I have been going to Philly on business lately and for years used to visit Philly annually. I have to think that after NYC and SanFran, it is our third best food city. Zahav alone… One can question Eater’s authoritativeness, but please take note of the number of BYOB’s among the best spots;
No, it isn’t. Acknowledging that this is a meaningless question in many ways, Philly still doesn’t, in my opinion, come close to Los Angeles or even Portland and probably Chicago, except in the BYO option. I lived in NY for 20 + years and have lived in Philly now for nearly 2, with a lot of visiting in the two before that. I go to San Fran, Chicago, Portland and LA regularly. While Philly has a lot that I like, and I think it is improving all the time, I don’t think it’s there yet.
Nah, not even close. Chicago blows it out of the water. Having lived in Boston, Philly, & NYC, and spent time traveling to SF, Chicago, & LA I can say Philly ranks behind NYC/SF/Chiraq.
I’d put Philly in the Boston/DC/Portland rank. LA sort of floats between these groups for me.
BYO is great as a cost saver, but too many Philly restaurants follow the same farm-to-table look-a-like model. A friend of mine once sent me a PDF with 10 menus of the newest and most hyped Philly restaurants (in early 2015) overlaid and the menus shared like 75% in common - it was crazy how similar the menus were!
That said, I always have a nice meal in Philly when I go back home. I just wouldn’t consider it a culinary destination for fine dining.
I think Chicago is third and that Philly is well above DC and above Boston, but my sample size in Boston is not great so if Kevin Foley thinks differently it is best to go by that. Can’t speak to Portland in relative terms
Philly’s benefit (Byo) reduces the likelihood of two and three star destinations developing over the long term. Demand would be there but there is a supply issue since owners are not willing to take the risk to achieve two and three star status against fierce byo competition. Almost as equally bad is the state store impact on fine wine availability and pricing. That creates a huge impediment to getting and maintaining a star IMO. So the result is that you have a lot of fine restaurants to choose from but not at the level of greatness the big 3 can achieve.
Yeah no way. My son goes to school in Philly so I have some experience.
NYC - obviously
SF
Chicago
Vegas
DC
Miami then you have Philly, Atlanta, Boston, LA, Austin. Pick em.
George
New Orleans. End of discussion.
I’ve lived in Philly (26 years) and Boston (6 years) and I don’t see much difference in the two scenes, BYO the obvious difference. Philly gets more new openings, I guess.
Nope.
Wow. Ranking Vegas and DC over Philly really surprises me. All cities have their own unique personalities. My view is skewed-I don’t care for any restaurant that has more than one server attending to my table. Even when I am feeling flush and willing to spend (not often), the upper atmosphere of “fine dining” is not my thing. Those on this Board who hold Paris out as the measuring stick are bound to see things differently, and I understand and don’t disagree with that view, it is simply not mine. I am going to draw a lot of flack for this, but in my view Portland OR is currently the most overrated city for eating. There are three or four gems and a whole lot of mediocre clumsily immature spots. I would rank Louisville (very underrated btw) as at least equal if not better than Portland.
I think you could say that of Philly, too. 
I completely forgot about New Orleans. I would put them above Philly too.
George
Criteria?
A small detail. 
grew up in philly, visit often. emphatically, no. by any standard. it’s actually depressing how little progress has been made compared to other cities. i blame the structure of center city and the ridiculous beverage laws. those two aspects make it exponentially more challenging to open and retain interesting and reference restaurants. a solid bistro where you can bring wine for free? - perhaps the best city on earth. by any other criteria it fails miserably, especially when considering the potential.
hell, you could count brooklyn as its own city and it would beat philly.
I think there’s a difference between an objectively great food city, a city that excels at the kind of restaurants you yourself like best, and a city where it can be really fun to eat. I believe New Orleans and Vegas are fun-to-eat-in cities, but not great food cities, for instance.
I have an excerpt from an article I wrote on what makes a great food city at home. I’ll dig it up tonight.
by what criteria? I think of Philadelphia and Brooklyn as comparable in many ways…with the kind of food and restaurants I like best. But, without criteria, what are we even talking about here? I honestly have no clue…though there are lots of “answers” and opinions.
how do you choose which words to put in quotes?
But you do get extra credit for Zahav
I usually put in quote things that seem like something, but really are not…because they’re meaningless terms.
So, I look at all answers to the query on this thread as “answers”…and sometimes the author of the “answer” as the kind of person that everyone has one of.
Authoritative, Definitive Food City Rankings, with brief commentary
- NYC - Fine Dining that is on par with the best in the world, variety rivaled only by other global mega cities, and a vibrant food and wine culture from the top to bottom
- (Tie) - Every other city mentioned on this list, plus a few others.