U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2012, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
8,186 posts, read 5,270,225 times
Reputation: 6003

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
False: Oakland is far more racially integrated than SF. By leads and bounds. You only need to go out in pretty much any neighborhood to see that: in the grocery store, the drug store or Starbucks.

SF is much less racially integrated than Oakland.
And you'd be wrong about that. See the dissimilar index from the 2010 census data I posted earlier.

Quote:
The dissimilarity index is the most commonly used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods within a city or metropolitan area. It can range in value from 0, indicating complete integration, to 100, indicating complete segregation. In most cities and metro areas, however, the values are somewhere between those extremes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2012, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,105 posts, read 32,684,589 times
Reputation: 10662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
And you'd be wrong about that. See the dissimilar index from the 2010 census data I posted earlier.
Its not surprising that you would use Whites as the baseline for dissimilation from other races cause SF is 44% Non Hispanic White. Nearly half. Non Hispanic Whites are the biggest group in SF.

On the other hand, Oakland's biggest group, Blacks, represent only 27% of the population.

Even before we look at stats, we see that SF is severly handicapped in this comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
8,186 posts, read 5,270,225 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Thank God. We dont need two of either.


The fact is you have havent proven this at all.

First you compare an upscale Oakland neighborhood(Rockridge) to a working class SF neighborhood(Mission Dolores) as if its some gotcha comparison. And that is a fail of epic proportions cause Rockridge is similar to the Marina District, racially and as far as income.

Then after I post 18 contiguous neighborhoods in Oakland that are incredibly integrated(and most of those areas run the gamut as far as socio-economic classes), you decide to stop talking about specific areas and go into vague city-wide descriptions, not really pin-pointing any neighborhood(s) that Oakland can't match.
Gotcha for what? I'd just rather live in Mission Dolores, because I personally would rather live in a neighborhood that is more socioeconomically diverse. Hard stop. There's no implied meaning. You can find socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods in Oakland too. They just aren't Dimond or Caballo Hills. All of those places are quite racially diverse, they are also rather socioeconomically homogeneous. If were to pick an Oakland Neighborhood sor of similar to Mission Dolores, it'd probably be Temescal/Shafter. Totally different vibe from Mission Dolores, of course, but they've still got that little bit of grit left that Rockridge or Noe Valley have pretty much stomped out.

And there's another 50 that aren't so integrated racially integrated. And while each of those 18 neighborhoods as group runs the gamut of socioeconomic diversity, most of them taken individual are pretty homogeneous. It's the transitional neighborhoods like Temescal or Shafter that have more of a representative sampling of society. You don't get a whole lot of extreme wealth nor extreme poverty in Temescal, but you find a good mix of everything in the middle. It's more an even gradient than you find in The Mission which is spotty. There are parts that are really bad and parts that are very affluent and that changes block to block very quickly. Mission Dolores (24th west of Valencia) is mostly not bad at all. Head east to 24th and Mission and it's seedy. Keep going three blocks to 16th & Van Ness and it and it's suddenly nicer than it is on the "good" side of Valencia. Go a few more blogs and it starts getting scruffy again.

Perfect integration? By no means. More integrated that Upper Rockridge to Rockridge to Shafter to the part of Shafter near the freeway? Yes.


Quote:
Your the one who claimed that SF is more integrated in the first place.

Of all the topics to bring up, you picked Oakland's strongest. LOL.
Oakland's strong points, as I see them, are diversity and tolerance. Not so socioeconomically integrated (wealthy hills, middle-class middle, poor by the Bay -- in general). And as the diversity index showed, less racially integrated than San Francisco albeit by little.

Last edited by Malloric; 02-03-2012 at 05:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,105 posts, read 32,684,589 times
Reputation: 10662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post

Perfect integration? By no means. More integrated than Upper Rockridge to Rockridge to Shafter to the part of Shafter near the freeway? Yes.
LOL

Well this is true because Upper Rockridge and Rockridge are well beyond the affluence level of Mission Dolores.

