Add Bib

Some buzz, after all, about the Bay Michelin. SF Chronic's Michael Bauer respectfully dissents:

While I don't disagree about any of the restauants that have earned stars (well, maybe one or two, but why quibble?), what surprises me are the places that didn't earn stars. If you talk to food people from both coasts, Zuni Cafe is always at the top of the must-visit list. It's a restaurant that defines the Bay Area sensibility. And what about Slanted Door, Oliveto, A 16, Delfina, Foreign Cinema or Farallon?

Fair enough, and sharing my own bemusement in re  Zuni, but he wraps like this:

Many selections on the list don't offer a sense of place, which in my mind is a hallmark of any great dining city. To me, the list lacks many of the places that go to the heart of Bay Area dining and define who we are.

This conclusion gets at the essential problem with the US Michelins vs. the French Michelin. The original point of the original Michelin guide was to reward outstanding acheivement in the field of excellence. Encouraged by the narrower regional scope of the US Michelin, Bauer conflates distinctive with distinction. Zuni may well "define the Bay Area sensibility," but that is not what makes it a great restaurant. Bad restaurants ignore place, good restaurants celebrate place, great restaurants transcend place. I'd still argue Zuni warrants a star, but not for the reasons Bauer gives.

Comments

[max]

Although I haven't scrutinized the ratings (not that it would matter since I go out so little), they appear to confirm both the accuracy and irrelevance of Michelin. A real 3 star in this town would go broke in a month. Which doesn't mean that the food isn't better than ever other american city's.

I love how the natives are always surprised when confronted with their own provincialism.

[max]

Also, the original point of the original Michelin was to ecourage the French to waste gas (and tires).