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.
Which of these two expensive cities do you think is less justifiably expensive? As in I mean that they are both expensive but one of them is worth more for its cost than the other one if that makes any sense. I only include two examples for now but if you have another relevant example please do share thank you.
San Francisco is the most overrated major city in America and is the worst major city for people of the African diaspora. The complete blatant charge to marginalize and eliminate its black culture and communities is 50 years running now, just a deliberate action plan of black erasure...
For that alone it gets the answer to OP question. However, I'm acutely aware that I'm saying this on an online community that could give a rat's ass about anything black, so with that being said...
Let's add in the fact that SF is more relatively isolated than Boston, Boston has better and more extensive rail transit, Boston is more ethnically diverse, and Boston has a more compelling history and historical importance...
SF could slide right into the ocean with the next major quake and I'd only be upset for one of my grandfathers, who is 77 and grew up in SF...
In a vacuum SF is more impressive to me. Larger downtown core, beautiful natural setting , etc. But both are really expensive for what you get. Personally I don't think they are worth their cost anymore. At this point, I would prefer NYC or Philly/Chicago to Boston. You can get a global mega city for a little more money or you can save money and live in a comparable city. SF is more unique geographically, but I would probably prefer Seattle or SD as a west coast alternative.
San Francisco is the most overrated major city in America and is the worst major city for people of the African diaspora. The complete blatant charge to marginalize and eliminate its black culture and communities is 50 years running now, just a deliberate action plan of black erasure...
For that alone it gets the answer to OP question. However, I'm acutely aware that I'm saying this on an online community that could give a rat's ass about anything black, so with that being said...
Let's add in the fact that SF is more relatively isolated than Boston, Boston has better and more extensive rail transit, Boston is more ethnically diverse, and Boston has a more compelling history and historical importance...
SF could slide right into the ocean with the next major quake and I'd only be upset for one of my grandfathers, who is 77 and grew up in SF...
A lot of assumptions there. In any case, is Boston really more ethnically diverse? I’m almost certain at the metro level SF is, and I thought at the city level as well. Don’t have time to look it up right now but I’d be interested in seeing the stats.
San Francisco is the most overrated major city in America and is the worst major city for people of the African diaspora. The complete blatant charge to marginalize and eliminate its black culture and communities is 50 years running now, just a deliberate action plan of black erasure...
For that alone it gets the answer to OP question. However, I'm acutely aware that I'm saying this on an online community that could give a rat's ass about anything black, so with that being said...
Let's add in the fact that SF is more relatively isolated than Boston, Boston has better and more extensive rail transit, Boston is more ethnically diverse, and Boston has a more compelling history and historical importance...
SF could slide right into the ocean with the next major quake and I'd only be upset for one of my grandfathers, who is 77 and grew up in SF...
I think Boston would take the cake for most overrated major city in America, but SF would be a close second.
A lot of assumptions there. In any case, is Boston really more ethnically diverse? I’m almost certain at the metro level SF is, and I thought at the city level as well. Don’t have time to look it up right now but I’d be interested in seeing the stats.
At the city level Boston is magnitudes more diverse than San Francisco.
Boston is
44% whites. -Large chunks of which are Portuguese and Brazilian.
23% black-about half of which are from or descended for. Parents native to Haiti Jamaica Cape Verde Kenya Trinidad Barbados Nigeria etc.
20% Hispanic - a mix of Dominicans Puerto Rican Salvadoran Colombian and Honduran
10% Asian- a mix of Chinese Vietnamese and Indian
3% Mixed race
Boston’s largest racial groups account for 57% of the population.
San Francisco is
41% white
34% Asian mainly Chinese with a dash of Japanese and Korean
15% Hispanic-heavily Mexican
5% Black- almost only black american
5% Mixed Race
San Francisco’s two largest racial groups account for 75% of the population.
About 75 different languages are spoken in Boston Public Schools.
As of 2017, San Francisco is the country’s 11th most diverse large city, down from 2nd in 1980.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 09-22-2019 at 04:46 PM..
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.
