[Suzanne F]

Sorry to disappoint, but this is just a place holder for now. Will fill in with report asap.

ETA: Done.

[g.johnson]

I am boycotting them for irritating use of italics.

[Lex]

I am boycotting them for irritating use of italics.

Funny, I noticed the same thing yesterday and wondered what the hell they were thinking. I guess it could have been worse - they could have used "quotation" marks.

[Suzanne F]

Yes, the italics do annoy, but they have their purpose. See below.

Could Wall & Water have been the restaurant Sam Sifton and company were stalking? It's new (opened about a month ago). It's designed by David Rockwell, in a fancy new hotel-cum-condo in the hot FiDi. And "[s]howcasing an inside out display kitchen with views of the East River" (their words). A separate, though related, lounge and a myriad of spaces, some with communal tables of varying heights, some with more standard seating. (Sound familiar?) Small plates, family style, and à la carte (so it is said, maybe the family-style dishes are yet to be developed, or only available in the lounge), no prix fixe. Local, sustainable, blah blah blah Hudson Valley insprations. No tablecloths, but heavyweight cloth napkins you could take a snooze under, for the latest in "casual 'fine dining.'"

For all that . . . no, I doubt Wall & Water was their target. And that's just as well for them. It is, after all, hotel dining. And Hyatt, at that. (I must state up front that I have a history of Hyatt misadventures, especially in dining, so my expectations were fairly low going in. W&W exceeded them, but that's not saying much.) With an eager-beaver server who just had to introduce himself, but no bussers or runners, so that chef/expediters, line cooks, servers, and floor managers all brought food out from the "inside out display kitchen" as well as the regular (nondisplay) kitchen and that lounge/bar one level below, and almost as many staff cleared. Seemed rather odd to me.

The dining room is pleasant enough -- lots of hard surfaces, but a high ceiling, so buzzy but not roaring (although the side I was on was rarely more than one-third full, if that). I suspect if one is near the higher communal tables, and those tables are full of drinkers, the noise level will be unacceptably high. As it was, a four-top half the room away was not as interesting to me as they were to each other. The display kitchen has pretty quiet exhaust fans, although on a few occasions not quite powerful enough to pull all the cooking smells. But that was not too distracting.

My Sazerac -- chosen from a cocktail list with print so tiny that the server actually apologized for it -- was iceless (though very cold) and unadorned, and about a 2-ounce pour in total for $13. I'm not sure that my request for half the normal amount of sugar (as we used to get at the late Cajun on 8th Ave.) was communicated. Still seemed pretty sweet to me. Lots of named fancy-schmancy liquors used, although I don't know if they warrant the costs.

The Web site for the hotel makes a big deal of the "mouth-watering rustic breads" -- I don't know why, since what I got and saw elsewhere was standard-issue. Not bad, just nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe the breakfast baking is better. Fortunately I could see the large sprinkling of salt on top of the butter before I took any. Why do places do that??

App: a salad of "seasonal mushrooms red onion, green olives, arugula, roasted garlic [sic], lemon, thyme, hazelnuts" ($12). On the plus side: I asked that they leave off the onions, and they did; lots of chanterelles, oyster mushrooms, and cremini; lots of lightly roasted blanched hazelnuts; pleasant enough baby arugula and dressing (if just a bit too much); sweet roasted garlic. On the negative: a veritable salt sink. Mushrooms tend to absorb a lot of salt, and between the chunks of green olive and the finishing salt, it was difficult to eat. A full flute of Roederer Estate rosé ($15) helped. Later on, the woman seated next to me had the same complaint about the accompaniments on her scallop dish. (It may be a problem with the apps line cook, not the kitchen overall.)

