New York

[Pan]

slkinskey posted this on the "Grimes on Mix" thread:

NYC can justifiably be counted among the very best restaurant cities in the world

I know many of you have dined in other cities. How do you think New York stacks up compared to other great restaurant cities in the world? And let's please consider inexpensive and moderately-priced food, not just the top-priced places.

[melkor]

New York ranks either first or second in food in the US. It would be first if you consider the borders in San Francisco to end when you get to a bridge. If you consider the bay area as a whole (including wine country) it's hard to rank NY first.

Internationally, it's harder to say.

[Pan]

Internationally, it's harder to say.

That's my feeling, too. I think it's a complex question, and I'm not sure what's the best way to develop criteria with which we could answer it.

[melkor]

Internationally, it's harder to say.

That's my feeling, too. I think it's a complex question, and I'm not sure what's the best way to develop criteria with which we could answer it.

It's easy to start ruling entire countrys out based on completely insane food habits - I'll start by elminating any part of australia on the simple fact that there was a fried egg on top of EVERYTHING I ordered when I was there.

[Fat Guy]

I think once you define and weight the criteria it becomes easier to make this assessment, whereas if the criteria are undefined and unweighted all you can do is post for 17 pages about why X city is better than Y city and you never get anywhere. In particular, the importance of breadth versus the importance of depth needs to be established. For example, for all intents and purposes every restaurant in Paris is French. Sure, there are a few that aren't -- people who live in Paris get really annoyed when you say that Paris is all about French restaurants, even though it's so obviously true -- but Chinese, Vietnamese, etc., restaurants in Paris are not significant in the international scheme of things. So for depth of French restaurants, how the hell are you going to beat Paris? It can't be done. Whereas, if you look at breadth of international cuisines at every price point as being of critical importance, Paris can't even make it onto the list with any of 20 other cities (and New York is probably at the top of that list).

I think it's more sensible, really, to say "city X is the best restaurant city for Y purpose." That really gets you somewhere and avoids the Zagatization of the whole question.

[Pan]

For example, for all intents and purposes every restaurant in Paris is French. Sure, there are a few that aren't -- people who live in Paris get really annoyed when you say that Paris is all about French restaurants, even though it's so obviously true -- but Chinese, Vietnamese, etc., restaurants in Paris are not significant in the international scheme of things.

I'd add Japanese, North African, and Middle Eastern. But what does "not significant in the international scheme of things" mean?

I agree with you that it's important to establish criteria in a discussion like this.

Edited October 24, 2003 by Pan (log)

[Fat Guy]

But what does "not significant in the international scheme of things" mean?

I mean that when you compare restaurant-cities on an international level -- such as NY v. Paris -- the Japanese restaurants in Paris aren't a consideration. They're there, but they're primarily of local significance.

[picaman]

Based on my personal foreign and domestic restaurant experiences, I'd say nowhere beats New York for the widest variety of top-flight dining in the greatest number of cuisines and levels of expense.

That, to me, is a suitable subject for debate on a single thread.

That being said, within individual cuisines I've had better food outside of New York.

And that, to me, is one thread per cuisine. The former English teacher in me agrees that this topic needs to be more narrowly defined.

Jamie

[basque]

Nice articulation early on in a potentially unruly thread, Fat Guy. Forgive my laziness, but have you all attempted to put a cube around a relative weighting and ranking of food regions elsewhere on eGullet? If not, I think it would be good. Do-able, too. Attribute weights to:

Pan-Location (Local) vs. International

Seasonal vs. Repetitive

Innovative vs. Traditional

For its time vs. ahead of its time

Supportive vs. Agnostic toward local farmers/farming/agri-/aqua-culture

High price point only vs. achieving quality across price points

What else? Not meat vs. veg, please, on account of the sheer insanity of the premise. This'd probably be just an academic exercise, but I bet we'd be challenged by the results. And many of us would find ourselves more strongly committed to regional areas we love, but with a defined, _objective_ reason now.

Discl: I live in NYC.

[robert brown]

New York leads the world as the city that serves the most unauthentic international cuisines. However, since most cuisines don't travel well, it's probably not a blemish on the Big Apple. I would say, however, that in terms of impeccable produce, which are the building blocks of good or great restaurant cuisine, New York is behind many cities, particularly some Mediterranean ones. Most restaurant food in New York taste tired to me, but maybe because my palate has turned tired and it takes more than it used to in order to wake it up. It does wake up most when I am in Japan, Italy, Spain, Thailand (where I'be been only once) and sometimes France. But, as I have occasionally maintained, an unscupulous chef or restaurateur can ruin a really nice bit of produce in a variety of ways.

