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.
Basically Boston has been getting blacker and SF hasn't.
And this has been going on for more than a decade.
I remember going into SF on my first and so far only visit to the Bay Area, in 2006 — I was staying first with a cousin of mine who lived in the Oakland flats, then with a gay white couple I knew (one half a Missouri native whose acquaintance I made via a Usenet newsgroup) who lived up in the hills — and reading this headline in that day's San Francisco Chronicle:
"S.F. officials move to stem African-American exodus"
The article explained that the Black share of the city's population had fallen by half since 2000 — from 13 percent of the total to six. Moreover, the Blacks moving out were the ones who had money, and they were all decamping for Oakland and nearby locations in the East Bay.
Looks like not much has changed since, save that the percentage has stabilized at a little more than six.
And this has been going on for more than a decade.
I remember going into SF on my first and so far only visit to the Bay Area, in 2006 — I was staying first with a cousin of mine who lived in the Oakland flats, then with a gay white couple I knew (one half a Missouri native whose acquaintance I made via a Usenet newsgroup) who lived up in the hills — and reading this headline in that day's San Francisco Chronicle:
"S.F. officials move to stem African-American exodus"
The article explained that the Black share of the city's population had fallen by half since 2000 — from 13 percent of the total to six. Moreover, the Blacks moving out were the ones who had money, and they were all decamping for Oakland and nearby locations in the East Bay.
Looks like not much has changed since, save that the percentage has stabilized at a little more than six.
While this has been going on for some time you assessment is rather muddled MEL.
San Francisco peaked at 13.4% black in 1980 or 1970..it dropped to 6% by ~2006 estimates.as of 2019 it was estimated at 5.2%. Easily the least black major city in the US. Its suburbs are blacker than SF. It's just a very fundamentally different animal than Boston (23.1% black alone non mixed) in this respect.
If you're Bill Burr and you're growing up in 1970s Canton MA which I at the time 95%+ white then your only prolonged exposure to ‘Boston’ being as a student at Emerson (in ultra white downtown Boston) from 1988-1993...then you leave MA for good at age 25 in 1994....There's almost way Boston doesn't feel like a racist San Francisco. That's what I would expect.
But that's obviously not having a great understanding or feel for the city lol. Why this is brought up would be a question I would have if not for it being brought up by CD18, so it goes w/o saying.
San Francisco is outwardly and aggressively progressive and a White/asian city. For all intents and purposes there is no middle class. Other issues/national and global issue become more to the forefront. San Francisco has few enough black people on the city has sort of made then abort of it's celebrated “history” than a (threatening) group vying for social/civic visibility/dominance as one feels in modern day Boston.
Boston is genuinely progressive but more so in a nanny state and behind the scenes way. It is a white/’Blacktino’ city. Boston most pressing issue is the shrinking middle class and the preservation I than middle class. Local issues are more central. In Boston black people are seen as having increased roles and presence as we move forward and there are enough that they're are verh viable and influential group within city politics. In creasing in raw number and diversity with quickly very rising incomes.
Nevermind SF is more wealthy and educated than Boston in a state that is less wealthy and educated than MA
While this has been going on for some time you assessment is rather muddled MEL.
San Francisco peaked at 13.4% black in 1980 or 1970..it dropped to 6% by ~2006 estimates.as of 2019 it was estimated at 5.2%. Easily the least black major city in the US. Its suburbs are blacker than SF. It's just a very fundamentally different animal than Boston (23.1% black alone non mixed) in this respect.
If you're Bill Burr and you're growing up in 1970s Canton MA which I at the time 95%+ white then your only prolonged exposure to ‘Boston’ being as a student at Emerson (in ultra white downtown Boston) from 1988-1993...then you leave MA for good at age 25 in 1994....There's almost way Boston doesn't feel like a racist San Francisco. That's what I would expect.
But that's obviously not having a great understanding or feel for the city lol. Why this is brought up would be a question I would have if not for it being brought up by CD18, so it goes w/o saying.
