Nobody is saying London isn't a top five food destination on earth, but it's also a top five destination for about a dozen other things. Although Edinburgh is where it's at as far as UK cities go.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Nobody is saying London isn't a top five food destination on earth, but it's also a top five destination for about a dozen other things. Although Edinburgh is where it's at as far as UK cities go.
Sure, but I would go to London explicitly for the food and clothing. My favourite restaurant of all time is in London.
Made me go look: Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal all have Michelin star restaurants. Calgary doesn't appear to have any. Argument sorted then
If Michelin went to Calgary, they would find places to star. FWIW, I think the whole Michelin thing is pretty bunk outside of a handful of cities - maybe even just two or three.
It's really a London/Paris kind of thing. The places they chose to star in Vancouver were fine, some of them excellent, but nothing like truly ground-breaking or worthy of a special visit - except St. Lawrence (https://www.stlawrencerestaurant.com/) where I had a glass of champagne that I still think about.
I concur that London is not a great place for food... if you are just aimlessly going places. If you research and pre-book, the amount of world class fare is plentiful. But random fare, even in busy restaurants can be pretty terrible. NYC is the same IMO.
You're better off in Paris if you want to randomly walk into certain busy establishments sight/reviews unseen and have a very good meal.
How many people are outright travelling for food only to begin with? I think it's maybe a consideration in a choice of city, but surely not that many people are like "I'm going to London for the food mostly".
