I doubt they’ll care or notice unfortunately which is a real shame because those numbers are highlighting a very obvious trend here
1 Like
I think they might actually care this time - Boston has invested money in getting Michelin to Boston and has gotten relatively little back for it. But these investments are important for most cities to attract tourists and ultimately revenue. I would expect that there will be some discussion (perhaps not so much in the public) between city/state officials and some (key) people out of the restaurant industry to evaluate how to level up the restaurant quality in the area. I expect that in two years Boston will have more than one 1-star restaurant.
1 Like
Can’t claim to be an expert, but with the help of my calendar I went back through the last 10 Michelin-starred places I visited (4 as recently as September and October, all in Europe). 9 of the 10 were 1-star, one was 2-star. Every one of them offered set menus. Most, but not all, offered a la carte options.
1 Like
I agree that the vast majority of starred places offer set menus in some form. But I always thought the set menu to be more of a consequence of popularity rather than the other way around: You’re investing a lot of time and/or money in visiting this special place, and you want to try as many different dishes as possible. And the restaurant both understands that and benefits from it.
It’s interesting to think about the reverse, i.e. restaurants that do that specifically for acclaim rather than as a result. Is that a newer trend? Was it common in the 90s or earlier to see brand new places open as tasting menu only? I can think of a handful of places in the Boston area that opened especially in the 2010s that were set menu focused (Asta, Tasting Counter, some place on Mass Ave that I can’t remember the name of, probably others…), but I don’t know of any before then.
After reading this
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/dining/michelin-philly-cheesesteak.html
I have to ask again why those joints get a bib – apart from your having to wear one to avoid grease splatters – and Oleana doesn’t.
2 Likes
There are some rules for Bib inclusion. The most likely one is the cost. Bib restaurants should be quite affordable. Not sure if they still have a hard number but it was once that a dinner shouldn’t be more than $40
Quoting liberally from
“In 1997, MICHELIN introduced the Bib Gourmand designation to recognize restaurants offering excellent value for the quality of their cooking. While the price threshold varies a little from country to country depending on the cost of living, Inspectors apply the same principle worldwide: great value for money.”
Further down
" At Bungalow in New York City diners tuck into bright contemporary Indian cuisine, like homemade paneer with cashew, cardamom and lotus seeds, or lamb seekh kebab with pickled kumquats and plum chutney."
Bungalow, I should add is more expensive than Oleana.
Not sure about that - I haven’t been to Bungalow but looking on their menu and Yelp page it looks like that they are a place where you order an appetizer and entree whereas Oleana is a sharing plates/“tapas” place where you have to order quite a few dishes across the whole table (if I remember correctly when we went there we order about 3-4 plates/person (not including dessert)
When my husband and I went to Oleana quite frequently pre pandemic, we got 4 plates usually, maybe 5 at most once or twice that we both shared, and took home leftovers. And one dessert. EDITED for clarity: not 4 plates/each. No way could the two of us have eaten 6 or 8 plates.
I guess we are gourmands
Bungalow is rated $$$ (Special Occasion) by Michelin itself.
I had wondered about this when they showed up on the NYC Bib list.
There’s not much logic in the US lists.
.
1 Like
It will be a glorious day when Michelin guides cease to have any notoriety. This goes double for the areas outside the regions which conform most obviously to the preferences of the guide on multiple levels. It’s embarrassing for everyone involved.
