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.
If I were going to make a trip to either of these cities specifically to eat, I'd easily pick New Orleans. It just has amazing local cuisine that few other cities can replicate, whereas most of what's found in Boston and Seattle can easily be found in most other cities.
Between Boston and Seattle, I think Boston is a better food city. Both have amazing seafood and vibrant restaurant scenes, but Boston just has more variety.
This place was pretty good. Cafe Pontalba offers the best of both worlds Creole and Cajun.
Inside Cafe Pontalba looking out
I like it spicy
Hit a pub afterwards
Seattle native, live in New Orleans, visited Boston and will never go back, the food was adequate for a city of its history and size, but the accents alone made it sufficiently unbearable to be excluded from this post.
For anyone who (like me) prefer to avoid the pretentious, crowded, over-priced, and snobby restaurant scenes of D.C. (expensive but gross), N.Y (ethnic but gross), L.A. (flashy but gross), Chicago (actually only been once, and it was cold so I never went back, but just assuming), and San Francisco (by far the cuisine capital of the country, but prohibitively expensive), Seattle and New Orleans are the two remaining American cities that vie for the coveted best food crown.
If I had to choose one, I would choose New Orleans. That selection, however, is largely based on personal taste. I am not a vegetable-loving, organic ingredients-fiending, deep fat fry-detesting hippie as are most Seattleites, so this will likely vary per person. I do though love flavorful food. Yes, New Orleans is famous for its Creole AND Cajun cuisine, which are very distinct, the former best described as a tumultuous and old age metropolitan blend of spices, meat, and the "trinity"; the latter comprised of more provincial and hearty ingredients - oil, pork, corn and crawfish. No matter how adept Louisianians are at cooking up their own native dishes, the Big Easy does it all. From Thai food on Magazine (La Thai Uptown, Sukho Thai) to Italian on St. Charles (Vicente's) and Lebanese on Carrollton (Lebanon Cafe), the city consistently provides an offering of every possible cuisine. Moreover, the abundance of po-boy shops - serving classic New Orleans-style sandwiches (of various meats) on flaky French bread only adds to its appeal. To top it off, every restaurant has an extensive selection of drinks, which, for an alcoholic like myself, is always sure to make the meal more enjoyable.
Seattle is more complex. A far larger and more populous city, it is bound to have more to offer. The inaccessibility of the neighborhoods and the high prices, however, make it less than desirable. Sure, it's got some great seafood, but I've never been a lover of fresh fish, so this doesn't do much for me. If you are a Wild-Alaskan-Loving-Hipster-Freakshow, then yes, by all means, choose here over the South. Honestly, if I'd have to give an opinion, the food here may actually be better than New Orleans (save for the Creole/Cajun cuisine, which is all I enjoy anyways), but unfortunately, there are too many factors that make it worse value. For one, the price is outrageous. I paid $19 for a half-ass attempt at jambalaya (half-way between red beans and crawfish etouffe) tonight. If I can buy more than four New Orleans drinks for the same price, I ain't havin' it. Second, the service by which the food is always accompanied ruins the presentation and taste. No, I do not care about raising the minimum wage to $15, y'all already have the highest in the country, and frankly, way too many homeless people. The city is disgusting and smells of urine. Finally, no Seattle dining experience would be complete without being surrounded by a crowd of loud, un-showered, pierced, tattoed, bored-with-their-life-now-that-they've-spent-all-of-their-parents-money-on-cocaine-and-cigarrettes-hipsters, intent on speaking about their ridiculous agenda and propagating it everywhere, even to the table next to them.
What I WILL say for Seattle is that the Asian food here does surpass anywhere else in the country, besides that of San Francisco. The Japanese food, Sushi in particular, is unparalleled by any location besides the Ginza district (and S.F.). But, everything else about it sucks so much that it draws away from the food. Crying shame. New Orleans for sure though.
