Frisco Food

I'm Back

2009-06-12T11:27:00.000-07:00

Alright, I think it's time to resurrect this blog from the dead. I still like dining out, I still do it, and I still like writing and having a personal pulpit for inane opinions. There's really no excuse not to get this back up and running.

I also have some overdue spots to either write about, or to update opinions on. Among those you can probably expect to see in coming posts are Beretta, Conduit, Gitane, Epic Roasthouse, RN74, Tipsy Pig, Bar Jules, SPQR and others.

Thanks for reading.

News Roundup

2007-08-25T09:10:00.001-07:00

There seems to be an inordinate amount of restaurant news popping up in the city right now. So much so that it's getting hard to keep up. The well-done ZagatBuzz column helps out quite a bit, but not everyone's an online subscriber. Here's a few of the notable highlights from there and elsewhere.

- Spruce in Presidio Heights seems to be the new impossible reservation in town (probably replacing Salt House at the top of the list). Everyone loves the whole eco/sustainable/local food thing right now to the point where it's probably a necessity to weave that theme into any new opening to some degree. What's more interesting is that they serve 70 wines by the glass. How do they keep those from turning? Their storage system must be incredible. If not, is significant wine waste considered an ecological no-no? I have many questions here.

- Both Citizen Cake and Jardiniere are closed for the month for remodeling. Indigo must love that. With some quick Google research it shows that the symphony is on tour and the opera season hasn't started yet, so I guess it's the Hayes Valley locals who are missing out, if they ever frequent those places anyway. Either way, I'm curious to see the new "J Lounge" on the bottom floor of Jardiniere when it opens.

- Palmetto and Laiola are new spots on Union St. and Chestnut St. respectively taking over where Home and Pizza My Heart once were. I haven't eaten at either, but I do know that Camber Lay, the bar manager at Laiola is very, very talented having seen her impressive cocktails-as-cuisine routine before at Frisson and Range. Word on Zagat was that they were having trouble with their liquor license though, so hopefully they have that fixed by now.

- Incanto's chef Chris Cosentino is on the next Iron Chef America. If there's an episode with an organ meat theme, he's going to dominate.

- Frjtz Fries opened a new spot on Valencia in the Mission. Twice-fried, extra-fat frites.... how trendy!

- Just finally ate at Salt House for dinner for the first time, and it didn't disappoint. The duck and the rib-eye are both great, and as long as we're talking about fries they do an upscale WT fries dish covered in cheese and rib gravy. Yum.

- There's an article this morning in the Chronicle about the new Intercontinental Hotel going up on Fifth and Howard, set for soft opening in January. Apparently there's a Cal-Italian restaurant street side going in. Given the area and the hotel, his could either be really good (Ame) or really bad (XYZ).

That's it for now.

As The Brunch Turns: Toast and Stacks

2007-07-07T15:12:00.000-07:00

Breakfast and brunch, being the most important meal of the day and all, deserves some updated attention in this space. My last take on breakfast was over a year ago, and much has changed, including my secret spot (Maverick) no longer serving brunch at all.

Sidenote: You'll notice that I use the terms "breakfast" and "brunch" nearly interchangeably. For me, the only difference is the hour of the day they're served and the fact that you can't have brunch on a weekday. The food is the exact same for me, even at a big hotel brunch. In fact, it somewhat bothers me when I go to brunch with people who proceed to order a salad or a burger at 11am. It just throws everything off.

Well, two of my current favorite spots for breakfast aren't even mentioned in my last post, and that's because they weren't open - Toast in Noe Valley and Stacks in Hayes Valley.

Both places take the upscaled-Denny's approach to a straight-ahead breakfast. Scrambles, omelets, pancakes, French toast... the staples, plus a few other slightly-more-interesting items. Both places also take a diner approach to the dining room. Toast is small tables and a counter plus some outdoor seating, though the feel is clearly diner. Stacks takes a more traditional approach with fluffy green booths and big floral arrangements. It's what you would expect at the flagship Lyon's, if there were such a thing. Stacks does get bonus points for being big as well. I'm a bit sick of the typical breakfast spot where eight people eat while three dozen others watch intently.

But the biggest aspect the two places share in common is that they keep it simple and they execute well. When you order an omelet, you get back exactly what you'd expect in balanced, hearty quantities. It's not that I don't like it when breakfast gets a creative culinary edge (Ella's is a positive example that comes to mind), but sometimes it's nice to see a menu with the old standbys.

One other interesting note on Stacks that you'll find reading Yelp is that there appears to be some neighborhood backlash based on Stacks being a "chain." To be clear, this is now the third Stacks, the other two locations being in Burlingame and Menlo Park. They're owned by a sole proprietor from the Castro named Geoffrey who greeted us at the door in Hayes Valley on our last visit. If this constitutes everything negative about a "chain" for you, then I suspect you generally begrudge others' success if it's not on your exact terms. Go on leading your happy life.

That said, I'm always on the lookout for new breakfast places, be they simple or aggressive on the culinary scale. If you've found something new, exciting, and without a huge line, please email me and I promise not to write about it.

Spork: As Useful as the Name Suggests

2007-07-03T15:43:00.000-07:00

Spork is a relatively new eatery on Valencia near 21st St. It's been high on my list to try for the whole two months it's been open. Unfortunately, until last night, I've had a severe mental block from actually entering the doors. While Spork seems to have the right combination of interesting, well-priced cuisine, a fun wine list, and a hip, alluring vibe, the problem has been that I wasn't able to get past the memory of a KFC being in the same location a mere six months ago. While KFC might be an erstwhile guilty pleasure (especially the biscuits), I could not imagine that the layers of reconstituted chicken and grease could possibly be gone from the walls. It turns out that I was considerably overdue making my first Spork visit, and KFC remnants are a distant memory.

The interior of Spork is very tastefully conceived and manages to be both modern and comfortable. My wife particularly likes the server uniforms, which I found to be a peculiar-yet-noteworthy observation. The tables and booths are spread out in diner-like fashion, yet I can see that it would still have a very lively buzz on crowded nights.

The menu is that undefinable cuisine that seems to be ever-growing in popularity, with a bit of Italian, some California/New American, and shades of Asian/Japanese. For instance, our starters were a yellowtail sashimi with a Japanese citrus custard and wasabi vinegar, while the other was a gnocchi gratin with fennel sausage. It was an odd mix that worked well. The flavors aren't the least bit delicate, but in this case it keeps the meal interesting. And at the low price point ($13-$18 for entrees), that's the approach that makes the most sense and they execute it well.

The mix of entrees is also quite interesting. They offer a steak and an "inside-out burger," as well as a pasta dish, "mussels and pork with a spork," and a seabass. Our very nice hipster waiter steered us toward the mussels and the seabass and we weren't disappointed. The sweet corn and shitakes that came with the seabass was a highlight, while we did note that the broth for the mussels could've used more time on the stove.

Overall, my feeling leaving Spork is that it covers a niche that has been generally underserved in San Francisco: interesting, tasty entrees in the mid-$10s in an atmosphere that feels new, lively and vibrant. I had a hard time thinking of restaurants that were similar in that basic description, Chow and Street being two, though the comparison with both is very loose. Regardless, KFC is a distant memory.

House of Prime Rib Has Seen Better Days

2007-06-20T15:31:00.001-07:00

There was a time in my life when I would've told you that the House of Prime Rib on Van Ness was my favorite restaurant. I loved nearly everything about it. The menu is so simple that you have your order memorized by the second time you go there ("English cut medium, mashed" was all I'd say). The way the courses are set up in advance for you, it makes a meal there very pleasing and ritualistic. I've said before that the salad is my favorite anywhere. The bread is unbeatable. The way the prime rib, au jus, mashed potatoes, creamed spinach and Yorkshire pudding meld together is masterful. I love the way the martini comes with the shaker in a nice cold glass.

BUT... I somehow no longer have the same warm feelings about the place. Perhaps I'm getting older. More likely, I think, The HOPR is getting older. The format remains the same. The bread is still the best bread in San Francisco. The martinis still come the same great way. But now there are all sorts of obstacles to my HOPR enjoyment.

The first and biggest one is health concerns. No meal makes me feel more unhealthy - fast food included. I wake up the next morning with my feet swollen to size 15 from the sodium. A friend coined the term "meat sweats" based on meals there, explaining the disgusting sensation you get overnight after a meal there. And invariably I ooze the smell of the creamed spinach for days. In recent visits (all told, I've been there probably 50 times over eight years) I've switched up my order to include putting the au jus on the side and special-ordering steamed spinach. I still feel unhealthy, however, and vow to only go there if absolutely forced by some large group event I must attend. I've even considered ordering the fish of the day, though I've never actually gone through with such a pathetic plan.

Beyond the health issues, the HOPR (properly pronounced, "Hopper", by the way) has lost a lot of lustre for me in other areas too. One problem I have is around the wine. I wouldn't begrudge them the $30 corkage fee if either they had a great wine list or they waived corkage if you buy a second expensive bottle. Neither scenario is even close, so the $30 corkage does really sting.

Another thing that really bugs me now is the rising prices combined with the lack of investment. When I first went there in 1999, the price of the English Cut was around $22. Now it's $37 (granted, your salad and everything else is included). But they only do one thing! All their sides are the same, and their agreements with suppliers were probably set in 1968 and they're paying the same prices for their ingredients (hyperbole alert... please note). The place may as well be a mint the way they print money. Now I don't begrudge the very nice Betts family making a very nice living, but it does really bother me that the carpet and upholstery is the same dowdy crap they last installed in the 70s. If I'm going to pay through the nose for my meal, please don't make me sit in a disgusting booth coated in three decades of meat stench.

I could go on with the complaints. The staff isn't nearly as well-trained as they used to be. The clientèle is not the same bunch of old-school San Franciscans that it used to be. The salad is now more about the MSG than it is about the beets and dressing. And on and on.

I'm rooting for the HOPR to make a return to glory, but I'm not counting on it. In the meantime, I'm going to do my very best to avoid the meat sweats. I'll tackle my alternative locations for great beef in another post.

Perbacco

2007-06-17T11:26:00.000-07:00

I really appreciate seeing aggressive, ambitious projects downtown, whether it's a fancy new restaurant, the Rincon Towers project, the new Moscone Center, or anything else. Downtown needs a constant influx of investment and innovation to stay vibrant and relevant. As San Franciscans, we've been generally lucky in this regard. In particular, I also appreciate when a worn-out, has-been restaurant with a great location gets a full face-lift and new life.

Perbacco, the now-year-old Italian that took the place of the old Gold Dust next to Tadich Grill, fits this mold, and thus I'm glad it's there and open. However, the follow-through of the restaurant itself doesn't quite live up to the promise and appearance. While it remains an interesting spot to try, flaws with the food, service and pricing make it a place one would have a hard time rushing back to.

The interior is wonderful. A long bar at the front is very inviting, with a brick backdrop, the now-stylish downward-slanted mirrors and great lighting. The scene is active and vibrant. Behind it and above is a two-level dining room that's also very well-lit and the tables are the perfect distance apart for creating a comfortable dining experience while keeping the feel active enough to be fun and potentially even a bit rowdy. Whoever designed this place had a clear vision, looked at every detail, and made few mistakes.

The same eye for detail doesn't quite get to the staff however. They seem somewhat disorganized, forgetting either us or our orders a few times over the course of our three visits. One time we were seated upstairs with only two other parties around (boring compared to the downstairs) and it was clear that they forgot we were there and didn't assign anyone to us. That made me feel really big and important. When ordering wine from their expensive and expansive wine list, the sommelier was less than interested in finding us some fun, interesting value in the $40-$70 range, presumably because the price point wasn't worth his time. I'm sure he's very knowledgeable given the large list and what others have said, but I prefer talking to someone who's simply excited about wine and what they've put on the list and shows it without pretension.

The food is good but not great. In all three visits, I was much more excited about the appetizers and first courses rather than the entrees. The house-cured salami is a definite highlight, and I'm not the only one who noticed, apparently. The entrees were acceptable but uninspired. My overall reaction to the food was that everything (except the salami) could've been a notch or two better, and that the prices are about 20% too high as a result. The pasta is not quite a fresh or flavorful as you'd hope for. The meats not quite so skillfully prepared as you'd expect for the prices.

So given all this, my final recommendation is that it's worth an exploratory visit, but you might want to stick to drinks and appetizers at the bar to start. Given other viewpoints I've seen, I may be in the minority. I love the overall effort to do something so ambitious downtown, but the ambition doesn't quite meet the final delivery for me.

