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.
That would be peruvian. Different areas have different mixes. The DC area (MD, and NoVA too) also has Ethopian, Korean, Greek, and Vietnamese enclaves depending on where you are looking, and that is just getting started. In terms of Jewish populations...it's like somebody is pretending NW and Montgomery County does not exist.
Peruvian, as well as Honduran, Nicaraguan, and Guatemalan. There's even a modest Mexican population as well.
DC is not anymore. Not even close. It share almost nothing with the South at this point in time. While it's different than Boston or NYC, it's unique city, but it share very little with most of the south at this point. Again, it was a southern city, WAS being the operative term. No longer. It doesn't share the Souths religiosity, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-choice aspects. There is not much in the DC area which is still culturally southern.
Also DC is a relatively walkable city, something most southern cities completely lack. In fact part of the source of the conflict around gentrification maybe around the fact that white northern culture is running into conflict with black southern culture. The two groups are culturally far apart from each other. Again, it's the northernization of the city, the new development is more identifiable with SF or Seattle, than any southern city. The South begins outside of the DC metro area at this point, and those old historic boundaries which called DC southern are very out of date. Dc shares very little if anything with the south these days.
There is also the fact there is not a single southern city with anything close to DC's metro system in terms of reach and scope. Even comparing Atlanta's to ours is kind of a joke. Again Atlanta is far more resistant to mass transit, again a southern quality, while the DC area embraces it far more.
I agree 101%
Plus, most people also don't even know that DC used to be home to various ethnic enclaves as well, another traditionally Northeastern (as well as Midwestern) quality. And of course, the suburbs are very racially and ethnically diverse.
DC is not anymore. Not even close. It share almost nothing with the South at this point in time. While it's different than Boston or NYC, it's unique city, but it share very little with most of the south at this point. Again, it was a southern city, WAS being the operative term. No longer. It doesn't share the Souths religiosity, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-choice aspects. There is not much in the DC area which is still culturally southern.
Also DC is a relatively walkable city, something most southern cities completely lack. In fact part of the source of the conflict around gentrification maybe around the fact that white northern culture is running into conflict with black southern culture. The two groups are culturally far apart from each other. Again, it's the northernization of the city, the new development is more identifiable with SF or Seattle, than any southern city. The South begins outside of the DC metro area at this point, and those old historic boundaries which called DC southern are very out of date. Dc shares very little if anything with the south these days.
There is also the fact there is not a single southern city with anything close to DC's metro system in terms of reach and scope. Even comparing Atlanta's to ours is kind of a joke. Again Atlanta is far more resistant to mass transit, again a southern quality, while the DC area embraces it far more.
It's still kinda crazy how a city like Atlanta doesn't have commuter rail, especially with it being a major railroad hub.
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and New York City (without the massive size)
I disagree. Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston are all similar in some ways. DC is the East Coast city that stands out as being different. For starters, there are no substantial working class and lower middle class ethnic white populations (i.e. Italians) in DC like there are in Baltimore, Philly and NYC. Even Baltimore has a Little Italy. Baltimore and Philly are much more similar than Baltimore and DC even though DC and Baltimore are closer to each other than Baltimore and Philly. The black populations in Baltimore and Philly, and NYC to a slightly lesser extent, are more culturally alike (i.e. "hack" cabs, people still wearing baggier/looser clothes in a similar fashion in the black areas of those cities). DC's black and white populations are pretty unique. DC's black population has a unique style of dress with its own trends (i.e. Helley Hansen jackets in 2014). DC native Rap star Wale, who grew up in DC and suburban Montgomery County, definitely helped bring DC's inner city style to the masses across America popularizing local DC Area style staples like Nike Foamposites. DC's white population is also very distinctive in being very exclusive, preppy, upper middle class or wealthy in a way that is very unique to the DC Area, in my opinion.
