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 a sad piece it is. Maybe there is a little boom-envy there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
San Franciscans and Manhattanites likely share the most similar lives socioeconomically and the business culture in both cities is the worlds elite.
There are distinct interconnections. There is definitely a fair amount of migration between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orzo
The Bay Area is arguably the most diverse metro in the Country and SF (while not as diverse as some other parts of the Bay) feels incredibly multi-cultural and diverse as well.
It is and it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
Which raises the point, why is it viewed through such a narrow lens?
Only by outsiders . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
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 don't take Jay-Z as an expert on Oakland. But I can see why the comparisons are sometimes made. I don't think they really make sense, but I can see why they are made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCookie
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.
There are poor people in the United States. They often lack the influence and power of richer people. That happens in Seattle and Portland, too. From what I gather there are, in fact, homeless people in Vancouver--I suspect that they, too, are marginalized.
SF (and the greater Bay Area) is more diverse than Seattle and Vancouver. We also have a wider gap between the rich and poor than either of those places, in part because of just how big the current boom is. That said, you don't sound like you have only a skin-deep understanding of SF and its interconnection with the Bay Area. There are middle and working class people across the region. The black and latino populations are not universally marginalized, as you seem to imply. In fact, Western Addition (mostly black) is politically influential. Predominantly black neighborhoods are politically influential in two of SF's 11 legislative districts. Two other districts are heavily influenced by their latino population.
Really, each neighborhood in this city is kind of its own village. If you didn't explore much beyond the village where you lived/worked, then you probably saw little of what we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuddedLeather
NYC and inferiority complex in the same sentence in regards to SF. . . LOL
From the article Montclair posted:
And there is plenty of conspicuous consumption in SV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
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.
Very wrong. While there is gang activity in the Mission, painting the latino community with a gang-connected brush is flagrantly inaccurate and absurd. It is also morally wrong, as well as wrong in reality, to say that black people don't matter in SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
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.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
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.
While outsiders may not see the other sides to SF (excepting, of course, Chinatown)--those sides are real and part of our lives. I do not accept the perception of visitors as my reality, and I think that is true for most people here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
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.
The highest concentrations of black people are, yes, in southern neighborhoods (and Western Addition). Most people who live here are aware of those places and, in fact, see and interact with black people regularly (who don't all live in the ghetto, by the way).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
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.
Actually, I think the really bad parts of SF are the ones that are not gentrifying. Paris, too, "is an international city renowned as being one of the top ten most beautiful cities in the world" that has grittier sides that aren't seen by visitors. The nature of most tourism is that tourists visit the touristy parts of cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510
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.
We also have two black supervisors, two latino supervisors, and five asian supervisors (for 9 out of 11 supervisors). It's true that power talks, though--everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
I disagree with Mont's article. I am from near NYC so I know the state and I don't want SF Bay Area to be anything like NYC. I want us to be better than NYC at everything New Yorkers care about. Because we are better, we are blessed with weather, scenery, culture, and location and if there was anything we ever lacked to NYC it was power and money but now we're the richest and most powerful economy in the free world. An economy more dynamic than even China!
Well, with all of that money and power have come challenges (namely affordability) that we haven't met yet. And I would not go so far as to say that our economy is the most powerful in the free world, or that it is more dynamic than China's. Let's see how sustainable this boom is, first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz
Portland is like a more rural Seattle.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do have to fix this for you: Portland is like a much better in every way Seattle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro
The majority of people, obviously don't take the time to read the OP.
Vibe and Day to Day Culture, are the determining factors here. Not density, population, economy or fortune 500 rich people statistics.
As I said earlier, Portland and Seattle lack the diverse vibe/culture of SF. LA and San Diego are much closer in this respect.
I don't really think that LA and San Diego are necessarily closer than Portland and Seattle. They are closer in some ways but further in others. I think Portland, specifically, is probably closest of any of the four. While it is not close in demographic diversity, other aspects of Portland's culture do reflect aspects of SF's (I'm thinking the casual atmosphere, focus on outdoor activities, tendency to value quality of life, importance of public transit, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
A huge to dominant percentage of Asians in SF are foreign-born and a huge percentage of whites in SF are nomadic rich people hailing from Maine to Utah to L.A.
I don't think you are quite right here . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
SF is a city celebrated more for its scenery rather than its people. America is still very homophobic, as a whole. Because of this many visitors are taken aback by all the open homosexuality that is on display downtown and in areas like the Castro or other areas that are heavily white in the city.
I'm not sure if you are saying that gay people in SF are scenery rather than people--but I would certainly disagree with that if it is what you are saying. SF is a pretty city, with its hills, its Bay, and its bridges. Paris is a pretty city, with its architecture and its river. Tourists come to see touristy stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
SF's bad areas are not publicized because tourism is SF's number one industry.All SF has is tourism, period. And SF is one of the premier international tourist cities. Because of this, the slogan is "don't go to Oakland" instead of "don't get lost downtown, deep in the Mission or at least a mile and a half around Candlestick Park"; the latter would keep a lot of people out of trouble.
