Wow. The Washington Post is full of support for suburban living today. Check out the annual dining guide, which offers this little ditty:
And certain suburbs, Alexandria in particular, now boast so many exceptional restaurants that there's no need to venture into the District for a great meal. Even our street corners have begun offering better than just hot dogs.
Remember when one of the main arguments for city-living was "culture"? You had to go downtown for great restaurants and theater and all the rest. That appears to be changing, at least in some places.
Here? I don't know. I am not a foodie by any stretch. I am more of an ambience sort of guy. And by that, I do not mean white tablecloths. I like places like the Bonfire out by Leechburg, and a lot of the little family-run places here in Bloomfield. I am especially fond of bizarre backwoods establishments like the Halton Hilton, Cougar Bob's and the Blue Jay. None of which would make the Washington Post's "best of" list.
But I wonder what this means for people who do prefer "good restaurants." Locally, is it necessary to travel into the city? I understand places like Mt. Lebo have some good spots that rival anything in the city. But what about overall? Is the city still the place for what most observers would consider the "best restaurants"?