In my opinion, DC is more similar to San Francisco than Baltimore or Philadelphia. Baltimore and Philadelphia are older towns with much less gentrification and investment than DC or SF. Swaths of DC and SF have been totally renovated and remodeled through gentrification over the past 20 or so years. Both DC and SF rank high as being the most gentrified big cities in America. Although SF is not one of the cleanest cities, generally Philly and Baltimore and much dirtier and neglected than SF or DC. SF and DC have minimal blight by big city standards as even the bad areas in SF and DC consist of occupied well-maintained buildings and homes, just with bars on the doors and windows. Philly and Baltimore have blocks and blocks of abandoned buildings and rowhomes. Only in the worst areas of SF and DC will you see many boarded up buildings, abandoned homes and plywood shut public housing project apartments (i.e. Barry Farms in SE DC and Sunnydale in SF).
The white populations in DC and SF are very similar in being very liberal, but in different ways. White SF liberals tout diversity and tolerance, yet there are hardly any black people left in SF due to gentrification. Similarly, white DC natives love Obama, yet they are very exclusionary and generally do not associate with black DC residents unless they are wealthy educated token black people from primarily white upbringings. Black San Franciscans and black DC natives also have a lot in common in disproportionately representing the face of the poor and not benefitting from waves of gentrification that occur in their formerly black-majority neighborhoods. Also, Both DC and SF are not extremely diverse. Both cities are split between two races. SF is mostly white and Asian with a growing population of Latinos and a small quickly disappearing peripheral population of native born blacks. DC is mostly black and white with very small Latino and Asian populations.
SF and DC are also similar in the fact that both cities attract career-oriented college educated people from all over America. SF attracts tech nerds whereas DC attracts IT nerds, government workers, people who want to work at non-profit organizations, lawyers and those wanting to excel in the world of politics. Both cities have been described as bad places to start a relationship. Also, SF and DC are generally not considered to have as many attractive people per capita or as nearly exciting a nightlife as their larger coastal sister cities of L.A. and NYC, respectively.
Also, both DC and SF have higher than average gay populations. DC has been recently proclaimed as the "gayest city in America". SF has been unable to shake this widely held stereotype since before the 80's:
Both SF and DC are not the largest or most culturally dominant cities on their respective coasts. The obvious title on the East goes to NYC and the title on the West goes to Los Angeles. NYC and L.A. are more dominant in the world of fashion, music and film in terms of mainstream American culture. Much of L.A.'s economy rides on the entertainment industry. Hollywood remains one of the main opiates of the masses. NYC is the fashion capital of the world and NYC originally birthed the now global cultural phenomena of Hip Hop. Because of this, SF and DC are not the first cities that come to mind when thinking of the West and East Coasts, respectively. However, in some ways, both SF and DC are more important than their much larger more renowned coastal urban counterparts. For example and most obviously, DC is the nation's capital. NYC can't stake that claim. Also, the DC Area is wealthier and more educated on average than NYC. DC is the most educated big city in America with the highest median incomes. Similarly, SF and the Bay Area is wealthier and more educated on average than L.A.
Also, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley continue to modernize our world through the technological revolution continuing to be pioneered there as Apple, Craigslist, Google and Facebook are all based in the Bay Area. SF also many times ranks above Los Angles in being an international tourist destination. SF is renowned as being one of the world's most beautiful cities. L.A. never makes those lists. Similarly, DC has some of the most unique scenery and city layout of any East Coast city.
Last edited by LunaticVillage; 03-03-2014 at 03:36 PM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaticVillage
I disagree. Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston are all similar in some ways. DC is the East Coast city that stands out as being different. For starters, there are no substantial working class and lower middle class ethnic white populations (i.e. Italians) in DC like there are in Baltimore, Philly and NYC. Even Baltimore has a Little Italy. Baltimore and Philly are much more similar than Baltimore and DC even though DC and Baltimore are closer to each other than Baltimore and Philly. The black populations in Baltimore and Philly, and NYC to a slightly lesser extent, are more culturally alike (i.e. "hack" cabs, people still wearing baggier/looser clothes in a similar fashion in the black areas of those cities). DC's black and white populations are pretty unique. DC's black population has a unique style of dress with its own trends (i.e. Helley Hansen jackets in 2014). DC native Rap star Wale, who grew up in DC and suburban Montgomery County, definitely helped bring DC's inner city style to the masses across America popularizing local DC Area style staples like Nike Foamposites. DC's white population is also very distinctive in being very exclusive, preppy, upper middle class or wealthy in a way that is very unique to the DC Area, in my opinion.
