I wonder what Bourdain would say about it’s closing next week? Sad. Everything good fades..... Investors should stick to their hedge fund business and let the foodies worry about food!
I was sad when Gino’s closed too. What’s left?
I’ll stick to the Mansion Diner! Lol
While the behavior of some of the people involved with the Four Seasons is repugnant, I must share my first experience at The Four Seasons which made such a lasting impression on me. It was the summer of 1962, I was an intern at Seventeen magazine. I ate lunch from a brown bag every day. On my last day, I decided I had to go to the Four Seasons. I could only afford an appetizer and tea and dessert. But it whetted my appetite for fine dining and ignited a life long passion with food. I wrote a sort of tongue in cheek review in the magazine and a manager of Restaurant Associates called me. He said he would like me to experience the rest of menu and could he pick me up and treat me to dinner? Despite me mother’s concern that I get into a car with this stranger, I went.
He plugged a phone in one of the trees, which in itself was amazing, no cell phones then, and had me call my mom to tell her that I was fine. I enjoyed a fabulous dinner in the Pool room with all the trimmings. I will never forget that meal and the glamour it showered on me. Since then I have made it it a point to eat at all the special restaurants wherever I can.
So while the behaviors of so many in the food and other fields have sickened me, my memories of The Four Seasons remain untarnished. I think I still have matched with the famous trees. And I remember the oysters, wine and incredible fun it was as a young woman eating in what was then an icon. Thanks for that.
11
@June
That is an excellent and well told story. I've been to New York a hundred times over the last several decades and always thought about going to Four Seasons which some of my NYC friends loved. Missed my chance, and lesson learned. But I'm glad you got to go.
Duly overdue. Perhaps we investigate Stephen Starr’s history of not paying his workers a fair wage as well?
1
Even if the restaurant's spokeswoman denies it, it's very hard to believe that Niccolini's firing only a little over a week after this review appears wasn't at least in part activated by the attention the review has received.
7
What a mean-spirited, terrible review. I read the restaurant review to decide if I want to eat at a restaurant and not take out my metoo outrage at every activity. Giving this restaurant one star was nothing but a disgusting act of politicizing an excellent meal. What is next? Should we be advised to avoid the subway because someone has been harassed there?
14
I am grateful to Mr. Wells not just for his (as always) terrific writing but his moral leadership. It's easy to espouse good values abstractly, much harder to do it in the course of one's daily life and work.
8
Like fish in a restaurant refrigerator, NYT food critics have a shelf-life. I suggest it is time for Mr. Wells to move on to another position within the paper, as have some of his predecessors.
I have noticed, in his previous reviews, that the star rating attached to some restaurants sometimes fails to match the description of the food, service, and ambiance, although more often, the rating is more generous than the description would suggest.
While it is appropriate to note the owner’s past misdeeds, I think it unfair to taint a current review absent some evidence of current misbehavior.
Evidently, Mr. Wells’ harsh rating has had the intended effect; the offending owner has been purged.
18
I just read that Niccolini got fired today. So, can Pete now give the restaurant the number of stars it properly deserves?
16
Well done, Mr. Wells! Niccolini was fired today. It’s horrible that he was enabled and allowed to keep his job for so long when others in power knew what he was doing.
5
Well, Mr. Wells?
Now that he's ousted? Now that your colleagues re-cap.
Is it all still cool? Are we all just having fun?
2
I am in no way condoning the past transgressions of Mr. Niccolini but this review is more about him and less about the restaurant. Most likely a product of the current climate, this review basically amounts to a character assassination of Mr. Niccolini. To my surprise, Pete Wells was very complimentary of Mr. Garcia’s food as well as the new space (no small task considering the inevitable comparisons). To me, one-star seems unsubstantiated here.
11
My husband is a wine professional that has witnessed Mr. Nicollini grabbing a server’s behind and saying disgusting things. It’s all true y’all. Stay away from this establishment. New York has many great options. No need to support this pig.
13
Is the ONE STAR review based on the food or the history of the owners?
10
This will be up there as a very important review , because the restaurant's quality was cut down by the reviewer on account of the co-owner's lack of morals. May make no sense to some, but as another reader pointed out , more people will choose not to go rather than to go after reading this review. Niccolini will get patrons anyway even without this review but he would be regretting that this review was published. Going by food, ambience and service described , this is a rare 3 star review - what a shame the place belongs to an unworthy co-owner.
9
The mark of the whimpering affluent is the unwillingness to give up anything for a greater good.
10
No slideshow, 1 star for 4 dollar signs despite very few complaints about the food, and the first eight paragraphs given over to lovingly excavating the details of Mr. Niccolini's worst transgressions, yet folks are calling Pete out for "helping" him?
