Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Average Meal in London now the Most Expensive in the World
.jpg)
Well, this is hardly a surprise: London has been awarded the honor of being the most expensive city in the world for dining out.According to a recent article in the Guardian, a typical three-course meal and a glass of wine now costs an average of $79 per person in the British capital. Ouch!
Paris takes second place with $72. Tokyo averages $71 while New York comes in at a comparatively cheap $39.
The data is based upon the ubiquitous Zagat Guide. The most recent London edition has just been published and the 2.9% increase in the average cost of a meal from last year's edition has concerned local foodies. As for myself, London just keeps dropping lower and lower on my list of places to visit. I'd rather just hang out in New York where the food is half the cost. And, of course, much tastier!
Filed under: Food and Drink, Japan, France, United Kingdom
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brit Aug 21st 2008 6:37AM
Well, I am probably a little biased (being a Londoner), but I think the food in London is great (and expen-sive). The argument about the diversity of food in London is a very strong one because there is much more diversity than in New York. And again, it is represented at all levels of quality. I will be travelling to New York shortly, and then we'll see if the food is all you crack it up to be.
Jonathan Sep 22nd 2008 5:47AM
When I and my Italian wife come to Britain we long to find somewhere that serves ordinary, plain - but decent - British food at affordable prices. If you're eating out twice a day you can't be a gourmet. British catering has come down to poor, pretentious imitations of foreign dishes, while simple British cooking seems to be despised. Brits, please put yourselves in the shoes of hungry tourists and not of residents having the occasional evening out. Is the general level of food in Britain that good? Of course we've been very satisfied with country pubs and some other places, but they're the exception.
Laura Sep 23rd 2007 5:53PM
Umm those rat droppings are tasty.
Tom Coates Sep 16th 2007 2:37PM
I'd like to know why you think it's obvious that the food in New York is better than the food in London. Perhaps (perhaps!) on average if you include all the crappiest places in both cities, but above that London's got pretty much every cuisine represented at pretty much every level.
It's got extraordinary British Indian food around Brick Lane, Veeraswamy, Yauatcha, semi-decent dim sum, Paul bakeries, Patisserie Valerie, Maison Bertaux, Paul A Young's world-class chocolatier, a proliferating number of decent dormitory/popular chain places to eat like Wagamama, Ping Pong, Wahaca, Pizza Express and Busaba Eatthai. Plus places like the Fat Duck within reasonably easy travel of the centre, and solid British places like St John Bread & Wine. Plus Gordon Ramsey and the like at the top end. There's even the odd decent Pacific style sushi restaurant. And Hakkasan. The OXO Tower restaurant. Etc. etc. Plus, honestly, you can get some really nice Fish & Chips that's very much to be recommended.
The only thing it's not really easy to get your hands on in the city is—ironically—decent traditional British food. And before you start, there's a lot of decent British food but it's not very popular in Britain any more since it got destroyed by things like fifteen years of rationing in the forties and fifties.
Still, there's no denying it's an expensive place to live (and eat) but that's not the same as having crappy food.
Beata Jan 16th 2008 10:04PM
Well, I am probably a little biased (being a New Yorker), but I think the food in New York is great (and cheap-er). The argument about the diversity of food in London is not a very strong one because there is just as much, if not more diversity in New York. And again, it is represented at all levels of quality. I will be travelling to London shortly, and then we'll see if the food is all you crack it up to be.