Restaurant Smackdown

February 8, 2006 9:43 AM

For recent travellers, is the U.S. still a bargain? Specifically, how would you compare the price of eating out in a similarly semi-fancy restaurant in 1) San Francisco, 2) Seattle, 3) London, 4) Paris, 5) New York. Let's peg the baseline cost at about $50/person in San Francisco, excluding wine.

I'm trying to anticipate what a visitor would think of restaurant prices in Seattle. Please feel free to take into consideration the typical eating out expectations of a Londonite or Parisian as compared to a metro-foodie American.

(The Seattle/San Francisco comparison is somewhat for my own information, as I'm a recent transplant and interested in the comparative cost of going out in both cities. My basic impression is that you have to pay more for comparable food in Seattle--an unfortunate dearth of bargains around here for mid- to upper-level restaurants. I would guess New York is probably the best place for finding wonderful food in cheap places.)

posted by _sirmissalot_ to food & drink (16 comments total)

From most expensive to cheapest:

1) London

2) Paris & New York (more cheap options in New York if you know your way around)

4) San Francisco

5) Seattle

For fancier restaurants you can use the same menu for NYC and London, but in London the unit of measurement is in GBP, so it really is expensive.

San Franciso has lot of over-priced, not-so-good food in the toursity areas. But I don't know my way around, so it might just be what I am stuck with.
posted by zeikka at 9:56 AM on February 8, 2006

I pretty much agree with zeikka. I've never been to Seattle or Paris, but I would probably rate it London, New York, San Francisco, Seattle (based on what my friends tell me). The menu prices were reasonable in London, but a 20 quid meal is around 40 American dollars!
posted by muddgirl at 10:12 AM on February 8, 2006

The only thing I might add is that the perception of a visitor would depend a great deal on your selection of cuisine. If you throw a semi-fancy French meal from Seattle at a visitor from Paris, yes, it will be an absolute bargain compared to a semi-fancy French meal in Paris. But it will also be proportionately less enjoyable--a perception perhaps amplified by the amount of pomp with which it is delivered. When you consider that a LOT of American fine dining is, at its heart, French, a visitor from Paris becomes a bit of a wildcard.

Whereas, it's perfectly easy to knock the socks off of a visitor with what your city does best and is not widely available where they are from.
posted by deadfather at 11:48 AM on February 8, 2006

For what it's worth, I live in london and had a holiday in New York in 2005. We were absolutely astonished by how cheaply we could eat in really good restaurants, compared to London.
posted by ascullion at 12:06 PM on February 8, 2006

What deadfather said: eating semi-fancy in London or Paris is invariably expensive by US standards, but the choice of cuisine is a big multiplier. The more distinctive and 'local' the choice, the more bang you get for your buck. Not to mention that you can sacrifice a certain amount of fanciness in exchange for a sampling of local colour, or a good location.
posted by holgate at 12:25 PM on February 8, 2006

I've paid the same price for an excellent meal in a good quality restaurant in San Francisco as I've been charged for a below-average burger + cheesecake at a TGI Fridays in London.
posted by essexjan at 2:13 PM on February 8, 2006

For the price of something blah at Cafe Rouge in London you could get a stellar meal in SF or Seattle. YOu can vastly increase your value for money in Seattle by avoiding Capitol Hill, btw.

London is a weird place as most of the restaurants seem to be chains, even the ones that look like they aren't. I visit a lot and we always eat out and I think it's probably the worst value for money for eating out in the world.
posted by fshgrl at 5:35 PM on February 8, 2006

I agree with most of this-- London is the priciest of that lot. But as in most cities, it is possible to eat cheaply there too (one of our favorite places to eat in London costs about £8/head).

Seattle has the fewest cheap-but-incredibly good places in that group, so if you've got a little inside information, you'll be able to eat cheaper in New York and Paris than in any of the other places on that list. Then comes San Francisco, and then London and Seattle. But of course all of this is contingent upon knowing where to go.
posted by NYCnosh at 5:58 PM on February 8, 2006

Check out this, there's a list of the most expensive cities. Having had to find a way to eat in all of those cities, Seattle will be much MUCH cheaper, especially compared to London and NYC.
posted by Packy_1962 at 6:03 PM on February 8, 2006

Thanks for all of this. So what I'm hearing is that a $50/head meal in Seattle can be expected to be better than it's equivalent in London (roughly 29 pounds)? It does seem wine is more expensive here, though.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 6:03 PM on February 8, 2006

(And yes, I understand it's best to try for something with local flair -- that makes sense.)
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 6:44 PM on February 8, 2006

London is definitely the most expensive. Limited options for mid range dinning unless you go ethnic - and you have be careful there.

San Francisco proper - for fancier dining out is really expensive in my experience. About the same as London. But if you like Mexican or Asian inspired food there are lots options that are less expensive. And they are easy to find. I'd say that is number two.

New York you have so many options and quality up and down the spectrum. It's amazing what you can find for cheap there.

I just got back from Paris last week. I was impressed that the Euro had not inflated services prices as much as I'd feared from my last visit. Paris you have high quality and a vast array of choices no matter what price range that I'd say it's more even with New York. Even shitty food is good there. Unlike London where apparently dining is often seen as punitive.

Tie for third place.

Seattle is getting too big for it's britches. Yet it's got some great inexpensive restaurants with very high quality. It's the least expensive if you know where your going. But they are mostly neighborhood type places - not easy to navigate in this city unless you know. And I live here. So ask me.
posted by tkchrist at 6:54 PM on February 8, 2006

I'm asking you! What are some neighborhood spots with great food? We haven't had a lot of luck finding those kind of places since we moved here.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:22 PM on February 8, 2006

I'd rank Paris with New York too, with London definitely the most expensive out of all. You can eat wonderfully well for 30 bucks or 25 euros or less per person without drinks at a million places in both cities.
posted by amberglow at 8:15 PM on February 8, 2006

I just moved from Manhattan to SF. My impression is that the top end here in SF is neither quite as fancy nor quite as expensive as it was in Manhattan.

I also think that food was in general better in Manhattan, at every level. My theory on why is simply that there is such a level playing field, literally: if you are a Manhattan restaurant, your business is walking in and your competition is literally next door. I have to think long and hard to think of a truly bad or even dull meal in a high-end Manhattan restaurant; I've had a couple 'enh, wasn't terrible, wouldn't really go back's here in SF already.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:42 PM on February 8, 2006

So what I'm hearing is that a $50/head meal in Seattle can be expected to be better than it's equivalent in London (roughly 29 pounds)?

My experience in Seattle is that there is absolutely no point in paying more than $40/ head as the food won't get any better beyond that (athough the surroundings may improve). The best cuisine in Seattle is Asian or Mexican IMHO and it's just not that expensive unless you go to a top-class sushi joint.
posted by fshgrl at 10:25 PM on February 8, 2006