daveandrews3 wrote:Yes, I know lists and lists. Yes, I know opinions are opinions. However, you lose pretty much all credibility when you include Ann Sather, Thai Village, and Twin Anchors as Bib winners. And, yes, unfortunately, I've eaten food from these three spots more than twice each in the last year-and-a-half.

I have to agree, some of their selections/omissions do give me pause (Twin Anchors?!) and I'm utterly stunned that Frontera is on the Bib list and not getting a star, but how nice to see Smak-Tak, a place we all love, get some recognition.

Although we aren't the intended audience for the guide, I think it's okay for us to have a spirited discussion regarding Michelin's choices as we are all very passionate about food in Chicago, it just shows that we care.

I don't follow sports, but I'm going to pretend this is Major League Eating and sit back and watch. Gourmands the world over looking to Chicago next week? I say live it up. The best way to welcome Michelin to our fine city (besides free booze at an admission-not-guaranteed party at The Violet Hour)? Foie gras, of course!



Go Chicago! Go Avec! I'm skipping the formal announcement at the Cultural Center on Wednesday for whole foie gras #2. Join me. It seems only appropriate.

Ursiform wrote:

daveandrews3 wrote:Yes, I know lists and lists. Yes, I know opinions are opinions. However, you lose pretty much all credibility when you include Ann Sather, Thai Village, and Twin Anchors as Bib winners. And, yes, unfortunately, I've eaten food from these three spots more than twice each in the last year-and-a-half.

I have to agree, some of their selections/omissions do give me pause (Twin Anchors?!) and I'm utterly stunned that Frontera is on the Bib list and not getting a star, but how nice to see Smak-Tak, a place we all love, get some recognition.

Although we aren't the intended audience for the guide, I think it's okay for us to have a spirited discussion regarding Michelin's choices as we are all very passionate about food in Chicago, it just shows that we care.

Of course we personally cheer for places we love -- particularly places we feel are under appreciated -- that make the Bib list. I adore the food at Mexique (their P.E.I mussels with white wine, dried chorizo, and tomato-saffron beurrec blanc is my favorite mussel prep of all time) and being included is amazing thing for Carlos and his wife and his staff and will surely help the business.

And I 100 percent agree with you its OK (actually, more than OK) to have spirited discussions about Michelin's choices. The passion is a great thing, no doubt.

I don't begrudge the many terrible restaurants on that list, and I don't begrudge Michelin for putting them on it. Twin Anchors and Ann Sather have been on useless "Best of Chicago" lists for a long time, and nobody I know cares. What makes this list different is that for some unfathomable reason, real, intelligent food people are taking it seriously - pointing to these announcements as if they mean something. If people want to fill the dining room at Twin Anchors or Los Nopales instead of Honey One or La Casa de Samuel, let them. And then let them talk about how Michelin steered them right or wrong on Travelocity or somewhere. But can’t there be some small corner of the web where people take food seriously, and ignore (or, even better, mock) all of this utter crap?

jesteinf wrote:*Except the GNRs, which is the single greatest restaurant list that God ever gave man on this earth.

I agree. Next time, instead of having a GNR award dinner, let's wait until nightfall, then spraypaint "2011-13 GNR Winner" across the facades of the winning restaurants. We'll call it a great honor from La Société des Petits-Trois Bonheurs

Khaopaat wrote:

jesteinf wrote:*Except the GNRs, which is the single greatest restaurant list that God ever gave man on this earth.

I agree. Next time, instead of having a GNR award dinner, let's wait until nightfall, then spraypaint "2011-13 GNR Winner" across the facades of the winning restaurants. We'll call it a great honor from La Société des Petits-Trois Bonheurs

Maybe dicksond or Gary will volunteer to model for a pavement outline! I love La Société, by the way. LSDPTB FTW.

David Tamarkin appears to agree with KennyZ.

This morning, with the announcement of the Bib Gourmands, we got our first look at the tastes of the Michelin critics. And personally, it’s enough to give me my answer: Yes, it’s a disaster. The Michelin team has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.

