After a whirlwind self-guided gastronomic tour around San Francisco, I have to say, I don't think there's a better way to experience a city than by eating through it. A conversation I had on my last day there went something like this:
"Is there anywhere else I should go on my last day?"
"Where have you already been?"
"Well, I've hit up most of the places I wanted to eat at."
"What else have you seen or done besides eat?"
"I thought eating was sightseeing."
....isn't it?
I did come away from my trip with certain thoughts. There's a long-standing debate about which U.S. coast's approach to food reigns supreme. San Francisco is proud of its local, organic, sustainable, fresh, farmer-approved produce as much as New York is happy to offer exuberant fine dining and encourage molecular gastronomy. But it's not so much apples to oranges as it is that even though both coasts see the benefits of each argument, there is just a preference and emphasis on one over the other. I don't think Californians really would "serve a [carrot] on a plate with nothing on it" (-D.C) , just as one would hope that New York is not serving up deconstructed week-old carrots.
There's also an interesting use of food as a way to support the community. Apparently there is an increasing pressure on restaurant owners to provide adequate health care and worker benefits to their staff in the face of rising costs. This extra cost is reflected onto the customer in an popular solution of adding a surcharge onto diners' checks.
I first noticed this "SF Health Care Ordinance" as an extra $1/person to all checks during brunch at Zazie, then the "Healthy San Francisco Initiative" in the form of a 4% surcharge onto the final bill at Boulevard. This is touchy territory to discuss, especially from an non-local perspective, but my inclination is to agree with the opinions expressed on SF Gate: Enough with the surcharges, just add in the costs to the menu prices. A justification for rising menu prices would make it easier to swallow than a salient, clear, printed reminder of an inescapable surcharge before you even order. Plus, if it's optional or at least less rigidly defined, there is the choice of giving more or less as desired.
Then there are these new compost receptacles next to each apartment's garbage and recyclable cans. According to the Sacramento Bee, even though composting and environmentally friendly practices have existed for awhile, there is an increasing alert and attention to this issue now there is a threat that residents can be fined for not sorting out their biodegradable and food composts into the right bins. I can't help but wonder, who and where are the Compost Police?
I first noticed this "SF Health Care Ordinance" as an extra $1/person to all checks during brunch at Zazie, then the "Healthy San Francisco Initiative" in the form of a 4% surcharge onto the final bill at Boulevard. This is touchy territory to discuss, especially from an non-local perspective, but my inclination is to agree with the opinions expressed on SF Gate: Enough with the surcharges, just add in the costs to the menu prices. A justification for rising menu prices would make it easier to swallow than a salient, clear, printed reminder of an inescapable surcharge before you even order. Plus, if it's optional or at least less rigidly defined, there is the choice of giving more or less as desired.
Then there are these new compost receptacles next to each apartment's garbage and recyclable cans. According to the Sacramento Bee, even though composting and environmentally friendly practices have existed for awhile, there is an increasing alert and attention to this issue now there is a threat that residents can be fined for not sorting out their biodegradable and food composts into the right bins. I can't help but wonder, who and where are the Compost Police?
So although that's great for San Francisco and all the residents who support and are willing to go along with these acts, the question that interest me is whether or not New York or other major cities would be so eager to adopt such policies. I think that when comparing the population size of Manhattan's 2+ million versus San Francisco's roughly 700K, excluding other boroughs, there are simply too many people and not enough space and time to enforce these rules without backlash from a vast yet divided community that is less likely to share similar values.
But that's just my take on it. What do you think? Could a common surcharge ever fly in New York? Would you also compost if you already had recycle and trash bins? Speak your mind in the comments section.
Oh, but I wouldn't argue against getting some of these:
Looking back on all my travels, my most memorable experiences have always involved food. Either this or that landmark or event was sandwiched by a great meal, or permanently bookmarked by a particular food's taste. The freshly caught and fried fish I had in Elephant Trunk Mountain in China, the wine tasting event on the steps of the Palazzo Pitti in Florence, or the Flushing dumpling tour to bid farewell to 2009, are ingrained in my mind by food. And so, I'll remember San Francisco, with all its beautiful scenery and the wonderful people that I met, by the food I shared when I was there.
All in all, this pretty much sums up what I thought of San Francisco:
Now back to our regularly scheduled New York food news.
Posts
