[andirk]

I have been on a mission to figure out why Mexican food falls off a cliff after going north of LA. Plenty of Mexicans, plenty of amazing produce and proteins, what happens after LA that says put rice in my burrito??

Exception: Best SF Mexican tacos is of course Taqueria Vallarta in the Mission.

[umanwizard]

Burritos are not really Mexican food in general — they’re the regional cuisine of a region that includes the American southwest and the extreme north of Mexico. You’re basically saying you like regional LA cuisine better than regional SF cuisine, not that one region is particularly more faithfully reproducing “Mexican food” than the other.

[simonw]

Someone pointed out to me the other day that the Bay Area was part of Mexico from 1821 until 1848 (it was under Spanish control prior to that) - so one way to think about Bay Area Mexican food (and Californian Mexican food in general) is that it is it's own regional variety, and has been for a couple of hundred years at least.

[travisjungroth]

This is a legitimate way of viewing things. I wonder how “true” it is in the sense that explains Mexican food in California today. Specifically, I don’t think the Mexican population in Alta California was really all that high in 1848. I think it just wasn’t all that high in general.

So there are families that can trace themselves to Mexican California, but I believe their numbers and culinary influence was overshadowed by the significantly bigger population that came later. But maybe that’s just as authentic. They were bringing and making dishes, not copying them.

[umanwizard]

Btw, 1821 is when New Spain (now called Mexico) became independent. So all of Mexico was under Spanish control before that, not just California. You probably already know this, but your post sort of makes it sound like California was transferred from one country to another in that year.

[umanwizard]

Exactly, although I’m not sure whether rice in burritos was around back then or if it’s a more recent invention.

[xtiansimon]

We love “Food Log”. Living in NY area now and I miss Food Log.

[asielen]

As someone raise on LA Mexican food, there is great Mexican food in deep East Bay and in South City (South San Francisco).

But Tacos, not burritos. Burritos are their own thing in the bay area so they cater to the local taste.

[mcint]

Appreciate your specificity in reply. I want to practice better responses to the unimaginative LA dunks on Bay food.

[nrp]

The most popular spots aren’t necessarily the best spots, and somehow no matter how many taquerias there are in the Mission, new ones continue to come in and figure out how to do it better.

If you haven’t yet, check out Al Carajo, Loltun, El Patron, Tacos del Barrio (who do al pastor on a proper trompo), and El Charro (a little, probably unpermitted stand on the sidewalk at 18th & Mission who somehow also have a trompo set up for al pastor).

[_yb2s]

If you want good Mexican food in the Bay area go to Richmond, not SF

[ericmcer]

Mexican food seems pretty subjective to me at this point. You probably just associate LA style with “good”. I like tiny $5 artisan tacos sometimes, a giant sloppy burrito from a food truck sometimes, I even get in the mood for chipotle occasionally. I wouldn’t even try to compare any of those places.

[inferiorhuman]

There is way more to Mexican food than burritos and tacos. Unfortunately folks who are only exposed to Bay Area Mexican food would never be aware of that.

[reducesuffering]

That's a bit hyperbolic. Plenty of Bay Area Mexican food, 5 mins from my home in fact, has aguachiles, ceviche, tortas, vampiros, pambazo, flautas, sopes, chorriadas, mole, etc.

[inferiorhuman]

A bit, perhaps. But it's something famously pointed out by Anthony Bourdain as well. Keep in mind the context in which you're replying: is rice an authentic ingredient in a burrito? Mexican food in the Bay Area is pretty good if you focus on tacos instead of burritos…

And there's two parts to this: first one is that there's not much diversity. Vampiros and flautas are, more or less, tacos. It's almost always the same proteins, same pinto beans, etc. Come to think of it, I can find cochinia pibil in the Mission… at a restaurant that specializes in Oaxacan food. They've got mole (one kind), which is amusing considering that Oaxaca is a state known for it's diverse variety of moles. Anyways, back to arguing about whether SF tacos and burritos are authentic.

The second part is that Mexican food (more than other Central/South American cuisines) is seen as peasant food. You get it from a truck or a taqueria. Occasionally from some place with table service. I can think of two sorta fancy Mexican restaurants (one, if not both, have since closed). Ceviche? Well, I can get that at the Mexican grocery store or the fancy sit down Peruvian cevicheria.

The Bay Area serves up a comically thin slice of Mexican food, even compared to other parts of California or the US.

[reducesuffering]

There are four "fancy" Mexican restaurants just in downtown Mountain View, like 1% of the people and/or land in the Bay Area. It's a big place, with relatively strong Mexican food options. Probably top 5 metro in the world for it outside of Central America.

[dilippkumar]

My hypothesis is that the folks who make the best Mexican food in San Diego are unlikely to want to get on a flight and be more than driving distance from Tijuana.

[throwa623432]

This! I've had better Mexican food in the Midwest than the bay.

[rcpt]

Soledad is as good as anything in socal.

[teaearlgraycold]

Heard of Pancho Villa?

[sharts]

Just ask for no rice.