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.
no poll ?; i assume boston has better variety (north end: italian, chinatown: authentic chinese, dorchester/mattapan: west-indian, several haitian-american and south-american places, ...)
Tough comparison because they are such different culinary cities. When it comes to high end, French influenced and the heart of locavore/farm to table eating then Napa is in a league of its own and Boston is not in its class. Conversely when it comes to variety Boston pushes ahead and is not even close when it comes to the breath of options across nationalities as it is obviously a much more urban and international city than Napa.
So its tough to make this comparison as they both offer very different eating experiences.
Yeah, interesting comparison. One is a foodie vacation spot more like Charleston, SC or maybe Palm Springs. The other is a major city more like Philly or SF. I would have to say Boston is better destination when it comes to food, just because there is so many more options.
Napa Valley has a better concentration of quality restaurants per capita, that's for damn sure. Boston is much, much, much larger and has more variety. If I had to pick a place to live with an emphasis on food, it would be Boston. If I had to pick a place to spend a long weekend and eat, it would be Napa Valley.
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.