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: 
 
Old 02-02-2012, 10:04 AM
 
Location: The Bay
6,915 posts, read 6,758,053 times
Reputation: 2929

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmode View Post
Newsflash: Malloric never claimed it. He/she just refuted the claim that all Oakland's neighborhoods are awesomely diverse and none of the SF neighborhoods are diverse.

Yes, he did. Here's what he said:

Quote:
In other words the least affluent (Mission Dolores) is the most ethnically diverse
Translation: Wealthy neighborhoods aren't diverse because they're wealthy


I replied that this is false when talking about Oakland. Where's the problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2012, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
8,111 posts, read 5,184,450 times
Reputation: 5897
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
No one ever said anything to the contrary.

It was malloric who specifically said that San Francisco is more integrated than Oakland and we are still awaiting proof to substantiate that claim.

In the meantime, the major difference racially between Rockridge and Mission Dolores I notice is only that Mission Dolores has a more noticeable representation of Hispanics.

Asians and Blacks are just as underrepresented in Mission Dolores as they are in Rockridge so why is Rockridge being singled out?

Socio-economically tho, Rockridge is twice as wealthy as Mission Dolores.
No, I said it was less geographically segregated. Mission Dolores has a MUCH broader cross-section of socioeconomic groups than does Rockridge or most any other Oakland neighborhood. Although it's nice to see the race blinders have come off far enough that you can recognize something beyond racial segregation, it goes a bit beyond socioeconomic status (wealth, prestige of education and job).

Oakland, in general: People of low socioeconomic status live in South Berkeley/West Oakland and East Oakland and the non-gentrified parts of North Oakland; People of high socioeconomic status live in the gentrified parts of North Oakland and Oakland Hills. On the neighborhood level, people live only with other people of very similar socioeconomic status. Exceptions are border neighborhoods like Temescal which is gentrifying but still includes areas that have not, and even there, there's hard boundaries and little intermingling.

Everywhere is geographically segregated, but San Francisco is less so than Oakland. Neighborhoods are patchier, and within neighborhoods there is more diversity in socioeconomic status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 08:24 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,915 posts, read 6,758,053 times
Reputation: 2929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
No, I said it was less geographically segregated. Mission Dolores has a MUCH broader cross-section of socioeconomic groups than does Rockridge or most any other Oakland neighborhood. Although it's nice to see the race blinders have come off far enough that you can recognize something beyond racial segregation, it goes a bit beyond socioeconomic status (wealth, prestige of education and job).

Oakland, in general: People of low socioeconomic status live in South Berkeley/West Oakland and East Oakland and the non-gentrified parts of North Oakland; People of high socioeconomic status live in the gentrified parts of North Oakland and Oakland Hills. On the neighborhood level, people live only with other people of very similar socioeconomic status. Exceptions are border neighborhoods like Temescal which is gentrifying but still includes areas that have not, and even there, there's hard boundaries and little intermingling.

Everywhere is geographically segregated, but San Francisco is less so than Oakland. Neighborhoods are patchier, and within neighborhoods there is more diversity in socioeconomic status.

a) Why are you lumping in South Berkeley with Oakland?
b) That's quite the gross generalization you're making about East Oakland. While I agree that neighborhoods in Oakland are for the most part socio-economically segregated, East Oakland is far from only being poor. Neighborhoods like Maxwell Park, Reservoir Hills, Dimond, Laurel, Ivy Hill, Jingletown (South Kennedy Tract), Frick (55th-Seminary), Lynn, Eastmont Hills, Toler Heights and etc. are far from being poor. You sound like you haven't spent much time in East Oakland.
c) San Francisco is "patchier" because its poorer areas are constantly being gentrified, and even then many of its poorer areas are "uncharted territory" for wealthy people. Where is the so-called socioeconomic diversity in Pacific Heights, the Excelsior and Sunnydale?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,077 posts, read 32,511,080 times
Reputation: 10650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
No, I said it was less geographically segregated.
To say that SF is less segregated is to say its more integrated. Hello?

And as far as geography, Ive already put out a list of 18 contiguous neighborhoods smack in the middle of Oakland that are incredibly diverse.

