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.
Essex County, MA:
Population: 775,860
Median Family Income: $92,021
72.0% White
19.6% Hispanic
3.3% Asian
2.9% Black
1.5% Multiracial
Middlesex County, MA
Population: 1,582,857
Median Family Income: $117,048
73.3% White
11.1% Asian
7.6% Hispanic
4.8% Black
2.2% Multiracial
Norfolk County, MA
Population: 694,389
Median Family Income: $120,087
76.6% White
10.2% Asian
6.1% Black
4.0% Hispanic
1.8% Multiracial
Plymouth County, MA
Population: 509,117
Median Family Income: $100,207
81.7% White
8.6% Black
3.5% Hispanic
1.9% Multiracial
1.1% Asian
Suffolk County, MA
Population: 780,680
Median Family Income: $69,026
45.5% White
21.8% Hispanic
19.6% Black
8.5% Asian
2.3% Multiracial
Rockingham County, NH
Population: 302,479
Median Family Income: $103,321
93.0% White
2.6% Hispanic
1.9% Asian
0.6% Black
0.02% Multiracial
Stafford County, NH
Population: 126,552
Median Family Income: $83,941
91.2% White
3.1% Asian
2.1% Hispanic
0.7% Black
0.1% Multiracial
San Francisco Metro counties
Alameda County, CA
Population: 1,629,625
Median Family Income: $103,600
32.1% White
28.7% Asian
22.5% Hispanic
10.7% Black
4.3% Multiracial
Contra Costa County, CA
Population: 1,123,678
Median Family Income: $103,598
44.8% White
25.2% Hispanic
15.7% Asian
8.2% Black
4.6% Multiracial
Marin County, CA
Population: 260,814
Median Family Income: $136,857
71.5% White
15.7% Hispanic
5.6% Asian
3.6% Multiracial
2.0% Black
San Francisco County, CA
Population: 864,264
Median Family Income:$114,049
40.8% White
33.7% Asian
15.1% Hispanic
5.0% Black
3.8% Multiracial
San Mateo County, CA
Population: 763,450
Median Family Income: $124,485
39.8% White
27.1% Asian
24.9% Hispanic
3.8% Multiracial
2.2% Black
these are a bit outdated. These are updated figures:
All of these MA counties except Suffolk are 2-3% less white than the figures you have here. Whereas all the CA counties are either just as white as they were or have declined by ~1%. The Boston area is diversifying 2-3x as quickly.
I dont really look at the NH counties-the heart of Stafford County NH is 68 miles from Boston with no rail or bus service direct to Boston.Whereas Providence is 43 miles from Boston and has direct rail service. Providence is much more culturally ingrained into Boston than whatever or who ever is in Stafford County NH-in every possible way. North Easton MA is 15.3 miles from the border of Boston and is not included in the MSA yet towns in NH some 75 miles away are? Yea- MSA for Bsoton is totally invalid from a sociological viewpoint.
Providence County is :
60.9% white
12.3% Black
23.4% hispanic
4.5% Asian
3.2% mixed race
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 09-23-2019 at 09:30 AM..
I'm not from SF, and other than being profiled at a Subway restaurant by Asians, I haven't had poor experiences in SF...
I'm from Sacramento, and I have a grandfather who was born and raised in Potrero Hill SF, who has given me plenty of conversations about black SF of his youth and where it is today. As I mentioned to another poster, it's easy to minimize things that either don't affect you and/or you dont care about. Said poster has zero ties of significance to Black SF and thus no emotional attachment whatsoever to what being black in SF is like or what is has been over the last 50 years. Simplifying what has happened to Black SF to gentrification is only something that someone who doesn't and hasn't cared for Black SF would do...
I've been black in SF because I am black, and my grandfather is black and spent the first 35 years of his life in SF...
I heard of that Danny Glover movie and will get around to watching it...
Boston over San Francisco. SF is probably a decent amount more expensive and Boston and the weather just isn't worth it. I don't even think Boston is worth it. However, everything I'm looking for in a city is in Boston so there is no reason to choose SF for me.
these are a bit outdated. These are updated figures:
Well its a five-year average from 2012-2017.
Quote:
All of these MA counties except Suffolk are 2-3% less white than the figures you have here. Whereas all the CA counties are either just as white as they were or have declined by ~1%. The Boston area is diversifying 2-3x as quickly.
Well that should be the case because all but 1 of them have massive white supermajorities.
In the meantime here is every county in the Bay Area CSA:
Non-Hispanic White Population:
71.5% Marin, CA
63.1% Sonoma, CA
56.9% Santa Cruz, CA
52.0% Napa, CA
Less than 50% 43.2% Contra Costa, CA
41.1% Stanislaus, CA
40.3% San Francisco, CA
38.9% San Mateo, CA
37.6% Solano, CA
33.5% San Benito, CA
31.1% Alameda, CA
31.0% San Joaquin, CA
31.0% Santa Clara, CA
27.1% Merced, CA
Also, Asians are now the largest group in the Bay Area's 2 largest counties, Santa Clara(38.3%) crossed the threshold in 2014, and in 2018, it happened in Alameda( 31.8%)
I love both and consider both to be near the top of the list of cities that I'd actively seek to live in (currently in Boston). However, count me in the group that would take Boston over SF even if all other things we equal. In fact, I've literally lived this debate and will likely live it again in the coming years. I agree with another poster who said that even though the cities are peers, SF objectively offers more amenities/attractions. I wouldn't dispute that. But given the cost differential (Boston's expensive, but SF is still worse), it would be easy to pick Boston over SF.