I know the adage is that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but that is patently untrue in some circumstances. I don't think this review will convince anyone to go to the Four Seasons who might otherwise have stayed away based on its owner's crimes, but I DO think that some folks who might have waved those crimes away to enjoy a meal there no longer will. And I think that Pete knew this when he submitted it.
17
So what? Boo hoo that a few people will choose to get a good meal elsewhere rather than at an establishment run by a truly dishonorable and disgusting creature. There are so many other alternatives. Time to make good choices and move on, not continue enabling a creep to harass and assault more women.
“He has even improved the restaurant’s signature, the Kate Pierson beehive of cotton candy that sails out to the tables of valued guests. (Apparently I’ve joined that club.)”
Of course the NYT restaurant critic is a “valued guest.” The idea that the people who have owned the Four Seasons for over a quarter century didn’t recognize Pete Wells is laughable on its face, and spectacularly disingenuous.
21
A restaurant is not only the food and the service and the space – it’s a summation of all its parts. It's total context and that includes the owner and his reprehensible behavior. A great meal in a bad room should be docked points. This is important! A mean, nasty chef who you don’t see still affects the food. That we all know how poorly paid the BOH staff is doesn’t ever enter into reviews – but that’s the truth. The WHOLE of restaurant should be considered in a review, because that has bearing on what it means to be at a restaurant. It's emotional, but sholud be both critical and editorial, as Mr Wells reviews often are.
Yes, this means that the staff at the restaurant may feel the effects of the review. But isn't the staff to some extent complicit in the behavior of their boss? The chef, gifted though he may be, is serving Mr Niccolini’s food – not his own. If the owner of the company should be held accountable for his or her employee’s actions, the employees bear some ownership of the context their work happens in. If they find it objectionable, there are always other NYC restaurants looking for staff.
This is a start, and this is the hard work. Pete, you’re the gatekeeper of our dining community. You’re the one (maybe with Mr Platt) who can hold us all accountable. You should and could be the grownups in the room. I applaud you for acknowledging this owner’s behavior in the review and hope other owners such as myself would be a part of reviews going forward.
13
Worked there in the early 90s, most professional place I've ever been employed. Mr. von Bidder was a great manager, had little contact with Niccolini but recall he was an impeccable dresser. The Seagrams Four Seasons was mainly famous for being one of most beautiful restaurants in NYC, if not the world. Mr. Wells calling it "shabby" automatically negates the review of its incarnation for me.
16
@Henry Bogle - Hi Henry, Henry here. It was shabby (by the early 21st century) in the way a great lady now in her 90s, wearing her jewels and gowns from decades ago can be "shabby". Still elegant, just a bit long in the tooth.
14
Astonishing, really, that in 2018 the behavior of a man who has pled guilty to assaulting a guest in his restaurant, so violently that her bra was torn (not an easy feat), among other things, is hand-waved away by readers as having no bearing on whether or not the restaurant is worth dining at.
As for those who don’t want to boycott the restaurant due to the other staff, do you think this is likely to be a pleasant workplace for a young woman nowadays? Do you refuse to boycott any and all businesses, regardless of their unethical behavior, because of their employees? Or do you simply draw the line elsewhere?
43
@A. Hi there!
Actually, according to my female coworkers it is a pleasant space for women to work at. They've had nothing but sweet things to say about Julian. Furthermore, all of the women who have been employed there since the OG location have returned, and none of the new female employees have quit since we re-opened. I hope that answers your wondering!
4
@A. The danger is, would a movie critic pan a film solely because it was released by Miramax or The Weinstein Company? Would it be fair to Tarantino or the art to say Pulp Fiction is a great film but was produced by Harvey Weinstein, therefore, it’s a one-star movie? No.
Looks like Wells made up his mind well before this review was published. I really don’t see the need to publish it in that case other than to make a political statement. Not a food critic’s job.
7
I work in restaurants. Though I have found it impossible to at all times avoid restaurants that I find unethical, I minimize all patronage to social necessity only. As long as the restaurant benefits him, his lifestyle (including his inappropriate actions) are implicitly condoned: he has faced no jail time and is facing basically no consequences for his actions beyond a forced retirement. It is an issue of implicit logic, not explicit ethics. Yes, many restaurants have become sticky ethical situations, but benefitting a man never even jailed for his criminal behavior is simply not acceptable. Giving him air time is worse: you are further benefitting him by drawing attention to his restaurant. As the old adage goes: "all publicity is good publicity". Now thanks to this review he will inevitably make more money, and that's why reviewing his restaurant was not morally acceptable in my book. More benefits for unethical behavior... thanks nyt. It's not like the media has given any other predators air time to and then they benefit. What president? In such a context, reviewing this restaurant seems more unethical than before. Sure the people who are currently running the restaurant did nothing wrong, but they are helping to benefit a convicted criminal who escaped jail time for decades of abuse. Sound familiar?