Spencer's House

2007-06-13T17:41:00.000-07:00

I have to say, I was shocked and amazed to hear that Chez Spencer was celebrating its 5th anniversary this year. This unlikely and upscale French restaurant is located on 14th St. near the Best Buy, tucked away from the street by a garden, then a dining patio, and finally in a fairly industrial building that appears to have been a warehouse.

The amazement I had about it being around for five years came from a few things. First of all, it's an excellent restaurant all around and I only heard about it for the first time about a year and a half ago. I prefer to blame that on their inept PR rather than admit that I just wasn't paying attention. More importantly, the interior is quite hip and I don't believe it's the least bit outdated. If you were putting together a fine French restaurant in a converted warehouse this year, it might look a lot like Chez Spencer. And lastly, both their food and their service still have that extra effort and edge you typically see at a restaurant that's aggressively trying to make a positive name for itself on the SF scene.

Let's be clear though, that while the food is very good, it's not cheap. They offer a six-course tasting menu for $80 that looks like way too much food to me. We opted for the a la carte menu which is designed to be three courses with entrees in the high $20s and low $30s. Our dining highlights included a smoked duck breast for a second course and the venison entree. The venison was a "Pan Seared Venison Tenderloin" with juniper berry-peppercorn jus. The meat was sliced very thin and appeared to be nearly carpaccio-like in its rareness, but when tasted it was clearly cooked through and not at all gamey. One theory we discussed is that it may be cured for days with a salt rub. Whatever the process, the result was amazing and some of the best meat I've ever had.

Also of note are the martinis. They have a nice specialty cocktail list, of which one option is their special martini. It's served in a tumbler that is mostly filled by one, single giant round ice cube. The ice is so big that it barely melts yet keeps your martini very cold. It's a very nice touch and something very unique. Beyond cocktails, the wine list is very French and has good options, though I'm a bit sick of restaurants pulling the old $30-corkage-fee move. However our group brought one bottle and purchased another nice one and they waived the corkage, so at least they're not unreasonable.

All in all, Chez Spencer gets a big thumbs up from me. It's a great place for a date, to meet friends, or even do a civilized family dinner. I'll be back.

Tidbits, Updates and Reconsiderations

2007-01-06T10:39:00.000-08:00

I've noticed that quite a few items I've written in the past are sorely in need of an update. And since this blog is the journal of record for all things food in this town, I think it's my duty to set the record straight on a few things.

- I've found chicken that's worthy of adding to my Destination Chicken post from August. farmerbrown has some of the better fried chicken I've ever tasted. And the mac and cheese that comes with it isn't to be sneezed at either. The chicken meat is quite flavorful.

In fact, the restaurant overall is a great find and a great addition to the SF dining scene. First of all, the decor is quite fetching. It's dimly lit without being dark and the tables are arranged in such a casual way as to elicit the good aspect of lounge dining while still having the structure most would want with a good meal. The only complaint I'd have is that writing "farmerbrown" in lights on some of the columns in the dining room feels a little contrived and over-branded.

The cocktails are spectacular, and are a nice departure from both the SF standards as well as the developing trends in town. I had a blood orange margarita (okay, a few of them) that was dripping with fresh fruit and the tumbler was salted with a spicy salt. The food was equally as good, and also very well priced. One highlight was the spareribs appetizer that's done more savory-Southern-BBQ style than the equally good slow-cooked, fall-off-the-bone style.

Lastly, I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or amused that they decided to make "farmerbrown" one word and not capitalize it. You make your own call there. I do know that it feels very awkward to start a sentence with it.

- My opinion of Range hasn't changed one bit, but some of my reasons for liking it so much have.

First of all, I made the mistake of picking out specific staff members, when in reality nearly everyone that works there is exceptional at their job. I haven't met a bartender there that I wouldn't consider in the top 2% of bartenders anywhere (both skill and personality). Every waitperson is completely buttoned-up and uniformly friendly and warm. Credit co-owner Cameron West for great hires.

Second, I love the way that they care about their local clientele and take care of them and make them feel at home (yes, myself included, but also from what I've heard from others). I wish more restaurants did this.

Lastly, I love how since they got their Michelin star they haven't mailed it in one bit. They still have the same top-level commitment to a great dining experience.

- I have a winner for my worst dining experience of the millenium: La Rondalla. I recently went for a birthday and it was so incredibly bad that it's actually a fond memory. It's a special thing when literally every possible aspect of a dining experience comes apart at the seams. From getting seated, to our waitstaff, to our disgusting margaritas, to having to pay for those margaritas at our table separately from our dinner bill in cash right away, to frozen entrees that were only 50% heated up, to being brought water but not enough for the whole table to have some, to disgusting, dirty tables, to etc, etc, etc. You get the picture. It was laughable, and quite memorable.

Sidenote here: La Rondalla makes Puerto Allegre look incredible. Long ago I wrote a mixed review on Puerto Allegre that to this day accounts for an inordinate percentage of the traffic on this site (If you Googled some version of "Puerto Allegre" to find this, raise your hand now... it's uncanny). Well, considering Puerto is competing with La Rondalla, I take back anything bad I wrote about Puerto. In comparison it's a shining star.

Shopper's Refuge: Eating and Drinking Near Union Square

2006-12-18T09:53:00.000-08:00

For people that live in the nether-reaches of Northern California and make an annual shopping trek into downtown San Francisco every year, they have usually scoped out their favorite spots to find respite from the crowds years ago. John's Grill, Cheesecake Factory, Max's and Scala's are common examples, but the list is endless. Typically this shopper found their spot in 1985 and hasn't branched out since then. They read travel guides like this and like to take the glass elevators at the St. Francis. The food at their spot is typically bad and the drinks over-priced, but it doesn't matter because this profile of shopper is looking for the good time and the memory only. I know, because in the early 90s I was this shopper.

But for those discerning locals looking for a little something more from their respite, here are my recommendations of places to check out:

Postrio Bar - This is probably my favorite spot to stop for a snack and a cocktail. It's not the restaurant, mind you, but just the bar that has its own food menu. Their appetizers are quite good and reasonably-priced. On a recent visit we had dueling tartars of steak and tuna - both of which were excellent. Their pizzas are quite good, as are their sandwiches. They have a sausage plate that I particularly enjoy that comes with some excellent housemade mustard for $11. Even the expensive stuff on the menu is under $20. The cocktails are very good, while classic, and you always have the option of ordering off the extensive main restaurant's wine list.

Overall, this is my go-to spot in the area, however it's so small that I considered not writing about so as to not give it more publicity and make it more crowded for myself. Then I remembered that I have a regular readership that barely cracks double digits and it doesn't matter ("Hi Mom! We're number one!"). Still I'd feel better if you'd just keep this one to yourself. Thanks.

Nordstrom Cafe Bistro - Forgotten amid the opening of the new Bloomingdale's side of the mall and all food that came along with it is the cafe at the top of Nordstrom. This place has all the necessary ingredients: a basic-but-fun menu, solid cocktails, a view, no waiting, etc. Basically, it's the poor-man's Rotunda at Neiman-Marcus but with the bonus that they don't take themselves so seriously. My go-to food item here is the Asian Chicken Salad. It's exactly what you'd expect from something called an "Asian Chicken Salad."

Sidenote: While these is quite a bit of good food in the basement of the Bloomingdale's side of the mall, the crowds are so horrendous that I can't give it a recommendation of any kind. Going down there and trying to eat is looney for at least the next year.

Johnny Foley's Irish Pub - Located on O'Farrell and Cyril Magnin, this place executes on the Irish Pub theme quite well. The burgers are good, using good meat and handmade patties. It's all reasonably-priced. Plus, this place has a few strong advantages over most others. First, it's spacious which means that you have room to set down your shopping bags and your not tripping over everyone else's bags. Second, you can catch up on sports scores if you're shopping on the weekend. Lastly, while there you can always chuckle over the bizarre and contrived story that they tell about the real Johnny Foley found on their site.

Tunnel Top - If you're shopping into the evening and are just looking for a drink and an escape from the crowd I profiled above, I like the Tunnel Top above the Stockton Street Tunnel. At night, it's more of a hip-hop-meets-mid-level-ad-exec crowd. I know this isn't for everybody, but I'm a fan.

Seasons - The bar in the Four Seasons is great (like Postrio, I'm promoting the bar and their separate menu here, not the restaurant itself). The cocktails are very good here, it's extremely spacious and comfortable, and it's quiet. You get olives and wasabi peas with your drink, which somehow is a huge draw for me. The bar menu is very good, including a great burger (which should be great for $18). This place is like the quieter, more-expensive version of the Postrio bar with big comfy chairs.

Shalimar - I'm not the biggest fan of Indian cuisine, but sometimes I crave it for some reason. Those that really know their Indian, or at least claim to, say there's much better around SF than Shalimar. I like it however, and it's also the cheapest snack I've mentioned on this list. The downside is that it's on Jones a couple blocks and a world away from the relative safety and cleanliness of Union Square.

Others - I wish there was more good walk-and-eat street food downtown, but there just isn't. The hot dog stands are pretty gross, even for hot dog stands, and places like Blondies Pizza I'm not a big fan of. I like Grand Cafe and Cortez a bit. You can always go up to Bush St. and do the Belden Place scene. There's a great little bar on Maiden Lane called Otis. There are good options around, but you need to do some hunting to find them.

Offensive side note: If I were on the ball, I would've written this post about three weeks ago when it actually would've helped people. Instead, I'm writing about where to find good food and drink in Union Square a week before the traditional holiday shopping season ends. We're already halfway through Hanukkah, which could make this post tangentially anti-Semitic. But I'm going to write it anyway and hopefully it will live on and be relevant next year (assuming of course that Al-Qaeda still lets us have "holidays").

All Bad Service Isn't Created Equal

2006-11-07T11:25:00.000-08:00

One of the common complaints we all say and we all hear (especially in San Francisco) is that a restaurant disappointed because of "bad service". A quick tour of Yelp will validate this. While the descriptor itself definitely conjures up a clear image of what the diner felt like while dining, it's terribly limited in its accuracy. There are different types of bad service that occur for different reasons and discerning between them can give you a better idea of whether or not to give the restaurant a second or third chance.

I see two categories of poor service - systemically-bad service and bad service created by individuals. When it involves individuals, this is a restaurant that generally has its act together, but you happened to get a server or staff member who's generally apathetic or incompetent. This can bum out your meal, but this is a correctable problem for the restaurant. Systemically-bad service is what results from a poorly-managed restaurant that is either disorganized or chronically understaffed. This is a much tougher problem to fix, and often makes hard-working waitstaff look unfairly incompetent.

To give a quick football analogy, in one case your offense doesn't move because a receiver drops passes, and in the other case the offense didn't move because the offensive coordinator put together a bad scheme and everyone was in the wrong place. Same result - very different causes.

As example of systemically-bad service, there are two breakfast restaurants in Noe Valley that are pretty good examples. One, Pomelo, attempts to serve a very large crowd with only two waiters and no busboys. It appears that these two are the owners and they're either cheap or unable to hire from some other reason. They run around frantically with a sort of ants-in-their-pants look about them. The effort is there, but the end result is that it takes way too long for everything to occur at that place. Many people like this place, but I can't get past what a missed opportunity it is.

Another example is Toast, right down the block. They're quite new, and I generally like them, so I think they'll get things ironed out quickly enough, but they have the opposite problem - too many servers. They have a bunch of young girls running around and nobody knows what they're supposed to be doing. Whether it's waiting on a table, getting water, or clearing dishes, they have to have a conversation every time about it to see who's going to do it. The result is highly inefficient and you never really know who to ask about anything. One good staff meeting could clear this up. I hope it happens.

There are plenty of examples of poor service by individuals, and you all know what it looks like so I don't think I need to go into a bunch of examples. A recent dinner at Foreign Cinema comes to mind, but there are oodles of these.

There is, however, a combination of these two types of service that creates the absolute perfect storm of miserable dining. This occurs when you have apathetic inexperienced staff managed by idiots. The staff is disorganized, leading to poor morale for an already-incompetent staff, the management doesn't know how to fix it, and on and on. Polkers on Polk St comes to mind (even though I love their food). There are others, but I'll stop picking on people.

Usually an honest smile and some attempt at an effort makes everything alright in the end. But recognizing the cause of "bad service" can help you make a more-informed determination on a restaurant.

Flat Tire: The Michelin Guide in San Francisco

2006-10-18T14:41:00.000-07:00

It's high-time that I weighed in on the Michelin Guide's rankings of Bay Area restaurants. I've been thinking about it for a couple weeks now. Overall, I'm just glad that the guide has expanded here and provided another critical voice. Clearly, they made some errors, both in fact and opinion, and those errors have been well-documented. However, they succeeded in spurring discussion and probably in selling guides as well.

