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.
Not trying to go into this argument with you again, but how big of a Hawaiian, Samoan, Burmese or Tibetan presence does Queens have? SF may not have a neighborhood you would single out as "Puerto Rican," but there are Puerto Ricans here.
I was responding specifically to a claim that everything that appeared in the bolded text (working class, middle class, wealthy, West Indian, Italian, Greek, Puerto Rican and Indian neighborhoods) could be found in San Francisco, with the exception of the U.S. Open complex. To my knowledge, there are no West Indian and Puerto Rican neighborhoods in San Francisco, but I could be wrong. We don't even have a Puerto Rican neighborhood in Washington, DC.
The odd thing is that the Burmese and Tibetan populations are not even that large in SF (or anywhere really for that matter) and Queens has sizable populations of both groups (relative to their numbers in the general population).
I was responding specifically to a claim that everything that appeared in the bolded text (working class, middle class, wealthy, West Indian, Italian, Greek, Puerto Rican and Indian neighborhoods) could be found in San Francisco, with the exception of the U.S. Open complex. To my knowledge, there are no West Indian and Puerto Rican neighborhoods in San Francisco, but I could be wrong. We don't even have a Puerto Rican neighborhood in Washington, DC.
Ah, gotcha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
The odd thing is that the Burmese and Tibetan populations are not even that large in SF (or anywhere really for that matter) and Queens has sizable populations of both groups (relative to their numbers in the general population).
There are probably as many Hawaiians and Samoans in NYC as there are Trinidadians and Barbadians in San Francisco.
Yeah I was actually half seriously asking and half trying to make the exact same point you did in the bold part. I'm sure all of these exist in Queens, just like those you've mentioned do in SF. And I know that neither of the first two were very large in population anywhere in this country, but I do expect that they have a larger presence in SF.
Tibetans were particularly visible here in large numbers when they ran the Olympic torch through SF and they were protesting. To be fair though, I am thinking about parts of the Bay Area that extend beyond SF's borders when I'm saying this. And I think there may actually be more in the East Bay than in SF city proper.
Burmese are also not a very large group out here (or in the US), but I have several friends from Burma and to the best of my knowledge Burmese cuisine is better and more abundant out here than in NYC, and their presence here is more noticeable. So that is why I used them as an example, and that is also why I chose these other less common ethnic groups as well. There are only a few parts of the US where they could be found at all, and Queens and SF both hosting them kind of makes them both that much more comparable.
Brooklyn Vs. Chicago
//demographics, commuting patterns, etc.
Pop: 2,567,098 vs. 2,853,114
Area: 97 vs. 234 (mi^2)
Dens: 36,356 vs. 4,883 (ppl/mi^2)
Both developed largely from 1850-1950
Peak Pop & year:
Brooklyn: 2,738,175 - 1950
Chicago: 3,620,962 - 1950
% of peak pop currently:
Brooklyn: 93.75%
Chicago: 79.79%
Bklyn vs. chitown demographics:
White: 36.2% vs. 31.5%
Black: 33.7% vs. 34.3%
asian: 9.3% vs. 4.9%
hispanic: 19.3% vs. 27.8%
Bklyn vs. chitown income:
Household: $32,135 vs. $38,625
Per capita: $16,775 vs. $20,175
unemployment (2009): 11.0% vs. 11.6%
Transit, Bklyn vs. Chitown
Avg commute time: 38min (NYC avg) vs. 33min
%public transit: 54.6% (NYC avg) vs. 25.3%
fun fact:
592,000 brooklynites commute to manhattan for work (16% of manhattan workers, 23% of Brooklyn's population).
--The two seem very similar in population and demographics, although Brooklyn has a much larger proportion of public transit riders.
^^^^^
Good check... I think it's better to compare county vs county rather than city vs county
This is a very intresting question.
I don't think they compare well though.
Manhattan VS LA... I will have to go with LA just because I love LA, but Manhattan's golden... with these two it's the best of both worlds so its preference... as for the others
Brooklyn- Chicago; Chicago all day
Queens- San Francisco: SF all week
The Bronx- Philadelphia: Philly c'mon
Stated Island- Cleveland: Cleveland absolutly
The rest do not even compare. I like the other borough, but they cant compare with these marque cities.
when you talk about chicago you might as well add in all the surrounding areas because it all functions as one city lmao...Gary, and Hammond In included
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.
