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.
In general, I just don't think Boston maintains a good culinary scene in a majority of it's neighborhoods. The South End will stand up to any single neighborhood in San Francisco, but San Francisco has a lot of neighborhoods with great food. That's the real difference.
You can go to Boston, and have a few of the best meals you've ever had. It's the point above that separates a Chicago or a SF from Boston.
When we head into town, we're either eating in Camberville, South End, or Seaport. North End, but less and less.
In general, I just don't think Boston maintains a good culinary scene in a majority of it's neighborhoods. The South End will stand up to any single neighborhood in San Francisco, but San Francisco has a lot of neighborhoods with great food. That's the real difference.
You can go to Boston, and have a few of the best meals you've ever had. It's the point above that separates a Chicago or a SF from Boston.
When we head into town, we're either eating in Camberville, South End, or Seaport. North End, but less and less.
True. When I’m in Boston-for the most part- I just happen to be eating out, I don’t go out to eat...
Not even a lot of fast food let alone sit downs, don’t even have food carts.
That said, I hear people saying Boston isn't actually that great for seafood and overall it might not be, but the couple of places I've eaten it there have been very good, while SF's seafood is spottier than you'd expect.
For starters, I think San Francisco wins the overall food comparison handily, even without the OP’s stacked categories. Overall, I don’t think they’re on the same level when it comes to food. I love eating out in Boston, but SF is better.
That said, I think that the “better seafood outside of Boston” myth is based on an over-emphasis on seafood shanty type cuisine - things like fried clams, lobster rolls, clam cakes, etc. Those are beach snack bar and seaside clam shack staples, so yes, you find the best of those in coastal towns outside of Boston and on the Cape. It’s not that you can’t find that in Boston, it’s just that that specific seafood niche is partially about the atmosphere (walking up to a window in a bathing suit and flip flops and taking away a paper tray of fried goodies to a picnic table or towel on the sand) which you just can’t replicate in the city (no matter how hard the Barking Crab may try). Not to mention, you’ll pay Boston premium prices for it. But once you move past fried seafood/lobster rolls, Boston really is excellent for seafood. Restaurants in town, at all price points, do some really impressive things with seafood and it helps to have easy access to a variety of extremely fresh ingredients. If you want clam strips, get out of the city for the best at a good price point. If you want more variety and quality, it’s in Boston (Portland ME and Providence are standouts on a smaller scale as well).
I’d give Boston the nod over SF on seafood. And I’d also give Boston the nod on Italian, though I would agree the SF is underrated on that front and people are too readily dismissive. I’d almost argue that Boston vs. SF on Italian food is the inverse of Boston vs. SF on Chinese. Both cities do well on both fronts. But just like a wide variety of authentic Chinese permeates the SF food scene at all levels (well beyond the borders of Chinatown), a variety of authentic Italian (and Italian-American) cuisine permeates the Boston food scene at all levels. Italian is just far more widespread in Boston than it is in SF and a North Beach vs North End comparison only scratches the surface. There are huge quantities of Italian bakeries, delis, and sit down restaurants of all price points all across metro Boston. It’s much more of an ingrained part of the culture here than it is in SF. I don’t think it’s wrong to say that Boston is better for Italian food AND people are selling SF short on that front. But still, SF wins in most other categories.
In general, I just don't think Boston maintains a good culinary scene in a majority of it's neighborhoods. The South End will stand up to any single neighborhood in San Francisco, but San Francisco has a lot of neighborhoods with great food. That's the real difference.
You can go to Boston, and have a few of the best meals you've ever had. It's the point above that separates a Chicago or a SF from Boston.
When we head into town, we're either eating in Camberville, South End, or Seaport. North End, but less and less.
I’d definitely agree with this. I think the thing that got me with SF is just how many great restaurants there are in seemingly far flung and/or off the beaten path neighborhoods. That’s really not the case in Boston, at least not nearly to the same extent. Liquor licenses are a likely culprit - if you can pay $500k for a license, does it make more sense to open a spot in the Seaport or in Roslindale?
I would also argue that there are a number of cuisines that SF just does quite a bit better (and some that Boston does better), but distribution across neighborhoods is what really sets SF apart.
I don’t know about San Francisco but probably San Francisco. Boston has a few local spots but they’re hole in the wall or only known around the way, so to speak. They’re great but I feel like SF would have more elite and seasoned chefs doing that whereas in Boston.... it’s very mom and pop.
They mayor has rolled out a plan to introduce 15 minority only liquor license over the course of 3 years. Minority owned restaurants would be the only one to get them at a cost that simply cover administrative fees. 5 licenses will be rolled out per year over 3 years and the licenses are only transferable to other minority owned restaurants. This may increase the number of options for full service ethnic foods in some of the neighborhoods on the south side of the city.
The hope is to give community’s a place to feel proud of and gather, increase economic opportunity for folks, increase tax revenue and increase property values/desirability in the forgotten parts of the city.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,542,189 times
Reputation: 6677
SF does burritos well...but since I’ve left CA and no longer travel to my former company HQ in Dallas, I really do not miss Mexican cuisine as much as I thought I would...come to think of it, I cannot recall the last time I visited NYC, Europe or the rest of Latin America I went out of my way, if at all, for Mexican food either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by littletraveller
I picked Boston. For being in the middle of California, San Fran has shockingly bad Mexican food.
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.
