jbw wrote:

Mike G wrote:I bet Arun's is the best Thai restaurant in town.

Indeed, the only one.

I couldn't agree with you more, and you can probably take that one to the bank.

Michelin does a pretty good job where a certain standard of service, ambience, consistency, and nodding to tradition is a given. Thus, I find it to be a useful guide in France where there seems to be considerable national consensus on these elements at almost every level (with the exception of routiers). Other than the the higher white-tablecloth levels, however, I find it to be of much less value in Italy, where serendipity, informality, and often inconsistency have a far greater impact on the dining experience. I don't think the total Chicago dining scene has much in common with either France or Italy, but with its wealth of ethnic restaurants (altho only infrequently at upper levels) and now American-bistro-grastropub establishments, I doubt whether the guide will be of much value or hold many surprises for the seasoned Chicago diner. They'll probably be on the money at the luxury end -- and there let the debates begin -- but below that, I predict the guide will be more renowned for what it excludes rather than for what it includes.

Excellent points!!! Many (and not all) when chasing after these ratings build the concept around what it takes to achieve these stars (wine lists, accomendations in lounge, restrooms, host areas, ect....) I will say the rating system has tough standards to meet at each point the level of excellence and do create unique and wonderful dining experiences.

JohnH wrote:

jesteinf wrote:

JohnH wrote:Josh
I will state now that Alinea will get 2 stars and the Everest Room will get 3.

Hmmm, I smell a wager.

I'm game on that! Lets think of a creative (non super expensive) wager on this for fun. Will get back to you on this!

I'll ante a hot dog at Gene & Jude's that Chicago gets no more than one 3-star designation.

I don't know what the situation is now, but when I visited the Netherlands in the 1990s, no restaurant in that whole country had more than one star.

Here are the current 3-star spots in the U.S.

NEW YORK:
Daniel
Jean-Georges
Le Bernardin
Masa
Per Se

CALIFORNIA:
The French Laundry

After Bernard Loiseau's suicide in 2003, there was a lot of press about Michelin's standards, and I particularly recall an interview with a restaurateur who pointed out the fresh flowers on all the tables in his empty dining room. It was summertime and all his customers were eating outdoors on the terrace. Nevertheless, he said, the indoor flowers were necessary to maintain his three-star status. And of course, their expense was reflected in his menu prices.

It's perhaps a good thing for Chicago restaurants that Michelin deems Chicago worth covering, but I don't necessarily see it as a good thing for local diners. I'd much rather see restaurateurs concentrate on innovative and excellent cookery than decorations.

You know what would actually be great fun, but I don't think they produce them in English any more?

If Gault-Millau did a Chicago guide.

Gault-Millau was the cattier, more intelligent, more sardonic take on French dining (and elsewhere; I had the New York guide at one time), and even if you didn't pay attention to their ratings (which went up to 20 points, except Gault & Millau themselves refused to give more than 19 ever, on the grounds that perfection is unattainable), you could learn a lot from what they had to say about fine dining, compared to the stuffily correct Michelin. (The Gayot guides, which I think are still around, are related in some fashion to Gault-Millau.)

Although Bernard Loiseau's suicide is usually attributed to the loss of a Michelin star, it was actually the downgrading by Gault-Millau from 19/20 to 17/20 (that is, from three toques to two), and speculation in Le Figaro that he would lose a Michelin star as well, that drove him to it. In actuality, he had already been informed by Michelin that he wouldn't lose a star, but he evidently regarded it as inevitable after Gault-Millau's action.

LAZ wrote:
Here are the current 3-star spots in the U.S.

NEW YORK:
Daniel
Jean-Georges
Le Bernardin
Masa
Per Se

CALIFORNIA:
The French Laundry

Joel Robuchon at the Mansion was also a 3 star, although the guide took a year off from Las Vegas in 2009.