For those that aren't familiar, here's a brief rundown of the Michelin Guide. They try to review/describe every notable restaurant. A very few restaurants get stars, and just getting a single star is a very notable achievement. Two stars is a huge achievement. Three stars is world-class/elite/rare. This star system is the snobbiest of the snobby (in a good way) as shown by how few restaurants are even given stars. Service seems to be valued at a premium, as is French cuisine. I'm told that value plays a factor – I don't see that in practice, but I'll use that criteria to gripe about their rankings in some cases.

For those that haven't seen it, here's a list of who got stars in the Bay Area:

3 stars - French Laundry
2 stars - Aqua, Michael Mina, Manresa, Cyrus
1 star - Chez Panisse, Fleur de Lys, La Folie, the Dining Room at the Ritz-Carlton, Rubicon, Bushi-Tei, Quince, Range, Acquerello, Masa's, Gary Danko, Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Sushi Ran, Chez TJ, Auberge du Soleil, La Toque, Bouchon, Bistro Jeanty, Terra, Dry Creek Kitchen, Farmhouse Inn & Restaurant, K&L Bistro

So here's my take on it.

I'm not going to offer opinion on French Laundry because I haven't eaten a full meal there, though clearly its reputation precedes it and no one is surprised in got three stars. Given that standard, and the idea that Daniel and others in New York didn't get three stars, I can't credibly argue that any other restaurant should've gotten three stars with French Laundry.

That said, the one place I would've assumed was in that class was Gary Danko. I've eaten at just about every fine Frisco establishment, and Danko rises well above them all in my estimation. Thus, since I can't argue for three stars, I can at least say that its an abomination that they didn't get two stars.

GD approaches both its food and dining experience with a decidedly Californian flair, which is perhaps what did them in for the Michelin audience. If so, this exposes the fundamental flaw of the Guide – that overseas snobs are telling locals what's good for them and encouraging tourists not to fully embrace the local food scene. And I say “snob” in only the most positive way. Anyway, I can't see any scenario where Gary Danko didn't deserve at least two stars, and I could likewise make a strong argument for others as well.

Which brings me to the four restaurants that did get two stars.

Manresa is in San Jose. I don't eat in San Jose at dinner time. I'd sooner take a cab to Palo Alto than eat dinner in San Jose. I'm sure it's wonderful. South Bay people can go ahead and enjoy it and not worry about me taking their reservation.

Cyrus I've heard great things about but haven't been. The locals up in Sonoma County have strong opinions about their local restaurants and are exceedingly tough critics on their own establishments. I know, because I grew up there. Cyrus gets the universal seal of approval from everyone up there. Gourmet did a nice feature on their cocktails this past month (which they don't offer online). Basically, their bartender Scott Beattie does the whole cocktails-as-cuisine thing and is apparently the best around at it. I know other bartenders who know him and consider him the guru. Adding that to an already great restaurant is a nice bonus. I'll be at Cyrus dining sooner than later. (Dry Creek Kitchen, which got one star, does NOT pass the locals' test, by the way)

Michael Mina and Aqua are not nearly as good as most of the restaurants that got one star. Aqua is a straight-up has-been. Mina probably hasn't been inside that kitchen in four years, and the food has definitely slipped since its peak in 2000. He doesn't even list Aqua on his website. The namesake restaurant in the Westin has the feel of a chain, which isn't an odd phenomena at all, since it is a chain. There are now Mina restaurants in Dana Point, Atlantic City, San Jose, and Las Vegas (four of them) and he's all over the food channel. I don't begrudge him for branching out and making a buck, but neither restaurant belongs in this category. Some of the restaurants with one star have true craftsmen (and women) working every day in those kitchens making unbelievable food and creating a wonderful experience, and putting Aqua and MM above them is an insult.

Which restaurants are insulted, you ask? As I mentioned, Gary D was definitely deserving of two stars, as is Fleur de Lys, Masa's and Boulevard. The fact that Chez Panisse didn't get two stars goes directly back to my point about the Guide not understanding the local cuisine. And though I haven't eaten at these places, I hear that the Dining Room at the Ritz, Terra and La Folie should've been given a shot.

Now that I've been sufficiently negative and done my afternoon Frano-phobing, there are a couple things I feel very good about. If you've read me in the past, you know that I love Range, and I'm glad to see they were recognized with a star. Personally, I would've given them two (especially with value as a factor), but that's just me and I understand why others may not. Similarly, K&L Bistro in Sebastopol is an absolute gem, and I'm glad to see them get recognized.

I'm also a bit intrigued that Bushi-Tei got a star. I haven't been there but have walked past them near Japantown numerous times. I've always wondered what the hell it was, and I've never heard people talk about it. Either the Michelin Guide's local consultant knows the place well and used his one “I'm-giving-it-a-star-dammit” card on it, or it's a secret gem. Either way, that's cool and I want to try it.

The only one-star place I have an issue with is Fifth Floor. I think the food is uninventive, the décor is dated, the service is stiff (but professional). Basically, from a food perspective, they take standard ingredients, basic combinations, and then soak it all in butter. I suspect that they got their star simply based on their price point and their reputation, but since value is supposed to be counted, I would've taken them off my list.

So what missed the cut and should've been included? Not much, but here's a short list of places I would've considered:

Harris' (no steak on the list, and this is probably the best so it gets a star by default)
Isa (the one place off the list I'd say was really robbed)
Kokkari (maybe too inconsistent, but can be top-notch)
Piperade (truly quality Spanish cuisine)
Town Hall (I'm not totally sold, but it's better than many on the list)
Slanted Door (slipped from the glory days, but the décor counts for something)

Joe D's Chops

2006-08-07T11:59:00.000-07:00

Recently paid a visit to Joe DiMaggio's Italian Chophouse, located on the corner of Washington Square where the old Fior d'Italia was. Somebody poured an enormous amount of money into remodeling this place.

Not only is the inside a huge space that's completely remodeled with quite a bit of detail, but the place is packed with memorabilia and keepsakes from the DiMaggio family. One would tend to think that would give the place a Buca di Beppo feel, but it's actually very nicely done. Apparently it's been open for about 3 weeks, and currently the tourist-to-local ratio appears to be about 60-40.

My recommendation for this place is to go there for drinks for the next few months, before that ratio turns to 90-10 towards the fanny packs. They make an excellent cocktail and do both classic and contemporary options. The bar area is nice, spacious, and has enough going on to keep you interested.

I did end up eating dinner there, and figuring that I was giving the whole restaurant its day in court, I decided to go with the piece de resistance - the filet. The result was pleasing but predictable - the filet was on par with what you'd find from Ruth's Chris or Harris in terms of both meat quality and preparation. But considering the price is also equal, I'll probably go back for dinner to Joe D's about as often as I go back to Ruth's Chris (once every couple years).

In its defense, though, Joe D's proved itself a worthwhile competitor and a place that I'd send people from out of town who have had their fill of Morton's-style steakhouses. Also considering the dearth of good food in North Beach (a topic for another day) I'm mostly positive on DiMaggio's.

Deep Dish

2006-08-04T07:40:00.000-07:00

I know the title sounds like a gossip column, but it's not. I just wanted to share a semi-secret scoop on some good pizza.

Volare Pizza on Haight at Fillmore has excellent deep dish. The crust is perfect, both from a texture and flavor standpoint. The ingredients are good enough. But the best part is how the pizza is broiled, just slightly burning the cheese on top. Prices are a fraction of places like Extreme, Za and Orgasmica.

Keep in mind, I'm recommending this only for delivery. I've heard that their digs on Haight are uninviting at best. But due to their centralized location, I figure they must serve a good slice of the city (ba dum cha - I'll be here all week).

Doing a Google search of this place comes up with some mixed reviews. The reviews on Citysearch are positive, while Yelpers have some less pleasant things to say. That's why I ordered three times from Volare before making this post. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't an aberration.

And for the record, I hate both Citysearch and Yelp. Often positive reviews are posted by owners of places or friends of owners under pseudonyms and negative reviews are people with an axe to grind and found their one avenue to strike back is online. That's why I rarely link to those clowns, but I made an exception in this case cause I thought it was important. To be fair, though, if you've had a bad experience (or good) with Volare, be a clown on this site and post a comment.

Destination Chicken

2006-08-01T08:17:00.000-07:00

Typically, I think ordering chicken at a nice restaurant is for fools. It's the equivalent of joining a fancy gym just so you can shower there. You can shower at home just the same and not pay the premium. Not that I don't ever order chicken at taquerias, Chinese restaurants and similar other low-cost establishments. It's just that I'm typically not going to sit down to a nice meal, look at an attractive menu selection, and then blow $20 on chicken. It's just not an option.

That said, there are a couple notable exceptions in San Francisco - restaurants that truly make Destination Chicken. Here's my very short list:

1. The whiskey and brown sugar glazed roasted chicken at Range

Those who know me are aware that I'm a Range junkie and try hard not to show my bias in this space by writing about Range too much. But this chicken needs to be discussed. It's absolutely the best chicken in San Francisco and probably the best chicken I've ever had. I'm not alone in this bold claim.

The preparation changes reguarly, even as much as weekly. The "whiskey brown sugar" move is new for summer, and almost doubles as barbeque chicken. Typically it's just roasted in sherry jus. Right now the side with it is spoonbread and arugula. In the past sides have included fiddleheads and bread salads. All have always been good.

I asked chef Phil West how he does it, and there doesn't seem to be any great secret other than execution. The chicken is brined for a day (all great chicken is, of course) in a standard brine with salt, sugar and peppers. The chicken is roasted at extremely high heat (550 degrees) and treated before and after with the glaze. The result is tasty, moist chicken with crispy skin that you can't put down.

2. The Sunday-night-only buttermilk fried chicken at Street

A writer I read regularly said once that fried chicken is the ultimate envy order. It's the item that people either pass up due to health reasons or simply because it's chicken. But if you're with a group of four people and you're the guy who orders the fried chicken, everyone else eventually regrets not following suit.

A few places make good fried chicken (Firefly and Jack Falstaff to name two), but my vote for best fried chicken in San Francisco goes to Street on Polk Street. Similar to Range, I have a heavy bias here, but with plenty good reason.

Available only on Sundays, chef John brines the bird for three (3!) days. The buttermilk batter is not too heavy and the chicken remains light and fluffy. Don't forget to ask for the cornbread, and the slaw it comes with is also excellent. Overall a great performance. They often run out before the end of the night (which I don't totally understand) so get there early.

3. The roast chicken at Zuni Cafe

Yes, this chicken is famous and I'm not exactly breaking new ground here. In fact, I think Zuni isn't quite what it once was - perhaps they're spending too much time writing cookbooks these days. But this roast chicken is still excellent.

Again brined (are you sensing a theme yet?), this chicken is prepared for two people and is some of the more flavorful chicken you'll have. Upon ordering, you should be warned by your server that it takes 45 minutes. If you know that you're going to have it, consider ordering it right as you sit down so as not to starve out your dining cohorts. It's worth the wait, however.

Making honorable mention in the roast chicken category is the brick chicken at Sociale.

But again, just like a shower, you can also do the Zuni chicken at home.

Brick

2006-07-30T14:03:00.000-07:00

Investment in the Tenderloin is continuing, but it also seems that there's more talk about it than actual delivery. I always hear grand plans of destination restaurants and bars, but once they arrive there's clearly less investment in them than promised (think Olive, for instance). That trend started to change about a year or two ago, most notably with O'Reilly's Holy Grail. O'Reilly's was clearly expensive, with a ton of imported stained glass. Problem is that it doesn't appear to be attracting the crowds that would justify the expense, lending credence to everyone else's low-investment strategy.

Brick is different and risky in a good way. Located at Sutter and Larkin, this place has both the investment and the interest. On top of it, the food is excellent. The restaurant is mostly one large, warehouse-style room with a very large u-shaped bar in the middle. Of course, as you'd guess by the name, there's a lot of brick involved (see left). The front of the restaurant is tall glass - a very bold move in that neighborhood. In a small side room, there are additional bar seats overlooking an exhibition kitchen. Overall, the setting is quite stylish.

The owners are the same folks who have Fly and Solstice on Divisadero. The chef, Noah Tucker, is a younger fellow who worked previously at Michael Mina. They don't take reservations, but the wait isn't atrocious (yet) - at 8pm on a Friday night we waited 20 minutes for counter seats.

