Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,545,347 times
Reputation: 6682
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Which cities pay Michelin and which cities are honored without needing to pay? I know NYC, DC, and Chicago don't pay Michelin. Are there any other's? Does Atlanta pay?
Yes, Atlanta paid along with Florida (Miami, Tampa, Orlando); Southern California; Toronto, Vancouver and others—including countries and cities in Asia and Middle East.
As stated previously in this thread, payment doesn’t guarantee a specific restaurant or number of restaurants within that city or country will be awarded stars. Restaurants within those cities/countries still have to meet Michelin criteria and earn it.
“ But earning a Michelin star is huge for restaurants – a 20% bump in business for receiving a star, 40% for two stars, and a doubling in business on average for three stars as Skift reports.”
Which cities pay Michelin and which cities are honored without needing to pay? I know NYC, DC, and Chicago don't pay Michelin. Are there any other's? Does Atlanta pay?
SF has never paid and does not pay Michelin. As if.
Remember they were reviewing SF before the rest of the state, and there were previous guides for LA and LV that didnt last because they didnt sell well, but I bet Las Vega would have many Michelin-starred restaurants today.
SF has never paid and does not pay Michelin. As if.
Remember they were reviewing SF before the rest of the state, and there were previous guides for LA and LV that didnt last because they didnt sell well, but I bet Las Vega would have many Michelin-starred restaurants today.
Yeah, I know San Fran didn't pay historically, but California does now so I don't know how that impacts payment for San Fran. Obviously, San Fran would still have Michelin if California stopped paying.
The amount of restaurants with stars in all these markets that pay (Florida, Atlanta, California "outside of SF proper", and Colorado) actually says a lot about why they had to pay Michelin to come to their cities or states. None of those places produced many restaurants worth a Michelin star after their results were announced.
I think Michelin probably sends their inspectors to cities all over the world and knows which cities have enough quality restaurants to be added.
Yeah, I know San Fran didn't pay historically, but California does now so I don't know how that impact payment for San Fran. Obviously, SF would still have Michelin if California stopped paying.
The amount of restaurants with stars in all these markets that pay (Florida, California "outside of SF proper", and Colorado actually says a lot about why they had to pay Michelin to come to their cities or states. None of those places produced many restaurants worth a Michelin star after their results were announced.
I think Michelin probably sends their inspectors to cities all over the world and knows which cities have enough quality restaurants to be added.
Atlanta and Denver qualify but not Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Boston?.
Present day Michelin is incentivized (or whatever word you want to use) to evaluate a new city. Maybe it wasn't as much the case years ago for NYC, Chicago, DC, SF, but now it is, which is why the acclaim is losing points with me. And that isn't to say there aren't deserving restaurants in Atlanta or Denver, but the idea seems more about money versus food, at least when initially adding a city.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,545,347 times
Reputation: 6682
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Yeah, I know San Fran didn't pay historically, but California does now so I don't know how that impacts payment for San Fran. Obviously, San Fran would still have Michelin if California stopped paying.
The amount of restaurants with stars in all these markets that pay (Florida, Atlanta, California "outside of SF proper", and Colorado) actually says a lot about why they had to pay Michelin to come to their cities or states. None of those places produced many restaurants worth a Michelin star after their results were announced.
I think Michelin probably sends their inspectors to cities all over the world and knows which cities have enough quality restaurants to be added.
I wouldn’t say Miami, as one example, didn’t have enough quality restaurants to earn stars. This was only the second year Michelin came to that city—infancy as far as Michelin ratings go. Fairly certain they will have quite a few more stars in another 10 or 20 years, as a few of the other non paying cities have had a much longer time to earn. Unrealistic to have expected 20-40 restaurants to have earned stars in just their first or second year. (Excluding Bib Gourmand)
Also has not stopped a Thomas Keller (who already has Miami’s only 2 star Michelin) from expanding his presence here or 3 star Michelin chef Massimo Bottura from coming here to open a restaurant in a few months (and, not to you, but to others who conflate a Keller or Bottura restaurant expansion with a Landry’s owned chain expansion there is quite a difference between the two nor are they to be confused for an airport Wolfgang Puck Cafe Express)
Will let others speak for different cities though I’ll ask the following—is San Diego’s 3 star Addison not worthy of it because SoCal visitors bureau paid to have its region open to ratings and only 5 restaurants in that city received a star??