Good Posts!
I like hot dogs but I was thinking we meet at Hot Doug's for a duck and foie dog since we are on the French theme. Sound good Josh?
Laz...how do you want to tie in to the wager?
(I am not about to lose to this whole forum so we will keep it between us three! Sorry any other takers on this wager )

Thank you for the citations on the three star restaurants in the USA(Do we see a pattern of French restaurants??). Hence my opinion on the Michelin star of Chicago being the Everest Room. It is a standing legacy in Chicago for many years and Chef Joho would be a great highlight for the lifetime he has contributed to fine dining in our city(and a great French restaurant). As for all of the other great restaurants/chefs in Chicago it will not matter as they are always earning accolades that anyone visiting a website regarding food will find with three clicks of a mouse.
Michelin stars a big deal...yes!
THAT big of a deal in the digital age....not really (all in my opinion of course)

JohnH,

You're on.

If Alinea gets the trey, you owe me a duck sausage with foie gras at Hot Doug's. If it's Everest, with Alinea only getting 2, the dog is on me. If they both get 3 or neither gets 3, we'll call it a push.

Deal?

I'm not taking LAZ's bet. I think it's entirely possible we'll only have a single 3 star.

JohnH wrote:(Do we see a pattern of French restaurants??)

I would not call The French Laundry, Per Se, or Masa "French restaurants". (The name "French Laundry" derives from the original occupant of the building.)

Mike G,

I agree with you on that one, unfortunately. The only Gault et Millau Chicago guide we ever had , the excellent "Gault Millau The Best of Chicago" was published by Prentice Hall in NY in 1989. It was an André Gayot publication that was edited by Colleen Dunn Bates. Pat Bruno and Stuart Silverman were among the 6 contributing editors.
To the best of my knowledge it was never revised and I do not know of a second publishing.
Too bad.

jesteinf wrote:JohnH,

You're on.

If Alinea gets the trey, you owe me a duck sausage with foie gras at Hot Doug's. If it's Everest, with Alinea only getting 2, the dog is on me. If they both get 3 or neither gets 3, we'll call it a push.

Deal?

I'm not taking LAZ's bet. I think it's entirely possible we'll only have a single 3 star.

GREAT! Deal on. When does the release date come out for Chicago? As for the push I guess I will still go up for the sandwich anyway as now I have the taste for it . I will see if my wife can pull some strings overseas and see if the book gets released earlier in Europe as the family is in Spain now for the summer. Of course the year I do not go is the year Spain wins World Cup..AAAAGGGGHHHHH (I was watching BBC and they said it was the party of the century!).
Cheers!
Johnh

Laz: Pick a restaurant to join our wager!

Darren72 wrote:

JohnH wrote:(Do we see a pattern of French restaurants??)

I would not call The French Laundry, Per Se, or Masa "French restaurants". (The name "French Laundry" derives from the original occupant of the building.)

In a classical sense no but reading the layout of his menus, food styles and finesse is DEFINATELY French. His foundation came from Guy Savoy and restaurant Taillevent in France then to New York at Restaurant Raphael from what I recall.
I worked out in Napa valley in 1995/96 and had the fortunate opportunity to go to a lecture/demo he was giving. I wish I would have had spent more time in the valley to get the opportunity to stage in his restaurant. A true gentleman, chef and mentor to many great cooks that are influencing American cooking today!

Also Sprach Mariani.

JohnH wrote:

Darren72 wrote:

JohnH wrote:(Do we see a pattern of French restaurants??)

I would not call The French Laundry, Per Se, or Masa "French restaurants". (The name "French Laundry" derives from the original occupant of the building.)

In a classical sense no but reading the layout of his menus, food styles and finesse is DEFINATELY French. His foundation came from Guy Savoy and restaurant Taillevent in France then to New York at Restaurant Raphael from what I recall.
I worked out in Napa valley in 1995/96 and had the fortunate opportunity to go to a lecture/demo he was giving. I wish I would have had spent more time in the valley to get the opportunity to stage in his restaurant. A true gentleman, chef and mentor to many great cooks that are influencing American cooking today!