The food is new American small plates (how novel!) ranging in price from $8-$16. Examples include ricotta gnocchi, the Brick burger (really two small "sliders"), confit buffalo wings, and drunken mac and cheese (truffle oil and leeks). The best item we had was the tuna crudo served with pickled papaya, avocado, sea beans, kaffir and horseradish. And no, I have no idea what sea beans are. The sourdough-crusted skate and scallops served with sweet corn, leeks and espresso salt were good, but too salty.

The menu leaned hard toward savory and salty and lacked palette cleansers. Luckily, the savory and salty dishes were generally quite good. For dessert, we had a Mini summer pie with amaretto custard, a "berry medley" and glazed apricots. It was decent, but not a highlight. The wine list is well-priced and offers a good mix of new and old world selections.

I would recommend Brick to those looking for something new and exciting (it's only been open two months), but it's more about the whole package and stylish digs than it is about the great food. If nothing else, at least it's interesting.

FF On Location: Los Angeles

2006-07-22T19:34:00.000-07:00

From time to time, I may write about dining in places I visit so long as they meet the minimum criteria that the city is interesting and also that other San Franciscans commonly travel there. This week I was in Los Angeles, and this town fits those criteria nicely. This post will be a rundown of four interesting dinners - all of which were at locations that would likely be on the list of consideration for most San Francisco diners visiting LA.

Furthermore, I think that Los Angeles dining is both interesting and mystifying particularly for the San Francisco diner because there simply isn't a clean and clear correlation between what's good in the two places. Definitions of a "good meal" or a "stylish place" simply haven't developed in parallel between the two places. I think it's helpful to present LA restaurants in terms that SF diners can understand. That said, I also try to put my pre-conceived notions aside and take things at face-value as a local would ("When in Rome..."). Trying to find an LA equivalent to your favorite San Francisco restaurant can only lead to trouble, and vice versa.

On to the meals in chronological order...

1. The Litt le Door - West 3rd St. near The Grove

Seen from the street only as a rustic wood door with a tell-tale valet stand, The Little Door is 90% patio and 10% interior dining. It's dimly lit, soothingly quiet, and formal in a relaxed, LA sort of way. Some locals think it's the best restaurant in town. And while the typical arc of a nice restaurant in LA is a fast start and a fast decline into bankruptcy, The Little Door remains venerable and steady. The description on the website starts very awkwardly with the sentence, "Welcome to a real authentic restaurant." While I don't know what that means, somehow that's clearly what they're going for. I took some colleagues, and it was a very nice setting for a mixed business group, having a little something for everybody.

The menu is mostly French-influenced with a smattering of Meditteranean. The prices are expensive, even for LA. For appetizers, prices range from your standard $14 salad to a $25 foie gras terrine. Entrees run from $28 for the vegetarian options to $36 for the steak and lamb dishes. I started with a peach gazpacho which was great for the first two spoonfuls, and then was simply too intense to finish. Flavors were apparently carefully crafted with a sledgehammer. I then had scallops with an orange and mustard sauce on leeks. I had the same experience, where the first few bites were great but by the end of the dish the flavors overpowered me.

Those I went with were more positive about their dishes, the winner being the pine nut-crusted rack of lamb. The wine list is extensive, heavy on Old World options, and about 10% more expensive than one would hope. We had a beautiful Chateauneuf du Pape but it wasn't exactly cheap.

As for San Francisco equivalents, the patio (and how it was the focus of the restaurant) was much like Isa in the Marina. The menu was a cross between Boulevard and Kokkari, while the food itself was on par with One Market. It fit the bill well for an expensed dinner looking to please a diverse crowd, but I wouldn't give it my very highest recommendation.

2. Cobras & Matadors - W Beverly Boulevard in Beverly Hills Adjacent (no website)

This place is nothing like The Little Door. This smallish Spanish tapas restaurant is hip, loud, cheap and caters to the 20-something crowd. When we showed up it was still before the dinner rush, and not having a reservation the three of us were told that the wait would be about an hour. We went down the street for a cocktail and came back in 45 minutes. One hour turned into a full two. The host was very nice and professional and clearly working hard, but a two-hour wait for dinner is going to lead to some frustration. It would have been very easy to make a huge stink if the host had been an indignant asshole, but he wasn't so we gritted our teeth and stuck it out with only a few peeps.

Once we sat down, saw the menu, and had our first few bites, we realized why this place was so packed with 20-somethings. The food was excellent and very well-priced, with tapas ranging from $5-$16. In addition, the place has a BYO, no-corkage alcohol model and there's a wine shop next door specializing in Spanish wines (the two are clearly in cahoots, if not owned by the same people). My friend said it best: "Every 26-thousand dollar a year assistant is bringing his date here." I looked around and that comment was spot-on.

When we sat down in a fit of hunger, we immediately asked the waiter to bring us his three favorite things sight unseen. He brought prawns sauteed with cumin, dry-cured pork loin with goat cheese, and asparagus with sieved egg. All were very, very good. The menu is extensive, there are lots of different ingredients, and there's lots being ordered quickly. Given the quality of what came out, this was clearly a talented and organized kitchen. We rounded out our meal with a few other items, including some fried artichoke hearts with creme fraiche that were gluttonously good and some churros for dessert. If you're looking for very traditional tapas, this probably isn't your place, but we loved it.

The only disappointment was the wine. Not being familiar with specifc Spanish makers, we blindly picked out what appeared to be a good bottle, but our suspicion is that the wine shop next door sells ONLY for the restaurant and prices its wines like restaurant instead of a wine shop, making that whole benefit a wash in the end.

For San Francisco comparison, the best I can come up with is Zarzuela, only if it were more crowded, the tapas were less traditional, and the food was a little cheaper. Overall, not a great comparison, I know. The scene felt more like a scenario where Ti Couz in the Mission suddenly got a heavily-Marina crowd. Overall, I'd go again without hesitation. Next time I'll make reservations and bring wine from home.

3. Dolce Enoteca e Ristorante - Melrose @ Sweetzer

If you're an avid Us Weekly reader, you've heard of this place. I wanted to find the quintessential LA scene, and my very-accomodating friends were happy to partake. It's often described in the gossip columns as "Ashton Kutcher's restaurant," which I can only assume means that he's staked his reputation and life savings on it and is there at 10am every morning unpacking boxes of fresh ingredients. The restaurant business is such a tough road for hard-working chefs like Ashton. I figure Demi does the books.

Upon entrance, the place is interesting and well-done, but clearly with an LA sensibility. Imagine if the designers of Houston's had an unlimited budget. Big booths, private rooms, fire behind the bar... the works. If this place were in San Francisco, it would be located in... wait a second... this place would not be in San Francisco. Rather, if it were in Sacramento, there would be a six-month wait for reservations. Sarcasm aside, it's a nice place and built for both comfort and style.

I ordered a nice bottle of wine at the bar while we waited for our fourth person. It was a very tasty Pinot Nero (Movia, Slovenia 2001) served at just the right temperature. The very nice sommelier (named Jaron) immediately doted on us, decanted our wine, basically treated us like big shots. Only later, once I got the bar bill, did I realize that they had mistakenly thought we ordered a $300 bottle (the error was corrected and we did get the right wine). I think I would've gotten the same service anyway, though, because I look like a major star, of course. And to be fair, they treated us equally well once we sat for dinner.

The appetizers came and they were great. We had burrata (really good mozzarella, essentially) with prosciutto and tomatoes. It sounds very simple, I know, but the ingredients were of very high quality. Same goes for the pumpkin ravioli, which was very flavorful while managing to not be doused in butter and oil. We were all very impressed by the appetizers. The entrees were also good, but not quite as much so. I had a grilled pork loin with orange sauce and "creamy potatoes". The pork was prepared like a filet and was good, but not quite juicy enough. Just the description of the potatoes grossed me out, but they were good too.

The big problem with the place is the music. It's deafeningly loud, and they play an 80s-present Top 40 mix. It would be Gnarls Barkley followed by Blondie followed by old U2, and all at volumes that caused you to shout across your booth. It was so bad that we actually put a chair in the aisle and crowded into one side of the booth so the four of us could actually talk as a group. And the selection itself, I would've expected something more creative than a DMX channel from this place. You'd think they would find some ultra-cool underground band that was on the cusp of making it big, or play the hottest new Croation hip-hop or something. The selection was bizarre and jarring. Given that the crowd was less "celeb/powerbroker" and more "bachelorette party from the valley," perhaps they're just catering to their audience.

Overall, everyone's food exceeded expectations for a restaurant known more for its scene. Prices, while not cheap, were very fair. If you kept to the exceptional small plates and the reasonably-priced wine, you could escape with a very satisfying dinner for under $50 each. I would certainly go again.

4. The Dodger Dog

My final dinner in Los Angeles was a Dodger Stadium Dodger Dog. There were two basic problems with this, even though it was a great hot dog. First, I'm a Giants fan. And second, it's really, really tough to do food reviews on hot dogs and sausages without producing childish chuckles or opening yourself up to about 300 gay jokes.

Let's just say that the Dodgers have a few things going for them despite their on-field product: a great stadium, Vin Scully, and the Dodger Dog. The dog really is good, with excellent, classic flavor and grilled nicely (as opposed to steamed - ew). As far as straight-ahead dogs go (not fancy sausages), I haven't had a better one that I can remember.

Overall, the concessions at Dodger Stadium is pretty limited - there isn't much choice beyond the standard stadium fare. Thus, it's good that they convert well on their signature item. The overall food at AT&T is better, but this item is a winner.

Oh, and I left in the 7th inning. As I said before about Rome...

On a side note, I want to apologize for making it so long between posts. I tried to make up for it with brute force as you can see by the length of this post. Also, I deliberately tried to disorient you by switching tenses about 40 times. Really, it was a plan, I promise. Hope it worked!

Bocadillos: Tasty, Trendy Tapas

2006-06-12T13:34:00.000-07:00

I've always been a bit suspect of tapas, or even just small-plates, restaurants. With quick and simple analysis, it's clear that the margins at these places are impressive. Less ingredients, more dishes at growing prices, and social ordering generally add up to big bills. Five years ago, my suspicion is that restauranteurs licked that chops at the emerging fad, and rushed to open a number of ill-conceived venues.

I've since realized that I fixated on this issue of concept and value mostly because I was rarely thoroughly impressed with the food and the overall experience. Granted, I've really enjoyed both Zarzuela, which serves traditional Spanish fare on Russian Hill, and Isa, where very-talented chef Luke Seng serve French small plates in the Marina. But those two have been the exception and not the rule. Generally I've pictured the owner of the typical small-plates restaurant as grinning feverishly at their good fortune that people actually began to like that format in the first place.

That said, the tapas industry seems to be turning a corner in the past two years in San Francisco. Less places are opening simply because small plates are trendy and financially attractive - the bar has been raised, apparently. And more places, like Bocadillos where I went on Friday night, are opening because they're conceptually-sound and offering great food at a reasonable price.

(Yes, I know that I'm using "tapas" and "small plates" almost interchangably. I know the difference and I know what I'm doing. So there.)

Bocadillos is a bustling, hiply-designed place that offers a vibrant feel (replete with the wait) upon entrance. While the quarters are cramped and there's not enough room to comfortably have some wine while you wait, it's far from miserable. The general action and people-watching keep you interested.

Once sat (be forewarned - a promised 15 minutes turned into 45), the food was excellent. The menu is segmented into small categories like "marinated", "roasted", "fried", "a la plancha" and even "innard circle". I liked this approach because it both made sense, and it was a departure from the standard approach of "hot" and "cold". Highlights included the prawns with garlic flakes and lemon confit from the a la plancha menu and the fried sardines with moscatel and chili vinaigrette. Additionally (right) the chilled prawns in deviled eggs - perhaps a shout out Texarcana and Miller High Life (or perhaps not) - were also great. I guess I point that one out mostly because I found a picture, but none of the dishes we had disappointed. Everything was well-conceived and the quality delivered.

One of the highlights of the meal was the wine. I didn't pick it on this night, but we bought bottles that were offered by the glass and were very satisfied. This a always a great sign to me that the list is well thought-out and that you won't have to break the bank to get a good bottle.

Bocadillos is headed up by chef Gerald Hirigoyen, who also owns Piperade in the same neighborhood. I found it interesting that Hirigoyen walked into the kitchen at Bocadillos and then out the front door at least twice during our meal, insinuating that he's splitting his efforts between the two places. While that seems awfully tough, it's working for him.

I also like and agree with this review, if you're looking for more information.

Pescado and Pizza on Polk

2006-05-30T08:16:00.000-07:00

Nick Fasanella, he of namesake Nick's Crispy Tacos on Polk and Broadway, took up a new venture selling pizza next door a few months ago. Both the tacos and Nicky's Pizzeria Rustica are great, cheap food. What I didn't realize until recently was that Nick no longer has connection to his namesake taco shop, bought out by his also-very-apt original partners.

