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.
But those domains in which SF falls short are what we like about SF. We don't need or want miles and miles of urbanity. We don't need 24-hr. stimulation, because the culture here is more laid back. I can't imagine what types of cuisine there are that SF doesn't have. SF doesn't have all the distinct ethnic enclaves that NYC has, but neither does Manhattan.
And that's totally fine. It's probably an advantage for the Bay Area. I would bet more Americans prefer less urbanity rather than more. I'm just giving a reason why some people would actually prefer places other SF.
Manhattan is the city center, BTW. Obviously immigrants aren't going to establish an ethnic neighborhood in the middle of Manhattan in 2014.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Again, you're not making the correct comparison: SF to Manhattan, NYC to Bay Area. The Bay Area does have distinct ethnic enclaves, and rooted neighborhoods of every type.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Obviously cities should be compared to cities, metros to metros. I am not comparing suburbs of San Jose to the Bronx or Brooklyn. Completely absurd comparison. Let's compare SF city to the exurbs of NYC in Northeast PA, 60 miles from Manhattan, while we're at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
The thing about not owning cars is an interesting one. There are people in SF and the Bay Area who don't own cars. But many people in SF who do own cars don't use them for commuting. They use them to get out into the surrounding counties on weekends to enjoy nature and the amenities that the surrounding counties offer. (Some of which are available via public transit, but not all.) Do NYC residents enjoy getting out of the city into nature, whether it be beach, forest, mountain, or lake? Or are they content with the urban environment most of the time? That's the main motive for car ownership, IME.
I doubt the main reason for car ownership in the Bay Area is "to get out into nature". That makes no sense whatsoever. You can just zipcar/rent a car if you want a car for a short while.
And pretty much every place in the Bay Area has available parking, so if really people didn't use their cars (except for trips) the local stores and businesses wouldn't have accommodations for drivers. Why would Whole Foods have free parking right downtown if people aren't using their cars for daily errands?
That's an interesting point of view. I remember being in NYC back when MOMA was closed for expansion and not thinking it "didn't count as a museum at all".
PS- The expanded world class SFMOMA is slated to reopen in early 2016. That's like, a year.
2016, ok sure, that's if things go as planned. It's already been closed for over a year though. What's wrong with my point of view? Until it reopens it's not serving it's purpose as a museum. It seriously needs that expansion though because it was tiny for a "world class" art museum.
And pretty much every place in the Bay Area has available parking, so if really people didn't use their cars (except for trips) the local stores and businesses wouldn't have accommodations for drivers. Why would Whole Foods have free parking right downtown if people aren't using their cars for daily errands?
What?
Where did you say you live? How much time have you spent in SF?
But those domains in which SF falls short are what we like about SF. We don't need or want miles and miles of urbanity. We don't need 24-hr. stimulation, because the culture here is more laid back.
I consider myself fairly laid back, but even I have the desire to go get dessert or late night eats. I can name only 2 places off the top of my head that are dessert heavy and stay open past 10pm (somewhat walking distance- one is kind of far). Businesses that cater to these night crowds see huges amounts of business simply because there's little to satisfy the city's late night needs. I'd expect that from my hometown, not from a "big city".
And pretty much every place in the Bay Area has available parking, so if really people didn't use their cars (except for trips) the local stores and businesses wouldn't have accommodations for drivers. Why would Whole Foods have free parking right downtown if people aren't using their cars for daily errands?
SF doesn't have easily available parking. Having a car can be a liability in SF. It's more like NYC in that regard. A lot of people in SF (and some in the East Bay, as well) take public transit to work, and use their cars for leisure or weekend activities.
I doubt the main reason for car ownership in the Bay Area is "to get out into nature". That makes no sense whatsoever. You can just zipcar/rent a car if you want a car for a short while.
And pretty much every place in the Bay Area has available parking, so if really people didn't use their cars (except for trips) the local stores and businesses wouldn't have accommodations for drivers. Why would Whole Foods have free parking right downtown if people aren't using their cars for daily errands?
That makes plenty of sense. It's a very European way to life. Use public transport during the week, have the car for weekend jaunts into the countryside. Millions of people live this way in Europe, and quite a few SF residents do likewise. It's quite rational. Your posts show you really don't know the Bay Area very well. (the comment on parking being ubiquitous in the Bay Area, for another example) I'm not sure why you're posting here.
I originally moved to SF from New York city for a job (they paid for the relocation and such) a couple months ago. And man, its been a major culture shift which is ok I suppose. But also very irritating in a number of ways to a life long east coaster like myself. Almost to the point of making normal social interaction difficult because of over-PC ness.
"Sarcasm" seems to be lost on most people here. They all look at me with blank stares when I make a sarcastic joke or comment.
Say "thats gay" your called out as a homophobe.
People give you stares of disaproval if your the type of person that looks like to have somewhere to go, commitments to make, likes to dress up for business etc. Just no sense of working to "get ahead". What gives? Do people here just prefer others to be as miserable, non-goal oriented, aim-less and broke as they are?
Overall the people in this area seem to lack alot of aspects of character and tend to be very introverted and quiet. I also see theres less of an energy here. Everything from major stores to mom and pop shops to restaurants closes early and people don't seem to care. Even nightclubs close early (WTF?).
Anyways I was just venting. Personally I think the weather is great here, but I like the east coast better in terms of the relationships, people and the overall attitude of most people. I just gel well with folks who are more honest about themselves and know how to stick up for themselves without complaining or crying. Those types are usually laughed out of New York City. Its very soft.
