UPDATE: City To Remove 14 Blocks Of Bike Lanes On Bedford Ave.
Leftover Metrocard Change Infuriates Some
Hamster Rides The 4 Train
Bouncer Beatdown at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club
Obama's Afghanistan Plans: 30,000 More Troops, Withdraw By July 2011
San Francisco Chronicle restaurant critic Michael Bauer poses a heated question to his readers: Is New York better than San Francisco? His thoughts on the matter are clear:
I've been asked the question of which is better many times, and I have a stock answer. Because of its size New York has more to offer, but if we viewed things on a per capita basis, San Francisco would blow the Big Apple to bits.I do believe that collectively, we have far more adventuresome and sophisticated palates. Yet there's a big difference in the attitude here.
Our cuisine is ingredient-driven.Bay Area chefs shop and then cook. It's all about what's freshest.
New York is technique-driven. After all, when the products don't sing, the chefs still have to build the chorus.
Readers have been chiming in with their opinions, creating a lively debate. We, of course, already know the answer, although our bretheren at SFist may not want to admit that it's true . . .
Photo via Slashfood
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
having lived in both cities my vote goes for sf. it's all about the fresh and abundant produce, a california staple that can't be beat. and many of the finest restaurants exist w/out snobby pretense and can be had w/out burning a hole in your pocket (not so true w/ nyc). plus there's the whole burrito vs. pizza thing. no taqueria in nyc can come close to matching a mission burrito, but sf has some damn good pizza places.
los angeles beats them both though (i lived there too). especially when talking about cheap, tasty ethnic foods.
Speaking as a former longtime resident of SF and an embedded foodie, I'd offer this bottom line: SF does extremely well for its size, and it was, historically, perhaps the most important city in birthing what's sometimes called the American food revolution; but today there is simply no fair comparison. Thomas Keller aside (and calling the French Laundry a "Bay Area" restaurant is like New Yorkers claiming a joint in Southampton: French Laundry is a *Napa Valley* restaurant, and much of the great stuff they get they grow themselves, right outside the kitchen -- not really an option at the Time Warner Center), New York is strides ahead of SF in the high-quality inventiveness of its cuisine. This has to do with the aggressive and relentless competitiveness of the city itself, and its concomitant ability to attract unbelievable talent from all over the world; the money that courses through New York (and the apparently endless need of that money to expend itself on luxury items like food); and its position between the rest of the US and Europe. California taught America how to look differently at food. New York took a long time to learn this lesson, but as in so many things, once it did it took the act into the stratosphere. Restaurants that would be a big deal in SF are not even also-rans here -- just ask a resident of Park Slope. That's not to say that some lauded New York institutions, new and old, are not woefully overrated. But as a general rule, if you spend some time and energy sorting yourself out here, you'll find the array of quality spots known and unknown is utterly astonishing.
In fact this is one of the reasons I think people often feel more fondly about the SF dining experience. Like SF itself, it's a whole lot more manageable. There *is* amazing food in SF and it's a lot easier to find it, because there's much less clutter to sort through. (And the point about fresh produce is also a no-brainer, though Long Island and New Jersey farmers are doing very well lately -- still, this *is* the northeast, and weather is weather.)
The per-capita argument may in the end be right; size matters, and SF is very small by comparison, and rather outdoes itself in that regard. But don't discount the breakneck enthusiasm and energy of New York. There is staggering appetite here; people pay rapt attention and are demanding, demanding, demanding, in the kitchen and at the tables. It is a far more recent phenomenon here than in SF, but I dare say it's also -- like everything -- far more intense.
As for Bauer's comment on Chicago -- well, this is a very a la mode thing to say. Magazines and critics have to keep coming up with something new; eventually what's new is Chicago. The honest consensus seems to be that Chicago can now hold its own with a city like SF -- which is really a complement to SF, because it is, again, so much smaller. Suffice it to say that "molecular" cuisine is old news in Europe (especially Spain), and that it's been done here in New York for at least half a decade, probably longer -- and that moreover some of the best work in molecular cuisine in the US has actually been done in DC.
Seems like everyone wants to hate on New York these days. Fair enough, but you have to give the city its due. You must wade through a lot of crap, but when New York excels, it *really* excels. And lately, in food, it *excels.*
Two other notes, based on items elsewhere in Bauer's blog. He complains in several places about dealing with snotty waitstaff. I know what he's talking about -- and in my experience it is *far* more prevalent in SF than in NYC. There is, among a number of good restaurants in NY, an ethic of service (think Danny Meyer); it's a part of the experience, and it's part of the price. It is also, admittedly, a trend -- but one that seems to be sticking. I deal with far less BS from waiters and hosts here in NY than I ever did in SF. And when I do deal with it, I never go back (and I know I don't have to). This may in the end be about choice: we just have far more of it than they do.
