text:
Best food city in North America.
I know I am potentially starting a colossal debate but I am certainly interested to hear opinions and what's behind them.
My vote is for Vancouver, BC. Great ethnic, especially Chinese. Lots of really good regional as well with chefs getting many many ingredients from nearby islands, ocean, Fraser Valley and Okanagan. Wine region close too. They have it all going for them and it shows in the diversity and quality of restaurants and markets there.
I myself feel that every city has the best food city in North America or the world if you search. Every place I have visited has provided me with some special epicurean memory. I will be honest I would not most likely eat French or Italian in Mexico City I would want Mexican. I try to focus on regional. Have always returned home with well pleased taste buds. Tex-Mex, Barbeque, Southern food Dallas, New Mexican in Santa Fe, Taos, Cajun in New Orleans, Salmon on plank Whistler BC, Fish and Chips Horseshoe Bay BC, etc etc.....
1. San Francisco
2. Nyc
4.New Orleans
Never been to Canada,(but Toronto is on my list to checkout), and only went to Tijuana, nothing exciting gastronomic happening there except diarrea.-
re: chuckaukau
". . .and only went to Tijuana, nothing exciting gastronomic happening there except diarrea."
Tijuana? Are you serious? You do realize that foodies who extol the virtues of Mexican cuisine are not talking about food in the border towns, right?!
Venture into areas such as Mexico City and Puerto Vallarta (the only Mexican cities I can attest to), you may in fact something "exciting gastronomic happening there".
re: Sam Fujisaka
If "exciting gastronomic happenings" are restricted only to upscale then Tijuana is certainly not a contender. Of course if you include Ensenada & the surrounding wine country in the definition of Tijuana... it starts becoming a player as the top restaurants there are in a category that would include French Laundry... and having been to Alan Wong's and a few other top rated Honolulu restaurants.... I don't think there is anything in Honolulu that is in the same class.
Now if we are going to include mid brow cuisine.... I would ask if chuckaukau has experienced any food outside of the tourist traps in Ave. Revolucion... there is certainly no explosion of creativity... but there is lots of solid traditional food. The quailty of ingredients & general cooking ability in Tijuana's traditional restaurants (where the locals eat) BLOWS away what is generally available in Honolulu. The caveat of course is that I haven't been to all the Izakaya's and mid brow places in Kaimuki.
If we get down the low brow experience... it would be interesting to compare place by place... I really doubt Honolulu's "Steak Plates", Lunch Wagons, Korean BBQ joings etc., are anywhere near Tijuana's street food... not only in ingredient quality, execution.. but also in cleanliness. Almost every time I eat in Honolulu mom & pop places (and thats all that is near me) I end up with Diarrea... I don't want to get graphic here.... but I have easily had intestinal distress some 25 times in only 9 months of living here... I started logging them and sure enough it always happens within 24 hours of eating out. Its not surprising most restaurants in Honolulu are pretty dirty, the kitchens are very cramped... and in general you get the idea that the little mom & pop places don't follow sanitation codes. Even the locals tend to raise an eyebrow and always tell me.. i must have a stomach of steel.... no I am just a Chowhound. In general though... most little restaurants in Tijuana offer open kitchens... so you see the sanitation procedures... if a place isn't clean you just don't eat in it.
re: Eat_Nopal
Expanding on Tijuana... while I would NEVER imply that Tijuana is ready to challenge for North American Top 10... I think its WAY UNDERRATED. I realize that someone who stumbled around Ave. Revolucion with a Corona in hand 20 years ago would not think of TJ as a hot bed of culinary delights... it has come along way in the last 15 years.
First... we should recognize that Tijuana - birthplace of the internationally famous Cesar Salad has been a tiny cauldron if gastronomic creations since the 1920's... its restaurant infrastructure & ideas have ebbed over the decades... but it has not been a complete gastronomic backwater.
Next... to understand the changes going on in TJ... you need to understand that the emergence of Fine Dining & Creative cuisine is heavily correlated with the development of an Upper Middle Class & the New Rich. The truly wealthy historically don't dine out as much... to them that is for Schmucks... they hire grads out of the best cooking schools in Europe procure the rarest of wines... and dine in their various homes. The Upper Middle Class & New Rich have high disposable incomes but aren't wealthy enough to emulate the truly wealthy and aren't allowed in the same social circles... so instead they feed the Fine Dining & Travel industry. Since NAFTA... Tijuana has seen a huge increase in Upper Middle Class & New Rich.. and predictably this has fueled a higher Gastronomic & Wine IQ, as well as a growing Cosmopolitan view of the world.
Today... Tijuana might not have as many Fine Dining restaurants as cities like Honolulu, San Diego or Vancouver... but the assets they do have are top notch. For example.. Tijuana has a Baja-Italian restaurant that blows away the pathetic Italian restaurants in Honolulu / O'ahu.. not only does Villa Saverio deliver well executed straight up Tuscan cuisine... but also offers modern classic Baja-Med dishes, and original dishes that certainly expel the notion of "nothing exciting gastronomic happening there". Beyond the creative side of the menu.. Villa counts on OUTSTANDING local ingredients... the seafood in Baja will match anything in Hawaii... and I would argue it surpasses Hawaii... because in addition to the great Tuna, Marlin, Mahi, White Shripm & other seafood it shares in common with Hawaii... Baja offers Spiny Lobsters, Clams, Mussels, Sea Urchin & Abalone that are handily superior to what we have here in Hawaii.
In addition.. even though its in a hotel, the Grand Bistro is a solid, solid French restaurant... comparable to Honolulu's La Mer... similar to La Mer its not the most creative place around... and the food tends to be more of the heavy, classic Parisian cuisine... but nonetheless nothing to scoff at.
Then you have Cien Anos... the jewel of the Tijuana scene. Not to be confused with money laundering Hacienda Cien Anos... this is the place that help jump start the post NAFTA culinary scene here. This has been the pace setter for Baja-Med creativity... nowadays the baton has probably passed to Benito Molina & his restaurants... but Cien Anos is a restaurant that most cities in North America would love to count in their culinary balance sheet:
As you go further down the list you have places like La Diferencia.. that while are straddling more of the mid level sphere, compare favorably to Honolulu classics like Roy's:
Now... while it is true that Tijuana only has 25 or so restaurants in the same league as Villa Saverior, Cien Anos, La Diferencia etc., its still shows that there are interesting things going particularly given that its really all happened in the last 9 years.
And then there are other interesting things going on... I have heard the fusion cooking at Sushi Thai is good, that a couple of respectable traditional Sushi joints have opened up... as well as a dozen or so fast food Sushi joints that... don't forget have access to world class seafood. And lets not forget there is still a couple of quality Cantonese restaurants back from the day when the Chinese immigrant community was quite large.
Part of the problem with this question is that the best food is rarely found in cities. Food doesn't spring from concrete and pollution. I've yet to travel anywhere in the world where the best meal I had was in a city - except the few countries I've been to that I never made it out to the countryside, like India and China.
There's a huge difference between the best food city to visit and the best food city to live in, IMO. I would love to spend time sampling the food in Mexico City, but I would hate to live there for a long stretch because of the lack of good ethnic foods from other areas.
re: Panini Guy
I've lived overseas in places with really strong local cuisines, but pretty weak ethnic offerings from other areas. Oh, they had plenty of foreign restaurants...they were just never that good. The existence of some American ex-pats kept the burgers at least edible, but the absence of a Mexican population meant the Mexican food was completely butchered. I've never tried Asian food in Mexico City. How does it compare to Asian food in NYC, SF, LA, Toronto, or Vancouver?
re: huaqiao
Can't talk to Vancouver as never been, but as for Mexico City, the better sushi places seemed better than other cities. Japanese and Korean in general was excellent (large populations of each). Chinese not quite to SF standards. South Asian was solid and perhaps even a bit more ambitious (and spicier!). Even Middle Eastern tasted better than up north.
Granted, this is a time capsule vote as it was awhile ago since last visit. But having grown up around and eaten through NYC and working visits to TO/Chi/SF/LA, other than shortcomings for mid-priced Italian and deli, Mexico City compares favorably to the best of other cities, and tops them in many areas (regional Latin/South American for certain - it's a big continent!).
Remember also that it's kind of like putting together the quality of the largest city (let's say NY/LA/TO) with the wide variety of a capital city (DC) so you not only get everything (those diplomats have to eat somewhere), but you get a lot of good everything.
re: huaqiao
Mexico City Ethnic Cuisine
Do immigrants (who speak native languages as their first language) from other parts of Mexico count as Ethnic? If so Mexico City rivals the Ethnic diversity of any other major city in North America. If you hit the blue collar Delegaciones (Mexico City is split in to 16 "buroughs") you can find restaurants & vendors that serve up the food of roughly 40 out of Mexico's 120 native ethnicities.... each offering 10 to 30 endemic dishes not found on menus pertaining to other ethnic groups. The differences between Chamulan cuisine and say Yucatec Maya is as vast as the difference between New Orleans & Maine.
Foreign Ethnicities
> Mexico City has a handful of very authentic, high quality, high end Cantonese places run by Hong Kong born chefs kept honest by the substantial Chinese business community in MC. I have eaten at two of them and they are San Gabriel Valley caliber.... there just isn't that many of them, they aren't cheap (relative to local prices).
> Sushi... MC has about a dozen L.A. level traditional, good sushi places and a couple of outstanding ones.... will not rival L.A. on breadth & depth but they are there. Then there are several dozen or so low end Sushi joints including the types with conveyer belts.
> Other Japanese... Teppanyaki, Udon are represented with 12 or so quality places.
Lebanese... is a strenght in Mexico City with a big immigrant community. Not only are there some very good restaurants but the parties at the Centro Libanes probably serve up the best Lebanese in North America.
re: Eat_Nopal
I really don't think immigrants from other parts of Mexico are what people mean by ethnic diversity in this context. I can't imagine anyone would seriously challenge the claim that Mexico City has the very best and most diverse Mexican and Latin American food.
I like your category of "foreign ethnicities." Do you (or anyone else) have access to the demographics of foreign ethnic groups in Mexico City? I still have hard time believing that it's as diverse as Los Angeles, which is why I also have a hard time accepting your insistence that Mexico City is the superior food city.
re: a_and_w
It's difficult to get accurate figured for immigrant populations in a city the size of New York. It's damn near impossible in a place the size of Mexico City. The available data suggests a wide range of nationalities, but not large numbers of each. The fact that estimates show over 90% of Mexico City residents being Roman Catholic is telling.
But why is diversity the key indicator for how good the food in a certain city is? If size and diversity are such huge factors, don't we need to start considering Houston? I understand that diversity means more variety, but isn't quality far more important than variety? I'd take fantastic but repetive over mediocre but varied any day.-
re: danieljdwyer
Very interesting -- I see your point about the difficulty of getting reliable demographic figures.
I've actually heard great things about the food in Houston. But I should clarify that it's not just about diversity -- the size of these diverse ethnic populations obviously matters, too. LA and NY are such great food cities because they have large enough foreign ethnic populations to support some really authentic and delicious places that might not otherwise survive.
re: a_and_w
I agree with you, a_and_w. For a very long time. San Francisco was THE food city for me - that is, until my most recent experience in Los Angeles changed all that. I'll just speak from an Asian food perspective: I came across Indonesian restaurants in LA where waiters & customers converse in their native dialect and served hard to find authentic burn-your-mouth sambal pete; delicious soto ayam that tasted as if you're back in the streets of Jakarta; and authentic Indonesian kue-kue (which are so labor-intensive, you'd be hard-pressed to find them outside Indonesia). Heck, the Indonesian food I found in LA was even more authentic than those I found in my own hometown here in Singapore, even though we're an hour away from Indonesia.
Then, we can choose to pop into a Thai restaurant 200 yards away from the Indon one, and find Thai cuisine which is so authentic, my Thai great-grandmother could have been the one cooking it. Wait-staff can take my orders in Thai, recommend to-die for tom kha kai; delicious pad Thai (complete with liberal lashings of sugar & chilli flakes); stir-fried fish maw with mustard leaves like those one would find in Yaowarat, Bangkok; etc. In a huge restaurant full of Thai diners, for that one fleeting moment, I felt like I was transported back to Bangkok!
Then, one can drive down to Artesia and come across some of the most authentic Indian restaurants lining both sides of the streets: step into a Southern Indian restaurant for a meal of dosas, upuma, fluffy steamed idlis (which reminds one of those you've enjoyed in the famous Murugan's in Chennai), vadais; then traipse round the corner for some thick sweetened tea and an array of Gujarati sweets; or choose to step into a Keralan eatery for coconut-rich seafood curries. Or step into a chaat shop for some pav bhaji or vada pao, like those you'd find outside Chatrapati Sivaji Terminus in Mumbai. Whatever Indian foods you missed from Mumbai to Chennai, you can find in LA! And they are authentic. But none more so than the diversity and depth of Chinese cuisine you'll find in LA. One need not visit Taiwan to be inducted into Taiwanese bubble tea culture, or sample an authentic HK-style "bolo bao" with "nai cha" in a HK cha chaan teng, surrounded by a chattering of Cantonese speakers.
Pop into the Filipino quarter, and you'd find outletrs of Filipino food chains: Jollibee burgers, Goldilocks baked goods, etc.
All these ethnic diversity, amidst some of the best Californian cuisine, some of the best Mexican food outside of Mexico, and a myriad of other food choices, that's why I simply love LA.
re: danieljdwyer
Thanks for the back up... let me make a few points:
> It is absolutely true that Mexico City doesn't have huge numbers of most immigrant groups. Yes its true that Mexico's census doesn't do a good job of classifying ethnic groups particularly foreign groups so its difficult to estimate the numbers. What we do know is that the Lebanese & Eastern European Jews are sizeable. A quick glance at the 180,000 sq ft Centro Libanes while not providing empiricable evidence should indicate the strength of the Lebanese contingent:
I don't know how many Jews there are in DF but there are about 30 Jewish synagogues listed in one particular directory alone..
Other sizeable groups include Argentinians, Koreans, Chinese & Japanese. In smaller numbers (hundreds maybe a few thousand) you will find people from the major countries of the world.
One thing to note is that big numbers don't always guarantee a proliferation of well representative cuisine... certainly most of L.A's Mexican offering is pretty poor & limited in scope & variety... despite a huge population. What you find in L.A. is less than 1/10 of 1% of what Mexico has to offer. Part of the reason is you have too many people doing the same menu (of foods the mainstream culture expects but which the restaurant owners might never have even tasted in Mexico)... and racing to the bottom of price scale and hence using poor quality ingredients & taking short cuts.
With regards to variety... what I can guarantee is that any Chowhound who could afford to do nothing but explore & eat... I could take you around Mexico City having a great new dish every meal, 3 meals a day for 10 years in a row no problem... in other words there are at least 11,000 dishes, sufficiently unique & delicious on offer in Mexico City's 100,000+ dining locations such that you would be happy.
re: Eat_Nopal
I guess I missed making a point that needs to be made. If your main experiences with Mexican cuisine is the lame offering in L.A. with a few vacations to resort areas... you have no idea of the breadth & depth in the cuisine. I know most people can recite the major influences in Mexican cooking developed over the last 3,000 years if culinary development. But what does it really mean for Mexico to have deep rooted Moorish influences cultivated over the last 500 years for example?
What it means to me... is the home cooking cuisine of Hidalgo with its living museum of Pre-Hispanic sauces, spiced with the flavors of Al Andaluz flavoring endemic vegetables, goats, lambs, lentils & garbanzos.... means the absence of Indian cooking is a little more venerable because after all what is a typical home cooked meal in Hidalgo? A thick puree of Pasilla chiles, tomatoes, onions, garlic, cinammon, black pepper, ginger served with fritters made from Amaranth greens, a wedge of soft queso fresco... a another bowl of garbanzos cooked in lamb broth, with a little fall apart tender bits of lamb, and chipotle peppers, a platter of boiled then sauteed potatoes, onions & jalapenos... and then some nice earthy blue corn tortillas to sop it all up... yeah its not exactly Indian cuisine... but its so close that I would bet a $100 (and yes I am being a little presumptions here)... that some poor Gujarati sick & tired of all the mediocre, Punjab owned & staffed, buffet places that everyone finds so hard to live without... might actually cry over having something a little closer to his region in Mexico than in Artesia.
