I personally don't see how GNR and high-profile are necessarily, logically incongruent. All of the places I loved in my pre-LTH days that are now GNRs--Double Li, Top Notch, Ginza, Hae Woon Dae--had some degree of fame in their respective ethnic or geographic communities. Just because the "community" in question here is River North, that should not rule this out. Moreover, any GNR can be taken away later--not just Bayless' restaurants.

The beauty of Xoco is its more democratic, approachable feel. Being young and not well-established in life, I've never been to Topolo or Frontera--but Lord, do I love Xoco, especially for breakfast. Not my favorite churros in the world (that honor, thus far, belongs to the truck at the south end of Maxwell Street Market), but a cup of drinking chocolate and a fine pastry set me back no more than a few dollars, and I take my merry time enjoying them as I peruse the paper. Starbucks prices for Bayless quality make for an unbeatable combo. Sure, the area is higher-profile, and the chef a superstar, but the high volume of happy consumers, local and otherwise, makes this Great Restaurant as Neighborhood-y as it gets, at least in my book.

I think it's legitimate to debate the food and the nature of a GNR, but make no mistake...this is a neighborhood restaurant. I know plenty of people who live in the area that make Xoco a regular stop for dinner. This should not be looked at as a place that only office workers, tourists, and "foodies" seek out because they saw it on the Food Network.

jesteinf wrote:I think it's legitimate to debate the food and the nature of a GNR, but make no mistake...this is a neighborhood restaurant. I know plenty of people who live in the area that make Xoco a regular stop for dinner. This should not be looked at as a place that only office workers, tourists, and "foodies" seek out because they saw it on the Food Network.

I live about a 10 min walk east of XOCO and go there quite a bit for dinner. More neighborhood people have caught on to the dinner service which used to be much more quiet. But while you're standing in line, they'll get a beer for you and if it's a bomber they'll even keep the bottle cold for you in the fridge while you're drinking from a glass.

XOCO is doing a great job and making a fine product. IMO the real "tourist" spot is Frontera...which I think has slipped alot in recent years. It may just be me, but my food has been very uninspired on my last couple visits.

Finally got there for the first time yesterday (and then again today).
I think I could eat my way through this menu from top to bottom and then just start over. I love this place the way I first loved Argyle St. when I first found it. In fact the meal-in-a-bowl Caldo side of the menu kind of reminds me of pho, if pho were Mexican. With the wonderful complex, spicy broth, the lime and coriander elements, it gives me exactly that kind of pleasure.
Came in very early yesterday to find Chef B. right there on the line, so my lunch came with a side of celebrity frisson. Had the Caldo carnitas which I found just blissfully satisfying for its clear, rich, deeply flavored broth and aggressive but perfectly balanced heat. The house iced tea with a shot of lemonade added (server suggestion) to sweeten was just the right beverage. My churro was warm and fresh, my almendrado perfectly rich and thick without cloying.
Had to come back today, but not being terribly hungry I went for the mushroom torta. Again, basically simple ingredients but perfectly executed. Just the right amount of goat cheese, just enough kick from the accompanying salsa to add but not cover, perfectly toasted bread. The polvoron dessert shortbread was terrific but superfluous because the choc. cafe con leche was like a platonic ideal in a mug. I can't imagine a more exact balance of coffee's bitterness with chocolate's richness, and just the right amount of sweet.
One slightly surprising but endearing element is the mildly confused state of service. The process by which they determine whether you're taking out or eating in, and then what line you belong in and how you're getting to your table, etc., seems a trifle chaotic and uncertain. On my first visit, the hostess was very careful to let me know my table number, but after that not a single employee seemed to have any idea which place corresponded to which number and they just went from person to person with each dish asking if it belonged there. Not really a problem, but a bit odd.
On both visits I sat next to out of towners who were there because of the celebrity status and who were transformed by their food into merely grunting deep, visceral appreciation as they ate.

When I tasted Hammond's pozole at Soup & Bread, I commented on how deeply flavored his stock was, and how that really separated his version from those that are more run of the mill. That depth of flavor was completely missing from the stock in Xoco's pozole. Hammond made his with pork while Xoco's has a chicken base, but that doesn't change the fact that to me, a great pozole needs to start with great stock. This was just bland. It also had 6-inch strips of what appeared to be nicely julienned lettuce that had all clumped together into a wilted, get-stuck-between-your-teeth mess. Someone wasted a lot of time julienning that lettuce.

