Reviewing the Unreviewable Restaurant
January 9, 2017 7:24 PM Subscribe
NYT's Pete Wells, arguably the most influential restaurant reviewer in the US, visits Locol, a new restaurant venture with a significant social agenda, to bring accessible food to neighbourhoods otherwise devoid of choices. He declares the food a fail.
The LA Times' Jonathan Gold, arguably the other most influential restaurant reviewer in the US, wonders if Pete Wells has missed the point of the whole thing.
Huh. I was all ready to be pissy about Wells being a bully but it is kind of an interesting question... If the food is bad, isn't it the critics job to say so? Isn't it patronizing to say: "oh but they're serving such a poor deprived group, good job."
Still, I ended up agreeing with Gold's main argument: that Wells is, as OP pointed out, being ungenerous and missing the point. He's not wrong, just...
posted by Wretch729 at 7:52 PM on January 9, 2017 [14 favorites]
Still, I ended up agreeing with Gold's main argument: that Wells is, as OP pointed out, being ungenerous and missing the point. He's not wrong, just...
posted by Wretch729 at 7:52 PM on January 9, 2017 [14 favorites]
can't really make a judgment without eating the food, but serving mediocre food to a captive audience who can't afford to go to a better place or out of the neighborhood is punching down if anything is, no?
I mean if you're competing with fast food but offering fewer calories (on purpose), you have to at least taste really good. The Pete Wells review is actually not mean or brutal at all and he says nice things about several menu items. If Locol's customers like it, that's great and everything is fine, but if they don't, they don't have to pretend any more than Wells does. people in poor neighborhoods are already paying for their meals with money, they don't have to pay in gratitude as well, or accept lower standards. (I mean: actually they do have to accept lower standards, that's what poverty means. but it's the opposite of missing the point to look for good quality here.)
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:56 PM on January 9, 2017 [72 favorites]
I mean if you're competing with fast food but offering fewer calories (on purpose), you have to at least taste really good. The Pete Wells review is actually not mean or brutal at all and he says nice things about several menu items. If Locol's customers like it, that's great and everything is fine, but if they don't, they don't have to pretend any more than Wells does. people in poor neighborhoods are already paying for their meals with money, they don't have to pay in gratitude as well, or accept lower standards. (I mean: actually they do have to accept lower standards, that's what poverty means. but it's the opposite of missing the point to look for good quality here.)
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:56 PM on January 9, 2017 [72 favorites]
I read the Gold piece first and then the Wells one. So I was surprised when really didn't think the Wells one was all that bad. It might in fact be helpful for the chefs, since most press they're getting is bound to be completely laudatory.
posted by Miko at 8:07 PM on January 9, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:07 PM on January 9, 2017 [9 favorites]
Yes, it's the job of the critic to say so if the food is bad, but you don't necessarily need to hop on a plane and fly across the country to complain about a $5 chicken sandwich.
posted by zachlipton at 8:09 PM on January 9, 2017 [26 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 8:09 PM on January 9, 2017 [26 favorites]
I didn't think the review was so terrible, but it did leave me wondering why he wrote it. Presumably (?) the point of a typical restaurant review is to help people determine if they should eat at the restaurant. Seems very unlikely that the locals are deciding if they should eat there based on a NYT review. So is it to comment on a cultural phenomenon? Fine, but then why critique the chicken nuggets?
posted by TheShadowKnows at 8:10 PM on January 9, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by TheShadowKnows at 8:10 PM on January 9, 2017 [9 favorites]
Is there a mirror for the second article? I'm not whitelisting the LA Times, sorry.
posted by Splunge at 8:10 PM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Splunge at 8:10 PM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
Here's a pastebin link of the LA Times article: http://pastebin.com/Uy5XZLQ0
posted by bigendian at 8:15 PM on January 9, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by bigendian at 8:15 PM on January 9, 2017 [3 favorites]
You don't punch down
The question is who he was swinging at. Patterson and Choi or the people working there. The first two guys are more than fair game.
posted by JPD at 8:16 PM on January 9, 2017 [12 favorites]
The question is who he was swinging at. Patterson and Choi or the people working there. The first two guys are more than fair game.
posted by JPD at 8:16 PM on January 9, 2017 [12 favorites]
you don't necessarily need to hop on a plane and fly across the country to complain about a $5 chicken sandwich
I think it's more of a chef culture thing. He's really covering/reviewing these chefs, particularly Choi, who has a book and a hot-kid reputation, not so much the food outlet itself. In other words, the food outlet itself might be doing the work of angels, but the work of a famous chef is what's being reveiwed.
posted by Miko at 8:17 PM on January 9, 2017 [20 favorites]
I think it's more of a chef culture thing. He's really covering/reviewing these chefs, particularly Choi, who has a book and a hot-kid reputation, not so much the food outlet itself. In other words, the food outlet itself might be doing the work of angels, but the work of a famous chef is what's being reveiwed.
posted by Miko at 8:17 PM on January 9, 2017 [20 favorites]
also being a reviewer and doing your job of reviewing is not punching anybody. Not really and not metaphorically either. If he's being dishonest nobody has accused him of it, and it's clear from reading him that he's not being gratuitously mean at least in this case. Those are the only ways I can think of to misuse the mighty power of the restaurant review. taking food seriously doesn't count. There is no punching.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:20 PM on January 9, 2017 [32 favorites]
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:20 PM on January 9, 2017 [32 favorites]
I basically agree with that, however the NYT wouldn't ordinarilreview a place like this unless it were a superb example of its genre.
posted by JPD at 8:25 PM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by JPD at 8:25 PM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
If you have ever read "Front Row Center with Thaddeus Bristol" by David Sedaris, this is the restaurant review equivalent.
The purpose of this restaurant is not to collect Michelin stars. Wells should have framed his review with that in mind.
posted by prepmonkey at 8:26 PM on January 9, 2017 [7 favorites]
The purpose of this restaurant is not to collect Michelin stars. Wells should have framed his review with that in mind.
posted by prepmonkey at 8:26 PM on January 9, 2017 [7 favorites]
In my opinion, Wells may not have been wrong, but he was ungenerous.
That pretty much sums up my feeling here.
posted by Splunge at 8:34 PM on January 9, 2017 [6 favorites]
That pretty much sums up my feeling here.
posted by Splunge at 8:34 PM on January 9, 2017 [6 favorites]
Do you read the NYT reviews or blogs? Pete Wells has reviewed Shake Shack, for heaven's sake. Along with other chains and inexpensive places.
posted by Miko at 8:35 PM on January 9, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:35 PM on January 9, 2017 [5 favorites]
A lot of restaurants use butter, salt and deep-frying to make the food taste good.
If they are really trying to provide healthy food, and it tastes a bit bland, I don't know if that's a bad thing.
If he's flying across the country and slamming the taste of the food, he could at least comment on the nutritional aspect.
posted by metaseeker at 8:50 PM on January 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
If they are really trying to provide healthy food, and it tastes a bit bland, I don't know if that's a bad thing.
If he's flying across the country and slamming the taste of the food, he could at least comment on the nutritional aspect.
posted by metaseeker at 8:50 PM on January 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
I guess the more interesting part of this for me is if this has an effect on the left-of-center chefs who may also be considering starting businesses with the same kind of more-ethical-than-the-really-low-bar restaurants that do cater to lower-income folk
will it make more of them want to open up restaurants knowing that they will be held to the same high standard for their food? will it make less of them do it because they now know that the institutions that make up the restaurant industry won't give them a pass even for their slightly better ethic?
also, another thing to consider is the audience that Wells is writing for. who reads the NYT? are these people going to be eating at this restaurant? and, if a bunch of these high flying possible tourists do, what does that mean for the business?
posted by runt at 9:20 PM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
will it make more of them want to open up restaurants knowing that they will be held to the same high standard for their food? will it make less of them do it because they now know that the institutions that make up the restaurant industry won't give them a pass even for their slightly better ethic?
also, another thing to consider is the audience that Wells is writing for. who reads the NYT? are these people going to be eating at this restaurant? and, if a bunch of these high flying possible tourists do, what does that mean for the business?
posted by runt at 9:20 PM on January 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
Not for nothing but my wife works right next to Locol in Uptown. I just asked her about it and she instantly said "the food sucks - it's going to go out of business".