Main: "braised veal cheek black cabbage, sautéed celeriac [sic], organic carrots" ($28). The meat was fine, quite silky, and even had flavor (the one piece I ate; the two other came home with me). The cavolo nero seemed to have been steamed but not seasoned. The celeriac and carrot -- in huge chunks -- seemed more roasted than sautéed (yes, they do italicize the cooking methods used; god only knows why they think it leaves us enlightened. The epigraphs on the menus might, if they weren't clichés, but not that affectation.). And really, if you are going to serve boulder-size pieces of carrot, please don't use horse carrots, even if they are organic; you end up with massive amounts of carrot core and precious little flavor. The sauce was somewhat on the sweet side, but otherwise a pretty good basic veal stock reduction. On the whole, an unobjectionable dish. And, at least, not oversalted. I also ordered a $6 side of "roasted potatoes rosemary, garlic" that turned out to be split fingerlings with thyme too, and slivers of garlic so burnt I thought they might be shallots or onion. Apart from that, neither good nor bad.

With the main I had a glass of Concannon Petite Sirah ($10, although that was left off the bill and when he was made aware, the server checked and came back to say it was "on him"). Just as well, since the initial pour was only about 3 ounces -- although the manager who did that came back later and added another couple of ounces (unbidden). The wine list strikes me as a bit odd -- scroll down to the bottom of the first page and discover that a Canadian riesling icewine is listed under "Other Reds" and to the bottom of the second to find that the "Other Whites" are mostly not identified.

Dessert was "lemon curd tart crème fraiche" [sic] ($9) -- pretty good actually, with a creamy, tangy filling and crisp sweet cookie-dough crust, although the few berries with it were fairly flavorless and the quenelle of whipped crème fraîche a mistake: a tart garnish does not work with a tart tart filling. No other garnish -- no mint sprig, thank god.

To sum up: it is hotel dining, and there is no mistaking that. Worth another visit by me? Not really. Worth a NYT review? Not really. The object of Sifton's stalking? I hope not.

[Lex]

Nice review Suzanne. Plenty of telling detail.

[taion]

So crisp, creamy, and of the are techniques now?

[joethefoodie]

My Sazerac -- chosen from a cocktail list with print so tiny that the server actually apologized for it -- was iceless (though very cold) and unadorned, and about a 2-ounce pour in total for $13. I'm not sure that my request for half the normal amount of sugar (as we used to get at the late Cajun on 8th Ave.) was communicated. Still seemed pretty sweet to me. Lots of named fancy-schmancy liquors used, although I don't know if they warrant the costs.

Kinda the way it's supposed to be, I think.

[Suzanne F]

My Sazerac -- chosen from a cocktail list with print so tiny that the server actually apologized for it -- was iceless (though very cold) and unadorned, and about a 2-ounce pour in total for $13. I'm not sure that my request for half the normal amount of sugar (as we used to get at the late Cajun on 8th Ave.) was communicated. Still seemed pretty sweet to me. Lots of named fancy-schmancy liquors used, although I don't know if they warrant the costs.

Kinda the way it's supposed to be, I think.

It's been a long time since I had one. I looked it up in one of Gary Regan's books, and he says over ice, with a twist. So does A.J. Rathbun. Whatever. It was still too sweet for me, and smallish, but I guess that's okay since it was strong.

[Nathan]

A Sazerac is properly served up, ungarnished, small and with just enough sugar to cut the alcohol.

Rathbun's a chef and Regan's books, though certainly credible, sometimes have a bit of a 1990's training wheels attitude.

[Suzanne F]

Well, okay then. Thanks for the lesson.

But they still used too much sugar for my taste.

[nuxvomica]

Well, okay then. Thanks for the lesson.

But they still used too much sugar for my taste.

send it back and have them make it to your taste

[Nathan]

Well, okay then. Thanks for the lesson.

But they still used too much sugar for my taste.

oh I can well believe that they used too much sugar!

[oakapple]

I am boycotting them for irritating use of italics.

I finally had a look at this menu. It really is irritating.

To sum up: it is hotel dining, and there is no mistaking that. Worth another visit by me? Not really. Worth a NYT review? Not really. The object of Sifton's stalking? I hope not.

I suspect not, because hotel restaurants practically never close, unless the hotel itself has closed, which I am sure was not the case.

[taion]

I suspect not, because hotel restaurants practically never close, unless the hotel itself has closed, which I am sure was not the case.

Isn't SHO a hotel restaurant?

[Sneakeater]

Wasn't Lespinasse a hotel restaurant? ADNY?