chicago food ranking compared!

i bounced from chowhound to lth and find all your comments great! where does chicago rank among major city food towns!! are we different than lets say the east and west coast?

The way I see it, we're one of the big food towns of the US. Of course, there are some natural gaps in the spectrum of what's available (try finding good regional Mexican, non-Americanized Thai, deep-dish pizza, or Italian beef in New York, good bagels in Los Angeles, or coal-oven pizza or Sonoran Mexican food in Chicago). Welcome to the forum, though, you'll find that it's easy to discover which places we think are pretty awesome here.

I like to consider Chicago one of the big three places to eat, along with San Francisco and New Orleans. Even NOLA is limited in the size of its food spectrum, but boy can you eat down there.

San Francisco has advantages over Chicago on availability of fresh seafood and a wide variety of Asian settlers bringing a their food heritage.

Where's New York? Frankly, Manhattan, in my opinion, is just too high priced to graze your way across, and I haven't had enough chances to try. LA? Again, limited experience on my part, but it seems like it's very spread out, hard to find a neighborhood to just get out of the car and wander past menus 'til you can't stop drooling.

What are Chicago's strengths? As THE transportation hub for the country, absolutely everything is available. A huge variety of ethnic neighborhoods that cover the globe, mainly for the same reason. Mexican food in Chicago can't be beaten. Big communities of Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Polish, Italian...

Chicago is the candy center of the US (or at least it was -- a fair number of companies have left in recent years). "Hog butcher to the world" was one of its old mottos, and although the stockyards aren't what they were, it's still a big steak-and-chop town.

Well, what are you doing? Stop reading, start eating!

This is a good topic, thanks for starting the thread.

I think that Chicago has amazing food, due largely to the fact that Chicago continues to attract huge groups of immigrants. These groups fuel restaurants that are "real" and uncompromised (if, of course often lacking in creature comforts). In addition, various other factors including the overall size of the city and (the shrinking) convention business keep the city blessed with higher end eating. We have a lot of good stuff.

That said, I really do not think that Chicago competes with certain other cities when it comes to food. Us hounds are a very small proportion of the eating public in Chicago. It continues to dishearten me that so much more exposure can be given to the mediocre (at best) Arun's over the several great Thai places. Chicago Magazine covered Mexican food a few issues back yet barely scratched the surface of all the interesting Mexican food in Chicago. As a poster and food writer, Leah Zeldes said a while back, there are a lot more of them than us. There is little great interest in the general population, surely not the local food media for all those places mentioned in the first paragraph.

In addition to rarely seeing anyone besides "us" at ethnic places, the other sign that Chicago is a 1/2 assed food town is the lack of two somewhat releated things. First, we have barely any classic restaurants, meaning a restaurant that dates back 75 years or so. There is hardly anything in Chicago to compare to Union Square Oyster House or Galatoires or Tadich Grill. Do not give me Berghoff because that is hardly the same restaurant, or more aptly, it is hardly the same restaurant it was. Second, there is very, very little in the low to mid range that is not ethnic. We are a city that some levels of dining is being very much over-run by chain and corporate places.

New Orleans was mentioned above. THAT is a food town. Sure, you might say, the choices are limited. Thai, Chinese, Mexican, they are nothing like what you could get in Chicago. Yet, in New Orleans, people are pasionate about food. They REALLY like to eat. Everyone is a Chowhound. Interestingly, when I lived there, there was a very, very good Indian restaurant (in the Indian Garden/Tiffin school). There was barely any Indian population there, not like Chicago, but the quality was raised, not like you would get here, to meet the needs of those who actually know the food, but raised to meet the standards of cooking there. More imporant, there are so many neighborhood places in New Orleans, places in the under $20 range that are worth it, that would in Chicago be really special, but there are just restaurants.

Rob

I don't really spend a lot of time ranking restaurants throughout the country to determine which city has the best food. I try to find a good restaurant that is somewhat close to where I am at and enjoy it. I would rather enjoy some of my food experiences than drop the big bucks to eat at a fancy place.

Some of these experiences recently:

1) Eating warm date bread and cookies at Tecopa Springs, CA.
2) Schaat's Bakery in Bishop, CA.
3) Trying six different types of boudin sausage in the Lafayette, LA.
4) Finding sponge candy in an IGA in Eganville, Ontario.
5) Trying a dozen different pecan candies in Lake Charles, LA.
6) Bribing the cook at the company picnic to fix his special marinated chicken.

