Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am pretty sure Chicago has just as many hole in the walls as LA. Chicagoans are less concerned about their diets than people in SoCal are. Grease joints, taco joints, Puerto Rican hole in the walls, are everywhere here.
Some cities are just better than others at certain things. Do you really find it that hard to believe that Chicago might have better food? I am not saying it does, but you make it seem like it's impossible. NYC dominates, but Chicago, SF and LA are certainly the next three and completely interchangeable in their rank. Either way you rank those three probably wouldn't raise eyebrows.
Yes, because I've eaten countless times in Chicago and Los Angeles. I mean, it's my opinion, but then again I'm willing to ask where Chicago does better because it isn't any Latin area (even Puerto Rican which isn't as defined as a food place like Mexico, Cuba, or Jamaica for instance-not saying Jamaica is Latin btw). It isn't asian. Chicago does have some good Italian, Eastern European eats. Possibly here, and only here it's better than LA but not by much. The gap between LA and Chicago when it comes to Latin or Asian is far greater.
As far as this thread goes, IMO Philly is very underrated. They have a great selection of upscale dining along with a hoagie shop culture that is literally in almost every corner of the city. The only thing detracting from Philly is that there are fairly large areas of the city that are "food deserts" both in the sense of not having access to unprocessed food and in the sense that there's very little food to begin with. This becomes noticeable in comparison to a city like LA... while LA might be spread out, you're always within 5 blocks or less of a major commercial artery no matter where you are in the city other than the hills.
As far as this thread goes, IMO Philly is very underrated. They have a great selection of upscale dining along with a hoagie shop culture that is literally in almost every corner of the city. The only thing detracting from Philly is that there are fairly large areas of the city that are "food deserts" both in the sense of not having access to unprocessed food and in the sense that there's very little food to begin with. This becomes noticeable in comparison to a city like LA... while LA might be spread out, you're always within 5 blocks or less of a major commercial artery no matter where you are in the city other than the hills.
I guess the only 3 cities I left out of my OP were Philly, Boston, and Las Vegas.
My experience with Philly is little (one day), my experience with Boston is nothing, and Las Vegas is very forgettable (I was probably drunk )
But Philly never struck me as a top 5 food city. Top 10? Yup, definitely.
Yes, because I've eaten countless times in Chicago and Los Angeles. I mean, it's my opinion, but then again I'm willing to ask where Chicago does better because it isn't any Latin area (even Puerto Rican which isn't as defined as a food place like Mexico, Cuba, or Jamaica for instance-not saying Jamaica is Latin btw). It isn't asian. Chicago does have some good Italian, Eastern European eats. Possibly here, and only here it's better than LA but not by much. The gap between LA and Chicago when it comes to Latin or Asian is far greater.
Are you saying Chicago doesn't have good Latin food? If so you are way off. If anything there are way too many good Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban places. Lots of Colombian, Argentinean, Brazilian and Peruvian places too. Same with Asian food, although LA might have it better. I really doubt though when it comes to Latin food outside of Mexican food.
I think the only area where LA truly does excel Chicago is in Mexican food, but I would say it's not that big of a gap either. My belief is that LA, Chicago and SF are pretty much neck and neck. I don't think anyone should be in disbelief if someone believes Chicago food is better than LA and vice versa. Same if you throw SF into the mix. All three have a very big variety of ethnic cuisines with high quality.
It just sounded like you were saying that Chicago shouldn't even be considered anywhere near LA and seemed to be in disbelief about it.
Are you saying Chicago doesn't have good Latin food? If so you are way off. If anything there are way too many good Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban places. Lots of Colombian, Argentinean, Brazilian and Peruvian places too.
The Mexican food wasn't very good in Chicago at all. But I'm spoiled there (born and raised in LA, I also lived all over Mexico).
Even though I'm half Puerto Rican, the food is rather just your basic Caribbean style. It's rather undefined I'd say (that's it's easier for me to tell when I'm eating Mexican than Puerto Rican, of course there are barely 3 million people on that island!). Los Angeles is probably better in just about all those areas (including Brazilian and especially Peruvian).
But here's what I'm saying, I don't doubt Chicago has some great Latin high end eats. But on the lower end, it's pretty a much Los Angeles far and above Chicago. I've heard this from primarily Mexicans who lived in both places. Chicago doesn't have the raw numbers of latins (or even percentage), Chicago doesn't have the affiliation to latin america, and Chicago doesn't have the history of a Latin community that Los Angeles has. Same goes with asians. On the other hand, when it comes to italian, polish, balkan, russian, or greek Chicago does have easier to find, better quality low end eats. But not by the same gap as LA has with Latin/Asian food over Chicago.
I want to say this about Peruvian food, and that it's the second best after Mexican for Latin American food. Miami and then (small gap) NYC are the places for it in the USA. After that Los Angeles. Chicago is or was never on the radar for Peruvian food.
I want to say this about Peruvian food, and that it's the second best after Mexican for Latin American food. Miami and then (small gap) NYC are the places for it in the USA. After that Los Angeles. Chicago is or was never on the radar for Peruvian food.
Peruvian food is indeed delicious... My only exposure to it has been in the Bay (namely Redwood City) but I imagine LA and Miami would also be good places to get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