As for the taco shop, luckily they're still going strong and the tacos haven't missed a beat. If you haven't been, try either the Pescado or Carnitas tacos Nick's way. The burritos are okay too, but comparatively they're the ugly stepchild. The interesting thing about the place is certainly the set-up and ambiance, as the taco shop rents its space during the day from nightclub Rouge. Rouge is a vile, disgusting place in the daylight, but it somehow manages to be charming as the taco shop. You'll likely hold your nose the first time in, but it grows on you. Good move keeping the name, though, as after almost four years of good tacos it has some equity.

With Nicky's Pizzeria Rustica, I've only been a few times but I've been impressed. Fasanella took over what was "That's Amore", cleaned the place up significantly, and started serving square-slice, foccacia-style pizza by the slice. What makes it good is the fresh, quality ingredients (homemade mozzarella and sausage, for instance). If there's one thing Fasanella has shown with both places on Polk Street, it's the ability to identify a clear market need and then fill it. For a neighborhood with a ton of options, a taqueria and quality pizza-by-the-slice were both glaring needs.

What this brings up is the need for the ubiquitous "Best Taco" and "Best Pizza" column in this space. I'll do both, with caveats. Tacos, regardless of styles, can be matched up against each other for the most part. Pizza, on the other hand, can really only be compared against its like style. Deep dish, NY-style, thin-crust-artisan, and foccacia-style like Fasanella makes all are individual types.

Jackson Fillmore: Great Food, No Ego-Petting

2006-05-26T13:10:00.000-07:00

Jackson Fillmore is some of my favorite Italian food in town. The food is creatively-prepared, the ingredients are fresh, there are a couple must-get items that you can't get elsewhere, and the overall feel of the place is a great balance between comfort and formality.

Particularly, the zucchini carpaccio is worth the trip to this place by itself. It's a simple appetizer of jullienned zucchini mixed with toasted almonds, shaved pecorino, parsley and olive oil served lukewarm. If you go, don't miss this.

The pastas are always well done. My favorite is the tortellini al forno, though it works better as a shared appetizer because it's so rich. The entrees are the weakest part of the menu, but are still generally very good.

What puzzles me about Jackson Fillmore is that when I talk to people about this place, some version of the same theme always comes up: "The food is great but the service sucks." The last few times I've been, I've studied the service closely to find out exactly what "sucks," and I've come to the conclusion that I believe they're getting a somewhat bad rap.

I've looked for obvious errors: forgetting items, cold food, slow servers, lazy bussers, thoughtlessness, etc, and I haven't found any of it. What I have found is a certain ennui amongst the servers where they're making clear that kissing your ass isn't part of their job description.

"Come in and eat, don't come in and eat... that's fine... whatever," is essentially what they're saying. I think that this attitude is probably pervasive across about 80% of San Francisco restaurants except that in many of them the attitude is sugar-coated with an ass-kissing veneer.

Granted, some nice small talk is pleasant, and can make up for other shortcomings, but I've realized that I don't need it if everything else is buttoned-up. Even though they're not going out of their way to be nice at JF, they're at least professional about the tasks of their job and answer questions about the menu thoughtfully. I don't think we necessarily have a right to ask for much more.

I remember one time in there when one of the surliest servers was waiting on us the evening after the verdict was read on the dog-mauling trial. We were trading opinions around the table between courses, and the server (who's name I don't know) inserted himself quickly, said he thought the manslaughter conviction was "bullshit" and then just as quickly exited the conversation. It was startling not because of the language or the opinion, but just that he generally wasn't concerned either with decorum or with what we thought of him. But because he was quick and very honest, the interlude worked and we didn't mind at all.

Honesty seems to be the prevailing feeling I get from them - they honestly don't care what you think and wear it on their sleeve. Somehow their delivery works for me. It's great food and solid service, without the ego-petting.

Kirala: Sushi Satisfaction

2006-05-24T15:39:00.000-07:00

I've stated before in this space, and many times to friends, how sushi in the Bay Area never seems to deliver. It's either too expensive for what it is, or the fish/preparation is much weaker than expected. Finally, I think I may have found the sushi that satisfies at Kirala in Berkeley.

I know I'm a little late to the party on this one, as Kirala is well-written-up, and the biggest general complaint about the place is the long waits, but it still warrants a mention. Four of us met out there last night and had an incredible sushi dinner for a very palatable price.

My basic approach to sushi (that I must announce at the start of dinner if at sushi with someone who's never been with me) is that sharing is great, and rice is a waste of time and space. What I mean by rice being a waste is that I prefer to go with either sashimi or aggressive rolls that use rice as a binder only. Filling up on rice is a terrible idea as far as I'm concerned, and this goes for pretty much all Asian cuisine in my book. In it's most basic form this means that I would never order a California roll and keep it to myself.

The net effect of this approach is that I end up with pretty high standards for quality of fish and preparation. However, I'm somehow not willing to pay for sushi the way I would for other high-end cuisine. Yep, sounds like I'm generally screwed.

Not at Kirala! We started with some Robata-grilled baby lobster tails in a cream sauce, and then moved onto the sashimi and the rolls. The lobster tails were the best part of the meal, with a succulent flavor and that good shellfish texture where they're firm but with the juiciness locked inside. "Cream sauce" is one of those terms used in Asian cuisine where they know that white people will generally freak out if they said "mayonnaise-like" - think Walnut Prawns. I say just go with it.

The sashimi was great, with the fish very fresh and the cuts nice and thick. The rolls, while the menu selection was small and unimaginative, all delivered the goods. We finished with an order of Tonkatsu, which is pork breaded and fried. My own description, while accurate, sounds gross, but trust me that this is incredibly good and tastes lighter than it sounds.

The ambiance and the service in the place was very straight-forward. There were no whistles and bells, no characters amongst the waitstaff and bartenders that we could see, and the utilitarian set-up was perfect for concentrating on the food. Everything held together well.

One general note on sushi that held true at this place is that I love the unfiltered sake - called Nigori at most places. Best yet, it's usually among the cheapest sake on the menu. The bottle that I most often get (including last night) is in the picture to the right. At Kirala, the bottle was $11 and two bottles took care of three of us for the evening.

I recommend Kirala, even with the wait and the drive. Finally, it's Bay Area sushi that all adds up.

You Are What You Eat

2006-05-21T09:24:00.000-07:00

In most sports, coaches and management have a tough choice to make: Do I build my team around the philosophy I believe is most right, or do I adjust my philosophy to best match the players who are currently on the roster? In the NBA playoffs happening right now, the Mavericks and the Pistons have collected players that fit their respective philosophies, while the Cavs and Suns have taken the talents on their roster and even gone so far as to hire coaches with systems that would accentuate their players' strengths.

It's a great sports debate (my take is that as an approach, both can be correct), but with food I think it's clear that it's the players who have the biggest impact on a winning team. Simply, restaurants that center their menus around great ingredients and then find the best way to assemble them are usually better, more-interesting places to eat.

I was talking with a friend who works at Boulevard, and he was saying that they have a "mushroom guy" who comes to the back door from time to time with a garbage bag full of some of the freshest, tastiest mushrooms you've ever seen. They don't know when he'll come by, but when he does they make a cash transaction on the spot and then figure out how they're going to use them. "Oh, there's a ton of options," my friend says. "Make a soup, pair them with meat, a stand-alone appetizer with them as the centerpiece... finding ways to use them is never an issue." I like this approach.

Similarly, when you go to a restaurant and they point out a new addition to the menu and say something like, "We just got some incredible grouper in and [chef] had to find a place for it on the menu." I'm a sucker for that kind of banter and I'm usually not disappointed when I fall for it.

At one of the best meals I've ever eaten - an Italian restaurant in New York called Il Mulino - there's a front table just as you walk in that's piled four-feet high with fresh vegetables from that day. Especially in a place like New York, that isn't regularly-blessed with great fruits and vegetables like the Bay Area is, this table acts as an effective beacon to diners who can discern great ingredients.

(What happens to this mountain of beautiful veggies after they close is a mystery to me, but my suspicion is that with the amount of money the restaurant pulls in they probably don't much care. Don't think I haven't wondered though.)

Point is that in cooking, as in sports, ingredients matter. Larry Brown, who I think is a great coach, will finish in last place with Isiah Thomas' ingredients. Likewise, the greatest culinary preparation in the world can only rise so high without the greatest ingredients. I appreciate restaurants that know the difference.

A canned, boiled tomato...

The Upsell

2006-05-19T07:45:00.000-07:00

It must be difficult being a waiter. Management wants to maximize profits (as they should) and you want to maximize your tip by being the advocate of your diner. Generally, these desires are in line. Menu items are commensurately priced, the chef just wants to make people happy and wouldn't put on something he/she hated, and diner happiness generally leads to profits.

Where this equation often doesn't line up is with the wine list. Nowhere - including the wine industry as a whole - is there a greater room for discrepancy between potential prices and quality as there is with wine. As a waiter, if a patron feels jobbed by a wine recommendation, the tip will suffer.

With menu items, entrees for instance might range between 18 and 25 dollars with a rogue $29 steak, and each of those items is priced to offset the cost of the ingredients used to make it. At that same restaurant, the wine list could then range between $25 and $150 per bottle, with little oversight as to what goes into each selection as well as what's often a 100% markup. It's always said that a restaurant makes its money on booze, and wine is the greatest opportunity.

This is fine. These are the groundrules and the landscape for eating out. It's also what potentially can put the waiter in an uneviable position that they may or may not handle well.

Wednesday night I was with some friends at Plouf. The meal was great - even better than expected - and the upsell on wine was entirely evident. When we asked for a "moderate" selection of a French Bourgogne, we were directed to two wines that both looked attractive at $50-$55 each. When we asked for something "cheaper" we were re-directed to California Pinots priced between $55 and $65 because "French wines are expensive by nature". Finally, after more prodding, I was directed to a $47 Gigondigas which we opted for (and which we thoroughly enjoyed) . As much as we enjoyed it, it still didn't change the fact that on that Wednesday night we were interested in buying a $30 bottle of wine but couldn't get an appropriate recommendation.

(Granted, one aspect of this was that charming, French attitude of a selective-understanding language barrier. Both amusing and frustrating, this won't be found everywhere.)

Despite drinking wine we liked, pushing the bill over our comfort level left a bad taste in our mouth. That's the example that spurred my thoughts on this. The point of it is that diners should be aware that wine is the area where a waiter only sometimes has your best-interests in mind, and thus this is the area where you should be the most direct about your needs and the most self-righteous. Complicating this further, wine is often the area on the menu where diners are the most unsure of themselves (do you see a market opportunity here?).

What this does is make restaurants that have thoughtfully-planned wine lists, waiters that are smart and independent, as well as a long-term perspective on management, places that are generally more enjoyable at which to drink wine.

Sociale

2006-05-12T08:00:00.000-07:00

Finding good, innovative Italian food in San Francisco isn't always as easy as it sounds. Sure, there are a handful of winners out there - a few of my favorites being Jackson-Fillmore and Antica Trattoria - but good Italian isn't nearly as pervasive as one would assume. Perhaps it's the very high standards for great produce that comes with making Italian food great, but it is what it is.

The other thing that has recently struck me is a lack of neighborhood restaurants that deliver top-notch dining experiences for less-than-top-notch prices. My first reaction has always been to say that San Francisco is chalk full of this type of place - that the dining landscape is built on this. But dig a little deeper and ask me to name them, and I have unexpected trouble. Some, like La Folie for instance, have long-ago priced themselves out of this category. Others, like Blue Plate or Street, are going for a less-formal feel and scene than what I mean by "top-notch" in this instance. Still others, like Range, can't quite be considered "neighborhood" anymore when people from Sacramento and Santa Cruz are making reservations a month out. Finally, some others, like Firefly, Le Petit Robert, and Eos for instance, fall just short of their desired mark.

One place that is actually good Italian, and is actually a neighborhood place offering a top-notch dining experience, is Sociale on Sacramento Street in Presidio Heights. Granted, this neighborhood is so sleepy that there's little competition, but this place really delivers. Last night we had a very reasonable four-course tasting menu with some excellent wine that came recommended by the knowledgable owner. With the food, like with the wine, here you can ask the staff to lead you in the right direction and you won't be disappointed.

I started with a crostini topped with a super-soft mozzarella. The crostini was nice and thin, the cheese was very fresh, and the flavors popped. Second course was an egg-noodle pasta dish with duck. As a light eater, a pasta dish as secondi usually puts me over the edge and wastes my entree, but the portion size was just right and the flavors made it well-worth it.