24
@Grace Regarding your first point, you realize that he agrees? In the last paragraph, he points out that the actions of Mr Nicollini are too egregious for him to patronize the restaurant, and that this is likely the case for many others as well. I am a huge supporter of MeToo, and thought this was an excellent way to review a prominent restaurant - his job - while maintaining sensitivity to an important issue. Potential guests will now be able to judge for themselves whether to patronize the restaurant in light of the shadow currently upon it. I was not aware of his actions, and had I been a potential diner (alas, I am fully priced out) looking at the review, I'd have been grateful to see the issues mentioned. I'm not sure if those advocating for an full-on absence of reviews and the corresponding publicity (though not sure if you are personally) are fully considering this. Beyond that, there are many other men and women at the restaurant working very hard for some apparently great results - do we need to punish their spirit and wallet due to the actions of one terrible man, thereby increasing the damage left in his wake?
4
Bless you for being one of the vanishing number of Americans able to hold a nuanced view of anything.
1
@Grace he was arrested and convicted. If that is enough for all of you, then there can be no end to this bloodletting. Apparently murderers can be rehabilitated and go on to have successful careers, but the metoo set would have nothing but complete destructions of life and careers of every person who has been accused.
1
I don't live in the New York region, but I would not avoid the Four Seasons because of Mr. Niccolini's behavior. After all, why deny a livelihood to the chefs, wait staff, hosts, valets, coat check staff, bussers, etc.? Certainly they have a right to employment regardless of what the boss has done. It's not fair to inflict collateral damage on them.
As for the food and prices, fortunately one no longer has to live in New York to enjoy New York-quality fine dining without paying New York zip code prices.
60
Those jobs would most likely survive the departure of Mr. Niccolini. He could solve that problem by simply leaving the business. The restaurant would go on. He’s the one harming the staff, not those diners who choose to spend their money elsewhere.
27
These types of comments are very destructive. The suits were settled. The women could have taken it to trial and made the details public and for a jury to decide. Do we know the whole truth?
I’m not giving anyone a pass. I stand with the women. But I don’t support s fatal blow without a decision by a jury of our piers.
Hopefully a lesson has been learned not just by the parties in this situation but to other men of power who target women. STOP!
3
If you worked at the Four Seasons, if it closed you would not have difficulty finding another job in the NY, Las Vegas or Los Angeles restaurant scene. (You probably would not have trouble in Europe, either.)
10
This is all fine and well, but I suspect that for countless New Yorkers of a certain era and zeitgeist, the Four Seasons truly ceased to exist the moment it left the Seagram Building...as if that utterly unique atmosphere somehow didn't play a monumental part in the Seasons' rise to its once glorious heights.
Lets remember that the entire interior of that restaurant was designed by the same architectural pair responsible for the beautiful Seagram Building itself: Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson.
88
@lowereastside: And let's remember that Aby Rosen, who owns the restaurant that's currently in the location FORMERLY occupied by The Four Seasons Restaurant, is not exactly up for sainthood himself.
As for the architects, that's a separate review.
5
You guys are encouraging people to eat at a restaurant of a known abuser. It’s shocking and not right. acknowledging these facts in an otherwise fairly glowing review doesn’t make the review okay. You’re in their camp, you’re ok with abusers of women returning to their craft in open and public spaces. So shameful.
3
@SosadJewday We make a choice. We have a criminal justice system and civil remedies. Violations of our laws are treated through those systems. People who have settled their civil suits and served their time or plead their way through criminal charges are allowed to reenter society. People can make their own individual choices how they choose the associate with such people. I choose to eat where the food is best, and that is my right. Call me whatever you want, but it is a choice I am allowed to make. For the people who make the same choice as I do, we should be able to read an objective review of where we are dining. If Pete doesn't want to review this restaurant or provide a non-rated write-up instead, so be it, but, if he chooses to assign stars, they should be the right number of stars based on what is being served. This rating was most certainly not.
5
The solution, obviously, is to get Niccolini out - he's as toxic to the new Four Seasons as Batali was to all his restaurants. It's disgraceful that Niccolini is not doing prison time for the violent sexual assault. I can understand why some people would not patronize the restaurant as long as he has any part in it.
