Leaving Chicago off a list by those criteria invalidates the list. Placing Portland ahead of Chicago by those criteria is a bit loopy. Smaller cities like Portland can support a dynamic environment, but surely not with the diversity indicated.
Also, I’d point out that general travelers can have a good sense of what fine dining is like in a given city but anyone less than a professional dedicated to the U.S. food scene would have difficulty judging the full scale of culinary diversity of a large city. Tea and coffee? Seafood? Game? (for many of the places listed above, Chicago is head and shoulders above them when it comes to game). Retail, casual, fine dining, food trucks? I’d like to think I know Chicago very well, and can’t imagine knowing the Bay area at the same level.
As to ethnic food, once again, a non-resident would have some difficulty keeping up with the variety of ethnic food in Chicago, a very small percentage of which is based on anything like fine dining. Just, for one example, the Polish delis (where hardly a word of English is spoken), change the question. To say nothing of upscale Mexican, and on.
I am here in the awful wasteland of the Midwest. We have fairly large cities like Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland that are pretty bad given the population mass. It is easy to have less respect for your own backyard, as easy as it is to be biased in favor. From my perspective, Chicago is way overrated. It is understandably meat-centric, but also calculated. One Off Hospitality Group is behind three or four of Chicago’s so-called best restaurants and they leave me cold. As just one example, how can a city the size of Chicago with it’s stockyards-based history not sport a great offal restaurant like Chris Cosentino’s former place, Incanto? To a much greater degree than NYC, San Fran, Philly, and LA, Chicago thrives upon tourist traffic. The dull bored denizens of the midwest plains come to Chicago to shop and eat in the “big city” and by and large, Chicago’s dining scene caters to these (us) country bumpkins.
Give us a ring next time your in Chicago. We’ll get you off of the tourist traps and into offal. This week I’ve had great tripe, pig face, tendon and grilled heart at four different restaurants
Funny, I assume that a great abundance of BYO results in a “better” food city, if maybe a lesser “restaurant” city (ie, less "haute). The food is all the owners have to squeeze profits from…and all they have to sell. (Which is probably why, thinking about it, Philadelphia’s seafood ingredients might seem less exotic-- and likely aaare. There is no heavily marked up wine list to share the cost of those ingredients. (Though there is also usually a dearth of good value low end wines, priced as they should/could be at places which have liquor licenses. But, I think that observation, re: seafood is apt. Almost never see New England steamer clams; John Dory; Pompano; north atlantic crabs ,etc. in the byobs here, though I know they are widely available, for a price.
Finally, I’d like to inject that when I moved to “Philly” 40 years ago (around the time of Rocky 1), I was told repeatedly (not that I used that term) that “Phillly” was a term used mainly by outsiders and those ignorant of the city and its charms…sort of like “Vegas”, “Frisco” , “Beantown”, “Chi-town”, etc). I still don’t use it, though people do. I think when it’s used, it does make it less appealing-sounding…than other cities, whose real names are most often used. Just a personal impression, though it seems that it might be historically based and pretty widespread…as a name for the city as opposed to neighborhoods within the city (where “Philly” is the usual.). I see a long discussion on this issue on some board. http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/threads/philly-vs-philadelphia.11777/page-2 FWIW
I’m making a list in my mind of places that emphasize snout-to-tail, decided to narrow it down to those in WickerTown BuckPark Logan’s Run, for brevity. Oddly, none of them are one offs.
My list of candidates for third best restaurant city in the U.S. in no particular order:
Los Angeles (given all of the recent changes this would be my vote)
Chicago (given the quality of the high end options this could be also be my #3)
Austin
Never go there but how does Las Vegas fit into the discussion given the number of top restaurants there?
An interesting set of opinions. Chicago relies on tourists, to a much greater degree, than San Francisco?
Bumpkin, indeed.
Yep, that is my opinion. Any of the cities we have been talking about have throngs of tourists, but most also have a strong base of locals who enjoy eating out and support the better restaurants, especially those closer to where the locals live and further away from where the tourists tend do their throng-ing. As to the bumpkin thing, I will own it, though I mostly see myself as a younger more scalp-follicle-endowed and less talented version of Calvin Trillin.
Interesting you say Austin. They have a massive competitive advantage based on their BBQ (which is so good, and so hard to replicate). But what other places do you think merit national acclaim? I’ve always placed Austin well below Houston (and Portland, DC, Charleston, etc.), but it’s always possible I’m going to the wrong places.
