San Francisco vs. Houston? (rates, quality, food, living)

[Boston14]

San Francisco

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This was before the real estate crash. LA is way more affordable now.

That is, of course, if you can find a job.

[irishimm]

Culture and Diversity a tie? Are you crazy?

Originally Posted by machiavelli1

Being fair and unbiased...

Density: SF wins
Culture: tie
Diversity: tie
people: Houston
weather: SF
landscape: SF
job market: Houston
public trans: SF
family friendly: Houston
medicine: Houston
colleges: SF
k-12 schools: tie
politics: Houston
downtown: SF

I chose Houston because I found the people to be way more laid back and friendly

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by irishimm

Culture and Diversity a tie? Are you crazy?

I don't know, you be the judge.

Demographic maps of San Francisco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Houston Demographics (http://www.uwec.edu/freitard/GroupAndMinority/Houston/Demographics/demographics.html - broken link)

These maps seem to suggest Houston is more integrated than San Francisco. Although whites and blacks are pretty separate (not by much space in many spots though) look at the overlap of the concentrations of Latinos and Asians and how they are not as isolated from the white population as in the SF maps which look like they could be put together with a jigsaw puzzle.

And don't take those maps for too much - I'm a white guy living in one of the areas marked as having a high black population.

People elsewhere are starting to notice.

Businesses need to be heard - Washington Times

Houston is home to more than 3,000 international businesses, government offices and nonprofit organizations. More than half of the world's 100 largest non-U.S. corporations have operations in the region. Eighty-eight foreign countries have consulates in Houston.

More than 1 million Houstonians are foreign-born. It has been said that if you want to see what America will look like in 2060, look at Houston.

Anyway, all this is intended to be strictly educational. I'm not really here to tear down San Francisco, or any city for that matter.

The California government is still a train wreck though.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by jfre81

I don't know, you be the judge.

Demographic maps of San Francisco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Houston Demographics (http://www.uwec.edu/freitard/GroupAndMinority/Houston/Demographics/demographics.html - broken link)

These maps seem to suggest Houston is more integrated than San Francisco. Although whites and blacks are pretty separate (not by much space in many spots though) look at the overlap of the concentrations of Latinos and Asians and how they are not as isolated from the white population as in the SF maps which look like they could be put together with a jigsaw puzzle.

And don't take those maps for too much - I'm a white guy living in one of the areas marked as having a high black population.

People elsewhere are starting to notice.

Cities(pop 65,000+) by percentage of foreign born residents(30%+), 2007

Florida
Hialeah, FL 72.8% Miami
Miami, FL 58.5% Miami
Miami Beach, FL 49.6% Miami
Weston, FL 44.0% Miami
Miramar, FL 42.9% Miami
Pembroke Pines, FL 37.3% Miami
Sunrise, FL 35.9% Miami
Laurenhill, FL 31.6% Miami
Pompano Beach, FL 31.2% Miami
Miami Gardens, FL 30.1% Miami

NY/NJ/CT
Union City, NJ 56.4% New York
Elizabeth, NJ 44.5% New York
Passaic, NJ 44.1% New York
Stamford, CT 37.4% New York
Jersey City, NJ 36.8% New York
New York, NY 36.8% New York
Patterson, NJ 35.8% New York
Yonkers, NY 32.8% New York
Clifton, NJ 31.7% New York
New Rochelle, NY 31.7% New York

California
Alhambra, CA 58.8% Los Angeles
Glendale, CA 55.9% Los Angeles
El Monte, CA 54.3% Los Angeles
Santa Ana, CA 50.9% Los Angeles
Westminster, CA 49.4% Los Angeles
South Gate, CA 48.2% Los Angeles
Baldwin Park, CA 46.9% Los Angeles
Lynwood, CA 42.5% Los Angeles
Garden Grove 40.6% Los Angeles
Oxnard, CA 40.5% Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 39.9% Los Angeles
Anaheim, CA 39.0% Los Angeles
Norwalk, CA 38.8% Los Angeles
Tustin, CA 36.1% Los Angeles
Hawthorne, CA 36.0% Los Angeles
West Covina, CA 36.0% Los Angeles
Buena Park, CA 35.1% Los Angeles
Downey, CA 34.9% Los Angeles
Irvine, CA 34.6% Los Angeles
Pomona, CA 34.0% Los Angeles
Compton, CA 33.1% Los Angeles
Indio, CA 32.4% Los Angeles
Pasadena, CA 32.4% Los Angeles
Inglewood, CA 30.9% Los Angeles
Costa Mesa, CA 30.6% Los Angeles
Torrance, CA 30.0% Los Angeles
Daly City, CA 53.1% San Francisco
Milpitas, CA 51.3% San Francisco
Union City, CA 45.2% San Francisco
Sunnyvale, CA 43.6% San Francisco
Fremont, CA 43.1% San Francisco
Santa Clara, CA 41.4% San Francisco
San Jose, CA 39.8% San Francisco
Mountain View, CA 38.3% San Francisco
San Leandro, CA 37.8% San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 35.3% San Francisco
San Mateo, CA 35.2% San Francisco
Hayward, CA 35.0% San Francisco
Richmond, CA 33.1% San Francisco
Alameda, CA 31.5% San Francisco
Redwood City, CA 30.2% San Francisco
Chula Vista, CA 32.8% San Diego
Salinas, CA 38.1%
Santa Maria, CA 32.0%

