# Pick 4 cities for a european tourist's first N. American vacation.



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

My picks would probably be:

1) Boston
2) NYC
3) New Orleans
4) Miami.


Though it's rather hard to limit to 4. Guess you'd usually rather replace NO and Miami with Philly and Washington, as they're closer.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

009 said:


> I'm in Mexico City right now and I know quite a few Europeans, boring would probably be the last adjective they would use to describe Mexico City. Some have had other complaints, but never "boring"


Yes. You're right. Boring was a bad choice of words. But looking at Mexico City there's no symbol that makes people dream of going there.

New York has Time Square, Empire State Building and Statue of Liberty.
Miami has Ocean Drive, the beaches and the nightlife.
San Francisco has the hills and Golden Gate Bridge.
New Orleans has the French Quarters.
Las Vegas has the Strip.
Los Angeles has Hollywood and the lifestyle.

And so on. Mexico City has no well known symbol or landmark that's known by almost everyone in Europe. Add to that the internal difficulties in Mexico.

I'm certain that if you would ask random Europeans who have never visited neither of Los Angeles or Mexico City about which one they would most like to visit then a very large majority would say Los Angeles.

Mexico City and Mexico are a city and a country for the future though. If they can only solve their internal problems it won't take many years until they reach a high level of development. In 50 years, Mexico City could be a major tourist destination. But it's not today.



brickellresidence said:


> I hope a european who has visited Mexico City shares his opinions..... And KeanoManu there IS global landmarks in Mexico City.... but remember they not normally promoted as American landmarks and you know why..... I Stated in a few post ago.... if the moderator permits me I can Post the pics of the main landmarks....


I'm sure there is some sort of landmarks in Mexico City. There's landmarks in almost every city. I'd probably like it very much if I ever went there, as I've already said. It looks very beautiful in photos. However, the landmarks that is in the city aren't well known, at least not here.

This could be a case of the usual north/south split in Europe. Maybe Mexico City is more prominent in southern Europe where they share more with Mexico culturally.


----------



## BrickellResidence (Feb 4, 2008)

KeanoManu said:


> Yes. You're right. Boring was a bad choice of words. But looking at Mexico City there's no symbol that makes people dream of going there.
> 
> New York has Time Square, Empire State Building and Statue of Liberty.
> Miami has Ocean Drive, the beaches and the nightlife.
> ...


Im pretty sure many europeans know one of these Mexico City landmarks: Teotihuacan Pyramids, Templo Mayor, Bellas Artes, Angel de la Independencia, Zocalo Square, Coyoacan, Castillo de Chapultepec (only castle in the americas, and in the middle of the city) Xochimilco canals, Trendy Art deco Condesa District, The European quarters (Roma Norte) Avenida Reforma, Parque Chapultepec ( 2nd largest urban park in the world in the middle of the city, yes two times bigger than central park), etc.... no other city in the americas has many landmarks than Mexico City, if im not wrong.

This might help you realise.... 
http://www.visitmexico.com/en/heritage-city-mexico-city


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

KeanoManu said:


> This could be a case of the usual north/south split in Europe. Maybe Mexico City is more prominent in southern Europe where they share more with Mexico culturally.


Definately. I think scandinavians in particular are very US-oriented especially because we feel comfortable with the english language and the american way of life, we share the same attitudes, manners are somewhat similar, we get impressions from tv-series & media. Also remember that 1/5 of Sweden's population emigrated to the USA in the 19th century.

Mexico & Latin America on the otherhand are in the twilight zone, unknown frontiers for most scandinavians, as you wrote some scandinavians may go to a mexican beach resort, but seeing Mexico City is not something that attracts a scandinavian tourist. We dont speak spanish and even if we have learned a couple of phrases that would hardly help us to get along with the locals who probably speak too rapidly. It's a cultural barrier between Mexico & Scandinavia. 