I think the concept is great but it sounds like the execution is falling flat. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to fix a restaurant with bad food. Also Uptown Oakland is a commercial neighborhood. It doesn't really fit the inexpensive and healthy for local communities mandate.
posted by bitdamaged at 9:46 PM on January 9, 2017 [33 favorites]
I think the concept is great but it sounds like the execution is falling flat. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to fix a restaurant with bad food. Also Uptown Oakland is a commercial neighborhood. It doesn't really fit the inexpensive and healthy for local communities mandate.
posted by bitdamaged at 9:46 PM on January 9, 2017 [33 favorites]
I lived literally across the street from this location in a 23-story ultra luxe apartment tower until a month or so ago. That Locol branch is located in the furthest thing from a food desert imaginable in Oakland, there's a Whole Foods, a Grocery Outlet, and a Sprouts all no more than 3 blocks away. The area is crammed to bursting with other prestige restaurants, bars, art galleries, boutique shops... Whatever the reason for opening a branch there, it wasn't to reach an underserved population.
posted by books for weapons at 9:47 PM on January 9, 2017 [45 favorites]
posted by books for weapons at 9:47 PM on January 9, 2017 [45 favorites]
Seems very unlikely that the locals are deciding if they should eat there based on a NYT review.
NYT has recently decided it doesn't need to bother with on-the-ground nuts-and-bolts local coverage anymore: instead, it should cover all the rest of the country in equally superficial high-level fashion. Pretty sure this review was located in its new "California" section.
posted by praemunire at 10:24 PM on January 9, 2017
NYT has recently decided it doesn't need to bother with on-the-ground nuts-and-bolts local coverage anymore: instead, it should cover all the rest of the country in equally superficial high-level fashion. Pretty sure this review was located in its new "California" section.
posted by praemunire at 10:24 PM on January 9, 2017
Doesn't seem like punching down to me. Patterson and Choi aren't a couple of nobodys. They want to market wholesomeness, deliciousness and affordability for underserved areas. There's no reason to believe Wells was lying. To have chicken noodle soup on the menu, that has no noodles or chicken, doesn't get a pass for being well intentioned in my book. If anything, I'd say it was an example of disrespecting their community, to open a place with such a mission and fail to make their product desirable. If wholesome foods are, in fact, the equivalent of culinary austerity, well, good luck making a go of that. Should the underserved masses to be grateful for what are basically two prestigious tourists selling food that's not all that tasty?
posted by 2N2222 at 10:27 PM on January 9, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by 2N2222 at 10:27 PM on January 9, 2017 [14 favorites]
I've eaten at that location.
First, It's not a food desert by any means. It's in the same spot that was Ume and before that Plum (both pretty high-ish end wine bars). There's at least ten other high end restaurants within a two block radius, an Ike's sandwich shop next door, several bars with food, *another* more expensive burger place a hundred feet away, a subway and a Whole Foods down the street.
Second the food isn't that good imo. The best thing is the price, it's kinda cheap ($5 burgers). My wife and I had the 'Cheesburg' and the 'Fried Chicken Burg'. Both of them were small. My wife had a bite of the burger and didn't want any more but she did eat half the chicken burger. I finished them but mostly out of frugality. The burger tasted kinda fishy (I didn't mind but it was a no-go for my wife), turns out they use some fish flavoring in the burger. The portions are small and they kinda look like sad little burgers. Not really worth the money even at five dollars.
I really love the idea of providing jobs and training and using sustainable ingredients. but I have to agree that the food just isn't that good. It did kinda remind me of an expensive hipster take on Lotte burger.
posted by proneSMK at 10:48 PM on January 9, 2017 [20 favorites]
First, It's not a food desert by any means. It's in the same spot that was Ume and before that Plum (both pretty high-ish end wine bars). There's at least ten other high end restaurants within a two block radius, an Ike's sandwich shop next door, several bars with food, *another* more expensive burger place a hundred feet away, a subway and a Whole Foods down the street.
Second the food isn't that good imo. The best thing is the price, it's kinda cheap ($5 burgers). My wife and I had the 'Cheesburg' and the 'Fried Chicken Burg'. Both of them were small. My wife had a bite of the burger and didn't want any more but she did eat half the chicken burger. I finished them but mostly out of frugality. The burger tasted kinda fishy (I didn't mind but it was a no-go for my wife), turns out they use some fish flavoring in the burger. The portions are small and they kinda look like sad little burgers. Not really worth the money even at five dollars.
I really love the idea of providing jobs and training and using sustainable ingredients. but I have to agree that the food just isn't that good. It did kinda remind me of an expensive hipster take on Lotte burger.
posted by proneSMK at 10:48 PM on January 9, 2017 [20 favorites]
Hello from Oakland.
I have to wonder if LocoL has a solid business plan. The East Bay Express, in initial coverage, asked "How can it be financially sustainable to sell this food at prices that rival McDonald's?" and immediately answered the question with "Part of it will involve pulling favors." When they opened a year and a half later, the Express's food critic questioned the Uptown location but noted that other Bay Area locations in less affluent neighborhoods were on the way. That was a year ago. Choi seems slightly kooky (here's his answer to Wells, and a profile). I don't know, I want them to succeed, but I don't think a poor review in the New York Times is likely to be their biggest problem.
posted by aws17576 at 11:17 PM on January 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
I have to wonder if LocoL has a solid business plan. The East Bay Express, in initial coverage, asked "How can it be financially sustainable to sell this food at prices that rival McDonald's?" and immediately answered the question with "Part of it will involve pulling favors." When they opened a year and a half later, the Express's food critic questioned the Uptown location but noted that other Bay Area locations in less affluent neighborhoods were on the way. That was a year ago. Choi seems slightly kooky (here's his answer to Wells, and a profile). I don't know, I want them to succeed, but I don't think a poor review in the New York Times is likely to be their biggest problem.
posted by aws17576 at 11:17 PM on January 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
Yeah I really don't understand what Locol is doing at that particular location or why Wells reviewed that one and not the one in Watts.
posted by zachlipton at 12:10 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by zachlipton at 12:10 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Pete Wells is not an intellectual, he's not the kind of person who thinks about how social context is intertwined with conceptions of problems in society. It makes him blind to the socioeconomic concern that Choi and Patterson tried to identify, and prevents him from taking the necessary step of being reflective and critically-minded about criteria used for restaurant reviews in an elite, editorialized, mainstream publication such as the NYTimes.
"The food tasted mediocre" is sort of the least interesting takeaway you could get from a restaurant like this.
The result is people trying to shoehorn a concept (in this case, a restaurant and the ideas and value system around it) that doesn't fit the categories defined by the dominant narrative. Sometimes the NYTimes is just not that socially aware/progressive in its journalism. And Choi and Patterson succeeded in a way by bringing this to light, in their way. The crack they caused in the NYTimes was its contradiction in reviewing a restaurant without the appropriate criteria, and thus demonstrated Pete Well's complicity in the production of the ideologies of the restaurant industry.
In that light, Zero stars is actually a huge compliment.
OK that was pretty horribly stated, but based on years of following Pete Wells' restaurant column, that's the broad argument that I would probably make a case for.
posted by polymodus at 12:31 AM on January 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
"The food tasted mediocre" is sort of the least interesting takeaway you could get from a restaurant like this.
The result is people trying to shoehorn a concept (in this case, a restaurant and the ideas and value system around it) that doesn't fit the categories defined by the dominant narrative. Sometimes the NYTimes is just not that socially aware/progressive in its journalism. And Choi and Patterson succeeded in a way by bringing this to light, in their way. The crack they caused in the NYTimes was its contradiction in reviewing a restaurant without the appropriate criteria, and thus demonstrated Pete Well's complicity in the production of the ideologies of the restaurant industry.
In that light, Zero stars is actually a huge compliment.
OK that was pretty horribly stated, but based on years of following Pete Wells' restaurant column, that's the broad argument that I would probably make a case for.
posted by polymodus at 12:31 AM on January 10, 2017 [2 favorites]
I live a few minutes from where this place is. I haven't been there, and I guess I'll head over and try it soon, but I'll say this:
Nobody is missing out on good affordable food in uptown oakland. They're also not missing out on great burgers. And broadway in that part of oakland is so nice that I wish I could afford to move there. I do all right, financially, but that area's apartments go for almost 3k a month. Many of them are even more expensive. Wells pointed this out, but I think people are missing it. That is where the wealthy tech guys are movng because even WE can't deal with san francisco's rents any more. It is not a bad, struggling neighborhood nor a food desert.
That is not where this "food revolution" Choi and Patterson are purporting to create is needed. It's needed on the EAST side, where I live and the Church's Chicken closed down because people didn't like how many crackheads hung out there so they didn't eat there. And that's just in my neighborhood, which is relatively safe. 20 blocks east, and they could REALLY use it.
