Canteen or Commonwealth
If you could only have one dinner at either Canteen or Commonwealth, which one would you choose? Thanks for any of your comments. ;-)
817 Sutter St, San Francisco, CA 94109
2224 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94110
Tough choice! I have had excellent meals at both. If I were forced to choose, I would base my decision on what kind of "mood" you are going for that evening, and how much you feel like eating.
At Commonwealth, I think you'd really want to splurge for the tasting menu and wine pairings (comes to $90, which I think is truly excellent value for the quality of food and the experience). Even though it's on a grungy block of Mission St, I would count Commonwealth as a special-occasion place. Also, I've heard people complain after ordering from the a la carte menu that the portions are too small, but I was so full after the tasting menu I could barely eat even a bite of my dessert (this is a very rare occurrence for me).
Canteen offers a much more casual experience - the food is really excellent and I am a huge fan of both the brunch and dinner here. I would count this as a more everyday/upscale dinner.
I guess I haven't really answered your question yet... So I will go out on a limb and say Commonwealth, chef's tasting menu, wine pairings.
Canteen. I find Canteen "gastronomically interesting". I've only eaten at Commonwealth once, and we disliked every dish save one - the squid in tamarind. All the other dishes failed in concept or in execution. However, I know i'm in the minority here. I've eaten at Canteen a dozen times and have loved 95% of my meals there. Canteen is more casual, however. but I'd still choose Canteen.
Such is the world of food. We all have different tastes! All I meant is that canteen chooses to do-up more traditional dishes whereas commonwealth does a little more creation. That's not an editorial comment on which one is better... I loves me some canteen.
Prima, I'd recommend the tasting menu!