I think Michelin changed its criteria slightly at some point. Their current explanation of their inspection process (for all resaurants, not just stars) lists these criteria:
Quality of the products
Mastery of flavour and cooking techniques
The personality of the chef in his cuisine
Value for money
Consistency between visits
I’m skeptical that “the personality of the chef” used to be a consideration. A lot of starred places in France used to be very traditional and the chef’s job was to uphold that, not to express his personality.
Anyway, that could explain the obsession with dictatorial tasting menus and prejudice against a la carte.
Of the 16 one-star restaurants in the 2009 LA guide, only seven (44%) are still open, and from most reports two of those (Mori and Patina) have gone downhill. The four 2009 two-star places are all still in business except Melisse just closed for remodeling.
For comparison, of the 34 one-star restaurants in the 2009 SF guide, 21 (62%) are still open (two had closed between the time the guide was printed and the stars were announced), 14 (41%) of those still have stars, and five (15%) have dropped to “The Plate.” Two of the three that are not in the 2019 guide at all are hotel restaurants. Three of the four two-star places are still in business (Cyrus lost its lease) and they all have two or three stars. The sole 2009 three-star place still has them.
You linked a visit where Porkybelly mentioned the main chef-owner, Maru-san, was not in-house. @TheCookie was spot on. Would it be nice that all sushi-yas have consistent, perfect quality for every one of their chefs? Sure. But it’s not always the case. There’s a reason why sushi lovers follow specific itamae and like to builid relationships with them.
We went to Mori Sushi, with Maru-san present after Porkybelly’s visit and it was still as phenomenal as ever.
They’ve always been pretty empty. I don’t even know how they manage to stay open, while carrying 30+ pristine neta on any given night, after all these years.