If the food sucks, no one will eat it, no matter how much Choi and Patterson tell us we should because they know better. Deflating their egos and telling people what's really being served is a good thing. Telling people, more importantly, that these street revolutionaries chose to open their revolution in the hip part of town where google staffers live is important. Good on wells.
posted by shmegegge at 1:25 AM on January 10, 2017 [38 favorites]
Nobody is missing out on good affordable food in uptown oakland. They're also not missing out on great burgers. And broadway in that part of oakland is so nice that I wish I could afford to move there. I do all right, financially, but that area's apartments go for almost 3k a month. Many of them are even more expensive. Wells pointed this out, but I think people are missing it. That is where the wealthy tech guys are movng because even WE can't deal with san francisco's rents any more. It is not a bad, struggling neighborhood nor a food desert.
That is not where this "food revolution" Choi and Patterson are purporting to create is needed. It's needed on the EAST side, where I live and the Church's Chicken closed down because people didn't like how many crackheads hung out there so they didn't eat there. And that's just in my neighborhood, which is relatively safe. 20 blocks east, and they could REALLY use it.
If the food sucks, no one will eat it, no matter how much Choi and Patterson tell us we should because they know better. Deflating their egos and telling people what's really being served is a good thing. Telling people, more importantly, that these street revolutionaries chose to open their revolution in the hip part of town where google staffers live is important. Good on wells.
posted by shmegegge at 1:25 AM on January 10, 2017 [38 favorites]
turns out they use some fish flavoring in the burger.
good/bad/cheap/nuevo this would totally freak me out.
posted by sammyo at 3:47 AM on January 10, 2017 [11 favorites]
good/bad/cheap/nuevo this would totally freak me out.
posted by sammyo at 3:47 AM on January 10, 2017 [11 favorites]
Yeah, the guy's job is to criticize food. He criticized the food. He's helping. Criticism is not evil hateful shaming for fun, nor is it "punching down" or counter to the interests of the diners who are supposedly the intended beneficiaries of this exercise; it's a form of helping because regardless of how anybody feels about it, it still matters what's actually true. If the food really isn't very good, it really isn't very good. It sounds like the project isn't even really about helping the poor get access to good, healthy food at all, but possibly it's more about the vanity and the public image making process of a celebrity chef.
We've gotten so used to seeing Emperor's new clothes type situations go unchallenged in the U.S., it's becoming the norm to think perception and feelings (you know, the stuff marketing is made of) are all that matter and even to endorse that kind of break with reality as a more enlightened point of view. People purportedly like Trump because he "goes with his gut." As if having an unbalanced, overly emotional approach to problem solving were any better than being too dogmatically rational.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:20 AM on January 10, 2017 [45 favorites]
We've gotten so used to seeing Emperor's new clothes type situations go unchallenged in the U.S., it's becoming the norm to think perception and feelings (you know, the stuff marketing is made of) are all that matter and even to endorse that kind of break with reality as a more enlightened point of view. People purportedly like Trump because he "goes with his gut." As if having an unbalanced, overly emotional approach to problem solving were any better than being too dogmatically rational.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:20 AM on January 10, 2017 [45 favorites]
Pete Wells is not an intellectual
But he does have quite the sense of humor. His review of Guy Fiere's horrible tourist trap restaurant in Times Square is guaranteed to make you chuckle.
posted by Dean358 at 4:37 AM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
But he does have quite the sense of humor. His review of Guy Fiere's horrible tourist trap restaurant in Times Square is guaranteed to make you chuckle.
posted by Dean358 at 4:37 AM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
The best thing is the price, it's kinda cheap ($5 burgers)
When I'm stretching my dollar, I don't eat at a place where I have to pay $5 for a small burger, even if it's good. I eat at a place like Chipotle, which is slightly more expensive upfront, but gives me two meals. If the only other choice is McDonald's, I'll go McDonald's, because I can get more food for the money there.
I don't consider a $5 burger "cheap." It's more in the "not a splurge" category.
But I'm not someone in the community that the place is supposed to serve. What do they think about the food and prices? Is it filling a need?
Does the LA Times article bother to find out? I can't read it. I even tried whitelisting, which I usually don't do, but their advertising breaks the page. Hah.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:40 AM on January 10, 2017 [8 favorites]
When I'm stretching my dollar, I don't eat at a place where I have to pay $5 for a small burger, even if it's good. I eat at a place like Chipotle, which is slightly more expensive upfront, but gives me two meals. If the only other choice is McDonald's, I'll go McDonald's, because I can get more food for the money there.
I don't consider a $5 burger "cheap." It's more in the "not a splurge" category.
But I'm not someone in the community that the place is supposed to serve. What do they think about the food and prices? Is it filling a need?
Does the LA Times article bother to find out? I can't read it. I even tried whitelisting, which I usually don't do, but their advertising breaks the page. Hah.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:40 AM on January 10, 2017 [8 favorites]
> expressed their dissatisfaction via subtweet
Cyberpunk future is here. You can't read that sentence without Deus Ex theme starting to play in your head.
> Does the LA Times article bother to find out? I can't read it. I even tried whitelisting, which I usually don't do, but their advertising breaks the page. Hah.
Firefox's reader view just tells the advertising rubbish to sod off.
posted by wwwwolf at 4:41 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Cyberpunk future is here. You can't read that sentence without Deus Ex theme starting to play in your head.
> Does the LA Times article bother to find out? I can't read it. I even tried whitelisting, which I usually don't do, but their advertising breaks the page. Hah.
Firefox's reader view just tells the advertising rubbish to sod off.
posted by wwwwolf at 4:41 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
This story just came on on Ontario Morning to be briefly discussed by their food critic, and I have to say, I'd side with Pete Wells here. It doesn't matter if the intentions are good; if the food is terrible, then no one of any socio-economic background will eat there. And again, I like me some Roy Choi, but I hardly think he'll be hurt by this. I'd be less charitable towards Wells' review if it were two chefs/cooks with less prestige trying to do good with what they have, but Locol does have that air of "vanity project" about it.
posted by Kitteh at 4:56 AM on January 10, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 4:56 AM on January 10, 2017 [8 favorites]
Yeah, if "accessible food to neighbourhoods otherwise devoid of choices" is the goal here, every taco truck in East Oakland is doing a better job at it than these guys delivering five dollar, small, fish-flavored hamburgers to a gentrifying neighborhood like upper Broadway.
posted by murphy slaw at 5:06 AM on January 10, 2017 [39 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 5:06 AM on January 10, 2017 [39 favorites]
Metafilter: hop on a plane and fly across the country to complain about a $5 chicken sandwich.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 5:31 AM on January 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 5:31 AM on January 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
If food sucks at a restaurant, it's their job to tell me that.
posted by oceanjesse at 5:43 AM on January 10, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 5:43 AM on January 10, 2017 [12 favorites]
I don't know what the ratio of locals to non-locals is, but at least based on perusing the Yelp reviews for the Watts location the restaurant has received a fair amount of publicity and a fair number of people who are coming to the neighborhood specifically just to eat there, with accompanying ghetto gawking which is kind of gross to me. There are all kinds of other questions that the whole concept of this restaurant raises for me, and if the food's not that good (something that seems substantiated by the Yelp reviews, IMHO) that's just the icing on the cake. Questions like, how do these menu items actually stack up against other locally available offerings in terms of genuine health benefits (for example, how much sugar is in an agua fresca and is it really that much healthier than a Coke; if most people are ordering fried chicken sandwiches and cheeseburgers, does it matter that the bun is fluffier)? And when I look behind the who Locol messaging (example: "We need to plant the seeds and wake people up"), there's a patronizing undertone to it. Is Locol really local? Is it part of the community? Is this even something the community needs and will benefit from? Is it the best use of whatever outsider money, talent, and patronage is going into it? It all reminds me of Jamie Oliver's controversial campaign to improve the foodways of Teh Poors.
posted by drlith at 6:04 AM on January 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by drlith at 6:04 AM on January 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
A lot of restaurants use butter, salt and deep-frying to make the food taste good.The last paragraph of the review says, "Mr. Patterson and Mr. Choi seem to have thought about the social dimensions of fast food so much that they now see their target audience as problems to be solved, not customers to be pleased. The most nutritious burger on earth won’t help you if you don’t want to eat it." Perhaps you quit reading early?
If they are really trying to provide healthy food, and it tastes a bit bland, I don't know if that's a bad thing.
If he's flying across the country and slamming the taste of the food, he could at least comment on the nutritional aspect.
