Vegetarians get a full vote. That vote will initially seem like the other votes, but off a little somehow. It will lead a long and healthy life, but ultimately realize it’s the journey not the destination.
San Antonio is in first place for dining in Texas, IMO. There’s a reason that the CIA opened a branch there
Then Minneapolis/St Paul is in the 10 best kept secrets for food. Great scene here in the past 5-10 years.
Valid point about looking beyond restaurants. Though food availability is IMO more important than proximity to sources. As far as being able to cook with ingredients, it really doesn’t matter that much if something like meat comes from 50 or 550 miles away, assuming that something does not have to be frozen.
I think you’re also cheating to consider Manresa and French Laundry as “San Francisco”.
Meat is one thing. But there are plenty of other foods where proximity (and thus freshness) is a considerable factor between good and really damn good.
Just like NYC is more than simply Manhattan, San Francisco (Bay Area added on, if you want to be specific) encompasses more than the 49 square miles and 800,000 w/in the city limits proper. People in SoCal should understand that distinction completely, since so few of you actually live within the city limits of Los Angeles. You’d have to essentially delete a significant portion of eateries that LA lays claim to, since places like Monterey Park are actual cities and zip codes, not neighborhoods geographically within the “LA” city limits…
Gene, I live in Los Angeles. But, I understand the concept of including that outside the actual city limits. But to what limit? Monterey Park is actually in L.A. county and isn’t 10 miles from downtown. It’s similar to considering Oakland along with SF. Beverly Hills and Santa Monica are less than ten miles. How far is Manresa from SF? It must be 50 miles and maybe not even in the next county. Or how about Yountville? That must be 50+ miles too. We in L.A. would be laying claim to Newport, Laguna etc if we spread the net that far. Most of us do not consider those Los Angeles in discussions like these.
As far as proximity to food sources, one can go beyond meat to all sorts of other things. Certainly when comparing LA to SF. There’s an abundance of farmer’s markets and food retailers here as well. I’ve been to the Ferry Building market and don’t find it at all better than the Santa Monica (wed) market or the Hollywood market. If we drew a ten mile concentric ring from each city’s center I’m quite sure I can find more small ethnic markets here than one would in SF. Large grocers are at worst a wash for LA. The food-sourcing argument doesn’t (IMO) benefit SF over LA. SF has more cutting edge fine dining, which I believe is their edge.
John, from my perspective, it’s really a matter of scale and per-capita to try and make things as “apples to apples” as possible:
- The City & County of San Francisco are one and the same - 46.9 square miles and an estimated population of less than 900,000 residents. SF is actually the second most densely populated city in the US, behind NYC.
- County of L.A. is 4083 square miles, with an estimated population of just under 10M residents.
- New York City’s five boroughs total 305 square miles, with an estimated population of 8.5M residents.
So to make the discussion more apples to apples, I think most people would use the San Francisco Bay Area as a better measuring stick. Especially since most any visitor to San Francisco is going to visit other locations in the area, whether that be Silicon Valley or Napa or points in between. And also b/c we have a reasonably viable mass transit system, not as good and comprehensive as NYC’s but far better than anything in LA. SFBA is comprised of 9 counties, with a population of a bit less than 8M and a bit under 7000 square miles combined. The US Office of Management and Budget actually lumps in 3 more counties into what they designate as the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area, which they list as 5th most populous in the nation behind the NY, LA, Chicago and DC/MD/VA CSAs, and ahead of Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth and Philadelphia CSAs.
So when I bring up Manresa and French Laundry, both are in the SF Bay Area and less than 60 miles in driving distance from the Union Square area of San Francisco. In the middle of the day, you’re talking an hour’s drive door to door. A bit of a stretch, sure. But not a hellacious stretch.
SoCal has a better variety of agriculture that thrives in warmer weather. But leafy greens? Grass fed anything? Oysters and Dungeness crab? Just take variants/offshoots from those “staples”, and it’s apparent that NorCal coastal and inland climates simply allow for greater variety and scale than what is readily available in farmers markets in SoCal. Simplistically, just look to the size and breadth of the wine industry up here compared to down there to understand the advantages growers have up here.