I like breakfast and some of the sandwiches at Xoco. In no way do I find that the place is among the best representatives of Mexican food in Chicago.

Here Kennzy Z, allow me to correct your last sentence:

the place is among the best representatives of food in Chicago.

Didn't have the pozole. Make no claims either way for Xoco's Mexican-ness. Enjoyed what I ate.

I find the food at Xoco somewhat in the "ok" category but don't understand the fuss, other than the celebrity chef issue. A friend came to town recently from NYC to visit and she wanted to go to Xoco. Fine, I said, but the more we talked and I told her about places in Pilson, it became clear to everyone that we all really wanted to go to Pilsen instead.

I enjoy my meals at Xoco, but when I leave, I usually ask myself "what's the fuss about?"

The only thing I've tried at Xoco was a pozole and I found the broth to be the star of the show. Is it possible they have different broth bases for different dishes?

Darren72 wrote:The only thing I've tried at Xoco was a pozole and I found the broth to be the star of the show. Is it possible they have different broth bases for different dishes?

Maybe, though I concur with your assessment. The broth was the best part of Xoco's pozole.

jesteinf wrote:I think it's legitimate to debate the food and the nature of a GNR, but make no mistake...this is a neighborhood restaurant. I know plenty of people who live in the area that make Xoco a regular stop for dinner. This should not be looked at as a place that only office workers, tourists, and "foodies" seek out because they saw it on the Food Network.

Yep, we live in the neighborhood now and this is out #1 spot for eating out, so I would support the nomination. If you time it right, you can frequently avoid crowds, and the food is always so fresh tasting and great.

I have two beefs with the place, neither of which are dealbreakers. First, I wish they had one or two more vegetarian options. They have obviously been made aware of this since the new printed menu has veg in green ink and things that can be done veg noted as well, where previously this was up to the host to explain. The second is that when you order churros with your meal, usually they'll ask if you want it at the end of your meal. If you say yes, half the time they come out before the guacamole, the other half means they'll start cooking them when you've put on your coat and gone up to ask where they are. Obviously work-roundable by asking where they are about 10 mins before you want them, but just seems weird to offer this way of doing it and buggering it up.

Somewhat lamely, I always get the woodland mushroom torta, which is excellent. My husband tries various caldos and has loved each one he's had. The guacamole is out of this world, and the churros are worth the confusion with the staff.

Yep, we live in the neighborhood now and this is out #1 spot for eating out, so I would support the nomination.

Ditto. Its an easy choice whether to eat in or take out, since I live so close. We use it a lot for a fast pre-theater or after shopping as well as regular "I can't be bothered to cook" nights. I've found it consistently reliable, I really enjoy the food there as well as the vibe in the retaurant & while its not the most authentic Mexican food Chicago has to offer, its become my neighborhood spot of choice. And that makes it a GNR for me.

I suppose this is somewhat consistent with this thread:

I saw on the news this morning that Bayless' XOCO inspired torta "restaurant" at O'Hare is one of the country's busiest airport restaurants and that they are planning on opening a 2nd location at ORD by May.

Here is the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 1_ST_N.htm

Finally made it to Xoco, and I was looking forward to rehabilitating my image as a Bayless hater (which is not true anyway - I like Rick and respect what he has done, but I am very over Frontera and Topolobampo).

Things started out swimmingly as I considered the choices - on a breezy March evening, a caldo was the choice. Ended up getting the Caldo Verde along with a Chocolate Azteca, and then since I was still hungry I got a steak torta to go and enjoyed that at home.

Excellent ingredients, well prepared, well balanced. The chocolate was great, could have had a touch more chili (yes, this is a theme for me), but that is my taste and not a criticism. The caldo - light, tart broth, cubes of chicken breast, crumbles of queso, probably some onion, something that seemed like sprouts (!?), garnishes of cilantro, plus some other herbs and seasonings I did not identify - was very good. I can quibble, though. This is peasant fare, after all, and the perfect, meaty chunks of chicken breast seemed too fancy - I would have preferred some bone, some fat, some skin, some parts. And the heat was almost totally absent in this dish for me, the only garnish a wedge of lime. It really should have more chili in it, or perhaps some chili slices and other garnishes available. Perhaps this was an error in how I ordered?