You catch the drift. Enjoy what you come across where you are at. Personally, I just can't see running 50-60 miles to Chicago to have dinner.

When I read about New York not having regional Mexican I have to wonder if people are just repeating things they've heard over the years. If you've been there recently you'd find quite a bit of regional Mexican. East Harlem has quite a bit as does parts of the Bronx but the real Mexican hotbed is Sunset park. 4th and 5th Avenues from 36 or so all the way to 60th is pretty much nothing but Mexican. Puebla seems to be the most represnted region but there are others as well. I'd put Sunset Park up against just about any Mexican neighborhood in Chicago in regards to being MEXICAN in regards to population, shopping and food.

I'd also like to address food prices in New York. I honestly find the prices CHEAPER than in Chicago outside of trendy Manhattan places. Bakerys, pizzerias, taqeurias, South American take outs places--real chowhound places--tend to be a little cheaper because more people go to them so there's a volume cost break and there's also competition.

In my opinion New York (including the outer boroughs) wins hands down mainly because of it's larger and more varied ethnic populations. For the same reasons I put Chicago second. Sure San Francisco is great? But where's the Eastern European or South American? Los Angeles? Well, Los Angeles might be greatest city for American cusuine and is great for Mexican but I don't see it shining otherwise. Los Angeles lacks a lot of the immigration patterns and ethnic neighborhoods that Chicago and New York have. How is Thai food in New Orleans or the Middle Eastern in Seattle? What about Cuban in Boston? I mean, every city shines in one way or another; only New York and Chicago have the variety.

One interesting statistic is that New York's population is now almost 50% foreign born (as of the 2000 census). Thats some serious ethnic variety. No large city comes close to that and Chicago, probably the closest (shot in the dark) most of it's foreign born are from Mexico or Poland, two already established strong-holds.

CMC wrote: Los Angeles? Well, Los Angeles might be greatest city for American cusuine and is great for Mexican but I don't see it shining otherwise. Los Angeles lacks a lot of the immigration patterns and ethnic neighborhoods that Chicago and New York have. How is Thai food in New Orleans or the Middle Eastern in Seattle? What about Cuban in Boston? I mean, every city shines in one way or another; only New York and Chicago have the variety.

I think your point about Mexican in NYC is very well taken, and it is surely a myth these days that one cannot get "real" Mexican food in NYC.

On the other hand, I disagree about LA. I do not have brass tack numbers to support me, but I believe that LA is THE center for immigration in the USA these days. LA has thriving populations of Thai, Vietamese, Chinese (huge!), Mexican, Salvadorean--you cannot believe how many pupusarias you will find in LA, Israeili's, Armenians, Iranians, an unbelievably huge Koreatown, etc., etc. It may not have the Polish influx like Chicago, but it has tremendous variety.

Rob

jlawrence wrote:Enjoy what you come across where you are at. Personally, I just can't see running 50-60 miles to Chicago to have dinner.

A few years ago, someone was complaining about the food choices somewhere in the Carolinas. Yourpalwill provided one of the more memorable lines, "Atlanta is only 3.5 hours away."

If indeed I really need to travel distances for a decent meal, which happens in rural areas, then stocking up on spices and shipping in unheard of ingrediants becomes a very attractive option. The double whammy is often the income to support those luxuries are rare in rural areas.

Back to ranking food cities...

You know what, I'm starting to come around to the idea that LA might be as good as Chicago. Rob, you make very good points and I don't know why I forgot about all the different places I went to in Los Angeles (especially papusas which I got near Langers last time I was there--and while on that topic I've had pastrami at the supposed best places in New York and I can safely say that nobody really even comes close to Langers).

Regardless of which city is better for food, and I still it's New York, I think it's safe to say that New Yorkers are more passionate and willing to try different things than in Los Angeles. Obviously I speak not of people like us but of the average guy on the street. I think this is represented in the much larger amount of chains and "American" food. I mean, LA is known for hamburgers and donuts (and others, but really, aren't those the first thing you think of when you go there? I know it's what I indulge in.).

