chip chowdown: arturo's versus lazo's
Each has their share of devotees. Some prefer the wide-open floor plan and weekend live music at Lazo's, others like the muralled coziness of Arturo's. There's no doubt the food served at both locations is mediocre: With occasional exceptions, you're likely to be be served dry meat, listless rice and pastey refried beans on any given visit.
Those menu items aside, GreaseFreak really only cares about the chips and salsa. How do they compare? Well...
|
Arturo's, 2001 N. Western Ave. TASTE:  PRESENTATION: AMBIENCE: Arturo's chips usually taste more like cardboard than ground corn. Extremely bland and woefully dry, they're a poor excuse for an appetizer. Fortunately, the pico de gallo that accompanies them is outstanding. The red sauce, not so much. |
|
Lazo's, 2009 N. Western Ave. TASTE: PRESENTATION: AMBIENCE: Like its competitor's next door, Lazo's chips are thin, papery and altogether lackluster. If not for the salt, they'd have almost no taste at all. The cilantro-laden red sauce, though spicy, does little to make up for the lack of flavor. |
UPDATE: As of early March 2010, approximately nine months after the grub vs. grub showdown, Greasefreak was served better quality chips at Arturo's on several occasions.
greasefreak menu grub vs. grub menu
©2009 Peter Strazzabosco