Furthermore, since you brought up Dimond, that neighborhood(along with neighboring Upper Dimond and Laurel and Upper Laurel) definitely qualifies. You have financial district bound commuters living next to section 8 single moms next to intellectuals next to high school drop outs. Literally next to each other. And its a vibrant, livable, very green area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
17,290 posts, read 11,992,027 times
Reputation: 12819
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Furthermore, since you brought up Dimond, that neighborhood(along with neighboring Upper Dimond and Laurel and Upper Laurel) definitely qualifies. You have financial district bound commuters living next to section 8 single moms next to intellectuals next to high school drop outs. Literally next to each other. And its a vibrant, livable, very green area.
The Dimond is probably the "hills" by his definition so it can only be very affluent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
8,186 posts, read 5,270,225 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The Dimond is probably the "hills" by his definition so it can only be very affluent.
What, you mean Oakland Hills doesn't extend all the way down to International Boulevard (sarcasm tag, as that's probably necessary here). That's it, we'll just define Oakland Hills to encompass all of Oakland so we can capture us some diversity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,105 posts, read 32,684,589 times
Reputation: 10662
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The Dimond is probably the "hills" by his definition so it can only be very affluent.
Yeah, heaven forbid actual Oaklanders should chime in about Oakland.

LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
17,290 posts, read 11,992,027 times
Reputation: 12819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
What, you mean Oakland Hills doesn't extend all the way down to International Boulevard (sarcasm tag, as that's probably necessary here). That's it, we'll just define Oakland Hills to encompass all of Oakland so we can capture us some diversity.
Generally speaking, "hills" means anything above 580. And 580 extends all the way from basically Berkeley through San Leandro (and even further east to Castro Valley etc). The hills extend almost to International Boulevard, because parts of International, aren't all that far from the line of "hills" and "not hills" which is roughly Macarthur Boulevard and/or 580.

So yes there are "hills" neighborhoods from North Oakland to the East. And these "hills" areas can range in diversity in all forms actually. From old houses to new houses to ranches to country estates to forests and trees. From not too ethnically diverse to extremely so. And generally speaking the "hills" are more affluent than the "flats" but the level of affluence ranges as much as the numbers of neighborhoods that are part of the "hills." Some "hills" neighborhoods have an average income of $70k and others are more like $250k-300k.

For the record, half or Rockridge isn't even in the "hills." The "hills" part is generally referred to as "Upper Rockridge."

**The Dimond and the Laurel are split by Macarthur so some parts are in the "hills" and other parts are in the "flats," but these areas aren't at the top of the hills. I guess technically you could call them the foothills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 07:11 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,917 posts, read 6,803,619 times
Reputation: 2931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
See, when you say advantage... there's really no such thing. It's not inherently an advantage that someplace is more diverse than another. Richmond (neighborhood) is certainly more socioeconomically diverse than Rockridge or Sea Cliff. That's not an advantage. A transitional neighborhood like Shafter isn't "better" or more "advantageous" than Rockridge. It's different. I think most people would say that Rockridge is the better neighborhood. There's probably a few who are just straight-up racists who think its better because they have less chance of having a non-white neighbor, but I suspect most are concerned with the other factors. Most people have a tendency to view diversity as a bad thing and, if they have the means, isolate themselves from the marginal segments of society. Thus you get the extreme difference in Oakland Hills and the poor neighborhoods near the Bay. Sure, some of those Oakland Hills neighborhoods are ethnically diverse, but they're socioeconomically quite homogeneous. It's not like that doesn't occur everywhere. It certainly occurs in San Francisco as well, but the pockets of wealth and poverty are smaller and there are more transitional neighborhoods than in Oakland. Personally, I'd rather live in a neighborhood that's more balanced. That has some people in the trades, some students, some immigrants who aren't completely integrated in American culture... and not just a neighborhood that's predominantly high-level, well-compensated, well-educated, people who live a privileged lifestyle isolated from life the other 80-90% live. That's not really a race issue, it's a class issue.

Oh, and by the way, New York City? It's one of the absolute least racially integrated cities in the America. It's very diverse, yes, but very segregated.

You act like the neighborhood you just described doesn't exist in Oakland. If anything, it exists more in Oakland than it does in SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,917 posts, read 6,803,619 times
Reputation: 2931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Fact: Oakland is not demographically similar to San Francisco.
Fact: Oakland is not a racially as integrated to San Francisco.

Anything other "points" I've mad that you'd, like to invent while you're at it while you're at it?

False. I would go into detail about how wrong you are here, but then you'd probably just deny it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:26 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top