So I went back to order my torta to go. This time I asked it be prepared muy picante (I said hot first and got a confused look). Eventually we agreed that some habanero sauce would be included. I am not sure how a request for a hotter Caldo Verde would have been addressed. Ate the sandwich mostly cold at home a couple of hours later. Nice balance, bread, spicy mayo, greens, steak - good sandwich with some restraint. Again, finer than a real torta, but I am not sure that is a criticism so much as a comment.

As on my recent visit to Frontera, people felt obliged to warn me that habanero is really hot. Not such a surprise this time around, I simply said yup, and moved on. I get it.

Good meal, good food, good buzz to the place. Bright flavors, quality ingredients, well balanced and flavored. Yes, it all lacked the ass-kicking heat I prefer, as well as the soul and grease of the true peasant food that inspired what Xoco does, but that does not make it worse. If I had Xoco in my neighborhood, I would work my way through the caldos with joy, pop in for a torta from time to time. My guess is that none of these would be my favorite version, but they all would be good, satisfying food.

As with Frontera, there were a number of things that suggested to me that I am not the target market for this place, but the food was delightful so I can live with that. And the things I would improve are probably not things that would make it more popular or more successful, so I defer to their wisdom. Perhaps there is a continuum of mass market, Mexican fast food in the US that began with Taco Bell, continued through Chipotle and now has arrived at Xoco. If that is true, I am happy and cannot wait for the next stage, the next improvement. Do you think there is a market for Huitlacoche quesadillas out there? I hope so.

D articulates better, and with more supporting detail my takeaway from 2 visits. Certainly Xoco refines (mainstreams, if you will) the down-market roots from which it springs, but that's a function of who's doing it and where it is and who it aims to serve. Its conceptual origins are still there in the food, it seems to me, and one of the major patterns of gastronomic history is the continual "discovery" and refining of "peasant" food by those with more resources searching for novelty. I guessthe difference between refined and deracinated or ersatz is in the individual eater's palate.

mrbarolo wrote:I guess the difference between refined and deracinated or ersatz is in the individual eater's palate.

Can't see how you can say I worded it better than that. There has been some interesting dialogue on and off board about how the food world has changed over the years and what that means to LTHForum, how and where we eat, and how we judge our food. Certainly a major change has been the mainstreaming of various, ethnic, usually peasant, food, whether it is Xoco, Zenwich, Red Light, or any number of other places. When the original versions are easily available nearby, and something I enjoy, I admit that I have a problem paying twice as much for what seems like a homogenized version of the original. But I know this is more a bias, my mindset, and not a reflection of whether the food I am being served is good or not.

It is a little easier with a Zenwich, since most of their food is clearly a riff on, but not a replication of, the original - there is no such thing as a bulgogi sandwich, after all, so a more apt comparison would be a McRib, than a charcoal broiled bulgogi at Hae Woon Dae. But Xoco and Red Light are more faithful to their sources, albeit with upgraded technique and ingredients, so the question should simply be whether the food is good and worth the price. At Xoco, I think it is. If the place next store was Cemitas Puebla, which would I choose? Easy answer, but the question is unfair. I think the fairer question, better comparison is with Chipotle, and in making that comparison I mean no disrespect to Xoco, any more than I would be dissing Five Guys if I compared it to Mickey D's. Mainstreaming ethnic food is also upgrading fast food.

I still have a problem with those perfect little cubes of chicken breast bobbing up in my Caldo, though. Many years ago I was dining at a church fair in central Mexico, might have been San Luis Potosi, not sure. I paid my peso, or maybe it was 50 centavos and the lady took a tortilla, fished some chicken from a pot to put in it, added some cilantro, and onion, offered me a sprinkle of salsa and I took it happily. We sat on the ground under a tree on that Sunday afternoon, sipped our cokes, watched the crowd, my friends enjoyed their stewed chicken tacos and I bit down into my chicken neck taco. It is a long road from there to perfect cubes of wood roasted gunthorpe chicken breast in my caldo, and yes, I do feel like I have lost something along the way. Not delicious food, of course, as I had to go buy a second taco to get much of anything to eat that day, but something.

dicksond wrote:At Xoco, I think it is. If the place next store was Cemitas Puebla, which would I choose? Easy answer, but the question is unfair.

