Out Cole
Doin' It All for the Cookie
Pages to Fold
A Trash Bin Quandary
Introducing Ask Torontoist
Eat Me is a regular feature about the nooks and crannies of Toronto's restaurant scene, about the amazing restaurants that are—for some reason—criminally underpatronized.
If you find yourself with a bit of spare cash, or you’re celebrating an anniversary, want to impress a date, or if you just feel like being decadent, head over to STEAK Restaurant on Richmond Street. Hidden in the back of the hulking Sheraton Hotel (with entrance off of Richmond Street), STEAK provides a refreshingly modern atmosphere, free from the dull conformity of a chain or the drab interior (and even more drab kitchen stylings) of nostalgic steakhouses.
Starters are mainly traditional: salads, smoked salmon, scallops, crab cakes, clam chowder. Shrimp cocktail is massive in both presentation and actuality. Never has the oxymoronic label of “shrimp” seemed more ridiculous, and though the sea beasts are a bit woody, they’re still as fresh as can be, and served with a delicious spicy cocktail sauce.
Moving on to mains, STEAK uses Sterling Silver beef sourced from The Butcher Shoppe, and offers cuts ranging from sirloin (12 or 16 ounce, $31.95 to $36.95) to mignon ($32.95 to $39.95) to porterhouse ($44.95) and prime rib ($24.95 to $31.95) as well as ribs and bison. There’s also Kobe beef ($59.95), long considered the cream of the cow crop. Portions are generous but not offensive. Your steak won’t look like an entire side of cow on the plate (unless you order that). The best thing is that meat is cooked precisely to order; you ask for medium rare, and that’s just what you get. You won't have to send it back for any kitchen guesswork. The meat is served medium-warm too, meaning the chef has wisely given the beef proper time to cool and collect juices. Smooth carving and dreamy digesting will ensue. In addition to meat, the restaurant offers chicken, fish, and seafood goodies.
Sides (all $4.95) can easily be shared. With a choice of spud (creamy garlic mash, baked, or impressively non-greasy frites) and veg (wilted rapini, tender-crisp broccoli, or grilled asparagus) to accompany your main, you better bring an appetite, a mate, or a very big Tupperware container. Bring a big wallet too. Special occasions deserve special steaks, it’s true, and there are very few steakhouses in Toronto that don’t feel/look/taste like chains or relics from the 50s. Thankfully, STEAK is neither.
Photo by Catherine Kustanczy
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
It's Kobe Beef, not Kobi. As in, beef from Kobe, Japan.
I took my father there when it was called Biftheque. When his cutlet arrived we discovered the kitchen order print out receipt under it, swimming in au jus.
Here's hoping they've had a successful restaurant makeover.
I've fixed the Kobe beef mistake.
Also, in the interests of full disclosure, the author of this article visited the restaurant on their invitation.
I agree on the hope it's better than Le Biftheque, easily the worst chain steakhouse I've been in, and a large reason why I pay minimal attention to STEAK whenever I pass it.
"..there are very few steakhouses in Toronto that don’t feel/look/taste like chains or relics from the 50s."
Really? Toronto is full of high-quality, non-chain steakhouses. And I'm curious what a relic from the 50's looks like? Tom Jones? Bardi's? Barberians? Harbour Sixty? The Keg Mansion (definitely better prepared than the standard Keg fare)? Hy's has great ambience, although the steak is sub-par.
Toronto has steakhouses?
Astin, if we're naming high-quality non-chain steakhouses, let's not forget Jacobs & Co., which is a handsome, modern room to boot.
David, thanks for the disclosure, but I'm not sure it was necessary; the writing in this post is so unashamedly shill-y it was pretty obvious something was going on. Out of curiousity, are future installments of "Eat Me" also going to be written after an invitation from other restaurants that feel themselves overlooked?
And since we're correcting things:
- "Shrimp" is not an oxymoron. "Jumbo shrimp" is, as it seems to contradict itself.
- Resting does not allow meat to collect juices, which brings to mind some kind of fleshy swiffer. Resting allows juices within the meat, which are driven inwards from the outer parts of the meat when heat is applied, to redistribute evenly throughout.
I hate to be pedantic and, I'll admit, a bit dickish, but it's hard to put much stock in a writer who not only gushes about a free meal, but also seems not to know very basic facts about her subject matter. If I'm going to try a restaurant based on a review, I have to trust the writer. I don't.
I agree about Le Bifthèque being godawful and I trust that this (rebranded?) restaurant will be superior by an order of magnitude.
That said, I have to say that I've always snickered at their ads, just because they went with the pathetically minimalist, moronic, classless name: "STEAK."
While it's true that everything sounds nicer in French, this is a just a horrible translation. It reminds me of nothing less than one particularly dull-witted Homer Simpson moment:
Marge: Homer, I have to go out to pick up something for dinner.