No offence is intended to the good folk of Vancouver, and no one is contesting that wonderful vegetables are available in the market (the availability of wide range of organic meats and cheeses is not as good as in Central Canada). . But the depth and scope of the restaurant scene in Vancouver is just too limited to be considered the best food city in North America. Vancouver needs to move beyond the fusion era and be a bit more adventurous to be considered the Best Food City in North America. I travel a great deal, and this is simply my impression.
re: WowitsSpring
I love Vancouver as a food city. From the fascinating diversity of the regional speciality stalls in Richmond Public Market to the opulence of the dim sum houses, it may have the best chinese food in N. America. Izakaya at Guu is tough to beat, and I imagine that the sushi at all price points is very good. Likewise, the quality of the seafood generally there is outstanding, and well-executed at places like "C". Grandville Market is amazing. There is an impressive diversity of all manner of Asian cuisines in addition to Chinese and Japanese.
That being said, Vancouver is a relatively small metropolitan area, and its immigrant demographics are weighted so heavily toward Asian. This is why, as compared to larger N. American cities, numerous Latin-American and African cuisines in Vancouver are impoverished at best, non-existent at worst.
To me, the greatest N. American food city must avoid that state of affairs. That takes Vancouver out of the running. Still, overall, I'd put it in the top 5, after NYC, LA-SF (tie) and Chicago.
Conversely, out of respect for the importance of Asian cuisines for a great N. American food city, the relatively small Chinese and Japanese communities in Mexico (and truly miniscule Indian community) disqualify Mexico City IMO. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_La...
re: Eat_Nopal
You are getting carried away with inconsistent, twisted logic. Don't you think its a much bigger omission for a putative "greatest food city of North America" to neglect the entire Asian continent of cuisines as opposed just Central Europe or Argentina? The cummulative regional cuisines which make up the Chinese culinary tradition comprise one of the world's great cuisines, just like Mexico. I think Japanese and Indian are robust cuisines deserving of ample respect as well.
Mexico--the nation--has a Chinese population of about 35,000, a Japanese population of 20,000, and an Indian population of 400. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_La... . Compare with Peru, or other American cities (like Seattle, for example). I just think that's not going to produce the critical mass required to support a world class hotbed of Asian cuisines in D.F.
re: equinoise
Actually I would argue that Mexico City is vastly more supportive the Great Asian cuisines than its counterparts in the U.S & Canada. Without having anything close to a critical mass... Mexico City boasts a couple of Chinese restaurants that are comparable to top restaurants in the San Gabriel Valley & Vancouver... whereas in those cities its all driving by immigrants and only recently are a small percentage of non Chinese people willing to drop their prejudices about Chinese cuisine and appreciate the real stuff. The percentage of non-Chinese in Mexico City willing to embrace Cantonese as a Hong Kongese would serve it is higher than in the U.S. or Canada.
Mexico City isn't omitting a grand cuisine like China's out of disrespect. Would you disqualify Beijing as one of the world's greatest Food cities because it omits a grand cuisines like Mexican, Turkish & Greek?
No absolutely not. Cities like Beijing & Mexico offer just as much variety in flavors & ingredients as NYC, Vancouver B.C. & SF its just different boxes. The argument that NYC... which offers mediocre versions of many National cuisines should be granted some supreme status makes no sense... given that the average quality of the average meal in NYC is pretty low on ingredients & execution whether ethnic or not.
re: Eat_Nopal
I absolutely ADORE Mexican food & to me, Mexico City is definitely up there as one of the top food cities in N. America.
But my choice for best food city would be Los Angeles - why? Coz it has "the scene", like NY. But it also has the best Indian food I've had outside of India, the best Chinese I've had outside of Asia, and great sushi (on par with NY's).
My personal fave city? San Francisco, hands-down.
re: klyeoh
That is fair... its no secret that Mexico City... while having great restaurants & cantinas dating back to the 1800s... was in a sort of culinary doldrums through the 80's... but the gastronomic scene has exploded there since the 90's... I don't know what will happen with this serious recession & the Swine Flu epidemic... whether D.F. will continue on its explosive trajectory or we will see an end of a golden era.... but I don't think DF can be accussed of not having a scene. Sure... I am the first to admit that at the high end for every Per Se caliber restaurant in Mexico City... there are probably 4 in New York City..... but D.F. is no slouch in terms of hip & design conscious restaurants (many offer similarly mediocre food as you will find in L.A. & NY as well!)... but by my research there are now about 1,000 to 1,500 hip, stylish places to eat in D.F. (from casual to very high end)... there are about 250 that most people are familiar with & pimp... but also countless of lesser known Trattorias, Bistros, Cevicherias etc., up & down Reforma & side streets... that mean you can easily walk to a "scene" place from anywhere in the financial & tourist districts.
Also keep in mind... that many of the NYC, Paris, Madrid & Barcelona based fine dining have branches in DF... not that its anything to brag but the fact that the people behind the likes of Au Pied de Cochon, El Botin, China Grill etc., decide to open one of their few foreign ventures in Mexico City.. it tells you a little something about the scene.
L.A. is a small town compared to Mexico City on many levels.. including Cultural & Culinary assets... I don't think you can give L.A the edge over D.F. on scene. NYC I will accept... but not L.A., not S.F., not Chicago.
For my money in Canada the overall best and most varied scene is in Toronto. Vancouver has some great natural resources for cooking, and some excellent restaurants but the depth of the restaurant scene is more limited. Montreal lead the way back in the 50's but I don't see that scene as being groundbreaking in the past generation. This is no offence to any of the cities, and just my personal opinion.
I realize this thread originated a couple years ago, but I am grateful to however brought it back up. I read through it all with great curiosity, planning potential food trips in my head. It actually took me two sessions on two different days to read through the whole thing.
I tend to look at Mexican cuisine as North America's original, continuous, sophisticated cuisine. What other cuisine grew up here on North American soil and is so vast. It's roots are more ancient than the local charms of New Orleans or Charleston cuisine.
That being said, if someone put a plane ticket and some money in my hand, and said, "Go eat," I'm pretty sure that plane would be heading for New York...
NYC is the best restaurant city in North America.
LA is the best food city. The number of bustling farmer's markets even in the dead of Winter attest to the fantastic locally available produce. And the breadth and diversity of the ethnic cuisine is unmatched anywhere. NYC might best LA in ethnic European food, but LA has the upper hand in cuisines from every other corner of the globe.
Is the best Japanese restaurant in LA better than the best one in NYC or Toronto or SF? Maybe, maybe not. But the depth of Japanese cuisine in LA comes through when you look for things like high-end tempura omakase(of which there are a couple of options in LA) or okonomiyaki that you cook on a teppan like is traditionally done in Japan. The same situation exists for many other ethnic cuisines that are common in other large cities, but are developed to an amazing extent in LA itself.
For the visitor, LA is pretty confusing and hard to navigate. But for the adventurous local, it's easy to become spoiled by the abundance of restaurants that could not exist in any other city in North America.
re: huaqiao
I have lived in NYC and Chicago, and in my opinion Mexico City beats them both. Travelling around that country was a revelation, food-wise. I found the richness and variety of the food to be better than France and Spain, and I love those countries. Other than that, I find that in this country we have a lot of great restaurant towns, NYC, Chicago, New Orleans, SF are all obvious picks. I also like Cleveland, Philadelphia and Savannah.
re: huaqiao
LA's Farmer Markets / Local Grown Produce Markets are not only outclassed by Mexico City's, they are not only inferior... they are a joke its not even close. This is coming from someone who loves L.A.
On any given day there is an AVERAGE of 70+ street markets going on somewhere in Mexico City... the smallest have 65 vendors... the AVERAGE are about the size of the Santa Monica / 3rd Street Promenade market... the largest boast 600+ vendors.
On top of that... you have Mercado's like La Merced which blow Grand Central Market away in terms of volume, freshness & quality.
Then Mercado San Juan... there is absolutely NOTHING like it in L.A in terms of product selection. Imagine the charm of Grand Central Market but with high end specialty items like Pata Negra, Fine Cheese, Counters full of fresh Rabbits, Ducks, Lechon, Kid, Bluefin Tuna you name it. In L.A. you want some exotic / game meats... you have to go to stupid markets like Whole Foods, Gelsons or Bristol Farms... and then its usually frozen...
... its not even close. The volume of variety & quality of produce grown within 2 harvest days of Mexico City (i.e., looking only at stuff that is taken home within 48 hours of harvest) is unmatched in L.A. Not saying there isn't outlets in L.A where you can get freshly picked produce... but in L.A. its a miniscule fraction of produce consumed whearas in Mexico City it is a large part of the everyday diet.
re: Eat_Nopal
I mentioned the farmer's market thing mainly to rub salt in the wounds of those poor souls in the Northeast who don't have access to them in Winter. :P
But I agree, nothing in the US compares to the breadth and scale of fresh produce available in many other cities which don't rely on massive supermarkets as much as we do. Amongst US cities, though, Californian cities kind of rule the roost for year-round fresh produce.
re: huaqiao
Northeasterners can get fresh, local produce for over nine months a year - and yes, the other three months or so suck a little bit, but that's why we have to learn to be masters of drying, curing, pickling, jarring, et cetera.
You warmer climates have some great produce, I'll give you that, but Mediterranean, tropical, and subtropical climates are only ideal for certain kinds of produce.
New England has some amazing produce, though it can be tough to find, with many producers being so small they only sell it out of their garage. Farmer's markets have been catching on for the last decade, but they rarely have the best stuff.
I've actually come to enjoy the bare months, as the lengths they force one to go to require vastly expanding one's culinary knowledge. If it was always August or September, I probably wouldn't have learned to do much besides grill vegetables and meats and prepare a good clambake.
This debate seems to be more about best restaurant city than best food city overall.
With that in mind, my vote is for New York.
Others may excel in certain areas, like Asian food, or affordable street food. or classical French cuisine. But nothing can beat New York's five burroughs for the variety offered from the best four star restaurants to the hidden holes in the wall in every cuisine imaginable.
re: taos
Dotto, Taos. NYC is the best food city.
We have everything here. The finest French restaurants, from palaces to tiny Bistros. From grand Italian like Del Poste, to neighborhood trattoria. New American, traditional American; the Zagat Guide is 1/2 an inch thick, and that is only a small portion.
Add to that Ethnic cuisine of every variety on God's Green Earth, multiply it by hundreds and hundreds of restaurants, and you have NY.
From the $6 meal to the $200 meal, there are so many to choose from. Something for every taste, and every pocketbook.
After reading every one of the 300+ replies on this thread, I'm more convinced than ever that New Orleans is the top food city in North America, with Mexico City being a distant second.
No need to go anywhere else...
re: Clarkafella
if i had an airplane ticket to anywhere - and the money to eat .....
1. If i had to eat at ONE restaurant and return home, it would be Joel Rubichon's
on the other hand ....
2. if i could spend all that money wandering from restaurant to restaurant IN THE SAME CITY before returning home .... I would be hard pressed to choose between New Orleans and Philadelphia.-
re: G Goo
I am still looking for people passionate enough to write an essay on their pick for best food city in North America using the following criteria:
Native Cuisine
Does the city of have a truly Unique Culinary Identity? Describe it. What makes it unique? How deep rooted is this identity? Provide examples of dishes, concepts, restaurants etc.,
How do Local Ingredients support the city's unique culinary identity?
Describe the city's Culinary Culture & Attitudes. What is the typical resident's relative Chowishness? Is quality eating widespread, restricted to a small enlightened group, or the rich?
Describe the city's Culinary Know How. How good are the mainstream cooks? How about the top regarded Chefs? Does the city produce high numbers of quality Chefs?
What is the typical quality of ingredients widely available?
Describe the city's offering of artisan & specialty products?
Describe the city's wine culture. Describe the typical wine offering. How well is food paired to wines?
Overall Variety
What is the city's general restaurant infrastructure?
Describe the city's breadth of choices… how many distinct categories, what are some examples? How is the city's offering of ethnic and foreign cuisine? (Note, I define ethnic cuisine as that which belongs to the city's minorities & immigrants. Foreign cuisine is the cuisine of another country, but without the immigrants. For example, many cosmopolitan cities around the world have lots of French restaurants… without having very many French immigrants.)
Describe the depth of each of the city's culinary categories. In other words; does it have 100s of Ethiopian restaurants or just one?
Describe the general quality level of the city's culinary categories. Are those 100s of Ethiopian restaurants fabulous because of competition, or do they instead compete on price and only deliver mediocrity?
Establishments by Price Point
Describe the city's low end dining situation? Numbers, Variety, Quality etc.,
What is a typical, everyday meal like? How affordable & physically accessible are restaurants in the city?
What is the typical splurge / special occasion meal? (Note, by typical I mean to exclude the $400 tasting menu at the restaurant that only seats 20 per night, and has no other comparison in the city)
What is the city's fine dining offering like? Numbers, Variety, Quality etc.,
Does the city have any "World Class" restaurants? (Think of World Class as the restaurants that offer the cutting edge dining & ambiance… think foams, herbs grown in a gold toilet, big name chefs… ya-da, ya-da, ya-da).
I am sure it will take several days to prepare something this comprehensive... I intend to nominate Mexico City but will be busy with work for the next week so I think I should be able to post my nomination in about a week & a half. I really hope some of you are up to the challenge... because this could potentially be a CH goldmine for all of us who hope to travel to the world's top culinary destinations.
born and raised in Southern California and lived on the east coast for going on 5 years...now in NYC. Hands down California. Better food all the way, less pretention and better price point. Loved Vancouver- was there a month ago and was more impressed w. the food there than i have been in the city.
When ever someone else is willing to put an essay where their mouth is... please take me up on this: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/395199 (we can create one for North America only)
I'm obviously biased, but New Orleans, for the following reasons:
1. We're one of only a few cities (in the U.S., at least) with an easily identifiable regional cuisine (not just dishes, but an entire style of cuisine).
2. We're one of the few "food destination" cities - many people come here just for the food.
3. We have a number of the most recognizable (not necessarily the best, but among the most well-known) chefs in the world - Emeril, Paul Prudhomme, John Besh, Leah Chase, etc.
4. The local bounty - outstanding fresh seafood, strawberries, citrus, etc.
5. I'll go out on a limb, and suggest that per capita, we have more great restaurants than most other cities on the continent.
6. The locals are more food obsessed than almost anywhere else. Seriously, people go out to eat, and spend the entire meal talking about other meals. Practically everyone cooks, and can prattle on for hours about the right way to make a seafood gumbo, or boiled crawfish, or whatever. Never a day goes by where I don't have a lengthy food conversation with somebody (and not just fellow hounds).
7. You want high end, we've got great high end. You want dives, we've got great, cheap dives.
8. We don't have as much food diversity as, say, New York, but for a city our size, we do have a pretty good selection of ethnic foods - including a pretty substantial Vietnamese community.So sure, you can find places with more diversity, or with a few better restaurants, but overall, as a "food city," especially considering its size, I think NOLA is hard to beat.
re: Burgoober
Oh yeah, reason #9: the relative lack of bad chains - in the city proper, we only have one Applebee's, one Bennigan's, zero Chilis, zero Cheescake Factories, zero PF Changs, and zero TGI Fridays. And the Applebee's and Bennigan's are both across the river from the bulk of the city, in the small part of town known as Algiers.
re: Pollo
I understand the arguments for: NY, SF, LA, and Chicago. Maybe i'm making to much hype about Vancouver... but i've lived in both Chicago and SF, and have spent significant periods of time in NY... and I still think Vancouver stacks up comparibly to all of them, and is better than Chicago for sure.
As for Seattle: Pu-Lease!!!!!!
New top 10:
1. Mexico City
5. Vancouver
6. Chicago
7. New Orleans
8. Montreal
9. Toronto
10. PortlandFlame away!
re: Cancuk
NY/SF/LA/Chicago are cities in a true sense of scale and culinary variety...Vancouver is still an under-developed provincial town...like someone once said on CKNW...."overgrown fishing village".....let me put it that way....comparing (food wise) Vancouver to say LA is like comparing Kelowna to Vancouver....get it?
re: Pollo
Thanks for the patronizing message, I really appreciated it. Excellent point when you capitalize the word, nicely done.
While I don't like a lot about Vancouver, to say that it's quality of cuisine and its restaurant scene is stuck in the '50's is compleatly ridiculous and really doesn't make SENSE.