But I'm sure that the tourists from Spain enjoy all the sights and museums of Mexico city. Different strokes for different folks.

About LA: I'm sure there are gang activities, robberies, shootings and drug wars going on in some parts of that city. But if you go to LA it doesnt mean you will prawl the streets of Compton or Inglewood at midnight.

Same thing with Mexico city. It's a huge city with good and bad areas I presume.



brickellresidence said:


> Im pretty sure many europeans know one of these Mexico City landmarks: Teotihuacan Pyramids, Templo Mayor, Bellas Artes, Angel de la Independencia, Zocalo Square, Coyoacan, Castillo de Chapultepec (only castle in the americas, and in the middle of the city) Xochimilco canals, Trendy Art deco Condesa District, The European quarters (Roma Norte) Avenida Reforma, Parque Chapultepec ( 2nd largest urban park in the world in the middle of the city, yes two times bigger than central park), etc.... no other city in the americas has many landmarks than Mexico City, if im not wrong.


Never heard of any of that. In school we never learned anything about Mexico. They don't show mexican telenovelas here either, but they did in Russia. Probably all the spanish tourists know everything about Mexico. Maybe they studied the history of Mexico in school.

I dare to say that scandinavians and europeans are more interested in a trip to Rio de Janeiro rather than to Mexico City, but that's another story.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

KeanoManu said:


> Mexico City has no well known symbol or landmark that's known by almost everyone in Europe. Add to that the internal difficulties in Mexico.


There is that absolutely massive baroque central square, innit? Anyone interested in travel or heritage will have seen images of it. But that's the only thing I can think of... 
Amores Perros was filmed in Mexico City, right? There's an emerging Mexican cinema school, if I'm not wrong, that will probably put the city on the world map better (at least in what us Europeans are concerned). 
BTW I recently read Kerouac's On The Road and the story of the trip to Mexico City is astonishing.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Chicagoago said:


> Really? Most of the tourism happens from May through October when the temperatures are around 21C to 32C for daytime highs and the weather is beautiful. It's not called the "windy city" because it's windy, it's to do with the historically loud mouthed politicians, it's actually less windy overall than many other large cities like New York. A vast majority of any crime it is far away from anything a tourist would ever see (or 75% of the residents really). Aside from the media obsession, violent crime and murder rates here are fairly middle of the pack for large US cities, although they are lower than the two larger cities of NYC and LA, which are extremely safe for an American city. As most places, none of that really matters if you're in central tourist areas.
> 
> We actually hit our all-time high number of tourists last year. There were around 46 million visitors to the city, split between business travel, domestic and international tourists.
> 
> ...


I very much agree with this. This was true 20 years ago (when I first visited as a teenager and was blown away) and it is still true today. Amazingly, it seems that in many corners of the world Chicago is still primarily associated not with its architectural or cultural influences but with the criminal underworld and gun violence of the 20s and 30s (Al Capone and all that). People come to Chicago without a vivid picture of the city (unlike New York which everyone has an image of) and not really knowing what to expect. Then they see these stunning skyscrapers, the handsome streets, the lake and the river, and it instantly transforms their image of the city. That's what happened to me and the experience was all the more enjoyable because it was so unexpected.

Chicago is probably the second most impressive city in North America and is arguably more handsome than New York. Nevertheless I feel like their strengths are too closely aligned (with New York stronger in most categories) and for that reason if I were to pick only 4 cities to visit I would suggest only one of them.

PS. Beautiful pic, Chicagoago!


----------



## grs1 (Mar 21, 2014)

i've never been to mexico city but i've been to three other mexican cities and i believe it would have to be in the top 4. i know this is an urban skyscraper site but if you have enough time to do 4 cities you should really see the countryside as well. santa fe/grand canyon. st louis/bike the katy trail. with washington dc you could go sailing off the coast or go to appalachia there is a lot of historical colonial sites there that are really interesting. obviously if you want skyscrapers you go to chicago and new york, i'm not even sure there is really a third city from that point of view.


