Chicagoist: Baby-on-Board Review: Su Van's Cafe and Bakeshop

Boomshakalaka

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:44:29 -0600

First of all, Decaf coffee still has caffiene in it, and expecting/nursing mothers still should not drink it. Decaf coffee is NOT the same as noncaffinated coffee. And, they do offer decaf americanos (decaf espresso blended with hot water) at the price of a normal cup of coffee. Second of all, I have been a regular here for years and I think they have great food. Try the weekend brunch if you can handle having your mind blown. Do your research before you go snubbing an great cafe with amazing food.

Brittany

Mon, 21 May 2007 20:21:01 -0600

As a parent myself, I find no fault in a review of an all-around so-so (or even bad) restaurant. I think, in fact, this review of Su Van's is particularly pertinent in that it's located near a popular baby store. Lots of family foot traffic = lots of potential customers. As a mom on the go, I frequently keep an eye out for good restaurants, and often proximity is a huge factor in deciding whether or not to eat at an establishment. Because of Elizabeth Shapiro's review, I now know that Su Van's is just average (or below) as far as baby-friendliness and food go, and will steer my tastebuds and toddler elsewhere. In general, I think reviews of "bad" places are just as valuable as those of "good." There doesn't need to be any hierarchy of restaurants reviewed, either. In fact, it would be a disservice to your epicurean readers to limit reviewed knowledge to only "good" places, or to work down a list of "good" to "bad" restaurant reviews.

Bill

Thu, 17 May 2007 11:02:43 -0600

this place is worth checking out for their candied pancakes alone. just looks like you have to hit it on the weekends.

matty

Thu, 17 May 2007 10:14:47 -0600

I kind of don't get the review either. I mean, isn't it more helpful to have a list of places that are kid friendly as opposed to ones that are not? or places that are good to eat at rather than a list of places that are not good to eat?

Scott

Wed, 16 May 2007 23:56:40 -0600

Ate there sunday. Had the same sandwich. thought it was good and not at all rubbery. Didn't like my flavored ice tea, but definately will be going back.

Chi-Town Mama

Wed, 16 May 2007 21:57:09 -0600

Thunder+Animals, When we go out to eat with our baby, our favorite waiters are those who are around but not impatiently hovering. As new parents, we never know when that melt-down will happen; when it does, we really want to make a quick exit so as not to disturb other people. Sometimes we can make it through dessert, other times-- we need a box, asap. Patience and a sense of humor is huge, too. We're doing our best to be human (enjoy restaurants) and civil (not too disruptive to others).... kind wait staff is always very, very appreciated by parents! And we do leave bigger tips since we've been parents! Good luck to you.

thundercougarfalconbird

Wed, 16 May 2007 17:56:11 -0600

Just wondering on the topic of "kid friendly"... Here's a question that may or may not have a ton to do with the review, but I have a gig where I wait tables in a high (really high) volume restaurant that has a lot of kids come through. What can a server bring to the table (figuratively and literally) to help make a parent's experience better and/or easier? And, incidentally... raise my tips.

Mikey

Wed, 16 May 2007 17:18:10 -0600

I appreciate the review--I have always wondered about Su Van's myself. My guess is that a Very child-friendly; great food restaurant is probably already fairly well-known and doesn't necessarily warrant a review. I could write a review on Ruth Chris or Gibson's and say what great steaks they have, but what would the point in that be? You expect good steak from a reputable and pricey steakhouse...

Jen

Wed, 16 May 2007 16:46:10 -0600

Apologies for erroneously claiming that Elizabeth has only reviewed two restaurants for Chicagoist. Chicagoist only has two tagged with the "baby on board" link, and I'm really just taking issue with the reviewed restaurants in that category.

Jen

Wed, 16 May 2007 16:34:26 -0600

Julene, you seem to imply that food critics should review every restaurant at which they eat. As a journalist who's known and worked with several food critics, I can tell you that's not the case. Good journalists--whether they're food critic, political reporters or on any other beat--do their research before writing a story. Some leads pan out, others don't. I never implied that Chicagoist should only review "good" restaurants, and a good review is far from an advertisement--an objective journalist should still point out fair criticisms of an otherwise great restaurant. My point was this: Elizabeth Shapiro is reviewing restaurants that are child-friendly. Her biggest value to her audience is to alert them to restaurants that a) are child friendly and b) have great food. Did she run out of child-friendly restaurants with great food after her first published review on Chicagoist? There are no others in the city or suburbs that are child-friendly with great food, so now she has to review sort of child-friendly restaurants (with no changing tables in the bathrooms) with lousy food? As a journalist who has a strong interest in food criticism, I would suggest that her priority in reviewing restaurants should be: 1. Very child-friendly; great food 2. Sort of child-friendly; great food 3. Very child-friendly; above average but not great food 3. High-profile places that claim to be child-friendly, but aren't (in other words, the places that parents might mistakenly go, and should actually avoid), regardless of what the food tastes like. All of these reviews are more valuable to readers with children than a review of a low-profile, sort of child-friendly place with lousy food.

geekgrrl

Wed, 16 May 2007 16:31:49 -0600

1. elizabeth's done many more than two reviews. check out her history on the staff page. 2. they can't all be winners. so what if it's a bad review of a small restaurant? this could highlight the very reason they don't have a lot of customers: they might not deserve to be in business. that's turnover. myself, i'm not going to eat at a place that sucks just because they're *not* a big chain or that they're family-owned.

Tambreet

Wed, 16 May 2007 15:49:31 -0600

I couldn't disagree more. I live by Su-Vans and eat here all the time, albeit usually for their weekend brunch. The food and ingredients are some of the best I've eaten and it's all quite inexpensive with friendly, personable service. And unlike most of the good city brunch spots, it's never crowded or rushed. I probably wouldn't go too far out of my way to eat there, but Su-Vans is a great neighborhood restaurant.

Bill V

Wed, 16 May 2007 15:47:35 -0600

I have not heard anything great about the cafe, but when I want some cool duds for my kids I take the extra walk down Roscoe to Little Threads. Last week picked up Clash and Police t-shirts, other cool things too (http://www.shoplittlethreads.com/).

Julene

Wed, 16 May 2007 15:46:50 -0600

It's kind of impossible to know what kind of service and/or caliber of food one might receive before they go to a restaurant. And you only want "good" reviews? Doesn't that make the idea of reviewing a place impossible? That makes it an advertisement.

Jen

Wed, 16 May 2007 15:28:28 -0600

This review is really frustrating. What is the point in writing a lousy review of a low-profile restaurant? There is news value to reviewing high-profile restaurants that suck...quite appropriately, you want to warn readers away from them. But Su Van is a low-profile, low-traffic restaurant (you admit that there were no other patrons on one of your visits). In that case, what value does this review serve? Wouldn't your readers derive more benefit from reviews of places that serve good food and are child friendly? It appears that Elizabeth Shapiro is 0-for-2 in her "Baby on Board" restaurant reviews.

rachelle bowden

Wed, 16 May 2007 14:52:05 -0600

i've walked past sue van's so many times and wondered if it was good and have wanted to try it. i think i'll pass....