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.
That's the problem with SF. It's always defined from a wealthy white person's perspective in terms of mainstream media exposure. Seattle and Portland are defined from white perspectives too, although understandably because Portland and Seattle are much whiter in demographic proportion than SF. Stereotypically, when people think of SF, they think of the homeless in Golden Gate Park, hippies, gay people and rich liberal pretentious fart sniffers. All of these groups exist pretty much solely in SF's white population which is not even the overwhelming majority of the city. Because of this, people forget that SF is a large city in California with all the good, bad and in-between things that come with California cities and really is not all that similar to Seattle or Portland.
This is very interesting and actually explains a lot about our somewhat disappointing impressions of the city.
We came to the Bay Area a couple years ago from Vancouver, Canada, and are now planning to move to Seattle. I was excited to come to SF, with its reputation for being a beautiful world-class city. I loved the relaxed, liberal, casual vibe of Vancouver, and I was expecting SF to be just a bigger version of that with better culture, architecture, food, etc. And it was a bit of an unpleasant surprise to find it so much grittier and less, inviting, I guess, than I expected. To tell the truth, I always naively thought that Vancouver, Seattle, and SF were similar in culture and diversity; I thought Vancouver was extremely diverse, however as I found out, 'diverse' as in wealthy highly educated Asian immigrants is not the same 'diversity' as in the marginalized black and Latino populations that I didn't realize existed in SF to such extent. I had no clue that it's got scary projects like Hunter's Point and Sunnydale...and I didn't realize there was such a high level of income inequality in such a progressive-minded city, the snobby very rich, and the very poor, and not much of a middle class. All these things combined, SF just felt unwelcoming to us; we miss the intimate, chill, sparkling-clean vibe of Vancouver's downtown, and we look forward to moving back to the Northwest, though we'll miss the weather And honestly I'm glad to read on here that Seattle is different from SF...I hope we'll adjust better there.
Last edited by EvilCookie; 03-16-2014 at 12:43 AM..
That's the problem with SF. It's always defined from a wealthy white person's perspective in terms of mainstream media exposure. Stereotypically, when people think of SF, they think of the homeless in Golden Gate Park, hippies, gay people and rich liberal pretentious fart sniffers. All of these groups exist pretty much solely in SF's white population which is not even the overwhelming majority of the city. Because of this, people forget that SF is a large city in California with all the good, bad and in-between things that come with California cities and really is not all that similar to Seattle or Portland.
Interesting perspective. Not sure what to think of this.
Why doesn't the mainstream media talk about the regular folks who were born and raised in SF, such as:
My partners 85 year grandmother who remembers riding the trains on the Bay Bridge and remembers when North Beach was gritty with working piers and "uneducated" Italians. I guess cuz she's old.
Or the folks of Local 2 (SF Hotel & restaurants union), does this Union still exist? I was a brief card carrying member as it was required to work the Bohemian Club. Lots of hard-drinking black guys, and glib-speaking gay guys. They were always protesting one hotel or more.
Or the non-white undocumented who are on their 20th year of rent control, living in spacious apartments on the edges of Pacific Heights who sub-rent out to tourists for week long stays.
I see the comparisons. I've heard SF/Manhattan comparisons and Oakland/Brooklyn comparisons. In the same way Brooklyn is the historically more working class borough of NYC in comparison to Manhattan, and is now the hip, nouveau-artsy borough of NYC. Oakland seems to be o the same track, as it is gentrifying and attracting many a resident form SF, despite it's more working-class history. Jay-Z himself, has proclaimed "Oakland like Brooklyn".
I won't deny over the last decade or so Brooklyn has become more mainstream. But people honestly need to research more. Brooklyn has a rich history (look up B.A.M 150 Years, Brooklyn Museum, historic districts etc.), this notion that Brooklyn is somehow new and hip is false. In the past there were some decades where BK wasn't pretty but let's not act like the brownstones that people are now paying millions for, weren't there all along. This Brooklyn renaissance was inevitable and us Brooklynites knew how cool it was before people started to venture into our borough (not just transplants, tourist too and from all the other boroughs). They knew we were cool in 1898 when they wanted us to join the rest of the city. . .
