Since this thread has been resurrected, let me act as the fact squad:
While 200,000 is still a relative drop in the bucket in New York it's still more than Joliet, Waukegan and Aurora all combined.
Wanna bet? In 2000, Joliet and Aurora combined for about 150,000 Hispanics alone, using census statistics. If one takes the river corridor from Joliet to Elgin (which makes some sense - I cannot imagine how Waukegan fits in with the other places), there probably are as many if not more Mexicans than in NYC as a whole, particularly given the growth of Aurora. Just to put that into context.
Anyway, I do not see how one can say one city is better than another without even the smallest effort to define what the basis is. Best fine dining? Best cheap ethnic? Most to choose from, or just one that is better than any other?
As to this sandwich tangent - I do not think there ever were that many places that made really good sammies, and the rarity of good bread and wide availability of cheap, processed luncheon meat has made it an increasingly unattractive business model. Good sammies have become gourmet food, haven't they? Inexpensive gourmet food, but much more expensive than lousy sammies.
Back to cities: there are good cities and bad cities for food. I think Mike G has volunteered Wichita as being a tough place to eat well, and I have had bad experiences in Tulsa and its environs - one can eat well in either of those places, but it is more of an effort than many other places.
It seems to me that what happens in these types of threads is that people passionately and intelligently nominate places they know well and then summarily dismiss with little thought the great number of places they know nothing about.
I suggest the better task is to list the places I feel comfortable that I can eat well without too much effort. These include, in no particular order:
New York
Chicago
San Francisco
New Orleans
Austin
Los Angeles
Detroit (though I have mostly focused on Middle Eastern food, I admit)
Pittsburgh (this place is a real gem)
Charleston
Seattle
Boston
Portland, Maine
Atlanta (though one has to drive a lot)
Montreal (may I include Canada?)
Toronto
Vancouver
San Antonio
Miami
Philadelphia
Washington
Minneapolis
The eastern cities have certain advantages because they are packed tigher, and thus are easier to explore without driving long distances. But like someone said, once you get past certain places with unique food cultures like Chrleston, New Orleans or San Francisco, or the really big cities like New York, Chicago, LA, and Philadelphia (which deserves a lot more affection than it gets) with the number of options they offer, it is so subjective.
And before anyone jumps on me, I only excluded Dallas and Houston from my list because I do not know them - though I am spending a couple of weeks in Dallas over the next couple of months, so I will be remedying that.
A better question might be something like this - if you wanted to go somewhere for the weekend and eat well, where would you go and why?
Right now I would probably pick Charleston cause I do not get enough good southern and Low Country food here, plus I should be able to get some good Q. Chicago would probably come in second or third, with New York and Toronto right in there. But ask me in a month or so and it might be LA and Pittsburgh. So much good food.
d
Feeling (south) loopy