Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2010, 08:55 PM
 
6,620 posts, read 16,610,651 times
Reputation: 4792

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenChester View Post
Buffalo, NY is gritty
So is your namesake city!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2010, 08:58 PM
 
6,620 posts, read 16,610,651 times
Reputation: 4792
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires View Post
I'd have to agree with your choices.

As regards San Francisco -- gritty? FFS! A beautiful city, no doubt, but most definitely NOT gritty. San Francisco is "Legoland." If it has "grit," it's "toy grit."

Now Oakland, on the other hand...THERE is a gritty city.

Finally, shouldn't this question really be inverted? Nearly all the American cities I have been too have significant "gritty" elements. Wouldn't it make more sense to hone in on major or mid-size American cities that are "not gritty? (despite some "gritty" elements)"

Major "Not Gritty" city: Minneapolis-St. Paul (the only "non-gritty" rustbelt city!)

Mid-size "Not Gritty" city: Mmmmm....????
Mpls/St Paul are not in the Rust Belt. It doesn't extend this far west.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 08:59 PM
 
6,620 posts, read 16,610,651 times
Reputation: 4792
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Seriously, what?

As someone who has actually spent lots of time in both SF and Oakland, SF is basically just as gritty. It has a lower crime rate of course, but SF's bad neighborhoods are nearly as numerous/large as Oakland's, and pretty much just as gritty as Oakland's bad neighborhoods in terms of appearance and crime levels. (Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, the Mission, Potrero Hill Projects, Tenderloin, to name a few for SF). remember that SF is also MUCH more densely populated than Oakland, and dense cities tend to have a good amount of grit. SF's downtown is also MORE gritty than Oakland's downtown (Oakland has nothing like the Tenderloin or SOMA in SF, which are both gritty, grimey, high-crime downtown areas...especially the tenderloin). Further more, SF's industrial areas are just as gritty as Oakland's are (Central Waterfront, Hunters Point for SF, and west/North Oakland, for example). That's not to say that there aren't lots of very nice, shiney non-gritty neighborhoods in SF, because there are (same deal for Oakland). But to say SF's grit is "toy grit" is pretty much stupid.

And since other people are mentioning blue collar people, i'll just quickly point out that SF has MORE impoverished people than Oakland, and likely at least as many blue collar people...remember SF ha twice Oakland's population (remember that poverty rates are fixed nation wide and that SF is more expensive than Oakland too, so many SF residents are actually a bit poorer in terms of spending power than simple income stats might suggest).
Blue collar people are NOT impoverished people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 09:02 PM
 
6,620 posts, read 16,610,651 times
Reputation: 4792
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
I think the whole debate is more about the atmosphere and look of an area than the actual people who live in these areas.
Exactly. The social status, race and crime rate of an area has nothing to do with whether it is gritty or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Cortland, Ohio
3,343 posts, read 10,948,860 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
I've never felt the grittiness of any city outside the northeast.
You need to visit the rustbelt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 09:43 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,248,021 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Blue collar people are NOT impoverished people.
I didn't say blue collar people are impoverished. I said:

"SF has more impoverished people than Oakland, and likely at least as many blue color people."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 09:51 PM
TT1
 
Location: Gotham
148 posts, read 440,344 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires View Post
I'd have to agree with your choices.

As regards San Francisco -- gritty? FFS! A beautiful city, no doubt, but most definitely NOT gritty. San Francisco is "Legoland." If it has "grit," it's "toy grit."

Now Oakland, on the other hand...THERE is a gritty city.

Finally, shouldn't this question really be inverted? Nearly all the American cities I have been too have significant "gritty" elements. Wouldn't it make more sense to hone in on major or mid-size American cities that are "not gritty? (despite some "gritty" elements)"

Major "Not Gritty" city: Minneapolis-St. Paul (the only "non-gritty" rustbelt city!)

Mid-size "Not Gritty" city: Mmmmm....????
Something tells me you've never been to San Francisco.

I've been to SF many times, and to me, it's grittier than NYC (but I've only been to Manhattan, so that's what I'm comparing it to)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 09:55 PM
 
6,620 posts, read 16,610,651 times
Reputation: 4792
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
I didn't say blue collar people are impoverished. I said:

"SF has more impoverished people than Oakland, and likely at least as many blue color people."
OK, got it. Read your post too fast!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:30 PM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,180 posts, read 14,893,003 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino View Post
That said, I absolutely love cities with some degree of "grit;" it definitely adds some character. I'm sure others will disagree, but new and shiny doesn't do it for me.
Definitely understand where you're coming from. Wish my city had a bit more of it myself, particularly in the urban core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:46 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,248,021 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around
OK, got it. Read your post too fast!
haha, it happens. I was going to look up and post actual numbers, but i had to go to work (and now that i think about it, i'm a blue collar SF worker myself). Here are different industries by amount of people employed, for both SF and Oakland, with blue collar stuff highlighted:

San Francisco (430,604 workers):

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining - 477 - 0.1%
Construction - 19,978 - 4.5%
Manufacturing - 25,878 - 5.8%
Wholesale trade - 8,831 - 2.0%
Retail trade - 38,625 - 8.7%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities - 15,481 - 3.5%
Information - 23,047 - 5.2%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing - 43,131 - 9.7%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services - 89,021 - 20.1%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance - 86,597 - 19.5%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation, and food services - 55,175 - 12.4%
Other services, except public administration - 22,889 - 5.2%
Public administration - 14,474 - 3.3%

Oakland (170,994 workers):

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining - 170 - 0.1%
Construction - 14,106 - 8.2%
Manufacturing - 11,756 - 6.9%
Wholesale trade - 4,196 - 2.5%
Retail trade - 16,620 - 9.7%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities - 9,441 - 5.5%
Information - 5,628 - 3.3%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing - 10,520 - 6.2%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services - 26,506 - 15.5%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance - 39,396 - 23.0%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation, and food services - 15,644 - 9.1%
Other services, except public administration - 10,179 - 6.0%
Public administration - 6,832 - 4.0%

So that looks to be:
61,814 people, or about 14% of SF's workforce that's blue collar for sure
35,473 people, or about 21% of Oakland's workforce that's blue collar for sure

and here's those in poverty:
Oakland: 72,747 - 18.0%
San Francisco: 95,459 - 11.8%

So SF does have a good deal more blue collar workers and impoverished people than Oakland, while Oakland has a higher percentage of workers that are blue collar and people that are impoverished. I don't think they're quite as far off from each other as some people seem to imagine though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top