The cost of living in the Bay Area, lack of significant salary boost over Boston, and spotty transit in the core were major factors in choosing Boston over SF. SF was quite literally less worth the cost of living there in spite potentially winning on paper in other ways.
Well that should be the case because all but 1 of them have massive white supermajorities.
In the meantime here is every county in the Bay Area CSA:
Non-Hispanic White Population:
71.5% Marin, CA
63.1% Sonoma, CA
56.9% Santa Cruz, CA
52.0% Napa, CA
Less than 50% 43.2% Contra Costa, CA
41.1% Stanislaus, CA
40.3% San Francisco, CA
38.9% San Mateo, CA
37.6% Solano, CA
33.5% San Benito, CA
31.1% Alameda, CA
31.0% San Joaquin, CA
31.0% Santa Clara, CA
27.1% Merced, CA
Also, Asians are now the largest group in the Bay Area's 2 largest counties, Santa Clara(38.3%) crossed the threshold in 2014, and in 2018, it happened in Alameda( 31.8%)
There is more up to date data available on AmericanFact Finder and USQuickFacts, 2017 1 year estimates and even some 2018 day. That data had been available to the public for a year2012-2017 data is more representative of 2014/2015 data. The links I provided you are the most up to date information available, you should click them. As I said the Bay Area is more diverse overall but it’s close than you might think and the gap is closing rapidly as Boston diversifies much more quickly than the Bay. With a decline in non Hispanic white percentage of nearly 1% a year in 3/5 counties and smaller declines in Suffolk and Plymouth. The counties being super white majorities doesn’t have anything to do with the raw decline in white numbers they are seeing nor does it mean that the counties should be diversifying so much quicker. It’s just as difficult to go from 40% to 39% as it is to go from 70% to 69%.If it were a small population or small counties with white supermajorities then it would be different.
The other point of my post was the Boston MSA boundaries are pretty irrelevant and non sensical.
Regardless, Boston is a significantly more diverse city proper.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 09-23-2019 at 11:11 AM..
I love both and consider both to be near the top of the list of cities that I'd actively seek to live in (currently in Boston). However, count me in the group that would take Boston over SF even if all other things we equal. In fact, I've literally lived this debate and will likely live it again in the coming years. I agree with another poster who said that even though the cities are peers, SF objectively offers more amenities/attractions. I wouldn't dispute that. But given the cost differential (Boston's expensive, but SF is still worse), it would be easy to pick Boston over SF.
The cost of living in the Bay Area, lack of significant salary boost over Boston, and spotty transit in the core were major factors in choosing Boston over SF. SF was quite literally less worth the cost of living there in spite potentially winning on paper in other ways.
Depends what you mean by amenities/attraction. 4 seasons, easy access to NYC and DC, great public transportation, and being the historical epicenter of our country are things that SF does not have.
Depends what you mean by amenities/attraction. 4 seasons, easy access to NYC and DC, great public transportation, and being the historical epicenter of our country are things that SF does not have.
No, you're right and I love all of those things about Boston. But I would argue that people generally enjoy the milder weather that you find in SF over 4 distinct seasons (and I say that as someone who prefers the seasons). I'd also argue that SF has a better natural setting and access to the outdoors (both locally and within a few hours drive), and is generally a better city for drinking (though I vastly prefer Boston/New England for beer)/eating/shopping, etc.
In regards to cities in the region, SF has a lot of smaller ones that can be interesting like Sacramento (which isn’t all that small) and Reno.
Aside from the Northeast Corridor cities, and there are some gems among the smaller ones, there’s also Montreal which is a fantastic city.
I think if you’re worried about affording these cities and you are in lined to like both, then these two have a lot of attributes such as their many walkable neighborhoods, rich history, and a diversity of people shared with two far more affordable cities. Those two are Chicago and Philadelphia and they are much more affordable when it comes to most cost of living metrics. These are fantastic cities, so if you feel like SF is grinding you down a bit with its costs, then you might consider these two as in comparison to SF and Boston, they can very well be worth their costs as they are both cheaper and in some ways equal or better cities.
Chicago and Philadelphia are lateral moves, but if you also want to step down even more in costs and don't mind stepping down in size a bit, then there are older industrial Midwest and Northeast cities to consider like Pittsburgh, Providence, St. Louis, and Cincinnati.
Yeah but the main reason why I moved out of Seattle is because I think it is not diverse enough...Basically even though they're the most expensive as a non-white person I only feel comfortable living in California or the Northeast at this point. Otherwise I'd rather just move back to Asia. I'd take some second world Asian country than living in a white majority city and perpetually feeling like an outsider.
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.