But I think most fine dining is infused with similar French influences, in part because so many other world cuisines are influenced by the French and also because so many aspects of fine dining itself is influenced by the French.

But I think most fine dining is infused with similar French influences, in part because so many other world cuisines are influenced by the French and also because so many aspects of fine dining itself is influenced by the French.

Darren,
Very true as it is hard to find where these lines end and others begin but then then Italians will say that Caterina de Medici brought all of this to France!!!

David Hammond wrote: Also Sprach Mariani.

Good link David! Last night on Lakeshore television they had a program on about culinary travels (cannot remember the name of the show but it was on at 7:30 p.m. Comcast 21). They went to Paris and outlining areas and met the chefs of the "New Gaurd" cuisine who now cook to their own personalities and express products in their own fashion. It was real interesting and one of them mentioned that they were not cooking for Michelin.
So it could be anyones guess (mine wasn't even listed on the link!) and I may be buying dogs for Josh!

I agree with those who are skeptical about more than one Chicago place getting three stars, if that. This study is a useful reminder of just how meticulously insane (and inane) the standards are that we're talking about here: http://www.cheaphosting4you.com/casadan ... alisys.pdf

I doubt Everest has a chance at 3-stars. In its favor it has a good level of "permanence" and, obviously, a generally french approach to cuisine and service which may resonate with the reviewers, and good food and a nice dining room. But at the end of the day I think it lacks the "sacred obsession" that a place needs to really get the attention of the Michelin reviewers. To be clear, it's still a fantastic restaurant and worthy of all accolades it receives, I'm just saying it's the level of place that they'd likely dismiss as a place people go when they've got a decent expense account to throw around, and not a place that would inspire someone to fly to Chicago to try.

I would love to see Alinea get three but I'd also not be surprised if they get shafted. Obviously the Guide has embraced high-end progressive restaurants elsewhere, but exceptionally creative things that make Alinea great (e.g. Crucial Detail antennae and serving dinner on a silicone mat on the table itself) may be tough for reviewers to swallow. Who knows, though. I think there are more three-star places in Tokyo than anywhere else in the world, and the majority of those places have their own traditional service and aesthetic that are very distant from french traditions (in some but not all ways), and they seemed to do okay.

I guess really I'm just bracing myself for disappointment, so if even one place gets one star I'll be pleasantly surprised.

millerza wrote:I would love to see Alinea get three but I'd also not be surprised if they get shafted. Obviously the Guide has embraced high-end progressive restaurants elsewhere, but exceptionally creative things that make Alinea great (e.g. Crucial Detail antennae and serving dinner on a silicone mat on the table itself) may be tough for reviewers to swallow.

You make a lot of very persuasive points, but El Bulli has 3 stars, and that would seem indicative of the willingness of the guide's teams to recognize Alinea's style of dining.

El bulli does have three stars but it took him almost 12 years to achieve that status. He took over the restaurant in 1984 and started his creative movement closing for 5 months in 1987. It was a one star restaurant and regained its second in 1990 and didn't recieve his third star until 1997 when he was well into his "Vangard cuisine".
Source: El bulli cookbooks

Now that Michelin recognizes this cuisine in France (Gagnaire, Troigros, and others) Alinea may have a good shot at it. I hope they do as Chef Achatz has made a global name for himself and team in Chicago (as Chef Trotter should be recognized as well). Win or lose a duck and foie dog!

jesteinf wrote:I'm not taking LAZ's bet. I think it's entirely possible we'll only have a single 3 star.

'Sokay. I'm not taking any bets that involve standing in Hot Doug's line.

JohnH wrote:

David Hammond wrote: Also Sprach Mariani.

Good link David! Last night on Lakeshore television they had a program on about culinary travels (cannot remember the name of the show but it was on at 7:30 p.m. Comcast 21). They went to Paris and outlining areas and met the chefs of the "New Gaurd" cuisine who now cook to their own personalities and express products in their own fashion. It was real interesting and one of them mentioned that they were not cooking for Michelin.
So it could be anyones guess (mine wasn't even listed on the link!) and I may be buying dogs for Josh!