I hope Niccolini is pressured out, the sooner the better, so the restaurant can be judged on its merits without this toxic cloud hanging over it.
One other thing: I love midcentury modern architecture and design - but at least from this photo, the restaurant's design seems quite bland, lacking the beauty of the former site, although the warm honey tones are inviting. But the inviting palette is offset by the awful ceiling of stalactites - with rather sharp-looking edges - that seem aimed and ready to stab the diners!
3
@doy1 Batali may be toxic in the flesh, but I just read that he hasn't sold his share of the mega business to Joe Bastianich, as we were all led to believe he was going to do...
1
This reviewer seems always to find a way to annoy, whether it be to denigrate the decor in the face of complimentary comment about the food, stars applied inconsistent with the review substance, overly erudite culinary food references, or in this case, professing reluctance to review a place whose owner he dislikes, only then in review to compliment the chef, the food and the decor, after which designating one star. Ridiculous.
15
Anyone who knows Julian Niccolini knows he is a character and anyone who has been an observer of the New York dining scene knows that he has not always been a good guy and, in an old school sense, treated some women in ways that he shouldn't have, but not at a Harvey Weinstein or Mario Batali alleged level, which is not to excuse bad behavior. However, by most accounts, Julian Niccolini paid the requisite price for his transgressions and those were documented in the press and in The New York Times no less.
Wells review of The Four Seasons reads like a three-star review for Chef Diego Garcia's and Desserts Chef Bill Yosses's desserts with two stars subtracted for Julian Niccolini being the owner. Wells even notes that he did not see Niccolini during his three review visits there, so how did that take away from his sense of "trust and sense of safety," other than the assault on his Times expense account, while dining there?
The review reads like Wells's had some expensive three-star meals at The Four Seasons, courtesy of his employer The Times, but took it on himself to the be judge and jury of Julian Niccolini's past misguided "sexual urges," decided that a restaurant review in The New York Times was the place to re-hash them and penalize the food, service and effort that management put into the restaurant, because of his feelings about Niccolini.
17
@Gerry Dawes Thanks, Gerry, now I know whose books not to bother with. Cheers. (Also, the Beard Awards for writing appear to have a culture problem.)
@Gerry Dawes Thanks, Gerry, now I know whose books not to bother with. Cheers.
I find that the reference to Picollin's sordid character has no place in a food/restaurant critic. I would like to know if the lonely star given concerned the restaurant's performance and why.
6
What does Julian Niccolini's alleged misbehavior with women have to do with the quality of the dining experience at the Four Seasons, which is what Pete Wells is paid to write about? Isn't the first matter a news story (is it still news?), and the second matter the occasion for a critical review? And why, after lavishing such praise on the efforts of the kitchen, does Mr. Wells give only a single star? (Did the thought of Mr. Niccolini's behavior give him acid reflux or what?) Final question: Why the inclusion of pictures of the chef and dessert chef? Aren't they more appropriate to a feature article (or a publicity brochure)?
6
While I think it was perfectly appropriate for Wells to mention the unpleasant history of one of the owners, I believe that his job as a restaurant reviewer is to evaluate the dining experience: food, service, decor. While it is reasonable for some folks to stay away from Four Seasons because of Mr. Niccolini's past sins, I don't think it is a food critic's job to penalize the restaurant in his review.
6
Spot on review. Harsh? Yes, we are living in unscrupulous times. Way to show up.
6
This felt more like a report on Mr. Niccolini’s transgressions rather than a restaurant review. Mr. Wells should focus on what he does best, writing reviews that make us salavate.
9
Seems to me the manager that wanted to take breaks to pump breast milk is in the wrong business. That is, not one where, like the ump in a baseball game, you need to be on and ready the entire shift.
5
The failure of the review is the ambiguity of its star rating.
After giving Mr Niccolini his due, in every sense, Wells proceeds to cast the food in a winning light. It's provided him at least a two-star experience, if his words mean anything. Then--the one-star rating, which leaves the reader wondering what, actually, has been reviewed. The rating is therefore meaningless.
12
The Four Seasons is trying to use some interesting 'influencers' to attract diners and that is a shame. What is also a shame, that restauranteurs with this kind of a questionable moral track record somehow have the funds to strive. Not a restaurant I aspire to try. Gloria, by the way, is one of these 'hype' places with the only good dish on the menu that was all mushrooms and no seafood.
Some of your best writing here, Pete! Loved this line: "In its last years in the Seagram Building, the Four Seasons had become a shabby but lovely museum of midcentury architecture and design, with martinis that I didn’t mind overpaying for and food that I did."
