November 23rd, 2009
Last week I visited The Standard Grill, a fashionable newcomer in the meatpacking district hotel of the same name. It opened last summer to a lot of fanfare. It’s the kind of restaurant that doesn’t need a great kitchen. Everybody wants to be there anyway. Nevertheless, since its opening The Standard Grill has received lots of buzz for food that stands up to the scene. Some of it doesn’t sit right with me.
Before I visit a restaurant with such anticipation, I like to amp myself up by reading the NY Mag and New York Times reviews. But last Friday I noticed a strange parallel between the two. It felt like both Pete Wells and Adam Platt were forgiving the Standard Grill for issues that normally wouldn’t slide, due to its immense popularity and sprawling space. I’ve seen both critics be pretty brutal towards other restaurants but for The Standard Grill, I read sentences like:
With 100 seats in this room, another 100 in an even noisier antechamber, and 85 more on the sidewalk, it is a marvel that the kitchen reliably bangs out solid, flavorful food
The rambling menu doesn’t always cohere, and the waiters can be unequal to their jobs, but somehow none of that matters much.
I’m sorry, why are we applauding The Standard Grill for functioning?
Chef Dan Silverman has decades of experience under his belt at Union Square Cafe and Lever House. He should be crafting beautiful food. When you establish a pedigree for yourself you should live up to it. Nobody should be making excuses for you. And the owners of The Standard Grill clearly chose a sprawling space in a trendy area with the goal of filling it. I feel snooty for saying it, but should we be congratulating them for doing their job? Should we be wowing in amazement that they can greedily fill every seat, creating lines out the door and forcing people to wait 45 minutes for a reservation?
I think it is important that restaurants are reviewed in a vacuum, so to speak. The food and service should be up-to-snuff at a quality restaurant, period. When I read sentences like “well, the food isn’t good but man, what a huge place!”, it’s concerning.
Conversely, I recently noticed a review by Platt of SHO Shaun Hergatt, the ostentatious Asian-fusion spot which is receiving top ratings, including a Michelin star this year. Platt praised the food endlessly but then removed a star because it’s located in the Financial District, a few stories up in a hotel. Due to its location, an elegant restaurant like SHO Shaun has the same number of stars as the Standard Grill, which is leagues below in food and service. For me, location has nothing to do with merit. The fact that Adam Platt finds SHO Shaun inconvenient is irrelevant. People do live in the Financial District, you know. Maybe we should take a star from Per Se for its 4th-floor location in the Time Warner building?
I would never argue that I have the chops of these professional critics. Most often, I visit a restaurant once and then base a review from one experience. It may not be completely fair, but nobody is paying me to do this. So I’m not telling anybody how to do their job. But I don’t understand this double standard. Why should The Standard Grill get extra points just for being able to handle its own setup?
So now, I ask for your opinion. Whether you’ve dined at The Standard Grill or not, do you feel that location and size should carry weight with a restaurant’s merit?
Related Posts:
The Standard Grill (An Actual Review)8 June Restaurant Openings (DBGB, Standard Grill, Civetta)SHO Shaun Hergatt (Tough to Say, But Worth It)
Filed under | Comments (7)
Subscribe in RSS
I agree 100%. Being a critic is tough and sometimes it’s hard to be consistent given the insane amount of variables from restaurant to restaurant or wine to wine or whatever it is you are judging. However I think one needs to be fair across the board and have a systematic way of evaluating these places. Is location always such an important factor when restaurant critics rate a place? Is mediocre food but a great ambiance always such a savior, or just when the critic has a soft spot for the place or really hopes it succeeds? It has to be consistent.
Short answer: No. I’m not in the food critic biz either but it should be about the food. Having said that, a marvelous meal can be ruined by crappy service so, service is important too. I guess there is something to be said for location and ambiance too but I agree it shouldn’t be an excuse for so-so food in a review. Sometimes when you’re not that hungry or don’t know what you’re in the mood for, you might choose a restaurant solely on the vibe you want and that’s fine. On the other hand, I have been disappointed so many times in restaurants that rely on their cachet to draw in diners and seem to display a blatant disregard for the menu because they know they can get away with it.
strum, i love when you get existential on your blog. though i have not eaten there (i did sneak into the restroom once), i too read those reviews and wondered why this was getting some extra nice treatment from some otherwise frank critics. where’s frank bruni when you need him?
I thought you liked it?
Hey Ash- I did for the most part but this isn’t about my opinion on Standard Grill itself it’s about unfair reviews.
[...] assaulting SG in a recent post, it’s only fair that I follow-up and speak to the meal itself. Which [...]
[...] and even a Michelin star. Did I mention they’ve only been open for 7 months? Nevertheless, I’m never one to accept one opinion as fact and I couldn’t wait to see for myself. Though not a household name, Shaun Hergatt had great [...]