Hot New Food Town (Pittsburgh: appointed, how much, buying)

[UKyank]

Interesting read & covers Pittsburgh
https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation...-town-must-die

[MountainDewGuy]

Pretty much confirms lists like these are bs.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Thought it was a good read that made some good points. I was hoping he would touch a bit more on the sustainability and longer term economics of the food scene. The local food scene screams bubble to me right now, despite how much I enjoy it. Not everyone has the bankroll to go to these places night in and night out, spending $100 or more on a meal and drinks for two. Something has to give at some point.

[Paul2421]

this is a pretty good read. so basically pittsburgh is riding trends of other cities. not really a bad thing, though. i think severinos quote was pretty good when he said you can't expect to find SF cuisines here for cheaper prices. yeah it is new to pittsburgh, but you will be disappointed coming from other places and end up paying just as much.

i also thought the description of the town in the opening was pretty funny as it is spot on l'ville. also the different & restaurants all opening next to each other, ala potatoes

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

Thought it was a good read that made some good points. I was hoping he would touch a bit more on the sustainability and longer term economics of the food scene. The local food scene screams bubble to me right now, despite how much I enjoy it. Not everyone has the bankroll to go to these places night in and night out, spending $100 or more on a meal and drinks for two. Something has to give at some point.

restaurants have a pretty poor success rate. i think we will see more restaurants riding the trend scene and then fading away. the really successful will be those that not only capture the "foodie" audience but also appeal to the regular restaurateurs of the burgh. i think this is why m&p has been so successful. they established a brand and have been able to carry this across each of their restaurants. big burrito as well. even though they have some mediocre offerings they have an established brand among the city and suburb locations. someone from north hills is more than happy to come down to a show and hit eleven based on having mad mex in their own suburb.

the contrast is place like quiet storm and others that really have a niche audience. plus the fact that the owners aren't the most financial savvy makes it tough for those kind of places.

[eschaton]

There's a bunch of things I hate about foodie culture, which that article only lightly touches upon.

One is that it's become widely socially acceptable and "hip" to base your adult identity around consumption, so long as it is literal consumption. People older than teenagers who care about things like brand-name clothing tend to be widely derided. Ditto for grown people who spend a lot of time buying expensive consumer products just for the cache, who are often considered superficial snobs. But when we're discussing food, it suddenly becomes acceptable.

The second reason is...foodie food is often boring, even if it tastes good.

Back when I was in my 20s, I knew people who were super-adventurous in terms of food. They were always out to try something new. When they traveled abroad, they always attempted to find the local cuisine. They liked going to China and eating deep-fried scorpion, for example. On in the U.S. context, if you told them you found this great Ghanan restaurant in DC, they'd be there in a hot minute. But a lot of modern foodie culture seems to be a variant on a few boring palates. Often it's either a high-class (read expensive) form of traditional American food, or else Spanish or Italian based. it doesn't tend to be very spicy, and except in a few areas (like the recent trend towards offal) it isn't really stuff the traditional American would be grossed out by.

Finally, much of the food doesn't seem to be so much cooked as it is assembled. The chefs style themselves more as "curators" - meaning most of the work goes into finding top notch-ingredients, and little into preparation. This is like saying you're an amazing painter because you work with the best locally-sourced paint. Art should be about the process, not the raw materials.

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There's a bunch of things I hate about foodie culture, which that article only lightly touches upon.

One is that it's become widely socially acceptable and "hip" to base your adult identity around consumption, so long as it is literal consumption. People older than teenagers who care about things like brand-name clothing tend to be widely derided. Ditto for grown people who spend a lot of time buying expensive consumer products just for the cache, who are often considered superficial snobs. But when we're discussing food, it suddenly becomes acceptable.

The second reason is...foodie food is often boring, even if it tastes good.

Back when I was in my 20s, I knew people who were super-adventurous in terms of food. They were always out to try something new. When they traveled abroad, they always attempted to find the local cuisine. They liked going to China and eating deep-fried scorpion, for example. On in the U.S. context, if you told them you found this great Ghanan restaurant in DC, they'd be there in a hot minute. But a lot of modern foodie culture seems to be a variant on a few boring palates. Often it's either a high-class (read expensive) form of traditional American food, or else Spanish or Italian based. it doesn't tend to be very spicy, and except in a few areas (like the recent trend towards offal) it isn't really stuff the traditional American would be grossed out by.

Finally, much of the food doesn't seem to be so much cooked as it is assembled. The chefs style themselves more as "curators" - meaning most of the work goes into finding top notch-ingredients, and little into preparation. This is like saying you're an amazing painter because you work with the best locally-sourced paint. Art should be about the process, not the raw materials.

I think you've hit on a few valid critiques of New American restaurant culture. That said,I think a lot of people tend to conflate being a foodie with being a restaurant snob. True foodies are more likely to be eating at ethnic holes in the wall then restaurants with molecular gastronomy and chefs tasting menus.

[ferraris]

Eschaton, I think the foodies are self-identifying by their interests and activities rather than by consuming a brand.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by ferraris

Eschaton, I think the foodies are self-identifying by their interests and activities rather than by consuming a brand.

I admit foodie culture isn't mostly brand conscious (though it sometimes is - see how people follow a top chef or even his acolytes to new eateries). But it still strikes me as a bit crass to define a major portion of who you are by what you buy.

I mean, lots of hobbies require money to be spent in some manner. If you want to be a cyclist, for example, you need a bike. But it doesn't need to be a top-of-the line bike with all the bells and whistles - it can be a beater you buy for $30 on Craigslist. You can even get one for free from a friend, or by volunteering at Free Ride.

Of course, people who enjoy going out to eat can do so at many different price points. But in order to enjoy it, you need to spend money - and spend it repeatedly, given all the good food goes down your hole every meal. The only real exception is if you decide to become a hobbyist farmer.

Regardless, we should remember that the amount of true self-defined "foodies" is probably relatively slim. I've met a few in my life, but I think for the most part it's a label like hipster, yuppie, and bro we tend to apply to people we don't know. The problem isn't so much that people occasionally dabble in the subculture, it's aspects of the subculture in and of itself.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I admit foodie culture isn't mostly brand conscious (though it sometimes is - see how people follow a top chef or even his acolytes to new eateries). But it still strikes me as a bit crass to define a major portion of who you are by what you buy.

I mean, lots of hobbies require money to be spent in some manner. If you want to be a cyclist, for example, you need a bike. But it doesn't need to be a top-of-the line bike with all the bells and whistles - it can be a beater you buy for $30 on Craigslist. You can even get one for free from a friend, or by volunteering at Free Ride.

Of course, people who enjoy going out to eat can do so at many different price points. But in order to enjoy it, you need to spend money - and spend it repeatedly, given all the good food goes down your hole every meal. The only real exception is if you decide to become a hobbyist farmer.

Regardless, we should remember that the amount of true self-defined "foodies" is probably relatively slim. I've met a few in my life, but I think for the most part it's a label like hipster, yuppie, and bro we tend to apply to people we don't know. The problem isn't so much that people occasionally dabble in the subculture, it's aspects of the subculture in and of itself.

Couldn't it be a bit crass to define a major portion of who you are by what you DON'T buy? People suck for liking expensive food, and people suck for saying people suck for liking expensive food.