----------



## parody24 (Nov 18, 2013)

New York City
San Francisco
After those two, it is a very hard decision. If you want spectacular scenery along with a fun city, include Vancouver, Portland and Seattle. If you want architecture, food, skyscrapers, go to Chicago. If you want to see history along with a big city, Boston, Philadelphia and Montreal. If you want music, food and old world charm, don't miss New Orleans. A few years ago, my girlfriend and I visited Mexico City for a week. We both LOVED it immensely! So, tough choice.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

parody24 said:


> If you want architecture, food, skyscrapers, go to Chicago. If you want to see history along with a big city, Boston, Philadelphia and Montreal.



I think Chicago seem to have much better offers of fast food compared to NYC. 

Gourmet sausages, pizza, gyros, steaks, ribs, pork chops.

So foodwise the 2nd city is worth those 3 more hours of flight.


----------



## desi1 (May 6, 2011)

(...)


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Sausages, pizza, gyros, steak? Sounds like casual stuff you can find at the corner in a half-decent city, not something you'd fly over an ocean to get at.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

1) *Toronto*
2) *NYC*
3) *Boston*
4) *Vancouver*


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

MEZCAL said:


> *LA isn't even one of the five more visited cities by europeans in USA, and someone dares to compare it with Mexico City? Bitch please :lol:
> *
> 
> 
> ...


Vegas is a popular tourist spot for Europeans? I assume it's because of the media hype surrounding it since the European continent has plenty of sin cities last I checked.


----------



## moviestar (Oct 22, 2013)

l agree that first is new york,mexico maybe 3 0r 4 but i have a quetion?why are saying that is america ,america is all the continent mexico is america,brasil is america,canada is america,peru is american,so dont call yourself americans,you are unites states,is like saying italy is europe and they said they are europe,its only one observation


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

moviestar said:


> why are saying that is america ,america is all the continent mexico is america,brasil is america,canada is america,peru is american,so dont call yourself americans,you are unites states,is like saying italy is europe and they said they are europe,its only one observation


:bash:.... There is the United States of Brasil, the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America. People from the U.S. of America are Americans. People from U.S. of Mexico are Mexicans. The Americas are 3 continents(not one), North, Central, and South America on 3 different tectonic plates. If you are from Brasil then you are a Brazilian and a South American, not an American. Its not that hard to figure out.

Italy doesn't have Europe in their official name....


----------



## Bronxwood (Feb 7, 2010)

It is a shame that Mexico City gets left out of this conversation especially because it is probably THE most interesting metropolis in all of North America. I've been to cities across America and none hold a candle to the amount of attractions, history, culture etc. that MC has to offer. You have a thousand years of history and culture at your disposal. The ancient pyramids of Teotihuacan are a must see, I spent an entire day at the site climbing the pyramids of the sun and moon. Once atop you can relax and enjoy the view, meet new people from other parts of the world (many europeans btw).

I also visted the only royal castle in North America, nestled atop a hill overlooking the cbd. The castle was the home of Austrian Emperor Maximillian who ruled over the Second Mexican Empire. Then there's the historic core, where one can enjoy native american dance rituals in the main square, admire the old buildings and get caught up in the hustle and bustle/night life. You guys get the point. Basically, the city is filled to the brim with history and culture it's without a doubt a world treasure. 

But what was truly a breath of fresh air was how authentic the city was. There was no lame mickey mouse, spiderman or elmo trying to take pictures with me while demanding 5 bucks. There were none in all the tourist areas i visited (maybe I got lucky). The streets were like a big open air market with people selling art, wares, delicious mexican food (none of those plastic hot dogs you get at times square). The city and its tourist spots felt "lived in", like actual neighborhoods ordinary citizens still lived in and enjoyed. That's the sad thing about many American cities, it's how bland, commercialized and "disneyfied" their main attractions have become. After a while it all starts looking and feeling the same. Not sure about canadian cities but I suspect it may be the same.


