General Discussion

Chowhounding in Good Nabes vs. Bad Nabes


General Discussion 61

Chowhounding in Good Nabes vs. Bad Nabes

Jim Leff | Mar 18, 2006 11:54 AM

In a thread on the SF board (see link below), The Ranger wrote:

Why would you continue hitting a place that demonstrated with such a harsh consistency that the food was mediocre, or worse, bad?

I understand that a person needs to go through a lot of dreck before finding that diamond but continuing to work a played-out mine is sure to lead to a higher ratio of indigestion.


You're saying "places" in the sense of nabes. And I insist that nabes don't have an ironclad quality level. Only "places" in the sense of individual venues do. And new venues are always opening and unexplored options always await. A neighborhood where you've had bad luck upon trying 5% of the venues (most of them sampled long ago) is like any other nabe: likely rife with treasure ripe for the picking.

Believing otherwise is, in my opinion, fallacious, akin to believing that roulette wheels have "streaks" that ought to affect current decision-making.

Of course, tha'ts just my opinion. But I can't begin to list the times I've found greatness in areas others have given up on. In fact, that's most of the greatness I've ever found.

Greatness comes from one chef cooking from heart and soul. And that can and does happen everywhere. See link below for my original point, which was that very very few nabes ARE truly picked-over. Rather, they're painted with a wide and generalizing brush by folks who've not done the legwork. And almost nobody does actual legwork. I"m trying to urge folks to not settle for lazy conventional wisdom (even the conventional wisdom of this community), but to go out there and treasure hunt!



Want to stay up to date with this post?

Recommended From Chowhound