San Francisco vs. Chicago vs. New York (populations, best, cost)
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.
True, but irrelevant. It has far fewer foreign-born residents than in NYC.
True, but irrelevant. Again, it has far fewer foreign-born speakers than in NYC.
Huh? Why would the absolute numbers be more relevant than the percentage? By absolute numbers, NYC will win for almost anything, since it's much larger.
Between SF and Chicago the food question is debatable, depending on your criteria. I love them both. SF is to my mind the more culinarily influential city - the whole locavore, farm to table thing started there and is still done better there than anywhere else- the long growing season really helps.
However, to my palette, Chicago offers a significantly greater variety of excellent eating. SF has better Chinese food and seafood options, French, Italian a wash. Surprisingly, Chicago has MUCH better Mexican food from every region and at every price point, much better Vietnamese, Thai and Indian food (to get good Vietnamese food in the bay area, you really have to go to San Jose), much better central and eastern European food, much better soul food and BBQ, more and much better Middle Eastern -Greek, Arab and Turkish food and so on.
Food culture in SF is generally more sophisticated. Food culture in Chicago is quite a bit more cosmopolitan. There is also more what to me is bad food in Chicago. I hate deep dish pizza, but love a Chicago hot dog. Fine-dining is very close, but edge Chicago, especially since the really spectacular restaurants in the Bay Area - Chez Panisse, French Laundry are not actually in SF.
Both Chicago and SF are very, very good eating towns. I prefer Chicago, but can see how someone could prefer SF.
The nightlife comparison is indeed not close, especially late nights when almost all of SF feels like a sleepy country town compared to large chunks of the north side of Chicago.
Good assessment. I, like you prefer chicago but its subjective and can go either way. I struggle with which one is more influential. Culinary speaking, you could argue SF. However, if by influence its more about dictating the way we eat, and also international perception or american food (good or bad)then you can argue Chicago, McDonalds being a prime example.
I prefer the fine dining in Chicago. Sf gets my nod for for most asian cuisines.
Anyway, in 2012 the CSA-level racial breakdowns for these 2 cities is:
Chicago
White 54.8%
Hispanic 21.0%
Black 16.7%
Asian 5.7%
Multiracial 1.5%
American Indian 0.1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Is. 0.0%
Some other race 0.1%
New York
White 50.6%
Hispanic 22.4%
Black 15.3%
Asian 9.4%
Multiracial 1.5%
Some other race 0.6%
American Indian 0.1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Is. 0.0%
San Francisco
White 42.1%
Hispanic 24.3%
Asian 22.9%
Black 5.9%
Multiracial 3.6%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Is. 0.6%
American Indian 0.3%
Some other race 0.3%
Good assessment. I, like you prefer chicago but its subjective and can go either way. I struggle with which one is more influential. Culinary speaking, you could argue SF. However, if by influence its more about dictating the way we eat, and also international perception or american food (good or bad)then you can argue Chicago, McDonalds being a prime example.
I prefer the fine dining in Chicago. Sf gets my nod for for most asian cuisines.
Not true. SF Bay Area has very low % of AA, while NYC area has above-average % of all racial minority groups.
True, but irrelevant. It has far fewer foreign-born residents than in NYC.
True, but irrelevant. Again, it has far fewer foreign-born speakers than in NYC.
100% true, and one of the biggest weakness of the Bay Area diversity. It's extremely dispersed and suburbanized, and essentially not as distinctive as in metro areas with more discrete ethnic neighborhoods.
A third-generation Mexican-American suburb, filled with Applebees and Walmart and tract homes, is not comparable to a first-generation Mexican-American neighborhood in an urban environment. Unfortunately the SF is filled with the former, and has very little of the latter, while the NYC area is completely reversed.
What you're saying makes no difference as we don't go by raw number but by percentages.
Using your logic you can make the claim that NYC is "Blacker" than Detroit because "It has more blacks."
Using your logic you can make the claim that NYC is more Hispanic than San Antonio because NYC has more hispanics.
Using your logic, you can claim that NYC is the poorest city in the nation because it has the most people overall in poverty.
Metro-wide, the Bay Area is more diverse than the NYC metro area.
I'm not sure why ethnic segregation is a positive, having very segregated ethnic enclaves together with rather non-diverse suburbs is an odd plus. The Bay Area's setup also likely leads to less social segregation. In any case, San Francisco is roughly similar to the metro-wide average.
The bay is actually quite socially segregated. Both in life style and income.complete with natural barriers like hills, valleys, and such.
Yeah it started as a roadside restaurant, but it became the global behemoth that its known today in chicagoland.
Not really, it was started and had multiple locations in California and Arizona before Ray Kroc became a franchisee. That cultural phenomenon was already underway in Southern California. In fact the oldest Mcdonalds in existence today is in Downey, California and was already in operation before Ray Kroc became a franchisee. Kroc didnt buy out the McDonalds brothers until 1961. The first McDs opened in 1948 in San Bernardino California.
What you're saying makes no difference as we don't go by raw number but by percentages.
Using your logic you can make the claim that NYC is "Blacker" than Detroit because "It has more blacks."
Using your logic you can make the claim that NYC is more Hispanic than San Antonio because NYC has more hispanics.
Using your logic, you can claim that NYC is the poorest city in the nation because it has the most people overall in poverty.
Its faulty logic imo.
Who is we. Both metrics are useful for the right situations.
Say if you want to figure out where the best and brightest people are, there are far more educated and bright people working in Manhattan than Raleigh. All of them congregate together there and in social circles, you can make contacts with them. However, Raleigh is always on the "most educated" list... This doesn't mean much when one metro is 23.5 million and another is 2 million. Same thing can be applied when putting up the entire Bay Area vs NYC Metro. The entire combined MSA's of San Francisco and San Jose has left people than just NYC city limits. Therefore, percentage may not be the best metric there.
His logic is correct, there can be far more successful blacks in New York than Detroit. There can be far more black interest groups in NYC than Detroit. And this is the case.
This is why he said it is IRRELEVANT but TRUE. Not sure what there is not being comprehended here. He did not say it isn't "accurate". It is accurate, but indeed it is irrelevant when one place has 16 million more people than the other one.
Last edited by grapico; 12-26-2013 at 10:58 AM..
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.
