Top 101 Restaurants if you have an expense account
101 examples of expense account dining
[from New York Magazine, "101 Best Restaurants" by Adam Platt]:
When I called my friend the Food Aristocrat with the news that the magazine was adopting a star system for the rating of restaurants, she let out a small, agitated sigh. “Boy, are you screwed,” she said.
We think Adam Platt should be less concerned about his "Food Aristocrat" friend and more concerned about the "Food Masses."
We admit that we'd like to dine at all 101 of the restaurants to which Adam Platt has presented one, two, three, four and five stars in his New York Magazine ranking. We've read the same prior reviews Adam used as leads. We've drooled over the same menus. But the difference between Adam and us is that we don't have an expense account. If I knew that my company was going to pay for meals at 101 plus restaurants of my choosing, I too would choose Manhattan's most expensive offerings.
But while we were drooling over the menus we were also checking out the menu prices. And not one of the restaurants that Adam has presented offers even a remotely reasonably priced meal. Sure the meals are art. They look and taste delicious and best of all you can be assured that the room will be lit by the warm glow of trust and hedgefund money. But now that New York Magazine has hit the stands with its top 101, we guarantee that the lustery glow of the rich at each of these restaurants will have faded and instead you'll be sitting in the muddled light of suckers who have followed the advise of the expense account-touting restaurant reviewer. Who is the New York Magazine's audience if all 101 options present require a couple to burn through $250 in one sitting? Are they the same people who are creating the demand for luxury apartments instead of middle-income housing? And perhaps burn is not the correct metaphor. Tossing your money down the shithole is more apt - because after enjoying your New York Mag-endorsed meal you can be sure that you will have pissed your hard-earned dough down the toilet on an overly extravagant meal.
Maybe New York Magazine is a cheap way for the middle-income people of this city to live vicariously through the rich. If that's what this top 101 is, then more power to you. Unfortunately, I think the list is a restaurant reviewer who has not done his homework. There are thousands of delicious and affordable dining spots throughout this city. Unfortunately, to find them would require relinquishing that free meal at Per Se or WD-50. And with this kind of free ticket, why dig when you can dine.
Comments
What about Momofuku, Casa Mono and Inoteca? I agree that many or most of the 101 do break the bank, but that is the reality of fine dining in NYC. i think that they left off some good places with reasonable price tags, but they did come up with a solid list of top spots.
I also think that your post doesn't define a reasonable price for us middle-income folks...is it the NY Times $25 and under or is there another standard that you are thinking about.
Posted by: CR.Food | January 5, 2006 01:51 PM
We agree that Momofuku, Casa Mono and 'inoteca present some less expensive options. But are problems with the spots are: On Momofuku: There are noodle spots all over the city. Noodles do not need to cost $11-15 and they don't need to be eaten at a trendy spot to taste good. If a bargain is going to be presented, why not find a true bargin? Not a place that is simply less expensive in the context of everything else presented?. And just as delicious versions of oxtail soup can be found for less at spots like Maroons and on Friday's at Elvie's Turo-Turo you can get the Filipino version of oxtail soup, Kare-Kare plus another dish for under $10. On Casa Mono: We've never eaten here. We love wild game and the prices look good considering the food that is served. We'll give it a try. On 'inoteca: People have been complaining about this place for months. Sure the SMALL plates are inexpensive, but to even get to the plates you have endure long waits in line with Upper East Siders who made the trek downtown because they heard this restaurant is the new bargain in town. Again, we don't want to feel like I'm waiting in a soup line to get to the bargain meal. On defining a reasonable price for middle income people: First we in no way adhere to the NY Times $25 and under. Read: our past posting on the matter: here, although the reviews have improved considerably since Eric Asimov has moved on. The one thing that “$25 and under” does well (unlike the top 101) is uncover new dining spots that haven't already been reviewed by all the major NYC publications. Ultimately, we want value: good size portions, good food, the majority of our time at the restaurant should not be spent waiting in line. And most importantly, if the middle-income worker is making $50,000 a year or $200 a day, a meal should really not cost more than $20 a person. (We figure that roughly 40% of the income is going towards rent. Transportation, utilities, etc need to be paid for.) We encourage eating at the true bargain restaurants so that 1. there's plenty of free flowing funding for the beverage fund and 2. so that every so often all that money that's been saved can be spent on a splurgy fancy feast.
Posted by: cakehead | January 5, 2006 02:41 PM
Thanks for calling their bullshit, cakehead. New York Mag is clearly out of touch with their readership. Either that, or their readership has become a bunch of fancy pants corporate types and trustafarians.
Posted by: baldo | January 5, 2006 09:20 PM
i just found your site off of kipblog. love it! are you a new yorker? i am taking by your nod to nymag's 101 list you are? happy to find another nywb (new yorker who blogs).
Posted by: mona | January 9, 2006 07:48 PM