Random: Ia San Francisco the third city if chicago is the second city (cons, airport)

[kcee510]

Originally Posted by gogetta

San Francisco has a gritty downtown compared to most other US cities. When I walk down the street in DT SF you would think that SF would have a higher % of African Americans. Black culture is prevalent in SF opposed to what one would think.

Most of the African American populations are across the Bay in Oakland/Richmond/El Cerrito areas.

[bhj867]

Originally Posted by gogetta

San Francisco has a gritty downtown compared to most other US cities. When I walk down the street in DT SF you would think that SF would have a higher % of African Americans. Black culture is prevalent in SF opposed to what one would think.

High African American Population does not necessarily = gritty thank u very much.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Sf is also the only place in the bay area that really resembles a what most people would regard as a city. As small and insignificant as it may be.

Lol I think it has at least SOME significance.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by TheWereRabbit

On the other side of the bay, of course.
You folks keep your minorities in your city? how quaint.

Lol. This isn't really very different from most of Chicago's black population residing in its south and west sides. If we're looking at a comparable-sized area surrounding downtown SF, then the location of Oakland, Richmond and other Bay Area cities with large black populations aren't very different, although Chicago would still have a larger black population. SF city proper is kind of the same way with its (now) small black population being concentrated for the most part on the southeast side of the city.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by mas23

YEah SF got more asians i'll give you that, but slowdown, cause devon ave is one of the largest south asian communities in the country. SF dont really got too much black people either. They're all in other urban-like suburbs like oakland and others. (same with asians in chi. they mostly live in the burbs.)

What you said here is true for the most part, except Oakland is about as much a suburb of SF as Milwaukee is of Chicago. Its w/o a doubt its own major city, and far from being a suburb of SF. Its more like what St. Paul is to Minneapolis or what Ft. Worth is to Dallas.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by lakal

Of course, this points to the fact that Chciago's lation populationis more diverse than San Francisco's.

Care to explain how this is the case? I have yet to see side-by-side comparisons with breakdowns for each city's diversity in Hispanic population, so I think you're making quite a bold claim here. Any proof, or are you just talking out your a$$?

Originally Posted by lakal

San Francisco is so diverse...lol, so where are the black people??

Why the need to be rude? Chicago is SOOOO diverse, where are all the Chinese people?? Filipinos?? Vietnamese people?? Koreans?? Tongans?? Samoans??

So the City of SF's black population has gotten low. Does Chicago having a larger black population somehow define diversity? Chicago has plenty of weak points in its "diversity" as well, so cool your jets there pal! It is possible to disagree without coming off like a jerk, ya know?

Originally Posted by lakal

LOL, still represented at a rate about equal or greater than their U.S. population. Can you say the same for black people in SF and the greater Bay area (not just places like Oakland and Richmond)?

LOL can YOU say the same for Asian or Native American people in Chicago?

(Hint: No, you can't. )

Originally Posted by lakal

How is the Hispanic population more diverse in the Bay?

How is it more diverse in Chicago?

Originally Posted by lakal

The Northside isn't an independent city, however...SF is.

Convenient how it works out that way, isn't it? I suppose if you put blinders on you could ignore the fact that arbitrary city lines separating an ethnic population from one city right across the street from where it's located is not any different from that same ethnic community being contained inside the confines of a section of a city. Particularly when we're looking at two cities that are not comparable in size, and comparing comparable amounts of land space would even things out significantly.

But you would never bring anything outside of Chicago's city limits into this discussion since we're being sticklers on city limits now, right?? Oh wait a minute, YES YOU WOULD!!

Originally Posted by lakal

Cicero is 78.44% hispanic.
West Chicago, 48.60%
Aurora, 46.56%
Blue Island, 37.93%
Elgin 34.32%

Make up your mind. If you get to use your suburbs in this comparison, then SF gets to too. Its only being realistic to look at Chicagoland vs. The Bay Area and not suddenly omitting relevant info b/c it lies immediately outside of arbitrary political boundaries. Especially considering you used that exact kind of info in this same argument earlier!

