|
I thought it was interesting that the author specifically calls out Thai food. LA has a thai population of only about 27k (Chinese is about half a million, for comparison). The abundance of Thai restaurants in LA and other large cities is largely due to a Thai government culinary diplomacy initiative[0] to promote gastro-tourism. I tend to find that Chinese food, for example, is more organically represented. In San Francisco, despite there being a Chinatown proper, and several other minor pockets (around Sunset for example), the quality of offerings is fairly mediocre, mirroring the americanization of its chinese population, compared to, say, Toronto, where you can find great a many restaurants with untranslated menus, catering to a large native chinese population. > My armchair theory is, that both cities "suffer" from the fact of having a great culture of own cuisine. Not sure, if their customers do not appreciate the otherness, or the cooks are preemptively trying to "fit in" I think this is a variation of the concept of "food grammar"[1]. I've noticed, for example, that in San Francisco, a lot of asian eats feature jalapeno peppers, and there's a number of mexican inspired fusion things (senor sisig, for example). California rolls have quite a life of their own: they themselves are spin-offs of traditional sushi meant to cater to those who may be squeamish about raw fish, but I've seen restaurants in Toronto's Annex neighbourhood (an area w/ a lot of sushi restaurants) make some very flamboyant rolls that are completely detached from that rationale (mango sauce, anyone?) The thing with a city developing its own food grammar is that it can be hit or miss. Personally, I'm not big on SF's jalapenos-everywhere thing. Sometimes, I just want a good traditional bahn-mi, not a San Francisco take on it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culinary_diplomacy#Thailand [1] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/do-italians-eat-spaghe... |