I was in a Middle Eastern place (Karam) in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn last weekend. Besides having an amazing meal for similar prices (and similar if not better quality) as Salaam or Schwarma King I also witnessed mostly white (probably Italian) people come in an order schwarma and the like in a very familiar way. Obviously this is going to keep more and more places like Karam open and part of the reason is that there are just more people in a densely populated area but it's also because people are just used to living near all kinds of people, which probably isn't the case in Los Angeles yet.

I don't know how valuable is is to rank cities this way after you get past defining the top 2 or 5 or 10. It's a little like ranking schools; at the top, the quality is there and you end up deciding based on details that may not mean much to the next guy.

I agree with the points above regarding LA and NYC. The truth is, Chicago, LA and NY all continue to attract staggering numbers of foreign-born from many different places.

One thing that seems to be in common currency over on CH is certainly not true: the idea that one can find anything in NYC and that there is a very good example of everything. Something to do with sheer numbers of people and vast wealth. That just doesn't follow. BBQ is the famous, obvious example. Restauranteurs have pumped a lot of money into BBQ recently and have brought in experts from tiny towns in the South to advise, but I'm not ready to declare Manhattan part of the BBQ grand tour.

As for Mexican, the population is overwhelmingly from one state, and remains about what the Mexican population is in Auroura, Waukeegan or Joliet. I'm not sure if the latter point cuts for or against great Mexican in NY, as one can find great Mexican in all of the IL towns mentioned. The main shortcoming, best I can tell, is the relative lack of places making fresh masa, which really IS Mexican food in so many ways. A long string on the NY board a few months ago made it clear that no fresh masa was to be found in Manhattan, and a handful of places had it in elsewhere. That simply doesn't compare, apples for apples, with a city with literally hundreds of grocers carrying fresh masa, probably dozens of mills, and the famous spots hand-patting tortillas.

That said, we have little Brazilian, no Trinidadian, little Dominican, etc., etc., etc.

I assure you that fresh masa is alive and well in Sunset Park. If not having it in Manhattan is enough to say it's not in New York then we shouldn't include, say, the entire south side when talking about Chicago.

In regards to BBQ you are right on. I think it's safe to say and I think it's nice to be able to say that there is no one city that truly encompasses EVERTHING. New York sorely misses BBQ. However, I'm basing this more on what I've read than what I've looked for and investigated on my own. Most of what I've read tells me there's no Mexican either.

In regards to Mexican population I think you are underestimating New York's. According to the 2000 census there are 122,000 Mexicans in New York City. Based on the way Mexican populations have exploded elsewhere I think it's fair to say there might be 200,000 now. 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.

I've learned to pretty much discount everything I've read on the New York chowhound board regarding Mexican. Hell, I bought Oaxacan tamales on the highly tauted Italian Arthur Avenue in the Bronx.

Well, my basic point was to agree with your originl point.

FWIW, there are maybe 50-60K Mexican-Americans in Aurora, IL, alone for example, and around 30K spread around Manhattan. I read that you are probably right that there are well over 100K elsewhere in NYC.

Lots of folks from Puebla in Brooklyn.

I'm not sure the Brooklyn/South Side analogy works completely, but once you get to a certain 100 south, it does seem apt.

If we knew more about immigration patterns I suspect a lot of these questions would answer themselves. For instance, Caribbean immigration almost all ends up in New York or Florida, so it's no surprise that those areas outshine Chicago's dramatically. On the other hand, I have a friend on the eastern seaboard (Providence, RI to be precise) who can't wait to eat Polish when he gets here, because it doesn't exist there, he says. (Like all things, I'm sure the absolute statement is not literally true, but it's true enough.) Likewise, even with Chicago having had a substantial Japanese population going back to the 40s (when there were fewer restrictions on Japanese here than on the west coast), we're not as well connected to Japan, so it's no surprise that sushi trends start in California (and now in the Vancouver-to-Seattle axis as well), not here.

On the other hand, there's no question that a few folks can make a real difference out of proportion to their numbers. Mexican, for instance, is better because it is more directly connected to a wide range of regions and people reproducing their home style directly rather than helping invent a hybrid cuisine like Tex-Mex or Cal-Mex. Lack of a hybrid tradition has kept the real thing realer (and the fake thing faker, too). But Mexican is also better because one guy named Bayless observed how good it was here, and visited there as well, and promoted authentic Mexican. And now Mexicans seek to maintain the standards that a gringo help set, rather than dumb down their food for a gringo audience. Part of it may be chronological, too-- I suspect in California or Texas even as far back as the 20s or 30s most gringos had some exposure to Mexican cooking, which is why Americanized forms could develop. Authentic Mexican probably stayed isolated within its ethnic group here much longer, and wasn't made mainstream until a time when a certain concern for authenticity and preserving regional differences was part of the equation.