My main course was a rib-eye steak that was done perfectly. Some rib-eyes (by design) have too much fat content for my liking, but this one struck a nice balance and the sauce on top of it was really flavorful and interesting. Finally, we (all four of us) finished with the Sfingi, which is pronounced just as it appears. This is basically a grown-up donut, with incredible homemade vanilla ice cream, all topped with honey. Yep, it's damn good.

Part of the highlight of Sociale is eating outside under the awning with the heat lamps. It's an incredibly comfortable and quiet place to have a conversation, and just festive enough that you don't feel inhibited at all by the other tables. It's a classic setting for a meeting with friends that you actually want to spend time with.

So as you can tell, I'm pretty positive on Sociale. The only downside is that with wine and everything else, the bill can add up a bit faster than you intended, but that's their goal, right?

One side note on this subject that both writing this post and also dining at Sociale made me think of was La Table - that ill-fated Bay Bread restaurant in Presidio Heights. They tried to create the neighborhood place I described above and failed miserably. It featured a $110 tasting menu with $25-per-entree-level food, The service was haughty and uncomfortable, and that description is being generous. The place generally sucked and the neighborhood rebelled and stopped going. Typically the Bay Bread Company comes out with great concepts, but this wasn't one of them.

Ballpark Eats

2006-05-10T10:50:00.000-07:00

Nearly everyone has their favorite ballpark food. Sports fans identify a particular food item with "their" team or with a memorable moment or time at a ballpark. Non-sports fans often associate with specific foods to help them get excited about going to a game that they're dragged to a few times a year. Even those fans who purport to hate ballpark food for health or sanitation reasons often give ridiculous caveats like, "except for Dodger Dogs - they're different".

There are a few inalienable truths out there about ballpark food that no reasonable person can deny.

Ninety percent of ballpark food anywhere is gross. This isn't even worth discussing it's so obvious.
The idea that ballpark beer is watered down isn't a myth. The reasons for doing so, may still be up for debate however, whether you think it's simply profit margin or latent concerns stemming from Cleveland's famous "10-Cent Beer Night".
Except for a few notable exceptions, any vet will tell you to not get too aggressive with your ordering. At a ballpark, the chicken sandwich will almost always beat the "Tandoori Chicken Kabobs". The [Team Name] Dog will most often be better than the "Smoked Wisconsin Cheddar and Sprouts Sausage". And for god's sake, don't ever get anything with vegetables on it or fresh dairy.
Any stand purporting to sell cocktails or wine is something to stay away from unless circumstances are dire. Even at basketball games, or at an indoor club bar, these stands are a bad idea that will leave you soberly broke.

In the Bay Area, ballpark food is generally unremarkable with the exception of a few tasty items at the park that lately they've been referring to as AT&T. Coliseum food is pedestrian at best (I have high-hopes for many aspects of the new stadium in Fremont, food being one of them and the long BART ride not being one). Food at Warriors games, while not really under consideration because it's not a ball park, is as bad as the outside shooting and lack of rebounding or defense on the court. At Candlestick, with only 8 events per year, they're still serving leftovers from when the Giants left in '99.

That leaves AT&T Park. The overall level of food here is a notch above the other Bay Area venues. The bad food isn't quite as bad. Granted, you will NEVER again order garlic fries after seeing a vat of that garlic like I once did, but overall quality is above par. There are two items that stand out, however.

The Cha-Cha Bowl: This item found behind the center field bleachers isn't a hidden secret, as it's been written about in numerous places, but it really is good. It's tasty, and the selection of sauces allows you to make it as spicy or mild as you wish. It's hearty, filling up even very hungry patrons. I suspect, with no proof, that it's one of the healthiest items in the park. And it's very eatable on your lap in your seat. You can even put the cover back on it and come back to it after a few innings, which is out of the question with a hot dog.

The Sheboygan Bratwurst: Easily the tastiest sausage in the park, it used to be only found just outside the left field bleachers, but it's now sold at 3 other places in the park. Simple supply and demand led to its proliferation, I'm sure. The guy who grills them (in full view) at the original left field stand is still the best, however. I'm going to avoid too much gory detail describing sausage on my blog, but you should really check it out. It's not to be missed. It's possible that this is where they originate from, which just about sums it up.

Game on.

Frozen Potatoes

2006-05-03T17:06:00.000-07:00

I suppose this acts as follow-up to my post on Arby's, but I just discovered the answer to one of life's great mysteries:

Ore-Ida potatoes, found in your local grocery store, derive their name from a shortening of "Oregon-Idaho".

This is interesting to me first because this puts Ore-Ida in direct competition with Maine potatoes. Also, I've insisted for years on calling them "Orr-EYE-Dah", which is now clearly wrong. However, this also means that most people I know are wrong on their pronunciation. While typically I hear "Orr-AY-EE-Duh", it is cleary "Orr-UH-EE-Duh" based on the way one pronounces "Oregon".

This theory is confrmed on the official web site however I still find it suspect that in the address the name still has no hyphen.

How did I find all this valuable information? By reading Dwight K. Schrute's blog. Is this post a cheap attempt to put a link to Dwight K. Schrute's blog in my own? Yes, obviously.

Flailing Fish

2006-04-29T16:16:00.000-07:00

First of all, I want to apologize for my extreme tardiness on a new post. Ignoring a blog you created is as addictive as heroin, though I doubt you'll see studies on it anytime soon. On to some content...

For a town that's known for its seafood, San Francisco has a very surprising lack of good fish. Be it your classic Fisherman's Wharf-style seafood, your high-end seafood, or even sushi, San Francisco seafood specialists usually disappoint. Sometimes it's the fish itself that's not the best it could be, and sometimes it's the preparation. Since seafood specialists in San Francisco come in different shapes and sizes, I'll separate them out.

The Wharf: Let's leave "seafood" restaurants like A. Sabella's or Scoma's out of the equation. These venerable tourist traps don't just disappoint - they make you sick and rob you blind. I do have a soft spot of Alioto's for some reason, but I'd never in my right mind send anyone that I actually liked there. Generally, I'm not even sure that it's fish that these restaurants serve. Added bonus of not going there - you don't have to deal with the creepy bush guy.

The High-High-End: I put Aqua and Farallon into the high-high end, and somehow no one has come in to replace them. They're both restaurants that I consider has-beens. They were places you desperately wanted to get into around 1999-2000, they were still considered very good around 2002-2003, but in 2006 my impression is that the real kitchen talent has all moved on elsewhere and the decor has never been updated. Even Michael Mina himself moved on from Aqua. But in fairness, I've never eaten more than appetizers there, so take my impressions on Aqua with a grain of sea salt.

The High-End: Here's another area where I'm confused as to why there aren't more players in this space. There's really just Plouf, Catch, Hayes Street Grill, Pesce and Yabbies. Pesce and Yabbies are located right next to each other on Polk St. Both are very servicable options, but won't wow you. That said, on Thursday nights Yabbie's has a great special that's essentially a big basket for two filled with steamed shellfish - a traditional New England lobster boil I believe it's called. Hayes Street Grill is downright gross. I've never been to Catch but have heard unimpressive word-of-mouth reviews. Plouf is a very cool place sitting outside in the alley on a warm night, but the fish itself is less than spectacular. Again, there aren't bad options here, but nothing is going to blow you away considering these are the best options that a so-called seafood town has to offer.

The Old Timers: Tadich Grill and Sam's Grill and Seafood Restaurant are a lot of fun to do every once in a while. Tadich is great fun to go and sit at the bar for lunch, grab a cup of clam chowder and a crab louie salad. Both transport you to another time of distinction and formality for San Francisco. The problem with these places is (again) for a place that specializes in seafood, neither their fish nor especially their presentation is very good. At both places, I shy away from any dishes that need too much preparation at all. If you get anything sauteed or fried, your body will punish you for days as if you ate fast food. Fish, in general, is wonderful because the freshness and taste speak for itself. Hiding it in butter and oil ruins it. In fact, that's the theory behind...

Sushi: Granted, there's some good sushi in San Francisco (this deserves a more elaborate post of its own), but you'll always pay just a bit more than it's worth. For instance, I think Blowfish and Sushi Groove have great sushi. The fish is fresh, and the preparation is innovative and interesting. I'm just not comfortable paying $150 per couple for that meal. Similarly, there are about 75 different sushi restaurants on Lombard Street offering the same pedestrian selection of rolls and not one of them providing value. I like sushi enough to where I'll still go to all these places, but I never leave with a great feeling.

A couple other sushi notes... the so-called no-name sushi on Church St near 15th that people talk about... don't go there - it's for people who are without taste glands and immune to bacteria... I hear that Sushi Ran in Sausalito is the best sushi in the Bay Area, but I've never been... my best advice for go-to sushi places are Wasabi and Ginger on Van Ness (free valet parking and zero ambiance) and Tokyo Go Go in the Mission.

I think San Francisco is a great restaurant city, but we don't hold a candle to New York and LA when it comes to sushi.

The Specialists: Two places that offer incredible shellfish are Swan Oyster Depot (right) and Hog Island Oyster Company (in the Ferry Building). They both do what little they do very, very well. Lunch at the counter at Swan is one of my all-time favorite treats. Hog Island has one of the coolest oyster and wine happy hour specials I've encountered. Neither prepare any fish in traditional restaurant ways, so it's hard to match them up against others, but they hold their own place of excellence.

The Recommendation: Sushi aside, my recommendation if you want a great piece of fish that's very well-prepared is to not go to a seafood restaurant at all. The best fish I've had in San Francisco has been at places like Boulevard, Range, Antica Trattoria, and Sociale. Think about it - the best fish mongers in the Bay Area don't sell exclusively to seafood-specialty restaurants. Other restaurants have fish just as good if not better, and they likely have more talented chefs. Cooking fish isn't some rare specialty like raw foodism - these folks know how to do it.

Often when people come to town, they say they want to go out for seafood, and resist when I want to take them to a non-seafood restaurant for their fish. I feel strongly it's the right thing to do.

Michael Bauer is Too Influential

2006-03-09T11:31:00.000-08:00

Nothing against Michael Bauer of the San Francisco Chronicle, but he has far too much power for one man in an industry that is so subjective. The fault lies with the Chronicle, however, not the man.

San Francisco is a town known for its restaurants (among other things, of course), yet the Chronicle only invests in a single voice to review restaurants. While Bauer's technique for reviewing (three hopefully anonymous visits) is pretty good, he can't escape personal bias. When livelihoods are on the line, this is too much responsibility.

To give you an idea of his influence, when he first reviewed Range, he (very deservedly) gave it 3.5 stars which put it in rare company. He got this one right, which was great, but what followed was telling. The restaurant has now been in every possible local magazine and relevant website three times over and it has a reputation now of being one of the toughest resos in town.

When Roy's Restaurant came to town (around 2000 or so), the restaurant was very good, with a staff that was eager to please (in SF no less) and well executed food. Apparently during two of Bauer's visits that eager staff didn't recognize him when he dined and he got the same treatment everyone else did. He slammed the restaurant in the review and it has since barely recovered (even though it's gotten worse in recent years).

What's happened is that there's now a cottage industry of waitstaff who recognize Michael Bauer. I have no idea whether this is asked in interviews when a new restaurant is opening, but it might as well be. The obvious insinuation would be that a waiter could recognize him, give him and those sitting next to him immaculate service, and not let on that he's been recognized. I would assume Bauer recognizes that this is going on and makes some (likely flawed) attempt to compensate. However, this goes to show the make-or-break power he has.

This brings up the other issue of no-effort service in town, but that post is for another day. And for the record, I have no idea what type of experience Bauer had at Range to make him give 3.5.

And the last example, that many have highlighted in the past of this, is Hayes Street Grill. This restaurant, opened by Bauer's former Chron cohort, is/was unspectacular in every sense of the word. Muddled, sometimes even disgusting, seafood dishes, drab decor and listless service. This is not a place that anyone other that some old opera coot who eats with his gums and lost his sense of taste 20 years ago would go back to. Yet somehow, this restaurant got great reviews for years from Bauer, even making the vaunted Top 100 list for many years. I'm only sortof suggesting nepotism, as Bauer probably really did get that restaurant's absolute best effort every time, but it certainly highlights the potential conflict of interest inherence in a reviewer who has no checks and balances.

