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.
Examples I have are like the $8 Bahn Mi from Fo Viet which started in an unconventional way. In the Super 88. They sold their product at lower overhead until they figured they had enough to go at it on their own. That is exactly what for carts/trucks will encourage.
I'm not so sure why it's so controversial to say that Boston should have more/better variety in the city center? I agree, the outer neighborhoods have a lot. And I also agree that Boston's not as bad as people make it out to be. But for a city that prides itself on it's compact size and walkability, it should really have more variety in and around downtown. The fact that it doesn't is a pretty legitimate knock against it even if you can T/Uber/drive a bit and find more. I don't know of another peer city where the disparity between the city center and outer neighborhoods is this drastic. This really isn't that hot of a take.
Sure. But so are many of the $4 slices here. The point is that it's a shame that a city like New York can have many (not just Black Seed Grill and a couple of Banh Mi places - the latter of which are very much a strength of Boston's), even in its most high-rent neighborhoods, but Boston can't.
That's not a hot take but it's also a very different thing the CITY is not good for foodies or there's a minimal variety of food..
It's not a minor technicality to call people out on extrapolating the "center" to the entire city. When really were talking about 2/3 tiny neighborhoods. that make up at most like 5% of the land area. Some of the neighborhoods ringing the central areas (Allston South End East Boston are pretty damn good). Fenway is okay.
But yea it's inaccurate and insulting to say the "city" because by definition you are excluding much of the city. Im all for saying there should be more late night and cheap food, especially in the core. But there's not as much variety downtown because its simply too expensive for more niche cuisine both due to rent and due to the liquor license system. Thats what we call systemic racism/systemic inequality. The market and regulatory forces box out many brown-skin vendors from thee core of Boston (which the mayor is working on hence the opening of Fete on Kingston and Estella Boston).
But that doesn't mean it's that difficult to find interesting food in Boston- its pretty easy, IMO of course. As I showed a quick Google search and 11/12 minute subway ride and you're there. Still- there is a great deal of Mediterranean and Asian food in the core of Boston It supplements the pub fare, Italian fare, and Seafood. Its good overall that the city has a calling card for food btw.
New York is just a greater grander city with more of anything that you would want. No shame in that. And dollar slices still fall under the "pub fare pizza seafood" umbrella simple simon mentioned. I do think Philly is a better comparison but then what makes Philly cheap? Its dirty, dangerous, etc and that allows for more easy access.
DC is the best comparison but then the outer neighborhood food is honestly horrible or fastfood and as a former resident of those outer areas it was not a good thing. It was a trade-off.
That's not a hot take but it's also a very different thing the CITY is not good for foodies or there's a minimal variety of food..
It's not a minor technicality to call people out on extrapolating the "center" to the entire city. When really were talking about 2/3 tiny neighborhoods. that make up at most like 5% of the land area. Some of the neighborhoods ringing the central areas (Allston South End East Boston are pretty damn good). Fenway is okay.
But yea it's inaccurate and insulting to say the "city" because by definition you are excluding much of the city. Im all for saying there should be more late night and cheap food, especially in the core. But there's not as much variety downtown because its simply too expensive for more niche cuisine both due to rent and due to the liquor license system. Thats what we call systemic racism/systemic inequality. The market and regulatory forces box out many brown-skin vendors from thee core of Boston (which the mayor is working on hence the opening of Fete on Kingston and Estella Boston).
But that doesn't mean it's that difficult to find interesting food in Boston- its pretty easy, IMO of course. As I showed a quick Google search and 11/12 minute subway ride and you're there. Still- there is a great deal of Mediterranean and Asian food in the core of Boston It supplements the pub fare, Italian fare, and Seafood. Its good overall that the city has a calling card for food btw.
New York is just a greater grander city with more of anything that you would want. No shame in that. And dollar slices still fall under the "pub fare pizza seafood" umbrella simple simon mentioned. I do think Philly is a better comparison but then what makes Philly cheap? Its dirty, dangerous, etc and that allows for more easy access.
DC is the best comparison but then the outer neighborhood food is honestly horrible or fastfood and as a former resident of those outer areas it was not a good thing. It was a trade-off.
It's also a fact that tourists are drawn to these very small areas of Boston, that's where the attractions are or at least what's marketed. They aren't just going to be randomly venturing around Mattapan unless they are specifically looking for a roti, and not everybody want to enter the ghetto specifically for that purpose. You say Houston "people drive all over to...", but Boston is a walking city where people are much less likely to have a car. And driving 5 miles can be more challenging and intimidating to an outsider than driving 30 in a place like Houston.
That's not a hot take but it's also a very different thing the CITY is not good for foodies or there's a minimal variety of food..
It's not a minor technicality to call people out on extrapolating the "center" to the entire city. When really were talking about 2/3 tiny neighborhoods. that make up at most like 5% of the land area. Some of the neighborhoods ringing the central areas (Allston South End East Boston are pretty damn good). Fenway is okay.
But yea it's inaccurate and insulting to say the "city" because by definition you are excluding much of the city. Im all for saying there should be more late night and cheap food, especially in the core. But there's not as much variety downtown because its simply too expensive for more niche cuisine both due to rent and due to the liquor license system. Thats what we call systemic racism/systemic inequality. The market and regulatory forces box out many brown-skin vendors from thee core of Boston (which the mayor is working on hence the opening of Fete on Kingston and Estella Boston).