Has it been mentioned that the Bibs are for places over a certain price, and that there will be a seperate recognition for cheaper places; hence the Hot Doug's exclusion (and also all the consternation at Local Beet World HQ over the missing Gene n' Judes).

I'm wholly glad to see that Twin Anchors and France's got some love. They've always been fun places to dine. Of course, I'm a bit peeved over the lack of Carson's.

I will also note, for the record, that I lunched today at Purple Pig, and I could not find one spray painted Michelin Man around. Maybe the price of a Michigan Ave address.

jesteinf wrote:David Tamarkin appears to agree with KennyZ.

This morning, with the announcement of the Bib Gourmands, we got our first look at the tastes of the Michelin critics. And personally, it’s enough to give me my answer: Yes, it’s a disaster. The Michelin team has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.

As does Steve Dolinsky, in the comments section of Tamarkin's article:

Steve Dolinsky wrote:Couldn’t agree with you more, David. Why is it everytime an outside (national) critic/mag/publication mentions something in Chicago, everyone here goes gaga? This is a perfect example, for the reasons you stated above, that they rarely get it. We all know it’s an attempt to sell books here, and so while I will undoubtedly cover the “news” next Wednesday, I’m certainly not going to treat it as if it’s the gospel handed down to us from The Lord of Food (as I’m guessing you guys won’t, either).

Oddly enough, what David Tamarkin writes is intended to sell copies of Time Out Chicago (or induce hits on their web site). Wow

And lest we forget, TOC publishes their own food guide to Chicago--sin, sin

Kennyz wrote:I don't begrudge the many terrible restaurants on that list, and I don't begrudge Michelin for putting them on it. Twin Anchors and Ann Sather have been on useless "Best of Chicago" lists for a long time, and nobody I know cares. What makes this list different is that for some unfathomable reason, real, intelligent food people are taking it seriously - pointing to these announcements as if they mean something. If people want to fill the dining room at Twin Anchors or Los Nopales instead of Honey One or La Casa de Samuel, let them. And then let them talk about how Michelin steered them right or wrong on Travelocity or somewhere. But can’t there be some small corner of the web where people take food seriously, and ignore (or, even better, mock) all of this utter crap?

I think it does mean something; certainly to the industry folks who are included on it . . . and to those who are not. And because so many of us are close to the industry, some of us do care, even if only from a spectator's perspective. I'm not even saying that the list is particularly useful -- especially for locals -- but I still find it meaningful and interesting. Twin Anchors? Ann Sather? I'd never eat at those places (again) but it's fascinating to me that they are listed and it doesn't anger me one bit.

The outrage over it cracks me up because no matter what list anyone put together, there'd be outrage. It doesn't surprise me one bit that some local journos have reacted negatively to the list. It is exactly the reaction I'd expect from them and I think it's entirely legitimate. This is their turf. They know the local scene as well as anyone does but when their lists come out, people disagree with them, too (especially in these forums). Such is the nature of lists . . . and opinions.

C'est la vie.

=R=

I don't want to be too hasty prior to the actual announcement of starred restaurants, but it's rather incredulous to think of the stuffy suburban French restaurants destined to receive stars--say, Courtwright's, Michael, Oceanique--that Brian Huston and the Levitts can cook circles around.

Has it been mentioned that the Bibs are for places over a certain price, and that there will be a seperate recognition for cheaper places; hence the Hot Doug's exclusion (and also all the consternation at Local Beet World HQ over the missing Gene n' Judes).

I read that somewhere too... but it's hard to reconcile with some of the things on this list. Is there really an entire category of dining less expensive than Smak Tak or Frances? A category in which Smak Tak and The Girl and the Goat wind up on one side and Hot Doug's on the other? Really?

My surprise with Frontera is not that it doesn't get a star, but that the Bib represents a value location.
If it's value Mexican food you're looking for, you could feed a dozen people at Cemitas Pueblas for a Frontera table for two.

JoelF wrote:If it's value Mexican food you're looking for, you could feed a dozen people at Cemitas Pueblas for a Frontera table for two.