Second, about ingredients. It's *easy* in SF, and this is both a good and bad thing. I would argue that the fact that you have so many chefs using high-quality local, seasonal ingredients now here in NYC is a testament to their ingenuity and their commitment. They have to be far more conscientious and persistent to make it work. Anything and everything grows in California, and you can lay hand to it without much thought (which is not to say that there *isn't* thought). Chefs in NY have done some amazing work advocating for quality produce and meat, and cultivating relationships with producers. And I believe in the end, like the other pressures and constraints of being in NY, this difficulty leads to creativity. You are going to have to use your head in new ways to make great food out of local, seasonal ingredients year-round in NYC; you can't be complacent. In SF that kind of complacency comes far easier, and you *do* see it. (And yes, there are any number of complacencies in NY as well, I know.)
San Francisco, where I used to live, prides itself on restaurants and ingedients. Said residents frequent these restaurants, yes, but these restaurants are nevertheless dead on most Mondays or Tuesdays past 9pm. In New York City, where I live now, you can decide, on a whim, on a Monday night at 11:15pm to go out and eat amazingly fresh bright orange lobster, and the restaurant will be full of intellectual, cultured people who all moved here because they never want to sit in a dead, depressing Monday night restaurant ever again.
San Francisco
Again, someone has to work in the tired rant about New Yorkers being "intellectual, cultured people." Try eavesdropping on your neighbors and you'll realize how vapid and uninformed most New Yorkers are. I guess if you never leave New York you have nothing to compare these people too.
As a SF Native now living in NYC for over 7 years...yeah, SF blows NYC out the water for a city of it's size. But NYC has it's unique qualities...quality of life is not one of them.
Have fun even trying to *get* to half the restaurants in the "bay area."
Complete lack of mass transit, intolerable bridge traffic, no thanks.
as an impartial observer, I have to say that San Francisco has always struck me as the most self-important, self-congratulatory city in America; and if you equate the figure per capita, the self-congratulation goes up sevenfold.
Oh, wait, this was about food. yes, I’ve eaten in the food in San Fran. the food everywhere there was excellent, but it always struck me the San Franers preferred the taste of the words coming out of their mouths then the food itself going in.
beautiful city. the character of its people? not so pretty.
in response to the last two posters...
this about food, not who has the better mass transit system or greater character.
If I have $10 in my pocket with which to feed myself, I am hoping and praying that I am in San Francisco and not New York.
Every city has great expensive restaurants - no doubt New York has some of the best. San Francisco, and even more so Berkeley, has the best cheap restaurants in America.
Just to give a typical example, take bread.
Sure New York has some of the best bread in the world. So does San Francisco. The difference is you can walk into any regular old Safeway or Albertsons in the Bay Area and actually buy that bread, whereas in NYC if you don't live next to a gourmet supermarket or artisan baker, you're SOL.
Eebmore - your post was hilarious. I agree on all fronts 100%.
SF is better for produce-centric dishes. This is why tacos taste better over there. New York is better for water-derivative dishes (which is actually most food). New York arguably has the best-tasting water in the USA. For example, the water used to make pizza dough and bagels is a factor in their taste. Factor in the proximity to dairy-producing northeastern states and our mixed cultures, and New York has more food-centric qualities in its favor.
One thing weird about San Franciscans is that they eat first a bit early, then go out to an event. Here in NY, we tend to dine a little later.
And the hippies! San Fran: Trader Joe/New Age/Yoga types abound. If you smoke a cigarette in San Fran, you're treated like a social reject. New York has a bit more variety.
Aside from that, in San Fran, you'll come across hundreds of homeless guys who won't take no for an answer. In New York, homeless guys at least have the respect to leave you alone once you walk by.
By the way, bars and clubs close at 2am in San Fran. 4am New York. The after-hours places close at 5am in San Fran, 8am in New York.
japanese emoticon, yes, hence me pointing that out myself. I just thought it was funny how every artlicle in the Cronicle always seems to be of the "gosh, we really are the awesomest place on earth" variety.
wonkette once pointed this out in a way that killed me.
Zac: maybe things have changed in the last 4 years, but when I lived there the bread at both Safeway and Albertsons was canned pre-mix nastiness, and usually soggy besides. Andronico's was a much better option. And true, if you live near the university in Berkeley (ie, close to Chez Panisse and environs -- me forgets the name of the main drag there), you have some pretty slamming options, food-wise. But the same can be said for someone who lives close to Union Square in NYC, or in Park Slope, both of which host farmer's markets that have very good quality-price ratios. Moreover, Berkeley aside, your chances of living within walking distance of a decent bakery in NYC are far, far greater than in SF. I live in a not-particularly-culinarily-sophisticated part of Brooklyn and there are at least 4 I could get to within 10 mins by foot. This is true all over. It's a legacy from the old immigrant character of the neighborhoods that hasn't quite yet been wiped out by gentrification. Alas, at least in my time there, it was not true in SF (not that they didn't exist, but that they weren't so well-distributed).