9
Excellent review, and charming pictures to go with it, so kudos to the photographers and photo editor. I think Mr. Wells addressed the controversy adroitly. I look forward to future reviews by him.
8
"For the first time you can eat a real meal there, while you watch the Grand Central-bound commuters outside and the cotton candy-bound regulars inside, generally a mature group in tightly knotted ties or heels that echo down the corridor to the dining room like the ticking of a grandfather clock" - great sentence!!!
13
When Mimi was reporting, she was unaccompanied by photographers and concentrated on the cuisine, ambiance and service. Bring back the good old days before Zagat...
14
@Paul I wholeheartedly agree. The tenure of Pete Wells seems to be ENDLESS and it's high time for a change of palate!
5
This is an unfair review, especially to the staff who work at the restaurant. Seems like Pete should have written 2 articles. One appropriately about the owner and his outrageous behavior and one about the restaurant and the food. One star??? He raves about the chef, the food and desserts and likes the decor of the relocated place and then gives it one star? Seems like it should have been a 2 or 3 star review and then he took deductions because of the multi paragraph lead story on the owner. He should reconsider his rating.
30
@ FredNYC Manhattan, NY
"unfair review" ?! -- in cases like this one, all are guilty for complicity and misprision, unless proven innocent. And as another saying goes, "Only the newly born are innocent, but it does not last".
2
@FredNYC:
I disagree. Restaurant “culture” has been disordered for many a generation.
When I graduated hotel & restaurant school in 1984, from the same program as the esteemed Mr. Yosses (New York City College of Technology), they sent me to a restaurant in Paris where a female pastry cook, the future pastry chef, was hazed badly by the male cooks. When I returned to NYC, the first chef I worked for, married, male, and French, groped and sexually harassed me pervasively for almost my entire tenure at a French owned hotel.
Flash forward almost 30 years and there are the revelations about Ken Friedman, Mario Batali, the Spotted Pig, John Besh and many others.
At a certain point, everyone from within the restaurant world, and prominent adjuncts such as Pete Wells have to make a stand for propriety, decency and lawfulness. Julian Niccolini didn’t get quite the same egregious free pass granted to rich and powerful men that Trump and Clinton friend Jeffrey Epstein got, but they are undoubtedly on the same spectrum of rich and powerful protected by the system.
If no one makes a stand, the system is perpetuated ad infinitum.
8
Nice job, Pete. You managed to deflect all the NYT readers/scolds who complain about the high prices. At least for a week.
But there needs to be a companion piece to this review that discusses the culture at the Four Seasons now. Interviews with female staff about what it's like to work there. If you're taking up so many inches documenting Niccolini's scurrilous behavior, it would be nice to see if there are "lessons learned". If there are, I might consider going there: Conversely, not a chance. But the actual review portion reads much better than a one star, leading to the obvious conclusion that starts were deducted because of the owner.
29
I thought the exact same thing. Interested to read a response as I was expecting more than one star.
5
@ClearThinker
...starts? were deducted...tsk, tsk.
2
@AA I feel shame. :-(
2
Well it's all academic--I couldn't afford the restaurant if it was owned by Mother Theresa. But thank you for that line about the cream and the mustard. Had me in stitches!
10
This is a quite brilliant review of a once great restaurant. Pete sets it up clearly; many people would not want to eat there, nor even want it reviewed. His job, on the other hand, is to review restaurants, including historically important restaurants like the Four Seasons.
Once Pete got the lengthy (and necessary) caveat out of the way and swung into action, the review itself is wonderful ("..cream that was shown a picture of a mustard jar.") He pays tribute to the new young chef, Diego Garcia, and duly celebrates his talent.
The closing is beautifully honed, and perfectly reflects the pain, tears and rent underclothes (the threads) of the women abused by the boor of an owner.
Bravo Pete. The naysayers (including Andrew Friedman) are not fit to lace your drinks.
44
Full disclosure: I'm no fan of this critic, and took great public exception to the approach he adopted in a review of some of my own (non-restaurant) work earlier this year. I'm also no fan (to put it mildly) of the behavior (confessed, alleged, & privately settled) of Mr. Niccolini. But I think bringing that behavior into a review is a slippery slope and intellectually faulty. Are we going to begin docking stars for an owner's political views? Are we going to ADD stars if an owner does charity work? This case might seem admirable on the surface--it might even come from a rock-solid moral place--but it should be viewed the same way precedent is viewed in the legal arena, and it feels like a bad precedent. Perhaps this would have been better as an opinion piece, or a review with no stars attached (not "zero" stars, but no rating at all) as a nod to the difficulty of disentangling the "threads." Or maybe it's just the latest example of why the star system is so problematic, except to occasionally generate controversy.
