Jump to content
Meaghan

Tom Sietsema's Reviews

Recommended Posts

Publications need to constantly sell; this community sticks with the way things are, even when the truth may not be pretty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Q: The end of Old Town
I don't understand why Urbano 116 even made the dining guide. If you don't recommend it at all, why give it any more play than its review? 

A: Tom Sietsema

My recent spring round-up was *mostly* positive, but I felt obliged to include a few newcomers that had attracted attention for various reasons, Urbano 116 being one of them.  (It's useful to know where NOT to spend your time and money, too, right?) 

I didn't pose the question, btw.  So he includes a restaurant he didn't like in his best new restaurant list because restaurant is owned by a celebrity chef?  Absurd, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ericandblueboy said:

I didn't pose the question, btw.  So he includes a restaurant he didn't like in his best new restaurant list because restaurant is owned by a celebrity chef?  Absurd, no?

I thought it was weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ericandblueboy said:

I didn't pose the question, btw.  So he includes a restaurant he didn't like in his best new restaurant list because restaurant is owned by a celebrity chef?  Absurd, no?

It's not a best new restaurants list. It's a dining guide. He says he focused on 30 newcomers and ranked his ten favorites.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week's review of Cherry (not written by Tom S) is oddly timed at best, bordering on a cheap shot at worst.  

I agree with the written sentiment that restaurants need to provide the same experience whether the head chef is in the kitchen or not.  That being said, it seems unnecessary to distribute a full length review of a new restaurant whose head chef is on a temporary medical leave instead of simply waiting a few more weeks for the chef to return.  Was this restaurant so hotly anticipated, and the city so short of other review opportunities, that the Post felt compelled to rush?  And what value does it provide readers a review of an experience that the publication acknowledges may be quite different in a matter of weeks?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't seen the review of Cherry yet. I'd only read Reiley's business of food articles, which I've liked. Her writing is really extraordinary here. Wow. She has quite a history as a restaurant reviewer, it seems.

This is the lobby restaurant in the W Hotel that's open for 3 meals a day. It's a show piece of the hotel redesign. That makes it fair game, whether the chef is there or not. I think the case for publishing is bolstered by fact that the review has criticisms of the vision behind some of the dishes and drinks (which is the same, regardless of who is executing) and the service. The vision is tied to the underlying concept of the restaurant. She also points out things that seem anomalous, such as the fancy grill set up being promoted for what it will do for their dry-aged steaks, yet there's only one steak on the menu and one burger. There are also dishes she likes, the vegetarian option, for instance.

I look forward to reading more of her reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...