How can people live like this day and day out and not go crazy?
/rant
Lol.
The fact that we aren't as rude and the fact that we're liberal doesn't make us soft. Road rage doesn't make you hard, it makes you annoying and ignorant. But for the sake of this argument I'll make a very valid point.
East Palo Alto, CA. was the murder capital of America in '94.
Oakland, CA. is consistently rated one of the top 10 most dangerous cities in America by Forbes. Its gotten as high as top 3.
In any given year, Richmond, CA. also cracks the top 10 list and in past years it's be rated the most dangerous city in The State by The State of California, ahead of Compton, CA.
San Francisco, The main attraction, is now gentrified. It isn't the same SF I grew up in. During my HS years SF would get up there in homicides with Oakland. It may be a more populated city but it is a much smaller city than Oakland demographically. SF's gang injunction is also to credit for the turn around. Never has a gang terrorized the city without The Police cleaning house on them. Ever.
And then you consider all the cities San Franciscans are moving to: Stockton, CA., Pittsburg, CA., Antioch, CA....all those places have become war zones; Stockton has even gotten on Forbes' top 10 list recently.
For what it's worth you also have to consider the fact that Vallejo, CA. holds a record for most features on America's most wanted. "Gangland" even did a feature on the gang ties its most famous rap group had which was later found to be the biggest connection to ecstasy distribution West of the Mississippi. Its a bankrupt city with no police force. Police that comes to patrol Vallejo comes from neighboring cities just to make sure crime doesn't spew over their way.
The Bay Area is far from soft. I could make a real case its one of the biggest war zones behind New Orleans, Chicago and Baltimore. Just because we don't talk **** doesn't mean a damn thing.
Like Oakland native Marshawn Lynch said we're "just about that action boss."
And that's totally fine. It's probably an advantage for the Bay Area. I would bet more Americans prefer less urbanity rather than more. I'm just giving a reason why some people would actually prefer places other SF.
Manhattan is the city center, BTW. Obviously immigrants aren't going to establish an ethnic neighborhood in the middle of Manhattan in 2014.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Obviously cities should be compared to cities, metros to metros. I am not comparing suburbs of San Jose to the Bronx or Brooklyn. Completely absurd comparison. Let's compare SF city to the exurbs of NYC in Northeast PA, 60 miles from Manhattan, while we're at it.
Any comparison of SF to NYC is vexed by the fact that NYC annexed almost it's entire metro area around the year 1900 (excluding the part in New Jersey) while SF never did anything like that. Still to this day the city of New York accounts for about 40% of it's metro area, by population, while SF only accounts for 10% of it's metro area population.
In one way, comparing SF to Manhattan makes some sense because Manhattan is the historic city of New York (pre-annexation) and is comparable in size to SF. In another way it would make more sense to compare city to city. In a third way, these comparisons make no sense whatsoever no matter how you slice them.
Quote:
I doubt the main reason for car ownership in the Bay Area is "to get out into nature". That makes no sense whatsoever. You can just zipcar/rent a car if you want a car for a short while.
And pretty much every place in the Bay Area has available parking, so if really people didn't use their cars (except for trips) the local stores and businesses wouldn't have accommodations for drivers.
I think you are exactly right, and the notion that people "only own a car to get into nature" is a bunch of romantic BS that Bay Area people like to make up to ignore the fact that, aside from a 2 square mile area in the middle of SF, their metro is just as car dependent if not moreso than LA or any other metro, USA.
Bay area residents own cars to drive to the grocery store, dentist, doctor, hairdresser, friend's house, school, work, mall, park, BART station, and every other place they need to go. All available data shows that the vast majority of all trips in the Bay Area are by car. I would say the person who "only owns a car to get out into nature" is vanishingly rare.
* For full disclosure I bike to work and bike/walk/transit as much as humanly possible for everything else. But it's hard not to notice the thousands of cars swirling around me every inch of the way as I do those things.
There's little need to drive to the grocery store in SF, since many neighborhoods have supermarkets within walking distance. One thing that's fairly unique about major parts of the Bay Area is the walkability. People who are well-located do, indeed, walk to the store, doctor, friend's house and park. They take the bus to school and to work, or they bike. Does everyone do that? Obviously not. But a fair number of Bay Area natives do, as well as students and other young people, transplants who love the Bay Area lifestyle, like dalparadise, SF residents of a more practical bent, who don't want to hassle traffic and parking (it really doesn't make sense to drive to work in SF, unless maybe you live way out on the far edge of town), some university faculty, all kinds of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34;
Any comparison of SF to NYC is vexed by the fact that NYC annexed almost it's entire metro area around the year 1900 (excluding the part in New Jersey) while SF never did anything like that. Still to this day the city of New York accounts for about 40% of it's metro area, by population, while SF only accounts for 10% of it's metro area population.
This, which was explained much earlier in the thread. NOLA must have joined the thread late. A parallel was drawn between Manhattan and its satellite boroughs, and SF and the East Bay, and ethnic communities there. Though SF proper has plenty of ethnic enclaves, whereas apparently Manhattan doesn't.
SF proper has plenty of ethnic enclaves, whereas apparently Manhattan doesn't.
Harlem, Chinatown, Little Italy, etc, are all in Manhattan.
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.
What? 
