In a post in the recent "La Carta de Oxaca" thread, someone said:
"Enough with the blanket "there is no X in Seattle" screeds."
I'm interested in what others think, so I posted a new topic.
When I first moved to Seattle in 2005, I wondered why chowhounds would constantly harp on how much better the food was outside of Seattle.
After being here for three years, I find myself defending those that say exactly that: "there is no X in Seattle".
At first I thought there was a variety of "Portland-Seattle-Vancouver" rivalry in place (or even a tri-cities solidarity else wise): "If you can't find it in Seattle, try this place in Vancouver." That's not true. When people say try Vancouver or try Portland, they are saying that Seattle doesn't compare favorably.
There are some good restaurants in Seattle, sure, but for every good one, IMO, there's a dearth of inferior ones.
Most cities have a "food bell curve", a number of adequate to good places at the center of the range with the usual outliers on either side. The curve in Seattle looks like a long tail with left shift: a number of good ones at the high end and a whole bunch of crap on the way down.
I think the reason the PNW board has so much SEA volume is because most of us chowhounds have become wary, indeed exasperated, of finding great chow.
I have no inhibition on spending a lot of money for great food, but I've had few experiences that would nullify my solidarity with those who are brave enough to admit the truth: "there is no X in Seattle".
This thread will generate some heated responses, no doubt, but what do others think? I think the generalization holds. I think restaurants here can grow from comparisons with other cities. I think they must.
This post is locked.Have something new to say?Create a New Post