Somewhat similarly, Thai is good here for two reasons, I think: because some people probably took a lead early on in pushing for quality and authenticity, and also, perhaps, because the general run of takeout Chinese is not very good here, which gave Thai the opportunity to become perhaps the default Asian takeout food, which it probably isn't in west coast cities that have generally better Chinese. (I'm not saying there's no good Chinese, but I think the Chinese that is NOT located within a few enclaves is not very good overall.) In that case, the dumbing-down of one cuisine created opportunities for another.

Mike G wrote:
On the other hand, there's no question that a few folks can make a real difference out of proportion to their numbers. Mexican, for instance, is better because it is more directly connected to a wide range of regions and people reproducing their home style directly rather than helping invent a hybrid cuisine like Tex-Mex or Cal-Mex. Lack of a hybrid tradition has kept the real thing realer (and the fake thing faker, too). But Mexican is also better because one guy named Bayless observed how good it was here, and visited there as well, and promoted authentic Mexican. And now Mexicans seek to maintain the standards that a gringo help set, rather than dumb down their food for a gringo audience. Part of it may be chronological, too-- I suspect in California or Texas even as far back as the 20s or 30s most gringos had some exposure to Mexican cooking, which is why Americanized forms could develop. Authentic Mexican probably stayed isolated within its ethnic group here much longer, and wasn't made mainstream until a time when a certain concern for authenticity and preserving regional differences was part of the equation.

That Bayless decided to set up shop in Chicago is an important point in why Mexican food is like it is in Chicago, but I think you also have to consider something else when comparing it to earlier Mexican food movements (i.e., Tex-Mex). Earlier immigrant groups had to adapt to the products available to them locally. Today's immigrant groups can much more draw up upon their native products.

The huge difference between ethnic foods today and ethnic foods years ago is access to "real" products. Tex-Mex became what it is, especially the use of chile powder over fresh chiles and the rampant use of yellow cheese because that was what was available to the cooks. Today, because of modern transportation mostly, and to a smaller extent, the development of farmers farming for the "ethnic" market, cooks have access to much more of the ingredients they have always used. Mexican resturants can keep their food tasting Mexican because they have the means to keep it Mexican.

The same thing can be said for Asian foods. Chinese and Thai food keeps on getting better in Chicago because there are systems and ways for these kitchens to get the ingredients they need. Erik M has noted that earlier Thai kitchens in Chicago relied on soy sauce instead of the traditional fish sauce because fish sauce was not easy to get. Obviously, without fish sauce, Thai food tastes a whole lot less Thai. So, as these products have become more accessible, the food has gotten more real.

I would love to add that the spread of knowledge from sources like Chowhound and LTHForum has also increased the standards of ethnic food as places have customers who know and demand the real thing, but except for a few cases, perhaps TAC, there are few real ethnic restaurants that are relying on chowhounds to prosper.

Rob

Hi,

Since immigration patterns has been alluded to. A few years ago on CH, a demographics specialist posted on the board about how few Thais live in the Chicago area, much less than 5,000, yet how well represented they are in restaurants. Despite the dual menu system, which is breaking down, they are quite outgoing to non-Thai Americans.

Conversely, Koreans were around 15,000 and due to insular cultural factors were not as well represented in the restaurant trade. Generally, Korean restaurants are there to serve other Koreans.

I cannot find the post, which means either it was a post followed by an e-mail discussion or on the listserv. My feeling it was a follow up e-mail.

Right, that's the chronological aspect, and why all these things are interrelated-- it's not just that there was a Bayless to champion things, it's that it was possible to live up to the kind of quality he championed, indeed, that critical mass in distribution made it easier and easier to do so, dragged even the mediocre restaurants upward once it became as easy to order the right thing as the wrong. Again, that's not to give all the credit to gringos-- Eddie of Thai Grocery clearly has played a major role in making available to Thais the ingredients that they would have known at home, I suspect if we went back 30 years in a time machine to restaurants that still exist today, like Opart, we'd find them cooking with Italian basil, and ginger instead of galangal, and so on because that was as close as they could get at the time.