Oddly enough, the Picky Eater and I walked over to Cemitas Puebla today and chatted with Tony while our order was being readied. He said the first he'd heard of the Michelin biz was today when his twitterstream went bonkers and that he was just really thrilled for Smoque being recognized. He really didn't seem to mind not being included and noted how grateful he was to LTH and the Food Network for keeping them on the radar and busy. Our milanesa was spectacular as usual, btw.

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Kennyz wrote:I don't begrudge the many terrible restaurants on that list, and I don't begrudge Michelin for putting them on it. Twin Anchors and Ann Sather have been on useless "Best of Chicago" lists for a long time, and nobody I know cares. What makes this list different is that for some unfathomable reason, real, intelligent food people are taking it seriously - pointing to these announcements as if they mean something. If people want to fill the dining room at Twin Anchors or Los Nopales instead of Honey One or La Casa de Samuel, let them. And then let them talk about how Michelin steered them right or wrong on Travelocity or somewhere. But can’t there be some small corner of the web where people take food seriously, and ignore (or, even better, mock) all of this utter crap?

I think it does mean something; certainly to the industry folks who are included on it . . . and to those who are not. And because so many of us are close to the industry, some of us do care, even if only from a spectator's perspective. I'm not even saying that the list is particularly useful -- especially for locals -- but I still find it meaningful and interesting. Twin Anchors? Ann Sather? I'd never eat at those places (again) but it's fascinating to me that they are listed and it doesn't anger me one bit.

The outrage over it cracks me up because no matter what list anyone put together, there'd be outrage. It doesn't surprise me one bit that some local journos have reacted negatively to the list. It is exactly the reaction I'd expect from them and I think it's entirely legitimate. This is their turf. They know the local scene as well as anyone does but when their lists come out, people disagree with them, too (especially in these forums). Such is the nature of lists . . . and opinions.

C'est la vie.

=R=

So, Ronnie, given your positivism about the Michelin guide, I take it that Prairie Fire might have gotten a request for a phone number? Any intel on that?

aschie30 wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Kennyz wrote:I don't begrudge the many terrible restaurants on that list, and I don't begrudge Michelin for putting them on it. Twin Anchors and Ann Sather have been on useless "Best of Chicago" lists for a long time, and nobody I know cares. What makes this list different is that for some unfathomable reason, real, intelligent food people are taking it seriously - pointing to these announcements as if they mean something. If people want to fill the dining room at Twin Anchors or Los Nopales instead of Honey One or La Casa de Samuel, let them. And then let them talk about how Michelin steered them right or wrong on Travelocity or somewhere. But can’t there be some small corner of the web where people take food seriously, and ignore (or, even better, mock) all of this utter crap?

I think it does mean something; certainly to the industry folks who are included on it . . . and to those who are not. And because so many of us are close to the industry, some of us do care, even if only from a spectator's perspective. I'm not even saying that the list is particularly useful -- especially for locals -- but I still find it meaningful and interesting. Twin Anchors? Ann Sather? I'd never eat at those places (again) but it's fascinating to me that they are listed and it doesn't anger me one bit.

The outrage over it cracks me up because no matter what list anyone put together, there'd be outrage. It doesn't surprise me one bit that some local journos have reacted negatively to the list. It is exactly the reaction I'd expect from them and I think it's entirely legitimate. This is their turf. They know the local scene as well as anyone does but when their lists come out, people disagree with them, too (especially in these forums). Such is the nature of lists . . . and opinions.

C'est la vie.

=R=

So, Ronnie, given your positivism about the Michelin guide, I take it that Prairie Fire might have gotten a request for a phone number? Any intel on that?

LOL! I have no such knowledge. I haven't asked about it nor have I been told anything. I almost never check Twitter so if it's been discussed there at all, I haven't seen it. I just always enjoy getting an outsider's perspective of our city -- any outsiders, any aspect of it -- and I think it always means something, though I'm not exactly sure what. And I like that so many eyes are focused on Chicago. As for the specifics, they don't concern me as much because as I posted above, no matter what the results, there'd always be something to disagree with when it comes to lists, guides, etc.