Interesting that you say that because I don't think the answer is easy nor unfair. Actually maybe the answer is easy for me, it just happens to be, I'm guessing, a lot different from you. If Xoco happened to move to North Ave, and it was just a question of opening one door or another, no issue of line, and price sandwich to sandwich is not that off, I'd pick Xoco.

Sure Cemitas Puebla puts a good deal of effort into their chipotle sauce and some (although not as much as they used to) into their rolls; their product, heads-up is still not as good as Xoco's. Xoco uses better ingredients and has better tools at its disposal (what does not taste better coming out of a wood oven). The recipes are more complex. The bread better.

I think the trick questions, the one that I, and others have wrestled with is at what point are we tasting something more effusive. The notion that Xoco has "no soul", that it's not "cooked with love." Yet what does love taste like? MikeG's recent review of Ruby's, the place that took over the Edna's space shows how love does not taste so good when it's comprised of cheap stuff. I know I've written myself about preferring "Not Frontera to Frontera." I do not know I believe that anymore.

Another approach to this question, as presented by everyone's favorite snob, Steve Plotnicki, is that the very act of Bayless-izing something, we destroy what we like in it in the first place. Steve has argued that if we just won't enjoy carnitas made from non-CAFO pork. He is saying, essentially, that it is that cheapness that we actually like (and Steve will also say that he's as much a lover of cheapness as others). Yet, I just don't agree with this argument, and I believe Xoco proves it. Xoco shows you what carnitas tastes like with Slagel pork. And Slagel wins.

There's no denying that through skill and kitchen voodoo many a-place can make lousy ingredients taste damn good. Dickson's remarks about the Mr. D's steak is a good example. I think that just because something can taste good, does not mean another thing cannot taste better.

Vital Information wrote:MikeG's recent review of Ruby's, the place that took over the Edna's space shows how love does not taste so good when it's comprised of cheap stuff. I know I've written myself about preferring "Not Frontera to Frontera." I do not know I believe that anymore.

Another approach to this question, as presented by everyone's favorite snob, Steve Plotnicki, is that the very act of Bayless-izing something, we destroy what we like in it in the first place. Steve has argued that if we just won't enjoy carnitas made from non-CAFO pork. He is saying, essentially, that it is that cheapness that we actually like (and Steve will also say that he's as much a lover of cheapness as others).

Of course, since non of the stuff you mention in the quoted segment was posted on LTH Forum, it has no bearing one way or the other on the issue of Xoco as a GNR.

I've been struggling with this nomination from the very beginning. Sure, Xoco is a current darling and the food is pretty good, but I've come to the conclusion that it is little more than the mother ship for the growing Bayless Chain Empire. I can't help but think that soon we will all tire of it simply because Xoco's food is in the process of becoming so ubiquitous. You can eat it in airport terminals, department stores and malls. Granted, it goes under the Frontera name in those outlets, but make no mistake, the food served at these grab and go establishments is pure Xoco all the way. Somehow, I instinctively recoil from including such a place as a GNR no matter the quality of ingredients or the pedigree of the chef.

stevez wrote:

Vital Information wrote:MikeG's recent review of Ruby's, the place that took over the Edna's space shows how love does not taste so good when it's comprised of cheap stuff. I know I've written myself about preferring "Not Frontera to Frontera." I do not know I believe that anymore.

Another approach to this question, as presented by everyone's favorite snob, Steve Plotnicki, is that the very act of Bayless-izing something, we destroy what we like in it in the first place. Steve has argued that if we just won't enjoy carnitas made from non-CAFO pork. He is saying, essentially, that it is that cheapness that we actually like (and Steve will also say that he's as much a lover of cheapness as others).

Of course, since non of the stuff you mention in the quoted segment was posted on LTH Forum, it has no bearing one way or the other on the issue of Xoco as a GNR.

