We Midwesterners are a simple people. Fancy restaurants? Nah. We just like a few quality ingredients and a friendly, corn-fed waitstaff. So it's nice of the New York Times to notice one of our favorite Wicker Park restaurants, Mado, a review of which appeared on Sunday.
Let’s get this out of the way: We love Mado. It’s a complete gem, and it’s great that the mighty New York Times has noticed it, especially as it lacks a celebrity chef or a 43rd floor location. Indeed, the Times has been paying a lot of attention to Chicago lately. Recently, Frank Bruni showed some love for the Publican and everyone has been oohing and aahing over the new Modern Wing. This might lead one to believe that we have been granted a place among the fashionable set, and the thought makes us blush. We barely even noticed that the Times, back in March, said that the city didn't have much fashion sense until Michelle Obama went shopping in the "soho-like" West Loop. We're happy to be (or to date) the "stylish but sensible girl next door," (Chicago) rather than a "sleek sophisticate in black" (New York) or a "tanned blonde in a tank top and jewels" (Los Angeles).
This time, they’ve sent their travel critics on an expedition to eat like us, and they went to Mado. The review begins: “Straightforwardness is a virtue in the Midwest, so Chicago’s fanciest restaurants often seem both splendid and desperately out of place.” Apparently, this is a conflict we hadn’t noticed. Mado is certainly "splendid," and the restaurant revels in it's locally-sourced ingredients - nothing Mado serves is from more than 200 miles away. One of the reasons that Chicago's fanciest restaurants aren't "desperately out of place" is this commitment to serving the best the Midwest has to offer. Whether it be produce from the Green City Market served at North Pond or great local sausages at the Gage, we dare New York to match our great ingredients. We love that Mado is "intentionally, contentedly Midwestern," because it means they serve food that we can be proud of.



I'm glad you brought to attention the more recent surges of Chicago related reviews in the Arts section of the NYTimes. It's nice to see Chicago get some print time.
The duck terrine is perfection. And the shortbread? Resplendent.
Do we really want the rest of the world to know about our favorite places? I like chicago (relatively) snob free. (Oh and I missing something...west loop shopping??)
Every time once of these articles pops up, I find myself wondering why we should care. We don't get excited when some piece of Chicago makes it into the Louisville Courier-Journal or the Cleveland Plain-Dealer. Why should a mention in the New York Times matter?
without the Lousivlle Courier-Journal, where else could I get my new guilty pleasure updates; 'Southern Belle's'