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

NordikNerd said:


> I think Chicago seem to have much better offers of fast food compared to NYC.
> 
> Gourmet sausages, pizza, gyros, steaks, ribs, pork chops.
> 
> So foodwise the 2nd city is worth those 3 more hours of flight.


A European does not go to the US for food. It's mostly derivative food of a quality below European food. My brother lives in Chicago and those are his impressions as a European.

South and Middle America have much more offer for us Europeans. Mexican or Peruvian food for example are really special.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Ribarca said:


> A European does not go to the US for food. It's mostly derivative food of a quality below European food. My brother lives in Chicago and those are his impressions as a European.
> 
> South and Middle America have much more offer for us Europeans. Mexican or Peruvian food for example are really special.


You realize that Mexican food is a north American food so its a mainstream food in the US so there are great Mexican/Tex-Mex/Southwest restaurants all over the US.

I'd argue that food in the US is better than what I've had in most of Europe except for Italy.


----------



## MarkusErikssen (Oct 4, 2005)

San Francisco is really a must see!


----------



## grs1 (Mar 21, 2014)

lol responding to the food conversation europe has no idea how easy they have it. they all live within a 2 hours drive to the sea with unlimited sea food. and it rains without fail. the thing that kills me the most is that wichita has to have more extensive flood protection than london, even though it rains half as much.


----------



## jacint.mif (Jan 24, 2014)

erbse said:


> Ah please. Let's get not into stupid generalizing arguments like this.
> 
> And btw, besides France, Germany got the most international star-awarded restaurants in the world.


Not true, both Italy and Japan also have more star-awarded restaurants .


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Robi_damian said:


> Service quality is also much better in the US than in Europe from my experience. It is particularly horrid in Italy and Spain, mixed in France and ok-ish in the UK. But the best experiences I have had have been in the US and SE Asia. Nothing is too good for the customers.


It's good that you mention your experience as such, because that's what they are - personal experience. My experiences in Italy have been incredibly good but I know they're just my own individual experience, I wouldn't shove them upon anyone's throat as general realities, representative for the industry as a whole. I'm sorry to hear you didn't enjoy eating in Italy though. 

One thing, regardless of food quality. Since that famous open letter from an American waitress, about tipping, I have been reading long threads about the issue on several boards, and the consensus is always that we Europeans enjoy a high risk of unpleasant experiences because of the differences in tipping culture. Also the Americans moan a lot about their own unpleasant experience, from reading them it's not nearly as rosy as it would appear from this thread. 

Further on... When I travel, I do enjoy that a city has a rich culinary scene, which is always a big plus for the locals, but as a tourist I want to find the genuine culinary traditions of the place. I can't say anything about US cities yet but Amsterdam is a good example: it has an amazing culinary scene and I ate there some amazing food from Eritrea or some Indian food better than anything I tried in the UK for example, but it is a bit disappointing that the typical Amsterdamese food seems to be the sandwich. :lol: So the French/Italian/Mexican/African etc. restaurants in a place don't earn points for that place I visit, for me (and I know lots of people have the same view); the local cuisine has to stand on its own. 

BTW Europe is a lot more countries than mentioned here, the food diversity is incredible. Pinning down European good food down to France and Italy plus a bit more here and there is just reflective of a lack of travel. For example, try a South-Eastern European trip, with fresh sea food in Greece, those vegetable+meat combos they bake inside ceramic pots in ovens in Bulgaria, cow belly soup in Romania or a proper goulash in Hungary, then tell me they don't have amazing food all over Europe.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

The Dutch don't have much of a traditional cuisine as far as I know.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

Robi_damian said:


> Service quality is also much better in the US than in Europe from my experience. It is particularly horrid in Italy and Spain, mixed in France and ok-ish in the UK. But the best experiences I have had have been in the US and SE Asia. Nothing is too good for the customers.


