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.
"you've got to mix it up baking soda
whip it up then put it in a pot
cook it up let it sit until it rock
chop it up bag it up then put it on the block"
Oh wait, that's crack. courtesy of Field Mob by the way, "Betty Rocker".. don't want any posters to get the wrong idea.
Are there some cities that really have only poor matches in comparison? Or maybe ones where it is different depending on what aspect you are looking at.
I am thinking a number of comparisons can be made if you consider some areas the same as another but at an earlier stage. Some areas could be basically the same point of development as another one 10-30 years ago. One example could be Atlanta with Charlotte, it works if you compare the phase Charlotte is at with Atlanta in the 1980's.
Charlotte is much larger and land area (city limits) and larger in population. However, Atlanta's metro dwarfs Charlotte's metro.
Atlanta proper is also more densely populated than Charlotte.
Using just city limits puts Jacksonville, FL "larger" than both. However, it's hardly the major city that appears on paper.
Back to topic, I think Charlotte might be compared to Atlanta 30-35 years ago in some aspects but not others. Development of our cities is also affected by the "times" that they are developed. For instance, cities that were developed 100 years ago are going to be much different from cities that were mainly developed 40 years ago.
As opposed to SF, where all the residents who are middle-class and lower live outside a city renowned for it's yuppies and gentrification?
The only reason SF is "renowned for it's yuppies and gentrification" is because ignorant people like you don't realize that SF does have a middle class and lower class. The middle class has shrunk notably, but its far from gone. As far as poor people, SF has nearly 100,000 residents living below the poverty line, (a good deal higher than Oakland, for example), not to mention the homeless population.
2008 census estimates:
20.4% of SF's households make less than $25,000 a year
16.2% of SF's households make $25,000-$50,000 a year
26.1% of SF's households make $50,000-$100,000 a year
15.7% of SF's households make $100,000-$150,000 a year
8.8% of SF's households make $150,000-$200,000 a year
12.2% of SF's households make $200,000+ a year
^If you ask me, that doesn't seem like an extremely gentrified and yuppie city with no middle and lower class...hell, 36% of SF's households make less than $50,000, which of course won't get you quite as far as $50,000 in many other places either, due to the high COL here.
Charlotte is much larger and land area (city limits) and larger in population. However, Atlanta's metro dwarfs Charlotte's metro.
Atlanta proper is also more densely populated than Charlotte.
Using just city limits puts Jacksonville, FL "larger" than both. However, it's hardly the major city that appears on paper.
Back to topic, I think Charlotte might be compared to Atlanta 30-35 years ago in some aspects but not others. Development of our cities is also affected by the "times" that they are developed. For instance, cities that were developed 100 years ago are going to be much different from cities that were mainly developed 40 years ago.
Yes it is very true that the makeup of a metro is largely determined by when each area was developed. It also differs from when a certain phase of development happens. For example the Rust Belt and other related areas have a lot of their differences are due to when the decline in numbers of manufacturing jobs occured which is mainly due to industrial makeup of each place. Some of these places started losing the jobs as early as the late 1950's while some had the biggest declines in the 1990's. Some of the factors on dates was due to things like mechanization where fewer people are needed to do the same thing to some factors like the end of the Cold War reduced the demand for jobs related to the military-industrial complex due to scrapping some defense projects. This latter one is important since these jobs can't be sent overseas, though a number of these jobs returned as military equipment got older where they had to be replaced. How cities in the Midwest are doing now is largely based on how dependant they were on manufacturing and when and how steep were job losses in that sector occured. It looks like the stronger areas there either were not dependant or had the job losses occur decades ago where they have been transitioning for a long time now.
Dallas-Fort Worth is like Atlanta with another Dekalb county thrown in (Dekalb county is an Atlanta Metro county that is the same size and population as Fort Worth Texas.
The only reason SF is "renowned for it's yuppies and gentrification" is because ignorant people like you don't realize that SF does have a middle class and lower class. The middle class has shrunk notably, but its far from gone. As far as poor people, SF has nearly 100,000 residents living below the poverty line, (a good deal higher than Oakland, for example), not to mention the homeless population.
2008 census estimates:
20.4% of SF's households make less than $25,000 a year
16.2% of SF's households make $25,000-$50,000 a year
26.1% of SF's households make $50,000-$100,000 a year
15.7% of SF's households make $100,000-$150,000 a year
8.8% of SF's households make $150,000-$200,000 a year
12.2% of SF's households make $200,000+ a year
^If you ask me, that doesn't seem like an extremely gentrified and yuppie city with no middle and lower class...hell, 36% of SF's households make less than $50,000, which of course won't get you quite as far as $50,000 in many other places either, due to the high COL here.
The "Poverty Level" in San Francisco is over $37K and the Minimum Wage is around $10 an hour, not including required Health Care.
I got mixed up with what you said. I didn't realize the company was named after Philly. I thought you were saying you were actually going to ride a trolley that was in Philly, in San Fran lol.
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.
Oh wait, that's crack.
