I heard a food critic say recently that if you want to try a great example of any signature food item associated with a geographic area, DON’T go to the city/area that’s known for it. He claimed there’s a tendency to get ‘lazy’ with the dish, as people from that area think they’ve already written the book on that item and quit trying hard once they adopt that mindset. So when you’re in Buffalo don’t order chicken wings, or if you’re in Miami don’t order a Cuban sandwich. Any innovation or improvements are going to be happening someplace else that has little or no association with the dish. Would you agree with this sentiment?
I agree partially, but not for the reason stated.
Once a signature dish is established, to the point that tourists want to try it, a bunch of places will spring up to cater to them. These will generally be of poorer quality because tourists don’t know any better. It’s not laziness, it’s opportunism.
If you can find a “legacy” place in the original region that upholds the tradition, you’re golden.
The trick is to look for a place that’s full of locals, rather than tourists. If the menu has pictures of the food and/or flags offering multi lingual service, move on.
Like most things, it depends and a little research goes a long way. The ‘best’ muffaletta might not be from youknowwhere but that’s the ONE you must try, the holotype. Other foods have a lot more flexibility and range for what’s considered locally acceptable like (region)pizza or Buffalo wings and whatnot.
Innovate too much and you no longer have the “signature dish.” You have something completely different.
yes, and I mean, how much innovation are you doing with Buffalo wings anyway? They’re chicken wings, deep fried, and sauced up.
Yep. I’ve had pretty good BBQ in the KC area, but not at Arthur Bryant’s. Theirs is garbage, and largely because I think they’re coasting on their reputation.
I don’t even know if the critic is necessarily right; I’ve had pretty solid Tex-Mex meals in downtown San Antonio on the Riverwalk and in the Mercado (shout out to Mi Tierra!), and they’re as touristy as they get, but still hold up their end of the bargain. Similarly, I’ve had the best Bucatini all’ Amatriciana in a little place in Rome that was a little off the beaten path. Same with Gelato (Il Gelato di San Crispino, FWIW)- the best was right in downtown Rome near the Pantheon. But Botolino in Dallas holds up to the best in Italy, oddly enough.
But by the same token, Cafe du Monde is more for the ambiance and saying you’ve had cafe au lait & beignets in the French Quarter, not necessarily because they’re that good. I’d bet you can find both better somewhere away from the Quarter.
I think the trick is being able to suss out where they’re riding on their reputation, and where they take pride in their local cuisine. I don’t have a good rubric for that; it’s a “know it when I see it” kind of thing. Generally it has to do with the signage and emphasis on how they originated the dish, etc…
This - especially the pictures. That is a general travel rule of ours- if they’ve got photos, we don’t eat there. If it looks like we’ll have trouble communicating, that’s the place we want.
Man, I know how that feels.
My biggest criticism of most critics is that by nature they tend to gravitate to the peripheral and obscure examples of whatever their area of specialty is. It’s understandable how they get there - a movie critic, for example, will have studied literally hundreds of films and will have seen the same tropes play out time and again. They’ve seen it all before. Many times. Naturally, they’ll recognize patterns immediately and tend to get bored rather quickly with most mainstream offerings and will often go out of their way to seek out novelty wherever they can find it. For similar reasons I suspect food critics will by nature tend to overvalue innovation and change over the ‘boring’ tried and true.
Mi Tierra rocks! They totally deserve their rep.