DIY Chicago Michelin Guide

Earlier this week, Michelin, the French tire company and publishers of the esteemed guide books, released its ratings for restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Europe, Michelin guides have been the gold standard dining ratings for decades, and restaurants' reputations--as well as those of their chefs--have been made or broken by a Michelin "star." A year ago, Michelin shook up the New York restaurant world with its ratings, awarding the coveted three star rating to only four restaurants while snubbing popular landmarks. A similar upset was experienced in San Francisco upon the release of Michelin's ratings. While Michelin has been criticized for its bias towards French and French-inspired cuisine and the apparent disregard for restaurants that stray from the European tradition of fine dining, Michelin stars carry a lot of weight.

I thought it would be fun to beat Michelin to the punch in Chicago and propose our own ratings. What Chicago restaurants do you think are worthy of the vaunted three star rating? How about places dear to hearts of every Chicago foodie that just wouldn't impress a snobbish Michelin inspector? Below I've provided a key to the Michelin star ratings with examples in New York and San Francisco, as well as some perennial favorites that for some reason or another didn't make the cut. Feel free to use this to guide you in your reviews.

Three Stars - "Exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey"
Alain Ducasse, French Laundry, Jean Georges, Le Bernardain, Per Se

Two Stars - "Excellent cooking, worth a detour"
Aqua, Bouley, Daniel, Danube, Masa, Michael Mina

One Star - "A very good restaurant in its category"
Babbo, Chez Panisse, Fleur de Lys, Gary Danko, Gramercy Tavern, Nobu, Peter Luger Steakhouse, the Spotted Pig, WD-50

NO Stars
Chanterelle, Oliveto, Slanted Door, Union Square Café, Zuni Cafe

For more information about the Michelin Guide, I humbly refer you to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide This New York Times article takes Michelin to task on its ratings: http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/d ... e7&ei=5070.

Haven't we already done this?

stevez wrote:Haven't we already done this?

Steve,

You took my fingers right off the keyboard

Somehow I think the standards for Michelin stars and the GNR Award are somewhat different.

Among other things, Michelin takes some notice of decor.

LAZ wrote:Somehow I think the standards for Michelin stars and the GNR Award are somewhat different.

Among other things, Michelin takes some notice of decor.

Which, of course, confirms that the GNR awards are superior to Michelin for people looking for good food.

I've been thinking about the question, and now I'm ready to play. One disclaimer is that it is almost impossible to predict stars since it seems like Michelin is calibrating locally (i.e., a 3-star in NY or SF so far is not equivalent to a 3-star in Paris). So anyway, here are my guesses (not all inclusive, just some places off the top of my head, and mostly limited to places I've been)

3 stars - Alinea (IMO the only slam dunk out there)
2 or 3 stars - TRU, Trotters, Spiaggia, Everest, Avenues, Carlos'
1 or 2 stars - Naha, Blackbird, Schwa, Topolobampo, Seasons, Dining Room at the Ritz
Probably 1 star - Avec, Moto, Fronteira Grill, North Pond, Spring
Places I haven't been that I'm sure will show up somewhere based on what I've heard about them - Ambria. Nomi

Again, total speculation and very limited. I'm sure many more places will show up when the guide is actually published.

One disclaimer is that it is almost impossible to predict stars since it seems like Michelin is calibrating locally (i.e., a 3-star in NY or SF so far is not equivalent to a 3-star in Paris).

Well, what is equivalent to Paris? Nothing, if you're French...

Looking at how they handled New York and SF, they liked authentically French French and they liked Thomas Keller.

And they enjoyed the controversy that came from dissing some big names whose pretensions to French-level quality they could punch down, and the controversy that came from picking some small, mid-level place (Spotted Pig).

They gave some obligatory one stars to a few places that almost any other guide would rate higher-- Babbo, Gary Danko, Nobu and Peter Luger.

Based on that, and with Jesteinf having broken the ice, I'd amend his list thusly:

3-- Alinea, Everest.
2-- Gleeful joy in denying the top rank to Tru, Trotter, and Spiaggia.
1-- Blackbird, and Topolobampo, dutifully rather than enthusiastically (do the French really like Mexican food? Let me know as soon as one of them tries it).
Dissed and not on the list: Shawn McClain.

The real question is, what will be the headscratcher? What, like the Spotted Pig, will appear with a star leaving people to wonder what the hell were they thinking, while far grander places are blown off? Chief O'Neill's? Oysy? Chuck's?

Mike G wrote:The real question is, what will be the headscratcher? What, like the Spotted Pig, will appear with a star leaving people to wonder what the hell were they thinking, while far grander places are blown off? Chief O'Neill's? Oysy? Chuck's?

