I will say Hayato
3 Likes
This is LA, so probably Crustacean or the Ivy…
But, seriously, I agree with CiaoBob about Hayato. Or maybe Manske.
I’ll be surprised if Addison puts an expensive high-end tasting-menu place at #1. And also if he doesn’t leave some of those places off the list to make room for more diversity.
With apologies to my editors, I don’t really believe in the idea of “bests” when it comes to the 101 project. Yes, this is a guide to excellence. It also is meant to capture, as much as a finite number can, the overall breadth and spirit of dining in L.A.
I prefer the Board’s collective wisdom. It’s like how Rateyourmusic is better than Pitchfork or whatever music mag.
diversity in terms of what?
It will be in reverse alphabetical order so he can put Yangban first.
2 Likes
in my opinion it ranked lists of restaurants are idiotic.
If you’re comparing places with similar menus, e.g. sushi bars, tacquerias, Michelin-fu prix fixe, or dim sum, ranking is almost inevitable, but when you have all different things on one list, it’s nonsense.
the grammy’s have album of the year even when it’s all different genres. same with best actor and actress. the rankings in particular are what will get the people buzzing and discussing things.
Most awards have no ranking beyond nominated and won. The Oscars aren’t a list of the top 100 films, actors, actresses, directors, songs, screenplays, makeup, costumes, etc. all jumbled together.
The Grammy’s have album of the year regardless of genre. The rankings will get the people buzzing and discussing things.
1 Like
People will discuss things rankings or not.
Discussing whether whatever place is #1 deserves to be is boring.
That’s the opposite of boring to me haha. And a ranking system unequivocally inspires more debate and discussion than something that is haphazardly flung together to get to a set number of restaurants
A ranked voting also forces the editors/critics to put in more effort imo so I’m all for it
2 Likes
The 101 list isn’t haphazardly flung together, Addison works on it for months.
Given his view of ranking, it likely had zero effect on which places made his list. Even reviewers who believe in star ratings typically disregard them when making “best of” lists in order to include a wider variety of cuisines, prices, and locations.
I just mean objectively it takes more effort and time to rank something 101 to #1 rather than a “list of 101” in general. Either way I am sure Addison spends a lot of time on both.
I’ve written similar roundup reviews. Ranking takes roughly 1% additional time vs. just alphabetical.
Umm… we’ll just agree to disagree on this lol. With 101 not ranked you could just have 2-3 people pick their top 30-40 restaurants and then come to agreeance… but ranked requires a lot more time to debate and discuss. I’m curious how their process goes for this, hopefully they can elaborate.
2 Likes
You can believe whatever nonsense you make up. I’m telling you the reality of the business.
Addison has written about it before, as did Jonathan Gold.
I don’t particularly give a damn either way, but I can’t imagine how one can rank order such a diverse food scene. If one starts with the assumption that we have best of breeds in a few cuisines, they’d basically be prioritizing one cuisine over another.
2 Likes