Originally Posted by lakal

It's also Orthodox Jewish, just down the block...where are the orthodox jews in SF?

Where are the Chicagoans who can discuss this w/o throwing lame, unnecessary jabs? What's the purpose in communicating like a bratty 6 year old?

Where are all the Polynesians in Chicago? We could do this for days if you want to, but its pretty pointless. SF has larger amounts of certain ethnicities and Chicago excels with others. Leave it at that. The obnoxious method of rubbing it in each others face is not even called for.

If you want to award points for each ethnic grouping that is better represented in each city, then provide a comprehensive list that breaks it all down and then we can compare them head to head. The one from C-D favors SF, but here's how it looks:

SF - 9 points

White - 43.6% (point SF)
Chinese - 19.6% (point SF)
Hispanic - 14.1%
Black - 7.8%
Other race - 6.5%
Filipino - 5.2% (point SF)
2 or more races - 4.3% (point SF)
Other Asian - 1.5% (point SF)
Japanese - 1.5% (point SF)
Vietnamese - 1.4% (point SF)
American Indian - 1.2% (point SF)
Korean - 1% (point SF)
Asian Indian - 0.7%

Chicago - 4 points

Black - 36.8% (point Chicago)
White - 31.3%
Hispanic - 26% (point Chicago)
Other race - 13.6% (point Chicago)
2 or more races - 2.9%
Chinese - 1.1%
Filipino - 1.0%
Asian Indian - 0.9% (point Chicago)
American Indian - 0.7%
Other Asian - 0.5%

http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Fr...alifornia.html

http://www.city-data.com/city/Chicago-Illinois.html

The way I see it, Chicago is significantly more black, while its Asian population at 3.5% is minuscule and much smaller than SF's relatively small black population, and SF is significantly more Asian. SF has more white people and Chicago has more Hispanics, but the differences aren't so great that it makes that huge of a difference in either category. But that's really only looking at those 4 major racial groupings.

Feel free to provide another breakdown/link that would provide more detailed info that could better show either city's diversity. Or better yet, each metro's stats since this is only looking at each city's proper. But until you can show something better, SF is definitely looking more diverse. And the Bay Area is much more so, especially when we're including Oakland.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

The bay area may be a more racially diverse, but we are talking SF and Chicago here. Sf is a city largely of Chinese and whites.

Well we weren't JUST talking SF and Chicago when lakal was showing us Chicago suburbs with high percentages of Hispanic populations. Where were you with your "city only" policy enforcement then?

Chicago is a city largely of blacks and whites. Its Hispanic population is larger than ours, but not by much more than our non-Chinese Asian population counts for (around 10%). SF is about 63% white & Chinese, while Chicago is over 68% black & white. 26% Hispanic added on top of that doesn't leave much room for everything else (only 6%), where in SF a 14% Hispanic population added to the previous total still leaves 23% of the population to consist of other races/ethnicities. So SF is still more diverse.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

The real third city after New York and Chicago would be PHILLY NO question.

LMAO, oh I think there's some question following that ridiculous statement lol. LA, DC, Houston and Boston may have a thing or two to say about that. Your opinion isn't automatically the authority, buddy. You're giving yourself a bit too much credit here in stating it like that.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Sf is a little city like Seattle. Still a baby.

STILL a baby? In what way? Its not like its boundaries have anywhere to expand to, nor is it at all detached from the continuous development that surrounds it around the Bay. Its not like its waiting to finally mature into a larger entity, its been a major player for 160 years now. Its small in stature, but not in impact. I don't get what you have against it, but you're off-base in your commentary of it.

[lakal]

Originally Posted by jman650

Care to explain how this is the case? I have yet to see side-by-side comparisons with breakdowns for each city's diversity in Hispanic population, so I think you're making quite a bold claim here. Any proof, or are you just talking out your a$$?



Why the need to be rude? Chicago is SOOOO diverse, where are all the Chinese people?? Filipinos?? Vietnamese people?? Koreans?? Tongans?? Samoans??