In my opinion, DC is more similar to San Francisco than Baltimore or Philadelphia. Baltimore and Philadelphia are older towns with much less gentrification and investment than DC or SF. Swaths of DC and SF have been totally renovated and remodeled through gentrification over the past 20 or so years. Both DC and SF rank high as being the most gentrified big cities in America. Although SF is not one of the cleanest cities, generally Philly and Baltimore and much dirtier and neglected than SF or DC. SF and DC have minimal blight by big city standards as even the bad areas in SF and DC consist of occupied well-maintained buildings and homes, just with bars on the doors and windows. Philly and Baltimore have blocks and blocks of abandoned buildings and rowhomes. Only in the worst areas of SF and DC will you see many boarded up buildings, abandoned homes and plywood shut public housing project apartments (i.e. Barry Farms in SE DC and Sunnydale in SF).
The white populations in DC and SF are very similar in being very liberal, but in different ways. White SF liberals tout diversity and tolerance, yet there are hardly any black people left in SF due to gentrification. Similarly, white DC natives love Obama, yet they are very exclusionary and generally do not associate with black DC residents unless they are wealthy educated token black people from primarily white upbringings. Black San Franciscans and black DC natives also have a lot in common in disproportionately representing the face of the poor and not benefitting from waves of gentrification that occur in their formerly black-majority neighborhoods. Also, Both DC and SF are not extremely diverse. Both cities are split between two races. SF is mostly white and Asian with a growing population of Latinos and a small quickly disappearing peripheral population of native born blacks. DC is mostly black and white with very small Latino and Asian populations.
SF and DC are also similar in the fact that both cities attract career-oriented college educated people from all over America. SF attracts tech nerds whereas DC attracts IT nerds, government workers, people who want to work at non-profit organizations, lawyers and those wanting to excel in the world of politics. Both cities have been described as bad places to start a relationship. Also, SF and DC are generally not considered to have as many attractive people per capita or as nearly exciting a nightlife as their larger coastal sister cities of L.A. and NYC, respectively.
Also, both DC and SF have higher than average gay populations. DC has been recently proclaimed as the "gayest city in America". SF has been unable to shake this widely held stereotype since before the 80's:
Both SF and DC are not the largest or most culturally dominant cities on their respective coasts. The obvious title on the East goes to NYC and the title on the West goes to Los Angeles. NYC and L.A. are more dominant in the world of fashion, music and film in terms of mainstream American culture. Much of L.A.'s economy rides on the entertainment industry. Hollywood remains one of the main opiates of the masses. NYC is the fashion capital of the world and NYC originally birthed the now global cultural phenomena of Hip Hop. Because of this, SF and DC are not the first cities that come to mind when thinking of the West and East Coasts, respectively. However, in some ways, both SF and DC are more important than their much larger more renowned coastal urban counterparts. For example and most obviously, DC is the nation's capital. NYC can't stake that claim. Also, the DC Area is wealthier and more educated on average than NYC. DC is the most educated big city in America with the highest median incomes. Similarly, SF and the Bay Area is wealthier and more educated on average than L.A.
Also, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley continue to modernize our world through the technological revolution continuing to be pioneered there as Apple, Craigslist, Google and Facebook are all based in the Bay Area. SF also many times ranks above Los Angles in being an international tourist destination. SF is renowned as being one of the world's most beautiful cities. L.A. never makes those lists. Similarly, DC has some of the most unique scenery and city layout of any East Coast city.
Pretty decent post there, I agree on most points. Anyone who has spent time in either city will say the same thing, Baltimore and Philly are mirror images of each other. Phila is just larger with a little more commerce than Bmore. Phila does not remind me of NY more than it does Baltimore they just happen to be further apart. I too see DC and SF as the East and West versions of each other (arguably most important on their respective coasts), the 2nd largest CSA on each coast, and both with their own unique traits. I firmly agree/believe in the importance of SF and DC. IMO without a doubt NYC, DC, and SF Bay Area are the 3 most important city/ metro's in the US. The financial/media/fashion capitol, the National Capitol and center of government and defense, and the modern day Innovation Capitol, being that the tech industry is this generation's "industrial revolution" etc.