In both Italy and Spain, the offer is probably overwheelming compared to US, and even to UK an other EU countries. I mean, there's a larger amount of restaurants and bars per inhabitant that other countries. That means, more possibilities to found some displeasing places and bad service, but also much more possibilities to have a really great meal or supper with a very pleasant service for prices as low as 15-20€ in the North, and even lower in the south. But you need to be selective. Also, in Spain there are plenty of places in which you can eat tapas/pintxos and made a meal of it, for very little, and with great quality. But again, it depends on the place you pick. There's also awful tapas. You need to have a good eye. In Italy, some Trattorias are very nice and cheap too. 

Sorry for the *off-topic, *but I just have one question. One of the most recurring north american cities among the popular culture is New Orleans. After watching HBO's Treme I've become more and more interested. So, what do you think about it? I somehow feel it to be slightly overrated, but honestly I don't know. For example, on Treme series some characters are reallty keen into defending it, even saying that New Orleans have more tradition in it that Atlanta, Houston and other cities together. On one hand, I really value the heritage of spanish and french, the creole thing, and the community feeling. On the other hand, it's not exactly a big city compared to other cities such as Atlanta, Miami or Houston, and also I think there's some romantic feeling toward it that doesn't meet reality, I guess.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

mckeenan said:


> Sorry for the off-topic, but I just have one question. One of the most recurring north american cities among the popular culture is New Orleans. After watching HBO's Treme I've become more and more interested. So, what do you think about it? I somehow feel it to be slightly overrated, but honestly I don't know. For example, on Treme series some character are reallty keen of defending it, even saying that New Orleans have more tradition in it that Atlanta, Houston and many other cities together. On one hand, I really value the heritage of spanish and french, the creole thing, and the community feeling. On the other hand, it's not exactly a big city compared to other cities such as Atlanta, Miami or Houston, and also I think there's some romantic feeling toward it that doesn't meet reality, I guess.


I personally loved the city. Alongside San Francisco it's my favourite in North America. I do however have a feeling that it's a very different experience to just visit the city for a few days than it is to live there for a longer period of time.

I think the city is underrated, at least in Europe. Half the people I know have been to New York or Los Angeles, or both. But I don't know anyone who has been to New Orleans.

Houston on the other hand are probably the least interesting city I've visited in North America. Hopefully Houston will build something that could be called a city in the near future. That downtown desperately need some life, some residents (from all economical backgrounds). I've said it before in another thread: A random small/medium sized city/town in Europe are more interesting and lively than downtown Houston, despite the skyscrapers and huge population for the city.

New Orleans have a very special feeling and atmosphere. Something that many larger cities lack.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

KeanoManu said:


> I personally loved the city. Alongside San Francisco it's my favourite in North America. I do however have a feeling that it's a very different experience to just visit the city for a few days than it is to live there for a longer period of time.
> 
> I think the city is underrated, at least in Europe. Half the people I know have been to New York or Los Angeles, or both. But I don't know anyone who has been to New Orleans.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the answer. I always found New Orleans fascinating and bizarre in the popular culture, but thought that there's an exagerated romanticism about it. I've never been to the states, but I got the same feeling as you about Houston and the like. Very large nice-but-dull suburban areas, and a bunch of skyscrapers downtown. I expect to do an american trip in a year or so, and New Orleans will be probaly in my list. I think europeans tend to visit the east coast because you have a bunch of interesting cities such as NY, Boston or Washington within a few hours by car. So you arrive there, rent a car, visit NY, Washington and Boston, for example, and then cross the country to California or take a regional flight coast-to-coast. Lousiana and the souther states are just a bit far from the classic US route, but I think they worth visiting.


----------



## Sandblast (Jun 17, 2008)

alexandru.mircea said:


> ..... cow belly soup in Romania.


If that tastes half as disgusting as it sounds, I consider myself lucky I've never booked a two week holiday in Romania. Wouldn't give that to my cat!!!


