Better food city outta Chicago and Houston?

23 comments

1. I think Chicago…but its really close.

2. Tough choice! I would truly rank these two equally, but I if I had to pick one, I would narrowly pick Chicago.

3. Chicago is better at regional “American canon” type stuff like hot dogs and pizza. Houston has a lot more culinary diversity with things like Vietnamese, soul food, Cajun, Tex-Mex, and barbecue. Personally I prefer the Chicago style, but it’s mostly about your specific tastes, because you can’t go too wrong with either.

4. Chicago has a slight advantage overall. Houston is going to have the better BBQ though.

5. Houston is known for, what, Pho, Texas barbeque, and fusion?

   Chicago has 2 types of signature style pizza, italian beef, their own style hot dog, jibaritos, saganaki, real pizza puffs, Delta rib tips, I could go on.

   I don’t see it as a contest.

6. Chicago. In no universe are these even comparable.

7. Chicago

8. Chicago. not close, imo

9. a good question!

   I would personally rather do a food tour in Houston.

   But I think historically its hard to argue that Chicago hasnt loomed larger on the American culinary landscape

10. This is a tricky one! I’m from San Antonio, my boyfriend is from Chicago and I’ve spent some time in Houston.

    I think Chicago’s cuisine has a more famous identity and culture (Chicago dogs, pizza, Malort, Old Style, Italian Beef). When I think of true Houston cuisine, I think Tex-Mex and Asian leaning cuisines, but no specific dish really comes close to matching the fame of a Chicago dog, etc.

    Both have a wide variety of culinary diversity outside of the distinct flavors that each city is known for. I think of lot of people forget how truly diverse Houston has become – I remember reading an article a while back that said more languages are spoken in Houston than NYC.

    So in conclusion, both are great culinary destinations for sure. If you want a niche food experience specific to a city, Chicago is more likely to give you that in addition to a wide arrange of cuisines. I am biased because I do love visiting my boyfriend’s family in Chicago, but I think both cities are lovely!

    (For the record, I think the best deep dish in Chicago is Pequod’s.)

    EDIT: I forgot about Chicago mix popcorn too. I’m team Nuts on Clark all day every day.

11. Asking about Dallas and Houston food while leaving San Antonio out is hurting my feefees. San Antonio has incredible fusion food!

12. Out of the two Chicago, but for food diversity I would go for Seattle, the SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, DC, Austin, or NY

13. It depends on what kind of food you like

14. I know Im biased but I feel like I have to go with Chicago by virtue of just volume if nothing else. Chicago has been a big city for a longer time. While I do love me some Texas BBQ, you have a ton of options in Chicago and a really well and long cultivated regional fare to go with it. I know Houston will say their second greatest strength is Tex-Mex but Chicago also has a massive hispanic population thats brought a lot of excellent food with them from that category here as well.

    BUT, at the end of the day it’s all subjective

15. Philadelphia, we have so many options in such a walkable area and we are known for being a ‘foodie’ destination. [https://travel.usnews.com/rankings/best-foodie-destinations-in-the-usa/](https://travel.usnews.com/rankings/best-foodie-destinations-in-the-usa/)

    ​

    Edit: I totally misinterpreted the question, I thought you meant best food city OUTSIDE of Chicago and Houston :(. My vote goes to Houston in that case because Texas BBQ and Tex-Mex slaps.

16. depends on if you want pizza and hot dogs or bbq and tex mex

17. I have never been to Chicago. Don’t bite me, it’s on my list.

    But I think a lot of other commenters are on the right track. If you want a city with a cuisine that has an *identity*, I’d go with Chicago all day. After living in Houston, the food here is absolutely wonderful (and I highly, highly doubt the few comments that said there’s no comparison-Houston food truly is very good), BUT it doesn’t have a whole lot of what I see as a distinct culinary identity. Houston is just a buffet of absolutely everything, and then some stuff you didn’t even know existed or that you could eat.

18. Chicago, by a long shot. Disregard the Chicago dogs and deep dish, and explore the diverse offerings making Michelin lists, interesting ethnic cuisines, small chef-driven spots, and tons of incredible Mexican food (city is 1/3 Latino, mostly Mexican)

19. I’ve worked as a food writer in both. For me, it’s a not even close Houston, but objectively it’s about values.

    Houston is going to clearly win: Chinese, Vietnamese, Southern American, Northern Mexican, Tex-Mex, BBQ, Central American, Nigerian, and cost.

    Chicago is going to clearly win: Italian, Pizza, Polish, Southern Mexican, Japanese, Ethiopian, and Ultra-Fine Dining.

    I think Houston has better Indian and both have shitty Korean, but both of these claims are contentious.

    In terms of unique dishes, Chicago has the polish, Chicago dog, jibarrito, Chicago Mix, the Italian Beef, and deep dish. Houston has Viet-Cajun, but most of it’s specialities are different fusions of its core food groups of Mexican, Vietnamese, Tex-Mex, and BBQ.

    If you have money to burn and like European food, Chicago is the winner. If cost matters to you, and you like Asian and Latin American food, then Houston wins. I have them as number two and four on my US food cities, so you really can’t go wrong.

20. Chicago.

21. Chicago hands down. It has better low end food and better fancy places.

    It’s better for ethnic variety too.

    That isn’t to say Houston is bad at all but Chicago just beats it slightly.

22. Chicago.

23. Never been to Houston so can’t speak to it, but Chicago is way underrated as a food city. (And it’s not exactly rated poorly.)

    It has coastal fine dining quality at midwestern prices.