=R=

In general I'm all for ignoring lists except for the sheer amusement of a good debate but .... the Michelin's carry more commercial weight for restaurants than your average top ten and they have more influence on where visitors eat. On the commercial side and as someone who wants to see her favorite good local spots survive in a rough economy, it's distressing to see them lose out to clearly second-rate options. On the influence side, I'm sure I'm not alone here at being very interested in having Chicago visitors experience the wonderful food being produced by so many of our favorite restaurants. Whether it's friends or business contacts, when I hear they are coming to town, they get a list of great spots to eat ... the list changes and is modified based on their tastes ... but it's one way I hope to share with them the real gems. With the Michelin choices, I feel like a lot of visitors are being sent to the wrong spots and will miss some of the best food anywhere ... and that's unfortunate indeed.

ronnie_suburban wrote:I think it does mean something; certainly to the industry folks who are included on it . . . and to those who are not. ...

This is undoubtedly true, and sad. The more Achatz keeps obsessing about what arbitrary rating these random tire company reviewers are going to give him, the less desire I have to eat at his restaurant. My loss, I guess. But I find it pathetic. It may be true that Michelin has significant influence, but that unfortunate fact is perpetuated by these industry people who give the ratings undeserved weight and deepen the public's perspective that there's some special importance the stars.

JoelF wrote:My surprise with Frontera is not that it doesn't get a star, but that the Bib represents a value location.
If it's value Mexican food you're looking for, you could feed a dozen people at Cemitas Pueblas for a Frontera table for two.

Exactly right. Although I won't quibble here with the quality of the food (I could and have), there is no way that Frontera deserves recognition for "value" in a city jam-packed with places offering equally high quality food (or better) for far less.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

JoelF wrote:My surprise with Frontera is not that it doesn't get a star, but that the Bib represents a value location.
If it's value Mexican food you're looking for, you could feed a dozen people at Cemitas Pueblas for a Frontera table for two.

Exactly right. Although I won't quibble here with the quality of the food (I could and have), there is no way that Frontera deserves recognition for "value" in a city jam-packed with places offering equally high quality food (or better) for far less.

It's not value within a certain category (i.e., Mexican) but rather, whether you can eat a meal and have a drink there for under $40. And you can do that at Frontera. Whether or not that qualifies as value to you personally, or whether or not that qualifies as value for Mexican food, is irrelevant.

aschie30 wrote:So, Ronnie, given your positivism about the Michelin guide, I take it that Prairie Fire might have gotten a request for a phone number? Any intel on that?

ronnie_suburban wrote:LOL! I have no such knowledge. I haven't asked about it nor have I been told anything. I almost never check Twitter so if it's been discussed there at all, I haven't seen it. I just always enjoy getting an outsider's perspective of our city -- any outsiders, any aspect of it -- and I think it always means something, though I'm not exactly sure what. And I like that so many eyes are focused on Chicago. As for the specifics, they don't concern me as much because as I posted above, no matter what the results, there'd always be something to disagree with when it comes to lists, guides, etc.

Guess my sleuthing abilities were off!

Kennyz wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I think it does mean something; certainly to the industry folks who are included on it . . . and to those who are not. ...

This is undoubtedly true, and sad. The more Achatz keeps obsessing about what arbitrary rating these random tire company reviewers are going to give him, the less desire I have to eat at his restaurant. My loss, I guess. But I find it pathetic. It may be true that Michelin has significant influence, but that unfortunate fact is perpetuated by these industry people who give the ratings undeserved weight and deepen the public's perspective that there's some special importance the stars.

Kenny - it may annoy you that Michelin ratings are coveted, but it's not just industry folks. Alinea's rating (if it gets one) of three stars would hardly be arbitrary, especially in the context of other three star restaurants (and that a three-star rating annoints the restaurant as world-class). The reality is, lists such as these -- and Michelin being the most high-profile world list -- signal to people around the globe that a three-star restaurant is special. (Thanks to Gourmet's list, we now know about a restaurant in Denmark, and how was it exactly that we came to hear about this out-of-the-way restaurant with a guy named Fergus?) I find it odd (and amusing) that you would punish Achatz by refusing to eat at Alinea, simply because he ostensibly is desirable of this ranking, which is - like it or not - a huge achievement for this person and his restaurant. So what would you have him do? Go on record and say Michelin sucks? I mean, it's not as if Achatz conceived of and opened Alinea solely desiring to gain a Michelin 3-star rating. When you especially consider the amount of work Achatz has had to put in for for anyone to even speak of the possibility that Alinea has a shot at three stars, it's only commendable, not pathetic.

