• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why LA's Restaurants May Be Better Than Those In New York

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know multiple people who can dispute this, but clearly you're the final authority on the matter so I concede.

Where are they from? The Bay Area is not at all like LA and LA county. SF is SF. The county and city borders are the same. You start referring to things outside of SF as SF and you'll just confuse the ever living fuck out of people.
 
It's the same reason people in Chicago don't freak out like people in San Francisco apparently do: They're familiar with the concept of the "Chicagoland area."

You're conflating continuous urban areas and expansion of huge city counties with SF. SF is not at all like that. There is North Bay, South Bay, East Bay and the Peninsula.
 

MattKeil

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
That's not SF, it will never be referred to as SF, it's the East Bay. Even people who spend fuckloads of time in SF and have only lived there don't consider it part of SF because they have to cross a bridge or take bart.

Lived there for 27 years, and you're completely wrong. The Bay Area is the Bay Area, and when you say "SF" while not actually in the Bay Area you pretty much mean that whole zone, including Oakland, Berkeley, SFO area, etc. And when you are in the Bay Area, you call SF "The City" so everyone knows you mean the actual city of San Francisco and not just someplace near it.

You're right in that it's incredibly difficult to get someone who lives in the City to leave it for any reason, but that's not the same thing.

You're conflating continuous urban areas and expansion of huge city counties with SF. SF is not at all like that. There is North Bay, South Bay, East Bay and the Peninsula.

Yes, but no one who doesn't live there knows that. When the vast majority of people say "SF," they are using shorthand for "The San Francisco Bay Area."
 

tino

Banned
Thats a dumb argument the writer used. It's much worse than the guy who rank the top 10 Chinese restaurants all in CA. At lease he used his own opinion.
 
Lived there for 27 years, and you're completely wrong. The Bay Area is the Bay Area, and when you say "SF" while not actually in the Bay Area you pretty much mean that whole zone, including Oakland, Berkeley, SFO area, etc. And when you are in the Bay Area, you call SF "The City" so everyone knows you mean the actual city of San Francisco and not just someplace near it.

You're right in that it's incredibly difficult to get someone who lives in the City to leave it for any reason, but that's not the same thing.



Yes, but no one who doesn't live there knows that. When the vast majority of people say "SF," they are using shorthand for "The San Francisco Bay Area."

I didn't mention the Bay Area. The Bay Area is the all encompassing name for SF and outlying cities, it even includes San Jose at this point. People who live there wouldn't say something is in SF, near it sure, but if you call something "in the City" you're basically going to confuse the people who want to look it up or god forbid drive to it.
 
You're conflating continuous urban areas and expansion of huge city counties with SF. SF is not at all like that. There is North Bay, South Bay, East Bay and the Peninsula.

I'm telling you what people I know from San Francisco tell me. I have nothing to go on but them.

I'll PM you their e-mail addresses so you can continue the argument with them.

but if you call something "in the City" you're basically going to confuse the people who want to look it up or god forbid drive to it.

Aaaaand here's where you moved the goalposts.
 

MattKeil

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
I didn't mention the Bay Area. The Bay Area is the all encompassing name for SF and outlying cities, it even includes San Jose at this point. People who live there wouldn't say something is in SF, near it sure, but if you call something "in the City" you're basically going to confuse the people who want to look it up or god forbid drive to it.

Everyone else was mentioning the Bay Area, by saying "SF," but then you kept saying you could get cheaper food outside of SF, by which you meant outside only the actual City of San Francisco City Limits, which is not what people mean when they discuss food in SF. The House of Nanking on Kearny Street south of Columbus and Village Host Pizza on Broadway in Burlingame both count as "SF restaurants" for the purposes of the conversation that was happening before you turned it into a regional nitpick contest.

I lived there for 2/3 of my life. Nobody uses terminology the way you're describing unless they're giving actual driving directions.
 

friday

Member
NYC food is pretty overhyped. I say the best thing about eating in New York is the sheer diversity of what it can offer you, that aspect is almost impossible for other places to pull off. It does lack certain things though. I will say 100% that my viet food experiences were way better in Atlanta than in NYC. Also most things that are good in NYC are constantly crowded. Shake Shack is the perfect example. Good burgers, but over priced and always annoyingly crowded.

My favorite burger is in Atlanta (Grindhouse) and the best pizza I have ever had is also in Atlanta (Antico). Yes, I like eating pizza in Atlanta more than NYC. They lost the monopoly on pizza years ago.

These days you don't have to be in a huge city like NYC or Chicago to get great food. Most medium to large cities offer really great stuff. They are also less crowded and cheaper.

I will say this though, NYC is unmatched when it comes to happy hour. That shit rules.
 
good Mexican food is really really important, and it is lacking in the North East.

Anyplace with great Mexican food ranks up in restaurant importance IMO
 

Talon

Member
I will say 100% that my viet food experiences were way better in Atlanta than in NYC.
As a native Atlantan, I will strongly disagree with you.

More specifically, in Atlanta, you have people writing this shit on Yelp.

