Well, if we're just looking at Manhattan, there are quite a bit to choose from. They may not be authentic, and they may not be purely Spanish, but you won't go hungry seeking decent Spanish. It's funny you mention Thai, since that's one food that's lacking, at least in quality, in New York. It's nothing compared to the DC area, anyway. I mean, there's probably a bakery or somewhere that does croque monsieur and crepes and shit, but other than that and a few places gunning for Michelin stars, not much?
There aren't many in most US cities but plenty of heavily French influenced restaurants. In Portland I would think Beast and Le Pigeon rely a good bit on French influence. In Denver we had two very French joints open up recently but they lean more towards bistro/oysters/wine. We have one old-school French restaurant that is great but almost a hidden gem in a city that likes to pride itself on great restaurants.
Just a heads up for anyone interested, Bourdain's Amsterdam layover is airing again tonight @ 8 EST on the Travel Channel.
Right, but that's what 'underrated'/'overrated' comes from. Hope you're right. I'm so sick of the options I have to go to lunch each day. Just one Madrid-style tapas joint would be nice among the 2 Thai and 3 Japanese places that are within a stones throw away from my midtown Manhattan office. You'd either go hungry or broke. One or the other. I get that there are some Spanish restaurants around to go to for those special occasions, but they're all the same: 2-hour, fancy, sit-down type places. Not something you can do regularly or even semi-regularly. I must not be looking in the right place. Okay, so where can I find some pata negra? I'd be willing to walk past up to 20 sushi places and 10 Mediterranean eateries just to get some pata negra and bread.
I mean, I could say the same thing about specific Japanese dishes. Sure, you can get sushi on just about every block on Manhattan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to find authentic Japanese without going to East Village. Anyway, there's a couple of things at work on the low end. There are ethnic cuisines you find everywhere because of immigration. So you're going to find decent tacos, indian, empenadas and Vietnamese because there's a built-in market for it. Then there's sushi, Thai and Chinese that have been adapted to the American palate. I guess my main issue is your use of "underrated" and "rave". I think you're conflating numbers with people's passion for it. Nobody raves about French food. It's merely the basis of modern fine cuisine. Nobody raves about Japanese food - that shit was trendy in the 80's, but it's just there now. Italian in America is American food with tomato sauce. Thai food - again, the trendiness is gone. And the thing is, Spanish food *is* kinda trendy. That people are willing to pay inflated prices for small plates, and that you get these expensive Basque and Catalan joints when there's little apparent demand for the cheap street food version tell me it's a tad bit overrated.
But isn't sushi the pata negra of Japan? Granted, I've never been to Japan but that's how I imagine it (ie sushi being the dominant food type in any Japanese market).
Sushi is popular and available at all price levels, but it's not the most dominant cuisine in Japan by any stretch. It wouldn't surprise me if Manhattan had more sushi restaurants per capita than Tokyo. Also, using pata negra as a benchmark for Spanish foods is a little unfair, because procuring cured meats in the US, especially imported ones, gets a little tricky, not the least because of food safety laws.
Bourdain seems to be drinking even more these days. I mean, he was hammered for at least 70% of that San Francisco episode! On the one hand it was funny but on the other it's not really helpful (he was in no shape to judge how good or bad those hamburgers were). Also the drinks at the Tonga room kinda suck! Take it from someone who had one as his first drink of the evening, not the 9th.
OTOH they're fantastic for New Englanders looking to relive their Chinese restaurant underage drinking experiences.
Funny coincidence: On The Bachelor last night, they had the girls stay at the Fairmont hotel on Nob Hill and the date was in the Tonga room, drinking those sweet awful drinks.
It is me or is Tony seeming a bit out of touch lately between his choice of hotels and in London traveling everywhere in black cabs (which are ridiculously expensive) and going to buy $6k pair of shoes? I don't know why, but he has been rubbing me the wrong way ever since The Layover started.
I have a problem with his choices of getting around town. Only in Amsterdam did he get it right. But other than that I think it's okay. He's eating at plenty of low-end places: pubs, burger joints, delis. Even Febo (doesn't get any cheaper than that).
London doesn't work well with the conceit of the show, because it's a huge town in both scope and geography. He had to take cabs almost by necessity, whereas most people doing their own layovers would try to focus their visits on a much smaller area, so I agree (though I think the distinction between the black cabs and the minicabs was necessary). Contrast that with Manhattan, which also has a lot to offer, but the main dining and entertainment areas are within relatively close reach of each other, and crosstown cab rides aren't prohibitively expensive (btw, I think they could do a full Brooklyn episode, but people over 40 tend not to know the Outer Boroughs well). Also, that apparently fantastic club seems like a nice neighborhood drinking hole for locals, nothing more, nothing less. We get that Tony doesn't like the typical urban nightlife, but he doesn't offer any attractive alternative. Weakest episode so far, I think (though not necessarily his fault).
Didn't watch the KC show yet, but loved the one on Mozambique last week! Not totally focused on food (which is fine, this is the Travel channel after all) and more on the history of the country. Very interesting.
The KC episode was great- mostly because of Zamir. The whole fake kidnapping deal with the Black Keys was stupid though. I don't care if he has the Black Keys on, the whole framing of that bit was just a distraction. Overall it was a decent episode. I thought the Mozambique episode was good. Maybe its just the format of The Layover that irks me and why I enjoy No Reservations more - I don't really care what he thinks about expensive hotels. Though I almost spit up my dinner when the tag for next week's episode stated he was going to the up and coming hot spot of the Croatian coast - I was wondering if I had been transported back in time ten years. Also worth noting, at the movies last weekend I saw a trailer for a new movie involving U.S. tourists being hunted down in Chernobyl (the aptly titled "Chernobyl Diaries") and I just kept wait for zombie Tony to pop up in the background with Zamir.
I don't know if he was told to do it or if he realized during the shoot that it was really dumb, but Bourdain really did mail that part in. I didn't mind Zamir as much as I thought I would, but if that actually was a sort of pilot, I won't be watching the new show.
Come on. About 5% of a typical Layover episode was spent on hotels. I probably enjoy No Reservations more too, but The Layover was way more useful.
That was fun. And watching David Chang eat convenience store food is something else. Liked Chang's concept, too.
I love Bourdain and this show. The Kansas City was the most useful episode of this season for me. I'm planning a BBQ trip with some old buddies for later this Summer. Has anybody read any of Bourdain's books? That guy can write.