You read a book like Life a la Henri and the first part is rhapsodizing the quality of farm-raised goods in France when he was a boy, and the second part is talking about how he adapted to the reality of what was available to him while running some of America's first great French restaurants in the 20s and 30s. There were people who cared as much about authenticity then, but beyond what was made within a couple of hours' drive, it was theoretical, not achievable.

Cathy2 wrote:Hi,

Since immigration patterns has been alluded to. A few years ago on CH, a demographics specialist posted on the board about how few Thais live in the Chicago area, much less than 5,000, yet how well represented they are in restaurants. Despite the dual menu system, which is breaking down, they are quite outgoing to non-Thai Americans.

Conversely, Koreans were around 15,000 and due to insular cultural factors were not as well represented in the restaurant trade. Generally, Korean restaurants are there to serve other Koreans.

I cannot find the post, which means either it was a post followed by an e-mail discussion or on the listserv. My feeling it was a follow up e-mail.

You know, in my opinion, I find just the opposite conclusion from your premises.

As you note, Thai restaurants are as much an economic enterprise, a way to make money as they are feeding zones for Thai immigrants. This has very much created a system where very few Thai restaurants serve "real" Thai food. They do not do it because they see no demand for it, they find that their customers do not like it, and perhaps because of those reasons, find it not worth the bother. A Thai restauranteur has told me on several occasions that it takes a lot more work and effort to make authentic Thai food.

On the other hand, Korean restaurants may be hard to navigate because of language issues, but there is just no alternative to get but the food that everyone else is getting. In other words, when there ONLY is a secret menu, there is a much better chance of getting good food. I think the same things has happened in Chinese restaurants, the newer restaurants, especially the non-Cantonese ones just do not know how to compromise their food to the American audience, which is why places like Ed's Potsticker House, Spring World and the "New" Mandarin Kitchen are such safe bets for great food.

I would say, and I bet a lot of people would agree, that the sad thing is, the more an ethnic restaurant seeks to meet a greater audience, the worse the food gets.

PS
To respond to Mike's post which happened while I was typing this one, I would postulate that without Rick Bayless, there would be no flush of upscale Mexican as we have in Chicago, but otherwise, I do not think the Mexican food scene would be any different. I do not think Bayless created the demand for Mexican ingredients. I think it is the opposite, that changes in transportation have meant that demand for ingredients can now be meant--which is the point Mike makes in his second paragraph.

I've got to say that Charleston, SC has to rank up there at the top as a great eating town. There is a great variety of food. From low-country to seafood to down home southern cooking. Many dishes are cooked in many different ways and all are good. Most is what I would describe as ethnic American.

I've posted some comments about a recent trip here:
http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1345

I found Rob Paral's chowhound post about Chicago demographics. It's at
http://www.chowhound.com/midwest/boards ... 30183.html

It would be an unnecessary and redundant digression to talk about searching on CH, so I won't go there. I will only say that it helped that I found the email I had from Ed asking me to pass the question on to Rob.

Hi,

Now that I know what I am looking for, in respect to Korean population in Chicago:

Rob Paral wrote:Foreign-born Koreans in metro Chicago in 2000 were 35,468. Way out of proportion to the number of their restaurants, compared to the Thais, no?

In the link Ann referenced:

Rob Paral wrote:...there are only 4,990 Thai immigrants counted in the six-county metro Chicago area by the 2000 census. This is a low number in comparison to the proliferation of Thai restaurants. I am not aware of an identifiable "Thai" neighborhood or enclave in the region.

Thanks for helping locate the information, Ann.

Regards,

I'd say that Thais are disproportionately important in the food world, generally, as are the French and Italians, because of the sophisticated and widely appreciated quality of their food.

Sure, there's maybe 5-6k Thai-Americans in Chicago, but this counts as a huge number, given the 2000 census shows maybe 150k in the whole US, with the vast majority in SoCal. After the LA metro, NY, DC, SF and Chicago are in the same ballpark population-wise. We have one of the three consulates, which might help attract the more entrepenuerial immigrants.

Regarding the variety and abundance of Mexican produce in Chicago now (not to mention "crossover" produce used in South and SE Asian cooking), I'm fairly sure from discussions with guys at places like Westbrook Market that the secret isn't a revolution in transport, so much as NAFTA.