Worse yet, Bauer has little competition outside of the Chronicle. The Guardian only likes dirty taco joints. CitySearch is all ads and is so sold out I shouldn't even be mentioning it. Zagat, while very good in San Fran, is still beholden to the opinions of the masses. If you think that's not a problem, check out the LA Zagat where Cheesecake Factory holds literally every spot on the "Most Popular" list from 5-17. I'm not joking. It's worth buying the subscription just to see this.

My simple solution just requires investment from the Chronicle: hire two more reviewers that are placed as equals to Bauer and employ and Siskel and Ebert formula. With three reviewers rotating, no restaurant review goes out unless two of the three reviewed it, and the reviews would be published side by side.

This is only going to reinforce the reviews they're right on (Range) and will provide a more accurate checks-and-balances to weed out the anomalies. Plus, it will be harder for restaurants to recognize the reviewers, and readers will eventually find that there's one particular reviewer who's tastes theirs are most in line with. It's a win-win for everyone other than the Chronicle newsroom budgeteer and the restaurants that are terrible who count on a good review from their buddy Michael to keep them afloat. Unfortunately, this would be very expensive for the Chronicle and the only thing that would make them do it is if enough people like me rant about it. Such is life in essentially a one-paper town. I think this is enough of a restaurant city that we're worth it.

And yes, I know that through linking I just give Bauer and SFGate about 50 lbs of free advertising. Luckily no one reads this blog.

For the record, here's a similar viewpoint.

The Breakfast Quandry

2006-03-08T14:37:00.000-08:00

Are there not enough good breakfast places in San Francisco? I don't think San Francisco is alone in this, but really, why are the lines and waits so long for a top-notch breakfast? This seems like an obvious market opportunity.

The economics are simple - demand is outpacing supply. So if you open a great breakfast spot, spillover from the current group of breakfast eaters on any given day will fill up your restaurant without the need to even create more demand. This seems so obvious, that the only explanation must be that either the margins are terrible in that business, or it's a hell of a lot harder to make a good breakfast than you or I might think. I think it's margins, cause I make a great breakfast, if I say so myself.

Now here's the quandry the breakfast eater is faced with every weekend morning: "Is [Breakfast Place A] worth the wait?" Much goes into this quandry. Factors like the time of morning, the distance, your level of hunger, do you have to wait in line or can you put your name in, what else you have planned that day, and others all complicate the issue. But, strip most of those away, and it's a basic equation of Place A will take X minutes of misery to get seated and the breakfast experience will be of Y quality. If Y>X, you're probably going to go.

The most severe waits in town, which I think are Mama's on Washington Square and Dottie's True Blue in the Tenderloin, also have two of the best breakfasts around. For my money, Mama's is the absolute apex of breakfast food. However, these are the two places that make you wait in line and won't let you put your name in and walk around as you please. This is sadistic to do to hungry people.

The thinking behind doing this evil line idea probably has something to do with the theory of "moral hazard". This is basically the idea that people will over-indulge on a good thing unless they have some skin in the game. With breakfast, it's applied by raising the cost of entry in the form of physical misery so as to keep the crowds down. If you want a much better explanation of moral hazard, read this article by Malcolm Gladwell. Or don't, if you don't have 2 hours to spare. So it could be the moral hazard theory that's at work with breakfast places, but more likely is that these are truly mean-spirited people who run these places. As a result, I go to Mama's about once every six months even though I love their food. And for the record, the picture at right of Dottie's was taken on a Wednesday at 5pm.

Enough of that tangent. So let's take a typical Saturday morning at 10am. You're moderately hungry but not yet freaking out, and you want a top-notch breakfast experience. Here's where I think the following generally-popular breakfast places rank.

Worth the wait:
Tartine (Guerrero) - although I hate that they don't serve eggs
Polkers (Polk)
Ella's (Presidio and California)
Mama's - if you're wildly committed
It's Tops (Market)
Rex Cafe (Polk) and Perry's (Union) - rarely a wait at either place makes it worth it
Maverick (17th St) - don't tell anyone about this
The Grove

Not worth the wait:
Judy's (Chestnut)
Dottie's - a 2.5 hour wait at the situation I described
Boogaloo's (Valencia) - just disgusting
Pork Store (Haight) - another sadistic stand-in-line place
Savor (24th St.)

The San Francisco Non-Chain

2006-03-06T09:05:00.000-08:00

As we all know, San Franciscans hate chain restaurants. I don't know the demographics of the Chevy's on Van Ness, or the CPK down by Union Square, but I'm guessing it's less than 5% locals. Most people have to really hunt to find an Applebee's, Chilis, or Outback within city limits.

However, having multiple locations for a restaurant creates obvious economies of scale that are very tempting to the savvy entrepreneur. Thus the birth of the "non-chain" chain in San Francisco. Go for the all the benefits of the chain but do everything you can to keep the independent street cred.

The classic San Francisco non-chain is Pasta Pomodoro. They started on Chestnut Street and have clearly achieved some serious financial success. I met the founder, who's a very, very nice guy and is now an investor in Pesce on Polk Street and Last Supper Club in the Mission, among others I'm sure. Curious about his business, I pried for information and found out that they have thousands of employees (THOUSANDS!) and a corporate headquarters South of Market replete with more than 50 full time HR, PR, Marketing, etc people that don't touch food on a normal workday. I was amused and impressed at the same time.

Separately, I knew that this non-chain had reached full chain status about the same time I saw that they had been featured on MTV's Laguna Beach as the show's primary date spot. I have no idea whether they paid for that placement, but if so it's a great move due to the price point of Pomodoro and the demographic that the show reaches.

Here's the distinction that interests me:

Once you reach the point of having two or three successful restaurants in San Francisco you're faced with a tough choice. You can decide to thumb your nose at the critics and grow rapidly, or you can try to hang onto your street cred by deliberately stunting your own growth. Thus, for the restaurants that still stay at the small chain level, or have even grown more but not necessarily reached their potential, I wonder whether the plan is deliberate.

Here's where I think the following non-chain chains fit (Deliberately Stunted/Hasn't Made it Yet):

(And of course, I'm no more of an expert than anyone else or I would have 10 Pasta Pomodoro chains of my own)

Zao - Hasn't Made it Yet - This always sounds like a good idea, and then when you go in there, nothing on their menu ever looks like it's worth ordering. You have a picture in your mind of some sort of tasty noodle/meat bowl, and it's somehow not there. Not even close.

Pluto's - Deliberately Stunted - With outlets now on various exits from here to Tahoe in addition to the San Fran locations, I've never seen a Pluto's that wasn't crowded at lunchtime. It seems like they could open 15 more of these and all would be crowded. And due to their very-cheesy-but-somewhat-charming Universal Rules sheet they post, I get the feeling that they haven't reached their capitalistic potential on purpose.

Squat & Gobble/Crepevine/etc - Deliberately Stunted - These are the 30-some-odd crepe places in San Francisco that all go by different names, yet all have the exact same menu written on the same chalkboard in the same handwriting. Even if they aren't owned by the same person, they may as well be. Besides the fact that I'm thoroughly bored of these places, I think they have great potential for success. The overhead must be incredibly low (not even a website), the food option feels slightly more exotic than a deli sandwich, they can do every meal and they do have a strong following. Considering they've opened so many in San Francisco, it seems like they could easily branch out North, East and South.

I just feel bad for Ti Couz, which seems like the only crepe place in San Francisco that isn't a chain. But then again, it's probably owned by the same guy and I got tricked on that one too.

Fuzio - Hasn't Made it Yet - This fits the category, but isn't worth writing about. Too inconsequential, and I don't really understand what food genre they serve. Is it pasta? Asian? Lunch or dinner? What the hell is it?

Watch out for the next non-chain chain - Pacific Catch. As far as I knew, they had one location right now that's the exact same spot where Pomodoro started on Chestnut, but apparently they're now in Corte Madera as well. They have an interesting concept (fresh fish for $10) and they're trying to see if they can expand more. I see the Pomodoro arc for this one.

Arr-Bees

2006-03-03T08:30:00.000-08:00

Some time ago, I had a minor epiphany. Actually, to me it was major and I feel a deep civic responsibility to share it, but I really risk overselling this one, so let's leave it at "minor".

I was ordering a roast beef sandwich for lunch and verbally shortened it to the acronym "R-B sandwich". When it came out of my mouth, I realized that it's that phoenitic acronym that must've been the inspiration for the name of the fast-food chain Arby's. As you likely know, they focus heavily on the roast beef products there. It was a small connection, but a connection nonetheless, and I was very happy about it.

Then, a friend of mine who grew up in Cincinnati, where Arby's was hatched, said that I was the victim of a very common misconception. He said that Arby's actually was an acronym itself for "America's Roast Beef Yes Sir!". I found this implausible at the time and dismissed it.

Now recently, I went and did some quick research on the Arby's website and found that we were both wrong, and that Arby's does connote R-B, but not for roast beef. Instead, it's R-B for the Raffel Brothers who started the chain.

Oh, the disappointment of it all. I don't dare do any Easter Bunny internet research.

But in a spat of pure revenge, I give you this, which makes me feel much better about Arby's tricking me. I should've known that roast beef was never part of the equation.

The Best Burger

2006-03-02T08:35:00.000-08:00

We all know that there are at least 100 places in San Francisco that claim to make the city's best burger. Despite the fact that this is mathematically impossible, the most troubling part of this is that there are some truly BAD burgers out there who's creators make this claim.

When someone proudly and confidently says they have the best burger in town when I'm ordering, I see it as a dare. "Miss out if you want, but...", and thus it's my responsibility as a burger connoisseur to test these out. This is fine, and all part of the game of marketing your business, so long as the burger at least hits "pretty good" status. But when it's clear that only a miscreant could love said burger, now that offends me.

Obviously the value of a certain burger is highly subjective, and there are quite a few styles out there that all produce a fine product. Personally, I need VERY savory meat, very fresh produce, bread that doesn't get in the way, and a general consistency that doesn't fall apart. By fall apart, I mean those burgers that you're forced to keep eating once you pick it up because you're scared as to what might happen once you put it down. I'm not into that.

That said, here are three places that make burgers that I love:

Street: I'm convinced that this is the most impressive classic burger in town. The meat is superior to just about anything you'll find anywhere. The mix of ingredients is perfect - not too much of anything and great housemade pickles (a HUGE plus). The bread holds everything together yet doesn't become at all a focus of the burger - this is a very tough balance to achieve. I get it with the pepper jack cheese and bacon, which adds a little extra oomph to the flavor obviously. I'm getting a burger anyway, right?

(Although sometimes when you're ordering something terribly unhealthy, it occasionally feels good to forgo one particularly unhealthy ingredient just to make yourself feel a bit better about it. It's like a sacrifice to the health gods. Something like ordering a huge pastrami reuben and then asking them to toast the bread with light butter. It makes no sense, but if you're like this, I understand. It's okay.)

Street definitely deserves its own conversation. John the chef is a world-class grillman. But I will stop here for purposes of the continuity of this post.

Balboa Cafe: As with above, I'm not going to get into all the side issues and discussion on Balboa. The fact is, if you're going to go the baguette-burger route, Balboa should be your model for excellence. Baguette burgers are typically made with poor baguette bread, the bread far overpowers the meat, the insides slide out, etc, etc. Balboa manages to sidestep all the regular pitfalls (and they have housemade pickles... yes, it's a soft-spot), and the resulting burger is a strong piece of work.

Like Street, Balboa is very consistent visit-to-visit. Also like Street, it deserves its own column because of its aforementioned side issues.

Olympic Club Starter Shack: This is a weird one, both because it's a weird burger and also because not everyone has had the opportunity to eat here. This is the shack that sits next to the driving range at the Olympic Club out on Great Highway. For the record, I'm not a member. The burger itself is in a hot dog bun, and the meat is shaped long and flat to fit it. The produce is very standard. The meat is very good but not spectacular. But somehow this strange approach and simple ingredients meld to form a truly incredible burger. When I'm invited to play one of the courses there, my first thought is not about the course or the golf, but about this burger, and I'm not alone. If you get the chance, don't miss out. For members and people who go there often, this post isn't for you because you already well know about this gem.

Others: I have to say, though these are my choices, you wouldn't be wrong if you said that one of these places had SF's best burger.

Bill's Place - The place in the Richmond grinds their own meat, and it's an impressive burger
Houston's - Don't scoff, this place delivers... especially if you're okay with overpaying by 40%
Taylor's Refresher - See Houston's above
Burger Meister - A few locations here, this place makes a solid but unspectacular (IMO) burger
Home (Castro or Union) - Just kidding, you'd be wrong if you said this

You would definitely be wrong if you said Barney's on Steiner. In fact, you'd lose all burger credibility at that point. I refuse to link to them.