Illinois
Cicero, IL 43.3% Chicago
Skokie, IL 35.4% Chicago
Waukegan, IL 33.8% Chicago

Massachusetts
Lawrence, MA 40.4% Boston
Lynn, MA 32.3% Boston

Texas
Irving, TX 32.0% Dallas
Garland, TX 30.6% Dallas
Sugar Land, TX 31.0% Houston
Brownsville, TX 32.5%

Our diversity and level of penetration by minorities and immigrants stretches from one end of the Metro Area to the other.

Our immigrants and minorities are doing much better as far as income and educational attainment. And that is a sign of integration that I like much more than simply having a bunch of poor people living together.

Also,
This is a very fascinating stat from 2000.

Immigrant Stock refers to all foreign born persons and their US-born children.

Chicago CMSA 2,263,000...26.0% of total CMSA Population
Houston CMSA 1,176,000...25.7% of total CMSA Population
San Francisco CMSA 3,390,000...47.7% of total CMSA Population
Washington CMSA 1,462,000...20.1% of total CMSA Population

In 2000, Miami and LA were the only Metros over 50%, Greater NYC was 41%

So while the others by now are approaching 30%-The Bay Area is approaching 60%.

Meaning more than half of the Bay Area either is foreign born, lives in a household headed by a foreign born resident or they are grown adults whose parents were born in a foreign country.

I'm not really here to tear down San Francisco, or any city for that matter.

As if you could.

[Hollywood Inquirer]

SF, but Houston is cool too.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Honey, Because those places are so damn desirable-people are willing to pay thru the nose. I mean bragging about driving a Hyundai to someone who drives a Benz because your payment is cheaper is laughable.

This has been said over and over on here, but "more expensive = more desirable" is a much too simplistic way to look at it.

Sometimes I think people say that because they feel the need to justify how much they pay to live where they do.

Probably the biggest reason housing is less in Texas as compared to most of CA is because there's more available land, fewer restrictions, a different tax structure, and so on. It's not all about desirability.
A place can be super cheap, but if there's absolutely nothing else appealing about it, people won't stay there; and this is not what's happening in the major Texas cities (and they're not all super cheap either.)

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by AK123

This has been said over and over on here, but "more expensive = more desirable" is a much too simplistic way to look at it.

Sometimes I think people say that because they feel the need to justify how much they pay to live where they do.

Probably the biggest reason housing is less in Texas as compared to most of CA is because there's more available land, fewer restrictions, a different tax structure, and so on. It's not all about desirability.
A place can be super cheap, but if there's absolutely nothing else appealing about it, people won't stay there; and this is not what's happening in the major Texas cities (and they're not all super cheap either.)

Pretty much. Houston has so much land to build on. Cities like NYC and SF have limited space and I doubt if anyone of those cities were located in Texas; they'd be as urban and dense as they are. No point in building up when you have so much land to build on. However, I think for Texas to have so much land, but its cities are built dense with continuous density compared to other cities in the south, as well as the country as a whole.

Texas should really be given more credit than it gets.

I bet half of the people here don't even know that the majority of Houston and Dallas's metro population live within less than 2,000 sq. miles of these cities.

[14thandYou]

From my perspective, it's really difficult to compare two cities that have such disparities in cost of living.

Which city do I prefer? Well, if money is of no consequence, then San Francisco, hands down. It's not even close. But the cost of living is a huge factor to consider, and San Francisco is significantly more expensive. Which leads to the question: how much can you enjoy a city if you can't afford to be there? That's why cities like Houston, Denver, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and so forth will always hold an attraction to people: you can afford to have a good life in those cities.

Now for me, I will never find myself living in Houston--I abhor the heat and humidity, and I find it to be a city whose location is uninteresting, is too sprawling and is not particularly attractive. But I do get why people want to live there.

[grindin]

Originally Posted by AK123

This has been said over and over on here, but "more expensive = more desirable" is a much too simplistic way to look at it.

Sometimes I think people say that because they feel the need to justify how much they pay to live where they do.

Probably the biggest reason housing is less in Texas as compared to most of CA is because there's more available land, fewer restrictions, a different tax structure, and so on. It's not all about desirability.
A place can be super cheap, but if there's absolutely nothing else appealing about it, people won't stay there; and this is not what's happening in the major Texas cities (and they're not all super cheap either.)

So true. Mississippi and Alabama are as cheap as or cheaper to live in than Texas or Georgia and yet you don't see people flocking to those states like you see people flocking to Texas or Georgia. There are other factors that appeal to people that have made TX/GA/NC the more desirable states compared to other states in the Deep South. Houston's COL may be a major factor to people in determining whether relocation to the area is desirable, but as you said, it's not that black-and-white.