San Francisco is outwardly and aggressively progressive and a White/asian city. For all intents and purposes there is no middle class. Other issues/national and global issue become more to the forefront. San Francisco has few enough black people on the city has sort of made then abort of it's celebrated “history” than a (threatening) group vying for social/civic visibility/dominance as one feels in modern day Boston.
Boston is genuinely progressive but more so in a nanny state and behind the scenes way. It is a white/’Blacktino’ city. Boston most pressing issue is the shrinking middle class and the preservation I than middle class. Local issues are more central. In Boston black people are seen as having increased roles and presence as we move forward and there are enough that they're are verh viable and influential group within city politics. In creasing in raw number and diversity with quickly very rising incomes.
Nevermind SF is more wealthy and educated than Boston in a state that is less wealthy and educated than MA
Is that last sentence supposed to be a flip comment?
Whatever I've said about where I live now relative to Boston in this thread, I felt Boston had a notable Black presence when I attended college there in the 1970s. Of course, I traveled from Harvard Square to Dudley (now Nubian) Square to get my hair cut. And Boston, fresh from the worst of the busing conflict, had just elected a Black guy to its school board, although he may have gotten elected by fooling the Irish voters thanks to his surname. And that presence has grown only stronger since then, and two years before I left it, it had come awfully damn close to electing its first Black mayor.
Growing up, it was Oakland, not San Francisco, that I associated with Blackness in the Bay Area. Of course, the Black Panthers had something to do with that (and I'm sure it was no coincidence that King T'Challa's rival, Eric Killmonger, lived in Oakland in Black Panther), but in my experience, so did Tower of Power. And that association looks to me to endure to this day even as Oakland's image has gentrified in the popular press.
And I also remember thinking that San Francisco's progressivism was somewhat delusional: it seemed to me like I was visiting an urban version of Greenwich, Conn., where the rich white folks say all the right things while carefully making sure Blacks got nowhere near their precious jewel. (Of course, in the case of the latter, if you read Lawrence Otis Graham's "Member of the Club," you learn that in Greenwich, the rich white folks make no pretense of saying the right things among themselves.)
Is that last sentence supposed to be a flip comment?
Whatever I've said about where I live now relative to Boston in this thread, I felt Boston had a notable Black presence when I attended college there in the 1970s. Of course, I traveled from Harvard Square to Dudley (now Nubian) Square to get my hair cut. And Boston, fresh from the worst of the busing conflict, had just elected a Black guy to its school board, although he may have gotten elected by fooling the Irish voters thanks to his surname. And that presence has grown only stronger since then, and two years before I left it, it had come awfully damn close to electing its first Black mayor.
Growing up, it was Oakland, not San Francisco, that I associated with Blackness in the Bay Area. Of course, the Black Panthers had something to do with that (and I'm sure it was no coincidence that King T'Challa's rival, Eric Killmonger, lived in Oakland in Black Panther), but in my experience, so did Tower of Power. And that association looks to me to endure to this day even as Oakland's image has gentrified in the popular press.
And I also remember thinking that San Francisco's progressivism was somewhat delusional: it seemed to me like I was visiting an urban version of Greenwich, Conn., where the rich white folks say all the right things while carefully making sure Blacks got nowhere near their precious jewel. (Of course, in the case of the latter, if you read Lawrence Otis Graham's "Member of the Club," you learn that in Greenwich, the rich white folks make no pretense of saying the right things among themselves.)
How did you perceive the the last comment as flip?. Just stating SF is much more wealthy compared to its state than Boston to MA. That's sort of relevant. Nothing more to it.
Boston until extreeeeemly recently was seen as low income relative to the vast majority of it's suburbs, really almost allof them- except Chelsea and far flung Lawrence. Every single one.