I actually have a Times subscription and this article is a good example of why I do. It tells me about the world, specifically a part I won't get to myself, and doesn't spend all its time telling me what I should think about it.
The idea that someone should lie about bad food in a review strikes me as ... well, at least wrong. I'm not going to pay real money for reviews that are trying to mislead me for the good of society. Further, I thought it seemed more than even-handed. Folks might read the review of Guy Whatzizname's place in Time Square to see what "punching" is in a restaurant review.
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 6:40 AM on January 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
The idea that Uptown Oakland is a ghetto in need of an upscale, mindful fast-food joint blows my mind.
Locol is across the street from Luka's, around the corner from Era Bar, catty-corner from Pican, down the street from Numi Tea's offices, in the same building as Ike's Place, on the other side of the island as Izzy's Steak & Chop House, across the way from Agave Uptown and Umami Burger, up the street from The Gastropig, and a five-minute walk from both Space Burger and Telegraph, which is where I guarantee you locals who want a burger would be better off going.
So no, they don't get any brownie points. Patterson should have just figured out how to keep Ume and/or Plum open. I miss both of those restaurants.
posted by Coda at 6:45 AM on January 10, 2017 [11 favorites]
Locol is across the street from Luka's, around the corner from Era Bar, catty-corner from Pican, down the street from Numi Tea's offices, in the same building as Ike's Place, on the other side of the island as Izzy's Steak & Chop House, across the way from Agave Uptown and Umami Burger, up the street from The Gastropig, and a five-minute walk from both Space Burger and Telegraph, which is where I guarantee you locals who want a burger would be better off going.
So no, they don't get any brownie points. Patterson should have just figured out how to keep Ume and/or Plum open. I miss both of those restaurants.
posted by Coda at 6:45 AM on January 10, 2017 [11 favorites]
Honestly it sounds fine. His palate is not the right sort for a restaurant with this mission.
posted by amtho at 6:51 AM on January 10, 2017
posted by amtho at 6:51 AM on January 10, 2017
The idea that Uptown Oakland is a ghetto in need of an upscale, mindful fast-food joint blows my mind.
This indicates you haven't read the second FA. The Oakland location is the second spin off location. The original restaurant is in Watts. The one is Watts was popular enough that a second location was opened in a more upscale section of town.
Some of the critique here is that the NYT critic decided to visit the Oakland location instead of the original-- so he could be snarkier? Because he was nervous about going to Watts? Because he didn't understand the difference? Because he didn't care? Hard to say, but to a lot of people, the difference really matters.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:00 AM on January 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
This indicates you haven't read the second FA. The Oakland location is the second spin off location. The original restaurant is in Watts. The one is Watts was popular enough that a second location was opened in a more upscale section of town.
Some of the critique here is that the NYT critic decided to visit the Oakland location instead of the original-- so he could be snarkier? Because he was nervous about going to Watts? Because he didn't understand the difference? Because he didn't care? Hard to say, but to a lot of people, the difference really matters.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:00 AM on January 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
Seems very unlikely that the locals are deciding if they should eat there based on a NYT review.
That's a very strange assumption to make.
posted by enn at 7:01 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
That's a very strange assumption to make.
posted by enn at 7:01 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
The LAT article goes into some reasons Local does deserve to be reviewed (and kind of makes it sound like Pete Wells didn't get on a plane to review only them, but who knows):
Wells might have concentrated on more conventional restaurants like Camino or Commis on his trip to Oakland, but in some ways, Locol is indeed too important to ignore. [...] I wrote a front-page story on Locol’s opening last January. In Food & Wine the same month, Kate Krader wrote “Locol is the Best New Restaurant of 2016.” Stories on the restaurant appeared everywhere from Rolling Stone to the Wall Street Journal to Daily Coffee News. [...] Currently Locol sits at 58 on the 101 Best Restaurants list [...] The prospect of a baron of multicultural deliciousness like Choi joining forces with the Michelin-starred modernism of Patterson is intriguing in foodie terms alone [...] Choi is fond of calling Locol a revolution.
Reading the NYT review, I didn't get the sense that Wells was ignoring the context or that he was punching down:
If Locol can create environments like this across the country, it would be a major achievement. [...]
I understand why they want to take on fast food, but in the neighborhoods they hope to reach it’s one of the few kinds of food available. Why offer less satisfying versions of what’s already there, when they could be selling great versions of something new?
The neighborhoods Locol is targeting have serious nutritional problems, from hunger to obesity, but the solution isn’t to charge people for stuff that tastes like hospital food. [...]
Mr. Patterson and Mr. Choi seem to have thought about the social dimensions of fast food so much that they now see their target audience as problems to be solved, not customers to be pleased. The most nutritious burger on earth won’t help you if you don’t want to eat it.
Jonathan Goldberg in the LAT says:
The food is less an experiment in culinary creativity than it is an attempt to fashion sustainable, lower-fat, affordable versions of dishes already popular in the area it serves: burgers, pizza, chili and salad. The restaurant is staffed by people who live in the neighborhood, very few of whom worked in food service before Locol hired them. Locol is less a replacement for a fast-food restaurant than a better version of it [...]
To which he says Wells responds:
“It’s cool,’’ Wells messaged me Thursday. “But I tell you, if they want to start a revolution, they’ve got to do better than what they're serving in Oakland.’’
posted by trig at 7:06 AM on January 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
Wells might have concentrated on more conventional restaurants like Camino or Commis on his trip to Oakland, but in some ways, Locol is indeed too important to ignore. [...] I wrote a front-page story on Locol’s opening last January. In Food & Wine the same month, Kate Krader wrote “Locol is the Best New Restaurant of 2016.” Stories on the restaurant appeared everywhere from Rolling Stone to the Wall Street Journal to Daily Coffee News. [...] Currently Locol sits at 58 on the 101 Best Restaurants list [...] The prospect of a baron of multicultural deliciousness like Choi joining forces with the Michelin-starred modernism of Patterson is intriguing in foodie terms alone [...] Choi is fond of calling Locol a revolution.
Reading the NYT review, I didn't get the sense that Wells was ignoring the context or that he was punching down:
If Locol can create environments like this across the country, it would be a major achievement. [...]
I understand why they want to take on fast food, but in the neighborhoods they hope to reach it’s one of the few kinds of food available. Why offer less satisfying versions of what’s already there, when they could be selling great versions of something new?
The neighborhoods Locol is targeting have serious nutritional problems, from hunger to obesity, but the solution isn’t to charge people for stuff that tastes like hospital food. [...]
Mr. Patterson and Mr. Choi seem to have thought about the social dimensions of fast food so much that they now see their target audience as problems to be solved, not customers to be pleased. The most nutritious burger on earth won’t help you if you don’t want to eat it.
Jonathan Goldberg in the LAT says:
The food is less an experiment in culinary creativity than it is an attempt to fashion sustainable, lower-fat, affordable versions of dishes already popular in the area it serves: burgers, pizza, chili and salad. The restaurant is staffed by people who live in the neighborhood, very few of whom worked in food service before Locol hired them. Locol is less a replacement for a fast-food restaurant than a better version of it [...]
To which he says Wells responds:
“It’s cool,’’ Wells messaged me Thursday. “But I tell you, if they want to start a revolution, they’ve got to do better than what they're serving in Oakland.’’
posted by trig at 7:06 AM on January 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
What Wells didn't mention is that David Chang (for example) went through two or three iterations of fails and fuckups before finding a winning combination for Momofuku, and that didn't have any social agenda - it was only about the food quality.
So to recommend several of the food items while being unimpressed overall and give the restaurant zero stars... Yeah, ungenerous. I think it's also fair to ask "why the fuck would you put this next to another burger place," though.
posted by iffthen at 7:09 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
So to recommend several of the food items while being unimpressed overall and give the restaurant zero stars... Yeah, ungenerous. I think it's also fair to ask "why the fuck would you put this next to another burger place," though.
posted by iffthen at 7:09 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
This indicates you haven't read the second FA.
I have, actually, and I knew about and had eaten at Locol well before the article existed. As I don't live in Watts and haven't eaten at their location there, I don't have shit to say about it. As an Oaklander, however, I stand by what I said.
posted by Coda at 7:10 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
I have, actually, and I knew about and had eaten at Locol well before the article existed. As I don't live in Watts and haven't eaten at their location there, I don't have shit to say about it. As an Oaklander, however, I stand by what I said.
posted by Coda at 7:10 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
For some reason, this reminds of the outcry generated when a local newspaper's arts critic gives a mediocre review to community theater.
posted by DrAstroZoom at 7:19 AM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by DrAstroZoom at 7:19 AM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
For some reason, this reminds of the outcry generated when a local newspaper's arts critic gives a mediocre review to community theater.
