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.
As the thread asks? Do you believe there no way to argue Philly is more urban than SF. Frankly I dont see how there is not an argument; nor if the question were inversed would there not be an argument
As the thread asks? Do you believe there no way to argue Philly is more urban than SF. Frankly I dont see how there is not an argument; nor if the question were inversed would there not be an argument
No, you can argue it, they're comparable. The OP even admitted his faux pas and apologized.
Given that 35% of the pop is foreign born, to call San Francisco homogenous is ridiculous.
There are more foreign born living in San Francisco, despite being half the population. They're all homogenous too?
A whole bunch of marginalized Mexicans? They're about as invisible to SF's ruling white/Asian class as the black population in Southeast DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Someone living and Brooklyn, across the river from Manhattan, bagging on hipsters...thats too funny.
Not really. NYC is a city of 8.4 million people. It has pretty much everything, including a few very annoying hipsters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Since Asians are homogenous too apparently, I take it you feel only black and Caribbean culture = authentic? Or are East Coast whites exempt from your scorn and YouTube videos?
That's not the issue. The issue is a bunch of yuppie transplants, who are mostly white and Asian, basically taking over the city. That's why it doesn't feel authentic to me. DC is the same way. It's hard to even find someone who was actually born and raised in SF/DC, attended the schools there, has all their family in the city, etc.
I specifically singled out Manhattan and Brooklyn as huge hipster/yuppie enclaves. Even Bed-Stuy will fall shortly, and you have the gall to bring up hipsters in SF? You're at the Promised Land for that culture--if you were staying in Queens, I'd be less puzzled by your trash talk.
Just as I suspected--trivializing San Fracisco's diversity (which is greater than Philly's) to suit your horrible crap arguments. You probably think Puerto Ricans have lots of "flava" and "cultcha" and Mexicans don't, huh?
A whole bunch of marginalized Mexicans? They're about as invisible to SF's ruling white/Asian class as the black population in Southeast DC.
Not really. NYC is a city of 8.4 million people. It has pretty much everything, including a few very annoying hipsters.
That's not the issue. The issue is a bunch of yuppie transplants, who are mostly white and Asian, basically taking over the city. That's why it doesn't feel authentic to me. DC is the same way. It's hard to even find someone who was actually born and raised in SF/DC, attended the schools there, has all their family in the city, etc.
What makes you think all hipsters are white, rich and uncultured?
Either way SF has plenty of authentic culture, I am sure it at least equals Philly's.
A whole bunch of marginalized Mexicans? They're about as invisible to SF's ruling white/Asian class as the black population in Southeast DC.
Do you have any personal experience to quantify this silly statement? The Mission District doesn't seem "invisible" or "marginalized". It's actually a popular hipster enclave and has a large Hispanic population.
You probably think Puerto Ricans have lots of "flava" and "cultcha" and Mexicans don't, huh?
That's totally obvious.
He almost seems to look down on Mexicans as if they arent 'real' Latinos or something, which is completely IRONIC considering that you can add up the populations of every island in the Caribbean and their total still is what? 3-4 times LESS than Mexico, which is large and extremely diverse nation all by itself.
No tiny island in the Caribbean is anywhere near as varied in every sense of the word, as Mexico.
You act as if there are no hipsters in Philly (or Brooklyn LOL. Pot, meet kettle)...or that not a single hipster can throw a decent punch.
What's the point of that anyways?
I'll play your silly game for a second:
Clint Eastwood, Bruce Lee, and Andre Ward (the 2004 US Olympics gold medal boxing champ) were all born in SF. Do you think a Philly hipster could go toe-to-toe with them? You see how easy it is to "debate" like this?
I'm beginning to think it's not northeast boosters who are particularly bad...every region has its boosters. But on this website at least, the northeast boosters (especially those from Philly and NYC) have a sizable subset that seems to constantly try and prove that they're "tough" and gritty, and "authentic", more so than any city anywhere else in the nation... especially cities that they mostly know only through stereotypes (SF is a prime example). And why do they think these delusional thoughts? Becuase they have more black and Caribbean people? Because they have the Jersey Shore and had the original rappers (NYC only, stop trying to ride those coattails, Philly boosters), and the Sopranos was filmed there? And it seems that in recent years it's been made extra urgent that you guys constantly repeat that "aggressive, tough guy, Northeasterners" boosting nonsense, now that NYC is statistically considered very safe. Like you guys need to constantly remind us to take you EXTRA seriously...and then you often use grit, poverty, crime, fight videos, and rap videos to try and make us do that? As if that's something to be so proud of, or as if none of that exists anywhere else? Feeling a bit insecure, you wannabe tough guys? It's amazingly childish and annoying.
"Hipster" culture, which dominates San Francisco unlike any other city, is not "real" culture. It's inauthentic. Any real culture SF had got wiped from the city once rich white kids (and honorary Asians) who attended blue-ribbon schools in largely homogeneous suburbs invaded the city. Now they get to "shake that thang" to Flo Rida and Sir Mix-a-Lot in cool, hip night clubs in funky nabes and get real "hyphy." Its sterility is rivaled only by Northwest Washington, DC.
I won't argue with you about any of the causes behind the occupy protests. Lobbying money and inequality seem like good enough ones even if they aren't as immediately visceral as the Vietnam war.
Side note: I should clarify and say that I'm grouping the occupy protests in the bay area as one--the one in Oakland certainly had a large turnout (and a very non-progressive reaction from the police).
Calling SF just hipster culture sounds off the mark to me. Given that the city is a third of the city of SF is Asian, a sixth Hispanic, and there being a huge array of other peoples who live in SF (including a lot of professionals of all races who definitely do not qualify as hipster) and an equally diverse metro area, I think you're painting much too broad of a stroke there. Also, I don't see why those who are wealthy and white (who again are not a majority of the city) can't create culture.
SF has both grit and posh. It can be "sterile" in parts, but most cities have its areas like that--especially cities that are attractive for people to move into.
I'd like to add that I disagree with the original post in this topic. Philly and SF weigh against each other pretty well in many metrics (I'd add Boston to this mix). The three are far closer overall to each other when talking about how urban American cities are than to other cities. However, I'm also in as much disagreement with those who try to swing way to the other side and argue SF is somehow not in that same tier of urbanity.
Side note: I should clarify and say that I'm grouping the occupy protests in the bay area as one--the one in Oakland certainly had a large turnout (and a very non-progressive reaction from the police)..
The Oakland one was larger, but Occupy SF was one of the biggest in the nation as well. Occupy Oakland got/gets way more publicity though, which is not surprising, seeing as it was a bit bigger AND the perpetually Oakland-bashing SF Chronicle is at the forefront of the mainstream reporting there (even to a greater extent than the reporting on the Occupy event in their own city). To be fair there has been more violence at Occupy Oakland, and thus some of the extra attention was legit...but Oakland also got a little more attention than deserved. For example, some of the violent incidents widely attributed to Oakland PD, such as the Iraq vet who got shot in the head with a tear gas can, were actually caused by other law enforcement agencies that were called in to assist (such as the SF Sheriff's Dept, and random suburban depts that had little training or experience in crowd control).
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.