As for $10, well, I used to work in downtown SF and I had a handful of lunch options, some respectable and some otherwise. In midtown Manhattan -- a culinary wasteland for the most part -- I have a far greater number of options, but about the same number of good ones for about the same prices. The number of delis at which you can get a decent -- not great, but decent -- salad or sandwich here is astronomical compared to SF. We used to drive from one side of town to another to get really good sandwiches out there; here, you may not get one right next door but you certainly don't have to go that far.
And if you're not talking about lunch, then I don't know what you're eating in either town -- aside from bread -- for $10 or less. Cheap takeout is about the same; you can find gems in either location. And let's face it, cost of living -- cost of food amid it -- is awfully high in either place.
I think that Frisco and The Big Apple are two completely different flavors, like a red wine that was stored in a barrel from Italy's vinneyards, and a red wine made and stored in New York. Okay, a maybe you can't compare European wine and USA wine, although the USA is gaining ground in that market.
I don't think that either one is better. I would depend on what flavor one is in the mode for. I spent time in San Fransisco and I live in New York. I just like food prepared by a damn good chef.
Oooooh, MH: you called it "Frisco"...
I am not a San Franciscan and even I know that calling it "Frisco" borders on foolish. It's like mispronouncing Houston Street.
well blame the 'frisco nickname on the 'friscans, they thought of it.
this is some kind of joke. it's nyc. there is no comparison. sf is wealthy ghetto were they talk about how great it is, but it aint all that. no way sf has better depth or variety. nor the highs and lows of common food items.
gimmee variety over wealthy white ghettos anyday and i'll give you more interesting food that we do not have to talk about to death to enjoy.
cracks me up how still in love with ridiculous juvenile 'creative' fusion they are all along the western coast.
SF has great food, but having been to New York/ Jersey Area, I wish for one thing here on the West Coast...
Friendly's
It's amazing that New Yorkers of ALL people would accuse residents of another city of being full of themselves. Come on...
I've had good food (both pricey and cheap) in both places. NYC has more choices, SF has fresher produce overall. but you can choose to pay more money and get the fresh produce in NYC. ps. If anybody is full of themselves, new yorkers trump them all. especially the ones that have not lives in other places.
Okay, for the sake of politeness, I’ll humor the spirit of this article and stay on topic. Many food people believe, and in this I agree, as do many I know from the Pacific coast, that Pacific seafood, in comparison to Atlantic seafood, is bland. This is certainly true of dungeness crab... awful, awful stuff. Now, when it comes to produce, there is no question, Northern California deserves its due. Alice Waters in particular should be commended for her contribution to american cuisine. But, chez panisse is not in San Francisco, although it is pretty close; so for the sake of argument I’ll call it a San Franciscan restaurant. I’ve eaten at chez panisse, it was good, but I have to admit, it didn’t blow my socks off... although my expectations were very very high. (Years ago, when I was working in haute cuisine, I once served Alice Waters. She seemed nice enough I guess, but the man she was with was an utter prick. Fucker yelled at me for not holding a bottle of Champagne as though it was the Holy Hand Grenade. I was more than well aware of how to properly handle champagne. All I did wrong was not treat it with enough superficial reverence for his liking. Dick. But that is a different matter.)
Also, one could make the argument that New York does not have a distinctive culinary tradition of its own (other than its pizza. Damn good pizza!). Of course, it draws many of the worlds finest chefs, due to its massive market and the demands of its, err... million plus fancy rich people. San Francisco, on the other hand, has built its own culinary traditions on something other than fat paychecks for hoity toity chefs.
Now this is the deal breaker: FOIE GRAS. Once the ban on foie gras goes into full effect in California in 2012, there will never be any reason to ever go to San Francisco to eat, ever ever ever again. Putting politics and morality before food? Despicable. How utterly Californian.
***
and for the record, I think I was the chief proponant of accusing San Franciscans of being full of themselves, and I'm not a New Yorker. Just visiting the site and commenting, if that's okay.
Yikes, my SF transplant friends and I have been having this discussion forever. And yes, the San Franciscans are sanctimonious and narrow-minded in that PC sort of way, SF is really a tiny town, etcetera etcetera. I am a slavishly devoted fan of New York City.
But, when it comes to food, SF kicks NY's ass. Take the Zagats ratings. I can't believe the places that get 26's in New York. All these restaurants are constantly hyped, and they are merely mediocre when you go there.
As for the probability of walking into a random place with good food in NY? Extremely low, unlike SF. The cheap ethnic food is SO much better in SF. And what is this about good food being two blocks away, I'm having to shlep to the nether regions of Queens to get really authentic food.
That said, the bagels here blow SF out of the water. And I suspect that the rich people who can afford the humongous apartments can also afford another level of cuisine at places I probably will never make it to.