Tuesday
March

22

2005
12:39 AM

Permalink

Crush, Seattle, WA, tasted on March 19, 2005 — I look forward to new restaurants opening up with quite a bit of excitement. Especially when they open near me. The truth is that I really want to love new restaurants. I want to find a gem. I want to go back again and again. I want to add a new restaurant to my list of favorites and tell everyone how great it is. The truth is also that this rarely happens. It's certainly not because I don't want new restaurants to be great, it's just that often unfortunately they are not.

Crush, a recently opened restaurant in Seattle, is doing everything right. They are doing everything right if you want to be a successful restaurant in Seattle. Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily equate to being a special eating experience. Fresh local ingredients? Check. Frequently changing menu reflective of the seasonality of the ingredients? Check. Open late? Check. Hip designy decor? Check. Small Plates? Check. Open kitchen? Check. And you know what? I think that's a great checklist. I think just about every restaurant should follow those guidelines. However, all these things are just a baseline. And they are not even foundational really, they're not what makes for great food. They're the trappings of potentially great food, as well as cues that today's sort of food educated dining public looks for. But you can make great food without any of those things. Because ultimately you judge the quality of the food with your mouth.

Crush is designed for success. It hits all the right notes the eating public is looking for as well as being housed in an cute and hiply remodeled house in Seattle's central district. The black and white decor as well as the plastic, Starck-ish chairs, make for a neat interior. It's not off putting though, and in fact the combination of the design, the beautiful open kitchen behind a bar, all situated on the first floor of a house works. Kind of innovative, interesting, and yet comfortable and not snobby. I assume that's kind of the way they'd like their food to come off as well.

We started off with Spring Carrot Soup with Ginger and Mint Cream. The soup had a nice texture. The flavor was simple but not super interesting. Bland. The Citrus Marinated Beet and Cress Salad with Sultanas & Warm Blue Cheese Toasts wasn't particularly special. It's not that I wouldn't love a great combination of citrus, beets, and blue cheese. It's just that this wasn't it. I don't know any better way to say this than, there was a whole lot of stuff thrown together. At least that's how it felt. The Grilled Asparagus and Goat Cheese Salad with Prosciutto Chips, Balsamic, and Hazelnuts was sort of thrown together as well but this dish worked. Mostly I think because the asparagus was perfectly cooked, and the prosciutto chips (sort of a ham jerky) were full of flavor.

Next up was Sautéed Hudson Valley Foie Gras with Brioche, Endive Pear Salad, Huckleberries. The flavor was quite good though the composition relatively typical. The main distraction was the cold center of the foie. I don't mean luke warm. I mean truly cold. Like the center of the piece had just been removed from the fridge. We also had the Seared Scallops and Sweet Onion Risotto with Duck Confit, Tangerine and Arugula. The scallops were ok. The risotto was sort of just there. A touch gloppy. Not really interesting. The duck got lost in it. The main challenge was that the seared surface of the scallops had so much salt on them that you couldn't help but get a mouth full of saltiness that distracted from everything else. Finally we got  the side of Sautéed Spinach. It was pretty delicious. The diced bacon didn't hurt. I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the simplest dishes we had, was one of the best. I don't know why diners are looking for things that are complicated. I assume they must be as many new restaurants zero in on dishes with lots of stuff going on. I admit this may be a bias, but I'm a fan of simplicity. Complexity just makes it harder to make a coherent dish. It can be done (and some chefs do it beautifully) but why try to make thing complicated when simple dishes can be so delicious.

Dessert. Chocolate Cherry Honeycomb with Chantilly, Decadence, and Meringue. This was good. Debbie was surprised by the power of the liqueur, but she quickly got past it and enjoyed the dish. I had the Warm Apple Tart with Caramel Ice Cream, Spiced Apple Balls, and Chips with Calvados. I admit I'm hard pressed to not like Apple/Caramel/Ice Cream combinations, but this one was particularly good. Yes, a lot of stuff was going on, but the tart was an ooey gooey foundation for everything else that brought it all together.

Crush will be very successful no matter what I think. I knew this when I walked in the door. I knew it more certainly when I watched every diner stop at the open kitchen and thank the chef profusely for their fantastic meals. I don't think these people are tasting their food. I think they have some idea of what good food is and where you find it, and the trappings of Crush conform to those ideals. Some might say I'm being unfair. If they like it, who am I to say they are wrong. Fair enough. That said, I bet I could put two carrot soups next to each other... one sublime, with subtlety and strong flavor and show them the difference between food that looks cool, and food that tastes great. I bet they could tell the difference if they had the chance. Given that Crush is relatively new I'll probably try it again. But I won't get my hopes up.