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.
I also should add that Chicago has much better hot dogs with Portillos, but LA has the edge on burgers, In N Out and Umami.
The poster above did make a good point. While Chicago is diverse, I don't think anywhere in this country compares to the amount of cultures in LA, especially per capita, not even NYC.
I also should add that Chicago has much better hot dogs with Portillos, but LA has the edge on burgers, In N Out and Umami.
The poster above did make a good point. While Chicago is diverse, I don't think anywhere in this country compares to the amount of cultures in LA, especially per capita, not even NYC.
In N Out?
Hope you are joking, that is a fast food chain and should not be in a discussion of RESTAURANTS. If I want a good burger ...that is definitely not where I'm going. Portillos should not be discussed either.
If that is what we are talking about I guess I can see why some people vote LA...
This thread is about restaurants, you know, ones who actually have a head chef on staff and not a bunch of fast food workers or somebody operating a taco stand on the side of the road or a donut shop. Hence why Chicago is winning, and SHOULD win. It is a GREAT restaurant city, superior to LA. This is not a thread emulating the show diners, drive ins and dives. This thread is NOT about overall selection of FOOD, in which case LA would compete better and I would have no issues whatsoever saying LA has more variety. It's about restaurants. Two different things folks. Now, I know some smart-a$$ will come in and say restaurant has a broad definition, but I think everybody knows what to expect going to a sit down restaurant where there is a chef and you are waited on.
Then you have the poster Raymond in one post praising michelin guide for having LA, then soon as he sees what the owner of Michelin actually has to say about LA, changes his story.
Again this is not a blowout, but in terms of restaurants Chicago is the clear winner over LA.
I'm sure the L.A. 'style over substance' approach to things makes some people think they are enjoying a fine dining experience when in fact they are being robbed and treated like crap while it happens. Reminds my of "L'Idiot" from "L.A. Story". Not surprising since Travel & Leisure just voted L.A. America's rudest city.
I love it. I have been waiting on someone to use LA story as an example of what life in Los Angeles is like. This is so false it is hilarious.
I also should add that Chicago has much better hot dogs with Portillos, but LA has the edge on burgers, In N Out and Umami.
The poster above did make a good point. While Chicago is diverse, I don't think anywhere in this country compares to the amount of cultures in LA, especially per capita, not even NYC.
New York is definately more diverse than Los Angeles. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
Michelin chose nothing. They're losing money left and right, and nobody cares about Michelin here. Or Vegas, there's great fine dining in that city too, what save face comments did that French snob make about not printing a guide there? Funny, you're all so enamored with Michelin, yet it turns out LA and Chicago are practically level as far as their guide is concerned. Oops.
Did you even see the video? Exactly nobody cares about it there. Again, watch the video. LA talking about snobs? How ironic.
In N Out?
Hope you are joking, that is a fast food chain and should not be in a discussion of RESTAURANTS. If I want a good burger ...that is definitely not where I'm going.
If that is what we are talking about I guess I can see why some people vote LA...
Did you take a look at Raymond ChandlerLives post on agriculture in California??
Don't you think that has any influence on LAs dining scene.
I can agree that Chicago is some respects beats LA, absolutely.
But when it comes to fresh fruits and vegetables, outside of a few very high end restaurants (Alinea or wherever), there is NO way that Chicagos relative isolation in a part of the country with a climate that is more conducive to growing cattle and hog feed can compete with Californias fresh fruits and vegetables, theres just no way.
However when it comes to dining (I'm talking upscale dining) that is bit heavier on the meat and carbs, Chicago naturally will have the edge here.
Did you take a look at Raymond ChandlerLives post on agriculture in California??
Don't you think that has any influence on LAs dining scene.
I can agree that Chicago is some respects beats LA, absolutely.
But when it comes to fresh fruits and vegetables, outside of a few very high end restaurants (Alinea or wherever), there is NO way that Chicagos relative isolation in a part of the country with a climate that is more conducive to growing cattle and hog feed can compete with Californias fresh fruits and vegetables, theres just no way.
However when it comes to dining (I'm talking upscale dining) that is bit heavier on the meat and carbs, Chicago naturally will have the edge here.
No, it isn't just Alinea, there are tons which can get fresh selection on produce. Of course it plays a role in some things, and maybe what they will serve. This isn't who has freshest produce of a food discussion, it is about better restaurants.
You also act like every item is grown in CA year round, it isn't. CA imports tons also which is used in cuisine.
It doesn't have an influence in the quality of the restaurants, nope. Not buying it. It will have an influence on your average consumer in grocery stores like Safeway or Dominicks or what some lady running a hole in the wall taqueria might serve, but...yeah not really.
All those korean, indian, thai and chinese places are importing their stuff from their own countries anyhow in terms of sauce/spices/noodles/wraps/rice/etc. Even the produce like indian mangos will be imported and served. So again, I'm not buying it. Also Tokyo/NYC and London both smash the dining scenes in Chicago or LA, and they are not known for their growing regions, so how do they do it? Same way...it doesn't matter that much. Same with a restaurant in Chicago can have better selections than ones in CA if they know what they are doing.
They're running neck and neck in that department. Not sure why you would think otherwise.
Maybe but not anywhere near the mixing, NYC is truly unique this way, even the very diverse WC does not compare, at least not with the mixing and on the scale. Not sure what this has to do with dinning. Find this pretty straight-forward. Both Chicago and LA are very good dinning cities, overall Chicago is little better
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.