Maybe you don't agree that Vancouver's restaurants are on the same level as Chicago's... I agree that there isn't as many as in Chicago, so the lack of depth in some areas wouldn't match, but I disagree that they're not on the same level... and much better in some areas.
But, you're right, Seattle is a CITY... and Vancouver (I guess) is not, which somehow translates into the quality of food.
re: Cancuk
Sorry for coming accros as patronizing. I like Vancouver....I lived in Vancouver for 20+ years but it bothers me when everyone in Vancouver thinks of themselves as SO much above the rest....it must be those "polls" that choose YVR as "the best place to live on the planet"....pure propaganda. There are a number of good and v. good restaurants in Vancouver but the numbers and the diversity do not match most large US cities..... By the way I did not mean stuck in the 50's food wise....more like in terms of transportation, roads, infrastructure, etc.....Take it easy, eh?
re: Pollo
I spent some time in Chicago this year. And I found the cuisine at the best of the best ie.Trotters, Tru, Alinea to be only slightly better than the best of Vancouver ie. Lumiere, West, Fuel. The food scene was, I would say better developed in Vancouver with the ocean and the farmland so close. There is a grassroots food movement in Chicago as well, with an emphasis on local etc. but they have long winters and a relatively short growing season. There are good steakhouses in Chicago...there are good Japanese places in Vancouver. There are great Mexican places in Chicago. There are good Chinese places in Vancouver. I think they stack up comparitively to one another with the slight edge going to Vancouver.
re: Pollo
While I wholeheartedly agree that Chicago is a great restaurant city, I believe Vancouver wins out based on the criteria listed in the original posting. With the bounty of foodstuffs occuring in it's backyard and surrounding region, Vancouver is full of the raw materials necessary to make for a spectacular food city. With a population about a third of Chicago, Vancouver certainly holds it's own.
re: formerlyfingers
Just as an aside here, in yesterday's Globe and Mail, Jamie Oliver was interviewed, and asked "Toronto or Vancouver?". He chose Vancouver, mentioning Tojo and Vij. I think that as good as the scene is in Toronto (and it is), Vancouver probably has more that is new and interesting.
re: Pollo
Where shall I begin?
Pacific ocean: dungeness crab, salmon, scallops, prawns, lingcod, sablefish, halibut, mussels, oysters, clams, albacore........
Fraser Valley / Delta Region: Green vegetables, root vegetables, fruits of all kinds, herbs, tomatoes, berries......not to mention poultry, beef and game
Okanagan: Wine, icewine, tree fruits
Cowichan Valley: Honey, fruits, vegetables, berries, artisan cheeses
Saltspring Island: Lamb, cheeses
Pemberton region: vegetables, sugar pumpkin, squash
Near and Far: wild mushrooms esp. pine(matsutake), chanterelle etc.
this off the top of my head inthe last 90 seconds!!!
re: Pollo
You are missing the point, Pollo, with all due respect.
The point of this topic and thread was to debate the best food city in North America from the standpoint of well rounded, authentic and potential for local representaion. The idea that any city can truck/fly/ship food in and therefore is equal to those that grow it in their backyard is ludicrous, from the perspective of the conditions cited here. There are few cities in North America with the type of raw food potential that Vancouver has. Some are listed accurately on this board. There are reasons to consider Chicago, for example on this list, but they are certainly not because of it's ability to get product delivered into it!! That would place it in the same category as any other city with a harbour or an airport. Chicago is great because of the quality and diversity of it's restaurants, not because of it's local supply chain. The concept of local and regional food is what makes all great food cities in the world great! Lyon is home to Lyonnaise specialties - a great food city. Paris, Rome, San Sebastian, Mexico City, Beijing, Bangkok, New Orleans.....these all utilize the foodsuffs in their area to make an identifiable cuisine and therefore a great food city.
Like these, Vancouver is so situated that it can draw upon it's own abundance of natural products and thereby create it's own regional flavour and hence a designation as a great food city.
And for the record, there are numerous chefs in Vancouver who have cultivated relationships with local fishers and can get scallops and so much more directly from the water hours after it is caught. The days of phoning the fish monger and having fish flown in are no longer for many chefs. I ate Qualicum scallops from a Vancouver restaurant the same day they were harvested!!
The variety of food products available to Vancouverites reminds me of another great food city in N. America - The Napa/Sonoma Regions.
And just for the record....I am not even from Vancouver!!
re: formerlyfingers
You talk about regional/local representation....OK....I admit that mixing in Chicago might not be fair. But what is Vancouver know for to the rest of the world in terms of food/regional food?....What "regional" specialities are the Vancouver chefs known for? What is done "better" in Vancouver than any where else in the world or NA? I'm not trying to be funny but after 20+ years of living in Vancouver I have a hard time understanding your logic? One item that was v. good localy was "indian candy" but that was a long time ago...other than that? Cheese making is in its infancy....charcuterie places make poor imitations of European products...Okanagan makes some decent wines....seafood preparations are rather heavy handed and predictable compared to say Sydney. I agree that Lyon, Paris, Rome etc. are great food destination with incredible local variety of food and preparartions but frankly Vancouver is not at the same level....don't get me wrong it's moving in the right direction and is a HUGE improvement from when I arrived there in 1980's but it's been a slow process....
re: Pollo
Here is a brief rundown of the places in Vancouver that have made a big impact on the city's food culture in the last 8 or so years.
West: Considered by many to be in the top 50 restaurants in the world.
Lumiere: Recent turmoil aside, a very outstanding restaurant.
C: A cutting edge place for years and a worldwide leader in sustainable fishing / animal husbandry practices.
Tojo: World famous Japanese.
Vij's: Highly lauded and recognized modern Indian.
Bishops: Regional specialties galore for a decade or so.
Raincity Grill: BC cuisine
NU: Modern and excellent seafood and more.
Salt: Reverent and respectful charcuterie restaurant.
Oyama Sausage Co.: Charcuterie that rivals the best anywhere.
Guu and Hapa Izakaya: Lively and eccentric fresh and innovative Japanese places.
I could go on. There are so many more great restaurants in the city and region and many of them are using vast amounts of local product on their menus. This is evidence of a vibrant and integrated food culture. A great food city will use the things they have in their own backyard to create a cuisine that is unique and personal to them.
Read the Vancouver posts of chowhounders from all over. They quite routinely report that the food scene is as good or better than what they are accustomed to in their own cities. Maybe it is time to pay Vancity another visit?-
re: formerlyfingers
I lived in YVR for 20+ years and visit it v. often. The above list is nice but you can generate such list for any city. I had just about all the products that Oyama makes....they still have ways to go. Salt has local charcurterie but I tried all the placed that they get the produce from...again good but not great. Like I said before: what "regional" specialities are the Vancouver chefs known for? What is done "better" in Vancouver than any where else in the world or NA?
re: Pollo
Hey...I am not gonna beat a dead horse. I have made my argument for Vancouver based on the original criteria. An argument can be made for other cities based on other criteria. This is about which city is or could be the best food city in North America from the standpoint of their ability to integrate local and regional products into their food scene, and with what level of integrity/culinary soundness the chefs use said ingredients.
I have yet to see in your arguments how Vancouver is not this city. Very good arguments have been made here regarding cities which I hadn't considered, and have thus drawn my attention to them. These are specifically Mexico City and New Orleans. I am resting my case.
re: Pollo
I think you're missing the point. Vancouver doesn't "do" a dish or a cuisine, what it "does", which makes it better than *most*, not all, is the quality cuisine it makes from it's own backyard. There are a number of restaurants that only use ingredients within 100 miles of the restaurant, and a lot of restaurants that only use products from the province. The fact that they do this, with outstanding products, PLUS making outstanding, world renowned and applauded meals, is why Vancouver is one of the leading food cities in NA.
Vancouver is also a world leader in regards to using sustainable products, especially Seafood.
And, if you really need a "cuisine". Bin 941 was the, supposed, first restaurant, or is credited as the first, of the "small plates" (like Tapas, but not Tapas) phenomenon that is/was hugely popular throughout NA.
Also, it's certainly not reality that you will always be eating scallops that are 3 days old in Vancouver. Try the following restaurants for fresh seafood:
Raincity Grill
Go Fish
Westetc, etc
re: Cancuk
Exactly my point...Vancouver does not do a dish or cusine....having said that all the "hoopla" is v. subjective especially if you realy want to belive in it (not trying to be condecending). Bin 941 does a poor imitation of tapas...may be impressive by provincial standard or if you have never been to Barcelona. I have eaten in most of the places you list and the only restasurant that impreses me over and over is Vij....but I still like Vancouver....
re: Pollo
When you go to Charlie Trotters do you have deep dish pizza? Isn't that what Chicago's *dish* is? When you go to Le Bon Fec in Philly, do you have a cheese steak? Is this what you think Vancouver is missing? A signature dish like this? I would rather have, as you said earlier, "indian candy". If you really wanted to make something "Vancouver", you could add smoked salmon (as Native Americans were doing it long before we were here).
Vancouver cuisine, not a dish, is using the bounty of amazing, fresh produce and fish/meat in our own backyard and turning out outstanding food. A city like Chicago can't compete in this area, simply because it doesn't have the fresh produce. Can you go to a sushi restaurant in Chi and get that morning fresh caught fish like you can at Tojo's? No. I feel like this makes up the breadth of restaurants we don't have, simply due to size. We obviously don't have the same range of Steak Houses. This isn't true for quality Chinese and Japanese restaurants though, IMO.
I don't think Bin is very good either, and certainly not even a minor bleep on a world stage, but they are credited with starting the "small plates" phenomenon in NA and that's why I mentioned it.
re: Cancuk
Chicago doesn't have freshly caught local fish, but it does have an abundance of high quality seasonal fruits and vegetables from nearby sources.
Right around the southern end of Lake Michigan is one of the premier fruit growing districts in North America. The really high quality stuff goes directly to restaurants and farmers markets in Chicago because cultivars grown for quality and picked ripe without regard for shipping quality cannot be found in local supermarkets, let alone distant ones.
There is a lot of great farm land near Chicago, some producing excellent vegetables for the local market. Take a look at the list of producers at the Green City Market for organic and sustainable products: http://www.chicagogreencitymarket.org/producers_public.asp
The City of Chicago also sponsors multiple farmers markets.
For meats you will have a hard time beating the pastured or free range poultry from many growers including quite a bit from the Amish communities around Arthur, IL, and Elkhart and Lagrange counties in Indiana. Chiapetti slaughters and processes very good lamb and veal in Chicago. Our Thanksgiving turkey was range grown at HoKa Turkey Farm near Waterman, IL, west of Chicago. These turkeys have more subcutaneous fat but less body fat than turkeys grown in sheds or in warmer climates and so are self-basting and don't need brining for a juicy bird. http://www.hokaturkeys.com/
We also have a wide range of artisanal cheese produced in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana within 200 miles.
The examples I have cited are a small sample of what is available here and doesn't touch the wide range of imported products used by our substantial ethnic populations.
re: Cancuk
Canuck and formerlyfingers: All I can say is that you guys have to travel a bit more and see what's out there....The arguments you make are along the same lines people make for Vancouver beeing "the best city in the world to live in".....And yes, you can get sushi in Chicago much better than at Tojo's...
re: Pollo
Grandville Island Market? I didn't know that Chicago Sushi restaurants go down and get their fresh caught tuna from the fisherman? Weird.
Actually, I have travelled a lot and even used to live in Chicago for 2 1/2 years!!! WOAH... somebody has a different opinion than you!!!
Actually, and I know this is going to come off as duchy and un-modest, the only continents that I haven't travelled through extensively are Africa and Eastern Europe.... but hey, i'm sure I need to go out and "see more" so I can understand where you're coming from. I mean, you told me so.
Eating shitty deep dish pizza,
re: formerlyfingers
I frequently visit Vancouver and love the city and the food. That said, Tojo's is simply not what it used to be. Several years ago, if you ordered omakase, everything was amazing. Now, maybe a few things will be and everything else will be mediocre. Tojo's is still my favorite Japanese restaurant in the Pacific Northwest, but I am confident that if you're willing to pay the price, there are places in NYC and LA that will be better. I have enjoyed Guu , but is it stupendous??? No.
Vegas, easily. No other place has so much great food in so small an area surrounded/immersed in such wonderful eye candy. No other city comes close! Where else can you walk out of your restaurant and see the canals of Venice, then across the street see the Fountains of Bellagio?
Just for food alone, I'd pick Vegas, but the ambience and high energy surroundings, coupled with so many choices within walking distance makes it the best food city in the country, if not the world.
re: elrushbo
I think Vegas gives the illusion of good food, as it gives the illusion of most everything else. It is a reflection of the current food scene from all over, not a representation of anything truly local or truly unique. While it does have some good food being produced from some well known chefs, it lacks the depth of other cities with their own rich culinary traditions and local heritage. The food scene there today was born in the last decade and will be completely morphed in 10 more years - hardly qualifying it as a great food city , at least not compared with the other examples listed in great detail here.
It seems that you started a regionalistic fight with New Yorkers winning through sheer volume and vociferousness! (Whats new, huh?)...My 2 cents is that if you pay a lot of money (and I mean a LOT), you could probably have good food. I suspect that your question has to do more with a general availability of affordable places to eat at. Not sure I could add to the debate, but my personal favorites for affordable well made eats certainly include DC, Portland (both of them), Philly and Vancouver B.C. nuff said!
Montreal...hands down.
The best food takes place very quietly...
Ssshhh...no noise, no fuss, you have to go about the streets and discover it.
There are a few temples that people gather at, but the best comes in a much more subtle fashion. Montreal is the melting pot of all melting pots. Bubbles existing within bubbles strengthen the food tradition. The derigeur francophonie actually builds opposing cultures rather then diluting them. You will find this conviction in so much of the food, in so many of Montreal humble restos. Add to that a willingness by locals to try anything and everything brings the restaurateur to his/her game. Lavish treats for the tongue abound in the mid range. Come, spend some time, go from the beaten track into all of Montreal's colorful neighborhoods, both east and west (very, very safe city) and you will discover that not everything melts in the pot. Cheers! -
re: WineTravel
No. I'm not joking.
LA and OC are at the top.
LA has the most diverse, cheapest, freshest food. OC, to me, is a close second.
I listed the following as "honorable mention" because they are also good:
Las Vegas is well-known as a place that attracts chefs from all over the world. People go there to eat and gamble.
Brooklyn-- cheap, good, diverse food.
Mexico-- I love Mexico, and nearly everthing I've eaten in any city there has been fresh and good.
I've never been to Chicago, but I've heard the food is great there. :)
re: katkoupai
Thanks for explaining. I understand what you're saying and I respect that. The good thing is that you obviously live in CA and therefore know where to go, and are happy with the dining options there. The best food is the food that you like, so for you, LA/OC is tops. That's fair... and that's all that matters.
You do however present a mixed group of cities Brooklyn (technically part of NYC... again a plus for a NYC vote) is cheap/diverse... and then cheap again in LA / OC. But then Las Vegas?... anything but cheap. LV is big, brash, glitzy, overpriced and overrated. True there are a lot of name chefs (actually restaurants with big name chefs that don't come but once in a while) that have opened places there... but the food is not that great. The quality level of the food in LV has improved immensly...years ago it was terrible. For that Im thankful. Now you can get many good meals, rarely great. Sort of a big name chef group of chain restaurants... and all of them are pretty huge, little personality. A guy like Michael Jordan (the chef, not basketball player) at Rosemary's is the exception. A chef that lives in LV and is off the strip... not part of a hotel mega restaurant. Vegas is a gambling town that has restaurants that cater to that crowd... nothing more. I'd sooner go to Mexico... where as you say, the food can be "fresh and good".
For me, the best answer to the question, as stated before: NYC
re: WineTravel
I respect your answer, as well. I lived in Brooklyn, NY and worked/studied in Manhattan for two years. I found myself missing LA food very much. I could never find a good Mexican or Persian restaurant in NYC, and I tried. That's why I could never vote for NYC as my number one choice. NYC has other options that cannot be replicated in LA, but those are ones that I can live without. :)
Vegas is a beast of its own. That's why it's in my "honorable mention". I have friends who go there just to eat. One of them is the person who introduced me to Chowhound years ago. :)
re: Friend of Bill
If your idea of a great food town is a bunch of hotels with mostly huge restaurants that are offshoots of big name chefs (that are almost never there), designed by Rockwell or Tihany, with staffs that are trained to get you back to the tables, then maybe Im wrong. Vegas is way overrated. It has the allure of all the big names, but those places have no soul. They are more factory-like... chain-like. Robuchon may be the exception... haven't been there yet. Don't get me wrong. I like going to Vegas.. its fun.. and certainly its miles above the old days. You can eat well. But lets not get carried away.. it's what it is... and IMO certainly doesn't belong in a discussion of the Best Food City in America
big fuss about Vegas bei
How to define "best"? For number and variety of restaurants, I'd have to go for New York City, and I'm a West Coaster. After all, where but in NYC can you find horxse hearts in tomato sauce over (... something or other)?