Mike,

Easy, 'Little' Three Happiness, 209 W Cermak.

Enjoy,
Gary

3-- Alinea, Everest.
2-- Gleeful joy in denying the top rank to Tru, Trotter, and Spiaggia.
1-- Blackbird, and Topolobampo, dutifully rather than enthusiastically (do the French really like Mexican food? Let me know as soon as one of them tries it).
Dissed and not on the list: Shawn McClain.

Also apparently dissed, though I hope out of negligence, not intent, is Avenues.

I, personally, would score my top rank at 2.5 stars and give the nod to Avenues, Everest, Spiaggia, and Trotter. For the moment, I'll stop right there.

With full recognition of the fallacies and follies that go into the Michelin star ratings, I'll throw in my 2-cents worth and suggest that places like Alinea (due to the avant garde nature of the presentation) and anything Mexican (because of the cultural myopia of the French -- and I love the French, they have been some of my best clients and best friends -- but to repeat, because of the cultural myopia of the French), I'd probably limit any potential Michelin candidates to the less imaginative or newer competitors in the Chicago culinary scene. I also seriously doubt that more than one or maybe two Chicago restaurants would earn over one Michelin star; and that's not a diss on Chicago restaurants, merely my impression of what the Michelin reviewers look for versus what is on offer here. It's really a bunch of hoo-ha that wins the Michelin stars; sure, the food must be extraordinary, but so must be the brand of linen they use, the amount of gold leaf and the shine on the waiters' shoes. Or that's what I've read; never having dined at any restaurant that has even a mention in Michelin, what the hell would I know personally on the matter?

JimInLoganSquare wrote:With full recognition of the fallacies and follies that go into the Michelin star ratings, I'll throw in my 2-cents worth and suggest that places like Alinea (due to the avant garde nature of the presentation) and anything Mexican (because of the cultural myopia of the French -- and I love the French, they have been some of my best clients and best friends -- but to repeat, because of the cultural myopia of the French), I'd probably limit any potential Michelin candidates to the less imaginative or newer competitors in the Chicago culinary scene.

I'm not sure I buy that there is an inherent bias against avant garde cuisine. Both The Fat Duck and El Bulli have 3 stars, WD 50 has one.

jesteinf wrote:

JimInLoganSquare wrote:With full recognition of the fallacies and follies that go into the Michelin star ratings, I'll throw in my 2-cents worth and suggest that places like Alinea (due to the avant garde nature of the presentation) and anything Mexican (because of the cultural myopia of the French -- and I love the French, they have been some of my best clients and best friends -- but to repeat, because of the cultural myopia of the French), I'd probably limit any potential Michelin candidates to the less imaginative or newer competitors in the Chicago culinary scene.

I'm not sure I buy that there is an inherent bias against avant garde cuisine. Both The Fat Duck and El Bulli have 3 stars, WD 50 has one.

You know what, you are correct. But that's a novel position for Michelin, and I guess I was reacting to the "old" Michelin reviewing style. That said, I'd be very interested to see whether the Michelin reviewers would grant a provincial (yes, Chicago is provincial to the French, sorry) restaurant the same latitude.

Jim, if they followed the criteria they use in Europe, and added their own presumption of French superiority, they would only have given Ducasse three stars, and told the rest of New York to screw off.

But I think they realized that there wasn't a market in 2004 for a French book totally dissing New York dining as inferior, so they loosened their standards a little to produce the number of winners they had. I would expect the same in Chicago.

OK. I'll play too. Jim you make excellent points.

First, let's take a look back at the 5 U.S. restaurants with three stars

The French Laundry, Per Se, Le Bernardin, Alain Ducasse, and Jean-Georges.

If you care to take a look down the two and one star lists, you'll see that it's overwhelmingly dominated by classic French and French-inspired restaurants. There is a handful of Italian, sushi, Peter Luger's, and one example of nouveau cuisine: WD-50. But those account for maybe 1/4th of the total (I'm just estimating).

Let's be honest. Michelin is a system that rates the fanciest French restaurants. The others are added to give the book a little more appeal.

I think three stars for Achatz would be a major coup in the Michelin world as would any star for Bayless or McClain.

Here's what I see:

Three Stars: None
Two Stars: Everest, Tru, Spiaggia, Charlie Trotters, Les Francais
One Star: Blackbird, North Pond, Alinea, Avenues, Gabriel's and a few others including a "surprise" like Vie.

