Los Angeles: Things To Do And Places To Go

[Chimp]

I don't want to derail, but it’s the overall LA food culture that has a bad rep compared with SF or NY, at least among the foodies and chefs I knew. And it’s well deserved. Sure, some of the top restaurants here can compete with great ones in the other cities (Ortolan and Providence come to mind), but that’s not the point. I’ll try to explain…

When I lived in the mission in SF and went to culinary school, I was a short walk to 3 fish markets, 4 or 5 butchers, and at least a dozen groceries or produce stands that sold really high quality produce (often organic and always seasonal). I was also a short walk from an unbelievable cheese store that carried illegal but amazing imported cheese; several excellent and independent wine stores; two bakeries, each of which made breads and desserts better than pretty much anything you could get anywhere in the entire LA basin; and an Italian import store with homemade pastas and imported cured meats and cheeses. Even the local Ralph’s carried really high quality bread like ACME and excellent produce.

Every neighborhood in SF seemed to have the same concentration of retail food choices. Every one of these local joints had stuff at a far quality than even food stores in LA you have to spend all day in a car to get to.

In addition, the big, destination food meccas in the Bay Area have no equivalent in LA. None. Places like Berkeley Bowl or the Ferry Plaza just don’t exist here.

Even the chain grocery stores were stocked with better quality stuff than here in LA. I mentioned Ralph’s. Whole Foods was the same story.

It’s kind of a critical mass issue. There are a few places in LA that by themselves would be similar to what you could get in SF or NY. But they are few, and very, very far between. If I am cooking for friends in LA, it is pretty much an all day ordeal to shop for the right ingredients. And at the end of the day, I’m still annoyed because there was something I couldn’t get. In SF, you could find top quality stuff all around you. For example, the only places in all of LA that I have found so far that have a decent fishmonger are Fish King in Glendale and Santa Monica Seafood. You can also get good quality, but prepackaged, fish at some of the Japanese markets. That’s it. That’s the list. In SF, you could find super-fresh fish in dozens of places….you were never more than a 5 minute drive from it. The same is true for pretty much any category of food.

I think it has to do with the fact that people here aren’t knowledgeable about food. In SF, it’s a big part of the culture. There seemed to be far more people interested in cooking and dinner parties in SF than here. People in LA just don’t care or know much about food, IMO. They wouldn’t know that a menu at a restaurant should change every month to keep up with the seasons. They even like the coffee at Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf for crying out loud.

There are even a small number of areas where LA food is superior to SF’s. Sushi is the big one for me; I would assume Korean food is another. But overall, it’s really no contest. And that’s not because I’m a hater. I grew up on the East Coast and have lived in SF and LA for the same number of years. There’s no bias. I just don’t think anyone can objectively say LA isn’t inferior when it comes to food.

[Tron]

I guess it might have a "bad reputation" for food among SF foodies, but that seems to be about it... Aside from everyone from New York of course

[Chimp]

Yeah, way to ignore everything I said.

[Tron]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, way to ignore everything I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read everything you had to say, and it was, for the most part, a detailed explanation of how hard it is to find ingredients in Los Angeles, the overarching theme of which was that food in Los Angeles is objectively inferior to that in San Francisco. That's not reputation. Just because a city has lesser quality food than San Francisco or a reputation lesser than San Francisco doesn't mean it has a "bad reputation" for food, which is what you said in the first place. San Francisco is an incredible city for food, and a city with lesser cuisine can certainly still have a good reputation for food. Unless, of course, the people judging are San Francisco chefs and snobs.

[suzzer99]

Chimp, re: LA vs SF food. I don't grocery shop much. I just know what tastes good. And I think I'd make a pretty good talent scout when it comes to food. Overall I've been more impressed by LA food than SF's. Or at least it's very close, which is counter to what you're trained to believe living in SF.

My roommate in SF moved out from Kansas City, and all he could talk about was how much better the food was in KC. I don't know if I'd go that far, but he had a point a lot of the time. I told him he should write a column in SF Weekly and call it The Bitchy Gourmet. Food could range from horrible to edible, the highest rating possible being "Good enough for KC". Would have been pretty funny anyway.

Also it's kind of funny you mention dinner parties. I'm 38, and I really thought by this point my weekends would just be dinner party after dinner party after dinner party. But I guess I'm just not dinner party material, because I never get invited to any. And none of my friends ever have them, at least that they tell me about. So you might be right about LA not being a dinner party town.

[Hobbs.]

I have no idea about edendale other than I went there for drinks on a Thursday night 6 months ago and it was pretty fun. I can't really compare it to many other places in the area though as I haven't lived in LA, just visited periodically, since I turned 21.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]

Ja - out of curiosity, how much time have you spent in LA? I'm assuming you must be pretty familiar with the city to hate it so much.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I've spent very little time in LA, and tons of time in LAX. All I know from my experience is that its way too big, way too loud, way too heavily trafficked, way too dirty, and so on. You know, typical complaints. It really probably boils down to me not being a big city type of person, but if I were to choose between SF and LA, it'd be SF in a heartbeat and I can't imagine otherwise. LA does have tons and tons of hot chicks though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[suzzer99]

I don't know what you're talking about. LAX is beautiful this time of year. If you can't love spending lots of time in and around LAX, then yeah LA definitely isn't for you.

[suzy89222]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ja - out of curiosity, how much time have you spent in LA? I'm assuming you must be pretty familiar with the city to hate it so much.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I've spent very little time in LA, and tons of time in LAX. All I know from my experience is that its way too big, way too loud, way too heavily trafficked, way too dirty, and so on. You know, typical complaints. It really probably boils down to me not being a big city type of person, but if I were to choose between SF and LA, it'd be SF in a heartbeat and I can't imagine otherwise. LA does have tons and tons of hot chicks though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah if youve spent very little time in la, seems like your opinion isnt very valuable.

[Jack_Burton]

Ja is a total idiot, dont take his word for [censored]

LA is a great place if you have some street sense and like culture. let that hippy stay in san diego. we don't want your hemp neckalces here anywaytz