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.
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.
Detroit is 82% black
Baltimore is 63% black
Philly is 43% black and 41%white ...so its pretty split down the line with that..
This is actually the first census (2010) that the black population percentage is higher (by literally 1%) Whites/Italians have always been the more dominant race in Philly which is why I asked if you were familiar with the demographics with Philly or if you were just talking out of your ***. So if you're implying that Philly is "too black" based off of Demographics..that can't be right. It's not really my place to educate you on how ridiculously ignorant you seem, I was just moreso interested in how this ignorant person (you) thinks and why you would say such a thing..but I guess my next question if you're up for it since you said that statement in reference to hipsters, only white people can be hipsters?
I didn't say there wasn't a large white population in Philly, I said there's not a large hipster population in Philly (which was originally stated by BajanYankee). Did you not read the last 4 pages of this thread? We've been talking about hipsters, which are generally white. Not all white people are hipsters.
The point of posting the demographics of the surrounding suburbs was to show how little the surrounding suburbs resemble the hub city racially. If you want to pretend that there's no racial chasm implied by that, be my guest.
I didn't say there wasn't a large white population in Philly, I said there's not a large hipster population in Philly (which was originally stated by BajanYankee). Did you not read the last 4 pages of this thread? We've been talking about hipsters, which are generally white. Not all white people are hipsters.
No, what you said was "Philly is too black" did you not read your own post? Which isn't the case if you're speaking demographically...unless you meant something else by "too black" which is why I asked before assuming. If you put your foot in your mouth just bow out gracefully now... Well it may be too late for gracefully.
No, what you said was "Philly is too black" did you not read your own post? Which isn't the case if you're speaking demographically...unless you meant something else by "too black" which is why I asked before assuming. If you put your foot in your mouth just bow out gracefully now... Well it may be too late for gracefully.
Continue to deny the reason why the suburbs around Philly look like they were pulled from metro Detroit if you like... that doesn't make the obvious any less obvious.
Someone pull up the stats for hipster population for both cities. Oh wait, you can't. SF and the Bay Area are simply more diverse than Philly overall. What does that have to do with urbanity? Just a bit, not that much. The fact is both cities are urban by a lot of metrics. SF is more white-collar and more affluent--that's demonstrably true. Other than that, there's not much more to go by. These are two premier cities of the US with strengths in different areas, but with more in common with each other than with other cities/metros. This is almost pointless--the aim of the original topic is false and all this arguing is just minor details. There is no point in swerving to the extremes of one side or another except in very specific categories (fortune 500 headquarters or density over X physical area, etc.).
Continue to deny the reason why the suburbs around Philly look like they were pulled from metro Detroit if you like... that doesn't make the obvious any less obvious.
Exactly. You have nothing to say. I never questioned about the demo's of the suburbs or what hipsters were attracted to, you went on to the suburbs once you realized you were wrong about the city, the suburbs were never apart of my question. But what I did ask was why would say something like that..when you're quite wrong and clearly didn't know what the hell you were talking about. You said "Philly is too black." I then provided you with facts in reference to the census data that shows whites/Itlians/Irish have ALWAYS been the dominant race in Philly. You then/now fail to have a decent rebutle to that ridiculously ignorant and wrong statement.
Had you said "Baltimore/Detroit is too black for.." It still would have been an ignorant statement to me but at least you would have the facts on your side since those cities are perdominatly black by a nice margin. But that's just never been the case with Philly. You opened that can of worms so eat up, educate yourself kid.
Exactly. You have nothing to say. I never questioned about the demo's of the suburbs or what hipsters were attracted to, you went on to the suburbs once you realized you were wrong about the city, the suburbs were never apart of my question. But what I did ask was why would say something like that..when you're quite wrong and clearly didn't know what the hell you were talking about. You said "Philly is too black." I then provided you with facts in reference to the census data that shows whites/Itlians/Irish have ALWAYS been the dominant race in Philly. You then/now fail to have a decent rebutle to that ridiculously ignorant and wrong statement.
Had you said "Baltimore/Detroit is too black for.." It still would have been an ignorant statement to me but at least you would have the facts on your side since those cities are perdominatly black by a nice margin. But that's just never been the case with Philly. You opened that can of worms so eat up, educate yourself kid.
rofl. What country were you born in again? Clearly not America. If you don't understand how 40% qualifies as "too black" as far as suburbia is concerned, you probably don't have much of anything worthwhile to say about this topic. Not too long ago, the percentage of black people white Americans were comfortable living next to in their neighborhoods was a whopping 7%. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of white Americans live in predominantly white suburbs and a comparatively small percentage live in diverse big cities. The people who are currently moving in droves from the suburbs to the cities don't lose the years of being conditioned to be scared of black people... most of the time they move to predominantly white condo developments or neighborhoods that are already predominantly white. If they were merely moving to cities like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. for the "urban experience" then why aren't there are a lot of hipsters in Baltimore, Philly, etc? Once again, you can play dumb if you like but the reason why hipsters largely avoid cities with large black populations is obvious to the point that I can't believe you have the audacity to deny it.
Someone pull up the stats for hipster population for both cities. Oh wait, you can't. SF and the Bay Area are simply more diverse than Philly overall. What does that have to do with urbanity? Just a bit, not that much. The fact is both cities are urban by a lot of metrics. SF is more white-collar and more affluent--that's demonstrably true. Other than that, there's not much more to go by. These are two premier cities of the US with strengths in different areas, but with more in common with each other than with other cities/metros. This is almost pointless--the aim of the original topic is false and all this arguing is just minor details. There is no point in swerving to the extremes of one side or another except in very specific categories (fortune 500 headquarters or density over X physical area, etc.).
BajanYankee does have a point though... there is a very concrete reason why SF is perceived as a hipster haven and Philadelphia is not despite being very arguably just as urban and just as interesting.
rofl. What country were you born in again? Clearly not America. If you don't understand how 40% qualifies as "too black" as far as suburbia is concerned, you probably don't have much of anything worthwhile to say about this topic. Not too long ago, the percentage of black people white Americans were comfortable living next to in their neighborhoods was a whopping 7%. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of white Americans live in predominantly white suburbs and a comparatively small percentage live in diverse big cities. The people who are currently moving in droves from the suburbs to the cities don't lose the years of being conditioned to be scared of black people... most of the time they move to predominantly white condo developments or neighborhoods that are already predominantly white. If they were merely moving to cities like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. for the "urban experience" then why aren't there are a lot of hipsters in Baltimore, Philly, etc? Once again, you can play dumb if you like but the reason why hipsters largely avoid cities with large black populations is obvious to the point that I can't believe you have the audacity to deny it.
Listen, you were wrong and you know that now. I understand your Internet pride on this forum is important. Remain ignorant, "be my guest" you know better for next time.
Listen, you were wrong and you know that now. I understand your Internet pride on this forum is important. Remain ignorant, "be my guest" you know better for next time.
What do you think you corrected me on? I was already aware that Philadelphia's black population was around 40%. This isn't the first time I've looked at Philadelphia's racial demographics. Not by a long shot.
If you could read you wouldn't continually misstate what I said:
Quote:
The reason why there aren't a lot of those types in Philadelphia is because the city is too black for a lot of those types. It's the same reason there weren't any of those types in Oakland until more recently.
Nowhere in there is there an insinuation that Philadelphia is 80% black or even majority black. Nowhere. That belief is of your own creation.
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.