Seems like it would remind one more of the outcry generated when Ben Brantley gives a mediocre review to community theater, except he doesn't do that. Probably for a reason.
posted by Etrigan at 7:34 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Seems like it would remind one more of the outcry generated when Ben Brantley gives a mediocre review to community theater, except he doesn't do that. Probably for a reason.
posted by Etrigan at 7:34 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
For some reason, this reminds of the outcry generated when a local newspaper's arts critic gives a mediocre review to community theater.
Well, yeah.
I mean, part of the conflict here is that the point of the original restaurant wasn't just food. It was offering to hire people who had been damned as un-hireable by every other industry employer, and to teach them professional skills that would allow them to be employed in the long term. It was about a business integrating itself into a community and helping to meet that community's needs in an innovative way. It was about giving agency and dignity to people who had long been denied both.
To respond to that project with "this food sucks" isn't just a commentary on the food. It is a public humiliation of people who are already trying really hard to learn a new skill set. Maybe that is the fault of the menu, but maybe it is because some of the employees at the Oakland location are still getting the hang of food preparation, how much seasoning a dish needs, timing multiple orders to come up at the same time, how long to leave food under a heat lamp, or any number of other skills. To strip the food of its context is really destructive, when you consider what that context is.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:36 AM on January 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
Well, yeah.
I mean, part of the conflict here is that the point of the original restaurant wasn't just food. It was offering to hire people who had been damned as un-hireable by every other industry employer, and to teach them professional skills that would allow them to be employed in the long term. It was about a business integrating itself into a community and helping to meet that community's needs in an innovative way. It was about giving agency and dignity to people who had long been denied both.
To respond to that project with "this food sucks" isn't just a commentary on the food. It is a public humiliation of people who are already trying really hard to learn a new skill set. Maybe that is the fault of the menu, but maybe it is because some of the employees at the Oakland location are still getting the hang of food preparation, how much seasoning a dish needs, timing multiple orders to come up at the same time, how long to leave food under a heat lamp, or any number of other skills. To strip the food of its context is really destructive, when you consider what that context is.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:36 AM on January 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
When I first read Well's review, I thought he was being ungenerous, but after reading some of you Oaklanders' comments, I rethought (this is what makes Metafilter great) - I live in a similarly rapidly gentrifying area, where every second shop is a Shawarma bar, but there are also three Michelin starred restaurants, and countless chic bars and small restaurants. And then there are the philanthropic eateries. And they have this food-style I can only describe as political blandness. Some of them have a nice atmosphere and great juices, but there is a lot of grain in the food, and a strange lack of taste. This seems similar.
Some of it is that it is some foods are almost impossible to make in high quality at low prices. A chicken burger is definitely among them. But maybe the response to that should be to not make them? Another thing is the training of the workers - this is a real issue and these restaurants need time. But again, you have to consciously adapt the menu to the resources, including human resources, and you have to engage in the training.
At the end of the day, I am seeing the Wells review as helpful rather than mean, and I hope the owners read and think.
posted by mumimor at 7:53 AM on January 10, 2017 [7 favorites]
Some of it is that it is some foods are almost impossible to make in high quality at low prices. A chicken burger is definitely among them. But maybe the response to that should be to not make them? Another thing is the training of the workers - this is a real issue and these restaurants need time. But again, you have to consciously adapt the menu to the resources, including human resources, and you have to engage in the training.
At the end of the day, I am seeing the Wells review as helpful rather than mean, and I hope the owners read and think.
posted by mumimor at 7:53 AM on January 10, 2017 [7 favorites]
I think Wells should be given some credit for thinking this through. First off, he's writing for a completely different audience than the intended patrons of this eatery. I find it hard to believe he does not realize that. Second, my firm impression was that he would honestly like the food to be a little better. It's a fair indication to the owners and the employees where they could improve things. If someone gets offended, it's their fault. This was a fairly constructive criticism and as someone wrote above, addressed to the chefs and the restaurant community.
Gold's attitude, on the other hand, I do not understand. What is he saying? That food may only be honestly reviewed if it costs a certain amount? That what poor people eat must and may stay bland/junk and not a word may be spared? That seems disingenuous to me.
posted by Laotic at 8:21 AM on January 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
Gold's attitude, on the other hand, I do not understand. What is he saying? That food may only be honestly reviewed if it costs a certain amount? That what poor people eat must and may stay bland/junk and not a word may be spared? That seems disingenuous to me.
posted by Laotic at 8:21 AM on January 10, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'm firmly on the critic's side on this one. There are many people able to offer commentary that is meaningful on a venture like this one. If the food is sub-standard who would be a better person to point that out. His article reads as quite open to the intent of the restaurant from my perspective. He notes that the ambiance worked and the staff were open and engaged. He also correctly points out that you aren't going to start a food revolution if you offer foods that are not as tasty as other choices.
It reminds me of vegetarian approaches to replacing the hamburger. I've had some excellent and tasty bean or vegetarian burgers, but only when they were clearly just doing their own thing. When they try to come off as being something like an actual ground beef patty - well, it is both unconvincing and disappointing. He even points out one dish where if it had been listed as a vegetable rice soup in chicken stock he would have liked it, but because the menu listed chicken noodle he had different expectations.
His job is to evaluate the restaurant and the food and give a good report on that. He did. Maybe they can update the menu and fix the problems. But, it isn't his job to speculate on that any more than he did.
posted by meinvt at 8:45 AM on January 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
It reminds me of vegetarian approaches to replacing the hamburger. I've had some excellent and tasty bean or vegetarian burgers, but only when they were clearly just doing their own thing. When they try to come off as being something like an actual ground beef patty - well, it is both unconvincing and disappointing. He even points out one dish where if it had been listed as a vegetable rice soup in chicken stock he would have liked it, but because the menu listed chicken noodle he had different expectations.
His job is to evaluate the restaurant and the food and give a good report on that. He did. Maybe they can update the menu and fix the problems. But, it isn't his job to speculate on that any more than he did.
posted by meinvt at 8:45 AM on January 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
turns out they use some fish flavoring in the burger.
>good/bad/cheap/nuevo this would totally freak me out.
Ever add fish sauce to a burger for that umami kick? How about worchestershire sauce?
If you haven't, I bet you've eaten a burger made by someone who does (unless you are always explicit about fish allergies). Not to mention all of the other ways that anchovies secretly make things more delicious.
(obvs. if they are adding so much of it that it tastes "fishy" (especially at a restaurant that doesn't have fish on the menu at all) something has gone wrong).
posted by sparklemotion at 9:01 AM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
>good/bad/cheap/nuevo this would totally freak me out.
Ever add fish sauce to a burger for that umami kick? How about worchestershire sauce?
If you haven't, I bet you've eaten a burger made by someone who does (unless you are always explicit about fish allergies). Not to mention all of the other ways that anchovies secretly make things more delicious.
(obvs. if they are adding so much of it that it tastes "fishy" (especially at a restaurant that doesn't have fish on the menu at all) something has gone wrong).
posted by sparklemotion at 9:01 AM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
For some reason, this reminds of the outcry generated when a local newspaper's arts critic gives a mediocre review to community theater.
It's even worse than that, according to Choi. The LA Times has an op-ed which quotes him saying that Wells giving a negative review to his restaurant is "like yelling 'booooo' at an elementary school musical." Choi's intstagram response also says, "We all know the food is not as bad as he states. Is it perfect? NO. But it's not as bad as he writes. And all minorities aren't criminals either. And all hoods aren't filled with dangerous people either. But the pen has created a lot of destruction over the course of history and continues to."
Seriously? Reviewing a for-profit restaurant owned by two celebrity chefs and saying the food is satisfactory but not great is like believing (and writing) that all minorities are criminals? It's like mocking eight-year-olds to say that some of the food is bland and the ice cream maker was broken, because...why? The restaurant has noble goals? The employees come from disadvantaged backgrounds and haven't been in food service for long? I mean, I think the mission of this restaurant sounds great and I hope it succeeds, but it's still a restaurant owned by celebrity chefs.
I agree with a fiendish thingy that "part of the conflict here is that the point of the original restaurant wasn't just food." That context is important -- and why they've gotten so much positive press, had the mayor attend their opening, and got on the front page of the LA Times. Also, that context isn't just about its employees, but also about the customers it says it serves (which Wells's review discusses), and the fact that it does, in fact, sell food. Just because the restaurant isn't just about food doesn't mean the food is irrelevant, or immune from criticism.
