May 16, 2007
San Diego Burrito Enthusiast Talking Smack About S.F.
While intra-city burrito debates are a San Francisco tradition, we were a bit shocked to come across this article from a San Diego-based pub in which a "burrito expert" of sorts totally disses the San Francisco burrito! It's on!
The money quote from this Mr. Crawford: "Having lived [in San Francisco], I know that they're really good only if you're drunk, but compared to the San Diego burrito, they're not even close. They're wrapped in foil, steamed and they put beans and rice in everything."
Sir, we drink frequently, and enjoy our local burritos equally sober as we do inebriated. (We will, perhaps, cop to eating with a little more gusto when altered).
Wha-ha? We're at a loss of words. We've surely had great Mexican food in San Diego -- particularly the fish tacos -- but to paint with an equally broad brush as Mr. Crawford did: sorry, San Diego -- your burritos ain't even close to ours. We asked our own expert panel of highly-regarded, Bay Area-based burrito enthusiasts -- Dan Johnson from Burritophile and Charles Hodgkins from Burritoeater -- for responses to this piece.
Mr. Johnson corrected Mr. Crawford's assertion that "There's really no telling when burritos started."
"It's really easy to find out the origins of the burrito," said Johnson. "Check it here."
Further, Dan tells us that San Francisco burritos are wrapped in foil for two reasons: 1) To keep them warm if you get 'em to go; and 2) To help thwart leakage problems like we see in [as pictured in the article] chile relleno burrito.
Finally, in Mr. Johnson's opinion:
"There are some pretty awesome burritos in San Diego, but it's kind of like the Triple-A baseball of the burrito world. You can get a really good one every now and then, but you'll see consistently more boneheaded assembly errors than you will up here in the big leagues."
In the spirit of brevity being the soul of wit, Mr. Hodgkins stated: "San Diego's OK with me. 72 and sunny all the time, right? And where would we be without Stone Temple Pilots? Not sure about the fries-in-the-burrito thing down there, though."
|
I recently lived in San Diego for almost five months and I test drove the offerings at many a Taqueria (which for some reason almost all of which are named Robertos, or Bertos or Albertos some other derivative of that name). During that time I did not have one burrito that could stack up to even the worst Taqueria offerings in The City. Burritos down there are flabby, limp, greasy, sorry excuses consisting of meat and beans with possibly some salsa thrown in. Even the excessive piles of fresh guacamole couldn't save them from the trash can half eaten. In San Diego stick with the fresh fish tacos or even the rolled tacos if you need some meat, but never a burrito.
The Mission-style burrito up here and the, I don't know, Baja-style? burrito down in San Diego are totally different beasts, that's for sure.
I grew up in San Diego, and I honestly prefer the San Diego style burrito. Carne asada burritos at a hole-in-the-wall taqueria down there are basically what I lived on for my high school years. No rice, no beans. Lots of cilantro and guacamole. My theory is that San Diego Mexican food is more influenced by the Nortenos and Baja than up here. And it's all been modified to account for us gringos.
Weirdly, I miss the rolled tacos/flautas from San Diego the most. I haven't found a taqueria here that compares to SD: 5 corn flautas with a mound of guacamole and quesa on top.
Never heard of fries in a burrito, though. Isn't that a Pittsburgh thing?
This has been a pet issue of mine for years now. I grew up in San Diego but have called the Bay my home for more than a dozen years. And I am here to say that for a native San Diegan, there are simply *NO* proper burritos anywhere near the City. Nor in Oakland. Our schema is just plain different: San Diego burritos are smaller/cheaper, never foil wrapped, never rice-laden, and sport a slightly different genus of flour tortilla that is NEVER steamed, but usually heated on the grill. For a San Diego-style burrito fix (not top-notch -- 3 stars out of 4), you have to travel all the way to Adalberto's in Fairfield. Sometimes worth the trip since the only other way to feed that craving is to drive for eight hours or hop on a Southwest flight.
i too am a San Diego native and would like to second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) the previous comments from the other SD natives. the differences between the burritos here and there are profound -- but i've resigned myself to the fact that the argument can never be settled. because NEITHER burrito is better than the other; they're DIFFERENT. like /\/\/\/ mentioned, i lament that i cannot find a SD-style carne asada-and-guac on a grilled (not steamed!) tortilla anywhere in the Yay Area; likewise, perhaps a Mish-style burrito shop down in Diego would be nice. to me, that's the real tragedy of the situation: both sides have their own proud burrito style, and no one wants to set up shop on the other side's turf.
Silly San Diego.
The problem here is mainly a semantic one; the "Mission Burrito" just is what it is, a unique preparation that evolved in San Francisco under a certain set of environmental circumstances.
The fact that what San Diegans eat also happens to bear the name "burrito" is what leads to the confusion, but the truth is that it's a completely different animal than our fat foil cylinder.
Comparing the two is like comparing New York with Chicago-style pizza... good for a lot of heat, not much light -- and a great deal of amusement for Italians!
