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.
I think they have both become hollow, soulless shells of homogenized garbage catering to yuppies. Gentrification has ruined so much of the culture and creativity that once made them both great, interesting places with unique characteristics not found in other places.
Unfortunately it's not limited to only these two cities, it's happening all over the world.
A thread that is supposed to debate the pros and cons of gentrification between San Francisco and Manhattan (as the OP clarified) has quickly turned into another knee-jerk, protect-NYC-at-all-costs butt-kissing session. Typical. Someone will be comparing it to the Holy Roman Empire any second now...wait for it...
I saw this coming 10 miles away.
As for Brooklyn, Queens and the rest of the Pips, who cares how dense they are in a topic like this? They're probably more dense than London...wanna compare?
The vastly different scales makes comparing gentrification, a very much block by block sort of phenomenon, really hard to discuss so I understand having this mentioned. For one thing, the sheer size of NYC means there has to be some huge influxes sometimes to really change the character of a community--the sort of numbers that can change the character of entire smaller cities. NYC is also so large that gentrification sometimes results in people being pushed into another part of the city rather than out of the city entirely. The comparison can be pretty hard to make useful or insightful because of these differences in scale.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-08-2013 at 06:24 AM..
I think they have both become hollow, soulless shells of homogenized garbage catering to yuppies. Gentrification has ruined so much of the culture and creativity that once made them both great, interesting places with unique characteristics not found in other places.
Unfortunately it's not limited to only these two cities, it's happening all over the world.
Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx are FAR more working class/poor than San Francisco. They lose population during the day while San Francisco's population grows by 20%. No comparison.
I don't see anything wrong with the comparison.
Ok, if that's your standard, but then SF isn't comparable to Manhattan.
SF is FAR more working class/poor than Manhattan.
Anyways, this is a stupid way to compare areas. SF is a city and should be compared to other cities, not random carve-outs of other cities.
It is true. And you apparently didn't read the post, because poverty rates are irrelevent.
I said that "SF is FAR more working class than Manhatan", which is true. It's significantly less wealthy. Manhattan has a much higher proportion of residents in the highest income brackets.
And, again, it's stupid way to compare places. SF is a city, which doesn't even have half the density of Brooklyn or the Bronx. Why would you compare it to Manhattan? It would be like comparing SF to Santa Barbara or something, because they're both expensive and affluent.
It is true. And you apparently didn't read the post, because poverty rates are irrelevent.
I said that "SF is FAR more working class than Manhatan", which is true. It's significantly less wealthy. Manhattan has a much higher proportion of residents in the highest income brackets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCH_CDM
SF is FAR more working class/poor than Manhattan.
How exactly are poverty rates irrelevant? Of course Manhattan has the biggest concentration of residents in the highest income brackets. But my point still stands that it is incorrect to say that San Francisco is far more working class/poor than Manhattan.
Ever hear of Washington Heights, Inwood, East Harlem, etc.?
I do agree it is a silly comparison though. New York is a monster that has everything and all walks of life. San Francisco is more comparable to Boston or DC or other physically tiny yet very urban cities that were swiftly able to price out poverty.
How exactly are poverty rates irrelevant? Of course Manhattan has the biggest concentration of residents in the highest income brackets. But my point still stands that it is incorrect to say that San Francisco is far more working class/poor than Manhattan.
Poverty rates have nothing to do with proportion of working class, IMO. The working class aren't poor.
Here's an example- Staten Island has far lower poverty rates than Manhattan.
Yet would you say that Manhattan is far more working class than Staten Island? That's absurd. Manhattan is far wealthier, with much, much higher mean income, but Staten Island has lower poverty because it doesn't have housing projects and affordable housing complexes.
Staten Island is a working class borough, and Manhattan is a rich borough. This is true even though Manhattan has a much higher proportion of residents under the federal poverty line.
If you look at the overall distribution of incomes in the two boroughs, you see Manhattan incomes weighted towards high wealth, and Staten Island incomes weighted in the middle. Manhattan is a borough of extremes, with the highest concentration of millionaires on earth, yet more housing project units than any other place in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
I do agree it is a silly comparison though. New York is a monster that has everything and all walks of life. San Francisco is more comparable to Boston or DC or other physically tiny yet very urban cities that were swiftly able to price out poverty.
Poverty rates have nothing to do with proportion of working class, IMO. The working class aren't poor.
Here's an example- Staten Island has far lower poverty rates than Manhattan.
Yet would you say that Manhattan is far more working class than Staten Island? That's absurd. Manhattan is far wealthier, with much, much higher mean income, but Staten Island has lower poverty because it doesn't have housing projects and affordable housing complexes.
Staten Island is a working class borough, and Manhattan is a rich borough. This is true even though Manhattan has a much higher proportion of residents under the federal poverty line.
If you look at the overall distribution of incomes in the two boroughs, you see Manhattan incomes weighted towards high wealth, and Staten Island incomes weighted in the middle. Manhattan is a borough of extremes, with the highest concentration of millionaires on earth, yet more housing project units than any other place in the U.S.
I agree with this.
Ok, I got ya. When you said "poor" it through me off. I do agree that Manhattan essentially has no middle/working class. But still, 21% below the Federal Poverty line in a city as expensive as NYC is nothing to sneeze at. I find it hard to label Manhattan a "rich borough" when those are the facts.
But I get what you are saying and especially agree with the bolded. NYC has extreme income disparity.
From the article linked earlier:
Global cities are becoming patrician ghettos. In 2009, says Sassen, the top 1 per cent of New York City’s earners got 44 per cent of the compensation paid to its workers.
A thread that is supposed to debate the pros and cons of gentrification between San Francisco and Manhattan (as the OP clarified) has quickly turned into another knee-jerk, protect-NYC-at-all-costs butt-kissing session. Typical.
Huh?
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.