I do think a bad review probably stings more to LocoL employees than the average food service worker. And if Choi et al hadn't clearly used their celebrity cache to make sure they have tons of press and adulation, I would think it's unseemly for Wells to seek out a restaurant with such a great mission just to give it a bad review.
But why does Choi get to use his celebrity to get positive press and claim he's leading a "revolution", but then point to his non-celebrity employees as a reason no one should give his restaurant any negative press? Also, I think it's kind of gross of Choi to imply that his employees are like elementary school children you should coddle and say, "sure I'll buy your lemonade even if it's mediocre because it's admirable that you have a lemonade stand." Especially when it's Choi, not the employees, who actually owns the lemonade stand in question.
posted by alligatorpear at 9:32 AM on January 10, 2017 [31 favorites]
It's even worse than that, according to Choi. The LA Times has an op-ed which quotes him saying that Wells giving a negative review to his restaurant is "like yelling 'booooo' at an elementary school musical." Choi's intstagram response also says, "We all know the food is not as bad as he states. Is it perfect? NO. But it's not as bad as he writes. And all minorities aren't criminals either. And all hoods aren't filled with dangerous people either. But the pen has created a lot of destruction over the course of history and continues to."
Seriously? Reviewing a for-profit restaurant owned by two celebrity chefs and saying the food is satisfactory but not great is like believing (and writing) that all minorities are criminals? It's like mocking eight-year-olds to say that some of the food is bland and the ice cream maker was broken, because...why? The restaurant has noble goals? The employees come from disadvantaged backgrounds and haven't been in food service for long? I mean, I think the mission of this restaurant sounds great and I hope it succeeds, but it's still a restaurant owned by celebrity chefs.
I agree with a fiendish thingy that "part of the conflict here is that the point of the original restaurant wasn't just food." That context is important -- and why they've gotten so much positive press, had the mayor attend their opening, and got on the front page of the LA Times. Also, that context isn't just about its employees, but also about the customers it says it serves (which Wells's review discusses), and the fact that it does, in fact, sell food. Just because the restaurant isn't just about food doesn't mean the food is irrelevant, or immune from criticism.
I do think a bad review probably stings more to LocoL employees than the average food service worker. And if Choi et al hadn't clearly used their celebrity cache to make sure they have tons of press and adulation, I would think it's unseemly for Wells to seek out a restaurant with such a great mission just to give it a bad review.
But why does Choi get to use his celebrity to get positive press and claim he's leading a "revolution", but then point to his non-celebrity employees as a reason no one should give his restaurant any negative press? Also, I think it's kind of gross of Choi to imply that his employees are like elementary school children you should coddle and say, "sure I'll buy your lemonade even if it's mediocre because it's admirable that you have a lemonade stand." Especially when it's Choi, not the employees, who actually owns the lemonade stand in question.
posted by alligatorpear at 9:32 AM on January 10, 2017 [31 favorites]
I don't think the punching down complaint is very valid when the founders of the restaurant are two very well known chefs, including one holding two Michelin stars. I guess it's sort of a double edged sword in that the same concept with less famous founders would probably not attract the attention that Locol has attracted nor scrutiny from Pete Wells.
posted by gyc at 9:33 AM on January 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by gyc at 9:33 AM on January 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
Wait, wait, wait.
This place has a mission to provide healthy, accessible (read: affordable) food to underserved communities, right?
And one fucking burger costs $5?
posted by tobascodagama at 9:45 AM on January 10, 2017 [19 favorites]
This place has a mission to provide healthy, accessible (read: affordable) food to underserved communities, right?
And one fucking burger costs $5?
posted by tobascodagama at 9:45 AM on January 10, 2017 [19 favorites]
Wait a second the place is rated "Satisfactory", why is it that "Zero is poor, fair or satisfactory."
Seems like everyone would of been ok with satisfactory versus zero stars.
When I'm heading south I try to stop by the Watts location. The nuggets really do need ranch though.
posted by RichAndCreamy at 9:47 AM on January 10, 2017
Seems like everyone would of been ok with satisfactory versus zero stars.
When I'm heading south I try to stop by the Watts location. The nuggets really do need ranch though.
posted by RichAndCreamy at 9:47 AM on January 10, 2017
If they are really trying to provide healthy food, and it tastes a bit bland, I don't know if that's a bad thing
Well, in my view, it's pretty clearly a bad thing. You can make good food that's also healthy. But, in any case, customers deserve to know this before they walk in. If this really is aimed at people on limited budgets, it's not reasonable to take their money on the basis of the claim that it will be enjoyable in the same way as fast food if it's actually bland, worthy and boring. Poor people have preferences too.
posted by howfar at 9:54 AM on January 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
Well, in my view, it's pretty clearly a bad thing. You can make good food that's also healthy. But, in any case, customers deserve to know this before they walk in. If this really is aimed at people on limited budgets, it's not reasonable to take their money on the basis of the claim that it will be enjoyable in the same way as fast food if it's actually bland, worthy and boring. Poor people have preferences too.
posted by howfar at 9:54 AM on January 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
I think the mission of this place is great, but find myself agreeing with Wells. You can't get people on board if your food isn't good. People like to eat at McDonald's because a lot of them like the way the food tastes. If you're charging double the McDonald's price for a burger, and trying to compete with McDonald's and get people to change their eating habits, you need to have a really tasty burger. Also, the correction at the end of Gold's article also sums up a bit of the problem that Wells referred to with his point about the no-noodle, no-chicken soup:
"This article refers to a low-cost bowl of rice and greens. The dish has no rice."
posted by dellsolace at 9:59 AM on January 10, 2017 [12 favorites]
"This article refers to a low-cost bowl of rice and greens. The dish has no rice."
posted by dellsolace at 9:59 AM on January 10, 2017 [12 favorites]
There's a great Fresh Air episode with Peter Wells where he talks about how he sees his job as a restaurant critic. He talks a lot about how he picks places to review and how he's tried to expand the column beyond just "where to eat when you're in New York". He's explicitly doing cultural commentary, as with the Guy Fieri review as well as the glorious Señor Frog review.
This Locol review seems to fall in the same category. There's this new social phenomenon around a restaurant, an activist intent. So he goes and evaluates the restaurant; is it a good restaurant? He seemed to do so respectfully to me. To not talk about whether the food tastes good would be condescending.
posted by Nelson at 10:06 AM on January 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
This Locol review seems to fall in the same category. There's this new social phenomenon around a restaurant, an activist intent. So he goes and evaluates the restaurant; is it a good restaurant? He seemed to do so respectfully to me. To not talk about whether the food tastes good would be condescending.
posted by Nelson at 10:06 AM on January 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
And one fucking burger costs $5?
Someone hasn't been to the bay area lately. Burger prices at fast casual places are usually at least twice that.
posted by TypographicalError at 10:29 AM on January 10, 2017
Someone hasn't been to the bay area lately. Burger prices at fast casual places are usually at least twice that.
posted by TypographicalError at 10:29 AM on January 10, 2017
I think it's a really fair question to ask if Patterson and Choi are doing what they set out to do. These are professionals, even top rank professionals, not students or amateurs. They don't need gold stars and head pats for effort. They need honest and fair critique, a real inquiry to ask if they're truly honoring their stated mission and if they are respecting their guests.
Even more that it would be fair to ask if an aid organization or a charity were doing a good job, it's more than ok to ask if a for-profit restaurant is doing what they set out to do. After all, serving crap food implies that they really don't respect either their customers or their mission. It's a critic's job to talk about that.
This is a good-faith effort and real journalism, in my view.
posted by bonehead at 10:44 AM on January 10, 2017 [8 favorites]
Even more that it would be fair to ask if an aid organization or a charity were doing a good job, it's more than ok to ask if a for-profit restaurant is doing what they set out to do. After all, serving crap food implies that they really don't respect either their customers or their mission. It's a critic's job to talk about that.
This is a good-faith effort and real journalism, in my view.
posted by bonehead at 10:44 AM on January 10, 2017 [8 favorites]
Maybe that is the fault of the menu, but maybe it is because some of the employees at the Oakland location are still getting the hang of food preparation, how much seasoning a dish needs, timing multiple orders to come up at the same time, how long to leave food under a heat lamp, or any number of other skills.
It's a restaurant. There is no trick to this. If your staff isn't ready, then you don't open, or only soft open (when you would not be reviewed).