In the past I’ve always dismissed the “Buy Local” trend as either softly racist or ignorant of comparative advantage, however, I’m slowly warming up to it. When you work directly with a farm you can contract for specific vegetables and herbs and give feedback on what to plant, when to pick, what size to target, etc. That’s really hard to do if your produce is flown in, so is rejecting a delivery. Just one example, but this is why Faviken went to local only.
Not unless you want to get a good taste of what the ‘other town’ does best.
There’s nothing wrong with supporting your own, but not when you want diversify your taste and/or just to know how good or how different a particular product that are produced and/or prepared outside of your own backyard. It’s almost akin to the concept of terroir being different from one place to another.
The next wave is for the restaurant to actually own the farm. Not completely unique as I know many examples of this type of arrangement I just feel it will become even more commonplace in the future.
Robert - definitely true. My daughter who is a chef and her chef husband are looking at farm property to do just that … probably a few years down the road but they’ve looking seriously. Both come out of very good Chicago spots.
Several local restaurants have their own organic forms here in P-town.
I’ve enjoyed the comments for the most part. The list itself is odd; I agree with most of the list but not the order or rationale at all. It’s like he never visited at all and just did internet searches.
My list would start with NYC and SF. NYC because it has the the most depth and breadth of any city in the US. SF because the baseline level of quality is easily the highest and because high quality food has almost come to define the city and the SF Bay area.
I understand the LA partisans, but it falls below NY and SF. It’s broad and deep like NYC, but the highs are not as high, crap is much more acceptable, and far too many people in LA eat to live rather than live to eat. LA has great ethnic variety, but if you include the broader SF Bay Area – which, as pointed out above, is only fair given the size of L.A. County – the two are comparable. On quality standards, sophistication, and ethos, SF blows LA out of the water.
After those three, I think the next tier includes Chicago, New Orleans, and maybe DC. Chicago and New Orleans are self-explanatory. DC in my mind has become the LA of the East, food-wise. 15 years ago, I don’t think DC deserved to be in this conversation at all. Pretty amazing change.
The last 4 are debatable. I think Minneapolis-St. Paul should be on the list. I’d replace Philadelphia or Portland, OR. Ultimately, I think Charleston, Houston, and Portland, OR are the best choices (dropping Philadelphia) but I could certainly buy Philadelphia, Austin, Denver, Boston, Philadelphia, Memphis, and Nashville as legitimate contenders.
Finally, I think Portland, ME is pretty fantastic as a food city, and the baseline level of quality and highest heights are starting to exceed places like Boston, but it’s too small to have the breadth and depth of larger cities.
Gene,
You can define the locality as you’d like. So can the US Office of Mgmnt and Budget for whatever political/economic reasons they apply. I’ve been in Cali a long time and have more family in NoCal than SoCal. Los Gatos and Yountville aren’t San Francisco to me. Just like Laguna isn’t L.A. even though it is more contiguous to L.A. than Napa is to S.F… If you said The French Laundry is in San Francisco to someone they’d wonder where you’re from. But saying Monterey Park or Beverly Hills are in L.A. makes more sense and is commonly done.
Equalizing population is cheating. We don’t compare the Dakotas, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Nebraska together as food destinations to equalize population with Los Angeles or New York. I’m originally from Pittsbugh and wouldn’t lump it with Philly in a discussion. D.C. is not Baltimore though they are contiguous and closer than Napa and S.F.
As for the availability of stuff like fresh fish/shellfish there just isn’t shortage here in L.A… Produce grown up through Ventura, Central Coast, and the Central Valley shows up at our farmers markets. I’ve been to the farmers markets at the Ferry Bldg and in Berkeley as well. A lot of the stuff at the Ferry bldg. market is both in lesser supply and more expensive than the Hollywood and SaMo farmers markets here. There is plenty of very fresh fish and shellfish here in L.A… We’re on the ocean and a major shipping hub. More seafood than not isn’t caught right off either SF or LA.
Jay, I’ve never tasted ethos, what’s it like? 
