where does Chicago fit in great American restaurant cities?

I know there has been a lot of talk about Chicago being the best restaurant city in America,(GQ, if I remember right) but I still think they have a ways to go to catch NYC.

I rank the cities:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. San Francisco
4. Las Vegas
5. Atlanta
6. Philly
7. New Orleans
8. Boston
9. LA
10. South Florida(boca, Miami, Ft.Lauderdale)

I feel like most people would put SF (and the greater Bay Area) above Chicago if only because of its philosophical connection to "California" cuisine. An argument could be made for Las Vegas being the "best" dining city in the US if one considers the concentration of fine-dining restaurants. Of course, fine-dining plays a variable role in evaluating a city's dining prowess according to the individual doing the judgement. I think that most people who have been to Robuchon and Savoy would not hesitate to say that they are among the very best, if not THE very best French restaurants in the country.

Atlanta also seems to be a bit of a dark horse on that list, and I would certainly place Philly above it.

As distasteful as I find such lists (How does one define what's better? What purpose does it serve, anyway?), I think listing Los Angeles so far down, by any objective measure, is either pure insanity or total guesswork based on a lack of experience.

I have very little experience with 4 through 8. Ranking Las Vegas so high, though, from my perspective seems ridiculous since the depth isn't really there. It's all about cloning something that was done better somewhere else that you can charge a lot of money for.

What about Houston and DC? I question the depth, breadth, and heights of Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Boston, though I have little first hand knowledge of those three, but I've had little encouragement to make food trips to them in my research. And LA so low just strikes me as crazy. I also think NY isn't a shoe-in for #1, which if you were to expand SF to its metro area with Sonoma/Napa and/or South Bay and of course the East Bay is a real powerhouse of high end dining, ethnic eats, great markets, food culture, etc. (I'd say SF's restaurants deliver quality food better than anywhere else I've visited, too, whereas in other towns sometimes the claims on strong than reality, such as in NY, or in Chicago with some of the higher end restaurants.)

BTW, Baskerville, I meant that in a completely friendly manner, but re-reading it, I realize it doesn't come across that way. Apologies if there was any confusion.

Have you spent much time eating in L.A.?

Given that Chicago means Garlicke and is in Cook County, I'd say it's #1

To be exact, not "Garlicke" but "wild leek" altho the word was also used by the local Indians to refer to the "striped skunk," giving the derivation of the city's name both culinary and political connotations.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory. ... /2463.html

I'd say that one point worth considering is value. I think one can eat better for the price in Chicago.

My modification from doing a tremendous amount of eating in all of these

baskerville wrote:I know there has been a lot of talk about Chicago being the best restaurant city in America,(GQ, if I remember right) but I still think they have a ways to go to catch NYC.

I rank the cities:

1. San Francisco
2. Chicago
3. New York
4. New Orleans
5. Boston
6. Philly
7. Washington, DC
8. Las Vegas
9. LA
10. Atlanta (barely squeeked in there, but there are a few cities that could go in this 10 spot for me)

Not having eaten much in Philly or Boston, I'd like to hear a justification for those cities being higher than DC or LA.

I can't speak to Boston and LA, but there are a couple of factors that would IMO give Philly an edge over DC, and also entry into any top 10 list.

1). Markets: Reading Terminal and the Italian Street Market, tough to find their equals in this country.

2). Several specialties that if not unique to Philly, they do very well there: Cheesesteak/soft pretzels/hoagies/PA Dutch specialties like scrapple.

3). A couple of restaurants that have one time or another been in the top 10 in the country: Susanna Foo, Le Bec Fin, Striped Bass.

4). Old standbys with very long histories (altho varying in quality over the years), such as Sansome Street Oyster House, Bookbinder's, 4th St. Deli, Standard Tap

Strong ethnic representatives, altho I'm personally familiar only with the Italian which seems to be fairly deep at a variety of price levels and styles.

DC, of course, has its attributes, and in terms of the diversity of its dining scene, I don't think it can be beat. (I've had my first Afghan, Ethiopian, Southern Indian, Malayan food there). My main gripe with DC, tho, is that many of the restaurants I've liked are gone by the time I return. Admittedly, it's a highly subjective opinion, particularly since I don't travel as much to DC as I used to, but my impression is that restaurants--good, bad, indifferent--have short shelf lives there.

Boston does not belong on any top ten list for restaurants in the US. Well let me rephrase that, Trying to force a top ten list on this subject is probably not doing justice to the true top cities. The gap is just so big between a city like Chicago, L.A. (which is light years ahead of Boston BTW), or NYC and places like Boston, Philly, and Atlanta.

Having lived moderately close to Boston (CT and Maine) for 23 years and in the City for 2 years, I'll say that, while I love a great deal of the establishments there, it does not really have the depth that the top cities have. While there are smatterings of truly excellent regional ethinc cuisine, Boston is often limitied to a single restuant or two showcasing a particular style. I will say that the High End in Boston probably does not get the respect that it deserves. Places like Clio, L'Espalier, and Aujourd'hui are right up there with the best of them. Check http://www.bostonchefs.com for a well orginized peak at many of the upper end Boston spots.

Still, a great culinary city is not made on truffles alone. Ultimatly I think it comes down to to a few elements that keep Boston from achieving true greatness. First is the size of the city. Boston really isn't that big of a city. It seems big at first, I think, mostly due to awful transportation that makes a 20 minuet ride in Chicago 40 minuets in Boston. More people = more potential for depth. Second, it really doesn't have a local cuisine to make up for a lack of depth like NOLA or Seattle. Yes there is the whole chowder and seafood thing but you find better examples of all of that in Maine at roadside stands and diners. Finally, it is too darn close to NYC. at a scant 3 hour drive, it is very easy to lure up and comming cooks to "the best food city in the country".

All this said, is Boston a good food city? Of course! I could easily plan a week of truly excellent meals for anyone visting ranging from the very high end to the silly cheep. I visit every chance I get and gain a few pounds every time. However, if I was going for a purely eating trip it would not be the top of my list.

Old maps show the river called "Garlicke" river. LaSalle's men said the wild onion "eschikagou" that grew here tasted like french garlic ...

I imagine fresh caught fish wrapped in ramp leaves encased in mud clay and thrown on fire ...