Best,
Michael

Mike G wrote:But I think they realized that there wasn't a market in 2004 for a French book totally dissing New York dining as inferior, so they loosened their standards a little to produce the number of winners they had. I would expect the same in Chicago.

Yes, maybe in 15 to 20 years. Can't we all just agree that Michelin is irrelevant? If they have to "loosen their standards" to recognize Per Se, Gary Danko, Aqua and any number of other world-class (but oh, so unfortunately, not-French) restaurants, then their standards are ridiculous and need not "loosening" but rather a complete rethinking. And I would say as much to my friends and banking clients in Paris (and, incidentally, would expect to receive their assent).

eatchicago wrote:Here's what I see:

Three Stars: None
Two Stars: Everest, Tru, Spiaggia, Charlie Trotters, Les Francais
One Star: Blackbird, North Pond, Alinea, Avenues, Gabriel's and a few others including a "surprise" like Vie.

Best,
Michael

Well, that outcome would certainly get people talking (I think Alinea receiving one star would be a total travesty). I'm not sure if it would result in more or less guides being sold. The question is, would Michelin dare put the smack down and award zero stars? Would there be a backlash, or is Michelin just too irrelevant inside the US?

jesteinf wrote:

eatchicago wrote:Here's what I see:

Three Stars: None
Two Stars: Everest, Tru, Spiaggia, Charlie Trotters, Les Francais
One Star: Blackbird, North Pond, Alinea, Avenues, Gabriel's and a few others including a "surprise" like Vie.

Best,
Michael

Well, that outcome would certainly get people talking (I think Alinea receiving one star would be a total travesty).

But wouldn't you say that it fits their track record?

Can't we all just agree that Michelin is irrelevant?

France is irrelevant, that's its charm... but yes, Michelin is. I've eaten at two three-stars, and both seemed to have been deformed by the desire for a third star to meet the presumed needs of the ideal Michelin customer, who is apparently 90 years old and needs somewhere to rest a bit between the table and his chauffered limo.

Now, if they were still publishing Gault-Millau in English, a Gault-Millau about Chicago would be worth reading and talking about, not least because their reviews were long (and witty) enough to give you something to talk about. 19/20 and three tocques for Alinea, do you suppose?

eatchicago wrote:Here's what I see:

Three Stars: None
Two Stars: Everest, Tru, Spiaggia, Charlie Trotters, Les Francais
One Star: Blackbird, North Pond, Alinea, Avenues, Gabriel's and a few others including a "surprise" like Vie.

Best,
Michael

I agree that no restaurant in Chicago or Chicagoland would ever earn three Michelin stars. But, of course, so what. Anyway, I could see Everest getting in there with one or two stars if Alpana had her hair done that day and wore the right lip gloss, and I could definitely see your other nominations having enough flash, class and Francophile appeal to garner one or two stars. I do have questions about North Pond; I love the place, but it just doesn't have the total snob appeal "thing" going to warrant Michelin attention (their loss, of course). But enough said. Assuming Michhelin ever decided to review Chicago restaurants, the result would have some anthropological interest, but I don't think it would or should influence anyone's decisions about where to dine, at least not among a critically thinking group such as ours.

eatchicago wrote:

jesteinf wrote:

eatchicago wrote:Here's what I see:

Three Stars: None
Two Stars: Everest, Tru, Spiaggia, Charlie Trotters, Les Francais
One Star: Blackbird, North Pond, Alinea, Avenues, Gabriel's and a few others including a "surprise" like Vie.

Best,
Michael

Well, that outcome would certainly get people talking (I think Alinea receiving one star would be a total travesty).

But wouldn't you say that it fits their track record?

It certainly does. It would just be a very provocative move when entering a new market.

I agree that no restaurant in Chicago or Chicagoland would ever earn three Michelin stars.

My point (and others made this when the NY book came out) is... I don't believe they'll publish a book about any city where they can't decide on a few three-star restaurants, because they know that the three-star derby is what sells the books. They'll be stingy with them, but they'll give just enough to make sure people buy the books, or at least talk about them.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:
I agree that no restaurant in Chicago or Chicagoland would ever earn three Michelin stars.

In France, I would agree. However, I have a feeling all cities covered in the US are being graded on a bit of a "curve".

jesteinf wrote:

JimInLoganSquare wrote:
I agree that no restaurant in Chicago or Chicagoland would ever earn three Michelin stars.

In France, I would agree. However, I have a feeling all cities covered in the US are being graded on a bit of a "curve".