I'm a little surprised Mariani sees Moto getting the love. I don't.

Really, this whole prediction business is so much more fun than the actual stars will be. A full-blown pool might be in order.

Seeing how stingy/careful/judicious Michelin is about giving out any stars at all, I personally think it's crazy talk to expect more than a couple of single stars bestowed on restaurants in the Chicago area. What seems to me to be much more important is the selection of Chicago as warranting a Michelin guide, along with NY and SF, and that to me seems all to the good. Considering what are the great dining cities of the US, I think New Orleans should be next.

Katie wrote:Seeing how stingy/careful/judicious Michelin is about giving out any stars at all, I personally think it's crazy talk to expect more than a couple of single stars bestowed on restaurants in the Chicago area.

NY currently has somewhere around 55 restaurants with at least one Michelin star. SF has around 45. You think anything beyond a couple single stars in Chicago is crazy?

millerza wrote:I would love to see Alinea get three but I'd also not be surprised if they get shafted. Obviously the Guide has embraced high-end progressive restaurants elsewhere, but exceptionally creative things that make Alinea great (e.g. Crucial Detail antennae and serving dinner on a silicone mat on the table itself) may be tough for reviewers to swallow. Who knows, though. I think there are more three-star places in Tokyo than anywhere else in the world, and the majority of those places have their own traditional service and aesthetic that are very distant from french traditions (in some but not all ways), and they seemed to do okay.

I guess really I'm just bracing myself for disappointment, so if even one place gets one star I'll be pleasantly surprised.

The Guide has to have some anchors to establish its relevance to the subject matter specific to the Chicago guide. While Michelein probably wouldn't admit that it cares or pays attention to what other publications and diners say, I'd be surprised if this money-making venture would risk credibility by giving a "low" score to a place that is at the top of its game and has been universally lauded, including in the European press. I assume the Michelin guys went in expecting and hoping to give 3. They didn't come here to confirm Second City insecurities and disprove a decade of general sentiment that Chicago is one of the 2 great, global food cities in the US. They came to sell books to Europeans and wannabe Euros who've already accepted the premise.

Time Out got some reaction from local restaurateurs of note and I liked this quite from Grant Achatz:

“How do they treat a restaurant like Schwa? Michelin has been kind of criticized for having a template of what they rate by. And then you have a restaurant like Schwa that breaks all the rules but is still putting out amazing food. And Jean-Luc [Naret, director of Michelin] has been quoted in several publications saying, ‘The food is really what we rate on.’ Like service is important, ambiance is important, but really it’s the food. And then you have a guy like Michael Carlson, coming out to your table, and he might be half-baked, but giving you amazing food. How do they rate that?”

I like the idea that Michelin takes care to stay anonymous. I think that lends a lot of credence to what they do, even if there is an arrogance to the whole thing.

I think fine dining is a tricky category because people's expectations vary a lot (see Achatz's comments on Schwa) and few can afford (or want) to visit such restaurants frequently. So I guess I'm happy Michelin is coming to Chicago. It gives Chicago a valuable perspective on fine dining and raises the bar for restaurants in the city.

I think the surprises will not be in the restaurants that garner two or three stars, but those that get one. I'm certain some restaurants I haven't heard much about will get one star and it'll make me read more about them. I think that's a good thing and hopefully it inspires some restaurants to elevate their game to get recognized.

NY currently has somewhere around 55 restaurants with at least one Michelin star. SF has around 45. You think anything beyond a couple single stars in Chicago is crazy?

If they were only going to give out a couple of one stars, they wouldn't even be doing a guide.

rickster wrote:If they were only going to give out a couple of one stars, they wouldn't even be doing a guide.