I’m not sure how much time you spend in L.A. but there are plenty of foodies here. The live to eat vs. eat to live distinction is silly (IMO) and probably based on a lack of true familiarity. We may indeed dwell upon the things that are not the highest end. But I don’t live a life that has me interested in fine lunches that cost me $50 and last 1.5 hrs. I love food and am stoked that I can get all sorts of stuff, often ethnic, that I can chow in my 40 min lunch for $10. I totally agree that places like Crenn and Saison have panache and very high highs. Even if I lived there I wouldn’t go to either more than twice a year. But I’ll hit the taco place that is five minutes from work ten+ times a year and do similar $10 lunches around my city travels 100 times a year. Which class of establishment is more valuable? The high-end or the low end? I think that is why so many Angelenos love Jonathan Gold as a critic. He is just as likely to cover a spot with $15 lunches and $25 dinners, where most people in any city eat most frequently, than he is to cover the Michelin-star places.
Btw, I pretty much agree with Ryan’s list which had LA #2 and SF #3, but in reality would consider it a tie and wouldn’t quibble with a flip of LA and SF.
John, there are good taco trucks in LA and SF. There are good noodle places in LA and SF. There are good sushi places in LA in SF (better in LA). There are good pizza places in LA and SF (better in SF). But you could say the same about any big city. If we’re ranking, we’ll never get anywhere by just stacking the good restaurants and seeing which pile is higher.
I think ethos is absolutely relevant as a distinguishing factor between two great food cities. I think you know what ethos means. Food is more central to the identity of SF than to LA’s and has been since at least the whole seasonal “quality ingredients” Chez Panisse thing took off. When my family in Minnesota and Virginia or my friends in Maine and Missouri think of or talk about SF, it’s about food. When I’m asked for tips for things to do and places to go in SF, it’s about food. When Michelin decides what areas to review for international audiences, they choose SF (and include wine country). Etc.
The competition and market density of people who want the absolute best food at any price point and style (including tourists, who come to SF to eat) is what distinguishes SF, and I’ve spent enough time in LA to have no doubt about it. Every new place that opens at any price point in SF now sees itself as having to truly be the best at whatever it is setting out to do. Every place has to have a point of view, every place has to use quality, fresh ingredients, and every place has to satisfy an almost universally demanding customer base.
In terms of WB jargon, SF wins on QPR. You may only eat at Crenn or Saison one or twice a year if you lived there. That’s what I did, and I did live there. But I sure was glad that places like those (and Benu, and Coi, and Quince, and La Folie, and Acquerello, etc.) represent the high-end of dining in San Francisco. You can spend a lot of money on crap in LA. It’s almost impossible to do so in San Francisco (other than a few lingering holdovers around Union Square). And that’s how it works at every price point. San Francisco also had some of the best Mexican food I’ve ever had (both high end and food truck), the best bakery I’ve been to, and the best pizza I’ve ever had (and I’ve now been to pretty much all of the usual suspects in New York).
My favorite restaurant in SF is an Austrian “gasthaus” kind of place. I’ve never spent more than about $40 per person for dinner there, including lots of great beer. And it’s just about the best traditional Austrian food I’ve ever had. The “restaurant” I’ve visited most in SF is the taco truck next to the Best Buy. The tacos al pastor are the best I’ve ever had. The thing is, a lot of the food in San Francisco is “the best I’ve ever had.” That’s why it gets my subjective vote.
All that said, I still think NYC is #1.
Jay,
As I said, I wouldn’t quibble with SF edging LA.
We’re in agreement about the high-end. Though I was in part serious about the ethos. I am pretty nuts and bolts. I don’t give a crap about the artisanal allure of wine, how it is made or by whom. I am a “does it taste good in my mouth” guy. I am the same about food. I don’t really care about point of view, eating local, or the living wage of the employees. I want to stick delicious stuff into my gullet.
I actually disagree with you about QPR at the middle and below price point in L.A. vs SF, though it is close. SF does not have Mexican food at the quality of L.A., especially at the low end. As you said, they don’t have as much mid-level sushi, or high end for that matter. They have a huge Asian population but IMO the Chinese food here is better. Korean food? Not even close. Those things add up, and if one city ends up with a “higher pile” of even low/mid level places that contributes to an edge. I will give the slight pizza edge to SF, but LA is really making strides. Where is that “best pizza you’ve ever had” btw?