But I don't think that's the problem here, or not the main problem Wells is concerned with. The operation sounds as if, mechanically, it's not more complicated than McDonald's or, at most, Chipotle before they started standardizing everything in response to the food poisoning incidents. By design, such places require skills that are masterable by the average sixteen-year-old. No, I don't mean the average affluent white sixteen-year-old child of a Mefite. Walk into just about any urban McD's or Chipotle and you will find a youngish, predominantly-minority, predominantly-economically-marginalized staff. I know, I've been behind that counter myself. The idea that it's offensive to criticize a restaurant which aims to sells food to poor people for money because some of the poor are also on the clock and they can't be expected to handle a sub-fast-casual operation is...misguided. Not just because it implies something nasty about the capacity of the staff, but because it raises the question: why do the workers deserve such deference and the people of similar background spending their hard-earned five dollars for something they'd hope would taste good don't?
posted by praemunire at 10:46 AM on January 10, 2017 [21 favorites]
It's a restaurant. There is no trick to this. If your staff isn't ready, then you don't open, or only soft open (when you would not be reviewed).
But I don't think that's the problem here, or not the main problem Wells is concerned with. The operation sounds as if, mechanically, it's not more complicated than McDonald's or, at most, Chipotle before they started standardizing everything in response to the food poisoning incidents. By design, such places require skills that are masterable by the average sixteen-year-old. No, I don't mean the average affluent white sixteen-year-old child of a Mefite. Walk into just about any urban McD's or Chipotle and you will find a youngish, predominantly-minority, predominantly-economically-marginalized staff. I know, I've been behind that counter myself. The idea that it's offensive to criticize a restaurant which aims to sells food to poor people for money because some of the poor are also on the clock and they can't be expected to handle a sub-fast-casual operation is...misguided. Not just because it implies something nasty about the capacity of the staff, but because it raises the question: why do the workers deserve such deference and the people of similar background spending their hard-earned five dollars for something they'd hope would taste good don't?
posted by praemunire at 10:46 AM on January 10, 2017 [21 favorites]
turns out they use some fish flavoring in the burger.
good/bad/cheap/nuevo this would totally freak me out.
I use fish sauce in my bolognese and it is the ingredient that really next levels the meaty flavour. Maybe they are mixing it in well enough or cooking it enough.
posted by srboisvert at 10:55 AM on January 10, 2017
good/bad/cheap/nuevo this would totally freak me out.
I use fish sauce in my bolognese and it is the ingredient that really next levels the meaty flavour. Maybe they are mixing it in well enough or cooking it enough.
posted by srboisvert at 10:55 AM on January 10, 2017
A lot of people are noting that 5 dollars for a burger isn't cheap, but it's the bay area and $5 is cheapish for the area.
That being said, Camburger (a few blocks away on 13th and Broadway) makes great sliders that are 2 dollars during happy hour and almost the same amount of food you would get from Locol's burgers. They also have a very large, great tasting and fresh burger that runs about 8.50 during normal hours. After living downtown/uptown for the last 7 years or so, I'd consider it the best burger deal in the area.
*also you could just go to Burger King across the street and grab a Wopper, nuggets, fries and a drink for 4 bucks.
posted by proneSMK at 11:16 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
That being said, Camburger (a few blocks away on 13th and Broadway) makes great sliders that are 2 dollars during happy hour and almost the same amount of food you would get from Locol's burgers. They also have a very large, great tasting and fresh burger that runs about 8.50 during normal hours. After living downtown/uptown for the last 7 years or so, I'd consider it the best burger deal in the area.
*also you could just go to Burger King across the street and grab a Wopper, nuggets, fries and a drink for 4 bucks.
posted by proneSMK at 11:16 AM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
You don't punch down
The payload of his piece was this:
The neighborhoods Locol is targeting have serious nutritional problems, from hunger to obesity, but the solution isn’t to charge people for stuff that tastes like hospital food.
Which bit should he have changed, in your view?
posted by Sebmojo at 12:23 PM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
The payload of his piece was this:
The neighborhoods Locol is targeting have serious nutritional problems, from hunger to obesity, but the solution isn’t to charge people for stuff that tastes like hospital food.
Which bit should he have changed, in your view?
posted by Sebmojo at 12:23 PM on January 10, 2017 [4 favorites]
A lot of people are noting that 5 dollars for a burger isn't cheap, but it's the bay area and $5 is cheapish for the area.
Do McDonald's and Burger King in the Bay area also charge $5 for burgers?
You tell me you're bringing "accessible" food to "underserved neighbourhoods", then that's the standard I'm judging by. Not whether it's cheaper than some hipster place down the road.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:30 PM on January 10, 2017 [14 favorites]
Do McDonald's and Burger King in the Bay area also charge $5 for burgers?
You tell me you're bringing "accessible" food to "underserved neighbourhoods", then that's the standard I'm judging by. Not whether it's cheaper than some hipster place down the road.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:30 PM on January 10, 2017 [14 favorites]
I think there can be broad agreement that Patterson and Choi can be critiqued for what they are doing in Oakland. Except Pete Wells's failure is exactly that, he's writing a mediocre critique that suffers from an Outside Context problem. That's poor journalism, one that serves to reinforce the problematic value system of the institution that pays him to do this.
People may think of Wells as a food critic but he utilizes none of the skills that a modern, progressive literary or social critic is expected to have. That's the fundamental disparity, if someone in his role claims to take food seriously I expect better, a lot better, than the stuff he writes.
posted by polymodus at 1:03 PM on January 10, 2017
People may think of Wells as a food critic but he utilizes none of the skills that a modern, progressive literary or social critic is expected to have. That's the fundamental disparity, if someone in his role claims to take food seriously I expect better, a lot better, than the stuff he writes.
posted by polymodus at 1:03 PM on January 10, 2017
that suffers from an Outside Context problem.
What is the Context he's ignoring here? He specifically talks about the situation Locol hopes to help remedy and the approaches it is taking. Indeed, he is evaluating Locol's food not just in itself, but in light of its professed goals. He thinks it is not great food either by some worldly, NYT standard or by the standard of "what people with not a lot of money to spend on food might like to eat which would also be better for them nutritionally than their other, limited options." (Maybe he's wrong about the latter, but I don't see much evidence to that effect being brought out here.) If your point is that he's not paying much attention to their hiring practices, you really should be asking yourself why you expect those people with not a lot of money to be effectively subsidizing those practices by paying more than fast-food prices for food that is not particularly great, and why you consider Wells to be morally obligated to be complicit in that.
(Pete Wells is probably the most populist restaurant critic the Times has had in years.)
posted by praemunire at 1:16 PM on January 10, 2017 [21 favorites]
What is the Context he's ignoring here? He specifically talks about the situation Locol hopes to help remedy and the approaches it is taking. Indeed, he is evaluating Locol's food not just in itself, but in light of its professed goals. He thinks it is not great food either by some worldly, NYT standard or by the standard of "what people with not a lot of money to spend on food might like to eat which would also be better for them nutritionally than their other, limited options." (Maybe he's wrong about the latter, but I don't see much evidence to that effect being brought out here.) If your point is that he's not paying much attention to their hiring practices, you really should be asking yourself why you expect those people with not a lot of money to be effectively subsidizing those practices by paying more than fast-food prices for food that is not particularly great, and why you consider Wells to be morally obligated to be complicit in that.
(Pete Wells is probably the most populist restaurant critic the Times has had in years.)
posted by praemunire at 1:16 PM on January 10, 2017 [21 favorites]
At the heart of it, it's still a restaurant, and no restaurant that serves food people don't like is going to last long.
posted by fiercecupcake at 1:20 PM on January 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by fiercecupcake at 1:20 PM on January 10, 2017 [6 favorites]
A for-profit restaurant, even. Not a soup kitchen, not something operating out of a church basement to raise some cash for the heating bills. A chain intended to make money for Choi & co. I'm not saying that their intentions aren't good, but what they are doing is categorically different from an exclusively altruistic operation and doesn't merit the same tolerance/deference.
posted by praemunire at 1:27 PM on January 10, 2017 [20 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 1:27 PM on January 10, 2017 [20 favorites]
I think there can be broad agreement that Patterson and Choi can be critiqued for what they are doing in Oakland. Except Pete Wells's failure is exactly that, he's writing a mediocre critique that suffers from an Outside Context problem. That's poor journalism, one that serves to reinforce the problematic value system of the institution that pays him to do this.