For a SD-style carne-asada on a grilled tortilla, I'd check out any of the fine San Francisco taquerias that grill their tortillas (El Castillito and Cancun come to mind). Or order a quesadilla, which (meat, cheese, salsa) bears a suspicious resemblance to what they call a "burrito" in San Diego.
Perhaps San Francisco burritos aren't "authentic" or "proper" (most places I've been don't steam torillas though), but those San Diego ones look gross. Actually, the times I've had burritos in SD, they weren't bad. But if they're supposed to look like the those in the article, no thank you.
Re: fries in San Diego burritos, I dug this up on Wikipedia's "Burrito" page: In San Diego, California, "California", or "San Diego style" burritos are typically filled with a combination of carne asada, french fries, guacamole, and salsa fresca.
Having lived in both SD and (now am in) SF, I can't tell you how much the mexican food here fails to even hold a candle. The California Burritos of Cotixan and La Posta ftw!
i love it when people get all "my mexican food is better than yours because it's closer to the border." yeah, because the mexicans in san diego are different than the mexicans in san francisco.
what this argument really sounds like to me: two pieces of white bread with a pile of turkey vs. a hoagie. the former is good enough, i suppose, but the latter is so much more developed, interesting, tasty, etc.
i'm also loving this absurd debate about foil. as if having a burrito fall apart and get all messy is some sort of positive while the proximity of foil to food makes that food less tasty. it reminds me of the scene in I'm Gonna Git You Sucka where Chris Rock wants the soda poured in his hand.
wow. controversy.
I love how dorky white people fetishize everything
It is what it is.
Another vote for the SD burrito.
I certainly love the SF Burrito, but there's so much better in San Diego.
First off: steaming a tortilla is unheard of SD. There's no bigger abomination then steaming. Yuck.
2nd: the rice thing. So many SF places fill the burrito w/ flavorless rice. Rice is just that -- filler -- taking away from the true flavors.
But as earlier posters implied, there's no right or proper preparation. The burrito belongs to California. It's not a Mexico thing.
Different animals. I'm from SD, and prefer the SD burrito. Been here 12 years. The fries thing is bullshit, BTW. Never even seen that in 1,000s of taqueria meals. I prefer the tacos up here, actually.
I've heard the Mission Burrito referred to as "the #5 combination plate rolled up in a steamed tortilla". Works for me. I even enjoy them.
I also like how fucktards pass off "dorky white people fetishize everything" as though it were deep and sign off with "it is what it is", which is dumb and unfunny.
SD burritos, for sure! Burritos filled with rice and beans are nasty. Isn't that what the poor people do to make it appear heavier and fuller? Screw that, I'll take a Carne Asada burrito full of sloppy salsa and guacamole, and even some fries if you've got it!
SD burritos are nasty, but exactly what one would expect from the birthplace of the vile "fish taco."
I can't understand why you just don't tell the people making your burrito to hold on rice and beans...
I lived in SD for 4 years - SF for 3 and counting. I wouldnt be the same person today without the glory of both city's offerings on this front. As a once avid advocate of 'sola SD burrito!' in this epic debate (one that can only exist between two who can hold their own) - I have aquired a great love for the SF burrito.
For all you haters on both ends: What we are dealing with here is an issue of accessibility. There is a nice consistant smattering of burrito places in San Diego - and its not hard to find a place open late or even 24 hours. San Francisco may have the same amount of shops or more but a high ratio get away with murder (I sense a rough consensus on the whole steam issue) so its easy to get discouraged. And flat out, you just pay more up here which is kind of a mixed blessing considering a negative correlation of price to tastiness.
So if you consider yourself a true burrito lover but find yourself dissing... keep trying. And if you're feeling generous, let those San Diegans have their one debatable cuisine superiority and know the torture of stubborness inside when you take them to your favorite SF taqueria. But be careful, the burrito might be the only thing keeping those Southern Californians in their place!
While I love most things about SF, the burrito selection is not one of the city's strong points. I lived in SD for two years and can tell you the burritos there are MUCH better. Give me a Santana's burrito anytime! Yum.
Just wanted to clarify on the "french fry" thing... a lot of places for many years offered potato tacos and potato burritos for people who wanted the mexican style without having to give in to a pound of meat (unlike your mission burritos with TOFU). Eventually the two worlds met and the potatoes started getting thrown in the burrito. They're weren't crispy McDonalds-esque fries, however, but fresh cut potatoes. Cheap places now will do the frozen pre-cut variety but that's not the o.g. way.
As a Latino having grown up in SD and now living here in SF, I vote for SD. Better across the board, from price to ingredients. Every time I fly back down to San Diego the first thing I do is roll over to Cotijas in Point Loma, yes I even have them stored in my cell phone. Can't say that about any place here.
Thank god for the culinary bounty here in SF because the mexican is almost universally terrible and it's certainly not limited to just burritos. I lived in SD for 7 years and there's no question the mexican food is superior there. Not even close. I don't want to hear retarded arguments about foil or packing. How does it taste?!
Rice in a burrito is an abomination. Seasoned potatoes are a revelation. Have you ordered pastor in SF that wasn't laden with ketchup? Or carnitas that wasn't grey and lifeless? You might not be aware that when made right these ingredients can make you pray to the sweet piggy lord above.
