U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 02-12-2012, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Guangzhou, China
8,285 posts, read 6,687,051 times
Reputation: 8664

Advertisements


 
Old 02-12-2012, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,362 posts, read 33,233,960 times
Reputation: 10748
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
So Mexicans do not constitute a large percentage of the city's foreign-born population?
Less than 10% of San Francisco's foreign born population was born in Mexico. More SF foreigners were born in Europe than Mexico.

 
Old 02-12-2012, 11:18 PM
 
13 posts, read 2,898 times
Reputation: 22
Oh god.... This thread is getting out of hand. Personally the average american would know that Philly is more urban than San Francisco, and it is. But please, how can we argue Philly is more urban than San Francisco? More like How Can We Argue How San Francisco is Not As Urban As Philly.
 
Old 02-13-2012, 02:36 AM
 
Location: MIA/DC
1,190 posts, read 1,063,757 times
Reputation: 664
SF is more urban
 
Old 02-13-2012, 06:15 AM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
897 posts, read 361,372 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
So Mexicans do not constitute a large percentage of the city's foreign-born population?

But that wasn't really my point anyway. Philadelphia has a very different composition than San Francisco. Most Philadelphians have been in the city for generations. There isn't a large, transient yuppie class that has virtually no connection to the city at large (DC being a very good example). It's probably the largest American city with a substantial, white working-class population. And in that regard, the city is very unique. That's why I always call it a "throwback" city for better or worse. It has an "old school" flavor to it that's not found in many other places.

Is Philadelphia more closed than other cities? I'd say yes. And there's a definite downside to that. But the upside is that the city has a very distinct personality that's been largely unaltered over the years. That's what I love about it.

http://bymyink.files.wordpress.com/2...ootinmouth.jpg
 
Old 02-13-2012, 09:15 AM
 
515 posts, read 491,719 times
Reputation: 253
I'm not entirely sure what diversity has to do with being "urban". Tokyo, which is not known for its diversity, is probably one of the most urban places I've ever been. Likewise, the cities across Europe are incredibly urban, however many are not particularly diverse.

Regardless, for those who think that San Francisco is some white-washed vanillaville do not have a clue. I do find it surprising that there are posters from the east coast who have such a hard time accepting the fact that there are both urban and diverse places on the west coast. Believe it or not, life does exist outside of the NE corridor.

I think this thread has demonstrated that:
Can you argue Philly is more urban than San Francisco? No.
Can you argue San Francisco is more urban than Philly? No.

If you replace the word "urban" with the word "gritty", then I think that Philly would win.
 
Old 02-13-2012, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,609 posts, read 10,177,213 times
Reputation: 6208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
As much as I know you love to talk **** about SF, get a clue. NE SF does not = SF any more than NW DC = DC or Williamsburg = Brooklyn.
I don't think I'm talking s*** about SF at all. In fact, you said the very same thing I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
The main reason I find Hipsters annoying is because they tend to retain all of the worst qualities of the internet generation. A lot of them seem to think that they're superior human beings because they learned everything they know about life outside of their white bread suburbs from a computer screen... these are the same people who claim to be "far more open minded than the mainstream" but in reality see minorities as cute, cuddly and (most importantly) firmly below them on the social ladder which is what allows them to pretend to have something in common. Why else do you get a ****load of rich hipsters living in The Mission, a predominantly latino working class neighorhood that has issues with gang violence? It's not like the Hipsters ever truly connnect themselves to the neighborhood... for them it's just a way of proving that they're "not pretentious" and "authentic" or whatever bull**** they think they're proving. Strangely enough, the overflow of Hipsters in SF is finding its way to Fruitvale (equivalent Mexican neighborhood in Oakland) Temescal (historic black neighorhood) and West Oakland (historic black neighborhood). The saddest part of this is that these people end up driving the housing prices in the area up another grand BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY RICH, and they eventually kick the locals out. And once the area suddenly becomes "too pretentious" (ie there's too many other hipsters for them to stand out as the lone 'individuals') they start the **** over again and gentrify another neighborhood. ..
Now how is what you said different from what I said?

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
What makes you think all hipsters are white, rich and uncultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Did I mention that the vast majority of hipsters are white? I wonder why that is.
Told ya. I always go with Bay Area sources. I have plenty more if you want it.

Last edited by BajanYankee; 02-13-2012 at 09:43 AM..
 
Old 02-13-2012, 10:06 AM
 
Location: The Bay
6,919 posts, read 6,942,730 times
Reputation: 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I don't think I'm talking s*** about SF at all. In fact, you said the very same thing I said.



Now how is what you said different from what I said?





Told ya. I always go with Bay Area sources. I have plenty more if you want it.

The difference is you're saying all or the vast majority of SF is like what I described in that post when really there's a very clear distinction between NE SF vs. South SF (not the city South San Francisco) or West SF. Most people who visit SF twice - and sadly enough, a lot of recent transplants - never see the other sides of the City. They've been there the whole time though.

To be clear, there are some exceptions in NE SF (Tenderloin, Chinatown, Japantown, Pacific Heights, etc) but for the most part I would agree that NE SF is becoming a hipster enclave of sorts. There's always been white people in the area (San Francisco's always been a majority white city) so it's not accurate to say that it's demographically shifted. What's new, though, is the overwhelming influx of wealthy transplants and lack of middle or working class transplants.


EDIT: And for the last quote you pulled up, it's obvious why most hipsters are white... they make up the overwhelming majority of American suburbs. Hipsters almost never originate from the big city, that's where they gravitate to when they're able to get out of the burbs.

And the term "white bread" isn't a racial term, it's more to describe something as being bland.

Last edited by Nineties Flava; 02-13-2012 at 10:15 AM..
 
Old 02-13-2012, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,609 posts, read 10,177,213 times
Reputation: 6208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
The difference is you're saying all or the vast majority of SF is like what I described in that post when really there's a very clear distinction between NE SF vs. South SF (not the city South San Francisco) or West SF. Most people who visit SF twice - and sadly enough, a lot of recent transplants - never see the other sides of the City. They've been there the whole time though.
I didn't say that the majority of San Francisco is like that. I said that you have a large, transient class that's completely out of touch with the larger region. And this gives the city a rather sterile feel compared to East Oakland or Richmond (where I also visited). In contrast, Philadelphia is "a provincial, blue-collar, post-industrial rustbelt Mid-Atlantic city sandwiched between Washington and New York." Well, at least that's the "progressive" SWPL view of Philadelphia (Can there possibly be a more self-congratulatory term than "progressive," btw?)

The good thing about Philadelphia is that you don't get many of those types of people. I mean, if you could afford the hipster lifestyle, why wouldn't you move to San Francisco, Portland, the Village or Williamsburg?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
And the term "white bread" isn't a racial term, it's more to describe something as being bland.
I understood what you meant. They bring that same blandness to the city.
 
Old 02-13-2012, 12:49 PM
 
32 posts, read 5,974 times
Reputation: 18
You can argue that Philadelphia is more urban than SF.

How many people here have been to both cities? Seriously? I'm sick and tired of people sleeping on Philadelphia.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top