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.
No, that last post was pretty clear of anything of that sort.
I was using your logic. If you look back at your own post in the previous page you stereotype Chicagoans. In retort I sarcastically said you were from New York. Besides, I never said why I guessed you were from New York.
According to the first list I could draw up, SF has 17 restaurants rated in there while Sonoma has 4, and the Bay Area has 34 overall. Sonoma is hardly the only reason for SF to have a guide, but even if it were it is still part of the Bay Area so that is pointless speculation. That's like someone saying if Chicago didn't have the Loop its skyline would be unimpressive or something lol.
Yes the premise that our restaurant scene is dependent on the Wine Country is highly misguided and not correct.
The food movement that now defines Bay Area cuisine first started in Berkeley, back in the 1970s, under the tutledge of culinary maven Alice Waters at her restaurant, Chez Panisse-which even today, is one of the most respected places to eat in the world.
Many of the world's great Chefs today trace their pedigrees back to her kitchen either directly or indirectly.
All of this is easily verifiable through Google.
Furthermore, when it comes to dining and the scene that has evolved up in the Napa/Sonoma Valleys, the Wine Country's proximity to San Francisco is more important than SFs proximity to the Wine Country.
I think I'd take the Bay Area over Chicago based on just the weather alone, but that's my own weak sauced-ness rather than any fault of Chicago's. They're both really great cities, though a few of the posters from Chicago in this topic seem to really be confused about the Bay Area.
I think this was brought up in another topic before, but one interesting factoid from this site (not the forum) was SF actually having denser census tracts of about 50K residents per square mile while Chicago's densest were around 30K residents per square mile.
Anyhow, we're wandering way off topic. Affordability is almost definitely on Chicago's side. The night life is alright in both areas, but I suspect Chicago's is actually better for the most part save for the LGBT crowd. Actually, I found SF's night life (as in really late night life) to be fairly low-key which sometimes I prefer but isn't generally what people are into. The really terrible thing about SF is a 2 am last call (made even worse by most of the mass transit system being shut down around 12 or 1).
Diversity is definitely in the Bay Area's favor on pretty much all counts as it is diverse almost throughout its metro and also hosts a very large contingent of people of foreign birth. What's more, I think diversity in terms of cultural origins is far more important than diversity in terms of race. Even if the ethnic balance swings far more towards Asians in the Bay Area, there is a far greater diversity within that category (Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, etc) than there might be within the racial category of black (if the vast majority are African-American rather than Caribbean or African) or the cultural category of hispanic (if the vast majority are Mexican and Puerto Rican).
Other considerations:
- weather and natural amenities generally favor the Bay Area
- progressive politics are much strong in the Bay Area, and for the most part, people in SF are simply more politically aware and active
I like that we can repeat this topic over and over. Always so fresh and exciting. coldwine was more fun though and was able to form a coherent thought. Same with dementor.
Also, let's not kid ourselves here, the Bay Area's "minorities" aren't exactly of the disadvantaged variety compared to Chicago's. The Bay is a destination for highly educated people from East Asia and South Asia, while Chicago is a magnet for all peoples looking for the American dream.
Are you under the false impression that we have no housing projects or low income neighborhoods populated by minorities? Or that the Bay Area somehow doesn't attract all these types looking for the exact same thing you described Chicago as attracting? Talk about kidding yourself.
Undergrad does not tell the entire story, that ranking was on one single arbitrary list, and Stanford still ranked above both of the Chicago schools in this one list so I'm not getting what your silent point was by posting this list. Were you intending to prove Berkeley's inferiority or something? Because I wasn't under the false impression that Chicago didn't have outstanding schools in my previous post, I was only surprised to see a flat out "no" in regards to the Bay's schools being claimed as better.
Considering he goes to some school in Wisconsin, wouldn't even bother arguing with him.
Asians are totally overrepresented in a handful of cities like Honolulu, SJ, and SF, and, as a result, are underrepresented almost everywhere else. No other ethnic group in the country has relegated itself to so few places.
Puerto Ricans and other people of Caribbean descent are totally overrepresented in a handful of cities too, and as a result are underrepresented almost everywhere else too. Chicago is one of the benefactors of this over-representation. There's one ethnic group that disproves your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark
The New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area is only 8.4% Asian and is 62.8% white, yet I have never heard NYC accused of being "lily white" have you?
Plenty of suburbs in the Bay have Asians and other minorities outnumbering whites or were far from being non-diverse (as shown early by Nineties Flava), yet were referred to as "lily white" by the poster that kicked off this part of the discussion. Why aren't you checking that poster if you're such a fan of places not being mislabeled?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark
Only because companies like Google, Adobe, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, etc. sponsor visas for people who are already highly educated and ready to work. That sounds like a great American dream for some college educated, upper class Punjabi guy, but what about the American dream for poor immigrants?
He disproves your first claim and then you respond with more excuses as to why? If they're attaining the American dream then they're attaining the American dream. You act as though there are no minorities here that have started off poor, and you seem clueless to the fact that there are many here now that aren't well-off. Your assumptions are very incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark
It's called being cynical. You know the way things really are, but as long as you can still convince some poor schmoe to believe otherwise, you're going to keep at it.
You're continuing to debate this topic in order to be cynical? Wow, you have a fun outlook on life. Who wouldn't want to follow in your footsteps live out their "dreams" in the same fashion you claim is easier to do in the Chicago you seem so enamored with?
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.