But with air transport of fresh or flash-frozen stuff from around the globe, I don't think a title can be awarded.
re: mpalmer6c
The main reason that NYC is the winner IMO is the fact that there is SUPPORT for all of the dining options that exist there... and Fine Dining can't exist i(n a big way) anywhere else in the USA... as the markets are too small to support it. The other "good" cities are lucky to have one or 2 fine dining places that are considered great... few if any "world class" places.
I can hear the comments coming now.... but it's true. Name some restaurants in a city other than NY that can compete with the world's best. You can count them on one hand (and by the way, there are only a few in NY). Certainly a place doesn't have to be "world class" to be great, which is where NYC shines as well. They have a ton of other great places. NYC is the hands down winner... this one is easy.
All I can say is that LA is rocking my socks already on the ethnic front. In only a week, and without even venturing east (i.e., where the really good stuff is) I've already had better chinese, mexican, and vietnamese than most of the places I tried in over a decade of living up and down the East Coast (CT, DC, MA, NY).
re: a_and_w
Here is my guide for eating your way through my old neighborhood. When I get a chance I will do one for East L.A. as well:
I've followed this topic with interest and noticed that most posters seem to be using the same criteria for judging cities, namely how many kinds of cuisine can you find there and how good is each kind. I find that criteria reasonable, but I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate and propose that there's a different yardstick that can be applied, and probably already has been in the case of those nominating New Orleans, and that yardstick is true regional cuisine. There's something to be said for cities that have incredibly deep foodways. Many foodies (not me as it happens) will name Paris as the top food city in the world, and that determination is usually based on the City of Light's French food and little else. Maybe it's a sign of the United States' reputation as a melting pot that we value breadth of food options so highly. I do as well, but I don't think it's the end all, be all. While towns like N.O. and Charleston, S.C. lack the range of ethnic food options that places like NYC and Chicago have, they boast the kind of true regional cuisine that is seldom found in the U.S. outside the South and possibly the Southwest. (Not to step on anybody's toes, but using local ingredients, while important to regional cuisine, is not synonymous with it. A true regional cuisine, IMO, is represented by a cohesive body of cooking traditions that have stood the test of time, i.e. been handed down from generation to generation.) In Charleston, for example, you can find examples of BBQ (4 different kinds), seafood dishes (like shrimp and grits and frogmore stew), rice dishes (like red rice), desserts, curries, even chutneys that trace their roots back hundreds of years to colonial settlers, West African slaves, Native Americans, and the port's sea trade history. You might ask, why does it matter how far back you can trace the foodways of a place? Well, it's an intangible, I suppose, but the results are very tangilbe. In Charleston, the long traditions of local food are taken very seriously and soulfully, and you can find great examples of classic recipes in low-dollar joints and great examples of cutting-edge interpretations of classics in the high-dollar restaurants. It's not for nothing that Charleston, a city of barely over a 100,000 in a metropolitan area of around 500,000, has 8 or 9 restaurants that rate 4 diamonds or more in the annual AAA survey, year in, year out (actually 13 in the area as of the latest listings). Pound for pound, Charleston rates being listed among the best food cities in North America.
re: Low Country Jon
To Low Country Jon.......as the original poster, i find this post interesting and well thought out. My criteria included both ethnic and regional, but upon further consideration, my feelings lean toward regional cuisine as the main yardstick for measuring excellence. While regional ingredients are completely necessary, you quite rightly add that tradition and history are crucial as well. Good point. It makes me realize once again the reason the very best food places on the planet are really anywhere that has local peoples cooking local foodstuffs in a manner which has stood the test of time and trends. French, Italian, Vietnamese, Argentinian, Ethiopian, Chinese, the list goes on ad infinitum, because the "best" is summed up by how well ingredients available are utilized, no matter where you are. So if this is the truest indicator of goodness, then your example of local tradition in Charleston is completely valid, and closely aligned with my earlier mention of Quebec City and the townships region of the St. Lawrence River. 400 plus years of tradition, with technique and recipes still in use from that era. I am with you in your assessment of "the best".
re: formerlyfingers
A perfect rationale for including the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn in NYC for instance. The very best food in those boroughs are decades-old traditional recipes served in family owned and operated establishments. They are truly unique and their offerings are not available anywhere else in this city or other cities.
re: Low Country Jon
L.C.J, your posts are always cogent and sound. There can be no debate: per capita, Charleston must rank amongst the finest food cities in the world, period. It's shocking how much amazing grub one can find in a town with that small a population. Those folks take their food very seriously. I've had 6 or so of the finest meals of my life there, and in an astonishing diversity of styles and approaches. Never mind the wonderful traditions that still inform the more traditional cooking there.
I would bet most of the participants in this thread have never been there, which is understandable. But lordy there's some good eatin' in that town....
Well, as a typical New Yorker, my vote for # 1goes to New York - City that is, all 5 boroughs - we are the world! However, with the singular exceptions of the food stalls at the Red Hook ball fields in the Spring and Summer and the new Oaxacan place that just opened in my neighborhood, NYC sucks when it comes to Mexican cuisine.
So---#2 Mexico City
# 3 Guadalajara
#4 San Francisco
#5 Seattle
#6 Philadelphia
#7 Vancouver
#8 Chicago
#9 Montreal
#10 Los Angeles -
I'll agree with Mexico City as #1.
Now -- is there any consensus with Guadalajara as #2 ?
re: Chuckles the Clone
Well I think Gudalajara has great Birria, street food & freshwater "seafood" but I don't really think it is anywhere on the radar yet. Further, its going to be a while... the city seems to be stuck in the type of Shallow Gentrification that many U.S. & Canadian cities (some mentioned above) are in. I think its going to be a while before the Chowish + Creativity combine there beyond being overly excited by places with ambiance & an air of modernity.
re: Chuckles the Clone
Not for me. yes, the Birria is good, but even the street food was just nowhere that in DF. I may be going there fairly regularly for work starting this summer, so I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but for the most part, it just doesn't feel vibrant, particularly given that it is the number 2 city in size in Mexico. I had better food experiences in Morelia....
Oh wow, before I opened this board, I thought "of course, New York," but after reading a few posts, I kept thinking "oh yeah, the food in Vancouver is unbelievable" or "I've had some great meals in Chicago" or "San Francisco, yum," so I guess I think it's pretty pointless to try to choose a "best." One thing for sure is that having a large immigrant population helps, and you need to leave the city center to get the good stuff. I was very impressed by suburban stripmall ethnic eating in Atlanta.
On the other other hand, there are certainly tiers. Philly? Are you kidding? I spent 9 years in that city (and love it and go back frequently), and though it has some fantastic things (you can't get a real cheesesteak anywhere else) it has nowhere near the restaurant depth and breadth of first tier cities like New York, Toronto, Seattle, etc. All the Steven Starr restaurants taste the same after a couple of months.
Never been to Mexico City, but now I can't wait to!
re: NYprof
Steven Starr restaurants get uniformly panned by most. And no I'm not kidding. I suspect it has been a while since you lived in Philly. Do I think it's the "best" in North America. Maybe not. Do I think it's under-represented on this list. Yes especially when Boston, Atlanta and Las Vegas are so represented. Is Philly second tier to Boston or Atlanta.......Puhleese. We've consistantly flown under the radar, and now with the food and restaurant culture coming into its own, I suppose us Philadelphians will have to enjoy it mostly to ourselves.
And scroll up, you'll see right here on this very thread the Philly food scene was described as "where I expected nothing and found a goldmine." I'd say that pretty much sums it up.
Permalink | Report | Reply
re: G Goo
Just because low expectations were far exceeded doesn't mean that the result was top-notch. I didn't mean to imply that Atlanta was on par with NY, SF, etc. It isn't. I also didn't mean to imply that Philly only had cheesesteaks. I had a world class meal at Brasserie Perrier last month. I also love Philadelphia and it hasn't been very long since I lived there. My only point is that living in Philly, it doesn't take very long to get through the entire food scene. If you rule out S. Starr restaurants, you only have a handful of restaurants in the fine dining category, and though some are very, very good, there isn't enough depth to compete with the likes of Vancouver or New Orleans. I'm pretty anti-Steven Starr restaurants, but I've had more meals in them than probably any other restauranteur's restaurants, because for that category of dining, there are so few other choices. Here in New York, I'd have no trouble avoiding a given restauranteur's restaurants. A top tier food city should have depth in multiple dining categories.
Besides, you may agree that S. Starr restaurants are mediocre and overpriced, but to say they're "universally panned" is questionable. They're doing very well and he keeps opening more. He dominates the high-end Philly restaurant scene. He's just opened Buddakan and Morimoto outposts here in NY, which have gotten rave reviews, to my surprise.
re: NYprof
You'd be surprized at the number of quality restaurants that have opened just in the last year or two. And I guess I look at more than just the "fine dining" category. We have a burgeoning BYOB scene (like it or not.....I like it), excellent Puerto Rican/Latin American influenced dining on 5th St in N. Philly, many Brazilian churrascaria places in NE Philly, great Mexican Taquerias in South Philly, Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean in Chinatown, Amish stands and roast pork Italian sandwiches (along with anything else) in the Reading Terminal Market, the best sandwiches in the world (hoagies, cheesesteaks, roast pork, roast beef), great tapas joints, an excellent craft brewed beer scene, amazing "gastropubs" (The Standard Tap to many has redefined bar food), soul food in North Philly, even a great barbecue joint (Sweet Lucy's Smokehouse in NE Philly)........... all this along with top notch fine dining. To me, you have to to look at an entire city's food culture is to see what is available to many rather than what is available to just a few (fine dining). And I'm lucky because I have the opportunity to sample everything from Le Bec Fin (I wanted to hate it.....I loved it) and Brasserie Perrier to Johns Roast Pork and The Dutch Eating Place.......and I do. And when taking all this into consideration, Philadelphia is right up there with the already anointed "great" food cities.
There is so, so much more than just Starr Restaurants and Center City!!
re: NYprof
The question was... Best Food City in North America.
Healthy debate is good, and I certainly enjoyed reading about those restaurants people love in Philly, but if you stay on topic.... and I mean no disrespect to those that put Philly on the list....(have I been diplomatic enough yet?)... putting Philadelphia anywhere on the list of BEST FOOD CITIES IN NORTH AMERICA is just rediculous.
re: WineTravel
Yeah I get it.........I saw the topic and I understood what it meant. And I think you are wrong. I live in Philly. I travel a lot. I make a point to eat out everywhere I go. There are many cities in North America. Is Philly the best? That's pretty subjective, but probably not. Does it deserve mention with Boston, or Miami or Las Vegas..........abso freakin' lutely! And don't tell me my opinion about something as subjective as food is ridiculous! Thanks for being so diplomatic....what would you have said if you weren't diplomatic?
People gave lists.....Top 5, top 10.....and I rarely saw Phila. on those lists. That's what I was responding to.
re: G Goo
I just went back to Philly for the first time in... jeez, over a decade. I was shocked to find the dining scene as vibrant as it was. As Jerseyites we used to pan Philly as "where you went to watch baseball and eat cheesesteaks". If you wanted REAL food you had to go to New York.
It's definitely changes -- even South Philly, under the shadow of Pat's and Geno's, has good and fancy places.
I'd rank it with Boston, Atlanta and Houston... and above Las Vegas.
re: Das Ubergeek
And I'd like to add access to Jersey produce, along with Lancaster County produce to bolster my arguement. I saw the shout out to Jersey tomatoes and sweet corn in this thread, and I couldn't agree more. People equate Jersey with the industrialized north and overlook the agrarian south. The sandy soil makes for the best tomatoes in the country!
You came to Philly for the baseball? Are you crazy? (I'm a Phillies season ticket holder)
re: Das Ubergeek
Yes, I agree that Philly belongs along side Atlanta, Houston, Miami, LA, perhaps even Boston and Chicago ... cause those cities don't belong on the Best Food City list either... and Las Vegas should be in it's own category (its a whole nother discussion). While each of these cities have their own strengths...on the whole they're pretty weak.
If you could poll on this site: I predict you'd find the answer, and by a wide margin, to be New York City. No other city can compete with NY for food (on every level, not just the top end). Other cities would be fighting it out for #2... San Francisco or Chicago would figure to be the leading contenders for 2 and 3.
Just my opinion...
re: WineTravel
NYC almost goes without saying. Center of the world right? Just ask any New Yorker.
Atlanta and Houston? Both kind of bother me on this list mainly because both are so sprawling.....your dinner will alway come with an hour round trip in a car in horrendous traffic. There's just something about having to drive here and there becuase there is not much of a downtown that takes a city down a notch for me. I have to travel to Atlanta about once a month, and when I go out to eat I'm invariably making some frustratingly long auto commute.
Wow, is Philly under-represented here. I am a little biased as I am a native, but I eaten all over North America and I've had some meals here that could compare with any of the best I've had anywhere else.......from haute to street. We have a great resource in the farms of Lancaster, Chester Counties and the freshness shows. The Amish influence is strong in our markets, with fresh meats and produce readily available.
New Orleans, San Fran and NYC are my other favorites.
Having lived all over North America (I include both Canada and Mexico) in this, I can't believe anyone is arguing with Mexico City. You can't have been there and be arguing with it. I can't believe people are even suggesting Boston (good lobster, I do agree). New York, I understand, but I just feel like everything you get there is less fresh and less flavorful than it was in Mexico--all a toned down version. I live in Seattle now, and would love to nominate it, but its neighbor to the north, Vancouver would have to take my second place vote...
On the other end of the spectrum, I'm going to have to say that Salt Lake City was the worst food city I was ever in (followed by Milwaukee, though that was years ago and I have heard it has improved!)...My real wish here though is to express that the worst food city in the world goes hands down, no questions asked, to Montevideo, Uruguay. Never, ever, ever eat there if it can be prevented.
re: dagoose
Milwaukee is a weird food city -- there are these little nuggets of greatness amid, well . . . blandness.
I actually dream about a seafood Thai dish I have there on my annual visit (yeah, there should be all kinds of things wrong with seafood & thai in Milwaukee). Mader's has one of the best dark german beers I've ever had. And there are some terrific local cheeses.
re: dagoose
I love the love Vancouver is getting.
Montevideo, Uruguay is DEFINITLEY not the worst food city in the world. The BBQ there is outstanding... delicoius.
Have you ever been to Santa Cruz, Bolivia? Now THAT is a bad foodie city. On the other hand: Lima, Peru was outstanding and I want to go back for a month and just eat.
I was about to make out a top five list when I realized 8 of the 10 best resteraunts I've ever ever been to weren't even in places most people have ever heard of! The two best resteraunts I've ever eaten at were, get this, in Rhinelander, Wisconson and Estes Park, Colorado! The two that were in a city that you've heard of? Both in New Orleans.
I've traveled to pretty much every major city in NA (except Mexico city) and my faves would be:
1. Southern Cal (LA and area)
2. Northern Cal (SF and Napa)
3. NYC (incredible variety)
4. Chicago (best service city in NA??)
5. Toronto (I know it so well)Dark horse pick: Providence, Rhode Island
i am sure that my answer will get lost among the massive number of repsonses. however, i will venture to say that different cities are excellent for very different reasons.
my top cities:
san francisco
los angeles
las vegas
the whole of napa valley -
I agree that Montreal is a charming place to eat - I think it offers high and low options, good ethnic, good marketing (I mean that there are wonderful food markets to be explored)... and the city has charm, style and atmosphere, which always make food taste better.
I'm fascinated by the discussion of Mexico City. I never would have though of Mexico City as a foodie haven.
I find that places like NYC and San Fran are hit and miss. Just by virtue of population density and restaurant mass they are both bound to produce winners, but you have to do much research to find gold. More interesting to me are cities like Philly where I expected nothing and found a goldmine.
To state the obvious, I can only speak from personal experience, from where I have travelled and eaten. Thus, there are several cities which, while they may be great, I cannot speak to.
