America's Best Restaurant Cities: Esquire Magazine - Page 2

mhays · #21 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 1:02 AM**

Paris has great food, but apparently it doesn't have much Mexican. Can it really rank high then? Really?

ocman · #22 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 1:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

Good list that (surprisingly) doesn't seem to be generating all that much controversy. Is this a first? Should we note the date/time?

No, because it's not a very good list. The writing is really bad. And if you want some controversy, the reviewer is famously untrustworthy and I'm convinced by the platitudes of his blurbs that he hasn't stepped foot in a city outside of NY or even cared about food in 20 years.

dktshb · #23 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 2:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocman

No, because it's not a very good list. The writing is really bad. And if you want some controversy, the reviewer is famously untrustworthy and I'm convinced by the platitudes of his blurbs that he hasn't stepped foot in a city outside of NY or even cared about food in 20 years.

Agreed and I really think most of us here really couldn't argue if this list is good or bad in the first place.

bryson662001 · #24 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 3:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocman

No, because it's not a very good list. The writing is really bad. And if you want some controversy, the reviewer is famously untrustworthy and I'm convinced by the platitudes of his blurbs that he hasn't stepped foot in a city outside of NY or even cared about food in 20 years.

Like most of these lists, this one smells "fishy"

RCDC · #25 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:04 AM**

Philly should be number one. Stupid list.

AusHou · #26 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianSac

I've lived in two (#3 and #5) and spent much time in #1 and #10, and I have visited all the cities. I would agree with the list except for #7; it's ranked too high. None of these top Paris and Montréal though, just saying.....

I'm fine with #7. The seafood and Asian cuisine alone make it a great dining city.

Everyone can have their own opinion, of course. I would put Boston right at the top, because my emphasis is on seafood. But others would disagree.

Of course all of these are great dining towns. Not much use in another city vs city debate.

RobertWalpole · #27 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

New Orleans owns an entire cuisine, with its related hinterlands. No other US city can say that....

Jewish food is NY's unique cuisine. All over, people talk about NY bagels, NY pastrami, etc.

NY is the "West Bank" of Israel.

POLA · #28 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:44 AM**

Jesus, I'd put LA above Chicago. How that place beats SF is just odd. Is it just because it has a richer history?

wrab · #29 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:46 AM**

^ The Chicago scene has really heated up over the last decade.

RobertWalpole · #30 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Paris has great food, but apparently it doesn't have much Mexican. Can it really rank high then? Really?

London doesn't really have Mexican either.

In fact, some pretty cosmopolitan cities in Europe don't fare well with food. I went to an Indian restaurant in Munich that had beef on the menu!

seaskyfan · #31 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 6:17 AM**

I had awesome Indian food in Paris but still regret a Mexican meal in Amsterdam.

Chef · #32 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 7:31 AM**

The thing that both Seattle and Portland have going for them is that the northwest has really great ingredients. There is a large network of small farms that grow specifically for restaurants and some of them have produce year round. In the winter Minnesota localvore restaurants tend to get their produce from farms in the Willamette Valley and the quality of stuff I have seen from there is really high, it would be higher if we didn't have to have it flown in.

For a number of reasons there is more of that type of farming on the west coast than there is on the east which is why Seattle has a better food scene than Philadelphia. Really it comes down to the quality of your local ingredients. The bigger the network of local farms that sells directly to restaurants is, the better dining scene a city will have in general. It makes a bigger difference than population (within reason, at some point population and affluence does trump it).

BnaBreaker · #33 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 8:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by POLA

Jesus, I'd put LA above Chicago. How that place beats SF is just odd. Is it just because it has a richer history?

When is the last time you explored the Chicago culinary scene?

lawfin · #34 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 11:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by annie himself

Not to sound defensive but if a cajun restaurant were to open on 5th Ave, people would think "New Orleans," if a steakhouse/pizza joint/hot dog stand were to open in New Orleans people probably wouldn't think. Just because NY and LA have the most, people always assume they are the best. I just like to think of underdog cities.

God....trite, hackneyed and jaded.......you are a pro at generalizations and misinformation......

undoubtedly proudly

lawfin · #35 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 11:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocman

No, because it's not a very good list. The writing is really bad. And if you want some controversy, the reviewer is famously untrustworthy and I'm convinced by the platitudes of his blurbs that he hasn't stepped foot in a city outside of NY or even cared about food in 20 years.

I concur with your assessment of the writing style...no value added what so ever.. ...mingle a few stereotypes.....bring to soft boil and plate......

voila!

pico44 · #36 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 1:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocman

No, because it's not a very good list. The writing is really bad. And if you want some controversy, the reviewer is famously untrustworthy and I'm convinced by the platitudes of his blurbs that he hasn't stepped foot in a city outside of NY or even cared about food in 20 years.

So tell us what's wrong with the list. Is it because he didn't mention enough restaurants by name? I don't think thats it, unless you think he should have just listed the 20 best restaurants in each city. Is it because he made some generalizations about each city's dining scene? Well that is kind of the point of such lists, so that isn't it either.

And please give us an example of his infamous untrustworthiness. I'm not saying you're wrong (I'm not familiar with his writing other than this rather agreeable list), only that you did nothing in your post to prove you know more than someone who actually gets paid to write about food.

ChrisLA · #37 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

I had awesome Indian food in Paris but still regret a Mexican meal in Amsterdam.

Me too, it was so bad I wasn't even sure it was Mexican food. Chinese food was not all that great either. Paris has decent food, but their customer service just kills it for me. Although one family owned French restaurant my wife and I dinned at (recommended by hotel staff) was really good. They made you feel like you were family, and great service which I found rare in most restaurants we ate at.

I've never been to Savannah, but I've heard they have good restaurants.

bobdreamz · #38 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 4:20 PM**

How could they leave out Miami? Where else in the country would you go to for great Caribbean cuisine?
Boston? Can't you get the same in NYC?

10023 · #39 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 5:02 PM**

I see nothing to dispute or complain about with these rankings. No real opinion after the top 5, but those are spot on.

This thread should be locked at the top of the forum forever.

mhays · #40 Posted **Dec 31, 2010, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef

The thing that both Seattle and Portland have going for them is that the northwest has really great ingredients. There is a large network of small farms that grow specifically for restaurants and some of them have produce year round. In the winter Minnesota localvore restaurants tend to get their produce from farms in the Willamette Valley and the quality of stuff I have seen from there is really high, it would be higher if we didn't have to have it flown in.

For a number of reasons there is more of that type of farming on the west coast than there is on the east which is why Seattle has a better food scene than Philadelphia. Really it comes down to the quality of your local ingredients. The bigger the network of local farms that sells directly to restaurants is, the better dining scene a city will have in general. It makes a bigger difference than population (within reason, at some point population and affluence does trump it).

Related to that, Seattle and Portland have several climate and geological zones within 200 miles, far in excess of nearly anywhere else. For example we have coastal areas with 4x the rain of Seattle, and deserts with 1/3 the rain of Seattle. Everything from rain forest to high desert to tidal lowlands. Plus saltwater and freshwater. This means that "locally grown" can be a huge variety.