Hear, hear. As someone born and raised in Los Angeles, nothing grates on my nerves more than people who claim that L.A. is devoid of culture in one way or another. I've been to tons of restaurants and for the most part, I have not been subjected to the kinds of studio "shop-talk" that Michael Bauer complains about. He sounds like the kind of visitor who laments that L.A. has nothing to offer whilst he sits on top of the mechanical bull at Saddle Ranch. L.A is full of great places to eat; Michael Bauer is just too lazy to look for them.

Oh yeah Friscans: NO IN-N-OUT FOR YOU!

I've seriously never been around all these people talking about movies either and I'm an L.A. native as well. Then they say we're cocky or prissy. I've not had the occasion to be able to afford these pricey meals Mr. Bauer sampled but I can say with conviction that L.A. has great food and it usually doesn't cost you any more than it would in another city of its size.

They have to hate what they can't be.

his choices are those of a fraidy-cat visitor from the burbs....did he look in Frommer's for LA's best restaurants? One expects a restaurant critic to make more informed choices....Mozza, of course, but Patina? Hasn't the "emperor's new clothes" word about that place been out long enough for those in the know to get it?

Bauer's article really made me mad. Get thee to Pie 'n' Burger, infidel!

His article is SF snobbery at its best-- taking the worst of Hollywood (and the Hollywood "scene") and applying it to Los Angeles as a whole.

Way to do your research Mr. Bauer. If there's anything I've learned from traveling, a good place to start looking for the best local food is in an alternative weekly, NOT the "Welcome to [insert city here" magazine that you find in your hotel room, which you obviously did.

We should send Werner Herzog up there to terrorize him:

"When I read the Chronicle I see nothing but fornication, copulation, and death. The San Francisco birds do not sing, they are screeching in pain."

And yet I've read three or four posts on LA-centric blogs about this story already--which seems to contradict everyone's insistence that San Franciscans are the only ones who fabricate an SF-LA rivalry.

This article was clearly a puff piece for the high-level executive types who travel to LA on a corporate expense account and need a handful of high-profile restaurants for entertaining clients. These are not the kind of people who will seek out a taco truck in pursuit of culinary epiphany.

Besides, why is anyone even paying attention to Bauer's article when Jonathan Gold's Pulitzer-caliber food writing is ready to take us off the beaten path?

I'm sorry, Albs, I don't really see what sort of insight he offered into the LA dining scene - most of the restaurants he covered have been extremely well documented (often by this very website) - he couldn't find anywhere more original to eat than Spago? Or Lucques? These are all stories we've heard a million times before.

And I enjoy hyperbole; perhaps I shall amend the headline to say: "SF Chronicle writer gives L.A. restaurant scene a back-handed compliment that ends up just sounding tired and uninspired." Is that a more precise depiction of the article? Or are we to remain bogged down in semantics?

your use of "totally" is what bugs. did he diss LA? yeah, ok maybe he did. but did he say LA restaurants are terrible? no, not at all. his review was generally positive, not a total rip on LA. he even acknowledges that LA has more to offer than what he covered and that he ignored one essential aspect of LA dining: ethnic cuisine.

but you're right, "LA is fake" is a tired cliche. his writing is weak and his choice of restaurants sucked.

his insights? um, that LA's most recommended fine dining establishments are Hollywood-ed out with (local) industry types.. is that inaccurate? the hottest places in town are invariably hot only because celebrities are going there, not because the food is actually good (when in fact, it is actually good).

When people move here and constantly bitch about what's wrong with LA, I wonder, "Then why are you here?"

She listed the downtown restaurants in response to this specific assertation:

"The city is so spread out, for example, that it's difficult for conventioneers downtown to get to the top restaurants..."

So if we suck so much. why are you here? Is it worse to be a pussy living in a pod car, or someone reading about pussies living in pod cars?

#22. Please. I live near Wilshire/Western and take the purple line to my job at an environmental consulting firm everyday. I also take the bus when necessary. As of present, my boyfriend and I make a combined income that goes way into the six-figure range. We're not students nor are we "poor" or blue-collar. I make a lot of generalizations, too, but you are just straight up wrong in your post.

But back to the article. I really don't have an arugment about SF vs. LA restaurants in general, but I really hate how a lot of mexican eateries in SF serve black beans instead of pinto/refried. Gross! Black beans, when mashed, looks like dog poo. When not, it still looks like a pile of dead roly-poly bugs.

Anyhoo, I'll always side with LA over SF cos LA is my home. Oh, and SF doesn't have a King Taco. Mmmm mmmm good!

I agree with the poster above. I grew up in LA and live in SF now. Bauer wrote in his blog today about the bashing he got from LA bloggers regarding the article he wrote. I was sort of surprised.

I love the food scene in LA and I thought the article was an accurate representation of someone who likes food and is a visitor to LA looking for something along the lines of the Delfinas, Michael Minas or Gary Dankos that visitors seek when visiting SF. I also thought the comment about locals dining in LA was complementary. I like that the locals fuel the restaurant scene in LA rather than tourists.

Yes, the ethnic food blows SF out of the water. There is actually no comparison. There is no place like Langers in SF, or even damn good Korean at 3AM. But to highlight LA as a dining destination you kind of have to look at the pricier places. That's just the way it goes.

Anyway, look at the article in the Times a few weeks ago about the boom of chefs going over to Century City to open restaurants and the agents they have to impress. Yes, it's not the only industry in LA, but it is a pretty notable one--just like us Bay Area crazy hippies! ;-)

Damn you guys are sensitive. I think the mutual inferiority complex thing is right on.

If Angelina Jolie is sitting a couple feet away from you, you're gonna look. Anyone in Frisco who says that they wouldn't are either full of it or castrated, which is not to say that everyone is staring at each other in LA. Star sightings in restaurants, even in LA, don't happen regularly.

I do think that SF is superior in "dining" which is not the same as places for "eating." The breadth and scope of "ethnic" cuisine in Los Angeles is second to none. Sorry New York.