One thing about LA in general is that it is just not as visitor friendly. I agree that the SF scene is in part tourist driven. L.A.'s really spread out and one can’t just trip around like they can in SF. But those of us who live here know the spots, how to get there, and find the driving easier. There are tourists at the Chinese places in Monterey Park, but not as one finds in central SF. Tourists here tend to stay from Downtown west to Santa Monica. So a lot of people that visit here have never even been out to the Monterey Park area as it just isn’t in proximity to the area where one finds the tourists. They’re more likely to report dining around Hollywood Blvd or by the SaMo pier, places where most of us haven’t eaten in years. Most visitors aren’t going to Langer’s for a great pastrami sandwich or Flor de Yucatan for cochinita pibil as half of them would fear for their life walking the block around either.
Also, yes there is more commercial crap here in LA and maybe just mediocre stuff. The area here is much bigger and there are more people. So there are going to be more low and mid level restaurants and a higher tally of stuff you don’t want. Real estate is cheaper here than in SF, so places exist that might not survive in SF. But once you live here you simply don’t go to them. If I were to vote for a destination as a foodie I would definitely vote SF.
John, don’t worry; I’m not trying to eat the ethos. It’s a generalization. How do you sum up the differences between two cities with thousands of restaurants/eateries/markets? We probably agree that’s impossible, but since we’re debating something completely subjective, I think ethos is a decent way to describe the combination of historical, cultural, and economic factors that have made SF into more of a self-consciously foodie place than LA.
I’ll definitely give you Korean food in LA, which I love. I had a Korean client in LA a few years ago whose local Korean lawyer used to take me out. Definitely nothing like that in SF. I’ll also give you Chinese generally, although I’ve had far better dim sum in SF. I’d quibble on Mexican, although I think there are meaningful differences (like the whole SF Mission burrito thing) that one could argue either way. Where I think LA really falls short even for daily eats is ethnic European and what is often referred to as “Cal-Ital.”
Regarding pizza: my favorite pizzeria anywhere (and they delivered to my old apartment!) is Tony’s Pizza Napoletana. It gets lots of hype, but it really is fantastic, and its quality is particularly remarkable given the breadth of offerings. The Margherita is great, but my favorite is the coal-fired “New Yorker,” which ironically is New Haven style.
Jay, We agree. People in SF are more self-aware about almost everything than we SoCals.
There is definitely a lot of good mexican in SF. The plus about LA Mexican is IMO twofold. First there are decent, perhaps not great, taco joints everywhere here. So about everywhere in a big city, I know of a decent Mexican spot within 5-6 minutes. Also SF has a lot of Cal burrito, designer Mexican food among others. I think we have more simple, authentic Mexican places and a variety of regional foods. They’re usually run by Mexicans, not hipsters . It kind of makes sense as there are a ton more Mexicans in the LA area than the SF area. There is also more other Central American food here. There also seems to be much more Persian and Armenian food here.
I agree that SF has more varied non-French or Italian food. Eg German, Austrian, Polish. I am not a big fan of those cuisines but we are definitely lacking. We also don’t have much African food, save for some Ethiopian, and not enough non-fast Greek food. I’m half Filipino and one has to travel 25 min. to the south bay to get anything decent, whereas there is a bit more in central SF. SF also has better Vietnamese food, at least the colonial stuff more sophisticated than pho and Bahn mi. That is one of my favorite cuisines and one I seek out in SF.
Interesting comment on Italian. I think there is a lot of Italian and Cal-Ital here. We’ve had an influx over the past years of places like Mozza, Factory Kitchen, Bestia, Sotto, DRago, Centro. What IMO SF has more of are simple traditional Italian where one might have clam sauce, lasagna, etc. I don’t miss that too much because my wife is half-Italian and makes great homey Italian.
Thanks for the Pizza recco… I may be in SF in a couple of weeks.
I would be inclined to put Honolulu in the top 10.
you need to go to el monte more. Lots of really fantastic regional vietnamese food there. I know it’s scary going past the 110 but someone’s gotta do it. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
And since the Bay area people are including Napa/San Jose why can’t we count in the OC for LA? Westminster has hands down the best vietnamese food in the US (with a potential argument going to houston)