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.
Actually the true origins of the hamburger are unknown, and several American locations claim to own the invention. The Library of Congress credits New Haven, but I don't doubt this is largely due to regional proximity.
Right, no one knows. Seymour, WI (tiny town outside Green Bay) certainly doesn't belong on this list just because it *might* have made the first hamburger, that's beyond silly.
Agree that LA does the best in the cheap ethnic food game, but dominate is probably too strong a term. NYC has the greater variety, though for the same items LA usually charges less for roughly the same quality.
Greater variety...not really. Both cities have huge variety. LA does better in terms of more exotic foods (Middle Eastern, Thai, Mexican, Sushi, Vietnamese, Korean, etc) while NYC is better at European, Cantonese, high-end dining, etc.
Sort of a negligible question. There is no city in this nation that can offer the depth, quality, and expertise of the Big Apple.
Depends on what you're looking for. San Francisco and Chicago equal NYC on the fine dining/European/fusion/high-end American cuisines and such. LA offers the same variety as NYC (not as good at European foods as NYC, but better at Asian, Mexican, and Middle Eastern fare and cheaper), though is not as big on the whole street meat thing.
Im pretty sure Philly is number one, you know why?
Philly is the only city where tourist and foodies actually go there for the food [Mainly Cheesesteaks]. (Minus all the five-four star restaurants and culture food it has [Water Ice, Scrapple, Pretzels, Cheesescake]
Everywhere else, people just go to the city first then find out about the food later on like going to Chicago..."I'm going to Chicago" -goes to chicago- "Oh wait, I heard about that Deep Dish pizza! Lets try it out"
"I'm going to Philly, I want a cheesesteak" -goes to philly- "Which one, Pat’s King of Steaks or Jim's Steaks??"
If you think this is wrong, tell me a city where tourist/people actually go there mainly for the food?
Hey, I lived in the New Haven area for 3 years and the only food I remember was Pizza, it's that good.
Then again I only have a very few memories from that time - my dad growing parsley along the sidewalk, cows at the farm across from our subdivision, riding bareback on the neighbor's dog....
I guess I'm lucky to have a few memories from back then and pizza is one of them.
Just to throw this out there, I would say Southwestern Louisiana and South Louisiana outside NO has better Cajun food and also more known. Could be wrong.
Philly has a "cuisine"? Lots of different foods were invented in many cities, big and small, some more than others. But individual foods don't equal a whole style of cuisine.
When I think of "cuisine", I think of:
California Cuisine (Bay Area)
Cajun Cuisine (NOLA)
Creole Cuisine (NOLA)
Tex-Mex (Texas)
Soul Food (the South)
These are whole cooking styles applied to different foods/food groups that have methodology and unofficial boundaries, etc. They have all also caught on nationally, and you can find CA cuisine/methods in reputable restaurants across the country. Likewise, creole or cajun or soul food or even Tex-Mex.
The creation of the hamburger, hoagie/cheese steak, pizza, deli subs, chicken tetrazzini are all amazing creations that I love, but aren't a "cuisine". Very few cities have individual "cuisines" that can be attributed to them. Regions more often (like Soul Food, Tex-Mex, etc).
NYC has the sheer abundance of amazing world-class restaurants, plus great ethnic food. The Bay Area has wine country convenience/wine culture, an appreciation for food "art", fresh ingredients, and a pretty amazing high-end and ethnic restaurant scene itself. I'd say it's a toss up between the two. Additionally, Brooklyn's large scene, and NJ's large scene, are extensions of the quality/variety you find in Manhattan. Likewise, Berkeley/Oakland have what some would argue are even better food scenes than SF.
NOLA, Chicago, LA, and Charleston are all also amazing. Like others have said, NOLA's is limited in breadth, but perfected within its range. Plus it has TWO cuisines native to its area, and a food culture. Chicago and Charleston are just filled with great restaurants. LA can probably match SF or NYC, less the "wine/food culture" part, but it's more spread out.
Other cities don't really compare, though I have yet to go to any city that doesn't have good restaurants in it. You can get a good meal anywhere. I'd probably rank cities based on how easy it is and chance of getting a bad meal. In that reverse regard, SF and NYC are still tops. Both cities are more consistently "good".
Don't forget about Queens. I've also heard that you'll find better authentic Italian in The Bronx too (Arthur Avenue in the Belmont neighborhood).
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.