Then that is all the more reason to hold the Michelin people in disdain. They are both snobs AND hypocrites, attempting to sell their snobbish evaluations of restaurants as having equal merit internationally while applying a "curve" to the grading to ensure some certain number of restaurants receive 3, 2 or 1 stars as part of a ludicrous popularity contest and attempt to sell books. Shame on Michelin; it is a ridiculous exercise. (Note: I have Michelin tires on my sad, old VW and I LOVE those tires. So, maybe if they stuck with what they knew best?)

Alinea absolutely positively ranks as a world-class Michelin three-star restaurant. In fact - and I do know this for a fact - it blows a lot of precious Paris three-stars out of the water in every relevant way - ingredients, technique, finished dishes, service, setting - you name it.

BTW Michelin is not all about Paris - it's most handy rating hotels and restaurants out in the French backwaters - that was its original intent.

They do also have a great category called Bib Gourmand - which is good food and setting at value prices.

ronnie_suburban suggests that the Michelin men are already here. (Scroll down to the bottom if you want to read it...not sure how to link direct to a post on eGullet.)

When did any of us ever care about Cristofle silverware or Limoges China? Michelin is elitist, and measures the eating experience in terms of a checklist of rediculous opulence. It's great if your the kind of person who equates the cost of a meal with the quality of that meal, but that's it.

I'm not being flip when I say the bulletproof glass at the southside rib shacks earns a point in my Michelin book.

Khan BBQ makes Chicken Boti like no one else, on certain days Robert Adams Sr. makes a smoked rib like no one else, and Grant Achatz makes a black truffle explosion like no one else. The experiences may be different, but their value is equal in my book. One night you might be interested in comfy chairs and linen draperies, but another night you want plastic trays and paper napkins. Excellence is where you find it.

I don't doubt the Ducasse, Robuchon, Keller etc are the best of what they do and that Michelin marks that in some way, but Doug Sohn of Hot Doug's is the surpreme purveyor and creator when it comes to encased meats and kitschy decor, and he also deserves a Michelin star if it really represents supreme excellence in food and ambience.

How much weight do these ratings hold anymore? AAA, Mobil, Zagat, Michelin, not to mention the countless other local, national and international review sites that are out there now, seem to be losing their importance with the addition of more and more restaurants to their lists.

With technology being what it is today, diners can post ten page reviews dissecting the “who, what, when, where and why” of their most recent dining escapade. Throw in the fact that you can add pics of the room, dishes, wine, etc, and it leads one to think that the old school model is antiquated and is in dire need of change.

ChefGEB wrote:How much weight do these ratings hold anymore? AAA, Mobil, Zagat, Michelin, not to mention the countless other local, national and international review sites that are out there now, seem to be losing their importance with the addition of more and more restaurants to their lists.

With technology being what it is today, diners can post ten page reviews dissecting the “who, what, when, where and why” of their most recent dining escapade. Throw in the fact that you can add pics of the room, dishes, wine, etc, and it leads one to think that the old school model is antiquated and is in dire need of change.

Chef,

I agree with you 100%, but just yesterday I took a well traveled friend to Honey 1 for the first time and he remarked that he uses the Michelin guide extensively. Then I turned him on to LTH. I think the paradigm is shifting, but still has a way to go.

My wife was on jury duty a few years back and was amazed at how many people, when asked what magazines they subscribed to, said Reader's Digest. (As in, half.)

On the other hand, I was working at an ad agency a few years back when Reader's Digest set up displays with free copies in each floor's lobby. The ad agency sophisticates approached it like the apes in 2001 approaching the monolith... have heard of this but never seen before... touch it to see if it bites...

My point is, there's a lot of America out there reading those things even when us Internet-using smart primates aren't. I bet there's no single thing that brings more business to a certain class of restaurants than being in the Mobil Guide.

What's disconcerting about Michelin is that its requirements have been allowed to drive things, at least in France, that country of bureaucrats and cataloguers, so that restaurants at a certain point stop aiming to become what their creators dream of and become, instead, what they hope will please Michelin. And not being a Gulf emir, I don't share those criteria in my dining. I've described my experience at Ducasse before (actually that's a great old thread that rewards revisiting) and mentioned it above, so I won't describe it yet again, but suffice it to say that a certain amount of pleasure, surprise, delight was sucked out of the meal by what felt like bureaucratically mandated luxury. What Ducasse might have become, undisturbed, under the mercurial M. Ducasse, we will never know; all we know is what it became in order to win him six stars.

So I'm sure the news value and manufactured outrage at the pronouncements of the Academie Michelin will be amusing for a few days, and then I hope our chefs go back to ignoring it, and doing what they think will please them and us, not the Michelin Men.

Mike, you've described why fine dining in Italy, Spain and, yes, North America, has left France behind.