You're coming at all of this from a very local-centric point of view. Yes, the city center is a small area relative to the rest of the city. And yes, the outer neighborhoods have a good deal of variety which is often overlooked by most.
But the city center is the focal point of the city. In many senses, it's the city's showcase. It's the hub of city services, entertainment, employment, tourism, etc. So having a city center that lacks variety and doesn't do a good job of reflecting the diversity and variety in outer neighborhoods is a city problem, not just a neighborhood thing. And the fact that brown-skin (or anyone without a long string of investors supporting them) can't touch downtown is exactly my point. It may be most visible downtown, but it's a Boston problem.
It's also a fact that tourists are drawn to these very small areas of Boston, that's where the attractions are or at least what's marketed. They aren't just going to be randomly venturing around Mattapan unless they are specifically looking for a roti, and not everybody want to enter the ghetto specifically for that purpose. You say Houston "people drive all over to...", but Boston is a walking city where people are much less likely to have a car. And driving 5 miles can be more challenging and intimidating to an outsider than driving 30 in a place like Houston.
Again- defining a city by what a tourist sees is illogical because it has little to do with the day-to-day ongoing of the city's population, services etc city government, restaurants etc. Tourist sections are tourist sections. And often if not usually are not reflective of what any given city is actually like in its majority. If you want tot alk about a neighborhood or two fine but you ant reasonably extrapolate Timesquare to the rest of NYC (another area that lacks diversity of cuisine) or Beacon Hill/FiDi to the rest of Boston for extremely obvious reasons.
Like when a tourist goes to Jamaica they don't actually have the authority to speak on Jamaica...
The vast majority of Boston owns a car.
It's not really a "walking city" in that most people walk where they have to or want to go. Indeed vehicular traffic and car ownership continues to increase in Boston. So a Walking city is mostly untrue. Youll find more people practically using the bus and the train too than walking. There are blocks and block of Boston without a single pedestrain. Its a walking city in that its walkABLE.
If your lament is a lack of diverse cuisine then simply take 20 seconds to google your roti if you want and you can be there in 20 minutes. If that 'foodie; is afraid to go to Mattapan than they're being ridiculous as I;m sure they have visited cities or countries with more crime- may be specifically for the food.
You're coming at all of this from a very local-centric point of view. Yes, the city center is a small area relative to the rest of the city. And yes, the outer neighborhoods have a good deal of variety which is often overlooked by most.
But the city center is the focal point of the city. In many senses, it's the city's showcase. It's the hub of city services, entertainment, employment, tourism, etc. So having a city center that lacks variety and doesn't do a good job of reflecting the diversity and variety in outer neighborhoods is a city problem, not just a neighborhood thing. And the fact that brown-skin (or anyone without a long string of investors supporting them) can't touch downtown is exactly my point. It may be most visible downtown, but it's a Boston problem.
Because it is the more knowledgeable, more accurate POV. Should you want to know about a city's food scene would you ask someone who lived there for 25 years or someone who visited for 5 days?
I don't see the value in trying to justify what we all know is a shortsighted and microscopic-outlook being extrapolated to the entirety of the city. It's illogical to a good extent... so why encourage it?
I don't think people here -or in general- consider it a problem, even if it is. But if its a problem it's a different problem than " its not a city for foodies/minimal variety of food"... those are two different things. If you desire diverse cuisine etc there really is nothing stopping you from accessing it in Boston. People do do it, its documented on Youtube and social media. If most people don't, its a choice and is on them.
Because it is the more knowledgeable, more accurate POV. Should you want to know about a city's food scene would you ask someone who lived there for 25 years or someone who visited for 5 days?
I don't see the value in trying to justify what we all know is a shortsighted and microscopic-outlook being extrapolated to the entirety of the city. It's illogical to a good extent... so why encourage it?
I don't think people here -or in general- consider it a problem, even if it is. But if its a problem it's a different problem than " its not a city for foodies/minimal variety of food"... those are two different things. If you desire diverse cuisine etc there really is nothing stopping you from accessing it in Boston. People do do it, its documented on Youtube and social media. If most people don't, its a choice and is on them.
Sure, there's no excuse for a 25 year resident to whine about not being able to find roti or pupusas in Boston. But theirs is not the only point of view and it's not how many (most, really) people experience the city. We have under 700k residents (most here for far less than 25 years) but we also have millions of tourists, hundreds of thousands of students, hundreds of thousands of workers coming from outside of the city.
So it's completely understandable that all of those people might not find it as easy as you're portraying it to find and get to these places. It's also understandable, considering the disparity between downtown and outer neighborhoods, that many don't have the impression of Boston being a foodie city. Like we've already established, even someone spending a short amount of time in central Philly, DC, SF, etc. is going to have a much better impression of the food scene in those places than they would of Boston after a visit here. You can't really dismiss that Boston does not give the same impression. It matters. The fact that it's largely caused by a terrible liquor license system, absurd rents, and a lengthy history of inequality is a huge problem, not a good excuse for why Boston is different than the "good" places.
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.