That was the norm when I grew up in the 2000s, and even pretty recently- the first half if this decade. SF hasnt really occupied that position, at least not recently. Even still Bostons media income isnlowet than MA as a whole and SFs is 1.5x CA median household income
It's funny that you reference dudkey, today that's basically the northern end of the black community which rally just extends all the way through Boston to its southern borders-and beyond through Milton, Randolph, western Quincy , Stoughton, and into Brockton and Bridgewater. Which is vastly different than the 1970s. The black and latino population in places like Hyde Park, Roslindale, eastern Dorchester, and even West Roxbury is exponentially larger than it was back then. The presence is felt over a much larger land area in the city in part because there are.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 05-10-2021 at 04:40 AM..
Whether considered "coastal elite" or not, all cities are vulnerable to losing residents. Maybe not this year, or last year, but perhaps next year, or the year after. My point...don't brag too much on your city or state, as nothing stays the same, forever.
Yes, that is the key difference between the two. But, again, the real Miami or real Vegas is service sector, lower wages, lower educated population with industries boosted by excessive spending from wealthier expats/migrants, visitors, etc. Not sure why we are trying to characterize Miami by the way the 1% live. Miami has money for sure, but I'm not sure that's the exact same as being a coastal elite.
San Diego also has money (and higher education levels), but I don't consider it elite either. Maybe coastal elite is not limited to just having money and education, but also the fixation with these attributes as an indication of a person's value. Basically a person is valued by their wealth, education, upbringing. That would explain why Miami and San Diego rate lower. Not sure, just speculating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elchevere
The difference between Miami and Vegas is that Miami attracts considerably more who buy property and live—not just visit—here....
Real estate is valued at a much higher and I get the sense there ha far more wealth marked in suburban Miani than Las Vegas... Miami is a more mature city. And the unofficial capita of Latin America.theres similarities with Vegas but I think it's different enough. I do not think of Vegas as elite at all.
You aren't incorrect, but you missed the point. I think Miami's "eliteness" is surface level--I think people characterize the 7th most populous region by the lifestyles of the 1%.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,411 posts, read 6,571,094 times
Reputation: 6691
Miami’s Hispanic elite are a major influencer of culture, media and politics within the US Hispanic community.
Miami’s lifestyle and bling is an influencer of US pop culture.
and it attracts elites from elsewhere—not just because of its weather/beaches and trophy real estate (what other city, besides NYC, has elite Bentley, Aston Martin, Baccarat, and Porsche extending their brands by attaching their names to luxury condos) but yachts, high end shopping with several exclusive brands found in only a few, not dozens, select US cities, art/fashion and annual events creating something of a Monaco/Punta del Este/Mallorca of the US vibe that does get romanticized in media and film within the US and abroad.
So, yes, I would say coastal elite is not just limited to education or money. Miami is a rather unique city that attracts elites (some home grown, some “imported”)....as for the “real” Miami, NYC and LA are no less elite because Staten Island or Far Rockaway, not Manhattan, represents the real NY’er or Downey and Covina, not Beverly Hills, represents the real Angeleno...but I thought the discussion was on elites, not average person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego
Yes, that is the key difference between the two. But, again, the real Miami or real Vegas is service sector, lower wages, lower educated population with industries boosted by excessive spending from wealthier expats/migrants, visitors, etc. Not sure why we are trying to characterize Miami by the way the 1% live. Miami has money for sure, but I'm not sure that's the exact same as being a coastal elite.
San Diego also has money (and higher education levels), but I don't consider it elite either. Maybe coastal elite is not limited to just having money and education, but also the fixation with these attributes as an indication of a person's value. Basically a person is valued by their wealth, education, upbringing. That would explain why Miami and San Diego rate lower. Not sure, just speculating.
Last edited by elchevere; 05-12-2021 at 07:10 AM..
Miami is a rather unique city....as for the real Miami, NYC and LA are no less elite because Staten Island or Far Rockaway, not Manhattan, represents the real NY’er
Staten Island and Far Rockaway are unique in their own "special" way, and certainly aren't areas that represent your "average" New Yorker.
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.