I've been struggling with this nomination from the very beginning. Sure, Xoco is a current darling and the food is pretty good, but I've come to the conclusion that it is little more than the mother ship for the growing Bayless Chain Empire. I can't help but think that soon we will all tire of it simply because Xoco's food is in the process of becoming so ubiquitous. You can eat it in airport terminals, department stores and malls. Granted, it goes under the Frontera name in those outlets, but make no mistake, the food served at these grab and go establishments is pure Xoco all the way. Somehow, I instinctively recoil from including such a place as a GNR no matter the quality of ingredients or the pedigree of the chef.

Why I think Xoco deserves a GNR here - One page back

stevez wrote:Sure, Xoco is a current darling and the food is pretty good, but I've come to the conclusion that it is little more than the mother ship for the growing Bayless Chain Empire.

I find the conversation between stevez and VI fascinating and hope I can comment on a general point even though I haven't been to Xoco.

If Xoco is little more than the mothership for the Bayless Chain Empire--yet its food is excellent, and it is loved by its neighborhood--is being the mothership of an empire a reason to disdain it?

riddlemay wrote:is being the mothership of an empire a reason to disdain it?

There is a difference between disdaining the place (which I don't) and thinking it's good (which I do), but not a GNR. I just have a visceral reaction to including a chain as part of the GNR list. It goes against everything I feel the GNR list stands for. Of course, that's just my personal opinion. YMMV.

La Pasadita is a chain.

jesteinf wrote:La Pasadita is a chain.

It wasn't at the time the GNR was awarded.

stevez wrote:I just have a visceral reaction to including a chain as part of the GNR list. It goes against everything I feel the GNR list stands for.

I'm no Xoco apologist, but that's a pretty broad definition of "chain". If Xoco is part of a chain, isn't avec? La Pasadita, surely...and Lao Sze Chuan.

ETA: Moto, too...though it's the "big brother" to Ing.

La Quebrada?

Anyway, I don't see any other Xoco's out there at the moment so I would suggest that this restaurant be treated similar to others and maybe the award would be for this single location.

kl1191 wrote:

stevez wrote:I just have a visceral reaction to including a chain as part of the GNR list. It goes against everything I feel the GNR list stands for.

I'm no Xoco apologist, but that's a pretty broad definition of "chain". If Xoco is part of a chain, isn't avec? La Pasadita, surely...and Lao Sze Chuan.

To clarify, the places you mention (other than avec, which has only one location) have a few local outposts and can hardly be compared with the national juggernaut (OK, maybe not quite yet a juggernaut) which is the Xoco/Frontera outposts that are beginning to sprout up all over the country.

I don't know. Maybe I'm over reacting, but that's just the way I feel.

stevez wrote:

kl1191 wrote:

stevez wrote:I just have a visceral reaction to including a chain as part of the GNR list. It goes against everything I feel the GNR list stands for.

I'm no Xoco apologist, but that's a pretty broad definition of "chain". If Xoco is part of a chain, isn't avec? La Pasadita, surely...and Lao Sze Chuan.

To clarify, the places you mention (other than avec, which has only one location) have a few local outposts and can hardly be compared with the national juggernaut (OK, maybe not quite yet a juggernaut) which is the Xoco/Frontera outposts that are beginning to sprout up all over the country.

I don't know. Maybe I'm over reacting, but that's just the way I feel.

I think it's a perfectly apt analogy. Avec is part of a "family" of food serving establishments that includes Blackbird, the Publican, Violet Hour and Big Star. Xoco is part of a "family" of food serving establishments that includes Topolobampo, Frontera Grill, Frontera Fresco and Tortas Frontera.

ETA: Personally, if you're averse to chains I think Lao Sze Chuan is an even tougher question...not only are there two restaurants with the same name serving similar menus (and both GNRs), but there are several more restaurants in the same family where you can get some of those same dishes as well as other different types of food from the same country. (I say this while happily acknowledging that I could eat at LSC every day until the day I die...)

