4 star places are interesting to compare and contrast, but they're only a small fraction of the story as far as food critics are concerned. Moreover, for diners, they're typically rare special-event experiences.
You really have to investigate the 1/2/3-star places to see what's really exciting and up-coming. If you do that, almost every major city (hell, even many 'burbs and rural) has something special and worthwhile to offer.
Stack-ranking stuff like SF>NYC or #1,2, 3 or whatever is kind of pointless, as is saying that a sushi place is lesser because it lacks "decent" cooked fish. Much more fun to consider each restaurant on its own terms and in the context of the city and population it serves. All the great critics do that and while some may "stack/rank" their reviews, there's a lot to say about 2-star places (and no, 4 is not "greater" than 2, it depends on the occasion and the intent of the diner).
You really have to investigate the 1/2/3-star places to see what's really exciting and up-coming. If you do that, almost every major city (hell, even many 'burbs and rural) has something special and worthwhile to offer.
Stack-ranking stuff like SF>NYC or #1,2, 3 or whatever is kind of pointless, as is saying that a sushi place is lesser because it lacks "decent" cooked fish. Much more fun to consider each restaurant on its own terms and in the context of the city and population it serves. All the great critics do that and while some may "stack/rank" their reviews, there's a lot to say about 2-star places (and no, 4 is not "greater" than 2, it depends on the occasion and the intent of the diner).