NYC to Chicago, and Boston considerations (Westchester, Lincoln: apartment, to rent, neighborhood)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Attrill

and we eat and drink incredibly well for $70-100 per person (which isn't cheap, but we eat really, really well for that).

As my cousin (rich CEO guy) said about Chicago (he doesn't live in Chicago): "One of the only cities where you can have an amazing $400 meal, an amazing $40 meal, and an amazing $4 meal." Pretty true if you ask me.

The food scene in the three cities overall is great. Chicago can compete pound for pound with NYC, although NYC has more restaurants, which makes sense since it's around 3X the population of Chicago (2X the population for metro area). There are a lot of great restaurants and the food scene is always growing here. There is about to be an influx of some successful/famous chefs of other cities opening up new places in River North/West Loop here within the next 3-6 months too (and not the kitchy TV celebs (minus Mario Battali opening up an Eataly here soon). I'm talking about people like one guy who has been really successful in South America and California opening up Peruvian food joints).

It also helps that Chicago has a Michelin guide

[Heyooooo]

Yeah Chicago is arguably the best food city IMO. Up there with SF and NYC. Same food quality, but the cost is much cheaper than the others on the whole.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Heyooooo

Yeah Chicago is arguably the best food city IMO. Up there with SF and NYC. Same food quality, but the cost is much cheaper than the others on the whole.

I don't think SF holds a candle to Chicago. Don't get me wrong, I think they have great food, but overall they aren't on the same level as Chicago or NYC. I think Los Angeles and Boston/Providence and up into Portland, ME have a better food scene. New Orleans and Las Vegas also have pretty good ones too. I think I'd put San Fran on the same level as New Orleans.

IMO, Chicago, NYC, and Boston area are the top 3 perhaps with Los Angeles too, followed by New Orleans, Las Vegas, DC, Atlanta, and San Francisco. San Francisco does have the best Chinese food in the nation though followed by NYC IMO.

[Chicagoist123]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I don't think SF holds a candle to Chicago. Don't get me wrong, I think they have great food, but overall they aren't on the same level as Chicago or NYC. I think Los Angeles and Boston/Providence and up into Portland, ME have a better food scene. New Orleans and Las Vegas also have pretty good ones too. I think I'd put San Fran on the same level as New Orleans.

IMO, Chicago, NYC, and Boston area are the top 3 perhaps with Los Angeles too, followed by New Orleans, Las Vegas, DC, Atlanta, and San Francisco. San Francisco does have the best Chinese food in the nation though followed by NYC IMO.

Boston really?! I was actually disappointed with the food in Boston. Thoughts 'twas nothing special and fairly mediocre.

[MassVt]

There are obviously some good things about Boston ( lower crime rate, intellectual stimulation, loads to do within city limits, lots of colleges, etc), but it can be difficult too, because of local attitudes, housing expenses and overall congestion. It can be a frustrating experience here, and there's very little here that is truly affordable..

[Heyooooo]

Boston wouldnt even be in my top 5.

I like good Mexican and Asian cuisine, of which SF excels. Chicago does as well. Mexican and other Hispanic/Latino food in Chicago is definitely better than NYC. Not even close really. I also like good Italian, Greek, Lebanese.

Chicago just pretty much has everything youd want. Great restaurants, great dives, local staples, BBQ, American, you name it. Foodie paradise.

[Heyooooo]

marothisu, no Philly?

I think Philly > Boston foodwise too. Beside the point.

medicalguy30, the food in Chicago will not disappoint, thats for sure.

[marothisu]

Forgot about Philly..haha all stuff aside...Chicago is seen as just as good (if not better) food wise than NYC by many experts. They're definitely the two best of the US

[Attrill]

Boston is a lot better for food than most people think. Places like Craigie on Main, O ya, Bergomot, and Journeyman are great, and can hold their own with their Chicago equivalents. Unfortunately they cost about twice as much as comparable Chicago places. Boston also has a lot of great small seafood places, and a solid amount of ethnic places. You ust need to get out of Back Bay, or Boston city limits really, to find a lot of them. I've also got a soft spot for some old favorites like Harvest, so I may be biased.

SF is similar to Boston in the fact that it is a very small city geographically. The city of SF proper has loads of great food, but doesn't hold a candle to Chicago. But SF is also less than a quarter the geographic size of Chicago, and once you get into the surrounding areas SF is definitely among the best food areas in the country, you just need to get out to places like Napa and Yountville. It's a very different thing than centralized cities like Chicago, NYC, London, etc.

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by rca215

Old Town blows.

The part of Old Town south of North Avenue both blows and sucks. The part of Old Town north of North Avenue (the "Old Town Triangle") is one of the best preserved and oldest residential neighborhoods in the city, and reminds me a little of Beacon Hill (although not quite as spectacular). Two entirely different places.