I really dislike eating in Vegas (and most parts about Vegas) and I couldn’t really fathom placing it as one of the top US spots–it’s all so derivative–but other than NY it’s probably the place where it’s easiest to find something tasty to eat within 100 yards of wherever you might be standing.
great thread, very interesting discussion and viewpoints. I have little familiarity with Philly so can’t contribute much with respect to that part of this discussion, but I do agree that based on those criteria, New York is a great food city. I’m not sure about San Francisco, though, at least with respect to (2) – ethnic food.
Perhaps it’s my now-Southland bias , but the ethnic food in San Francisco can’t compare to that in LA, both in breadth and depth, though I think that’s a strength of LA that’s almost unrivaled anywhere, even NY. I’m not arguing that SF is an inferior city than LA, since I think it’s pretty acknowledged that the fine dining there and the overall culture of ingredients, caring about food, etc. is more pronounced than it is here in LA, which I still think of as in some respects more informed by casual hipsterdom (places like Gjelina/Gjusta, Sqirl) and the history of cars/fast food (tacos, burgers) and balkanized growth of immigrant enclaves (the SGV, ktown, little Armenia, etc.). But I still think of the ethnic food scene in SF as somewhat deficient, at least compared to LA, and that to me drags it down any list of rankings for great food cities overall. Would be happy to hear about how I’m wrong though – I’ve heard good things about the dim sum/Chinese in SF, and the Afghan/Middle Eastern food in some suburbs, but at least for my favorites (Korean, Mexican) I think LA is unbeatable.
Some of Chicago’s best restaurants are or have been in Western Springs or Wilmette or Wheeling. Others are on lonely stretches of Ashland Ave. Tourists couldn’t find them with a bloodhound, a compass and a candle. Or at least I never see them there.
Plus, there are an enormous number of mid-tier restaurants, in a huge arc around the city, which are very good and which are strictly for the locals.
None of this takes in the huge range of places where English is a second language. Safe to say these are for the locals, and not for those just in from Turnip Seed.
But, if we want to get this back on track, refer back to the original (pretty good list) and point to a specific item where Chicago falls short.
I don’t think Vegas can even vaguely be considered a great food city, though it can be a fun place to eat. It lacks a strong list of 2nd tier, real respect for ingredients (though expensive ingredients are certainly in evidence), a wide array of good ethnic, dedication to quality at every level, and I would argue a real sense of itself as a food city. It’s one of the only places that has tons of high-end, and kind of nothing else.
I disagree that New Orleans meets the criteria as well, though I understand the argument. I don’t think it has true high-end, real emphasis on ingredients, innovation, or (and I realize this will be unpopular) real quality at the 2nd tier. I am not sure about good examples of traditional cuisines, as I’ve never looked for those there. I think it’s the epitome of a place where it’s really fun to eat, but it lacks the quality to reach the heights. That said, I admit I have less experience there than with most of the other cities we’re discussing.
I mean, as someone in his mid-30s, I heard many, many people from Philly call it Philly. I’ve never once, in my life, heard anyone say “Philly” was some outsider term. I suspect this isn’t the case anymore.
Also, on the topic of Philly food: when I first asked my Boston staff if they wanted “water ice” I swear they looked at me like I started speaking Mandarin.
Everyone doesn’t call it Phillly when referring to the city as a whole rather than neighborhoods.
Like people chewing gum loudly in some of them neighborhoods…it’s a choice.
What it reflects to those who are sensitive to the issue…may have modulated over the years. I do think it was somewhat of a class issue. (No quotation marks used. Using “Philly” and that “horrible accent” (which is horrible)…are often hand in hand. Somewhat akin to whether New Haven…gets strong accent on the “New” or on “Haven”. Because it is increasingly used, proves nothing, though, even if those sensitive to it become a minority.
Using a nickname like “Philly”, IMO, especially when comparing cities using the others’ real names…invites denigration.
, but the ethnic food in San Francisco can’t compare to that in LA, both in breadth and depth, though I think that’s a strength of LA that’s almost unrivaled anywhere, even NY. I’m not arguing that SF is an inferior city than LA, since I think it’s pretty acknowledged that the fine dining there and the overall culture of ingredients, caring about food, etc. is more pronounced than it is here in LA, which I still think of as in some respects more informed by casual hipsterdom (places like Gjelina/Gjusta, Sqirl) and the history of cars/fast food (tacos, burgers) and balkanized growth of immigrant enclaves (the SGV, ktown, little Armenia, etc.). But I still think of the ethnic food scene in SF as somewhat deficient, at least compared to LA, and that to me drags it down any list of rankings for great food cities overall. Would be happy to hear about how I’m wrong though – I’ve heard good things about the dim sum/Chinese in SF, and the Afghan/Middle Eastern food in some suburbs, but at least for my favorites (Korean, Mexican) I think LA is unbeatable.