Whatever. You know my theory about fine dining cities? I know you want to. Once you get past a critical mass of high-end restaurants, it stops mattering. Arguments about San Francisco versus Chicago versus New York for restaurants are irrelevant, because unless you have an absurd budget for eating out, you aren't visiting all of them.

So, yes, you have French Laundry (if you count it), and NYC has Per Se, and Chicago has Alinea. Panise vs. Masa vs. Charlie Trotter. If you're a normal person, you're going to run out of places to get 7 courses prix fixe in the Bay Area before I run out of them in Chicago.

Everything else is subjective. You have Mission taquerias. We have Frontera. Yank Sing vs. Arun's. Anything in San Francisco vs. Hot Dougs.

Call whatever city you want "the top restaurant city in the US". Nobody is moving from Chicago or NYC to San Francisco for the food.

Actually people do move to the City for the food. The point is that all Chicago has is Charlie Trotter's. SF has hundreds of amazing restaurants.

Did you read my comment, or do you just not know who Grant Achatz is? SF has hundreds of restaurants. On the high-end, many of them are good (below it, you wind up in North Beach for overpriced tourist Italian). But Chicago does too; so do Seattle and Atlanta.

Name someone who has moved from NYC or Chicago because the restaurant scene in either didn't match up to San Francisco. I'll take your word for it that that person exists.