Consider visiting SD and take the above recommendations for Cotijas and La Posta (the machaca will blow your mind). Definitely get rolled tacos. And whatever you do, don't frequent anything that ends in 'bertos. Maybe then SFists will finally get it.
I hate the burritos up here. You haven't had a burrito until you've ordered one thru the late night drive thru down in San Diego. IMO, rice and beans don't belong in a burrito, it should part of the #7 Combo plate, along with your enchilada, covered in ranchero sauce.
I love SF, but I could do without her burrito. All praise to the SD Burrito!!
jeremy,
if you're from california, then obv my post wasn't directed towards you. it was more aimed at commenters and would be commenters. nothing but love for sfist and the whole ist family.
xo cat dirt
i hafta admit the rice thing freaked me out at first but it's kind of grown on me. seems like it gives a burrito a more solid heft to it.
course, i moved here from michigan, where the 'mexican' food is a bit different in other ways, i think rooted more in a tex-mex kind of style. the beans are fried harder or something, more cheese, and most places use loose ground beef instead of chopped up steak bits, that goes for tacos and stuff too.
Here is my only real contribution to this debate.
After ordering a burrito while drunk in the middle of the night that just can not be finished due to complete intoxication one might like to eat the burrito 'nub' the next morning to help ease a hangover. The SF burrito is far better to munch on cold while you are laying on the floor by the fridge in the brutal morning. The San Diego burrito turns to a scary rock that does help the hangover recovery process. This is only good thing I have to say about the steaming of the tortilla.
That being said I really really want a SD burrito right now that is dripping with guacamole. The only problem is that to get it I would have to be in San Diego, which seems like a very stupid lifestyle choice.
How are LA burritos different? Why not bring the entire state into the fray!
SF, SD, bah. The best Mexican food in CA can be found in the central valley. Check out Cutija Taco Shop in Los Banos: that's the real deal.
Juan's in OB baby!
All arguing about nothing.
Tex-Mex beats Cali-Mex in all forms. San Antonio (and Houston) beats California "Mexican" restaurants silly.
These supposed burrito "experts" Johnson and Hodgkins are a complete joke. I find it amazing how they can spend so much time pontificating about burrritos and be so horribly wrong. Let them eat their foiled wrapped garbage! SD burritos reign supreme!
SFist,
Flagpole. Now. Burrito duel. We'll pay.
xoxo,
The Burrito Chroniclers
Two different beasts. As a San Diegan, I'll admit prefer the burritos from my home town. When I order a carne asada burrito, I don't want most of it to be rice. Someone mentioned a couple of places in the City that are supposed to resemble SD burritos, but I've eaten at both and have to disagree. No effin' way.
Also, SF just cannot compare until it gets some 24 hour taquerias. What's the deal with everything closing at 10. What kind of metropolis is this? Yes, I know Cancun is open later, but I really am not interestin driving completely out of the way for a lackluster burrito.
If you look at the demographics of San Diego, it's no surprise that people who grew up there prefer the extremely bland food. San Diego is such a wasteland of dining choices, I think people from there can't adjust to areas where they can actually find food with good flavor. What "major" metro area doesn't even have a Zagat's guide because of the complete lack of reasonable food? San Diego is the answer. I was raised in a Latino family and I can honestly say San Francisco Mexican food tastes like my grandma's cooking. And how can you complain about having to drive "out of the way" to get a good burrito? You made the choice to live in the sticks. This isn't a huge suburban sprawl like San Diego where you're forced to drive 30+ minutes for anything no matter where you choose to live.
Hey Ralph,
Amusing that you trash us, but...do you love burritos enough to put up a website? No? Maybe it's because your burritos aren't good enough.
I'll pass on the soggy, steamed tortilla stuffed with rice any day. WTF? It's sooo big and it's only $6. You know why? 'Cause it's stuffed with rice that only costs about $0.000001. Please give me a grilled tortilla without the pound of rice and the year old refried beans. Suck on it SF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey SD hater-freaks! Even in Mexico rice and beans are key ingredients! Just because your sloppy weird pseudo-burritos are made some alternate way doesn't mean you guys have the only kind that deserves praise!
And whats the big deal about rice anyway? Personally I like how Spanish rice tastes if its seasoned right, but I dont see the need to shit all over you clowns for liking it a different way!
And I dont know where you fools are trying burritos up here, but La Morena (Chicken) & La Tapatia (Carne Asada) in SSF, El Farolito (Carne Asada) in SF (both 24th/Mission or Mission/Onondaga), La Bamba (Carnitas) in Mountain View, and Vallarta in SF (24th/Harrison) all blow any SD "burrito" I've had out the water and shouldn't even be compared. I won't even get started on how much better I feel the tacos, barbacoa, etc. is up here.
I regularly get tortillas that have been grilled up here in SF too, so why all the complaints of just steamed tortillas? Does it really make you twats feel that much better to drag another area down? To the haters, and not the open-minded SD natives that have commented on here, SUCK ON IT AND SWALLOW SD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!