Going forward these 3 cities will continue to be the anchors of the country in terms of most influential and important. They represent 3 of the top 4 GDP regions of the country. NOVA although not SF with the tech stuff, is considered the Silicon Valley of the east, of course in a much different way than the Bay Area but still of very much influence. NY, SF, and DC have the most educated and affluent people in the nation, and some of the best universities also. So in ending I would say that DC is a little more closer to a microcosm of NY than any other East Coast city, and SF would be the other most comparable.
Last edited by the resident09; 03-03-2014 at 06:16 PM..
I disagree. Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston are all similar in some ways. DC is the East Coast city that stands out as being different. For starters, there are no substantial working class and lower middle class ethnic white populations (i.e. Italians) in DC like there are in Baltimore, Philly and NYC. Even Baltimore has a Little Italy. Baltimore and Philly are much more similar than Baltimore and DC even though DC and Baltimore are closer to each other than Baltimore and Philly. The black populations in Baltimore and Philly, and NYC to a slightly lesser extent, are more culturally alike (i.e. "hack" cabs, people still wearing baggier/looser clothes in a similar fashion in the black areas of those cities). DC's black and white populations are pretty unique. DC's black population has a unique style of dress with its own trends (i.e. Helley Hansen jackets in 2014). DC native Rap star Wale, who grew up in DC and suburban Montgomery County, definitely helped bring DC's inner city style to the masses across America popularizing local DC Area style staples like Nike Foamposites. DC's white population is also very distinctive in being very exclusive, preppy, upper middle class or wealthy in a way that is very unique to the DC Area, in my opinion.
In my opinion, DC is more similar to San Francisco than Baltimore or Philadelphia. Baltimore and Philadelphia are older towns with much less gentrification and investment than DC or SF. Swaths of DC and SF have been totally renovated and remodeled through gentrification over the past 20 or so years. Both DC and SF rank high as being the most gentrified big cities in America. Although SF is not one of the cleanest cities, generally Philly and Baltimore and much dirtier and neglected than SF or DC. SF and DC have minimal blight by big city standards as even the bad areas in SF and DC consist of occupied well-maintained buildings and homes, just with bars on the doors and windows. Philly and Baltimore have blocks and blocks of abandoned buildings and rowhomes. Only in the worst areas of SF and DC will you see many boarded up buildings, abandoned homes and plywood shut public housing project apartments (i.e. Barry Farms in SE DC and Sunnydale in SF).
The white populations in DC and SF are very similar in being very liberal, but in different ways. White SF liberals tout diversity and tolerance, yet there are hardly any black people left in SF due to gentrification. Similarly, white DC natives love Obama, yet they are very exclusionary and generally do not associate with black DC residents unless they are wealthy educated token black people from primarily white upbringings. Black San Franciscans and black DC natives also have a lot in common in disproportionately representing the face of the poor and not benefitting from waves of gentrification that occur in their formerly black-majority neighborhoods. Also, Both DC and SF are not extremely diverse. Both cities are split between two races. SF is mostly white and Asian with a growing population of Latinos and a small quickly disappearing peripheral population of native born blacks. DC is mostly black and white with very small Latino and Asian populations.
SF and DC are also similar in the fact that both cities attract career-oriented college educated people from all over America. SF attracts tech nerds whereas DC attracts IT nerds, government workers, people who want to work at non-profit organizations, lawyers and those wanting to excel in the world of politics. Both cities have been described as bad places to start a relationship. Also, SF and DC are generally not considered to have as many attractive people per capita or as nearly exciting a nightlife as their larger coastal sister cities of L.A. and NYC, respectively.