[Pan]

Great ingredients in Malaysia, too (presumably of similar quality to Thai produce, fish, seafood, etc.)

[Pan]

But what does "not significant in the international scheme of things" mean?

I mean that when you compare restaurant-cities on an international level -- such as NY v. Paris -- the Japanese restaurants in Paris aren't a consideration. They're there, but they're primarily of local significance.

In other words, it's a slam-dunk that Japanese food is better in New York, on the whole or/and at the top level, than in Paris?

But what about North African and Middle Eastern cuisine in Paris?

[Fat Guy]

Pan, I don't know enough to make the absolute version of the declaration. There could hypothetically be a Japanese restaurant in Paris that's better than any Japanese restaurant in New York. If there is, I wouldn't know about it and I think it would probably go in the "if a tree falls . . ." category in terms of its relevance to this debate. My strong suspicion, however, is that there are 10 or more Japanese restaurants in New York that are better than every Japanese restaurant in Paris, and there are probably 50 times as many Japanese restaurants in New York that perform well at every quality level than there are in Paris. I mean, you tell me if there's a Japanese restaurant in Paris that's as good as Sushi Yasuda or even Nobu. Maybe there is but I've never heard it suggested. I'd also say that there's no real Japanese restaurant "culture" in Paris, which is an important element of what makes good restaurants because it provides an audience, a demand for quality by knowledgeable consumers, etc.

In terms of North African cuisine, there may very well be great North African cuisine in Paris. There may be one or two other ethnic cuisines that perform well in Paris. But there are probably 50-100 ethnic cuisines that perform very well in New York. There's just no contest on the diversity-across-cuisines front. Certainly, there is diversity within French cuisine too -- I wouldn't sell that short or minimize its importance -- but it's a different issue.

[Pan]

I'm not arguing with your general premise on New York vs. Paris, but I think there's a real Japanese restaurant culture in the 1iere/2ieme.

[Fat Guy]

Not to mention they have Man Ray.

[Malik]

I agree with Fat Guy on the Paris comments. I frequently have this argument with my friends who live in Paris, it's very disappointing to see how poor the non-French restaurants are in Paris. As Pan pointed out, they do have very good North African and Lebanese restaurants, probably better than any other city in the West. However, beyond those cuisines, both the selection and the quality are very poor. It can even be hard to find a good Italian restaurant in Paris. Also, the French do not seem to care too much about authenticity when it comes to Asian restaurants, you can still find lots of places that "specialize" in Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai cuisines (i.e. all three in the same restaurant!)

For high end restaurants, I would put Paris ahead of New York though. The majority of high end restaurants in New York serve French food, and I think the Michelin three star restaurants in Paris are for the most part better than the NY Times four star restaurants in New York. After all, how many New York restaurants serve such world class food that people travel to NYC just to eat there.

In the middle range, I like the breadth and quality in San Francisco better than in Manhattan (SF is a city of 750,000 people, so Manhattan is a more fair comparison than NYC). By mid-range, I mean places that come in below $50 for a meal without wine. If one were to compare the entire Bay Area to all of New York City, I think it would be harder to choose.

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned London yet. The food scene there has definitely improved over the years, and on the ethnic front, London probably has the best Indian food outside of Asia.

Edited October 25, 2003 by Malik (log)

[herbacidal]

But what does "not significant in the international scheme of things" mean?

I mean that when you compare restaurant-cities on an international level -- such as NY v. Paris -- the Japanese restaurants in Paris aren't a consideration. They're there, but they're primarily of local significance.

In other words, it's a slam-dunk that Japanese food is better in New York, on the whole or/and at the top level, than in Paris?

But what about North African and Middle Eastern cuisine in Paris?

hmm. i'm actually a little suprised japanese food isn't better in paris at least.

[Malik]

I guess my longwinded post didn't make clear that I would nominate New York, San Francisco, Paris and London, but without a specific criteria, it would be hard to choose among them.

Within North America, I'd also give an honorable mention to Vancouver. They don't quite have world class food, especially when it comes to breadth, but the restaurant scene has really exploded there lately. Tojo's and Vij's would have to be considered among the top Sushi and Indian restaurants on the continent, and Ouest and Lumiere are very competent on the French food side.