So my highly personal list is:
1. San Francisco Bay Area. (But I live here and know it best.)
2. New York (including borroughs).
3. New Orleans, even now -- post-Katrina.Vancouver is certanly an up-and-coming place, and I've had some stunning meals there, but not enough to crack into the Top Three.
Well, when Conde Nast surveyed the readers of its Traveler magazine, the overwhelming response was thus: The single most popular destination in the United States is San Francisco. The second most popular destination on the planet is San Francisco. One of the principal reasons mentioned again and again by the readers (most of whom are upscale and impressively experienced in culinary diversity) was the quality of the food.
San Francisco is supreme on the planet when it comes to fine, elegant fusion cuisine.
re: formerlyfingers
I've been to Quebec once and had a great time, many of my best memories are of the food - particularly the variety of smoked fish at Anciens Canadians and the great mussel selections.
I've also been to Montreal and Toronto (and Vancouver) several times and also really liked the food there. It is hard to get a good idea of any city as a tourist though (it's even hard to do when you live in a big city), I've really only seen a small part of any of these places.
re: dunn.sanfrancisco
I wouldn't necessarily count on a travel poll to define best food city...unless the poll asked it specfically. I still think SF would top the list in a poll...but that would be debateable as well.
Any way, from reading this thread it's pretty obvious CHs are provincial (as is natural)...so of course they're going to vote for their city. It's like pulling for the home team. In this case, SF is the NY Yankees of food...counting the riches only provokes people...so maybe debate is useless. :)
Born in NYC, Live in NYC and I always say that California beats New York, hands down.
I say San Fran, particularly if you include within "SanFran" Berkeley and the surrounding wine counties of Napa, Sonoma, etc.
Its not so much in the preparation, or the (excellent) restaurants, but in the products. Everytime I go to Napa, etc I am amazed at the quality of the produce and ingredients, which shine even when prepared simply, as at Chez Panise.
And one has to include _Wine_ when discussing food, no? And where else in North America is there better wine produced than in Napa/Sonoma? Cali is very close to Europe in the excellence of its products and its wine.
We just dont have produce like that in NY (and I live 2 blocks from the Union Square market, which does rock). So, from a diehard New Yorker, who loves the food here, we lose, Cali wins. I concede.
re: bengoshi
Bengoshi, I agree that California produce is superior and it's something I enjoy very much when I'm out there. However, while shipping produce means it's less fresh when it gets to its destination and thus even our best produce - Union Square Market - and others - don't quite stack up. But the wine? It ships pretty well from California. We have a very good selection of wines available to us in NY both on and off-premise.
And, in general, our variety of restaurants and cuisines is still superior in my opinion. NYC still wins for me.
re: laylag
Some good points, and trust me I LOVE Union Square market. But selling wine and making wine are different things. I think Cali gets some serious bonus points for _making_ some of the best wine in the workd. We cant claims that here in NY (and please dont point to some lovely North Fork Merlots, not the same). But I like the debate
re: bengoshi
Some really excellent Eiswein I've had out on the North Fork notwithstanding, I'd never compare California wine making to Long Island's - there is no comparison there. California wineries and wines are wonderful. No other region of North America can equal it I agree (off camera raises a glass of Insignia) Here's to you Joseph Phelps.
However, I viewed the original post as not the best in terms of food production, California wins that easily, but an inquiry in terms of the best place for food consumption. So, from that perspecitve I'll stand by my original position being that if I had to eat in only one city for the rest of my life, I'd pick NY and yes, that does include boroughs.
NYC wins hands down... every kind of food at every price point. The only city that can support "world class" restaurants in the US (along with Trotter's in Chicago and The Laundry in CA). Name a restaurant in any other US city that you'd consider "world class".
As others have already stated, SF and Chicago rank up there as great food cities... cities where the people love food... have many interesting places that are very good... but more in the middle tier, plus good ethnic places.
re: WineTravel
I'm not a haute foodie, frankly, but isn't Chez Panisse world class? The Inn at Little Washington isn't world class (ok, it's outside DC)? I'm not familiar with LA but there must be some good ones there (I'd like to say Boston or Philly has one - can't quite do that). I agree about NYC for world class restaurants, but I'd say SF is a better "food city."
Lots of the cities mentioned are great and many have specialty cuisines that may be considered "best anywhere" but for sheer overall quality, diversity, ethnic variations, traditions, attitude, lack of attitude, deliciousness, upscale, downscale, street food, fine dining, hole in the wall, grand, innovative, experimental, trendy and traditional - need I say more? New York. Hands down. No contest.
It is obvious that swissfoodie doesn't know Toronto very well at all from that very ignorant statement above.
I agree with you steve h, flawed study, way too many variables and also, so many cities have different things to offer in terms of great food.
I have my favourites in different cities all over NA and I love travelling to these and other places where I can get what I cannot get where I live. I am very lucky to live in rural Quebec, where I am close to Montreal and fairly close to Toronto. They both have great things to offer foodwise.-
re: tartetatin
my buddy dave from the Sun and i have eaten very well in toronto: exciting/diverse food, terrific wines and port. all-in-all, a great food city. Deb and i drove up the hudson valley to montreal then quebec last fall. we found stunning, family-run restaurants throughout our trip.
Flawed premise. lots of good food to be had all over north america. i could no more pick a favorite food city than i could pick a favorite finger. diversity is good.
Those of you who keep listing NYC (and I mean all NYC, well actually I guess I mean Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens) as only winning in the upscale category - you aren't trying hard enough. Perhaps you go upscale when you come here for a visit because you want to try the top chefs on your vacation. But those who live here know it wins in the ethnic and inexpensive arenas as well - you just have to GET ON THE SUBWAY and go out of central Manhattan. You will find a plethora of places that represents every corner of the globe - with amazing quality, and often at reasonable prices.
re: MVNYC
The beauty of public forums is that people can express their own opinions and everyone else reserves the right to disagree. I would love more than anything for someone to prove me wrong, but as of yet, no one has responded to my request for suggestions that would change my mind...
re: swissfoodie
Have you been to Rodney's Oyster House on King Street? I was in Toronto one beautiful June weekend and had a fabulous time walking all over town, stopping periodically for great local beers, and wound up at Rodneys for a dinner. Fabulous oysters and live seafood (including prawns, that's unusual IMHE), great smoked fish, great wines. I loved the market area and the waterfront and Chinatown and the university area and the downtown and the hip western side of Toronto. I'd go back to Rodney's and Toronto in an instant. I won't dispute that as a tourist there's still plenty I have to learn.
re: swissfoodie
Venture up to the northern 'burbs of Markham and Richmond Hill, and you'll find all kinds of Asian - Chinese, Japanese, Viet, Thai, Malaysian that are all terrific. My wife is 100% Chinese, and when her brothers come to visit, they all agree it's as good as they've ever had - including the brother who lives on Long Island, who told me there are NO chinese restaurants in NYC to rival what he gets in Toronto.
You appear to be terribly misinformed about the Toronto food scene. Take the Danforth for just one more example - lots of cheap and cheerful souvlaki joints, but also high end Greek like Mezes or Ouzeri, and an increasing number of other ethnic (Thai, Japanese, Indian, etc.) spots, as well as the venerable Joe Allen's, which many feel makes the best burger in the city. And that's just three or four blocks on one street. King Street West, St. Clair West, Little Italy on College, Koreatown on Bloor - there are just lots of places to get great food in Toronto. You should get out of your hotel more often.
re: John Manzo
The lame meals I have had have been at Eggplant, Brant House, Blowfish, at the Ninth Gate (where they served me ramen noodles and called it homemade...), Jason George, Drake Hotel, Bar Italia, Coco Lezzone (where the seafood risotto was Uncle Ben's mixed with Prego tomato sauce and frozen shrimp) to name few. I did have a lovely meal at Hiro Sushi, but it also cost me $150. I am looking for reasonably priced, tasty food. The only place I have ever had that, and consistently, was at Toba on King East.
re: swissfoodie
Well no wonder! With the exception of Hiro and Toba those places are all crap! In that immediate neighbourhood, Jamie Kennedy's, George (not Jason George, which is a pub... just "George"), Petit Dejeuner, Kultura, Romagna Mia, etc etc etc all offer reasonably priced dining experiences.(ok, not THAT reasonable, but still - you're downtown where the rent is high, as opposed to Scarberia where it's easy to charge less)
re: swissfoodie
Most of the places you mentioned are not Chowhoundworthy (I have enjoyed my meals at Blowfish, however, I know some have not). In addition to the ones that spades listed above, you should add Beerbistro, Pulp Kitchen, Barrio, Pomegranate (Queen East), Kensington Market, in general (for a unique experience), to name a few, are places you should try when you are here next time.
re: swissfoodie
Swissfoodie, you are dissing TO because you can't find any good restaurants, but why don't you use the the CH board? If you haven't found good food, you are asking the wrong locals or asking the wrong questions.
When I travel, I always browse the local CH board and ask for suggestions.The UN now recognizes Toronto as the most multicultural city in the world. So what kind of food would you like to try when you are here next?
If you are looking to do a foodie tour, you might follow in the recent foodsteps of a true foodie traveller and use this post as a guide:
http://www.chow.com/topics/106166Here are just a few other suggestions:
Batifole - great French, reasonable prices, enjoy having the chef bring it to your table.
Little Tibet - family run, always excellent quality, they cooked for the Dali Lama when last in town
Indian, head out to Little India there are several options.
Chinese - well we have 3 Chinatowns now (East, West and North), but the destination place for high end is Lai Wah Hen
Portuguese - Chiado, often touted as the best Portuguese this side of the Atlantic,
Japanese - my favourtie is Japango, small, quaint, signature maki rolls that are as beautiful to look as they are tasty.
Starfish (better than Rodney's IMHO) - good seafood for someplace so far from the ocean.
Tabule - Lebonese, casual, friendly
Zucca - for Italian
Bar Mercurio for wonderful thin crust pizza.Or maybe you'd like Ethiopian, Carribbean, Sri Lankan or Cuban food?
Just ask next time you are coming to town. I am sure you will find a different TO.
re: swissfoodie
Bless you and the parent poster. I'm so frustrated by the Toronto food scene. I can't afford $200 per person and am relegated to low- and mid-range restaurants. I listen to the hounds on here and follow their recommendations, and I'm almost always disappointed. In Ottawa, DC, and Montreal, I could just stop in a restaurant without doing any research and generally get a meal that was at least passable and often much better. Not the case here: even with research, I'm usually wishing I'd just stayed home and cooked.
Montreal. Montreal. and Montreal. Why? Because it was last year's Gourmet feature city, it's one of the cities with the most restaurants per capita, it offers amazing and authentic ethnic fare as well as top-class classic French fare. We don't just love food, we respect it.
re: swissfoodie
ABSOLUTELY NOT MONTREAL. The locals all smoke and their taste buds are addled by the smoke and all the fat and salt and artificial garbage ("classic " poutine made from MSG-flavourd powder? I rest my case!) that populate their cuisine. Completely lacking in ethnic diversity, monocultural, worst sushi on the planet, horrible coffee culture, and all this capped by horrible service.
Toronto is the best in North America, the most diverse (unlike Montreal, which has been eclipsed in ethnic diversity even by Calgary, Ottawa and Edmonton) and you can get ANYTHING there. An amazing food city.
re: John Manzo
Just so you know, smoking is no longer allowed in restaurants and bars in Montreal. Also, it's very sad that you had a bad food experience in Montreal, but many, many other people consider it as a food city. I've had my share of bad service in every city I've been in (including Montreal), but especially in Toronto, where lots of servers don't seem to consider patrons to be worthy enough to even grace them with a smile.
Your image of our city is very, very sad, and untrue. -
re: John Manzo
How can you consider "poutine" when we are discussing here 'fine-cuisine'? "Poutine" is considered here as fast food and has nothing to do with the fabulous cuisine one can find in Montreal restaurants. Ideed, Montreal has an incredibly high number of French restaurants that are not only affordable but that can easily compete with good French restaurant in Paris. What makes them special is their affordability. In Toronto you would have to pay at least twice the price (that is if you can find such restaurants). This is not counting all the other types of restaurants (Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian, Labanese, Turkish, etc). There are over 5000 restaurants here. Montreal has been chosen many times as one of the top gourmet cities of the world. Toronto has a good "expensive' restaurant scene, but at the affordable level it does not even come close to Montreal.
re: John Manzo
You cannot get *anything* in Toronto. For example, Toronto does not have authentic Thai food anywhere, and it's generally agreed upon that the state of good Mexican cuisine in Toronto is nonexistent.
I think Toronto has some strong showings in some areas, but having lived here for a few years now, I fail to see what people like about its food scene. I can think of many restaurants in DC, Ottawa, and Montreal that I'd happily frequent over any low-to-mid range restaurant in Toronto.
re: John Manzo
I'm not sure how you could possibly say Montreal is a terrible food destination. It def doesn't have the diverstiy that lots of cities, but you can just point your finger on Le Plateau and you'll find a great spot. (it's sushi is terrible though).
Toronto is great, especially for higher end meals, but doesn't compete on a full scale with Vancouver, NYC, SF, and LA. -
Seems to me a criteria is needed. Here's what I have (you can make your own of course):
High end dining - $$$$, fine dining (winner: NYC)
Mid range dining - $$-$$$, quality but casual (winner: SF)
Low end - $, it's the food (winner: SF)
Diverse cuisines - Ethnic or otherwise (tie: NYC, LA, SF)
Baked goods - breads, cakes, desserts (toss-up, v. provenical)
Produce (winner: SF noses out LA given Alice Waters grow local)
Other food industries (winner: SF, wine, coffee/Peets, artisan goods)SF wins in my book. 4 out of 7 wins, 1 tie, 1 toss-up. I could see only 3 out of 7...but no other city comes gets three.
re: ML8000
I'll give you that SF has a hell of a lot of artisans... well, let's call a spade a spade and say "artisan freaks" because you have to be somewhat of a freak to have singleminded passion for one item like that. It's a good freak thing.
I would say, though, that the Pacific NW has the artisans in perhaps more number than the Bay Area -- but not all the ethnic food that makes SF good. (LA is still better for ethnic food but doesn't have all the artisanal products.)
It makes me happy to be able to have this discussion about whether SF or LA or Seattle best represents the West Coast, because it means they're all good... something that was in serious doubt in, say, 1953.
re: Das Ubergeek
Haha, artisan freak is a fair term having met some of them. Definately glad they're doing their thing but they often have that weird OCD glint in their eye.
I do agree that LA has fresher ethnic due to size, immigrant population size advantage and the geography/landscape makes the start-up easier (which brings volume and variation)...but the upscale ethnic/cross over artisan factor is better in SF. That's why I called it a tie.
I grew up in L.A. so I have no problems with it and see the good (and not so good) but now I'm a Bay Area type (non-freak) so I have a bias but it's all good.
re: choctastic
Why? The population of the Bay Area is hugely diverse and I think the food reflects that. I am truely confused as to why you would laugh. What am I missing?
Edit: I do not, however, have an opinion about which city is "the best" when it comes to food because different parts of the country eat differently and prefer different styles of food.
re: adrienne156
because there are a number of cities that do "ethnic" way better. For instance, Friscans deride LA all the time but if there's one thing LA does great, it's ethnic in every price point. But NYC and Vancouver and probably other cities are even better. Frisco is way down on the list.
re: choctastic
Well, though I like eating in LA better than in SF, I have to say I don't know if I agree with your assessment about "every price point" -- while we have a couple of ethnic (and ethnic-ish) restaurants in the upper price range, they tend not to be good, with the exception of Japanese.
Or I could just be blocking the names of them, but pretty much all the ethnic food I can think of (besides Italian and suchlike) is pretty cheap to mid-range.
re: Das Ubergeek
really? like what? Unless you're talking about french and faux french (I think those are the restos you're thinking of), I feel like Frisco is an also ran in a lot of ways. When i say every price point, i mean comparing restaurants that cost the same for similar meals. LA's korean food at every single price point far outstrips most of the stuff I've had in San Fran to the point where I don't even want to try new places in Frisco anymore. Sushi in LA at every price point is far, far better. NYC's sushi is awesome but more expensive. Vietnamese in OC is way better than most everything I've tried either in Frisco or the East Bay. Chinese of every kind I've had is better in LA and even better in Vancouver. Mexican in LA is like a different cuisine. I suppose I could go on but those are the cuisines I have tried the most. I just thought it was funny that all these Friscans keep going on about how wonderful all their ethnic options were. apparently none of them travel.
re: choctastic
I think my point is that there's not a lot of upscale Thai, hardly any upscale Vietnamese, very little (by percentage of restaurants) upscale Mexican.
