The Most Interesting Food City in the World

[hapacooking]

It all depends on how one would define "Interesting Food City". It is very subjective, however I would have to vote San Francisco.

With the strong influence of the asian and spanish cultures, along with the diverse selection of fresh seafood, vegetables and fruits, and the many farmers markets, grocery stores as well as the huge variety of restaurants, San Francisco has to be one of the most interesting food city in the world.

And you can't forget...they also have the French Laundry .

[canucklehead]

I've lived in Vancouver, HK, SF, Shanghai and I have to say my favorite food city is.... NYC.

HK and NYC both have a food culture that is ingrained from the home kitchen upwards. In HK, your skill at ordering in a restaurant and ability to discern good food is a very important trait in determining your social standing. NYC has the same thing - it is not about the bullshit high end stuff (though of course is nice) but the grounds up, pulsing way that good food is incorporated the everyday aspects of people's lives. Freshness, quality of ingredients, lightness of hand, and cooking with attention and love. These are big big things in HK.

NYC gets the nod from me just because I like the whole jewish deli thing.

SF has a developing food culture - but I find that alot of it is driven by a food 'elite' and it has not developed into a 'muscle memory' yet. Much the food language is a transplanted Tuscan / Italian vocabulary that works well for the local climate (I do love Delfina's) But for some reason SF does NOT have good Asian food. Let me tell you that "hole in the wall" does not equal "authentic". The lines outside House of Nanking and the raves over Eliza's are really really baffling. Vancouver has a much better developed Asian food scene.

BTW - Izakaya (Japanese Bar Food) is huge in Vancouver right now - anywhere else?

Anyway - sorry about the rambling post. But HK and NYC are my two choices with a slight nod to NYC.

Edited February 26, 2005 by canucklehead (log)

[WHS]

The emphasis here on variety is something that I'm not quite understanding. I go to France to eat French food, not to search out Chinese places. I go to Seoul to enjoy Korean food, ...Manhatten is dense with variety, but the overall quality of the food doesn't strike me as being significantly greater than other cities with perhaps more sprawled out variety. ...Manhatten wouldn't be one my list at all at the high end or the low end.

With that said, given Ben''s conditions for what makes a city "interesting" than I would pick SF. 

←

I couldn't have said this better. I still vote for NYC, but I agree with Ben and you for the reason that Manhattan does not rule with the "best food." Yes, I think it is varied and because of the diversity, we enjoy many authentic types of cuisine (especially outside of Manhattan), but the quality of the food here is hit or miss. Not to go off topic too much, I feel that if the question were "what is the 'best' food city in the world, we would have a much different dialogue.

Since we go to a different country to explore their cuisine, what do we explore in America? Southern? BBQ? The undefined issue of what cuisine this country hosts leads to NYC being the most interesting, and even the Diner on the corner menu is influenced by culture, i.e. italian and greek, but I have had far better meals in other cities. Often, I find myself wondering "why is the quality of food outside of NY so much better"?

←

I'm with both of you on this. I was born in Japan, grew up in Bangkok, went to school in California and India, lived for 20 years in Manhattan, and now live in New Hampshire. Each of these places has interesting food cities (yes, even NH!) But does the fact that you can get bulgogi in New York or tournedos Rossini in Bangkok make them more interesting?

Though any city where you can get deep fried waterbugs gets my vote (Bangkok).

[Catherine Nash]

Wow. It is both startling and humbling that San Francisco was only nominated by about 3 or 4 people - and in nearly all cases, as part of a long list of other contenders. It's not that I'd like to nominate SF for my most interesting food city - Lord knows I don't have enough round-the-world eating experiences under my belt to willingly cast a vote - but it does say something about one of America's most preeminent food towns.

So, if what many think of as traditionally the 2nd top food city in the US (one could argue if it's 2, 3, 4 etc. but you see the point) is barely even mentioned in this survey, has something gone dreadfully wrong?

Perhaps SF is considered too provincial? Hey, we're smaller than LA, Chicago and NY but we can duke out the so-called ethnic battle with the best of 'em. Afghan? Check. Vietnamese? Arguably one of the best in the US in Slanted Door, plus tons of pho shops all around town. Tibetan? Yep. Iraqi? Coming soon. Basque? Some of the best both in pure form (e.g. Piperade) and as influences go (e.g. Aqua). I could go on and on.

Or is it that folks think no one here is trying hard enough, but just resting on their organic local vegetable-clad bums? Keller aside, I think SF boasts its more than its fair share of experimental food. Try Michael Mina who, like Gray Ashutz (sp?), designs his own china to match his meals, which are served in triplicate and meant to be eaten in a specific order. Even at a classic like Zuni Cafe, I have yet to eat dinner there (which I do fairly often) when there isn't something on the menu that I cannot identify as vegetable, mineral or animal.

