Peter Luger NYT review.

[K_F_o_l_e_y]

GRATUITOUS QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I look forward to them the way I look forward to finding a new, irregularly shaped mole.”

(the French fries)

[Victor_Hong]

… POS …

What is PoS?

Point of Sale?
Noodle-slingers ring out orders for cash there.
Point of Sail?
Yachtsmen refer to that for boat direction and sail trim.

I get easily confused.

Piece of steak! That is it.

Like right here.

[Mark_Golodetz]

The Locol question is a test for one’s views on what Wells should be doing. In my opinion, Wells absolutely should be writing about places like Locol – places that are important to the narratives surrounding food and dining nationally. Locol obviously is an innovative project by high-profile people and one that set out to be nationally important, trend-setting, and disruptive of traditional dining options in under-served areas. It’s not that different from discussing what Chang did with the Momofuku places, what Robuchon did with l’Atelier, etc. I also frankly like that Wells gave a real sense of the food rather than just focusing on the social aspects. Wells told us what it’s like to eat at Locol, rather than just talking about the fact that Locol exists. So while I love Jonathan Gold’s work generally, I disagree with him here: writing about Locol was the right thing to do and was worth of inclusion in the NYT food section. I wish that Wells wrote more about nationally interesting/important places that aren’t just “decent restaurants in New York.”

I do, however, take issue with the Locol review in two ways:

First, did it really need to be a review instead of just an article? And here is where I probably agree with Gold: it would likely have been better as a feature that mentioned the food’s shortcomings (and I absolutely think Wells should have mentioned the food’s shortcomings), rather than a review. The reason is that vanishingly few NYT readers are going to actually eat at Locol, so I can’t fathom the point of actually going through the exercise of giving it zero stars and detailing the best dishes, etc. Giving zero stars basically says “don’t eat here” – and that’s both harsh and bizarre, since the readership by and large isn’t going to eat there anyway.

Second, the tone. Given the price point, and the newness, and the ambitions of Locol, I found the tone of Wells’s critique to be bizarre – simultaneously overly harsh and overly playful, without enough sensitivity to the issues involved.

My goodness; it’s not often I agree with everything written in a long post, but this is perfect.

[MChang]

He also reviewed the Oakland location which is far less compelling, being in actually a relatively affluent area, having just opened, and not being the source of all the buzz.