I'm not saying SF has better ethnic food -- they don't -- but I'd guess that upwards of 90% of LA's ethnic wonderfulness is available for under $20-$30 a person... not exactly high-end.
Is that a bad thing? Not really.
re: Das Ubergeek
We're talking about different things. Yes, I understand that a lot of LA's ethnic wonderfulness is avail for under $20-$30 a person. I was talking more about trying to compare meals in both cities according to price paid. For instance, was my $20 meal in L.A. better than the one in Frisco? In terms of the cuisines I talked about so far my answer is yes.
actually LA has some high end Korean food that you may not be aware of, same with Japanese and Chinese. Less true in San Fran. Yes, it's true that you can't really compare the two cities since San Fran has such a smaller lot to choose from because there simply isn't the population to sustain a really strong offering in for instance Korean cuisine. Even the Oakland joints are a small fraction of what one can find in L.A.
re: choctastic
Hmmm. I would have to disagree with you and I don't mean to pick a fight, but your sweeping generalizations don't help your argument. Although I did grow up in the Bay area and reside there now, I've lived in Toronto - commuting frequently down to Manhattan or over to Montreal for shopping/food/night life - and I have family in La Jolla. The food in NYC is incredible, but very expensive. The food in LA is also very, very good and on the high-end, better than SF IMHO. San Francisco, however, is not even close to the bottom of the list. Where have you been eating?
re: Das Ubergeek
Italian and suchlike? Boy oh boy.
Gotta say, the lack of a decent, affordable bolognese in LA is why it would never, ever be on my short list.
But that's MY short list. I really don't think this can be argued, as we will all get into a Jets v. Sharks debate, with no one really learning anything or changing their opinion. (Here I go, quoting Alton Brown again:) On the American road trip show, "Feasting on Asphault," Brown said of the German influenced brain sandwich found in Indiana that, even though it did not please his palate, that it surely did please the local palate. And perhaps because it was theirs and did not belong to anyone else that that was something in and of itself.
re: ML8000
If you think the low end food is better in SF than in LA, I say you need to spend more time in LA! (even though I have the usual anti-LA bias of someone born and raised in they bay area/SF; I have had to overcome that bias when it comes to food. I will keep the bias forever when it comes to baseball.). To me, the difference is that anything you can find in SF at the low end, you can also find in LA, but OTOH there are some cuisines (let's just start with Mexican, not to mention Thai) where SF, and even the bay area as a whole, just can't even begin to compete!
I do agree that SF is a favorite in what I call mid-range, meaning dinner around $100 a couple, but obviously some folks might not consider that mid-range.
I don't necessarily like to rank the cities, because I do agree with your underlying premise that it depends on what you are looking for, but of the cities in North America that I have spent a lot of time in, Mexico City, SF, and LA are at the top food wise. Cities that I haven't spent as much time in but that I have found to be wonderful for food on brief visits are NY, Vegas, Vancouver, Philly and New Orleans. Guess I need to spend some more time in those later ones...:-)
Major cities that have proved disappointing overall, which is not to say that I haven't had some great meals there, just that they haven't proved to be as great overall in all price ranges, have included DC (not as diverse as I would want or hope, hard for a visitor to get to some of the places that might be the best), Toronto (I had some great upscale dinners there, but I didn't find the good low end places, and the 'mid-range' places were not good value), Boston (where nothing really sticks out for me, including even the lobster) and Guadalajara (I want to Like it, but just pales compared to DF.) Of course, that could very well just mean that I really haven't found the right places there (so if anyone knows of a place in DC that might prove me wrong, please post on that Board, as I am heading there soon for work! I do love the Thai I've had there, and have had good sushi, but beyond that....waiting to find it still :-))
re: susancinsf
Maybe it's how you cut up the pie, so to speak. Low end and ethnic have many cross over points.
As I mentioned, I find the ethnic in LA fresher, more vibrant...and I definately agree about Mexican and Thai cuisine in LA being better (I grew up in LA) but the cross-over next-gen ethnic places like Azizza or Slanted Door are done better in SF...both of which move to mid-range casual.
Also not all the ethnic in LA is inexpensive...dropped $150+ for 4 at a very good Armenian restro in LA over the holidays...great food (can't get in SF) but it was in a strip mall and the decor was the Armenian equal of $8 buck a plate Chinese place in SF.
I also find that there's lots of inexpensive eats in LA...but not all of it's good. Seems like major scouting is needed because of distance/travel/traffic, which is why CH is great. The difference I find is that in SF that even a low end/ethnic place can't survive if it's at least not good...or has something going for itself. Don't get the same sense in LA.
Any way, my LA bias might be when I go back, there's a check list of memory food that I ate as a kid so I go back. (BTW, went to Clifton's Cafateria in Aug...worse meal in the past 2 years...and it made me sad.)
I understand those who say NYC has great high-end dining, but best ethnic food in North America? That I don't get. The best Chinese restaurants in NYC would be utterly ordinary in any of the major West Coast cities. Every once in a while you hear about some secret Manhattan taco joint (go down to the basement, hang a left, through the kitchen, secret handshake, etc.) and I have to chuckle. The list goes on. NYC is great by many measures, but it comes up short in the breadth, depth, and quality of ethnic cuisines compared to many other cities.
I mean no offense, but really!
Its truly funny how so many dismiss Mexico City without ever having been. Its very hard to explain, but you have to see it for yourself and explore it, before we can even begin to discuss.
Its one thing for people to give their reasons why NYC, S.F., LA, or even Vancouver s/b ahead of Mexico City etc., But once you start listing places like Portland, Miami (which I know well) or New Orleans... its a joke.
Mexico City has so much going on... you can almost fit all of S.F. in just one of the sub-urbs, there is a lot of positive fallout from being the largest city in the world, one with a lot of history, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of money.
For those that dismiss it, because its a poor country... you have to remember that Mexico is the 10th largest economy in the world... and Mexico City by itself is the 30th largest economy.... bigger than many Asian & European countries.
Mexico is a very wealthy country, that happens to have a lot of very poor people co-exisiting with the vast wealth. Mexico City is not just a population & economic behemoth... its also a cultural behemoth... in dimensions that even New Yorkers cannot fathom. Consider that it has well over 100 museums, and they all survive without any government funding. Over 200 Art Galleries. It has a dozen, world class "classical" music venues (Philharmonics, Chamber, Symphonic, Opera etc.,)... and as oppossed to their counterparts in Manhattan, Milan & Berlin... they survive without public funding. Most countries in Europe can't boast even 5 world class classical music venues.
These dimensions extend to food as well. You can't really comprehend it until you have been to the Central de Abastos, or Mercado de la Merced... then when you feast eyes on the greatest variety of produce & beasts you've ever seen in one place.... with dozens of varieties you've never even heard of.... then you can begin to acknowledge its rightful place.
Again... I am not going to say its hands down the best in North America because its so subjective.... and I don't know enough about other cities to make a fair comparison.
But I do know a couple of things... I lived in L.A. 20+ years... and L.A. doesn't even begin to compare with Mexico City. I've been to NYC about 10 times... and from what I have experience I really doubt NYC is better than Mexico City.
re: Eat_Nopal
What is amazing to me about Mexico City is not just how incredible good Mexican food is -- from street fruit salads to high end specialty fish. But also how many other ethnicities are well represented. One of the top 10 best Italian meals of my life was had in Mexico City, really great Chinese etc. It seems to really nurture great food both at the high end and at the low end
This sort of debate is potentially endless because we haven't defined what "best food city" means. There really isn't a Best Food City, I don't think - obviously, for Eat-Nopal, it'd be Mexico City (something we might have guessed from his/her name!). For me, my favourite food cities to eat are NYC (where I live, so I know where to go), Chicago (which is just incredibly dynamic, a really exciting food city), Las Vegas (money pouring in, demand fueling good stuff, although away from the glittery bits, the food culture is lacking) and finally San Francisco (which has the produce and the audience, but I think has much of its fine dining enmired in the legacy of Alice Waters).
If I were allowed to eat only at food carts, for example, or Thai restaurants, the cities and their order would be different.
re: Jaze
As the original poster, I intentionally didn't clarify criteria for what makes a city the best. My hope was to bring out the best arguments for different places from individual perceptions, after all ,isn't that what makes eating so enjoyable? If nothing else it makes me want to keep travelling and eating. My personal feelings are that a city or region is defined by it's use of regional products, thereby developing a true local cuisine. We see this represented in the tradition of Montreal and New Orleans, but recently, in the last 15 years or so, Vancouver has really exploded with local purveyors and their products winding up on local plates. That excites me. How well a city executes it's ethnic is also a big consideration for me. Ethnic should be authentic. Period. Not touristy or well intended for the crowds, but real and genuine, and hopefully packed with whatever ethnicity is represented. Vancouver is a MAJOR Asian port outlet, it's harbour a veritable Chinese market, thereby bringing Chinese goods and foods from the source, to be handled by the experts.
This Portlander visited my gf in DC four times in 2006. I fail to see what the relative hubub is about re its merits.
re: Leonardo
What were you looking for and why didn't you find it appealing?
I can only answer for me. I admit I don't give LA a chance. When I'm there, I'm looking for Mex or Cal-Mex mostly because I don't get to eat decent Mex where I live. When I'm in SF, I'm looking for Chinese or high end (I'll call SF and LA even with NY for Japanese but would choose NY for Indian). When I'm in Seattle... well, next time I'll keep going north to Vancouver. And Portland? Never been, but with all I've read, seems to me there are a growing number of chefs trying things because they can, not because they should. Not sure where the "center" is in Portland.
Again, in NY or DC, I can get anything I want. Anything. Usually cooked pretty well.
re: Panini Guy
I dunno... having lived in the East Bay (which is merely Pig Latin for "beast") and in LA, I might have to hand the Chinese food crown to LA for the insane wonder that is the San Gabriel Valley.
New York is right up there too -- the #7 train makes me salivate just thinking about all the food at the end.
Chicago? Personally I've never been so can't offer an opinion on that one, but I thought that most food critic-types usually award NYC, SF and New Orleans as the top three. I'm surprised to see so many people listing Chicago in their top three. Can anyone explain why they think it's such a great food city. And I'm by no means doubting you all, because I've never been. Just really curious and would love to hear your thoughts!
re: Newkie
Chicago (this is just a flavor; I can't possibly be all inclusive):
High-end innovative: Alinea (recently voted best restaurant in the country by, I think, Gourmet), Moto (techno-food), Avenues (great chef)
Highend American: Trotter's, Tru
Highend French: Everest, Les Nomades, Le Francais (along with a plethora of midlevel French bistros)
Innovative American and fusion cooking: Many small restaurants of high quality in the West Loop and Near North areas, such as Blackbird, Schwa, Sweets & Savories, Green Zebra, etc. etc.Strong ethnic presences:
Italian (from perhaps the the best Italian restaurant in the Midwest, Spiaggia, to a host of midlevel regional Italian restaurants--Follia, Merlo, Vivere--to innumerable neighborhood spots).
Mexican: Perhaps the best in the USA, starting with Bayless's signature restaurants to several upscale establishments to many represented regions in the neighborhoods, to perhaps the best Mexican street food in the country every Sunday on Maxwell Street. MIA, tho: Tex-Mex.
Thai: From the highend Arun's to a huge number neighborhood establishments, often with their own Thai menus.
Greek: Greektown, with probably the largest concentration of midlevel Greek restaurants in the country.
Represented ethnicities:
Eastern European: Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Lithuanian, scattered throughout the city and nearby burbs, with an occasional Romanian and Bosnian joint thrown in
Vietnamese: Argyle street is ofen called "Little Saigon"
Chinese: Not comaparable to SF, but a presence with Szechwan and Mandarin cuisines well-represented.
Indian: Devon Avenue and surroundings devoted to the cuisines of the subcontinent.
Well, I could throw out more (Ethiopia, Columbia, Peru, Lebanon, etc., etc.), But note, I haven't even gotten to the steakhouses, Chicago pizza, hot dogs, or Italian beef.
Suffice to say, there are weaknesses (no high end Chinese like Vancouver, and I'd be careful where I'd order my crabs and oysters) but enough of a presence at almost every level to be a top contender on any listing.
re: susancinsf
Do to immigration patterns Bosnian, Bulgarian and Polish have been gaining in Chicago while Hungarian and German have been shrinking. The last Hungarian restaurant in Chicago proper closed a few months ago (replacement is Mexican) although there are some in suburbs.
Good ethnic food, mostly pretty inexpensive, absolutely requires getting out of the downtown, touristy and yuppie neighborhoods. Some is pretty well located for access via el, but most really requires a car. Look in lthforum.com for the scattered obscure stuff. You will be amazed at how much is out there.
re: cheetobrain
Technically, the new owners of Paprikash opened a second restaurant in Arlington Heights and then closed the Chicago location about a year later. Ownership changed in late 2004. There were downhill alerts on both Chowhound and LTHForum. The former owners now have Epicurean Hungarian Restaurant in another suburb, Hillside. For more information, see http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?... An old link to the Chowhound alerts doesn't work while the search function doesn't produce anything after the ownership change except for noting that the new owners are Bulgarian.
I don't think I have ever heard of anyone who has EVER traveled to Washington, DC, for the food.
There are some good restaurants, but they are not destinations. Not Top 10 lists.
No one is mail ordering food from purveyors in DC.
When the local newspaper ran a contest to name the "local food specialty," the winner was the Half Smoke.-
re: MakingSense
Personally, I enjoy going there for the food. Gee, do I want to eat something from the Ivory Coast or something from Patagonia? I can find either.
Certainly more breadth than most other cities simply because of the cultural mix. Maybe not concentrated in Latin or Asian, but it offers every option out there - only matched by NYC. Furthermore, it is by far the best city for on the fly cabbie recommendations - there are probably 100 different nationalities of cabbies and every one of them knows the best joints representing their homeland's cuisine.
Heck, we even just bump into places without trying. On our last trip to visit pals at murky coffee in Capitol Hill, we stopped in at Montmarche, a bistro next door, for a leisurely Sunday brunch. It was wonderful. As good as any small bistro I've been to recently in NY, Boston or Chicago. And we weren't looking for it. No reservations.
But that's just me. I don't recall seeing "top 10 restaurants" in the criteria of the original post. But I'll toss out Citronelle for one. And I'd guess you could include P. O'Connell's little B&B. Heck, if you went by Gourmet Magazine's top 50, there are as many top places in DC as in Portland (OR or ME), New Orleans, Boston, Philly - or even Chicago.
D.C. is a town where you can find anything, and, if you know folks, you can find anything done exceptionally well. I'd put it well ahead of Portland and New Orleans in terms of breadth. The latter two may have some better examples of a particular cuisine, but can't touch D.C. for variety, IMO.
I'd go:
1. Metro NYC
2. Chicago
4. Los Angeles
5. If on budget: New Orleans. If no budget: Las VegasLived in the D.F. for a year back in the 90's. Never had really good Chinese or French (not saying it wasn't there, we just never found it), but had astounding sushi in Polanco - all sorts of bits of huachinango, plus the fresh water eel was better than anything I've tasted in the US (admittedly, haven't been to Masa). And nothing beats D.F. street food, at least not in No. America.
okay, I gotta know re Vancouver . . . are you seriously finding the food better than SF who also has the ocean, and the vineyards and the Asians and the agriculture?
re: orangewasabi
Toronto has an ocean?
Vancouver has it too -- and while their local produce doesn't have SF's growing season, the restaurants in Van have, I've found, made better use of it without running to weird non-local things.
Also I find that the restaurants in Vancouver are more accessible to the population at large -- with certain exceptions there's not the massive problem of not being able to get into the good restaurants.
re: orangewasabi
I bet if you ask the Chinese they would say Vancouver, With more Chinese in that city than probably any other North American city. Richmond (a district in the GVA) has streets, entire streets and neighborhoods with no English writing anywhere, and it's not even Chinatown.