I met a PR/caterer person from Twin Anchors a few weeks back at an Old Town Merchants and Residents Assocation social that said the owners of Twin Anchors had already received an invitation to the awards party that Michelin was throwing at the Cultural Center next week. ???

Kennyz wrote:This is undoubtedly true, and sad. The more Achatz keeps obsessing about what arbitrary rating these random tire company reviewers are going to give him, the less desire I have to eat at his restaurant. My loss, I guess. But I find it pathetic. It may be true that Michelin has significant influence, but that unfortunate fact is perpetuated by these industry people who give the ratings undeserved weight and deepen the public's perspective that there's some special importance the stars.

You make it sound as if this random tire company sends mechanics from the closest JiffyLube to Alinea and asks what they think of the food.

Do you fault athletes who covet an Olympic gold metal*? Or call pathetic those who see a difference between gold, silver, bronze, and not placing at all?

-Dan

* for sake of comparison, one in a sport that has judges

aschie30 wrote:I find it odd (and amusing) that you would punish Achatz by refusing to eat at Alinea, simply because he ostensibly is desirable of this ranking, which is - like it or not - a huge achievement for this person and his restaurant.

I'm not punishing him for it at all. I'm simply saying that it gives me less desire to eat at his restaurant. It's like when McDonald's started the "Supersize It" promotion, or when The Southern mass tweets about $3 shots of Southern Comfort, or when a political candidate campaigns about the other guy's personal life. When restaurants or political candidates are so focused in their work on things I don't value at all, I think it's fair for me to question whether I will enjoy my experience with them. Sometimes they prove me wrong. It turns out that I like The Southern, and some low-blow campaigners have turned out to be decent politicians

dansch wrote:Do you fault athletes who covet an Olympic gold metal*? Or call pathetic those who see a difference between gold, silver, bronze, and not placing at all?

No, I don't know enough about The Olympics or about the process one goes through to earn those medals to fault anyone involved or call their actions pathetic.

There's no question that the Michelins in France have tended to push restaurants into doing things and having facilities that don't really matter— if the food is what really matters to you. (A heliport for visiting Saudi sheiks, for instance, is supposed to be an asset in getting that third star. It also would have helped when I went to Ducasse in Paris, since strikes in the streets made getting a cab home impractical.)

I don't think there's likely to be anywhere near that effect in the US for many years to come, and I read Achatz' comments more in the vein of, we know who our competition in the world is, and if they don't give us three, well, that's their choice. He seems unlikely to change anything specifically for them, as opposed to for his own sense of where he belongs at the cutting edge.

(Side note: I can't help but think that the sudden appearance of Noma from nowhere as The Best Restaurant In The World was the result of the world food press sensing a void with El Bulli's disappearance, and racing to fill it with another choice from an unexpected, non-France country. Sort of like how we only had Italian popes, and now we won't have one for a long time. And we also damn well won't have an American one...)

Anyway, I don't think it's at all a dumb debate (and I'm a bit sorry to see a moderator characterize it as both outraged and laughable, which hardly seems encouraging of discussion). Lists and awards are trivia, in the end, except that they do have influence and they most certainly offer concise historical insight into the mindset that values X and Y over Z at any moment.

Mike G wrote:Anyway, I don't think it's at all a dumb debate (and I'm a bit sorry to see a moderator characterize it as both outraged and laughable, which hardly seems encouraging of discussion).