Last edited by elchevere; 10-26-2023 at 10:18 AM..
So Atlanta and Denver qualify but not Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Boston?...
It's not a secret that Michelin is incentivized (or whatever word you want to use) to evaluate a new city. Maybe it wasn't as much the case years ago for NYC, Chicago, DC, SF, but now it is.
Atlanta had to pay to bring Michelin to the city—to the tune of $1 million from the ACVB over three years, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported.
The results really prove why those markets had to pay. Even LA is 8 restaurants behind 4th place Chicago. On November 7th, NYC, DC, and Chicago are now part of an event together where new additions will be announced.
Yeah, I know San Fran didn't pay historically, but California does now so I don't know how that impacts payment for San Fran. Obviously, San Fran would still have Michelin if California stopped paying.
Well you just said it: Michelin would be reviewing the Bay Area whether the rest of the state was being reviewed or not.
Quote:
The amount of restaurants with stars in all these markets that pay (Florida, Atlanta, California "outside of SF proper", and Colorado) actually says a lot about why they had to pay Michelin to come to their cities or states. None of those places produced many restaurants worth a Michelin star after their results were announced.
I think Michelin probably sends their inspectors to cities all over the world and knows which cities have enough quality restaurants to be added.
at very least, we see that they really do critique and dont just for money else these places would probably have way more starred restaurants--Toronto for example, you think would have way more given the sizew of the city and large number of cultured and sophisticated folks there.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,545,347 times
Reputation: 6682
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Well you just said it: Michelin would be reviewing the Bay Area whether the rest of the state was being reviewed or not.
at very least, we see that they really do critique and dont just for money else these places would probably have way more starred restaurants--Toronto for example, you think would have way more given the sizew of the city and large number of cultured and sophisticated folks there.
Yes…as I’ve stated paying for Michelin presence does not guarantee a certain number or certain restaurants will automatically get stars—they still need to earn it.
in the case of Toronto this is the second year (not 5th, 7th, 20th) Michelin rated that city. Like other first or second year cities new to this “game” the numbers will go up over time (not that 16 is awful, either)…did all 70 NYC and 27 SF Michelin restaurants currently ranked get their stars in the very first or second year??…I think D.C. started out with 12 starred restaurants in 2017 and is now up to 26. Give these “newcomer” cities time and more restaurants will get added most likely.
Last edited by elchevere; 10-26-2023 at 12:03 PM..
It's a good start, but there are a few restaurants on the recommended list that will have a star within a few years for sure. For example, Talat Market has some of the most exciting Thai food i've seen in a restaurant, and if I could marry Miller Union I would. For a few of them though it isn't so much the food is the issue, but other things like service impacts from being in a small space. A good chunk of the restaurants on the recommended list have that problem, but I suspect they'll get those things sorted out and elevate their food for the next consideration.
I know the thread has been talking about the payola that comes with becoming a Michelin city these days, but thems the stakes. As others have pointed out, that's the way that the door gets open and it's up to the restaurants to actually impress the reviewers. One thing that I found interesting in the lead up to this list was an interview with a reviewer I read that said basically that they expected one thing before coming to Atlanta and were blown away by the variety and quality. It's a reflection of just how far the food scene has come in this town, and the diverse cultures that have brought their crafts with them.
Well, we also need to remember that even among Michelin Starred restaurants, there is a hierarchy----a 3-star restaurant is described as worth a special journey, for heavens sakes lol
So when we count how many stars a city has it looks like this:
New York-------89 stars
San Francisco--43 stars
Los Angeles----29 stars
Chicago--------27 stars
Washington DC--26 stars
Toronto, ON----16 stars
Miami, FL------13 stars
Vancouver, BC---9 stars
San Diego, CA--7 stars
Atlanta, GA-----5 stars
Denver, CO------3 stars
Orlando, FL-----3 stars
Tampa, FL-------3 stars
Sacramento, CA--2 stars
Sacramento is one place I wouldn't expect to see a Michelin rated restaurant in. But what do I know? I just know to me I don't need a Michelin rating, to tell me a restaurant is good. Since to me I check online ratings, before I try eating anywhere.
It's weird places in Sacramento can get rated for Michelin, but not in say Boston, New Orleans or Dallas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