Anyway, that's my take on SF burgers. Enjoy and don't forget the pickles.

Work-Eat Cafes

2006-03-01T12:10:00.000-08:00

I, like many others, have a pretty flexible work situation - work hard, be effective, and go ahead and do it your way. I love it, and so do most in my position. The obvious downside is that the old home office doesn't offer much in the way of socialization and general sensory stimulus (which sounds gross but really just means it's boring and nothing moves unless you move it yourself). For us "poor souls" the Work-Eat Cafe is vital. If you've never worked in this environment, don't read on as you'll just get angry and jealous.

There are quite a few options out there in a city like San Francisco. We practically invented the coffee-laptop spill here. At the very least, we definitely control that market space. For me, the priorities in a Work-Eat cafe are 1) decent coffee, 2) reliable internet access, 3) an adequate food option, and of course 4) decent people watching.

The standard, world-wide option for this is Starbucks. It's time-tested and reliable - you know just what you're getting. My friend Jim, with whom I work, loves Starbucks. He lives somewhere in the South Bay and works EVERY DAY at the same Starbucks. The people who work there either hate him or love him at this point, but either way I really appreciate Jim's loyalty and simplicity. Of course he doesn't have as many options in the South Bay, but that's not his fault.

Starbucks doesn't quite do it for me. The Internet is T-Mobile and costs $10 a pop, the coffee barely meets the decent quotient (but it does, sadly) and the food options are atrocious. The Starbucks scone must be listed on the Periodic Table somewhere as one of the densest elements. It's inexcusable. The people-watching is the one saving grace of Starbucks because they generally move fast, come in steady droves, and are angry.

Here are the three options in San Francisco that I prefer, starting with the most obvious.

The Grove: Decent coffee, good food, reliable ($5) internet and great poople watching. This place was invented for my ilk. The breakfast food is very good, but literally deadly after a full week of it - they spare no bovine or grease monkey. The noise is a little rough if you get a work call. The fact that they install 6-foot long surge protectors on every wall and bench is pretty much the biggest clue that they're designed around people like me. The biggest problem with the Grove is that "working at the Grove" is now a wry-smile-inducing cliche. I blame this on the Chestnut location, however, which leads me to my only truly opinionated take on this place: The Fillmore Grove is the only real option (wow, stop the presses).

The Chestnut location has a clientele average age 5 years younger than Fillmore. That's fine in some respects (insert sexist joke here), but generally it's a crowd that's considerably more self-aware, is cultivating the casual look, and is usually fake-studying. I would define those last two phrases, but I think you can figure it out if you've been there. I'm not one to insult the Marina for no reason - I really like the place - but when people talk bad about the Marina, this is what they're talking about.

The Fillmore location has a more mature crowd and all the same benefits (even the sexist ones). Plus, I'm convinced that the people who work there are a tad nicer, though I have no proof. Thus, if one has only benefits over the other - this isn't a pro-con argument - why would you pick the lesser Grove?

Ritual Coffee: A friend called this place on Valencia "what you would create for a movie if you were trying to depict a hip, San Francisco coffee house". For this reason, and for the reason that it's in the Mission, if any of the regulars here knew that I mentioned it in the same blog as The Grove, they sneer at me and key my car. But the truth is, this place has the best coffee (french press) of any place I can think of. The coffee is not just fancy and strong, but truly, truly good. Pile onto that a very hip interior, great people watching, free internet, and these pastries called "dirt bombs" and you have a general winner.

The downside of Ritual - the people are mean and the to-go lids leak. Mission people are definitely an angry sort, and this place has cornered the market on the priveleged/ultra-hip/angry crowd. It doesn't affect you much though because you're in a coffee shop where you can stare at anyone and ignore anyone.

The lids, however, are a major issue. Peet's (which I love) has the occasionally leaky lid caused by the imperfect lid-cup match. Ritual has habitually leaky lids. I've never had a to-go lid there that HAS worked. I don't know if it's a weird, intentional Mission thing where the owner believes that people should sit and drink coffee and he's punishing the to-go people by staining their clothes, or whether it's just incompetence. I mentioned the lid problem to a girl at the counter the other day saying that I'd heard through friends that it had been fixed. Her hushed response: "I know what you're talking about, and no it hasn't been fixed." This was followed by some nervous glances, lending to my conspiracy theory. The synopsis - Ritual isn't for the to-go coffee drinker.

Nook: I won't spend much time on this little place on Jackson and Hyde, but I like it alot. It has the necessary ingredients I outlined above, and it has a certain nuance that i really like. Perhaps it's the cable cars, or the 8-table seating, or the entrepreneur feel of it, or maybe the fact that it has a good, interesting crowd while not being crowded (a feat rarely pulled off). The only time it got really crowded was right after it was featured in Daily Candy, which brought a whole other element to the place. Generally I like this place a lot.

Two final thoughts:
1) No, the Periodic Table is not a thought that regularly comes to mind.
2) Do grease monkeys actually produce grease?

The Legend of Puerto Allegre

2006-02-28T22:23:00.000-08:00

Puerto Allegre, a Mexican restaurant (not taqueria) that many Mission folk swear by, is a consistent experience, at least. Four of us went last night. The design of the venture was cheap, tasty, authentic Mexican food we can count on, a good margarita, and a fun atmosphere. We figured we could bear the wait and the fellow who supposedly seats people for this experience we desired.

The funny thing about Puerto to me is that it consistently underdelivers and then seems better than it is in retrospect.

Dinner tonight certainly did deliver the host who doesn't host. It did deliver cheap and supposedly authentic. The food wasn't untasty, but (once again) left everyone feeling bloated and unhealthy. I took down the 3-item combo of enchilada, relleno and quesadilla (perhaps ordering like that is my problem), and couldn't even get to the then-congealed quesadilla in time. The "world famous" margaritas leave you puckered in sweet and sour.

Again, you know what you're getting going in. It has a House of Prime Rib appeal that's immune to its critics. Being treated as though you're trying to get into a Vegas club, eating lard-soaked food, dealing with hipper-than-thou fellow diners, and coping with kitschy decor is all a very charming experience, apparently.

A regular I'm sure is now saying, "you just don't understand/appreciate it" or "you're missing the point". Perhaps they're right, as I have my own similar favorites.

Which begs the question... why is this now the 20th+ time that I've been there? A friend just mentioned that Northern California was crawling with those places in the 80s, and some of them made it though the decades for various reasons, and he's right. These places went the way of the dodo unless they developed a cult following or they advanced what they were offering. Puerto went for the cult-following route.

The downside (yes, I love that word) to that allegiance is the crowd it brings. It brings people who all feel as though they've been frequenting the place the longest and are the truest supporters. It's people who feel entitlement to a fast table and anger that there might be others waiting.

If this sounds rough, here's the counterpoint. You can take this exact same experience, put it into the context of a Saturday afternoon at 3pm when the place isn't as crowded, the food somehow tastes better, and the margaritas are more refreshing, and you have a winner. I presume that most Puerto-lovers had a first experience like this that created their initial devotion. I'd like to think so at least, and then it all becomes very understandable.

For dinner... have the place to yourselves. PS. Though I'll happily be back as an outsider/underappreciator to enjoy the average food and then somehow find a way to romanticize it afterwards.

Mission Mavericks

2006-02-28T08:40:00.000-08:00

I hit up Maverick on 17th and Mission last night with a few friends. Definitely an interesting spot with some good potential. It's a venture by two guys named Mike and Scott who came from Sociale on Sacramento. These are good guys, and make the restaurant a place you're rooting for.

Overall, the food was pretty damn good, and the wine was amazing. It sounds a bit weird to say, but these guys have the sides down. Everything that came as a side dish either alone or with an entree was amazing, while the actual entree meats were the most disappointing part of the meal. This is an interesting, yet gaping, hole. It reminds me of the way the Texas Rangers have been the last couple years, with a killer lineup, great defense, a strong closer, but questionable starting pitching. You're going to win some games just through pure offense, but it's tough to get to the playoffs without the steady hurlers.

This sounds negative, but it's really not, because the sides and appetizers are so good they're worth going back for alone. For apps (all were around $10), we had their Buffalo Wings which were actually frog legs, some "crab fluffs" and a side of the mac and cheese. The mac and cheese was downright incredible - rich, but not overbearing. The fluffs were very nice - fried but somehow very light. And the frog legs were great on a number of fronts. Not only were they very tasty with true buffalo-wing sauce, but they also set up the ol' "tastes-like-chicken" joke. I think the over-under on that joke being told on any given night in the restaurant is about 12.

(If you haven't yet noticed, the food has a distinctly southern feel, but not everything on the menu fits that mold.)

For entrees, we had the Prawn and Polenta special, the Liberty Duck Breast, and the Rib-Eye. The Rib-Eye (aka Kenny Rogers, the camera-man-punching ace) was a classic rib-eye steak and was the best of the three meats, though unspectacular and $28 (all the other entrees were $16-$22). The Duck Breast (Ryan Drese, 6.46 ERA last year) was tasty, but the texture was dry and boring. At least it came with a great Israeli cous-cous. The Prawn special (Chan Ho Park) had great sides of polenta and beet-tops, but the prawns weren't worth finishing. We finished the meal with a hunk of Humbolt Fog that was well put together (Francisco Cordero, of course). Overall, you know it's a good, talented kitchen, but I'll probably change my approach for ordering next time around and focus more on apps.

The great thing about all that food, is that everything tasted about 20% better simply because of the incredible wine. We had a Freeman 2003 Pinot Noir and a 2002 Primier Cru Bouchard Burgundy. Both wines were clearly well picked for the list and Mike the owner definitely has a passion for wine. Full-scale wine dorks will appreciate this place.

(How did three moderate-income fellows like us afford two $60+ bottles of wine on a Monday night? Well, that's a secret, but it involves Monday night being half-price-wine night. That's the only hint I will give you. Weekend brunch and $1 mimosas is another secret that I won't be telling you about.)

Every review I've read about Maverick mentions the gritty location, which is right next to crack alley. They installed a shade, so you feel well-separated from the neighborhood when inside the restaurant and the decor is very well put together, though a bit cramped. Cramped is part of the charm though. Venturing back out on the street after a couple bottles of wine is a funny, little shock.

I'll be back to Maverick. I'm rooting for Mike and Scott.

Range

2006-02-27T10:14:00.000-08:00

I would be remiss to make a first real post on this blog and not make it about one of my two favorite restaurants - Range or Street. There's better-this-or-that out there on the landscape, but I truly believe that these two restaurants capture the regular, day-to-day needs of the San Francisco diner better than any others.

With Range, all discussions start with the food. It's always amazing and very creative. What I like particularly about their creativity is that it's not misguided. Often you go into a restaurant and their "creative" menu offers oyster and beet roulade on a bed of flan, or vodka and chocolate-infused martini with a touch of Tabasco. Basically, it's often a bunch of ingredients that sounds "interesting" when put together and then never actually deliver (or are even just gross).

At Range, their creativity makes sense. If you're like me and think that you may throw up if you see another beet-arugula-goat cheese salad on a menu, you should check out Range. I didn't say I don't enjoy that salad, but it's as pablum as it gets at this point.

Best yet, their prices are embarassingly low. They're restaurant vets there, so they must know, but you're regularly getting a $30 entree for about $18. I feel like I'm robbing them (repeatedly!). Just in case, don't tell them about this and screw it up for me, okay? The other things to notice about Range are:

The great service - Cameron, the co-owner in the front of the house does a great job toeing the line between friendly and hospitable while still very professional. Everyone there is great.
Great scene - Good people watching for the Mission. It's always an interesting crowd. The beautiful people, the angry neighborhood hipsters, and even the old folks mix in quite well. The well-done decor and aforementioned service contribute to the good vibe I'm sure.

Anyway, thanks to ridiculous amounts of positive press it's now getting quite difficult to get in. Good for them.

I'll tackle Street after the next time I go.

Welcome

2006-02-27T09:46:00.000-08:00

Thanks for visiting.

I created this blog for a couple reasons, the first and foremost being that I really should write more. I enjoy the process and the small satisfaction of accomplishment, and for that reason, this blog is primarily for my own selfish benefit.

(You're excited to read on, aren't you?)

I picked San Francisco restaurants as a primary subject matter because my dining-out habits provide regular fodder. This makes me about as common in San Francisco as a fleece-wearing tourist in Fisherman's Wharf. I suppose most San Franciscans (at least those without kids) consider themselves experts here. I'm just willing to put my experiences and opinions out there for semi-public consumption.

(Don't let the martyr act fool you... I don't expect this to be widely read... I really don't)

Anyway, onto this so-called blogging...