----------



## Sandblast (Jun 17, 2008)

KeanoManu said:


> Houston on the other hand are probably the least interesting city I've visited in North America.....


Then you have obviously never been to Detroit or Cleveland? Been to both, and Houston, on business ...... take a look at Detroit if you are ever in the neighbourhood. There is nothing in Europe to compare with the massive areas of dereliction that you see in Detroit. Like the remains of a city after a conventional war in some parts. Very sad.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Sandblast said:


> If that tastes half as disgusting as it sounds, I consider myself lucky I've never booked a two week holiday in Romania. Wouldn't give that to my cat!!!


The best stuff is always a terrifying prospect, in either name, looks, or both. While we're at it, don't avoid "pork paw" (traditional lyonnaise recipe) if you ever get the chance to, it's amazing.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Sandblast said:


> If that tastes half as disgusting as it sounds, I consider myself lucky I've never booked a two week holiday in Romania. Wouldn't give that to my cat!!!


People like pork belly. Or at least those who don't much value their own waistlines anyway. Tasty, in moderation! Why should cow be any less tasty? Unless he's talking about Tripe (which can also be tasty cooked the way the Chinese can cook it).


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

LtBk said:


> The Dutch don't have much of a traditional cuisine as far as I know.


Cheese. Beer. And clogs.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

About gastronomy, I agree that the states are a bit underated. They are quite good in grill cooking, and have nice meat there. Also, there's a great variety of top level restaurants and world food places. I don't think that everything is "derivative", they're doing really interesting things there, specially since high quality products are available worldwide and the cooking had become a more science-oriented thing. But, in the overall, I think in Europe, or at least at Southern/Mediterranean Area, we have better gastronomy gastronomy is more of a cultural issue, and it's more involved in daily live. The main difference is that gastronomy is not just about restaurants or sunday cooking. It's something you do at home. While in the states and UK daily meals consists on a sandwich, in Italy, France or Spain, many people still cook daily and have a two-course meal. It had been changing a lot in the last decades, because modern times and modern work schedule doesn't allow you to have a proper mediterranean meal every day, and the sandwich-while-working thing had became popular, but still many people cook their meal late in the evening the day before, put it into some tupperware and carries it to work (in many offices there's a couple of microwaves and a little room with a table to have your meal). Also, as people are not so keen into moving as americans, they would pick some home-made food when visiting their usually nearby parents. In the overall, there's a proper gastronomy culture in Europe, with many people really knowing how to cook, being familiar with products and recipes, but not without a cosmopolitan aim. World food also became very popular in the last decade or so, and american desserts, such as cupcakes and so, had became very popular, at the same time that we keep traditional french-oriented desserts. High quality food is not an elitist thing, and you can enjoy it at home, or in relatively cheap stablishments. The abailability of nice, high-quality, fresh vegetables and fruit are quite high, and the prices not so high. We have very nice meat here too, and fresh fish daily. Very nice products. 

BTW, what is really highly overrated is californian wine, IMO.


----------



## Skyckcty (Jun 21, 2013)

LtBk said:


> Vegas is a popular tourist spot for Europeans? I assume it's because of the media hype surrounding it since the European continent has plenty of sin cities last I checked.


Vegas and Clark County can deliver what it promotes, whether one is into shows, shopping, dining, adult oriented entertainment, entertainment, great lodging and nature!! It is not just hype, besides all I've mentioned, our proximity to many beautiful sceneries within a very short drive to Utah, AZ and California brings in the visitors. Geographical location of Vegas gives it an edge!:cheers:


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Svartmetall said:


> People like pork belly. Or at least those who don't much value their own waistlines anyway. Tasty, in moderation! Why should cow be any less tasty? Unless he's talking about Tripe (which can also be tasty cooked the way the Chinese can cook it).