I mean, a modest truck can now leave central Mexico loaded with ripe tropical fruits and veggies (and Coke and Squirt) and be parked in Front of Juarez HS a few days later.

As for the state of Mexican Food near the boarders, I'd say it's authentic to that part of Mexico (or what was Mexico). I know at least 3 Mexican families from Texas, all of whom know "authentic" tortillas as flour tortillas, for example. One guy, I asked what part of Mexico his family was from, and his answer was "San Antonio." They had been there well before it was part of the US, and I doubt that they changed their foodways much since.

It's interesting to note that a major magazine (I'm spacing on which one it was, it was a huge year-end issue, might have been vogue from 2 years ago) did a survey of both readers and food magazine editors to list the best eating towns in America.

The lists were almost identical - Editors listed 1) NYC 2) San Fran 3) New Orleans 4) Chicago

and readers listed:

1) NYC 2) San Fran 3) Chicago 4) New Orleans

I don't think there is any question that NYC is still the best eating town in America. Sheer depth and immigration patterns have assured that for years to come. However, Chicago is pretty outstanding when you look at the breadth of choice. Only NYC and Chicago can boast the true diversity of ethnic cooking and match it with world class upscale nuevo dining.

Yes, I love N'orleans, and yes I've had (and flown home) muffs from the Central Grocery and had a Ferdie's Special at Mother's, but I once was in town for several days with a friend who didn't care particularly for seafood and was allergic to shellfish, and how quickly the Big Easy descended in my scale of great dining destinations.

The thing I found most interesting about this thread is how inexorably tied a city's culinary worth seems to be to the ethnic diversity in that city. This ties in to VI's assertion that there are very few non-ethnic choices in the mid to low range, that is, if one excludes hot dog and beef stands.

I'm not as interested in the socio-economic reasons behind this reality. My interest is more selfish and practical, and it comes to mind every time I go in search of a sandwich. Not a Jewish deli sandwich, Italian sub, Mexican torta, Cuban'er'Cubano, or a Vietnamese banh mi. I'm talking meat, garnish, condiments and bread. I contend that the good old American turkey sandwich, well-conceived and executed, is more of a rarity in Chicago than beating cobra hearts. Because of this, we cling to well-meaning but mediocre places like Service Entrance, or that deli counter at the back of our corner grocer. We lower our hat brims and our expectations and slink into overpriced chains like Corner Bakery. We pounce on new shops filled with pedigree and promise, like The Goddess and Grocer in Bucktown (the irony there being that Debbie Sharpe's place occupies a former Zoom Kitchen space, which came far closer to elevating the humble sandwich than her place does).

I want fresh bread. I want interesting spreads and condiments. I want quality meats. I want vegetation that doesn't just serve as a placeholder but adds flavor, too. Will that pale, mealy tomato slice add meaningfully to the enjoyment of the thing? If not, leave it off. I want all these things in the right proportion. It doesn't have to be gargantuan or have a cute name. In fact it probably shouldn't. Pride of workmanship shouldn't be confined to custom cabinets and sailboat hulls. Tinker. Experiment. Surprise. If this happened enough, perhaps we all wouldn't be so quick to concede interesting, affordable food to those who came from somewhere else. But in the meantime, I'm sure glad somebody's doing it.

The preceding is both a manifesto and a desperate cry for help. If I'm just not looking in the right places, someone please talk me off the ledge.

CoolerbytheLake wrote:The preceding is both a manifesto and a desperate cry for help. If I'm just not looking in the right places, someone please talk me off the ledge.

Very eloquent. Have you tried Foodstuffs?

CoolerbytheLake wrote:I want fresh bread. I want interesting spreads and condiments. I want quality meats. I want vegetation that doesn't just serve as a placeholder but adds flavor, too. Will that pale, mealy tomato slice add meaningfully to the enjoyment of the thing? If not, leave it off. I want all these things in the right proportion. It doesn't have to be gargantuan or have a cute name. In fact it probably shouldn't. Pride of workmanship shouldn't be confined to custom cabinets and sailboat hulls. Tinker. Experiment. Surprise. If this happened enough, perhaps we all wouldn't be so quick to concede interesting, affordable food to those who came from somewhere else. But in the meantime, I'm sure glad somebody's doing it.

The preceding is both a manifesto and a desperate cry for help. If I'm just not looking in the right places, someone please talk me off the ledge.