There are plenty of restaurants in those books with 0 stars. What will be most interesting to me will be the "Bib Gourmand" choices -- their picks for "value." That may bring some restaurants into the international public radar that we'd rather it didn't.

But yes, I think there will be quite a few single-star choices here and a respectable number of two-star spots.

The question is, why did they take so long to come to Chicago? They're coming here, apparently, only after they didn't sell enough copies of their L.A. and Las Vegas guides to merit continuing to publish them.

I can't help but think it's a pity they didn't cover Chicago back when Le Francais was in its heyday. I wonder if Michelin's presence will inspire anyone to open that kind of formal, haut cuisine restaurant again...and if the region could support it if they did.

We should start a pool for # of restaurants at each star level.

My guesses: 16 one star, 6 two star, 1 three star.

At the time the guide comes out:

Number of pages in this thread vs. number of restaurants with at least 2 stars

Who will win?

JeffB wrote:The Guide has to have some anchors to establish its relevance to the subject matter specific to the Chicago guide. While Michelein probably wouldn't admit that it cares or pays attention to what other publications and diners say, I'd be surprised if this money-making venture would risk credibility by giving a "low" score to a place that is at the top of its game and has been universally lauded, including in the European press. I assume the Michelin guys went in expecting and hoping to give 3. They didn't come here to confirm Second City insecurities and disprove a decade of general sentiment that Chicago is one of the 2 great, global food cities in the US. They came to sell books to Europeans and wannabe Euros who've already accepted the premise.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. It seems like a silly exercise to say "this place warrants our attention" and then turn around and say "but there's nothing in this city worthy of our highest rating." If they DID come here and just shit all over us that would be so comical that it would almost be worth it.

To throw my hat into the Internet Speculation About Inconsequential Things* ring, if I had to make a short list of 3-star contenders in Chicago I'd say, in descending order, Alinea, Trotter's, L2O. Again, this is only about the Michelin ratings and not exactly how I'd rate Chicago's Three Best Restaurants. My only concern about Alinea is the liberties they take with service and serviceware. Those are a few of the things that make it great there, but you never know how the michelin goons will take it. True, El Bulli had three stars and was every bit as avant garde as Alinea in the style of food, but from what I gather in the El Bulli cookbooks and shit I've read online (I've never eaten there) the majority of their food still comes on a "plate." It would be ridiculous to discount Alinea because they have novel and exceptionally creative service concepts that are thoughtful and meant to amplify the experience of the food itself, but who knows. As for Trotter's I just worry that the decor is too staid (which might be a good thing, since they do have the all-important fresh flowers) and with L2O I worry about inconsistency (I've thoroughly enjoyed every meal there, but for some reason I keep seeing a lot of awful reviews, which makes no sense to me but might mean something).




*Which reminds me, someone earlier in the thread said all this Michelin stuff was just masturbatory (it is) and nothing more than a pretentious yelp review (which I take issue with). It isn't about getting the stars themselves as much as what follows them. It matters to the people who are working at these places and want to have some mobility outside of the immediate Chicago area. Saying "I worked at Blackbird in Chicago" will likely mean something to a hiring chef/manager in some distant city, but saying "I worked at Blackbird, a two-star restaurant, in Chicago" means a hell of a lot more and will open far more doors for an itinerant chef. Of course there are many people who won't give a shit about the stars and will carry on as usual, but it certainly won't do any damage. If Blackbird gets denied any stars it can be chalked up to the antiquated and skittish Michelin old-world rating metric and anyone who wouldn't eat there because of the lack of stars would be a fool (though these people do exist, because people are idiots).

LAZ wrote:The question is, why did they take so long to come to Chicago? They're coming here, apparently, only after they didn't sell enough copies of their L.A. and Las Vegas guides to merit continuing to publish them.

It's all about money. LA and Las Vegas get more international tourists visiting than Chicago does (and they have decent enough restaurants to merit a guidebook). If they can't justify continuing to publish an LA guide I wonder if the Chicago guide will just be a one off.