Seattle native, live in New Orleans, visited Boston and will never go back, the food was adequate for a city of its history and size, but the accents alone made it sufficiently unbearable to be excluded from this post.
For anyone who (like me) prefer to avoid the pretentious, crowded, over-priced, and snobby restaurant scenes of D.C. (expensive but gross), N.Y (ethnic but gross), L.A. (flashy but gross), Chicago (actually only been once, and it was cold so I never went back, but just assuming), and San Francisco (by far the cuisine capital of the country, but prohibitively expensive), Seattle and New Orleans are the two remaining American cities that vie for the coveted best food crown.
If I had to choose one, I would choose New Orleans. That selection, however, is largely based on personal taste. I am not a vegetable-loving, organic ingredients-fiending, deep fat fry-detesting hippie as are most Seattleites, so this will likely vary per person. I do though love flavorful food. Yes, New Orleans is famous for its Creole AND Cajun cuisine, which are very distinct, the former best described as a tumultuous and old age metropolitan blend of spices, meat, and the "trinity"; the latter comprised of more provincial and hearty ingredients - oil, pork, corn and crawfish. No matter how adept Louisianians are at cooking up their own native dishes, the Big Easy does it all. From Thai food on Magazine (La Thai Uptown, Sukho Thai) to Italian on St. Charles (Vicente's) and Lebanese on Carrollton (Lebanon Cafe), the city consistently provides an offering of every possible cuisine. Moreover, the abundance of po-boy shops - serving classic New Orleans-style sandwiches (of various meats) on flaky French bread only adds to its appeal. To top it off, every restaurant has an extensive selection of drinks, which, for an alcoholic like myself, is always sure to make the meal more enjoyable.
Seattle is more complex. A far larger and more populous city, it is bound to have more to offer. The inaccessibility of the neighborhoods and the high prices, however, make it less than desirable. Sure, it's got some great seafood, but I've never been a lover of fresh fish, so this doesn't do much for me. If you are a Wild-Alaskan-Loving-Hipster-Freakshow, then yes, by all means, choose here over the South. Honestly, if I'd have to give an opinion, the food here may actually be better than New Orleans (save for the Creole/Cajun cuisine, which is all I enjoy anyways), but unfortunately, there are too many factors that make it worse value. For one, the price is outrageous. I paid $19 for a half-ass attempt at jambalaya (half-way between red beans and crawfish etouffe) tonight. If I can buy more than four New Orleans drinks for the same price, I ain't havin' it. Second, the service by which the food is always accompanied ruins the presentation and taste. No, I do not care about raising the minimum wage to $15, y'all already have the highest in the country, and frankly, way too many homeless people. The city is disgusting and smells of urine. Finally, no Seattle dining experience would be complete without being surrounded by a crowd of loud, un-showered, pierced, tattoed, bored-with-their-life-now-that-they've-spent-all-of-their-parents-money-on-cocaine-and-cigarrettes-hipsters, intent on speaking about their ridiculous agenda and propagating it everywhere, even to the table next to them.
What I WILL say for Seattle is that the Asian food here does surpass anywhere else in the country, besides that of San Francisco. The Japanese food, Sushi in particular, is unparalleled by any location besides the Ginza district (and S.F.). But, everything else about it sucks so much that it draws away from the food. Crying shame. New Orleans for sure though.
New Orleans. It's more famous for its food, whereas Boston and Seattle aren't as much, especially worldwide. But also, New Orleans has great food unique to the city, plus a good variety. People who thinks New Orleans doesn't have a good variety never took the time to explore outside of the touristy areas. Vietnamese and Thai food here is great, many good Caribbean, European and Latin American foods here too, and even a few nice sushi and Chinese places (notably, Origami and Chinese Kitchen, respectively).
It's more famous for its food, whereas Boston and Seattle aren't as much, especially worldwide.
Well, Boston does have Boston cream pie, baked beans (but not really), and clam chowder!
But no, I agree that NOLA is the winner here.
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.