And I just stopped at those 18--I could have kept on going. We have wealthy neighborhoods dominated by Blacks, others have no racial majority, we even have an area that is emerging as an upwardly mobile area of Latinos(Jefferson and Harrington). To say that integration in Oakland is a phenom of the poor is just wrong.

Im not sure SF has tons of integration, but you really havent proven that as far as where people live together, SF is less geographically integrated than Oakland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 09:13 PM
 
Location: South Korea
5,245 posts, read 6,748,894 times
Reputation: 2835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post

Everywhere is geographically segregated, but San Francisco is less so than Oakland. Neighborhoods are patchier, and within neighborhoods there is more diversity in socioeconomic status.
Have you ever been to either SF or Oakland? SF is really, really segregated, the Mission is one of the few diverse areas on paper and, again, it's still split down the middle between a white area and a hispanic area.

Oakland has really segregated areas but it also has areas like the Temescal and the Lake Merritt area that are actually diverse. You don't see areas in SF that are like that.

I think you might be mistaking SF's density for its neighborhoods being diverse. Different ethnic groups live closer to one another in SF but they are still in separate areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2012, 11:49 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
8,111 posts, read 5,184,450 times
Reputation: 5897
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorhaggar View Post
Have you ever been to either SF or Oakland? SF is really, really segregated, the Mission is one of the few diverse areas on paper and, again, it's still split down the middle between a white area and a hispanic area.

Oakland has really segregated areas but it also has areas like the Temescal and the Lake Merritt area that are actually diverse. You don't see areas in SF that are like that.

I think you might be mistaking SF's density for its neighborhoods being diverse. Different ethnic groups live closer to one another in SF but they are still in separate areas.
Yup. Lived in San Francisco, spent some time in Oakland. I mean, you live in Rockridge. It's about as white yuppie as you can possibly get, so you'll forgive me if I take your "you wouldn't know actual diversity if it hit you upside the head" with the grain of salt I reserve for those who live in white-yuppie land, won't you?

Mission Dolores is the "white" area of "undiverse" San Francisco. Yet it has less white people than the "integrated" Oakland has in its affluent neighborhoods. The omg-so-white Marina has... the same percentage of white folks as Rockland. This despite the fact that San Francisco is ~50% white and Oakland ~35% white. Hmm. Funny how the overwhelming vast majority of whites integrated themselves in Oakland Hills, innit? Oakland's "integration" is white people movin' on in and black people movin' on out. And the white people aren't "integrating" in East and West Oakland. But then Oakland wasn't a black city prior to WW2 either, things are fluid. If the '50s and '60s were white flight, the '90s and 2000s and 2010s have been black flight.

The beauty of Oakland is that it is, for the most part, extremely tolerant. If by "integrated", you mean tolerant, then I agree, but then a place can be segragated and tolerant (see Rockridge, Piedmont, Montclair, etc). As for why Oakland, and the Bay Area at large, is experience black flight, I suspect that's mostly to do with tolerance in society at large.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 12:28 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
8,111 posts, read 5,184,450 times
Reputation: 5897
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
To say that SF is less segregated is to say its more integrated. Hello?

And as far as geography, Ive already put out a list of 18 contiguous neighborhoods smack in the middle of Oakland that are incredibly diverse.
Again, obsessed with race. Race is of ever increasing irrelevance. What matters is socioeconomics of which race is but one component. Concerning one's self only with socioeconomic rank, or social class, rather than being focused on race to the exclusion of all else and you might see what I mean. It's a simplification, but we'll start there. Let's further simplify that to purely household income. Now, imagine that on a map. A simple heat map won't do as you need to know not only the mean/median/mode but also the standard deviation. Now start adding in other factors, age, marital status, kids, etc., etc.

Quote:
And I just stopped at those 18--I could have kept on going. We have wealthy neighborhoods dominated by Blacks, others have no racial majority, we even have AN area that is emerging as an upwardly mobile area of Latinos(Jefferson and Harrington). To say that integration in Oakland is a phenom of the poor is just wrong.
But that really says it all, doesn't it? Why are these upwardly mobile latinos "unintegrating" from wherever they came from and "reintegrating" in THE area for upwardly mobile lationos? Or, more bluntly, why are they intentionally segregating themselves? Not only are they doing it by class but also by race. Is this the process of "integration" to which you are referring?

