Should Boston visitors eat at one of the city's many incredible, unique and independently owned restaurants, or at a chain that has locations in eight other states? If you answered "chain," you might be The Huffington Post. A post on the HuffPo's Travel Blogs section from this morning titled "A Long Weekend In Boston" contains the following recommendation:
Lunch awaits at Legal Sea Foods in the Copley Square mall. The first outpost of this now-famous empire was established across the river in Cambridge in 1968, and although there are now locations along the eastern seaboard, management hasn't lost its focus on freshness and continues to win "best clam chowder" and other awards. (When I'm feeling naughty, I go for the whole-bellied New England fried clams slathered in tartar sauce; but more sensibly, I stick with the baked Boston scrod).
Regardless of what one thinks of the quality of the food at Legal - or how one chooses to be naughty - given the chain's wide dispersal, it's hard to consider it an essential for someone visiting for a short amount of time. Despite its not having lost that "focus on freshness" and all those "other awards." In all fairness, the author also shouts out Mistral and Menton. In no fairness, he also recommends Union Oyster House. One solid recommendation: Toscanini's. What restaurants would you send Boston visitors to?