Also, both DC and SF have higher than average gay populations. DC has been recently proclaimed as the "gayest city in America". SF has been unable to shake this widely held stereotype since before the 80's:
Both SF and DC are not the largest or most culturally dominant cities on their respective coasts. The obvious title on the East goes to NYC and the title on the West goes to Los Angeles. NYC and L.A. are more dominant in the world of fashion, music and film in terms of mainstream American culture. Much of L.A.'s economy rides on the entertainment industry. Hollywood remains one of the main opiates of the masses. NYC is the fashion capital of the world and NYC originally birthed the now global cultural phenomena of Hip Hop. Because of this, SF and DC are not the first cities that come to mind when thinking of the West and East Coasts, respectively. However, in some ways, both SF and DC are more important than their much larger more renowned coastal urban counterparts. For example and most obviously, DC is the nation's capital. NYC can't stake that claim. Also, the DC Area is wealthier and more educated on average than NYC. DC is the most educated big city in America with the highest median incomes. Similarly, SF and the Bay Area is wealthier and more educated on average than L.A.
Also, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley continue to modernize our world through the technological revolution continuing to be pioneered there as Apple, Craigslist, Google and Facebook are all based in the Bay Area. SF also many times ranks above Los Angles in being an international tourist destination. SF is renowned as being one of the world's most beautiful cities. L.A. never makes those lists. Similarly, DC has some of the most unique scenery and city layout of any East Coast city.
Brilliant post, I agree with most of your points. Btw, don't forget to add Yelp for San Francisco. DC is also home to LivingSocial.
None really in my experience. DC is pretty unique. Unique in the respect that sucks balls.
J/K. DC is OK but I don't think any other cities really compare.
I agree on a lot of levels. Even DC and SF have tremendous differences. SF is nowhere near as black as DC and never has been. SF was blackest in the 70's at around 16% of the population. DC was around 70%+ black at its blackest in the 70's and 80's. SF also has a massive Asian population. Chinatown in DC is like two blocks and you barely see any Asian people there. Just like how the Fillmore in SF used to the "Harlem of the West", yet you see fewer and fewer black people in that area with every passing year. Also, SF natives, and Bay Area natives in general, tend to be people of all backgrounds who generally get along with all different types of people no matter what their background may be. DC is not like this as black and white natives generally do not associate with one another.
SF is also much more laid-back than DC. DC is all about work, work, work. SF is becoming a city for rich people who are rich enough not to work. When DC people are in SF, they are usually grossed out by the massive amounts of crazy rowdy homeless people smoking weed all day everyday in Golden Gate Park and even more sketched out by massive amounts of addicts, drug pushers, gang bangers and messed up people congregated downtown in the Tenderloin. DC is all about ambition. But the 60's never died in the Haight and Golden Gate Park. There are weathered old hippies my parents' age who still stick it out in the park smoking and selling weed all day and never became yuppies. I mean, really, if you can make $300-500 a day selling weed in the park in the most weed friendly big city in America, you don't really need a white collar job and a suit. But DC people don't understand this mentality.
SF is also much less materialistic and status-conscious than DC. SF is granola, all about the great outdoors. DC is about that yuppie Patrick Bateman life. People in SF, as a whole, care much less about clothes than cities like NYC and DC. But in DC, even black kids in the ghetto are wearing authentic Prada and Gucci whereas many of their counterparts in SF prefer to wear no-name brand black hoodies and beanies all year round.
From a topographical standpoint, there is no city in America, and maybe even in the world, like SF with the amazing backdrop of the towering steep hills which are scary as all hell to drive on if you are from elsewhere. The feeling of a slowed down roller coaster in your own car driving in SF is not cool if you are used to the flat landscape of the East Coast. There is also no city like DC which has the mass amounts of cherry blossoms in the Spring and the monuments. DC is also unique in being one of the only major cities without a big commercial skyline. It gets weird seeing all these tall buildings in Northern Virginia and towns like Bethesda in Maryland after spending all day in the District.
Last edited by LunaticVillage; 03-04-2014 at 01:49 PM..
SF is far more diverse in the actual city though, no? I know a lot do, but I generally don't care for whatever is in the burbs of a place. SF feels far more diverse being there than DC, but I understand if DC is close metrowide on paper.
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.
But DC people don't understand this mentality.
