The NYC restaurant suggestion thread made me think of this - what do you guys think? My vote goes to Chicago, with Houston coming in a close second.
I've traveled to a few cities across the world, and I always used to dogg Houston. But I've come to realize that Houston actually does have some of the best restaurants on the planet. In the US I would give it to NY or Vegas with Houston right up there.
i think it would go something like: NYC (by far, not even close) Chicago San Fran Houston New Orleans LA what houston lacks in pedigree establishments it more than makes up in sheer abundance of just flat-out quality restaurants... not as fancy or cutting edge as NYC or Chicago, but you can't deny the fact that there are a bunch of really solid (if not a little boring) restaurants here.
There's probably not a single best restaurant city in the country, but for the combination I'd still go with Houston. It probably has the best Tex-Mex and BBQ in the country, and among the best for Cajun, Chinese, Vietnamese, and South American. And honestly what else is there. The only thing Houston doesn't have any good restaurants for is pizza, and the Italian is nothing special. If you're looking for a good Northern restaurant city, I prefer Boston over New York, for their seafood and Chinese mainly but esp. for their pizza. Riverside Pizza off the Mass Pike is the best I've had in this country, better than Lombardi's or whatever else NYC can toss at you. But I'm sure best pizza in the country is another debate that can go on longer than the "Every post must have a picture" thread.
look, i'm as a big a houston homer as you'll find, but you're out of you're mind if you think houston - as a whole - is a better "restaurant city" than New York-freaking-City. there are 5,000 restaurants in houston.... there is over 26,000 in NYC.
Austin, per capita is right up there with the best of them, but my overall vote goes to : Las Vegas. DD
Every NYC style restaurant I have been to has served me some bland, unflavorful, flat out boring dish. Sandwich, hot dog, salad, whatever, all bland. Potato salad with no mustard, hot dogs with no jalapenos, pickles instead of salsa and chips (and bland pickles at that). But thats NY style food, not NYC dining. I just get the impression they don't have any clue about spice.
Call me unrefined, but I like my food to cost less than $20 a dish and come in under 20 minutes after I order it. I don't need two forks for any reason, and I surely do not like the taste of wallpaper (all you PF Chang's eaters will understand this). I like clean food without too much sauce; substance over style. And any restaurant can make a great dish. It doesn't have to be expensive or famous or even well-reviewed. I've had some great meals at restaurants where the tab was $200 for three people, but I've had many many more at hole-in-the-walls, which is why I support Houston as a food city so much.
Vegas is great for a lot of the big name restaurants. Right up there with New York. Chicago has some great restaurants too, but probably can't compete with those two in terms of the sheer number of great restaurants. San Francisco may be the best if you like food more along the lines of farm-to-table. Overall, I'd have to say NY.
There are many restaurants in small obscure cities that people have probably never heard of that come out with amazing food incorporating fresh local ingredients and dishes that blow away the famous big city restaurants. Based on strictly numbers I'd have to go with Vegas.
there are only a few cities I have spent enough time in to judge 1.NYC (tie) 1.Houston (tie) 3.New Orleans 4.San Antonio 5.Little D in the US these are the only cities I have spent a good amount of time in I lived in Athens and the food was pretty good, London is terrible TERRIBLE
