, which has quite a fanfare. I guess the reason for that is obvious... but what exactly do they use? a mix? i was trying to figure it out from the smoque thread but there's so many asides in that thread i never seemed to locate it...

Does anyone know what I57 rib house uses? I thought they used all wood myself... ? (the one at i57 and 115th specifically) :]

Mike G wrote:Isn't charcoal made from wood? So aren't these all woodburning barbecue houses?

Yeah - I think decent charcoal qualifies. The difference between something cooked over decent lump (or even RO Chef's Select) and something cooked on a gas grill is obviously pretty pronounced. Good charcoal is another form of wood that adds to the smoke flavor.

For me the larger distinction is between places that use live fire vs. electric or gas cookers with wood chips. It takes a different skill level and commitment to go with a live fire vs. other methods.

LAZ wrote:But that folks who will blithely tell tourists to head down to 69th Street for barbecue or to Humboldt Park for Mexican food should feel a need to caution them about crossing the city line seems absurd.

dddane wrote:i don't know a lot of people who would recommend humboldt park for mexican food (maybe for Maiz?), but can i point out that if they did no city line would be crossed--both of the above are in chicago?

"Taqueria Puebla -- Soccer-themed Humboldt Park stand specializing in freshly-made cemitas -- Mexican sandwiches with a smoky blast of chipotle heat," is an official LTHForum Great Neighborhood Restaurant, therefore, a recommendation of everyone here, at least in theory.

My point was that members of this forum, who are constantly sending tourists and others to farflung city neighborhoods, such as Humboldt Park and Grand Crossing, ought not to be worried about sending them to the suburbs.

dddane wrote:so one noticeable absence from the above list is Smoque, which has quite a fanfare. I guess the reason for that is obvious... but what exactly do they use? a mix?

The purist concept behind this thread is barbecue joints where the meat is cooked over wood as well as flavored by it. Smoque uses woodsmoke from apple and oak logs to provide flavor but its Southern Pride cooker has another source of heat (gas, IIRC).