Although some of the sandwiches have funny/cute names, Jerry's Sandwiches on Madison might be just what you are looking for. There is a wide selection of meats (2 or 3 kinds of turkey alone), breads, condoments and cheeses that you can put together as you like. I'm pretty sure there was a thread on Jerry's a while back, but I can't seem to find it using the search function. I'm glad you started this thread, bucause now that I am thinking about Jerry's, I might just go there myself and get a nice turkey sandwich.

Here's a quote form their home page

We love sandwiches. We've eaten them at delis in Philly and New York, cheese steak stands in Philly, hoagie shops in Pittsburgh, barbecue stands in Tennessee, various New Orleans muffuletta & po boy locales, Zingerman's great deli in Ann Arbor, bars in France, and we've eaten exotic sandwiches in restaurant kitchens. That said, we find good sandwiches hard to come by in Chicago (excluding of course outstanding Italian beef and hot dogs). Being long-time cooks, and with available space at the front of our catering kitchen, we thought we'd give it a try.

Jerry's Sandwiches
1045 W. Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60607
312-275-0247
http://www.jerryssandwiches.com

CoolerbytheLake wrote:I want fresh bread. I want interesting spreads and condiments. I want quality meats. I want vegetation that doesn't just serve as a placeholder but adds flavor, too. Will that pale, mealy tomato slice add meaningfully to the enjoyment of the thing? If not, leave it off. I want all these things in the right proportion.

I couldn't agree with you more. Chicago is a terrible sandwich-town, and what I've found is that most places are worse. The art of sandwich construction has been abandoned nationwide and left to the likes of Subway and White Hen.

There are sandwiches around town that I like: I enjoy the reuben and the turkey sandwich at Calliope Cafe. I like the chicken-avocado club at Frances' Deli.

In times that I am dissatisifed with my job, I turn to my business plan for a deli that I have been tinkering with for a couple years now. One of the things that I have discovered is that while sandwich construction is an art, it is an expensive art. Fresh baked bread, fresh produce, quality meat, and high quality condiments result in a sandwich that has a price point a little bit higher than most people are willing to pay for a sandwich on a regular basis (and you need to sell a lot of sandwiches to make a living). I do believe that if you make a high-quality product, people will indeed pay more for it, but I have yet to truly convince myself enough to take the plunge. One day.

Best,
EC

Calliope Cafe
2826 N. Lincoln Ave.
773-528-8055

Frances' Deli
2552 N. Clark St.
773-248-4580

I'm feeling contrary, I guess.

Where among the rolling wheatfields, deserts, mountains and praries of not-urban-ethnic-America is this fine sandwich of which you speak?

Friends from Iowa, Nebraska and otherwise can't wait to have anything that involves bread and lunchmeat when they get to Chicago. In McCook, NE, for example, it's mass-produced squishy grocery store bread all the way. Adfrift in a sea of grain and no good bread to be bought. These are people who live on farms, close to the land. They can make their own or buy something at the Church, but not at the store. Meats and condiments are much the same.

Hamburgers and BBQ aside, is there a middle-America, not-ethnic sandwich worth eating? (French dip?) Who would order the turkey sub at Bari and forgo the Italian?

Costello's might give you some comfort, probably not. But wait. On Farnklin, near Perry's, is a new place opening soon: Dagwood's. Maybe that will do it.

I've always found Chicago to be an outstanding Sandwich town... Jibaritos, Tortas, Cemitas, Italian Beefs, Depression Sandwiches, Breaded steak sandwiches, great "regular" sandwiches at places like Mangino's, Jerry's and Bari. 3 of those mentioned are Chicago-only products as well.

However, I'm not one that pines for poultry or veggie's on a sammich, maybe due to years of anti-subwayification of my mind.

JeffB wrote:Hamburgers and BBQ aside, is there a middle-America, not-ethnic sandwich worth eating?

In my humble taste buds' opinion, there are.

Personally, I believe that a roast turkey, avocado, and bacon sandwich is one of the finest sandwiches ever devised. I do not know the history of this creation, but I imagine that it is American in origin, particularly SW. Is this non-ethnic? (Isn't everything "ethnic"?)

Also, the origins of the reuben are much disputed, but I consider it a middle-america/non ethnic sandwich. I love a reuben.

Finally, the grilled peanut butter and banana sandwich. What could be more middle-american?