I'm bored at work, so I looked up Michael Bauer's 2005 Top 100 for Bay Area restaurants in The San Francisco Chronicle. If you're curious, the link is here.
59 of the restaurants are within San Francisco proper. To date, I've eaten at 16 for either lunch or dinner. There are five more restaurants where I've had dessert and/or drinks but not a full meal. Not bad, I think. Some food nuts make it a personal mission to finish the list every year, but I simply don't have enough time or money. 100 restaurants a year would be about two expensive meals each week, and would leave me no time for the myriad of wonderful eats that didn't make it onto Bauer's list for whatever reason.
If I listed the ten best meals I've had in San Francisco, I don't think more than half of them would be at restaurants that made Bauer's top 100. Our tastes are too different, and I don't have his eating budget. It's a fun list to glance through, but I'd rather make my own. Hmm...now y'all are going to want me to make that list. Give me some time to think about it.
3 comments:
Hey Chezpei,
I'm just wondering if you know why Oliveto isn't on his list. He has Chez Panisse and Eccolo, but no Oliveto.
I'm confused...any thoughts?
I don't know. I did see in the intro that he said he left out a lot of restaurants that are still excellent but have not made significant menu changes within the last year. That would explain a lot of his choices, but isn't really 100% accurate.
I'm going to assume this list is necessarily subjective, and/or that he didn't revisit a lot of the restaurants on last year's list for whatever reason and therefore didn't feel confident including them this year.
His last paragraph is sort of his way out. He says he could easily have put 300+ restaurants on the list without diluting the list's quality, and I believe it.
i'd love to see your list! I'd make it my goal to go to the places you like to eat at the most.
Post a Comment