So the City of SF's black population has gotten low. Does Chicago having a larger black population somehow define diversity? Chicago has plenty of weak points in its "diversity" as well, so cool your jets there pal! It is possible to disagree without coming off like a jerk, ya know?



LOL can YOU say the same for Asian or Native American people in Chicago?

(Hint: No, you can't. )



How is it more diverse in Chicago?



Convenient how it works out that way, isn't it? I suppose if you put blinders on you could ignore the fact that arbitrary city lines separating an ethnic population from one city right across the street from where it's located is not any different from that same ethnic community being contained inside the confines of a section of a city. Particularly when we're looking at two cities that are not comparable in size, and comparing comparable amounts of land space would even things out significantly.

But you would never bring anything outside of Chicago's city limits into this discussion since we're being sticklers on city limits now, right?? Oh wait a minute, YES YOU WOULD!!



Make up your mind. If you get to use your suburbs in this comparison, then SF gets to too. Its only being realistic to look at Chicagoland vs. The Bay Area and not suddenly omitting relevant info b/c it lies immediately outside of arbitrary political boundaries. Especially considering you used that exact kind of info in this same argument earlier!


Where are the Chicagoans who can discuss this w/o throwing lame, unnecessary jabs? What's the purpose in communicating like a bratty 6 year old?

Where are all the Polynesians in Chicago? We could do this for days if you want to, but its pretty pointless. SF has larger amounts of certain ethnicities and Chicago excels with others. Leave it at that. The obnoxious method of rubbing it in each others face is not even called for.

If you want to award points for each ethnic grouping that is better represented in each city, then provide a comprehensive list that breaks it all down and then we can compare them head to head. The one from C-D favors SF, but here's how it looks:

SF - 9 points

White - 43.6% (point SF)
Chinese - 19.6% (point SF)
Hispanic - 14.1%
Black - 7.8%
Other race - 6.5%
Filipino - 5.2% (point SF)
2 or more races - 4.3% (point SF)
Other Asian - 1.5% (point SF)
Japanese - 1.5% (point SF)
Vietnamese - 1.4% (point SF)
American Indian - 1.2% (point SF)
Korean - 1% (point SF)
Asian Indian - 0.7%

Chicago - 4 points

Black - 36.8% (point Chicago)
White - 31.3%
Hispanic - 26% (point Chicago)
Other race - 13.6% (point Chicago)
2 or more races - 2.9%
Chinese - 1.1%
Filipino - 1.0%
Asian Indian - 0.9% (point Chicago)
American Indian - 0.7%
Other Asian - 0.5%

http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Fr...alifornia.html

http://www.city-data.com/city/Chicago-Illinois.html

The way I see it, Chicago is significantly more black, while its Asian population at 3.5% is minuscule and much smaller than SF's relatively small black population, and SF is significantly more Asian. SF has more white people and Chicago has more Hispanics, but the differences aren't so great that it makes that huge of a difference in either category. But that's really only looking at those 4 major racial groupings.

Feel free to provide another breakdown/link that would provide more detailed info that could better show either city's diversity. Or better yet, each metro's stats since this is only looking at each city's proper. But until you can show something better, SF is definitely looking more diverse. And the Bay Area is much more so, especially when we're including Oakland.

Sensitive much? Who is being rude...lol especially when you're the one who is cursing at me?

You're taking this way too seriously.

[lakal]

BTW, Black isn't an ethnic group, it's a race. Comparing Chinese to Black is not equivalent.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

San Francisco is more densely populated than Chicago.

But it's 49 square miles vs. 237 square miles. If you cut out 49 square miles of Chicago that's largely residential (like SF), you get a population density that's fairly larger than SF's.

Chicago's is brought down by the huge open areas around Wolf Lake on the south side, the fact a large amount of industry is located within the city limits, as well as almost 10 square miles that makes up O'hare and Midway airports.

Either way.....this discussion will NEVER be "won".

I love San Fran and Chicago as the best cities in the country along with New York and Boston. If I ever left Chicago though - it would be to San Fran with no doubt.