"It's not as fancy-shmancy as CPK."

No. Atlanta, Milwaukee, OKC, Dallas, etc. are a step behind.
 

SnakeXs

about the same metal capacity as a cucumber
I wonder how many different ideas of good food there is.

Does having good cuisine x mean that decent places are everywhere? Or that there's a few magnificent spots to get your fill? I don't get it sometimes. People visiting a place and judging an entire food culture? It's hilarious.
 

Parallax

best seen in the classic "Shadow of the Beast"
Seeing so many people take aim at my home makes me feel good. Its like they just can't help it when something regarded as best is located here.
 
LA wins in Mexican and Chinese food by a landslide. not even close. I haven't tried sushi in NYC, but LA wins again by proxy (freshness)

one thing I give to NYC is the pizza. yes, the thing about the water is true

though I'm an Angeleno thru and thru, NYC is pretty effing awesome :)
 
I'm from SF, and nearly a decade in LA has definitely convinced me that SF remains superior in the food department, but dismissing LA so cavalierly betrays your inexperience. LA has really good food. It's just that SF has great food.



San Francisco destroys LA in sushi. LA doesn't have bad sushi, mind you, but SF can't be beat on the West Coast for raw fish.

Also Los Angeles has awful pizza. Outside of a couple of very specialized places, decent pizza is nearly impossible to find here.

While L.A. really doesn't have great Pizza, the sushi in L.A. is the best you can get outside of Japan. Sure, it's expensive, but for meals as amazing as the best sushi restaurants in L.A. offer, I'd say it's worth it. Hell, L.A. even has, objectively, the best sushi restaurant outside of Japan, Urasawa. It may be $350 a person, but it's worth every dollar.

And I'd agree with the article. I've often payed over $100 per person in NY for absolutely mediocre meals, while in L.A., you'd be hard pressed to find a restaurant (outside of Sushi) that charges that much. Moreover, the best meals in L.A. right now are around the 40-50 per person range. I was at Animal last weekend, one of the best restaurants in the country, and spent $50 on an outrageous amount of incredible food. In fact, I can't even remember the last time I spent more then $60 per person on a non-sushi meal.

Also, NY doesn't have Roscoes or In-N-Out. So, case closed.

EDIT: And I forgot about the Mexican food! L.A. has the best mexican food in the world, including Mexico, if only because there is so much regional variety in such a small place.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
LA wins in Mexican and Chinese food by a landslide. not even close. I haven't tried sushi in NYC, but LA wins again by proxy (freshness)

one thing I give to NYC is the pizza. yes, the thing about the water is true

though I'm an Angeleno thru and thru, NYC is pretty effing awesome :)

and Korean.
 
While L.A. really doesn't have great Pizza, the sushi in L.A. is the best you can get outside of Japan. Sure, it's expensive, but for meals as amazing as the best sushi restaurants in L.A. offer, I'd say it's worth it. Hell, L.A. even has, objectively, the best sushi restaurant outside of Japan, Urasawa. It may be $350 a person, but it's worth every dollar.

That's the small place right? If so friend's boss took us there. OH MY GOD THE BILL...
 
That's the small place right? If so friend's boss took us there. OH MY GOD THE BILL...

Was it above Rodeo Drive? Because if so, that would be the one.

And for those talking about Korean food, L.A. has the most Koreans out of any city not in Korea, so it would make sense for us to have the food to match. As an example of Korea's dominance in L.A., Wilshire Grand, the soon to be tallest building in the city, is being built by a Korean real estate company.
 

entremet

Member
LA has great food. LA beats NYC in more affordable fare. NYC is the mecca of fine dining in the States, but it can get expensive for the best of the best. LA has a lot of medium tier stuff, which is fantastic.

The US food dynamic is getting better and better, however. Great for everyone.
 

Draxal

Member
Was it above Rodeo Drive? Because if so, that would be the one.

And for those talking about Korean food, L.A. has the most Koreans out of any city not in Korea, so it would make sense for us to have the food to match. As an example of Korea's dominance in L.A., Wilshire Grand, the soon to be tallest building in the city, is being built by a Korean real estate company.

... There's alot of koreans in america period, Flushing has a shit ton of Koreans, as do parts of Virginia/Georgia/Texas. Hell the town right next to me has 60% of it's population as Koreans (Pal Park), and that's not including the surrounding towns.

Just saying, the korean experience isn't unique to the west coast.

Anyway, I think basing on ethnic food is kinda weird, as they're some ethnic food in the NY tristate that's cheap and affordable but isn't in Manhattan proper (really good Portuguese/Brazillian you would have to go Ironbound section in Newark).
 

friday

Member
As a native Atlantan, I will strongly disagree with you.

More specifically, in Atlanta, you have people writing this shit on Yelp.

"It's not as fancy-shmancy as CPK."

No. Atlanta, Milwaukee, OKC, Dallas, etc. are a step behind.

In what aspect? Food in general or Vietnamese food? What is CPK, California Pizza Kitchen, and what are those review referring to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom