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.
Don't knock it till you try it. Its a fantastic city to live in, trust me.
I dunno - there's just something about N.A cities that do it for me in terms of setting up my tent. To visit however it should be on the top of their short lists of places to visit in the world.
The people who eat at fine dining and chef driven restaurants are typically very well travelled and have enough disposable income to do both on a regular basis. We are not talking about folks that eat at your local Golden Corral here. Fine dining restaurants sprout up to attract a certain demographic, along with business (expense account meals) and leisure travelers to your city.
Well - I suppose I've been put in my place now haven't I lol.. Quite frankly, I could afford to drop 100 plus dollars on a meal several times per month actually and travel overseas once or twice a year plus the occasional U.S trip.. I just prefer to travel 3 or 4 times per year overseas and still maintain my lifestyle and investments. I just don't see the value in dropping 100 bucks on a meal unless it is a very special occasion, but hey that's just me I'm not judging those who do its just their preference but i'm sure there are many who frequent these fine dining establishments who are also in a lot of debt and in a precarious predicament financially.
Having said that - the demographic you speak of is not representative of the majority of us foodies in this world and those establishments that cater to 'the rest of us' count as much as the chef driven places the few frequent - don't they? Most American travellers to Toronto are not the 1 percent or even the 10 percent either btw so they don't frequent these chef driven places either in both Canada and the U.S so it is a bit disingenuous to lump a city as a great food city based on the establishments that cater to the minority, regardless of how much they are spending for their pricey fare.
Having said that - the demographic you speak of is not representative of the majority of us foodies in this world and those establishments that cater to 'the rest of us' count as much as the chef driven places the few frequent - don't they? Most American travellers to Toronto are not the 1 percent or even the 10 percent either btw so they don't frequent these chef driven places either in both Canada and the U.S so it is a bit disingenuous to lump a city as a great food city based on the establishments that cater to the minority, regardless of how much they are spending for their pricey fare.
The thing is all these cities that are considered Tier 1 culinary cities by people who spend their time rating restaurants typically have all levels covered.
Focusing on Chicago and SF because of this thread shows that you have an incredible variety when it comes to fine dining, mid range, ethnic and local cuisine. Toronto obviously shines more in the ethnic variety category but what type of food can you find in Toronto that is not covered in SF and Chicago? On the other hand I can name quite a few types of food (At all levels) that are not available in Toronto, despite its diversity of people.
So this is hardly a one or the other decision, people who live in cities like SF and Chicago can eat around the globe or treat themselves to a world class Michelin starred meal in the same day, you cant say the same for Toronto and DC, despite both also being good places to eat themselves.
I voted Chicago here. I think it is the best designed urban city of the bunch. The river, bridges, architecture (historical and modern), beaches, transportation, two major airports, biking paths, accessible parks, shopping/entertainment, neighborhoods, museum district, public art, sporting institutions and lake shore development are outstanding. Even many of the surrounding suburbs are picturesque and have character. No place is perfect though. Sure the weather sucks and the south side of the city is still a mess but overall, I still think Chicago has the most impressive urban planning.
The thing is all these cities that are considered Tier 1 culinary cities by people who spend their time rating restaurants typically have all levels covered.
Focusing on Chicago and SF because of this thread shows that you have an incredible variety when it comes to fine dining, mid range, ethnic and local cuisine. Toronto obviously shines more in the ethnic variety category but what type of food can you find in Toronto that is not covered in SF and Chicago? On the other hand I can name quite a few types of food (At all levels) that are not available in Toronto, despite its diversity of people.
So this is hardly a one or the other decision, people who live in cities like SF and Chicago can eat around the globe or treat themselves to a world class Michelin starred meal in the same day, you cant say the same for Toronto and DC, despite both also being good places to eat themselves.
The fact of the matter is most people in North American cities don't eat at Michelin ranked or Chef driven restaurants. When it comes to cuisine, most people aren't you Edward - that is a fact! So for you and the small minority of people like you, perhaps Chicago and S.F are better foodie cities, but for the majority the average restaurant that the vast majority of residents and tourists go to could be the great equalizer!
Perhaps Michelin should come up to Toronto!! Wondering when the last time they were here...? I could be wrong but I can't find one - not one single Michelin starred restaurant in not just Toronto but all of Canada. I kind of find that very hard to believe that Canada doesn't have any restaurants worthy.. Does Michelin even know the country exists...??
Not in Toronto.. but why isn't Eigensinn Farm Michelin ranked? I find rankings like these incredibly subjective and on a foundation of jello if they aren't aware or even judge Eigensinn.
yeah, I don't doubt LA has a grid, its just certainly not known for that the way Chicago is -- I've never actually picked up on the grid that well when I've been in LA, certainly not the way it is in Chicago (Which also had a network of streetcars) .
Really, most of Illinois and states in that vicinity are gridded thanks to the township and range system. Growing up I thought every city would be a perfect grid. I studied geography in college...but before I did that, I got wildly lost in Paris when I visited at the age of 19 after walking away from my boyfriend...thinking I could make 3 left turns at the next block and be back where I left him!
not exactly.. I was wandering Paris for 10 hours getting more and more lost...
Lol Oh wow. Did you still had fun while you were lost in Paris?
The sports thing is actually one of the other reasons I left Chicago. If possible, people there had gotten even more obsessed with sports and the many Chicago teams and places to see sports.
I just don't care. I was having a hard time even relating to my friends.
Some people claim Boston to be just as bad if not worse.
Here's another of Gallery Place. Is there really a comparison? I don't know what their similarities are. Like I said, it's D.C.'s times square. Now, if you want to compare Michigan Ave or somewhere in that part of the city, I could see something.
It doesn't look like this building is exactly in an appealing or urban part of the city to be honest. I'd rather live in a generic looking building closer to civilization than in the middle of a field
Lol true
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.