SF has a lot more than tourism. It is a premier tourist city, but it is also the beating heart of the greater Bay Area. It is influential politically, socially, historically, and technologically. There are bad neighborhoods, like most American cities. Why would those areas be publicized to tourists? Residents know about them, and also about our affordability problems. Do you know about the problems in Clichy sous Bois? East London? North Portland?
SF is more similar to Baltimore/Cincinnati/St. Louis in appearance and architecture than any of the cities listed.
LA doesn't have the consistent uninterrupted street-wall that SF has. LA is detached apartments with more Mediterranean (and ugly dingbat) stucco apartments. That, and ALOT more detached single family bungalows with back and front yards. Appearance wise, not really like SF.
San Diego is a less dense, more suburban LA.
Seattle has dense Craftsman architecture along rolling hills. However, both Seattle and SF experienced a great fire around the same time. Whereas SF continued to construct row houses, Seattle opted for detached houses for safety reasons (that being said, houses in Seattle are detached by about just a little more than a foot). SF has Victorian architecture whereas Seattle has mostly Craftsman and Queen Anne. Seattle has more front yards with lush vegetation whereas SF is denser by not including front yards. Appearance wise, they are similar in that they're both dense and built on steep hills. They differ in that Seattle has lush front yards whereas SF is denser with no yards and most concrete.
San Francisco is much denser than Seattle, it also feels older. Cincinnati and St. Louis don't have a consistent uninterrupted street-wall outside some inner, central neighborhoods.
San Francisco is much denser than Seattle, it also feels older. Cincinnati and St. Louis don't have a consistent uninterrupted street-wall outside some inner, central neighborhoods.
That's why I stated that none of the listed cities are quite comparable. Seattle is much more suburban than SF. Seattle also lacks urban walls save for downtown whereas SF has urban walls throughout the city.
That's why I stated that none of the listed cities are quite comparable. Seattle is much more suburban than SF. Seattle also lacks urban walls save for downtown whereas SF has urban walls throughout the city.
Seattle "urban wall" areas extend further out than Downtown (First Hill, International District, Capitol Hill, Pioneer Square, Belltown, Cascade/SLU, portions of Lower Queen Anne) - but for the most part you are correct. SF is on another level with urban walls throughout the City, while in Seattle they are only in a relatively small portion of the City. Some areas - like portions of the CD, Dexter, and a few other areas are developing urban walls but they aren't there yet.
Seattle "urban wall" areas extend further out than Downtown (First Hill, International District, Capitol Hill, Pioneer Square, Belltown, Cascade/SLU, portions of Lower Queen Anne) - but for the most part you are correct. SF is on another level with urban walls throughout the City, while in Seattle they are only in a relatively small portion of the City. Some areas - like portions of the CD, Dexter, and a few other areas are developing urban walls but they aren't there yet.
I live in Cap Hill; our apartments are often detached with the only uninterrupted wall being along some parts of Broadway. We are simply less dense and unless Seattle council decides to bulldoze huge swaths of neighborhoods of single family homes to make way for apartments (never going to happen) Seattle will simply never be as dense or as populated. According to city officials, under current zoning codes, Seattle's max potential population capacity is 800,000. So even if Seattle continues to develop and actually develops to its maximum potential, Seattle won't even be as populated or as dense per square mile than SF is today (and by that time SF will have increased in population as well, probably we'll over a million).
I live in Cap Hill; our apartments are often detached with the only uninterrupted wall being along some parts of Broadway. We are simply less dense and unless Seattle council decides to bulldoze huge swaths of neighborhoods of single family homes to make way for apartments (never going to happen) Seattle will simply never be as dense or as populated. According to city officials, under current zoning codes, Seattle's max potential population capacity is 800,000. So even if Seattle continues to develop and actually develops to its maximum potential, Seattle won't even be as populated or as dense per square mile than SF is today (and by that time SF will have increased in population as well, probably we'll over a million).
Just curious - would you call this type of residential development an "urban wall"? Capitol Hill has plenty of this, although I can understand why you wouldn't define it as that: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6172...k2LIEK1Nyw!2e0
Overall, I think you make a good point - but it's interesting to note that the majority of Seattle residents do live in multi-family housing. The issue now is that there seem to be either huge super blocks of massive, ugly new housing developments or very close together single family homes. There aren't enough in between options, like SF's rowhouses for instance. And the urban fabric is so patchy, as you note. Neighborhoods like Queen Anne, U District, and Ballard have a couple of "urban wall" streets but other spotty sections as well.
SF's urban fabric is incredibly consistent and, for that reason, it will be much denser than Seattle for the forseeable future. However, right now SF is having major housing issues because NIMBYs and city policy don't allow for taller developments that can meet the extraordinary demand for housing in SF. It's causing housing prices to skyrocket.
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.