45
And yet if he didn’t discuss it, it would have been the elephant in the room. Good reporting includes attention to details, all details. I’d be shocked and dismayed if Mr. Wells had glossed over the controversies involved with the Four Seasons. He gives credit to the staff of the restaurant while discussing the need to review it with caveats. I think the review is written with the critical lens we need, especially given the climate of the time.
27
@Andrew Friedman Your logical fallacy is Slippery Slope.
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
11
@Jessica Would respectfully suggest that reporting and reviewing are very different and should be treated as such. Especially at the Times, and especially with restaurants. My argument is simply that news articles and opinion pieces aren’t summarized with a star rating the way Times restaurant reviews are. There’s also a dishonesty in the premise that the critic here was “reviewing” at all as he clearly began the process with a predisposition that no level of food/service could supplant—that is not, by any definition, a review. It’s a Trojan horse.
5
Pete Wells isn't breaking any one's arms to go to the Four Seasons. He's reporting on a place, like it or not, by virtue of name and past history has attracted a huge amount of press and given those who might care, an expert's opinion on the good, the bad and the ugly surrounding this restaurant and its operators. It's up to the consumer to decide whether they wish to patronize the place and the critic's job to help you make an informed decision in that regard. I think this review accomplished that goal.
32
Well, that piece of truffle fondled by Niccolini's roaming hand and held up to his nose just went on some patrons' plates.
Bon appétit.
13
@LdV
Do you know where truffles come from? How they are found? That truffle has been touched by a dog's snout and myriad human hands. It didn't magically float into the restaurant. As for the sniffing, all truffles are smelled to confirm their olfactory power and condition of their flesh. No truffle is washed, ever. If they are cleaned at all, they are lightly brushed with bristles that have touched the dirt of many other truffles. It might be best if you never have truffle personally. As for me, I want to go to the Four Seasons just for some truffles on a plate of pasta.
19
@LdV
I guess you have never worked in a restaurant. Let's just say, you probably don't want to know what goes on behind the scenes. And the more expensive the restaurant, you really don't want to know. It's like staying in a hotel. Don't think too much about that remote control.
2
I know that pictures don’t tell the entire story, but this place looks like every generic hotel meeting room I’ve been in.
And regardless of how good the food might be, I still choose who I want to give my money to, and I don’t want to give it to people like Mr. Niccolini.
10
The actual review text is inconsistent with the number of stars. The rating has received what is surely a subconscious or conscious reduction due to Mr. Wells's concern with allegations against Mr. Niccolini. At the least the math should be: take the last review of The Four Seasons at 375 Park and ad two stars.
9
I'd have the taco bowl at the Trump Grille (or is it Grill?) before I'd dine at The Four Seasons.
1
@DR I wonder if the TACO BOWL is made by domestic Americans or Latino Americanos ?
Dining while "woke".
Pete Wells, a consummate wordsmith, outdid himself in laying bare his progressive credentials, while ostensibly enjoying Chef Diego Garcia's well executed culinary offerings. You are indeed punishing the workers for the sin of the owners. That I think is a much bigger affront
23
@Zendr The workers work there voluntarily. I've walked away from bad bosses while near-broke and responsible for supporting a kid rather than involve myself in making terrible people rich. I found other jobs, and they can too. Unless, of course, they're selfish and don't care who they're making money for so long as they're doing the thing they like to do.
Interesting how all those who attack this review are male.
The review makes eating there inviting, but there are lot of restaurants NYC. When I'm next in town, I'll avoid this place unless Niccolini has moved on.
10
Bravo! The phony stance of excommuicating anyone from society that is alleged to have done anything wrong is just that, phony to make the one on the soapbox feel better. In reality, gray areas require intelligence, and your intelligence in this review, while not ignoring the alleged wrong doings of the owners, is very refreshing.
10
Fortunate, or not, restaurants such as the (enduring) Four Seasons encompasses numerous careers and provide the platform for aspiring talent. Mr. Niccokini is symbolic of a societal problem and hopefully those circumstance will drastically improve everywhere. Alex von Bidder (is seemingly the owner point person) and is a spectacular gentlemen and restaurateur. Factually, (for Mr. Wells), the Four Seasons is an important New York City institution and icon. The unspoken question was "can the old Four Seasons cobble together the food and environmental" ambiance worthy of their history. Again, (Mr. Wells) thinks so. Personally, I agree, in a matter of minutes you begin to see and feel institutional elements of the Old Four Seasons although in an entirely new setting. In speaking to staff (women especially), they are thrilled to be working there and have their heart into their new employment. This city icon returned (possibly) ingloriously but nevertheless in a spectacular manner. Truthfully, incarnation of the old mischaracterizes this effort and result.
