I feel like comments like this often lack perspective. Upstate NY, especially Buffalo and Rochester have plenty of things to do in them and far more than five restaurants.
It strikes a nerve with me because in Massachusetts a similar sentiment is expressed by Boston-Cambridge folks about Lowell, Worcester, and other periphery cities. Its simply mot true that these places are devoid of culture snd cuisine and in the age of Yelp and Google Maps it takes almost no time to find it.
I think the grandparent is probably referring to upstate in the Hudson Valley sense of the phrase. Plenty of cute towns, but Hudson / Woodstock / Kingston are definitely in the O(tens) of great restaurant options, comparable to a slice of any single Manhattan / Brooklyn neighborhood most tech people live in.
As someone who moved from a large small city (300k residents, 100k students, 300k daily commuters) to San Francisco ... yeah the density is totally worth it. Back home we had restaurants and cuisine and all that. It wasn’t a wasteland.
But SF has more high quality restaurants within a 20min walk of my apartment than my hometown had in total. Average restaurant quality is higher too. Just because there’s more competition.
Another fun example: in SF we have 5 grocery stores within a 10min walk. Back home the nearest grocery store was a 3min walk away, great. But the next one after that was 10min. To get to a proper supermarket size grocery store ... that’s a car trip. In SF it’s a 15min walk.
Density is wonderful. There’s economies of scale that you get at 18,400 people per square mile that you just can’t pull off at 4,500.
The ultimate test for a city is this: Do you have 5 “asian restaurants” or do you have 5 south vietnamese, 3 north vietnamese, 10 cantonese, 5 ramen, 6 japanese grill, 3 sushi, 4 dimsum, etc
For example back home we had the mexican restaurant, here you have 10 for each type of mexican food.
The way you feel about SF vs your 300k residents town is how I feel about Tokyo vs SF. When I'm in SF it's sad how few choices I have and how bad most of them are. And all those asian restaurants you mention are not remotely "good". You can find a few descent asian restaurants in the south bay like say Fremont but LA does them all significantly better and in far higher quantity
I find Tokyo far more walkable than SF. I don't like the public transportation in SF. It's dirty, gross, and slow and have to walk over homeless people and smell piss everywhere and even without transportation most areas in Tokyo are super walkable with access to almost everything you could need just a few minutes walk away.
I'd say Paris and London (and most > 1m people cities in Europe and many in Asia) are also more walkable than SF.
I fear this is exaggeration. San Francisco has a few nice restaurants; but many, more affordable cities do just as well or better. The problem facing SF restaurants is the economics: it's so difficult to afford a place to live there, that kitchen staff definitely can not afford to do it. Combined with the relatively poor access story -- it's surrounded on 3 sides by water -- it means the core staffers have to be recruited from hours away, two hours or more. Restaurants definitely got worse in the last few years that I lived there (up until early this year).
There are exceptional cuisine resources in San Francisco, and amazing grocery stores, like Bi-Rite and Rainbow, but as a whole the situation neither benefits from the culinary community that it used to have (how many people have moved away) or from the kind of consumer that it used to have (well to-do kids just out of Stanford or a midwest school are not people who know what buffalo mozzarella is, or why you'd want to buy it, but their money rapidly became the only money that mattered).
You’re right what counts as “nice restaurant” depends a lot on perspective.
So here’s some perspective: My entire home country has 6 Michelin star restaurants. Of those, 1 is in the capital which is the home town I’m comparing above.
Whether that means you're eating better food on a regular basis in SF than in many other less dense urban areas in the USA (nearly all are less dense) is a different question, though: and the truth is, you're not.
Places with stars don't have the economic situation I discussed: they have the money to really go beyond their surroundings.
The thrust of my argument is that there’s more of everything in a bigger city. As such you have more options and more competition.
The competition means that a lot of places scraping by in smaller cities can’t make it in a bigger city. In theory that means median quality is higher.
And even a 3-star restaurant won’t survive in a place that doesn’t get enough well-to-do visitors to sustain it.
For a more casual perspective, SF has 126 restaurants on the Michelin list (not all hve stars). My entire home country has 52.
None of this speaks to whether or not SF has more to offer you than other less dense cities in the US, so many of which have excellent restaurants and, indeed, better restaurants. I was very impressed with the food in Austin on a recent visit, for example. Perhaps if SF had continued on the high density curve while maintaining affordability (as Tokyo has done) it would be a different story.
Quality food has more to do with agriculture and supply chains than money or density per se -- good salad is not something you can buy if no one is growing it -- and more and more areas in the US have made the transition to that kind of farming and production.
Now challenging SF on grocery stores -- that's another matter. They are drawing on deep roots, there.
The reality is, unless you're really in the sticks, there are probably some reasonable, if not pretty good restaurants around. Case in point: Amherst MA, college town, tons of great restaurants that probably equal Cambridge or Somerville (not in quantity, but maybe quality). Also some pretty interesting places in both Holyoke and Northhampton MA.
In fact some of the best food & drink I've had was in parts of Nebraska & Missouri and Wisconsin. You absolutely don't need to be in the city to get good food & entertainment.
It strikes a nerve with me because in Massachusetts a similar sentiment is expressed by Boston-Cambridge folks about Lowell, Worcester, and other periphery cities. Its simply mot true that these places are devoid of culture snd cuisine and in the age of Yelp and Google Maps it takes almost no time to find it.
reply