People may think of Wells as a food critic but he utilizes none of the skills that a modern, progressive literary or social critic is expected to have. That's the fundamental disparity, if someone in his role claims to take food seriously I expect better, a lot better, than the stuff he writes.
the key context of food imo is if it tastes good
posted by Sebmojo at 2:01 PM on January 10, 2017
People may think of Wells as a food critic but he utilizes none of the skills that a modern, progressive literary or social critic is expected to have. That's the fundamental disparity, if someone in his role claims to take food seriously I expect better, a lot better, than the stuff he writes.
the key context of food imo is if it tastes good
posted by Sebmojo at 2:01 PM on January 10, 2017
I don't know if the for-profit aspect is such a big deal. If it is run as a non-profit soup-kitchen type place then its limited to charitable organizations that may be interested in running this kind of place. On the other hand if they can show that their restaurant can make affordable high-quality meals and pay its staff fairly and still turn a profit then there is a much greater potential buy-in. I guess a lot depends on how much of a profit it makes.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:10 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:10 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
People may think of Wells as a food critic but he utilizes none of the skills that a modern, progressive literary or social critic is expected to have.
That's because they're correct when they think of him as a food critic. He's a journalist, not a poststructuralist academic. Criticising him for doing his job, rather than the job you'd like him to do, while simultaneously saying that missing the context is his problem, is more than a little ironic in my view.
posted by howfar at 2:25 PM on January 10, 2017 [22 favorites]
That's because they're correct when they think of him as a food critic. He's a journalist, not a poststructuralist academic. Criticising him for doing his job, rather than the job you'd like him to do, while simultaneously saying that missing the context is his problem, is more than a little ironic in my view.
posted by howfar at 2:25 PM on January 10, 2017 [22 favorites]
Inner cities may be food deserts in some sense but they sure aren't fast food deserts. You want to go to market healthier, offering jobs to people with felony records to boot, that's noble -- but you had better be as cheap and tasty as the competition. And I have yet to find a neighborhood so bleak or owner so bigoted that a burger or chicken joint's employees didn't mostly come from the neighborhood.
posted by MattD at 2:45 PM on January 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by MattD at 2:45 PM on January 10, 2017 [5 favorites]
Jonathan Gold is a treasure. If you haven't seen City of Gold, remedy that post haste.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 2:58 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 2:58 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Adding to the weirdness here -- restaurants already have a reputation as of the few American industries where you can get a job with a felony conviction. I can pretty much guarantee you that there are people with similar records cooking much better food down the street. Not that it isn't a good idea to do something like this, but it's an odd case for the "elementary school musical" comparison.
posted by ostro at 3:24 PM on January 10, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by ostro at 3:24 PM on January 10, 2017 [14 favorites]
Shout out to my East Bay people.
Not located in a Food Desert. Far from it. This area received (primarily via then Mayor Jerry Brown) major Redevelopment Funds years ago - hence the massive gentrification. Worked in the area for 15 years with a non-profit exclusively serving low-income people. We are rarely providing services to people in the immediate area any longer. Mostly South County folks these days. No one I know can afford to live downtown (outside of the massive influx of tent cities). This restaurant is either a calculated attempt at positive media serving the business interests involved or it's a product of Funders who are clueless, tone-deaf, idiots.
Also, ugh, on their menu they call Burgers "Burgs." That's just irritating.
posted by pipoquinha at 3:42 PM on January 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
Not located in a Food Desert. Far from it. This area received (primarily via then Mayor Jerry Brown) major Redevelopment Funds years ago - hence the massive gentrification. Worked in the area for 15 years with a non-profit exclusively serving low-income people. We are rarely providing services to people in the immediate area any longer. Mostly South County folks these days. No one I know can afford to live downtown (outside of the massive influx of tent cities). This restaurant is either a calculated attempt at positive media serving the business interests involved or it's a product of Funders who are clueless, tone-deaf, idiots.
Also, ugh, on their menu they call Burgers "Burgs." That's just irritating.
posted by pipoquinha at 3:42 PM on January 10, 2017 [10 favorites]
They put this LocoL in this spot because Patterson already had the lease for Plum/Ume. It wasn't their intention for it to be the first Oakland location; that was supposed to be East Oakland.
posted by oneirodynia at 3:52 PM on January 10, 2017
posted by oneirodynia at 3:52 PM on January 10, 2017
This restaurant is either a calculated attempt at positive media serving the business interests involved or it's a product of Funders who are clueless, tone-deaf, idiots.
At least in this instance, it's likely a matter of convenience. One of Patterson's restaurants is right next door.
posted by gyc at 3:53 PM on January 10, 2017
At least in this instance, it's likely a matter of convenience. One of Patterson's restaurants is right next door.
posted by gyc at 3:53 PM on January 10, 2017
These are fair comments. I will allow that my vision is no longer 20/20 given the changes I have seen in poverty-steeped neighborhoods in Oakland over the years, specifically given my client population. I love the vibrancy provoked by the money pushed into Uptown Oakland. Certainly it's not as though I miss the abject poverty that used to surround my workplace. I guess I have just moved into that Killjoy position where I remind everyone that all the poor people have been pushed 4 blocks over and let's not give these new folks credit for trying.
posted by pipoquinha at 4:08 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by pipoquinha at 4:08 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Someone hasn't been to the bay area lately. Burger prices at fast casual places are usually at least twice that.
Two blocks away at Trueburger you can get an amply-sized (and delicious) burger for $6.50. If I'm paying $10 for a burger at a fast-casual joint around here it better come with fries.
posted by clorox at 7:15 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
Two blocks away at Trueburger you can get an amply-sized (and delicious) burger for $6.50. If I'm paying $10 for a burger at a fast-casual joint around here it better come with fries.
posted by clorox at 7:15 PM on January 10, 2017 [1 favorite]
not to derail this too hard, but... while i appreciate the idea of opening healthier, non fast food restaurants in underserved areas, the best way for that to happen is to provide economic opportunities for locals who are already there, via decent jobs, education, and business loans. i know, that's an oversimplified way to look at a giant problem... but i don't think there's a great shortcut.
posted by wibari at 11:10 PM on January 10, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by wibari at 11:10 PM on January 10, 2017 [12 favorites]
The argument about whether this is "punching down" misses the point: criticism isn't an attack. This is the same mistake gamers make when they get mad at feminist critics for "attacking" their favorite games. Pointing out how something can improve doesn't mean you want to destroy it: it means you want to make it better!
posted by panic at 1:02 AM on January 11, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by panic at 1:02 AM on January 11, 2017 [12 favorites]
the best way for that to happen is to provide economic opportunities for locals who are already there
I could not agree more. While we're being critical, one thing to be critical of is financially sercure celebrity chefs pulling an altruistic veil over their tokenistic work and asking for it to exist in some sort of social and economic space in which it is supposed to be uncriticizeable. No! An economic analysis has to ask: whose interests, whose brand, and whose future earnings (direct and indirect from the expected, cultivated and manipulated laudatory press) does this sort of effort serve? The vast majority of tangible and intangible benefits from this effort flow back to Choi and Patterson. They can certainly be held accountable for the quality of their product and the design of their project.
posted by Miko at 5:45 AM on January 11, 2017 [15 favorites]
I could not agree more. While we're being critical, one thing to be critical of is financially sercure celebrity chefs pulling an altruistic veil over their tokenistic work and asking for it to exist in some sort of social and economic space in which it is supposed to be uncriticizeable. No! An economic analysis has to ask: whose interests, whose brand, and whose future earnings (direct and indirect from the expected, cultivated and manipulated laudatory press) does this sort of effort serve? The vast majority of tangible and intangible benefits from this effort flow back to Choi and Patterson. They can certainly be held accountable for the quality of their product and the design of their project.
posted by Miko at 5:45 AM on January 11, 2017 [15 favorites]
If the owners don't want the food to be evaluated by critics on the basis of taste and the restaurant is an activist experiment... does anyone here know how much the average Locol employee makes?
posted by Selena777 at 1:54 PM on January 11, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 1:54 PM on January 11, 2017 [4 favorites]
Yeah that was an awful burger. What a shame.
posted by shmegegge at 5:52 PM on January 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by shmegegge at 5:52 PM on January 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
the best way for that to happen is to provide economic opportunities for locals who are already there
And if you can't do something The Best Way™, why bother trying at all amirite?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:02 PM on January 22, 2017
And if you can't do something The Best Way™, why bother trying at all amirite?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:02 PM on January 22, 2017
When you're asking for that much press coverage and that many pats on the back, I think you can be held to a higher standard.
posted by Miko at 5:21 AM on January 23, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Miko at 5:21 AM on January 23, 2017 [5 favorites]
« Older Lava + Water | Holy Grail of Fashion History Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mhoye at 7:41 PM on January 9, 2017 [20 favorites]