The one-sided San Francisco vs. Los Angeles debate (S.F. claims it's better; L.A. doesn't care) enters the food realm, thanks to a piece this week by San Francisco Chronicle restaurant critic Michael Bauer (h/t to Franklin Avenue reader Scott for passing us the link).
Bauer -- who hasn't been to L.A. in a decade (how is that possible? It's only a five-hour drive, c'mon) -- hit ten different restaurants during a recent visit to our city, although he decided to skip on the Mexican, Thai, Vietnamese, etc. restaurants that even he admits sets L.A. apart. (I'm just surprised that he opted out of that part of the L.A. eating experience, since it was writing about those lesser-know joints that earned Jonathan Gold a Pulitzer recently.)
Bauer hits newer restaurants like BLD, Cut, Hatfield's and Mozza, and also treks to old-timers like Spago and Patina. He's shown around town by Los Angeles mag's Patric Kuh, who teaches him the valet rule of restaurants in L.A.: The hotter the restaurant, the more valets on hand. (He points to Dolce as an example: Once hot, the restaurant now sports just one valet).
Meanwhile, Bauer -- who came away mostly impressed with L.A. restaurants, although with the requisite digs -- attempts to compare our town with his, and comes up with the L.A. differences:
-- Cheap valet parking.
-- Professional service. Celebrity has its privilege, and the front-of-the-house people seem better equipped to boost egos.
-- Expensive desserts. Desserts are generally in the double digits for dishes that aren't any more elaborate than what you'd get for about $8 in the Bay Area.
-- It costs more to drink.
-- Expansive outdoor seating. Every place seems to have a great patio.
-- Savories in desserts.
-- Driving to dine. Most restaurants are destinations, so there are fewer really good moderately priced places.
-- Great pizza. We don't have pizza as good as Mozza's. Why?
(Flickr pic by Moonpir.)
No comments:
Post a Comment