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 think Boston has better local/regional cuisine, whereas SF is even more cosmopolitan (as they are both cosmopolitan and have many ethnic restaurants). Both have fantastic options.
SF wins mostly based on access to fresh produce. Boston is massively improved from the dark ages 50 years ago but it's an awful lot of miles away from farms 8 or 9 months out of the year.
Well, NYC blows both their doors and has no produce farms
8 or 9 months out of the year close by. This logic doesn't hold water.
SF fantastic and edges out Boston for all around cuisine.
Not just King Crab: Lobster, Deep Sea scallops? no problem.
non radio active fish? no problem. H A L I B U T.
Particular strength: high end foods, gimmicky foods
that turn out as delicious as the "sell."
SF simply has the better variety of food that keeps them all coming back.
But it is too expensive EVERYWHERE.
Boston; very strong on H A L I B U T i mean, seafood.
It's a matter of personal preference.
Boston has great Italian food. INSANE PIZZA everywhere.
It would be pretentious to declare Boston as having cornered the market.
Mass, Conn, NY, NJ, DE, MD, etc very much rule the planet.
Boston needs more restaurants, more $$$ variety and more pubs.
Too many have closed.
^^btw, w/ so many fun posts (above), i have an 'extra fun' question on aisle 7.
Being this is a "city" forum,
are people not allowed to post photos of city's on these threads?
Is there a limit of 0, 5, 10? just curious.
This is a photo of shrimpy/wimpy Boston taken by a skilled local photographer,
from the perspective of the [insanely walk-able] greenish area near Belmont Hill.
odurandina, that's from the top of the Mt Auburn Cemetery tower.
Well, NYC blows both their doors and has no produce farms
8 or 9 months out of the year close by. This logic doesn't hold water.
SF fantastic and edges out Boston for all around cuisine.
Not just King Crab: Lobster, Deep Sea scallops? no problem.
non radio active fish? no problem. H A L I B U T.
Particular strength: high end foods, gimmicky foods
that turn out as delicious as the "sell."
SF simply has the better variety of food that keeps them all coming back.
But it is too expensive EVERYWHERE.
Boston; very strong on H A L I B U T i mean, seafood.
It's a matter of personal preference.
Boston has great Italian food. INSANE PIZZA everywhere.
It would be pretentious to declare Boston as having cornered the market.
Mass, Conn, NY, NJ, DE, MD, etc very much rule the planet.
Boston needs more restaurants, more $$$ variety and more pubs.
Too many have closed.
I've always thought Boston had pretty mediocre seafood considering it's 55 miles from the docks in New Bedford, the largest dollar volume fishing port in the United States. I was just in Galicia, Spain last month where Vigo is the largest fishing port in Europe. The kitchens in modest local restaurants in Galicia turn out better seafood than anything in Boston. We went to a couple of Michelin one star places that Boston couldn't remotely dream of.
You lose all credibility when you start comparing pizza. And Italian. Have you ever been to Italy? Real Italian features 3 or 4 extremely fresh local ingredients.
Speak for yourself, the Bay Area has more Michelin 3-starred restaurants than New York.
Yep. It was 8 to 5 last time I looked. The last decade of tech boom affluence have really changed things. Those Google and Facebook people have to eat somewhere.
*There are some Boston/SF tangents happening in the Chicago/SF thread right now that I want to respond to, but I don't want to derail that thread. I do remember that cross-quoting threads is frowned upon on the forum. Mods feel free to delete this if it's problematic.*
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
If you think Block Island is suburban Boston or Joshua Tree is suburban LA then I don’t know what to tell you. Now Bristol County has enough of Suburban Boston that it daisy chains all of RI past Providence into metro Boston.
The Block Island Ferry is 79mi from Boston. Middleton, NH is 86 miles from Boston.
MIDDLETON IS IN THE BOSTON MSA!!
I can't grasp why you're scoffing at CSA definitions while defending MSA definitions at the same time. One is no worse than the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Hahaha the contiguous density that surrounds SF Bay makes Chicagoland and 'Greater' Boston look like farmland.
Urban Area population density:
San Francisco 6,266 per square mile
San Jose 5,820 per square mile
Chicago 3,524 per square mile
Boston 2,231 per square mile
There is a lot of farmland (and forests and marshes) in Greater Boston. At the same time, there aren't fewer interesting cities in Greater Boston than the Bay. I think that's one of Boston's big pluses in this comparison. It has the best of both worlds: not continuous, cookie-cutter sprawl and Levittowns.
*There are some Boston/SF tangents happening in the Chicago/SF thread right now that I want to respond to, but I don't want to derail that thread. I do remember that cross-quoting threads is frowned upon on the forum. Mods feel free to delete this if it's problematic.*
The Block Island Ferry is 79mi from Boston. Middleton, NH is 86 miles from Boston.
MIDDLETON IS IN THE BOSTON MSA!!
I can't grasp why you're scoffing at CSA definitions while defending MSA definitions at the same time. One is no worse than the other.
There is a lot of farmland (and forests and marshes) in Greater Boston. At the same time, there aren't fewer interesting cities in Greater Boston than the Bay. I think that's one of Boston's big pluses in this comparison. It has the best of both worlds: not continuous, cookie-cutter sprawl and Levittowns.
MSAs have their quirks of Geography but usually due to these weird quirks add marginal amounts of people and generally what is given (Strafford County) is taken away (Eastern Worcester County) but CSA’s are not metro areas. They are an association of metro Areas. That’s why Metropolitian area is not in the name. They tend to inflate cites with places they don’t acrually control. Like nobody from Cranston RI would say they live in Suburban Boston nobody from Aberdeen MD or even Essex MD would say they live in Suburban DC.
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.