Quote:
Im not sure SF has tons of integration, but you really havent proven that as far as where people live together, SF is less geographically integrated than Oakland.
Now, draw that same map we just went through and do it in San Francisco. Smaller pockets of affluence, smaller pockets of poverty. Within the pockets of affluence and poverty a higher standard deviance of income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
17,271 posts, read 11,857,370 times
Reputation: 12795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Yup. Lived in San Francisco, spent some time in Oakland. I mean, you live in Rockridge. It's about as white yuppie as you can possibly get, so you'll forgive me if I take your "you wouldn't know actual diversity if it hit you upside the head" with the grain of salt I reserve for those who live in white-yuppie land, won't you?

Mission Dolores is the "white" area of "undiverse" San Francisco. Yet it has less white people than the "integrated" Oakland has in its affluent neighborhoods. The omg-so-white Marina has... the same percentage of white folks as Rockland. This despite the fact that San Francisco is ~50% white and Oakland ~35% white. Hmm. Funny how the overwhelming vast majority of whites integrated themselves in Oakland Hills, innit? Oakland's "integration" is white people movin' on in and black people movin' on out. And the white people aren't "integrating" in East and West Oakland. But then Oakland wasn't a black city prior to WW2 either, things are fluid. If the '50s and '60s were white flight, the '90s and 2000s and 2010s have been black flight.

The beauty of Oakland is that it is, for the most part, extremely tolerant. If by "integrated", you mean tolerant, then I agree, but then a place can be segragated and tolerant (see Rockridge, Piedmont, Montclair, etc). As for why Oakland, and the Bay Area at large, is experience black flight, I suspect that's mostly to do with tolerance in society at large.
The Mission is about as diverse as it gets in SF. Where you see a variety or people out in the place. In Oakland you see everyone out in every neighborhood. Even if they don't live there. There might be less diversity in terms of residents of Rockridge, but visiting the restaurants and shops is a different story.

And even in fairly affluent areas like Grand Lake, it is actually really mixed:


Here are the demographics in a gentrifying area: Adam's Point


Now let's pretend I go out in the Marina. Let's just say, I'll stick out like a sore thumb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 12:55 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,077 posts, read 32,511,080 times
Reputation: 10650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Again, obsessed with race. Race is of ever increasing irrelevance. What matters is socioeconomics of which race is but one component.
Still waiting for you to present a list of neighborhoods in SF that top those Ive already mentioned in Oakland.

Its okay to say that it doesnt exist. I wont be upset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2012, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
8,111 posts, read 5,184,450 times
Reputation: 5897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
a) Why are you lumping in South Berkeley with Oakland?
b) That's quite the gross generalization you're making about East Oakland. While I agree that neighborhoods in Oakland are for the most part socio-economically segregated, East Oakland is far from only being poor. Neighborhoods like Maxwell Park, Reservoir Hills, Dimond, Laurel, Ivy Hill, Jingletown (South Kennedy Tract), Frick (55th-Seminary), Lynn, Eastmont Hills, Toler Heights and etc. are far from being poor. You sound like you haven't spent much time in East Oakland.
c) San Francisco is "patchier" because its poorer areas are constantly being gentrified, and even then many of its poorer areas are "uncharted territory" for wealthy people. Where is the so-called socioeconomic diversity in Pacific Heights, the Excelsior and Sunnydale?
(a) because it abuts it? Sort of how like I'd lump Daly City when talking about Crocker-Amazon.

General - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Check definitions 5 and 6. It may shed some light with respect to point (b).

(c) As opposed to Oakland which was just built economically homogeneous? Kind of a generalization, no? I mean Rincon Hill was San Francisco's original posh neighborhood well away from the nasty tents and brothels of Nob Hill. I'm sure they had glass skyscrapers back then, too. Seen the new condo/apartments right across from Cow Palace although that's in Daly City and not San Francisco? Nor does everyone live in 10 million dollar mansions in Pac Heights. It actually abuts with Japan Town, which isn't affluent at all.
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.

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