Wow ... so many GNR discussions seem to center on issues other than the food (similar shizz came up in the Bristol thread). Basically, these debates all focus on variations on these non food-related questions:

1. Does the restaurant's status as part of a larger corporate enterprise matter?
2. Does the restaurant's status as a part of a chain matter, and how is a "chain" defined?
3. Does widespread knowledge about the restaurant--i.e. national press, or "trendiness"--matter?
4. How strictly should "neighborhood" be defined?
5. Weird unresolvable questions about value judgments (i.e. ethnic cuisine made by outsiders, types of ethnic cuisine we don't "get", whether "ethnic" cuisine is more GNR-y than "insert other type of cuisine" ...)

While these questions are fun to debate, I think they're impossible to resolve, and, worse, are ultimately really distracting / needlessly polarizing in the GNR discussion because they are so intimately intertwined with our innumerable individual emotional reactions to the restaurant's "identity" as we conceive of it. Your "overly loud cluster$%&* staffed by conceited hipster servers" might be my "down to earth place full of smart, friendly people." And our "quaint, charming family business" is likely someone else's "irrational/xenophobic food poisoning nightmare."

The bias here can tilt against the "corporate" and the "trendy," and for a lot of reasons, that makes sense. Corporate and trendy food both tend to suck.

Really, the primary question has to be about the food. Otherwise, it comes down to all sorts of idiosyncratic preferences. We can, more or less, come to some (mushy) consensus about the food.

The focus on "brand identity" whether said identity is "a sweet grandmotherly woman who hand-forms the masa" or "touristy place in River North run by a celebrity chef" is a real diversion. (I say this as someone who has argued about such things elsewhere on the site, so feel free to call me a hypocrite. The fact I think a restaurant has a, *cough*, tone-deaf name doesn't and shouldn't affect my opinion of the food.) The food isn't better because it's made by the sweet old lady, nor is it worse because it's served in a loud room full of expense accounts, Boehneresque tans and Botox (that's not a description of Xoco, btw, just my own personal restaurant hell).

I hate to say it folks, but fetishizing the obscure, the ethnic, and--especially--the "authentic" smacks of elitism and worse. Of course, we all do it to some extent, or we wouldn't be here. But the fact that those who share our values w/r/t food often fit into one cultural box can be really misleading. The mistake is that while these characteristics have value as hueristics--i.e. as a decision mechanism to sort among numerous restaurant choices--they don't have substantive value when evaluating a restaurant's product.

I've had great, though somewhat mixed results at Xoco. Its dedication to fresh local ingredients is unimpeachable, and when it's on, the wonders imparted by the wood oven can be magical. I'm in favor of it for a GNR.

queequeg's_steak wrote: Your "overly loud cluster$%&* staffed by conceited hipster servers" might be my "down to earth place full of smart, friendly people." And our "quaint, charming family business" is likely someone else's "irrational/xenophobic food poisoning nightmare."

While I agree that each person can disagree on aspects of a restaurant, to have such dichotomic reactions to a place don't jibe. I've been to Xoco a few times and thought it was ok...service was disjointed but the food was better than anticipated. I guess I need to steal from the Supreme Court when they talked about pornography...don't know how to describe it, but know it when they see it...Xoco isn't really there for me, yes it can be really good...but not GNR

queequeg's_steak wrote:I hate to say it folks, but fetishizing the obscure, the ethnic, and--especially--the "authentic" smacks of elitism and worse. Of course, we all do it to some extent, or we wouldn't be here. But the fact that those who share our values w/r/t food often fit into one cultural box can be really misleading. The mistake is that while these characteristics have value as hueristics--i.e. as a decision mechanism to sort among numerous restaurant choices--they don't have substantive value when evaluating a restaurant's product.

I'm in sympathy with your basic argument, and have expressed it in other terms on occasion here myself, in other threads.

Upthread, VI posed the hypothetical example, paraphrased, "If Xoco and Cemitas Puebla were next door to each other, which door would I go in?" An even more telling question might be, If all the Xoco signage from Xoco were removed, and replaced with Cemitas Puebla signage, would I like the place better than I like it when I believe it to be Xoco? Separately, believing this to be a Cemitas Puebla I had walked into, would I conclude from the food I ate in the River North location that Cemitas Puebla had stepped up its game from the North Ave. location, or would my taste buds tell me that the food in the River North location was a step down?