Having determined to rank cities, the conversation in my experience tends to revolve around three endlessly repeated arguments. In any group of food people discussing this matter, for example, there is invariably one who plays the great New Orleans gambit, which, for the uninitiated, holds that the Big Easy is the best dining destination in the country, both before and after Katrina, and those who disagree are doing nothing better than sniffing down their foie gras infected noses at real cuisine. Much outraged banter about Alan Richman ensues, with eventual agreement from everyone other than the gambiteer that New Orleans is, at best, Number 4.
This resolution leaves the door open for everyone else to proceed with the two remaining set pieces, which look approximately like the following:
1) Everyone agrees that New York is Number 1, but there is mortal combat between Chicago and San Francisco for a strong second fiddle, and the discussion collapses into a weighing of how important precisely Alinea is, whether The French Laundry is in San Francisco, and the excellence of this or that hot dog/deep dish pizza.
2) Someone from Chicago or San Francisco says, frustration bubbling over, that New York is an overrated cesspool and that in fact their city is Number 1. Usually this is supported by some reference to the fact that New York smells (bad) most of the time.
For the record, I believe that set piece #1 is the correct discussion to be having, and further that the correct ranking of the top 5 is as follows, with the caveat that I rank New Orleans by reputation only.
1. New York City
2. Chicago
2. San Francisco
4. New Orleans
5. Washington D.C.(?)
Why? The answers for me have to do with this weekend's juxtaposition of Per Se and Sripraphai. But that post will have to wait for the morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment