I grew up in CA and lived in SF for 6 years and I can say unequivocally that the Mexican food is much better there. I have yet to have a great mexican meal in NYC.
Otherwise, I personally think the food is comprable. There is more of it in NYC, though, so maybe more chance to have a bad meal?
I can say for sure the food in NYC is much better than that in Greenwich, CT. THis topic has been the subject of my blog all week!

Gosh this is a tricky one! I've only properly been to seattle, new york and san francisco. I'd say the food was outstanding in both seattle and san francsico, I also loved the food in portland. It seems so impossibly black and white to vote for one place so I'm not going to vote, I'll say vive la difference, and enjoy them all! I found NYC to be more like london and paris, in that you need to know in advance where to find good food.

Having grown up both on the West Coast and in Boston, I have twice as many reasons to withhold credit to New York for anything; but if you are to look at American culture as a tapestry of immigrant fusion, then New York leads the nation by a far mile.

I think that San Francisco has certain ethnic strengths that it can hold over NYC (Mexican, Indian and Chinese, especially) but for sheer diversity, it still lags the older city.

If you want to narrow the scope to food that is 'indigenously' American -- diner food, soul food, barbecue, folk cuisine with New American, fast food, and General Gau's chicken thrown in for good measure, then I'd nod towards Chicago. I still haven't found a barbecue joint in San Francisco that holds a candle to Chicago.

Seattle. Bar none. San Fransisco is good. Really good. But I still think Seattle is where it's at. :)

Having lived in NY and being a long-time resident of SF. I absolutely agree. NY wins hand-down on the pizza, Cuban food, and Jewish delis. . .but loses big time on most things Asian (unless you want Morimoto/Momofuku high-end stuff). The SF Bay has far supreme (easily accessible - without having to go to Flushing!) everyday Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and Japanese. But, mainly, you really can't beat California produce - for everday living and cooking - this simple fact means to me that we have overall better food quality in our restaurants and on our dinner tables.

oh yes, and I even forgot to mention Mexican and Indian which everyone else has on this thread. . .

I couldn't find a decent Mexican anything while living in NY. . .and was like 'why the hell not!?' can't someone here read a Rick Bayless book?

I don't know. I come from the southwest and I just can't get behind seattle as a culinary mecha. I have to tell people to eat things that they will miss up here. I mean, we've got a lot of great food, but overall, I tend to find that seattleites don't salt anything so the food comes out kinda bland. We can't do a really good pizza to save our lives. I also have a problem with the mexican food up here but that's more upbringing in the southwest where mexican food is super cheap, abundant, and covered in cheese so really not the fault of seattle. The greasy spoon is falling to the wayside for more condo's. That said, good asian flavors abound, nice fish and chips, and a few really nice but expensive restaurants stand out. And the farmers markets out here are incredible to say the least so that's a big point in it's favor.

Chicago has really come a long way the last few years. Now, we have great examples of the entire dining spectrum, from fine dining (Tru, Alinea, Charlie Trotters, Aruns, etc.) to authentic ethnic spots in our varied neighborhoods.

While not a culinary capital, I do appreciate St. Louis. There's a wide selection of cuisines available, from our Asian corridor to Ethiopian, great Indian to Afghan food.
Also representative of American dining culture is the fact that once you leave the city limits, most choices are limited to large chain restaurants.

Why just West vs East? What about the middle? Another vote for Chicago.

Manhattan, despite its pretentions, really isn't all that. Staples like bagels and pizza are frequently mediocre-to-truly-horrific, although I'm sure the five-star restaurants are pretty good (if you enjoy spending lots of money).

But nothing in the world beats NYC's outer boroughs, especially Queens. Every cuisine from every country, frequently on the same block. Travel from Jackson Heights to Flushing to Arthur Avenue to Greenpoint and you might as well be in different countries - delicious, delicious, moderately priced countries.

Of the list presented, SF is definitely the best. But you left off Las Vegas, which is the hottest restaurant location in the world right now. There are more celebrity chefs with restaurants in Las Vegas than anywhere else on the planet. I just ate at the new Mario Batalli restaurant at the new Palazzo -fantastic. And then there is Thomas Keller's Bouchon at the Venetian. And that is only scratching the surface.

Portland, OR. Local, organic sustainable everything. Great vegetables, cheese, mushrooms, wines, beers... on and on. Everything is fresh.

I have to go international and drop Vancouver on you. It is Seattle's better looking sibling and has great quality and variety in cuisine. I would find excellent food (at good prices) even when I wasn't looking for it. The average hole-in-the-wall there almost always beats expectations -- people there just seem to demand better food.

I currently live in San Diego and the food here sucks so maybe I'm just homesick.

Can we include worst cities? I nominate San Diego. It is hard to find good food here and whatever there is, is not cheap (some good Mexican food of course but lots of indifferent food made for indifferent people -- particularly surfers).