You just can't compare Brooklyn to Oakland, it's truly not even a close comparison. Doesn't Oakland have a new major development named after Brooklyn? Cute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
The similarities with NYC is business. NYC in the last couple of years has started viewing San Francisco as its rival. San Franciscans and Manhattanites likely share the most similar lives socioeconomically and the business culture in both cities is the worlds elite.
Unfortunately NYC is out of its league. San Francisco is now the worlds most dynamic economy, our growth is higher than China's 7.1%. We are now the richest metro in world history and Wall Street execs are quickly retiring from the old declining industry back east to try their hand as venture capitalists in the worlds new axis of money and power, Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley will put Wall Street out of its misery soon. NYC's developing a notorious inferiority complex to the SF Bay Area. Their retaliation is 'Silicon Alley'.
NYC and inferiority complex in the same sentence in regards to SF. . . LOL
From the article Montclair posted:
San Francisco is a bit of the East Coast on the left coast, so I'd honestly say "Neither". It has more in common with Boston or Philadelphia than other West Coast cities.
I like this honesty. I've never been to SF, but it does seem to always be defined through the lens of a White Yuppies and Hipsters. Areas like Hunts-Point seem to be ignored.
Yes, because black people really don't matter as a whole in SF. The Latino population in SF doesn't have a voice either. SF's Latino population is very Californian seeing as a huge percentage of SF's Latino population was born and raised in Northern California or SF, itself. SF's Latino population also has deep-seated problems with crime and gangs. Nortenos, mostly Mexicans born and raised in Northern California who wear red, are entrenched in an unending bloody holy war with Surenos, mostly Mexicans born and raised in Southern California and Mexico who wear blue, in SF's heavily Latino, Mission District.
The Asian population is looked at as a monolithic fobby group, which is far from the truth. You have all types of Asian-American groups in SF from Chinese to Japanese to Filipino to Cambodians etc. And Asians in SF come from all walks of life from rich and upper middle class Asians to Asians living in the projects in the worst parts of the city in places like Sunnydale and Double Rock. Chris Rock was dead wrong when he said "there are no homeless Asian people", he definitely never spent any real time in SF if he truly believed that statement.
Although minorities collectively outnumber whites in SF, all you hear about when people talk about SF is white people (i.e. gays downtown and in the Castro, hippies and homeless people in Golden Gate Park, fart sniffing yuppie liberals etc.). Ultimately, SF is defined from such a wealthy white perspective because these are the people who are investing the most in the city through gentrification and tourism. White people from Utah and Maine moving to SF know nothing about SF other than the stereotypes and they never go into the dangerous outskirts of the city where all the scary black people reside. Perception becomes reality.
Black people are out of sight and out of mind for the most part in SF, so they don't matter. Unlike L.A., SF does not have Hollywood or major record labels to broadcast the plight of blacks living in ghetto areas like Hunter's Point, Sunnydale and Lakeview in SF despite the fact that these areas have churned out an obscene amount of independently produced Gangsta Rap since the 80's. Because L.A. is the showbiz capital of the world, people aren't allowed to forget about places like South Central and Compton. Boyz 'N The Hood is played on cable TV every week and Kendrick Lamar is here to remind us of how bad Compton is although the crime rate there is exponentially lower than it was 20 years ago.
Also, SF is an international city renowned as being one of the top ten most beautiful cities in the world with ambitions of climbing the lists in terms of wealth, reputation and tourism. Because of this, the other side of things in SF is never publicized in the mainstream national media despite the fact that the local news always talks about ghetto crime in SF just like any other big city in America. With the few really bad areas of SF being gentrified pretty quickly, the stereotypes of SF are quickly becoming a reality.
Last edited by LunaticVillage; 03-16-2014 at 10:27 AM..
I live 30 minutes from San Francisco and grew up in Oregon, been to Portland and Seattle a lot. Also been to LA plenty of times as well, have yet to see San Diego. And none of those places are like San Francisco from my experience. San Francisco is it's own thing and you won't find a substitute for it anywhere, same goes for those other cities. If you want to experience San Francisco you'll just have to come here.
SF is a very white & Asian city. The Chinese American population has a very significant voice (including the mayor) these days, so I wouldn't say only whites matter. But in the end, money and power talks, like anywhere else, so the Chicano bangers, immigrant dishwashers and black project-dwellers are not going to matter much to the city's "identity".
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.
And honestly I'm glad to read on here that Seattle is different from SF...I hope we'll adjust better there.