Edited October 25, 2003 by Malik (log)

[BigboyDan]

I would ask, "Which major city would you want to eat in if you could only choose one, and why?" If asked, any choice of New Orleans, San Francisco, Lyon, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Bejing, etc., as well as Paris or New York could be someone's answer. Me: Paris, hands down. You know why.

[Malik]

But what does "not significant in the international scheme of things" mean?

I mean that when you compare restaurant-cities on an international level -- such as NY v. Paris -- the Japanese restaurants in Paris aren't a consideration. They're there, but they're primarily of local significance.

In other words, it's a slam-dunk that Japanese food is better in New York, on the whole or/and at the top level, than in Paris?

But what about North African and Middle Eastern cuisine in Paris?

hmm. i'm actually a little suprised japanese food isn't better in paris at least.

I've never been to a top Japanese restaurant in Paris, nor have I ever heard of one. Given that there are not a lot of Japanese immigrants in France, I wouldn't expect many good Japanese restaurants. Overall, I suspect your're more likely to find good Japanese food in South America than in Europe, as there's a much more sizeable Japanese community in places like Peru, Brazil and Chile.

[Malik]

I would ask, "Which major city would you want to eat in if you could only choose one, and why?" If asked, any choice of New Orleans, San Francisco, Lyon, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Bejing, etc., as well as Paris or New York could be someone's answer. Me: Paris, hands down. You know why.

Would it not depend on how much money you had?

[Fat Guy]

I think the Michelin three star restaurants in Paris are for the most part better than the NY Times four star restaurants in New York.

That's about the size of it. You can make an argument that we have basically a Michelin three-star restaurant in ADNY, but it's only one restaurant and they have essentially the same one in Paris plus a dozen more (and even a number of the Paris two-stars outclass the NY four-stars). And places like Jean-Georges, Daniel, et al. are entirely capable of producing a meal at the Michelin three-star level, but you really have to be a knowledgeable customer to get it. Gray Kunz's Lespinasse performed at that level as well, and also had the benefit of being relatively avant-garde. Serious food people really did travel to New York from far away just to eat there. The first time I went to France for serious eating, I didn't have a single meal that was in any way superior to the Saturday lunches people were getting at Lespinasse. Subsequent trips, made after Lespinasse had closed, when Bouley had gotten dull, etc., exhibited a more marked contrast. And the service and atmospheric issues cut strongly in favor of Paris. What I guess I'm saying is that even a hardcore New York apologist can't really make the argument for New York on this front. At best you can say that a resourceful New Yorker can get Michelin three-star-quality meals without leaving town, at a limited number of places and under special circumstances. At the same time, there is no restaurant in Paris that I find as enjoyable -- for what it is -- as a place like Gramercy Tavern. There is no equivalent of Craft. Or Nobu. Or any of a dozen other places I love and that give New York a lot of uniqueness at the lower-high-end (as in restaurants that might merit one Michelin star).

In the middle range, I like the breadth and quality in San Francisco better than in Manhattan (SF is a city of 750,000 people, so Manhattan is a more fair comparison than NYC). By mid-range, I mean places that come in below $50 for a meal without wine. If one were to compare the entire Bay Area to all of New York City, I think it would be harder to choose.

I agree that San Francisco excels in the middle range. In fact San Francisco excels in every range. But it only beats New York in the middle range, and I think that's the case even if you expand the inquiry to the whole Bay Area or even the whole state of California and, for that matter, the entire United States west of the Mississippi. I also wouldn't overlook Chicago, Vancouver, D.C., and a few other cities as having excellent food in certain categories. Surely Vancouver has the best overall Asian restaurant scene in North America, D.C. has Jose Andres, and Chicago/Evanston has Trotter's, Trio, Tru, etc. But the serious breadth is lacking in those places.

[Fat Guy]

I would ask, "Which major city would you want to eat in if you could only choose one, and why?" If asked, any choice of New Orleans, San Francisco, Lyon, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Bejing, etc., as well as Paris or New York could be someone's answer. Me: Paris, hands down. You know why.

For a week or a month, on an unlimited budget, I'd choose Paris. Then again, I already live in New York so it's nothing special to me.

[BigboyDan]

Fat Guy,

Good point, about you living in New York, it's all right there. I wonder what a Parisian would answer. Large international cities are just that, international, and most eaters could do well in any of them. Frankly, when I'm in New York I crave thin-crust pizza. Now, about service...

[Fat Guy]

Service in France -- especially at the kinds of places where good service is important -- is simply a more evolved art than it is in the US. Which isn't to say there aren't great servers and great service to be found here, or terrible servers and service to be found in France.