6
This is perhaps the greatest NYT restaurant review I’ve ever read.
Utter honesty imbued with an acknowledgment that stellar food can be produced in a kitchen run by a prodigy but owned by a flawed man who’s done bad things. Diner, be guided by your own morality and taste buds.
I remember the old Four Seasons, sitting with my family just across the pool from a very tall former Fox News pundit (not so many years before he was taken down by his own #metoo).
Bravo for the brilliance and courage to write and publish this piece. To those who book a table, enjoy. To those who stay away, you are to be commended for voting your conscience with your wallet.
48
Stop moralizing about Nicolini's transgressions. It has nothing to do with food. This is the business we've chosen. No place in a restaurant review. I'll go there time and time again savor the setting,enjoy the food whether Mr. Nicolini is there or not.
7
Just 1 star?
Was that 1 star 1 star, or 2 stars minus Niccolini 1 star?
7
The review almost begrudgingly suggests that it has "come back".
2
What I liked about the review is that the restaurant's food sounds substantial. There's none of that "tasting menu" silliness with too many plates and way too much pretension.
I love duck and tradition and we'll definitely eat there the next time we're in Manhattan.
As for the other information, I don't think it belongs in a restaurant review.
Also, I'm pleased to see the rating at the top of the column.
6
You can go there but I wouldn't. Some things in life are worth more than others.
53
Rather than fabric of various threads I think of it as a fine dish served with a bit of poison in it.
17
I enjoy your writing and the lovely stories you weave. But these particular threads were done with Women's tears, and pain. Do better, as I believe you are quite capable. I would NEVER eat here, as long as he has any association with the place. Non-negotiable.
69
@Phyliss Dalmatian
You - as all of us are - are perfectly entitled to your personal well-tended exclusionary lists.
It is only when they are foist on the rest of the world that they become problematic.
I eat there whenever I visit NYC and will delightedly continue to do so.
7
@Phyliss Dalmatian Regarding the "wouldn't eat there" point - you realize that he essentially agrees? In the last paragraph, he points out that the actions of Mr Nicollini are too egregious for him to patronize the restaurant, and that this is likely the case for many others as well. I am a huge supporter of MeToo, and thought this was an excellent way to review a prominent restaurant - his job - while maintaining sensitivity to an important issue. Potential guests will now be able to judge for themselves whether to patronize the restaurant in light of the shadow currently upon it. I was not aware of his actions, and had I been a potential diner (alas, I am fully priced out) looking at the review, I'd have been grateful to see the issues mentioned. I'm not sure if those advocating for an full-on absence of reviews and the corresponding publicity (though not sure if you are personally) are fully considering this.
2
The only relevant issue issue is: Is the food good? Nothing else matters.
34
@Mark Siegel. All that matters is the food? So, it's OK if the service is lousy or if only regulars are treated well; or if restrooms are not clean; or if turbot turns out to be an inferior fish; or if a place does not recycle or does not take advantage of providing surplus food to the poor; or if it owes back taxes; or if the noise level is extreme; or if the tables are too close together? Once one accepts the validity of mentioning one element that is not on one's plate, anything else may be considered relevant.
98
@arp: The service can be great, the decor wonderful, etc., but all that is secondary to the quality of the food.
14
@arp If perfect ethical conduct on the part of the owners and operators and staff of a restaurant is what you require before eating out, then you will spend your life eating at home.
14
Pete: You are a word magician. Thank you for this salient review. As a fan of the original incarnation, and ignoring the egregious shortcomings of Mr. Niccolini, it's good to see that much is restored. Your closing line, "...not be tied up with a bow. All I have is threads." summed it perfectly.
I still look forward to an overpriced martini (olives) and a bite. Thank you once again.
29
Is this a restaurant review or and op ed piece.
59
It’s an extremely well-written review of the food, decor, service, and history (both complementary and critical) of a New York City institution. Mr. Wells presents us with his informed opinions of their practices, both business and political, and gives us the freedom to choose whether to patronize the restaurant or not.
96
C’mon, it’s just beef, pork,chicken, maybe lamb, fish, and some herbs and veggies. What can you do to these every day food items that makes them worth a laudatory review in the NYT, to say nothing of the alleged sexual abuses of the owners. You can’t justify the abuses by sating your hunger.
35
Just review the restaurants. That's enough, your moral agonizing. Who would trust your opinion now of the Four Seasons? Why would anyone consider your opinion to be the least bit objective? Your review is a journalistic failure.