Homer: (hopeful) Steak?
Marge: Hmmm, money's too tight for steak.
Homer: (even more hopeful) Steak??
Marge: Eh...sure. "Steak."
Homer: (admiring a discarded peanut) Ah, the last peanut. Overflowing with the oil and salt of its departed brothers...
Thanks for your comments, everyone.
First, yes, it was free, but secondly, I happened to like it. If I didn't, I would've been honest and said so. I do find much of the atmosphere in Toronto steakhouses old-fashioned, having been to many of the older, classic ones numerous times. Most times the steaks are awful too. STEAK was modern, AND it was good. That's what I tried to convey. Does that make me "shilly"? Gosh, I thought it was just being happy to share a good experience.
On resting: I stand by my original phrasing. Michael, you're splitting hairs. If you're going to question my food knowledge, I think I need to cook for you.
If that's all it takes to get a free meal, hell, I question the living shit out of your food knowledge Ms. K. One steak, medium rare please. Hold the frites, I'm watching my girlish figure.
Fuck it, I'll take a PBJ at this point. I'm so hungry after reading about steak.
Oh, there are ways to screw up PBJ, never mind meat.
Catherine, as you might expect, I disagree that I am splitting hairs, although I fully admit to nit-picking and being pedantic.
Resting meat does not collect juices. It does not acquire, accumulate or amass them. The amount of juice does not increase. Quite to the contrary, as Harold McGee proved in "The Curious Cook," resting meat actually loses juice as it rests, hence the small puddle that collects on the cutting board or plate beneath it.
That's not splitting hairs, it's using the correct words to describe something.
As for my "shill-y" comment, had you chosen to disclose your relationship with the restaurant yourself, I might not have written anything and just put it down to our taste in food writing being different. But clearly you didn't want us to know that your meal was comped and that, to me, smacks of quid pro quo and, ultimately, shilling.
By your line of reasoning then, if Jon Kaplan writes a positive review of a play, he has to disclose he saw it for free. If Beppi Crosariol writes joyfully about a great bottle of chardonnay, he has to say he got it for free. If George Stroumboulopoulos has good things to say about a new band, he has to say he got their CD/saw their show for free. You seem to imply that comping automatically results in shilling. I can be just as critical as the next journo in making up my own mind on whether I like something, free or not, and so can the rest of the contributors on Torontoist and elsewhere.
In this case, David said he would be putting an additional comment about my invite in, and I supported him fully in that decision, because I feel it's fair for Torontoist readers to know. I trust you are all smart enough to make up your own minds about STEAK, just as I have. Comp or not, I am able to discern whether or not I had a good meal... and I did. I might add that I wasn't the only journalist invited, nor was I the only one who was impressed. Would I have said the same if I'd paid? Absolutely. I plan on returning with my hard-earned cash.
Re. "collecting": if Nigella Lawson and Jamie Oliver can use it, so can I. Alas, we're all wrong, I guess.
As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no intent to deceive the reader on Catherine's part for this article. We both simply forgot that her having the food comped was something that ought to have been mentioned in her review.
Hey, Catherine, have your free food but put some substance into your review, please! Apart from a couple of sentences I could have written it based on reading their menu list and viewing interior shots on Flickr; no need to set foot inside Steak... I am not a huge fan of James Chatto (TO Life) but check his reviews or NY Times' Frank Bruni's, perhaps? Or his predecessor, Ruth Reichl's?
Panko: Well stated. I probably wouldn't be boring other readers with all of this if I were able to put things as succinctly as you. The writing in this piece seems to have been torn from the pages of one of those free magazines given out in hotel lobbies. My hat is off to you, sir (or madam) for pointing it!
David: It's a very regrettable omission. Anyone who read this before you mentioned it, or didn't opt to read the comments really isn't getting the full story. It's amazing how differently one reads an article when it includes a disclaimer that there's something that might possibly (or not) compromise the writer's objectivity. It's pretty standard practice in the world of food writing which, understandably, has never been Torontoist's focus, so I hope this is a case of 'live and learn'.
Catherine: Where to start?
> Do all of those people 'have to' acknowledge their comps? Probably not, but in the perfect world I occasionally allow myself to image, the return from which inevitably and unfailingly disappoints me and fills me with despair, they would. And should.
I find it curious that you didn't mention any restaurant reviewers or food journalists among your examples though. There is the expectation that restaurant reviewers don't get comped. Or if they do, they go to some lengths to make mention of it. Per Panko, have a look at Toronto Life or the New York Times some time. "Reviews are conducted anonymously whenever possible; restaurant bills are paid by Toronto Life." Doesn't take much to say that off the top and it makes a big difference.
