Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > All New England Archive >
Sep 18, 2007 06:53 PM

Two Forty Two Providence

Anyone tried this spot on Atwells Ave. yet? What do you think? I just read the review on TasteRI, and checked out the menu as well.. Looks interesting.

Website under construction, but you can still view the menu..

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. I have not tried it, a friend went and said it was okay, nothing special.

    From reading the menu I believe it. This could be any menu at any restaurant these days. Nothing creative on there at all. And the headings for it are really annoying. Spend less time trying to recreate menu categories and more time creating interesting dishes! :)

    5 Replies
    1. re: basachs

      While I agree that the categories are stupid and there's nothing too new on here, it all sounds really good to me. Sometimes you want a menu where it's all somewhat interesting and tasty sounding rather than trying to achieve some new combo that may or may not work.

      1. re: Joanie

        Well I hope it has exceedingly good execution of the menu..Be nice to have someplace truly good on Atwells for a change.

        1. re: basachs

          I agree that there is nothing new to Providence on the menu and the headings are silly. But I like the menu too. It has all the items I like to order when I go out - brick oven pizza,calamari, veal chop, lamb chops, tuna steak, chilean sea bass. If it had a duck breast choice it would ideal. Is it daring to not have on single pasta dish, being that it is Atwells Ave.?
          This menu sounds more interesting than the 121 menu I read last week.

      2. re: basachs

        I haven't been, but a quick glance at the menu reinforces your view... Considering some of the gaping holes we have in our otherwise excellent culinary scene, why people are still charging down the New American and Italian (or variations thereof) themes in this city (as if we didn't have a million of each already) is something of a mystery to me...

        1. re: basachs

          One of the worst restaurants on Federal Hill. The menu is very weak, the staff is well below par ( The bartender was more worried about talking on her cell phone than taking my order ), I'll give this place 3 monthes before something else is there.

        2. I just took a quick look and am already annoyed. Panzanella with croutons? NAY.

          1. isn't there a newish rest. called local 121... is this a joke or related?

            7 Replies
            1. re: harryharry

              Interesting....but it's neither a joke nor related. Just coincidence. 242 refers to the sreet number....121 might be the same.

              1. re: JaneRI

                Address as well.
                Yesterday's Food section in the Journal explains these numbers:

                1. re: madgee

                  I saw that too. But I'm having more trouble remembering all these numbers than real names. Not sure this gimick works.

                  1. re: ccferg

                    This world is starting to be a pretty sad with everything under the sun being trademarked. People have to have some freedom to re-use names, it's just getting ridiculous.

                    At some point in time, we'll just be jumbling unpronouncable letters together to make a name! gah!

                    1. re: Keithel

                      The article I read claimed these restaurants were using addresses purposely because they believe people will be more likely to keep them in mind when thinking about a particular neighborhood.

                      1. re: ccferg

                        Odd theory - I would think an actual name would be more likely to stick in a my brain.

                        1. re: ccferg

                          I read the article too, and while that was the main point, it seems that many businesses resort to that thinking after finding out every name they think of under the sun has been trademarked.

              2. The original comment has been removed
                1. The original comment has been removed