HOME > Chowhound > Los Angeles Area >

Discussion

What should Feniger do with the STREET location?

Now that it has shuttered.

http://www.eatatstreet.com/

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. It should stop serving that god awful "fried" rice.

        1. My 2 cents, I never thought Street was good - other than the idea and visuals of the place - she just didn't "get" Asian food well enough to pull off the globe-trotting concept she was after, IMHO.

          Because of her rep and "affiliations" it had an upscale/LGBT crowd that kept it going but not a chow-crowd. The Hollywood Bowl "box" I got once was truly terrible.

          So what now with the space?
          It is big.
          And, John/Vinny/Ludo need more space than that old pizzeria affords... Trois Mec et une Dame!

          11 Replies
          1. re: Ciao Bob

            raises an interesting question: can a strictly "chow-crowd" keep ANY place going?

            1. re: Ciao Bob

              I didn't enjoy the food or experience @ Street...I dig the love to incorporate various foods from various cultures but I think doing so through Feningers' lens (no pun intended) was its achilles' heel. There are just innate concepts as to why a dish "works" and I think just trying to have the dish available without understanding how its made or giving it the proper label. Case in point...their fried rice dish was closer to risotto with Chinese oyster sauce. Not to say anything about cultural accuracies or inaccuracies, but you can't call it fried rice when it's moist and gloopy. Street certainly placed concept over cuisine.

                1. re: Xan7hos

                  i think one has to be careful here. do we know for a fact she was trying to be "culturally accurate?"
                  i think it's possible for someone to understand something yet still present an interpretation i might not like.
                  and, honestly, i'm not sure what a dish is called is very important. whether or not it tastes good is more important to me.

                  1. re: linus

                    No no it has nothing to do with it being culturally accurate...it's a matter of accurately labeling what a dish is, which I think is very important. I'm definitely overusing this example but it drives the point of why it upset me: We can all agree that rice can exist in several variations ranging from wet to dry. We can have rice in soup, congee/porridge, risotto, sticky rice, steamed rice, rice crispies, etc. If your menu says risotto (where I think the defining aspect is it's texture) and I receive rice crispies I'm going to be disappointed.

                    I think the hallmark of American/"New" American cuisine is in its re-appropriation of cuisines from all corners of the world and creating something unique and exciting. But I agree with you linus and think it should always be delicious first, and I will concede there were definitely times where my expectations did not line up with the description of a dish and I ended up loving it but usually in those cases the dissonance was not that severe.

                    1. re: linus

                      can't say that i agree with this.
                      one of the purposes of a menu is to allow the patron to make an educated guess about whether any particular dish will appeal to his/her palate BEFORE actually tasting it.
                      for instance, i am not a fan of soft rice soaked in greasy stuff.
                      for this reason, if a menu item is called "risotto" or it's name suggests that it is at all similar to risotto, i'll steer away from it.
                      if the dish is being called risotto on the menu, but, in fact, it is more like fried rice, there would be no way for me to know that it could be something that i'd actually like.

                      1. re: westsidegal

                        "for instance, i am not a fan of soft rice soaked in greasy stuff."

                        When I read that, it really made me wonder "Well, who IS?"

                        1. re: Tripeler

                          I had a dish that they called Hawaiian Fried Rice at Street and it was nothing like risotto (but rather fried rice that was pretty darn good). They had some hits and misses. I give Susan major credit for thinking and cooking outside the box.

                          ADD: Found a photo of the dish here (although mine seemed more browned than this photo seems to show) http://www.dishtip.com/d/ca/los-angel...

                        2. re: westsidegal

                          to expect "fried rice" at street to be the same as "fried rice" at jj hong kong cafe strikes me as being a more than glass half full kind of person.
                          and how do we know technically the rice wasn't fried, however it turned out.
                          whilst i agree it's not nice to be deceived by a menu, i find it hard to believe the posters here wouldn't ask, send a dish back, etc.

                          it is possible i've watched too many picayune, bullshit arguments about the names of dishes on 'top chef' to debate this with a clear, objective mind, however.

                          1. re: linus

                            since i never watch top chef, i was unaware of this pastime.
                            i just want a menu to give me a clue as to what the delivered dish will taste like/look like.

                    2. re: Ciao Bob

                      Agree Ciao Bob. Interesting concept, but the food just wasn't all that interesting. No home runs after sampling half a dozen things.