I think SF deserves more than an honorable mention, and not just for the sake of California Cuisine's influence on culinary history.

[Pan]

[...]So, if what many think of as traditionally the 2nd top food city in the US (one could argue if it's 2, 3, 4 etc. but you see the point) is barely even mentioned in this survey, has something gone dreadfully wrong?[...]

←

Is that really true? And how far does "San Francisco" go in your accounting? All the way to St. Helena? I enjoy visiting San Francisco very much, but if it's 2nd, it comes after what? New York? Chicago? Where does New Orleans fit in? What about LA? How good a food city is Phoenix?

I think San Francisco is a plenty good food city, especially at the low- and mid-priced levels. But, as you said, it's a pretty small city. The fact that I believe most people would think of SF before Boston or even Washington -- if I'm right about that -- says something about all those cities.

[Catherine Nash]

I definitely think of NY as the #1 food town in America. Not necessarily the most interesting (though it has plenty of nominations from others) but for a myriad of reasons - availability and variety of cuisines, celebrated chefs, access to ingredients, propensity for dining out v. staying in, even the hours the restaurants keep and the rich, if overly American, proliferation of street food.

It's interesting to me that the top spot is being questioned and I think that says a lot about where we are today and how our views on food are evolving. It seems that most people who participated in this discussion value as their influencing factors (1) hitherto unknown or less well-known (to them) ingredients, (2) a certain amount of hustle-and-bustle which equals vibrancy, and (3) a representation from foods around the globe - all this valued over creativity, for instance, a la Keller, Adria, Aschatz and the like.

I'm not saying I disagree - discovery makes food fun again, and there's a reason you can't open an issue of Saveur without reading a feature about China, Hong Kong, Vietnam or Thailand. I think it's very cool actually that classical French training and execution no longer rule the day (hmm...or do they...?)

[Pan]

Well, this thread is about the "most interesting food city in the World," not in the US. And New York isn't the most interesting to me, but that's probably because it's my city and, therefore, some other cities (like Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Hong Kong, Shanghai) are more interesting to me because they are great and different. What is it they say about the grass on the other side of the fence?

[Catherine Nash]

Touche. It did get to be sort of a tangent. The net net is that I think it's interesting SF got nary a nod (or so, so few) in the general discussion.

[marlena spieler]

My definition of an interesting food city is one in which you can walk and walk and walk (or drive, alas) and constantly be finding new and fascinating places to jot down in your mind: must go there.

where the buzz on the street, or at least the topic of conversation among almost all at almost all levels is about: food.

San francisco and paris are totally that for me. the one thing people always ask (well i always ask) when visitors say they have been or are going to san frandisco (by which we mean the entire bay area), is: what/where did you/will you eat?

paris is the same thing: have you been here, have you been there, shall we go together, that sort of thing.......

both cities have wonderful raw ingredients: excellent bread, to start off with, and produce though sf is ahead in the exotic produce, and as far as fromage despite great strides in recent years, paris is certainly ahead in this. i mean, they have this history of fromage and a whole country to bring the cheese in from and sell......the cheese alone is worth living in paris, for me.

also both have a good ethnic mix. paris has lots of turkish, eastern european, indian/pakistan, morrocan/tuniisian/algerian, vietnamese, lebanese, etc. when people say that paris doesn't have the variety i just don't understand. i think: maybe they are talking about a different paris......

nice is quite exciting a place to eat, though everything that comes to the table seems to be kissed by the sun (not a bad thing, like italy, or greece.......)

london to me doesn't have the joy of eating. its hard work getting good bread (though the late and wonderful lionel poilane has his bread sold in waitrose, as well as his bakery that i helped him open in london--its on elizabeth street, and if you love good bread you must go there). but where i live, in hampshire, people couldn't care less about good food. even at the highest end, its all about pretention. and london, while it has great turkish, thai, lebanese, etc, just doesn't have the ordinary good food, the little restaurants in neighbourhoods that don't charge an arm and a leg. mostly its fish and chips, fish and chips. (though i know that in parts of london you can eat very very well, but its just not an eating culture). (its more about the drink, at least with so many of the people and media i know).

but tel aviv! yeah! that is a great place to wander, and thrill to the array of ethnic places, and thrill to the shopping at markets, and things like the soft soft pita which makes a mockery of the pita one finds in europe, usa. (with exceptions, of course, always exceptions).

italy is very regional, there are so many different eating styles that i hesitate to single any one place out.

its been a while since i've spent time in mexico city but once upon a time i found the most divine food there, and a wide range of cuisines.

oh, and in the usa: of course new york city is fabulous. but spending a lot of time there equally between san francisco and new york, (and europe) sf definately has the lead in my culinary heart. everything is fresher, and the whole level of eating well goes deeper, people cook! and the average person knows where to go and just is into it, cares about quality, etc.

and new orleans: be still my heart. echoing what has already been said before here, its the way good food just exists, people are excited about it, people just won't stand for mediocrity, everyone wants to pipe up and tell you where they have eaten last, where to go for this, where to catch the best crawfish, where to eat the best oysters, where to find a gumbo that'll make you cry.

like san francisco and paris, new orleans is even more so, this shared passion for eating well.

oh yes and vancouver: some fab restaurants there, a vibrant scene. loved rob feenie, david hawksworth, vancouver tomatoes. as exciting a scene as one can figure out from a 5 day visit...........but i do want to go back......

marlena

[Pan]

Marlena, you're a world traveller, but you have to go to Malaysia and find out what people are talking about there.

