Maybe second to New York for restaurants, but per capita pretty much on top. California is the best produce region of the country, so there are better ingredients within 4 hours of SF than within 4h of NYC. NYC might win for European haute cuisine and for long-established restaurants.
https://sf.eater.com/maps/san-francisco-bay-area-michelin-re...
(More 3-starred restaurants than NYC)
Portland is great, too, for similar reasons.
All of them (and probably >10 more cities in the US) have world-class food across multiple cuisines.
For any average non-foodie person such as myself, the selection of any major metropolitan city (quality, variety, diversity of ethnic origin) is far more than sufficient.
If you're trying to make some obscure, excessively-specific, metric-based argument based on number of stars and specific obscure cuisines that are missing to satisfy the extreme foodie, that's also trying to be antagonistic, because it's aimed at an exceedingly narrow audience.
What?
Exhibit A: http://www.berkeleybowl.com/ Exhibit B: http://cheeseboardcollective.coop/ [exhibits C through Z on demand]
I haven't seen better grocery or cheese stores anywhere else in the US, or in Switzerland (there's stores with some better cheeses, but nothing with the range and variety).
You, clearly haven't been to those places I listed or you wouldn't have made that statement (and yes, Berkeley is atypical for the US).
Not saying it's the best; I would certainly rate NYC higher (and with more of long tail cuisine-wise), and would give some other cities a leg up for narrower categories (e.g. LA's Korean food destroys SF easily).
But... "the Bay Area doesn't have very good food"... I'm entirely baffled by that statement.
Many of the classic Bay Area foodie places were also super overrated; I always thought Chez Panisse was mediocre, and relatively unknown places nearby (La Limes) were actually better. There were a few real treasures though: I'll miss Aki-san at Sushi Sho.
More importantly, and again talking stereotypes in the spirit of original post, the image of a young, hip silicon valley operative certainly includes the aura of foodiness
The latter approach creates more of a critical mass for competitive restaurants. In Silicon Valley, there are a lot of decent little downtown areas that are walkable, and have higher end food, but they’re tiny compared to Berkeley’s gourmet ghetto / downtown, or Downtown Oakland’s Lake Merrit area (and SF blows all that out of the water).
Downtown San Jose may end up eventually being competitive with the rest of the region, but it was a ghost town at night 10 years ago, so it’s still getting bootstrapped.
All of the examples cited in the other responses are decades-old establishments.
Anyway, Silicon Valley has a reputation for expensive, mediocre food, but that’s comparing to SF and East Bay which are both quite good.
Overall, I'm very happy with the food options in the Bay Area, though.
Not trying to antagonize here, but mainly wondering if you have a nuanced reason? The consensus is generally that the Bay Area doesn't have very good food, without even adjusting for the cost of living.