Hacker News Reader

Comment by leif | Hacker News Reader

LA has a lot of good food, SF only has good burritos.

I presume this is just trolling, but in case you actually think that, for New York, Michelin lists 7 three-star restaurants, 9 two-star, and 46 one-star. San Francisco's numbers are 2, 6, and 39. [1] So not as high, but given that the SF Metro area has a third the population of New York, we do ok.

(For those unfamiliar, Michelin stars are sort of like the Academy Awards of food. Even a 1-star restaurant is an extraordinary meal, and you should expect to pay $100-200 a person. 3-star places are reputedly the best of the best; a meal there runs $300-600 per person.)

[1] http://sf.eater.com/archives/2012/10/23/michelin_guide_2013_...

They also tend to like really pretentious bullshit in their restaurants. So you have to watch out.

Some of the ones in NYC that have 1 star appear to just be regular American style Chinese takeout type places. Not sure how pretentious they are (or can be).

You have to be careful though, because Michelin-starred restaurants aren't where most people eat, and the correlation between the sort of high-end exotics that get the stars and the overall food-scene is going to vary from place to place... It can go either way of course.

If you're a super rich socialite, then yeah, focus on the stars, but otherwise....er, well. [No diss on Michelin-starred restaurants intended! I've eaten at such places a couple of times in my life and they were very nice.]

Noted. Though I have to say that while LA does have good food, they should get out more and compare. Not the people who make the food, they obviously get out. The people who eat the food. Well they get out, but not OUT. But all in all, good food. Well and a lot of shit overpriced food. But lots of great food in really shitting looking locations. And lots of really shitty food in really great looking locations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com