Having professionally worked in the kitchen of a top-rated SF restaurant, I can honestly say that _all_ SF Examiner and Chronicle restaurant critics are absolute morons. They get supreme pleasure in walking into a place under a false reservation and having the staff scramble around in panic.
All of them know precious little more about food than you do, and most of them are unimpressive cooks (e.g., Patty Unterman's food is totally nondescript). However, they do know who likes to kiss their asses and who doesn't.
Chronicle/Examiner food writing is on par with the rest of the journalism in both papers. The _one_ reason to spend a quarter on the Examiner is for the New York Times crossword puzzle, which might amuse you an hour. Apart from sports scores, I can't think of any reason to pay two bits for the Chronicle (other than figuring out which major department stores are having sales this week).
Personally, I think the Bay Guardian and SF Weekly have marginally better restaurant reviews and cover cheaper eats than the Chron/Exam. Both papers are also free.
Inconsistency in both food (and especially) service plagues the second tier SF restaurants. If the service sucks, I _always_ talk to management. If they have no intention of rectifying the situation (or even apologizing), I _never_ return. Most people accept bad behavior and now many SF restaurants feel it's okay (even normal) to screw up and apologize later ("Comp them an espresso; everything will be okay."). This is bad because it encourages a slack attitude amongst F&B workers.
Don't read the Chronicle/Examiner. Save your quarters for something else.
S.
Someone wrote:
> Just curious as to what you thought of the Chronicle's annual review which
> ran in the pink pages last Sunday.
>
> My only comment - why is every food critic crazy about Chow? Sure, the prices
> are reasonable, but the food is lousy! Michael Bauer goes on and on about the
> Spaghetti and Meatballs there - this is the blandest dish on the menu. Chef
> BoyArDee does it better. I would tell anyone to avoid all the pasta dishes at
> Chow - I have had two and you are better off going to Pasta Pomodoro or Fuzio.
> The only dish I would reccommend there is the pizza.
>
> To include Chow over other reasonably-priced options sprouting up all over the
> city (Rose's Cafe, Firewood Cafe, Tin Pan, and Bocca Rotis, among them) is
> incomprehensible. And to name it one of the year's ten best new restaurants
> (Bauer again) is baffling.
>
> Also - I think the list was top-heavy with expensive destination restaurants -
> to be expected, I guess, in a reastaurant town like San Francisco - Guess we
> have to wait for the Bargain Bites roundup in the Spring.San Francisco, CA
top 100 restaurants
In article , [email removed] (Sean Yamamoto) wrote: > > Unterman's food is bland. Maybe she can talk the talk; she certainly > can't walk the walk. Maybe being a native Californian (and raised Just took a friend out to Hayes Street Grill where I had Chilean Sea Bass with a Vietnamese sauce and pickled veggies on the side. It was far from bland. The food was great, the service marvelous and nobody even *thought* about hassling us though we sat at the table and talked for a good hour after finishing dessert and coffee. MK Mary Kay Kare Compuserve's Team SF/F
>Louis J. wrote: >> Why, for example, should La Taqueria be singled out? Robert Lauriston responded >Hygiene, I imagine. It's one of the cleanest taquerias in the Mission. It is not just one of the cleanest--it is one of the best. All the cooked ingredients are seconds off the grill. Beans, rice, etc. move so quickly that they don't sit for long periods on steam tables. Sauces are wonderfully flavoured. So far as hygiene is concerned, it is likely one of the cleanest restaurants in San Francisco. While that is normally not much of a compliment--given the generally low standards in SF, La Taqueria's cleanliness would be considered excellent even in any number of places where standards are much higher.
In article , Robert Lauriston Someone wrote: |> Karl W. wrote: |> > |> > On a slight tangent from the original subject of 100 ( high-end ) |> restaurants, |> > why can SF be more like NYC with respect to less-than-high-end |> restaurants, |> > e.g. why aren't there those little italian joints that serve |> solid, tasty food |> > without flattening one's wallet. These places manage to serve |> pasta _al dente_ |> > as well as having the food arrive hot to the table, too. |> |> Lots of places like that have opened in recent years. My current |> favorite is Vineria, a spinoff of Osteria dal Forno. And, if you don't mind eating in a cafe, I suggest the Steps of Rome on Columbus. The cafe, not the restaurant.