[MarketStEl]

After wading through this topic, it appears that most people base their assessments on two criteria, both of which matter: variety and quality--though it does appear that variety trumps quality slightly, if the number of people pointing out that they've had better meals outside New York but nonetheless rate New York tops on their list is any guide.

But what about a city where the local food culture focuses on one particular niche, but does that niche very well?

That is just about how I would describe my hometown of Kansas City. In what might also be interpreted as an act of municipal catharsis, the city has embraced barbecue, you'll pardon the term, whole hog. Heated debates break out over the merits of one 'que joint's ribs or another's brisket, or even whether burnt ends (the city's signature contribution to the cuisine) should be served at all. With all the fuss made about barbecue, you'd soon forget that there were restaurants in town that served anything else. (There are--dozens of them--some of them very good indeed.)

I'm guessing that such cities would not make anyone's "most interesting food cities in the world" list because they narrowly specialize, but I would suggest they do merit inclusion in lists of "food cities worth a visit" simply because there you're more likely to run into the best examples of a certain cuisine than you would elsewhere. (To underscore my point, go look at all the discussions of barbecue in New York City on the New York board.)

[marlena spieler]

Marlena, you're a world traveller, but you have to go to Malaysia and find out what people are talking about there. 

←

Pan, I soooo believe you! (and vietnam, too....and points scattered through india.). and kansas city in on that list too!

i was just speaking to someone about doing grazing tours, where you walk down a street or neighbourhood, stop and eat the one thing that place does best, the move along to the next one. i am always thinking of leading grazing tours in my mind but never get around to planning a proper one.

would love to get taken on one, too!

x marlena who is ready to eat! (i mean, hungry, not freshly cooked)

[Bux]

. . . And this was all while I was a poor college student.

But beyond the fact that it is so cosmopolitan, New Orleans is a city that worships food (and drink).  It truly is difficult to find a bad meal there. 

. . . .

←

It's unreasonable to set a price on interesting, although on the other hand, nothing is interesting if you can't actually afford it. Thus beyond just the subjective nature of what each of us finds interesting is our ability to actually enjoy what a city has to offer. I'm not sure that protection against a bad meal is interesting, although it's reassuring. Is appealing related to interesting? Would it be reasonable to say "I'm interested in not being excited?" I don't know.

OK OK, everyone gets a chance to throw in their favourite (and, I suspect, the majority of people are suggesting the city they live in),

←

I'd have thought otherwise, but Pan beat me to it.

Well, this thread is about the "most interesting food city in the World," not in the US. And New York isn't the most interesting to me, but that's probably because it's my city and, therefore, some other cities (like Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Hong Kong, Shanghai) are more interesting to me because they are great and different. What is it they say about the grass on the other side of the fence? 

←

Perhaps this thread is as much a discussion of what each of us finds interesting, more than it's about the most interesting city. I don't expect us to reach a consensus about the most interesting city if only because I don't think we share a common concept of "interesting." For some, excellence is the most interesting quality and I can relate very well to that standard. I'm never bored with true excellence. Nevertheless, in one way or another, most of us equate interest with variety and diversity at high level of achievement over one style done extrememly well. The idea that tomorrow we can find a meal that's nothing like the one we had last night is interesting and the ability to do that so many days in a row seems to be very important to many people. Thus large cities with a history of immigration often get proposed. I don't know that Barcelona is the most interesting food city, but it offers a variation on the theme I just mentioned. It doesn't offer anywhere near the variety of cuisines that one can find in NY or a host of other cities, but it offers something unique, and I think unique is at the heart of interesting for many at one level or another. It offers a collection of existing restaurants, and perhaps the sense that collection is growing rapidly, with chefs who are not only truly creative in a way that makes most "fusion" food appear to be of limited imagination, but who are actually able to create convincingly new foods. There's an excitement that's layered over an existing native cuisine that's based on fresh market products and incredibly fresh seafood that is, I think, unique to Barcelona, although I'm not sure it's enough to make it the most exciting city in the world, if only because when I'm in Barcelona, I'm more attracted to the restaurants that are anywhere from a half hour to an hour and a half away.