The point made about the local product is a good one, too, with a regional food and wine scene built deeply into the culture. Why is French food better in France? French meats, vegetables and dairy products used in the preparation. It makes a difference. I challenge anyone to show me a city better situated for regional cuisine on this continent, what with temperate farmland, oceans, vineyards, rainforests, and fresh water streams and lakes within 200 km. of the city center.-
re: formerlyfingers
Yeah, the richmond district is amazing. just amazing. ten times better than most of the chinese food i've ever had in the states and I live in L.A. which is the closest runner up. frisco has a couple of decent places but nothing of the caliber that could compete with Vancouver's best.
re: formerlyfingers
I would guess that the San Gabriel Valley in the Los Angeles Area has a larger Chinese than all of Vancouver. If you count the entire Los Angeles metropolitan area, I'm sure there are definitely more than Vancouver. Nevertheless, my some of my Chinese friends believe that dim sum in better in Vancouver, as it has more Hong Kong immigrants, while the SGV is better for Chinese cuisines in general. I haven't had dim sum in Vancouver, but I've had it in Hong Kong before. It was comparable to those in the SGV. On the other hand, it was much easier to find parking in the SGV. :-)
Terribly unfair question.
I've lived in New York (upstate & Manhattan), Washington D.C, Los Angeles and San Francisco. I see greatness and mediocrity in any city. Variety of cuisines and people's attitude toward food are important, and all of these cities satisfy these requirements.
If I had to generalize, Washington D.C. wasn't as sophisticated as the rest on average. This was late 90's and the scene might have changed a little. In any case, I could always count on good Afghan food, among others.
I also like Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Las Vegas, Boston, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore... but I can't pick just one, although I have to say Vancouver is really up there. I've never been to New Orleans or Mexico City, so I wouldn't know.
re: grocerytrekker
I considered Seattle and Portland before moving on to Montreal, Chicago and the rest... but after adding all the other cities I forgot about them. They belong on the list, too, of course.
I was surprised to like Portland more than Seattle.
I still have fond memories of Jake's crawfish. Hanging out at Powell's Books. New creative restaurants. Livable, optimistic. Ethnic food? I tried the Old Chinatown. Bad choice - the eerily deserted streets still give me nightmares. Didn't even try the "real" Chinese food elsewhere after that experience.
I liked the Seattle downtown. My problem was that it closed down way too early. Pike Place - so alive during the day, then things went dead at night. A major requirement for a food city would have to be "walkability". For example, Vancouver downtown is most delightfully walkable at night - a contrast to Seattle.
I was sick with envy while visiting their Granville Island market (by water taxi!). This was before the SF Ferry Plaza farmers' market opened (phew), so we'll see how I feel the next time I visit Vancouver.
re: grocerytrekker
I've visited both Granville and Ferry Plaza Market a bunch of times and I love both but Granville is bigger, much less snooty and has lots more interesting little vendors. Plus Granvile has the best pie shop ever.
Portland really is amazing in this quiet sort of way. slightly outside of portland there was a decent dim sum joint that opened last time i went. it was packed w/ chinese. it wasn't vancouver but it was alright. i think portland is definitely a rising star with all the money that is flowing in from tech companies nearby.
-- but i've also had amazing gnocchi in portland, lovely little lunches with local greens and meats that would make a Frisco resident green with envy, and yes Powell's books. sigh.
To quote that great philosopher i-do-not-know-aclese, "it depends".
Does NY have some great steak places, yup, but name a good fried clam place. Does greater boston have some great fried clams yup, but name a good hot dog. DOes chicago have a good hot dog, yup, but name a good rib joint. Does dallas have a good rib joint, yup, but name a good fancy pizza place. Does SF have a good fancy pizza place, but does it have a good whatever.
Yes, each will have an Italian, Chinese, French, etc. range of restos, and each will have its own pluses and minuses with respect to certain foods (for example cheese steak and Philly).
So the key is to find the great food each city has to offer and go for it.
re: jfood
Well spoken, jfood! While great dining (and even "eating") in most large cities is a given, some smaller cities have some great restos as well. The poster mentioning Buffalo comes to mind.
Got me thinking...Here in the Syracuse area we have our share of chains, but we also have really good Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Polish, Mexican, Italian, and other ethnic joints. It's not hard to find a good steak, hot dog, wings, or ribs. In the mood for good diner food, we have that, too. And I just discovered a deli that makes a passable clam roll.
One of my friend's kids (who actually has some pretty good taste) went to college in Albany. While he prefers the "action" in Albany to here, he said we had a lot better restaurants .
Basically there's "dining", "eating", produce and industry (coffee, chocolate, etc.). Any city will do these four differently. Then there's the hardcore foodie vs. the lightweight foodie perspctive. It's an endless debate (but fun and provincial) so I'd ask, what's the criteria???
In the least strict criteria, the "popular" question is what city/metro area do people WANT to visit mostly for the food? Or what city would you travel to as a pure food trip?
My bias response would be: New Orleans and San Francisco
re: ML8000
If selecting by your criteria, I'd probably choose KSMO (never been), as a pure food trip city. Just because I have no idea what they have there besides some mean BBQ (sorry KC, but I may learn in between my que tastings what your find city has to offer). My 'mostly for the good' trip city would probably be Philly - great food intercepted by occasional art and historic excursions...
re: orangewasabi
I'll second Philly- though i don't live there anymore, I love coming home to visit. Always new restaurants, and you CANNOT beat Le Bec Fin. Best mix of high style culinary excursions and low budget classics (hello Cheesesteaks).
My top five would have to be:
1. Los Angeles
2. NYC (Shout out to Jackson Heights)
3. Vancouver
4. Philly
5. Chicago
I'm not a world traveler at any rate, but I would like to put Buffalo out there for your consideration. Now...before you start laughing, and wonder what else there is to eat in Buffalo besides chicken wings...I can assure you that we have not only our share of ethnic restaurants...from Italian to Korean to Puerto Rican...even Somalian food!
We can boast one of the top 10 steak houses in the country, EB Greens, as noted by Tom Horan in his list of "America's Top Ten Steakhouses".
The advantage of the beautiful view of Lake Erie from many of our lakeside restaurants also makes dining in this area a wonderful experience. Although we aren't on the ocean, our closeness to the East Coast allows us fresh seafood quite easily.
I hope to be able to travel to many of the places you all have mentioned on the list...especially Mexico City, and Kansas City. If you're looking for a suprising experience...consider coming to Buffalo! :-) -
Looks like Portland, Oregon is creeping closer to a top spot, if not perhaps there already. San Francisco is of course great, but LA is the best overall eating spot - or, rather, collection of eating spots - I've ever inhabited. Vancouver might have more high-end Chinese restaurants, but we've got everyone beat for great Chinese food in all categories, and most other Asian cuisines as well. NYC has us beat for Greek and Italian, and I've given up on trying to find decent cornbread here, but for Asian and Mexican (and points south), and for American diner grub, this is the place to be.
re: Will Owen
Yeah, I'd put in my vote for Portland. You can get just about any kind of food there, and it's good, plus if you're inclined to try your hand at cooking just about any of it, you can get the ingredients easily.
The only thing I'd say maybe falls short is pizza, but I think my tastes are warped in that area since I grew up in Pizza Hut country.
It's geographically considered part of North America, yes; the only difference between it and Baffin Island is that it's an autonomous part of Denmark, while Baffin Island is part of Canada yet still has Elizabeth II as its Queen. Iceland, which rides the plate shift of the mid-Atlantic, is the frontier of Europe. Greenland is clearly in the North American Plate.
As for food, other than Inuit and Danish food, I would imagine the best food would be US navy ships visiting....
Totally cool to see Mexico City get it's due -- it's got great food.
For depth of quality and range of ethnicities, I'd gotta go for SF.
But for the one place I dream of going back to all the time just to eat -- Kansas City (best BBQ in the world).
Those of you voting for Vancouver, I just don't get it -- bland city, imho.
Okay, I'm gonna represent Boston. Fresh local seafood, a wide range of ethnic 'neighborhoods' ranging from szechuan to Irish to Italian to Boricua to Portugeuse to French Canadian to Russian and...it's mostly walkable.
re: thegolferbitch
Well, I live in the Boston area and wouldn't want to live many other places, but what I will say is that Boston has a wonderful array of three-star experiences (much better than many more prominent chow cities in that regard), a limited (albeit quite nice) array of four-star places that merit the stars and the $$, and good but unevenly distributed chow. I don't think it ranks with places like Mexico City, LA, NYC, Montreal, Vancouver, et cet. Rather, it's a delightful provincial capital, as it were, and that's what most of us love about it.
re: thegolferbitch
There isn't a single notable Szechuan restaurant within walking distance of the downtown area (let's say, around North or South Stations).
There is nowhere to get good, cheap (like, takeout), freshly made fish and chips. There used to be.
There are less than 5 great pizza places, and less than 15 good ones.
Having lived there most of my life, the idea that Boston is the best food city, even within the Eastern US, is laughable.
re: Luther
I think if you're going to rate each city by whether you can walk to a Szechuan restaurant from downtown you can take most cities off the list. Most good eats in NYC are in the burroughs, LA without a car isn't very chow worthy.
I don't travel out west enough to comment, but Boston has a very diverse and accessable restaurant scene. I think there is a serious lack of mid-range options though.
btw I think Courthouse seafood has a very passable fish and chips special for 5 or 6 dollars
re: WineTravel
There is no restaurant scene in Boston. A a few good places, scant excellent places and a plethora of medicore to abysmal places. Service is horrible in Boston restaurants, at least in most restaurants until you get to the Oak Room, L'espalier, Locke Ober level. Why the heck would I listen to a pimply face 20 year try to recommend a bottle of wine to go with a $40 entree!?!?! Until Boston learns service, the restaurant scene will never get off the ground.
re: WineTravel
I'm impressed by the enthusiasm of the Boston board and (for me) the large number of restaurants/cuisines in Boston (compared to >95% of locales in the US).
RE:jjbourgeios, I'm trying to decide if service has ever really mattered to me: a friendly and attractive woman who isn't rude and can answer questions seems suficient for moi. What is it about service that is important to you? (um, who cares what a 20yo thinks anyway, I've got my own opinions - sort of like cooking at home vs bothering with a restaurant in the first place)
re: mazza3
Not so, the metro areas of each, which is really the only valid comparison, since we are talking about a market areas or economic areas rather than artificial city boundries, are Boston, around 5.8 mill, nearly the same for Phila, and Montreal about 3.7 mill. This from person who has lived in all three and is a city planner, extremely familiar with census data and usage. NY CMSA clocks in around 21 mill. See tab 8 at http://www.census.gov/population/www/...
Before I post my list, let me just explain my bias -- I don't care about fancy Michelin food. I don't eat it very often because it's bad for the pocketbook and I'm always uncomfortable.
Thus, my preference is for a city with the best down-and-dirty cheap holes in the wall, thus:
1. Los Angeles
2. New York
3. Toronto
4. Chicago
5. Miami-
re: Das Ubergeek
Even the airport has some great chow. In the domestic flights concourse at the end where the little bus station is at, there is a health food restaurant that makes a salad called "Estrombotica" with baby spinach, marinaded musrooms & a jocoque dressing that would make Mario Batagli squeal. The same place has great Cactus juices & entrees, and decent raw foods desserts.
Fresno, California. Before you laugh, let me say why. Fresno is in the agricultural heartland of the universe. As a result every immigrant group has come in numbers, each setting up restaurants that had to cater to thir own people, in turn creating genuine and quality outputs. When I was a kid, food awareness was better in Fresno than in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
I am speaking only for the US, as I have not been to Mexico City or to Canada ever.
1. New York
2. Chicago
3. New Orleans (haven't been post-Katrina, but am confident that they will rebuild).What a fun topic!
re: amyvc
Thanks for mentioning New Orleans. As I made my way down this thread, I started to worry that it would get scant or no mention at all.
New Orleans, amongst the cities mentioned, has to be one of the few that stands on its' own indigenous, completely original cuisine. As much as I love NYC, I have to admit that it is a vast collection of food from all over, whereas New Orleans stands like a funky jewel on its' own culinary island.
re: Polecat
NOLA, baby, NOLA all the way. Why? South Louisiana has its own indigenous, creolized cuisine (yeah, I know, Mexico City is home to another gorgeous creolized cuisine), but we also have unparalleled access to year-round, local, fresh ingredients used in traditional ways. Everything from local citrus & strawberries to year-round softshell crabs and oysters, to crawfish, backyard figs, mirliton, and an indigenous charcuterie tradition (boudin, andouille, tasso, chaurice, etc). We don't have the amazing, new-immigrant ethnic diversity of soCal or NYC, but we have a distinct cuisine all its own.
re: Hungry Celeste
Did you know that the vast majority of produce consumed in Mexico City was picked within 48 hours (most within 24 hours).... similarly with meats & seafood.
The basic life cycle is... farmer picks in the afternoon, picked up by truck in the evening... driven to Mexico City's Central de Abastos between midnight & 2 AM. Trading begins at 4 AM. By 8 AM.... all of the City's permanent mercados are stocked with fresh produce.... by 2 PM leftover produce is sold off at a fraction of the early morning price.... and room is made for next day's crop.
Aerial Photo of Central de Abastos (where it all comes in)... about half way down on the right:
re: likeithot
I travel quite a bit with my job, and one of the perks of this is my abiltiy to sample the cuisine in cities all over North America. And I have to admit there are few place that I get excited to eat in as much as New Orleans. The food is unlike anything you find anywhere else. No restaurant outside of NOLA can produce cajun or creole that comes even close in quality.
The thing about New Orleans is that it lacks the culinary diversity that you might find in Chicago, New York, etc. The nature of ethnic centric neighborhoods in those cites has produced some amazing food of just about any type. I love these places for this very reason. I often order or bring home smoked fish from New York, because I have not found a good substitue anywhere else.
The Pacific Northwest has a cuisine all its own. There is often a heavy Asian influce combined with the amazing produce that is found in this region. Midwest berries are nice, but the berries of the Pacific Northwest are mind blowing.
San Francisco is my favorite culinary spot on California. I have found that chefs there seem to experiment more, and there is often interesting twists placed on simple foods that make them memorable and exciting. The use of the local produce and readily available seafood makes it a "must" on any culinary tour.
I could go on and on, but the point I'm making is that it is hard for me to lable just one city as a "best" because each area has food that is so independent of any other region. A "best" label is purely subjective and not any one city can be universally deemed what all people must do. The precise reason we enjoy and frequent these cities is for their culinary offerings that attracts us and our individual tastes.
Tough to identify the "best." I've been to many north american cities, and like sbp, I'd identify both sf and nyc as "the best," both in terms of variety and in terms of respect for food and foodways. I've lived in nyc for over 20 years, and I haven't covered the extent of the city's offerings by any means...too vast, changes so often. We're so fortunate to be a place where so many come to live and share the wealth of their knowledge and skill at food preparation.
This is a wonderful provocation, though.....
San Francisco and NYC. NYC has the most famous, most expensive places, but S.F. has many very interesting places, proximity to wine country, more Pacific Rim influence, and arguably better ingredients close at hand.
re: steinpilz
Thanks for including Chicago. We have Mexican and Thai markedly superior to that found in NYC - and that was reiterated to me by the MAnhattan board Chowhounds. Great Polish here, too. Good Swedish, good Vietnamese, all the really avant-garde joints, etc. Good place to live. Plus the produce in summer (from here, Wisconsin, and Michigan, primarily) is just outstanding.
We want for nothing here, other than Sonoran Mexican and a decent lobster roll. :o)
re: sundevilpeg
I have visited Chicago twice... you know, I never considered that produce is great in the midwest! I feel so clueless. Are they developing the speciality produce farmers like in the SF area? I have heard that Chicago has great restaurants, like Trotter's, and plenty of money (and that it is either the largest or second largest Polish city on earth).
re: steinpilz
Have you ever heard the term "breadbasket of America"? Midwest produce is far superior to that of California. Bets berries? Michigan. Best Tomatoes? Tennesee and Indiana. Best sweet corn? Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa.. Michigan is second only to Washington for apples. Indiana is second only to China for Ginseng. And on and on......
re: likeithot
I think you should reconsider your posture.... California is the leading farming state in the country. In addition, if you analyze California's harvest it includes a wide variety of fine produce, not just commodities like in certain Midwest states.
Another thing to consider is that every non-Midwesterner that goes to the Midwest tends to comment on how bad fruits & vegetables are there... so do you just export everything? If you do... where do you export to? Because it seems that in California... the Tomatoes & Berries are almost always from Mexico when they aren't local.