How about New Orleans?

New Orleans, pre Katrina. Only city in the world where I managed to eat myself sick, 10 major resturants in 7 days.

In terms of variety, New York, which is where I've lived the last 30 years.

I live in Cincinnati and have found the food here to be good as well. A lot of diversity from soul to ethnic to barbecue to you-name-it. The culinary school in the city churns out great chefs and many stay in the area to ply their wares. If you get a chance to check us out, I really recommend you do.

I'll second the vote for St. Louis. After living there for 8 years, it's certainly one of the most under-appreciated food cities. From hole-in-the-wall to fancy, from all ethnicities and styles, you can find it (even bialys). Even better, it's good and honest food (and usually reasonably priced).

As a New Yorker, this is difficult for me, but Chicago is the most "real" food town. New Yorkers are snobby about their food and their town, but I found San Francisco outright painful and Seattle the most smug place I have ever been. I'll have to check out St Louis, haven't been there in 15 years.

Chicago has a more diverse food selection in terms of ethnicity, style and level of service (street food to white tablecloth) than either coast and significantly less of the snobbery and attitude that permeates the food scene on the coasts.

What an interesting question; I think it safe to say that different cities hold the titles to "best this kind of cuisine" and "best that," and that can certainly color one's take on things.

As someone who travels often and widely across the country (and internationally), I've had the opportunity to check out the scene in many, many cities. While I occasionally splurge and eat high-end, my focus is on what I call "cheap ethnic eats"--the truly authentic stuff that captures true flavors, ingredients, and techniques. Also, I am not a meat eater (though I eat fish), so that will significantly color my perceptions.

That much said, here are some of my thoughts.

New York City--and that means the boroughs as much as Manahattan--is a paradise of eating, pure and simple, though there is also a surprising and growing amount of bad food. But if you're someone who just plains enjoys eating and loves exploring, it's an incredible place.

San Francisco has a large foodie scene, and much of the "middle range" is better than the "good stuff" in many other cities. But, as others have pointed out, San Francisco is not necessarily as diverse as other cities. For example, most Chinese is Hunan style.

Chicago is also a good eating town, especially, as one person pointed out, for its regional American specialties.

Las Vegas is now a great spot for high-end "celebrity chef" eats, but for me the real treat of Vegas is its extensive, diverse, and authentic collection of Asian eateries, mostly centered along Spring Mountain Road (with especially good Korean).

Atlanta has a surprisingly good food scene, but it's mostly aimed at the professional market.

Minneapolis is a surprise city; I've discovered all kinds of surprisingly good food in this Midwestern mecca, including what may be one of the best pizzas in the US (Punch Pizzeria--and I say that being well acquainted with the best NYC has to offer) and a surprisingly vast array of Asian eateries (many Indian and a first-rate Malaysian, no less).

Washington, D.C., has an excellent restaurant scene, but is a little weak on the quality of its hole-in-the-walls--and I like holes-in-the-wall. Same goes for Boston.

But many of you are going to hate me for what I'm about to say, but don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger. Los Angeles is probably the best food city in this country right now. This doesn't mean that all food is good (it isn't), but if you don't mind crossing the street and exploring ethnic neighborhoods, nothing in this country can match LA. For example, the Chinese eateries in the San Gabriel Valley (from Monterey Park to Industry) are astounding in their sheer number, variety, and quality. For just about everything else, there's incredible food representing virtually all of the planet. The best Salvadoran restaurants aren't in San Salvador, they're in LA. Good Persian food? Peruvian? Like regional Mexican? Keep going? The best Indian restaurant I've been to in the U.S. (I've been to India) was in LA. And it wasn't a fancy place, just another "normal" Indian restaurant.

So that's my vote.

for Italian, upstate New York. So still not NYC.

Los Angeles. In terms of diversity, nothing comes close. New York has the diversity, but the benefits of LA is that it's more segregated ethnically so that restaurants don't tend to dumb down the food to satisfy the mainstream palate. it's not just individual restaurants, but whole cuisines where it dominates. I can't name a single Asian cuisines that's done better in another american city. The san gabriel valley in east LA is itself a culinary destination for hardcore chinese cuisine fans.

Still, in San Francisco you have a higher probability of walking into a restaurant and it actually being good than another city.

Don't forget New Orleans. Also Chicago, New York, Boston, SF, and LA

In America, New York has a vast array of styles, touching more countries than any other city. People tend to think of Manhatten only, but that's just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to NYC's food scene. Manhatten can let you down at times, but NYC overall is still the greatest food city by far. San Francisco is another gastromony giant in America, and it gets better every time I visit. The thrid place that deserves mention is L.A. for its tremendous diversity and possibly for it unmatched asian cuisine alone. I know that Chicagoans feelings will be hurt, as they are the yapping dog that needs constant attention.