The love for Shake Shack is not universal. New York Times food critic Pete Wells penned a rather honest review of the burger joint, and it ain't all good. Others who have visited the place and been less than satisfied will feels Wells' words as he goes in:
How the burger could change lives I never divined, but on occasion it was magnificent, as beefy and flavorful as the outer quarter-inch of a Peter Luger porterhouse.
More often, though, the meat was cooked to the color of wet newsprint, inside and out, and salted so meekly that eating it was as satisfying as hearing a friend talk about a burger his cousin ate.
Even when the burgers were great, they could be great in one of two distinct ways. In the classic Shake Shack patty, a tower of ground beef is flattened against a searing griddle with a metal press and made to stay there, spitting and hissing, until one surface turns all brown and crunchy. A patty handled this way takes command of a Shackburger, standing up to its tangy sauce, its crisp lettuce, its wheels of plum tomato.
Sometimes, though, the grill cook hadn’t had the energy needed for smashing and searing. Instead the patty was tall, soft and melting, so pink inside that its juices began to soak the bun at the first bite. Good as this version was, it was anomalous
Well, there you have it. His words weren't all negative; he commended Danny Meyer's workers for their hospitality. Despite what you may think, Wells doesn't hate Shake Shack, he just acknowledges that there are other options.
Although Gothamist disagreed with the bulk of Wells' sentiments, they agreed on one area—those fries definitely aren't the shake.