I think part of the issue here, even if it is one of gradations and not distinct type, is that a single restaurant review can have far greater influence than other types of review. (Beppi Crosariol excluded, perhaps. Incidentally, he's the best you can come at me with? Jesus. Who's next, John Stossel?) For most other products, there is a market beyond a specific location that opens it up to many, many more reviews, effectively diluting the influence of any single review. But a restaurant review is, given its limited audience, expectation of objectivity (or candor), and disproportionate influence - at least in comparison to other types of review - an entirely different animal. It's a step up, really, from word of mouth. I'd want to know if my friend was getting paid to recommend places to me as well.
> If, as you say, you trust everyone is smart enough to make up their own minds about whether STEAK is good or not, why didn't you trust them to make up their minds whether to trust a comped writer or not?
> As for your "I wasn't the only journalist invited" comment, I really think we've exhausted "Everyone else was doing it" as an acceptable defense for behaving less than admirably.
> Finally, if Nigella Lawson and Jamie Oliver - who are both lovely in their own way, don't get me wrong - are your go-to sources for food fact and knowledge, well... I wish you well in the world of food journalism. I'm sure you've got tougher audiences than me in store
The best thing is that meat is cooked precisely to order; you ask for medium rare, and that’s just what you get.
This kind of statement comes up a lot in non-pro reviews of steakhouses. It always kind of irks me: When I'm paying $50 for a steak, it better damn well be medium-rare if I ask for it medium-rare.
Really, any chef with a certain enough amount of training should be able to cook a steak to order with his eyes closed (literally, since you test a steak's "doneness" by poking it with your finger). It seems strange to congratulate a steakhouse for not f*cking up your steak.
It does, but on three separate occasions, at three different steakhouses, I've had to send my steak back (sometimes more than once) because it wasn't done the way I asked. For me, listening the first time has become praise-worthy, when logically, it shouldn't be. You'd be surprised how easily a busy or inexperienced chef can screw up a good piece of meat.
I'm curious.. What exactly did you eat, and what are you reciting from the menu? I assume you ate the shrimp (what was woody about it?). It also sounds like you might have eaten all of the sides? What steak did you eat? How did everything taste? How was it presented? Were the wait staff knowledgeable? How timely was the service? Did you have wine with your meal? Did you have dessert?
Basically, what was YOUR experience? The review certainly displays your positive opinion of the restaurant, but it says nothing really specific about what your dinner experience was like, and that's what really matters.
Heck, what sort of places have you been going to that serve you bad steak? I've been to many here, including Harbour 60, Ruth's, Barberians.. I've never had a bad steak.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest that the reviewer didn't mention the meal was free. Hooray, a free meal!
Didn't have a problem with the food either; I ordered steak, green beans and a baked potato when I went in January, and that's what they brought. It tasted like steak, green beans and a baked potato, so that worked out okay.
But I must disagree with these opening statements:
"If you...want to impress a date, or if you just feel like being decadent...STEAK provides a refreshingly modern atmosphere, free from the dull conformity of a chain or the drab interior (and even more drab kitchen stylings) of nostalgic steakhouses."
The Sandwich Box* across the street is more "decadent" than this place. The moment I walked in I heard the chain bells ring. To me, it seemed like Swiss Chalet dressed up as a fancy hotel steak joint (no offense to Swiss Chalet intended, of course. It is what it is and doesn't try to pass itself off as Canoe.) But come on - even the booths are as lumpy as when it was Biftheque. With those prices, I'd like a lumpless booth, thank you. New name, splash of paint, perhaps, but it has a similar, uh, drab feel as the previous incarnation. I was mildly curious when I saw it from the outside, but after my meal, I thought, "Oh. I guess that's it."
Much the same as when, after ten years of construction at Yonge and Dundas, the folks at AMC Theatres used the same vomitous carpet/decor as every other multi-plex. That'll teach me not to expect any better.
i can't say i'm not disappointed.
after all the backroom talk about how restaurant reviews on torontoist weren't really viable because of the cost factor and a lack of format, this is what we get? a free shill that panko has accurately described as a tear sheet?
what has been failed to be communicated here is that free is an issue because it then implies that the restaurant knows exactly when and where you will be sitting down with them. anonymity is key in a business where it's relatively all service. food might appear to be the product but the effort and quality of your ingredients are controlled by a chef offering you a service that's more than just meat. give anyone the exact same piece of nicely marbled cut of ribeye but see who will f*ck it up without experience or with experience but on a night when they're trying to put out hundreds of orders... or when they just don't care because you're just a schmuck off the street.
now make you a journalist with a predetermined reservation and look at how much time and effort they could spend on your individual order. in fact, i'm quite sad for your non-journalist dining counterparts sharing the same room as you. chances are they had a much lesser experience because much more time would have gone into the "free" table.