Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sao Paulo has a million Japanese, who knows how many Italians, and other european immigrants. Than you add on the entire spectrum of black to white and everything imbetween (every mix imagineable of white and black and indigeneous). So, it's really mixed.
San Francisco has many separate ethnic races...lots of yuppie whites absolutely everywhere. Lots of Asians everywhere. New generally mexican immigrants everywhere. Most of the African-americans over in Oakland, and not so many in SF.
Taking that information, I guess it depends on a person's perspective of which is more diverse. If you are a mixed race person, than Sao Paulo will blow SF away on every level. If you are more of those people who just likes a lot of different immigrant groups around, than SF would have more of that (not that Sao Paulo doesn't), it's just that more immigrant groups in general go to California than Brazil (but Brazil has them too, just not in such high numbers as California).
(I'm going to say Sao Paulo though for voting purposes. But I can see an argument could be made for SF depending on one's definition of 'racial diversity').
Sao Paulo has a million Japanese, who knows how many Italians, and other european immigrants. Than you add on the entire spectrum of black to white and everything imbetween (every mix imagineable of white and black and indigeneous). So, it's really mixed.
San Francisco has many separate ethnic races...lots of yuppie whites absolutely everywhere. Lots of Asians everywhere. New generally mexican immigrants everywhere. Most of the African-americans over in Oakland, and not so many in SF.
Taking that information, I guess it depends on a person's perspective of which is more diverse. If you are a mixed race person, than Sao Paulo will blow SF away on every level. If you are more of those people who just likes a lot of different immigrant groups around, than SF would have more of that (not that Sao Paulo doesn't), it's just that more immigrant groups in general go to California than Brazil (but Brazil has them too, just not in such high numbers as California).
(I'm going to say Sao Paulo though for voting purposes. But I can see an argument could be made for SF depending on one's definition of 'racial diversity').
Tiger Beer which of those 2 cities do you like living in the most ?
Tiger Beer which of those 2 cities do you like living in the most ?
Definitely Sao Paulo, by a long shot. Just a lot more fun.
San Francisco might have been interesting in another era. But, the cost of living was too high, so I couldn't adequately enjoy anything. It's become too yuppified. The haves and the have nots are way too divided and in full-force in that city.
Homeless population, both cities had homeless issues, but San Francisco was significantly worse. You can't go anywhere in SF without having homeless coming up to you. Went into a Wendys fastfood restaurant, and had THREE different people come inside to ask for money from me. Which is already in addition to the types lingering around outside of the fastfood restaurants waiting to ask you for a dollar or $5. Market Street is the worse, which is the main artery of the city. Just 100s and 100s of homeless people (i.e. 99% linger in the mind of always being predominately adult males between the ages of 25-40) absolutely everywhere hanging out asking for money.
In contrast to Sao Paulo, which also had a homeless element, but just seemed way more tolerable than SF in that regard. Actually Sao Paulo had homeless street kids which were more disturbing. But at least didn't get the constant streams of healthy adult men hitting you up every two seconds like SF. It's strongly in the SF culture there.
I also liked Sao Paulo's subway system better than San Francisco's. SF has more of a commuter system going out to the suburbs, and nearly impossible to go from A to B efficiently within the city itself. Plus they discourage cars - i.e. 100s of people driving around and around blocks looking for meters that only have an hour on them, etc. Way too easy to get towed in SF. You're just screwed with or without a car in SF. I didnt have a car in Sao Paulo, but the subway system was so adequate, it didn't effect me whatsoever.
Plus, while I was younger at the time, I could go out all night in Sao Paulo and then some...once was at a disco at noon the next day. In contrast to SF which has 1am closing time, but trains stopping at 12:30, so half of them close their bars around midnight (which is just about the time you start to go out for the night in Sao Paulo for a rather long and fun night out).
Definitely Sao Paulo, by a long shot. Just a lot more fun.
San Francisco might have been interesting in another era. But, the cost of living was too high, so I couldn't adequately enjoy anything. It's become too yuppified. The haves and the have nots are way too divided and in full-force in that city.
Homeless population, both cities had homeless issues, but San Francisco was significantly worse. You can't go anywhere in SF without having homeless coming up to you. Went into a Wendys fastfood restaurant, and had THREE different people come inside to ask for money from me. Which is already in addition to the types lingering around outside of the fastfood restaurants waiting to ask you for a dollar or $5. Market Street is the worse, which is the main artery of the city. Just 100s and 100s of homeless people (i.e. 99% linger in the mind of always being predominately adult males between the ages of 25-40) absolutely everywhere hanging out asking for money.
In contrast to Sao Paulo, which also had a homeless element, but just seemed way more tolerable than SF in that regard. Actually Sao Paulo had homeless street kids which were more disturbing. But at least didn't get the constant streams of healthy adult men hitting you up every two seconds like SF. It's strongly in the SF culture there.
I also liked Sao Paulo's subway system better than San Francisco's. SF has more of a commuter system going out to the suburbs, and nearly impossible to go from A to B efficiently within the city itself. Plus they discourage cars - i.e. 100s of people driving around and around blocks looking for meters that only have an hour on them, etc. Way too easy to get towed in SF. You're just screwed with or without a car in SF. I didnt have a car in Sao Paulo, but the subway system was so adequate, it didn't effect me whatsoever.
Plus, while I was younger at the time, I could go out all night in Sao Paulo and then some...once was at a disco at noon the next day. In contrast to SF which has 1am closing time, but trains stopping at 12:30, so half of them close their bars around midnight (which is just about the time you start to go out for the night in Sao Paulo for a rather long and fun night out).
The haves and have nots would be even more blatantly obvious in Sao Paulo than it would in San Francisco.
Look at this pic of Sao Paulo for example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