Sorry, but I don't get this. Ron (presumably the moderator to whom you referred since he's the only one who's weighed in) said that "The outrage over it cracks me up...." Unless I misunderstand, he was expressing his own personal opinion. I don't think that being a moderator disqualifies him from expressing an opinion. He didn't call the debate a "dumb" one; he didn't characterize it "as both outraged and laughable." He was commenting on the outrage the some people have expressed over a list. As he points out, people can and will disagree about this list--or any list. That some will get so worked up as to be outraged is funny (or if you prefer, laughable) to him. How does that opinion discourage discussion? Is his opinion so universally accepted that anything he says qualifies as the Truth and thereby ends--or even restrains--others? Or is it because he's a moderator that his opinion carries more weight than anyone else's? LTH is a community of some pretty strong-minded (and even opinionated) folks; I can't imagine anyone's opinion carrying that kind of weight.

Kennyz wrote:

aschie30 wrote:I find it odd (and amusing) that you would punish Achatz by refusing to eat at Alinea, simply because he ostensibly is desirable of this ranking, which is - like it or not - a huge achievement for this person and his restaurant.

I'm not punishing him for it at all. I'm simply saying that it gives me less desire to eat at his restaurant. It's like when McDonald's started the "Supersize It" promotion, or when The Southern mass tweets about $3 shots of Southern Comfort, or when a political candidate campaigns about the other guy's personal life. When restaurants or political candidates are so focused in their work on things I don't value at all, I think it's fair for me to question whether I will enjoy my experience with them. Sometimes they prove me wrong. It turns out that I like The Southern, and some low-blow campaigners have turned out to be decent politicians

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. If Grant Achatz's coveting of a Michelin star(s) makes you less desirous of eating there, then, yes, you are punishing him for his achievements. Your choice, but a punishment nevertheless. But I'm especially confused by this:

Kennyz wrote:When restaurants or political candidates are so focused in their work on things I don't value at all, I think it's fair for me to question whether I will enjoy my experience with them. Sometimes they prove me wrong.

I don't think Achatz is "so focused" in his work on something that you don't value at all [i.e., Michelin]. I think Achatz is doing his work, and to the extent that he gets a Michelin star or three, is icing. Does it have impact? Sure, but I don't think it bears on what Achatz does at Alinea on a daily basis, and certainly not to the extent that he is "so focused" on it.

Or put another way:

Mike G wrote:I don't think there's likely to be anywhere near that effect in the US for many years to come, and I read Achatz' comments more in the vein of, we know who our competition in the world is, and if they don't give us three, well, that's their choice. He seems unlikely to change anything specifically for them, as opposed to for his own sense of where he belongs at the cutting edge.

* * *

MikeG wrote: (Side note: I can't help but think that the sudden appearance of Noma from nowhere as The Best Restaurant In The World was the result of the world food press sensing a void with El Bulli's disappearance, and racing to fill it with another choice from an unexpected, non-France country. Sort of like how we only had Italian popes, and now we won't have one for a long time. And we also damn well won't have an American one...)

Perhaps NOMA benefited from a push because some thought it would fill a void by El Bulli, but in the context of this discussion, that potential truth is inapposite to me. Throughout this thread and elsewhere, there has been repeated questioning of the value or impact of a Michelin star versus what the local media thinks of a restaurant. My point is simply that these global lists bring global awareness to a restaurant. We're not likely to read the Copenhagen independents, but now we know about NOMA, because of a global evaluation. Along the same lines, there are a lot of people in Europe or Dubai right now who have never heard of Alinea, and are not likely to read anything local to Chicago about it. But, once it's listed by Michelin -- it's an instant game change. We may think that's stupid, but as it's been pointed out above, Michelin isn't for us, it's for international tourists.

Achatz is a guy who has worked is restaurants for basically his entire life. He's always trained to be the best, working at The French Laundry and El Bulli. He's reached the point where he's the chef/owner of arguably the country's best restaurant and one that is considered to be world-class.

I can't begrudge him for wanting 3 Michelin stars. Who with his background wouldn't want it. I agree with Dan. This is an "olympian" who has been working his whole life toward being at the top of his profession. Leaving aside the fact that he beat cancer to get here, good for him. I hope we're able to congratulate him next week.

You're bringing cancer into this argument? Really? You win, I guess.

Kennyz wrote:You're bringing cancer into this argument? Really? You win, I guess.

I am. Not to gain sympathy for the man, but just to make the point that after dealing with something like that I don't begrudge him any success that may be coming his way.