Never knew about pork belly, sounds promising. I'll look it up. Cow belly is exactly "tripes", just sliced very thinly and boiled to the point that they almost melt in your mouth. I haven't yet eaten French tripes (and was disappointed to learn it exists, I was hoping it was a uniquely Romanian thing, but from experience this is always a misguided expectation), but from reading the recipes and looking at images the final product seems very far away from the Romanian soup. Which btw is indeed very fat, so we only eat on special occasions. The fat comes mostly from the vast amount of cream it requires, though, not that much from the beef. 



mckeenan said:


> we have better gastronomy


As this isn't an "objective" truth (just like it can't be said that rock is "better" than hip-hop), wouldn't it be better to say "I very much _prefer_ SE gastronomy"? This way we don't get yet another endless and ultimately pointless argument about who's "better". To each his own, taste is in the tongue of the taster, and all that. 




mckeenan said:


> BTW, what is really highly overrated is californian wine, IMO.


I wouldn't know about the wine itself, but the wine country there looks great. It helps that "Sideways" is one of my favourite American films of the last decade.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

alexandru.mircea said:


> As this isn't an "objective" truth (just like it can't be said that rock is "better" than hip-hop), wouldn't it be better to say "I very much _prefer_ SE gastronomy"? This way we don't get yet another endless and ultimately pointless argument about who's "better". To each his own, taste is in the tongue of the taster, and all that.


I agree, I should have stated that in other way. BTW rock is better than hip-hop :lol: Nah, I'm joking  I'm a bit too defenssive in some aspects about Europe. I'm noticing that I'm more euro-aware since I'm on SSC. Before, I though of Sweden and Greece, or Ucrania and Spain, as totally differents worlds. American integral concept of Europe is influencing europeans and our own vision of Europe. Still, on the gastronomic issue, and much more others, there is a big difference regarding different countries in Europe.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Never knew about pork belly, sounds promising. I'll look it up. Cow belly is exactly "tripes", just sliced very thinly and boiled to the point that they almost melt in your mouth. I haven't yet eaten French tripes (and was disappointed to learn it exists, I was hoping it was a uniquely Romanian thing, but from experience this is always a misguided expectation), but from reading the recipes and looking at images the final product seems very far away from the Romanian soup. Which btw is indeed very fat, so we only eat on special occasions. The fat comes mostly from the vast amount of cream it requires, though, not that much from the beef.


Pork belly is actually misnamed then. It's not the stomach like tripe is, but is belly meat with the fat. VERY tasty indeed, but incredibly bad for you. The Chinese are masters at making good pork belly (especially the Cantonese with Siu Yak 脆皮燒肉). Image search and enter the mouth watering phase. The chinese way of cooking tripe too is incredibly tasty to me. One way I tried once is fuqi feipian from Sichuan (夫妻肺片). The spices make it particularly tasty. Even simple things like fried tripe (爆肚) are tasty to me too. An underrated part of the animal and very cheap indeed.


----------



## Bligh (Apr 29, 2013)

erbse said:


> Don't take offense, but from what I've observed, an Englishman is amazed by pretty much any cuisine across the globe - since it's not English! :lol:


Oh wow... so narrow minded.


----------



## Bligh (Apr 29, 2013)

I just came back from a 2 week holiday in California! Was FANTASTIC. Beautiful state.

If *San Francisco* isn't on your listed, then add it! It's brilliant. It has; beauty, amazing architecture, good food, culture, landmarks, acitivites - the lot. It's amazing.

Los Angeles is good - but you need someone who knows the City otherwise you won't know what to do... The infrastructure isn't very tourist-friendly.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

jacint.mif said:


> You would have a hard time anywhere in britain or scandinavia to find anything that wasn't boiled, oily and plain.


Perhaps if you were a blind and penniless ignoramus.


----------



## svicious22 (Nov 16, 2011)

California wine is the best in the world to my tastes. It may be overpriced relative to many European wines but worth the cost difference.


----------

