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.
SF is the place SV sales execs bring out of town clients to eat (but that's also where they are staying). Wine country is an after thought for Bay Area(ns?) in regards to where to eat.
Not for serious foodies. A ton of the best restaurants are there, the whole organic cali stuff is mostly all there, as well as the best farm to table restaurants. The most well known restaurant from the area, Chez Panisse, is in Berkeley, not SF. The other, French Laundry, is in Napa...not SF.
I'm notsaying SF is bad, it's awesome, but in the food world it is definitely getting propped up by East Bay and Wine Country cuisine. I'm surprised you guys are brushing off the East Bay and Wine Country so easily. That is where the whole "food movement" is happening and getting reinvented constantly since the 70s.
If that's the case I definitely don't think SF holds it's own with Chicago, LA, NYC city propers. I think a LOT of tourists go to wine country while there and many of those go for wine country to tour, a wedding, etc, and skip SF altogether.
A simple look at any restaurant ratings/guides will show you the top restaurants are often outside SF. Most of the reknowned area chefs are there also.
The only 2 "3 star" restaurants in the Bay Area are both in Napa, not SF. Out of the other 40 "1 and 2 star" restaurants, only 20 of those are actually in SF.
SF city proper is top 3 in the U.S. for food cities without bringing in any of the east bay, peninsula or Wine Country?
Growing up in the Bay Area(lived in SF for 13 years and San Rafael now), I never really saw it this way. Yes, Napa and the East Bay both have some great restaurants, but I don't see tourists flocking to them. Yes, tourists go to wine country, but its basically just to go wine tasting. Most head right back to SF for dinner. You are mentioning a few very prestigious restaurants- but those aren't places that many people go. I personally have never known anyone who has been to Chez Panisse and the few people I know who did go to The French Laundry all thought it was overrated for the very high cost. Most people who eat out don't want to drop $250 dollars a person.
I never considered Berkeley, Oakland, or wine country to be apart of SF's dining scene. To me, SF has always held its own, especially compared to LA. In fact most people would rank SF ahead of LA. This wasn't even seen as a competition until a few years ago.
Can I ask you how much time you have spent in SF? Did you live here? Visit? If so, for how long?
Not for serious foodies. A ton of the best restaurants are there, the whole organic cali stuff is mostly all there, as well as the best farm to table restaurants. The most well known restaurant from the area, Chez Panisse, is in Berkeley, not SF. The other, French Laundry, is in Napa...not SF.
I'm notsaying SF is bad, it's awesome, but in the food world it is definitely getting propped up by East Bay and Wine Country cuisine. I'm surprised you guys are brushing off the East Bay and Wine Country so easily. That is where the whole "food movement" is happening and getting reinvented constantly since the 70s.
Yes, many great restaurants are outside of SF. But Radical is correct- most Bay Area residents view them as an afterthought after SF. I know there are great restaurants in Napa, Berkeley, etc, but they are nowhere the dining destination that SF is. A massive amount of people dining in restaurants in SF are actually from the East Bay. In fact I've been told by managers of House of Prime Rib and a few other popular SF restaurants that up to 40% of their costumers come from the East Bay.
SF is considered the centerpiece of the Bay Area dining scene. Every other area is considered a major afterthought.
Growing up in the Bay Area(lived in SF for 13 years and San Rafael now), I never really saw it this way. Yes, Napa and the East Bay both have some great restaurants, but I don't see tourists flocking to them. Yes, tourists go to wine country, but its basically just to go wine tasting. Most head right back to SF for dinner. You are mentioning a few very prestigious restaurants- but those aren't places that many people go. I personally have never known anyone who has been to Chez Panisse and the few people I know who did go to The French Laundry all thought it was overrated for the very high cost. Most people who eat out don't want to drop $250 dollars a person.
I never considered Berkeley, Oakland, or wine country to be apart of SF's dining scene. To me, SF has always held its own, especially compared to LA. In fact most people would rank SF ahead of LA. This wasn't even seen as a competition until a few years ago.
Can I ask you how much time you have spent in SF? Did you live here? Visit? If so, for how long?
Again, this is not true. LA is ahead of SF in votes, and should be ahead of Chicago (again, the density bias came out here). LA offers more in terms of cuisine than San Francisco does. It has Asian food that's roughly equal in quality, plus, Middle Eastern, innovative California freshly-grown stuff, African, and many other types that are either not found in SF or aren't as good in SF.
Again, this is not true. LA is ahead of SF in votes, and should be ahead of Chicago (again, the density bias came out here). LA offers more in terms of cuisine than San Francisco does. It has Asian food that's roughly equal in quality, plus, Middle Eastern, innovative California freshly-grown stuff, African, and many other types that are either not found in SF or aren't as good in SF.
So you're going by a poll on city data? Go by what chefs say or even what do called "experts" say. LA simply isn't considered a food city like nyc, sf, Chicago or even new Orleans is.
The restaurants in North Bay(Marin,Sonoma, Napa) are pound for pound better than what is found in San Francsico, food guides usually agree with this also b/c of the incredible # of high end restaurants there vs. relatively low population. The chefs pushing the food limits often want to be as close to this as possible and often have their own gardens or very close to it. I felt like going into SF was sometimes a downgrade in terms of freshness at restaurants, bread bakeries, artisan shops, coffee shops, and everything really. Going into markets there was of lesser quality produce wise than wine country on day to day shopping. I lived in Bay Area for 2 years on border of Marin/Sonoma county and commuted into SF. Of course, ethnic food is often great in SF such as the various asian cuisines, mexican, etc...but for gourmand style restaurants and such, SF is only one part of that equation. I'm very aware of San Franciscans that don't travel out of the city though and think it is the be all end all. Berkeley to me is also pound for pound better food than SF.
SF owes much of it's trend setting cuisine to the whole bay area for sure, far more so than other metros. Wine Country and East Bay are major components of that. I don't think SF would be in top 3 without the rest of the area, I'd put it 4th, behind NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles.
So you're going by a poll on city data? Go by what chefs say or even what do called "experts" say. LA simply isn't considered a food city like nyc, sf, Chicago or even new Orleans is.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,136,325 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist
I also think SF proper holds its own. As a resident I never leave the city to go eat..
I live in Russian Hill and regularly go to Wine Country for dinner. But, your point is taken, San Francisco on its own is a top 5, the Bay Area altogether is Top 3-4.
Oh, and no hate for LA dining here. I am there about once every other month. The food is great.
I live in Russian Hill and regularly go to Wine Country for dinner. But, your point is taken, San Francisco on its own is a top 5, the Bay Area altogether is Top 3-4.
Oh, and no hate for LA dining here. I am there about once every other month. The food is great.
This. Most people I know did also, I would regularly meet up people (both friends and a foodie meetup group) in San Rafael, Berkeley, Petaluma, Sonoma, Napa or in the city, etc. if it meant going for good food. I couldn't imagine living out there and not taking in the whole area, exploring the whole area is the major perk (not just SF) and what sets it apart from other cities in the U.S.
Whenever I am in Los Angels I am visiting family. Lucky my aunt lives there and she is a great cook or I would starve.
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.