33
He did just review the restaurant. In any restaurant it's nice to know who the owner is. It's in many reviews, if it's interesting. What if the owner had crossed the Atlantic? On foot.
7
@Scott Manni. A little genre ambiguity disturbs, does it?
6
It is not a “Journalistic Failure”. He raised legitimate points about how people may feel about supporting a business run by a monster. I for one, would rather spend my money elsewhere.
11
Too weak to call this a review; more like another editorial.
40
there are some ad gimmicks that are way overused and trite. letters appearing on a screen with the sound of keys clicking. using the sound of mouse clicks while an arrow pointer wanders the screen. and in the case of restaurants, anything that is cooked, roasted, broiled, reduced, sauteed, fricasseed, or in the case of the drink menu on the website, "stirred to perfection" makes me want to scream. so intellectually lazy.
6
Jesus he went to the restaurant. He's not offended enough not to go. And he still tells the news. And reviewed the food. And this one star with its history of three stars tells it all. This is not good if you think it is. Maybe you don't and I misunderstood. In that case, sorry.
1
First came the Spring when all was fresh and green;
Then Summer, hot and sultry, with its bow to a single star: The Sun;
And then: The Fall. From grace, and from decency.
Now, it seems all that remains is the wintry remnant of a once great hall, exiled even from itself, with only that single star to remind us of its seasons of greatness. (And one dollar sign for each as well.)
40
@Sera
Perfect, as always. Just perfect.
4
Do not agree at all with linking of one owner's misbehavior to a review of the restaurant. Have not read of a single business being impacted because of harassment charges against a principal. Some principals have withdrawn from the businesses such as Batali. Could almost have gotten away with it with the initial caveats about the owner and then a competent positive review. But, giving it one star instead of the three or four it deserves goes way beyond the boundaries of objective and fair food criticisim. What about all the people that work there, the chefs that were touted, the long time employees. Unreasonable. Should be revised. (Is it possible that reviewer has a personal grudge against the owners for not esteeming him well as a customer?)
35
@stuart itter I think he explained it very well in the last paragraph. Having to think about the ethics of giving this guy money weighs on the experience of eating there. That's just as valid of a subjective response to the meal as is one's opinion of the food, the decor, or the service.
93
@stuart itter
"What about all the people who work there"? They might live and work in fear that the owner could still perpetrate his crimes on them. In spite of the outcome of legal cases, they might still feel relatively powerless, or that they cannot tell the real reason why they left if they apply for jobs elsewhere. Or worse: some of them might follow the boss's lead, and attempt such behavior on their colleagues. Corporate culture is established by the head of the business; what's "acceptable" trickles down.
There are probably many potential customers to whom Niccolini's behavior does not matter, who only care about how they themselves are treated, not how a business overall treats its employees. Do you count yourself among them?
22
@stuart itter -
"Have not read of a single business being impacted because of harassment charges against a principal."
The Spotted Pig. The entire Mario Batali empire. It's a thing in NYC.
56
Mr. Niccolini looks certainly lasciviously lecherous on the photo. Best would be to drop the reviews of his restaurants or it may be like praising the butcher on the Paris Left Bank who was selling human flesh of the victims murdered by a resident of the same building.
On a couple of other matters:
-- I see no green apples in the dish of raw scallops with black caviar.
-- The cutlery setting for the roast duck shows an ordinary table knife that seems not sharp enough for the task.
10
@Tuvw Xyz
The place setting for the duck is a generic one -- and wouldn't have been set that way to start with (2 forks crisscrossing a knife). My guess is that the photo was taken when the duck was presented, and will of course, be carved tableside by the captain.
19
@Tuvw Xyz
This chef sees a light green sauce, likely of green apples, in the picture of the scallops.
If you need a serrated steak knife to cut into your roast duck, it has been woefully prepared. An ordinary knife would be plenty sufficient for a well rendered roast duck. An extraordinary one might well be fork-tender.
13
@Tuvw Xyz
I’m pretty sure the green apple is brunoised and is underneath the caviar, hence you can’t see it in the photo.
6
So, basically, they're serving 2.5 or 3-star food, but he's knocking it down to 1 star because of the owner's conduct?
49
@Steven M.
Probably would have been better for him to explain that ratings reflect the totality of the review, not just the food and atmosphere, or to skip the rating entirely.
24
@Steven M.
Yes, and at sky high prices (apps $25-56 and entrees $40-85), a one star review is essentially terrible.
Many years ago, Bill Yosses’ desserts made a tortured three and a half hour, three course lunch with an awful waiter at Bouley redeemable for my wife and me. We walked out of lunch at 5 PM. Fun times!
6