Finally... I don't know about Tennesee... but if the tomatos I've had in nice Chicago restaurants are anything to go by.... I don't really think Indian has much to brag about. (Now, if you can't get your tomatoes into Chicago's finest... then that is another indication).
re: likeithot
Boy, I sure disagree with this -- now, California doesn't have the best of everything, but they have the best of a lot of things.
Best sweet corn and tomatoes? New Jersey. No, stop, there's nothing you can say, because it's definitely, definitely New Jersey. (If you've never had sweet corn or tomatoes in New Jersey in August, it is well worth your while.) Tennessee and Indiana aren't even close.
And I like New York apples quite a lot.
re: Das Ubergeek
What a coincidence.... the very first thing I ever ate in NYC was a Caprese Salad featuring NJ tomatoes.... and it happened to be in August.... my company's preffered time for me to visit the subsidiary (dirt cheap hotels).
That begin a string of successive, disappointing NJ tomato eats.
re: Eat_Nopal
Well, of COURSE we send the worse tomatoes to New York... who wants to reward a place that has decided we're the red-headed stepchild?
I've actually never bought a Jersey tomato. We always -- ALWAYS -- grew them, as did all of our neighbours. As a Northerner in a Southern Italian neighbourhood, we had much fewer tomato plants than most people -- but oh, God, the taste.
re: Das Ubergeek
The corn and tomatoes in Pennsylvania around that time of year are pretty darn good too. Last time I was there in August the tomatoes were *much* better than anything I've ever gotten in California.
Hubby grew up in PA, and while his mother was pretty much a disaster as a cook, he still fondly remembers summer meals that consisted of just fresh-picked corn, from a little plot next to his father's workplace, and butter...
re: likeithot
Not too long ago, the radio (NPR, I think) had an interesting program about how states like Iowa are now importing 80% of their food. The reason is that it is much more profitable to farm corn (for all the demand now for ethanol and high-fructose corn syrup) It appears the Midwest is no longer the breadbasket of America.
re: HungWeiLo
While the corn/ethanol issue is... well, an issue here in Iowa, I have to tell you I just had zucchini fritters that were made ENTIRELY from not only indigenous foods but foods whose location I could pinpoint on a map. The zucch: my backyard. The eggs and cheese: farmers' market. Herbs: friends' yards. Yogurt: the Maharishi's dairy an hour away. In the summer, there are restaurants here that know where every single piece of food comes from, and most of it is super-local, if not at least from surrounding states. And Iowans have been doing this way longer than Stone Barns and all the other fancy shmancy NY restos (although not quite as long as Alice Waters). In the winter, perhaps we must go elsewhere for our food, but in the summer, man, there's nowhere I'd rather eat a BLT than on my deck in Iowa City.
re: Karl S
That is mighty generous of you. Personally, I don't know that there is a single best city. I know Mexico City & Los Angeles the best... have been to Manhattan a dozen times and am well versed there. I live near SF, but haven't really explored it much... been to Vancouver a couple of times.
I know this... NYC is not better than Mexico City.
Each city has its + and -... and I think it balances out. Yes, Manhattan has lots of ethnicities represented but each ethnicity tends to be represented in very shallow terms. OTOH, Mexico City represents the 100 or so Mexican Culinary Regions fairly well plus its fair shair of Non-Mexican cuisine including very, very good French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, Lebanese, Turkish, Californian & others.
In fact, I have to say Mexico City has a huge advantage on Spanish, Argentinian, Brazilian restaurants... and small advantage on French restaurants etc.,
You can say Manhattan has more high end, high profile restaurants... but Mexico City has year round access to superior produce etc.,
For all the quality places that S.F. & Vancouver have... I am not sure they have the depth or breadth that Manhattan & Mexico City have.
re: Eat_Nopal
I seriously doubt anybody who says "NYC" here means "Manhattan." Manhattan has the "scene," and that's about it. For those who don't care about the "scene," all the good eating (and affordable eating, and interesting eating, and ethnic eating...) is in the boros. Manhattan on its own would probably come in at like #7 on a list of best food cities.
re: Luther
Yeah that is very fair.... and I can't speak much about the other burroughs, my experience limited to Greenpoint & a few meals in The Bronx (the Nuyorican portion of it).
I know that NYC has people from virtually every part of the world... but I also know that New Yorkers tolerate & support a lot of mediocre food.
As an example, in Greenpoint alone I had decent Polish, Jamaican, Greek, Mexican & Italian food. However, co-workers of Polish, Jamaican & Italian decent pointed out to me all their complaints on why they weren't authentic.
The Jamaican women said something about White people can't handle spice so the Jerk is very bland, the achee is low quality etc., The Polish girl complained that all they have are Pierogies, Dumplings & Stews that are prepared days ahead and just reheated. The Greek woman said she was bored that none of the places really go beyond Gyros, Salad & Baklava. The Italian loves the food, but admits it doesn't stand up to what he has in Italy. And of course, I thought the Mexican food was decent, but couldn't see them making a living in Mexico City.
That is true of my experiences in Manhattan with Indian (even in Indian Hill), Turkish, Mexican & Chinese.
I am not saying that there aren't great examples of those cuisines somewhere in NYC... but overall, the food that NYCers' eat on a regular basis is not executed as well good as what Chilangos (Mexico City residents) eat on a regular basis, IMHO.
So all the variety in the world doesn't do you much, if that food isn't that good.
re: Eat_Nopal
First of all, NYers like to complain - it's a fact. Secondly, NYC is vast. We have a variety plus quantity, and thus quality. There are of course mediocre places (I would not go to Greenpoint for Greek or Jamaican for example), if you took all the good, say, Greek restaurants from all over NYC and we probably have more per capita than any other city in NA. You have to remember that time is a commodity here in NYC, and many people choose convenience over quality sometimes (like your example of a Greek woman or a Jamaican in Greenpoint). Where I live (in Queens), I'm a stone-throw-away from the best Thai in NYC, probably the only Burmese in Queens, good Indian, good Italian (not red sauce), awesome Salvadorian (which Salvadorians like), great Mexican, very good Turkish (forget what you had in Manhattan!), great Argentinian, yummy Brazilian - the list can just go on and on... So if I want to stay in my neighborhood I stick with these places, but if I say crave Greek, I get on a subway and go to Astoria or save my craving for the next time I'm in a vicinity of a good Greek place. I'd say on a regular basis, I eat very well, and since I also try to cook at home, I can't even cover half of my neighborhood great places not to mention other boros, so I pick the best.
As for variety of ethnic cuisines, DC and vicinity could probably beat NYC, but there, like you said, are not too many choices and the quality may suffer, but I could be wrong (I haven't eaten my way through DC yet - I know they have better ethiopean than in NY).
re: welle
"You have to remember that time is a commodity here in NYC, and many people choose convenience over quality sometimes (like your example of a Greek woman or a Jamaican in Greenpoint)."
I am not willing to go out on a limb, and say Mexico City is hands down better than NYC... but I have found convenience & mediocracy to be very plentiful in NYC and that says alot about the foodiness of the city.
In Mexico City, there is a restaurant named Restaurante Arroyo which specializes in Central Mexican style Barbeque... particularly Lamb. The restaurant seats something like 2,000 and regularly Q's over 1,000 whole lambs in a weekend. The place - with its own bull ring & rodeo - is a real destination for locals & tourists alike.
A couple of American serious Bar-B-Q aficionados who've been there assure me it goes toe to toe with any of the great Q places this side of the border. In Mexico City, its not considered to even be Top 5.
Now, not only does Mexico City have at least 5 Barbacoa restaurants that can are very comparable to any great Q restaurant anywhere in the States, but every weekend 10s of thousands of Mexican families make the 2 hour trek to the nearby town of Texcoco to have what is considered a slightly superior Barbacoa, to that in the city.
That just gives you an idea of the Chowishness of the Chilangos. Examples like that abound.
Now its true, I don't know the boros very well. But then again I don't Mexico City's sub-urbs that well either. I know Lomas de Tlanepantla, and I know Ciudad Satelite pretty well... and have been impressed by what I have seen.
In Lomas de Tlane... I've had the best donut to date... simple sugar covered donut straight out of the oil at the local farmers market. At night, there are several street vendors that sell the best burger I've had... a bang up version with ground beef, chorizo & diced bacon in the patty... pan seared with a blend of worcestire sauce, soy sauce & red wine... on freshly baked buns.
In Satellite... I had thin crust pizza with crumbly goat cheese that would give NY a run for its money, as well as a Torta Gringa that surpasses the Cheesteaks I've had in Philly.
Now I know those are just little street food examples, I've given... all I am trying to say is there is a lot to D.F. beyond the famous districts as well.
re: welle
Mexico City is a Federal District... much like Washington D.C. The city doesn't stop at its legal boundary it just flows over into what were once independent cities in Mexico State. That is what I refer to as the sub-urbs... there isn't anything really sub about this highly urbanized neighborhoods. When people refer to Mexico City as the biggest on the planet... they aren't strictly referring to the Federal District (aka D.F.)... they include all the flanking urban communities.
I liken them to the Burroughs because... D.F. houses the business districts & touristy districts... as well as some of the urban chic, artist communities etc., The other neiborhoods of Naucalpan, Tlaneplantla, Ciudad Nezahuacoyotl etc., are were the working class folks live... similar to the relationship between Manhattan & the Borroughs... no?
re: Eat_Nopal
New York city does have distinct boundaries and it's Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island. It does not overflow into neighboring communities of NJ, CT, Upstate NY and Long Island.
Artists have left Manhattan long time ago. There are business districts in Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City of Queens. Except, maybe, for the Times Square, there is not definite 'tourist' district in NYC. There are different neighborhoods with distinct characters and visitors just come and see how we live. There are tons of tourist attractions in Outer Boroughs. Yankee Stadium and Coney Island - the two most recognizable landmarks around the World are not in Manhattan. As for urban chic, if your idea of urban chic is GAP and Banana Republic, then stay in Manhattan. Re: class thing, it's true that's increasingly harder and harder to find affordable places to live in Manhattan, but there are still middle class and poor people living there. There are also posh neighborhoods in every other boro. You need to pick up some celebrity gossip magazines to get you up to date, who lately bought a brownstone in Brooklyn.
re: welle
"Yankee Stadium and Coney Island - the two most recognizable landmarks around the World are not in Manhattan."
I like NYC... but that one had me laughing out loud. I really don't mean to be an ass... but that is pretty delusional. More recognizable then say the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower?
re: Eat_Nopal
I made a mistake (my head is heavily clouded from cold I'm having) - I should've written 'two of the most' and maybe yes, the most recognizable - when Japanese tourists come to NY, they request a visit to the Yankees stadium before the Statue of Liberty. I suspect thanks to Chen Ming Wa, Taiwanese do so too.
re: Leonardo
It's in NY state, but the land is Federal. Check out the NPS site: http://www.nps.gov/stli/planyourvisit... and scroll down to "Did You Know?" blurb at the bottom of the page.
re: welle
I'm gonna go with NYC over Mexico city.
First, I've rarely had food poisoning in NYC. For all my avoidance of tap water there, Mexico City got me badly when I had fresh fruit and veggies.
Secondly, there is not as much food variety as one would hope. Here, in all of our boroughs, you name it, you got it: everything from French, regional italian, Greek, Chinese, Thai, to Japanese and Mexican (of course, LA beats us on these last two/three).
True there are more sophisticated globally inspired fare in some of the more ritzier neighborhoods like condesa, in general, the food is of the heavier meat and starch variety. As much as I love tinga de pollo, tacos, chilaquilles, batidas, chorizo and nopales as much as any other person, I can't have these everyday. After two weeks, my stomach was craving lighter food, different flavors, and less grease.I think I'll skip the NYC landmarks comment, but vote NYC!
re: katkoupai
As a former Angeleno, LA is very much a part of me, but I pick NYC because aside from Thai, Japanese, Mexican and maybe Chinese, which LA does excellently, it does not do other cuisines quite so well - French, Italian, Spanish, Afghan, Turkish, Indian, Greek, Argentine, Dominican, and eastern european (I'm sure I could add more). Also, it's been my experience that there's a bigger ratio of really bad restaurants in LA. I've rarely walked into a random NYC restaurant and been so dissatisfied that I was unable to eat the food.
Also, I hate driving, and proximity is an important thing for me. Most of the good eating neighborhoods are within a half hour from the middle of Manhattan. You can't beat that!
re: katkoupai
Regarding Mexico City.... variety is outstanding & astounding... of course it depends on what you mean by variety...
Mexican Cuisine.... no city in the U.S. has any variety of Mexican cuisine to even begin to compare with what is available in Mexico City. For example, there are a max of 40 different Mexican concepts in L.A.... by these I mean types of eateries that vary based on what they offer (Taqueria vs Home Style vs Haute Mexican), Regional (Oaxacan vs Yucatecan etc.) & Specialty (Barbacoa Pit vs Rotisserie vs Stews) whereas in Mexico City there are 400.
So when thinking about whether Mexico City has ethnic variety... you have to remember that people in Mexico aren't Mexicans they are Oaxacan Mestizos, Oaxacan Mixtecos, Oaxacan Zapotecs etc., there are hundreds of ethnicities with their own languages & cooking philosophies. Granted... Pueblan cuisine is not going to be as distinct from Oaxacan cuisine is it is relative to Mandarin cuisine.... but there are still many distinct cuisines.
Mexico City is also a very cosmpolitan place with many foreign restaurants most notably Spanish, Italian, French, Argentinian, Brazilian, American, Japanese, Chinese etc.,
How much depth is there amongst foreign cuisines? Maybe not as much as NYC.... but while Mexico City has 50 to 100 Chinese restaurants... I bet it has almost as many high end, top notch, innovative Chinese places as NYC or even San Gabriel Valley. Further, when it comes to Spanish, Argentine & Brazilian cuisine there isn't a single city in the U.S. that compares to Mexico City... not in numbers or quality.
Finally when you stick to restaurants that only locals eat at.... you almost rarely get a mediocre meal.... that is definitely not true in L.A. or NYC.
In the end.... while Mexico City may not be represented with every Asian or African cusine... it has more variety (based on the sheer quanitity of restaurants, eateries, ingredient availability etc., than any other city in North America).
re: kayonyc
On the food poisoning: when I worked in Mexico City for 17 months, the only time I ever got food poisoning was visiting NYC for a weekend! (I ate a hot dog from a cart at 2am -- bad idea)
Food in Mexico City is phenomenal. Especially all of the varieties of food from all over Mexico. I wish we could get a quarter of that variety of "Mexican" here in the Bay Area.
But if you stray from the various Latin American nationalities mentioned, it can really suck. Most memorable example was the most vile Polish restaurant in the world, which is found in DF. Other cuisines -- e.g., Japanese, Chinese -- can be good, but don't compare to the best of SF, LA or NY.
BTW, I think the comparison of Estato de Mexico to Outer Borroughs is a good one.
re: Luther
I'm glad someone beat me to the punch with this one; Manhattan is but one piece of the NYC picture.
To view Manhattan as being completely a "scene", however, is to discount some of the excellent African restaurants in Harlem, and some of the excellent Dominican joints in East Harlem and Washington Heights. And, although a great many hounds argue that Flushing, Elmhurst and Sunset Park have the more authentic Chinatowns, Manhattan's is certainly a growing, expanding hood with its' share of excellent choices.
How NYC stacks up against other cities is not something I can attest to with authority. But I sometimes suspect that it is held up to an almost impossible standard of expectations.
re: Eat_Nopal
If you are limiting New York to Manhattan, you are missing much of the best food available there. In addition to Manhattan, one could and can eat like a king in any of the other five boroughs. If you want to eat Brazilian, Argentinian, or any other Latin-American cuisine in New York, then you are normally best off finding your way to Queens. I won't claim to be able to compare the two cities. I've not been to Mexico City. But if all you are comparing New York based solely on what is available in Manhattan, you are really selling New York short. I have referred to Queens itself as ethnic food heaven. IMO, it is the cloest I've seen.
re: amyvc
Actually, North American ends with Panama and South America starts with Colombia, in geographical mapping terms. Central or Meso-America is a vaguer term.
There are folks who might view Canada, the USA, the Bahamas and Greenland (yes, Greenland is part of North America) as politically distinct from the Iberian-settled parts of North American, but unmodified, North America definitely includes Mexico.