Chick-fil-A Opening in the Bay Area?

[sav858]

Haha, I have been thinking about it so much lately since its been in the news and a lot of people keep talking about. I've been getting the worst cravings for it lately. September 20th cannot come soon enough.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by sav858

Haha, I have been thinking about it so much lately since its been in the news and a lot of people keep talking about. I've been getting the worst cravings for it lately. September 20th cannot come soon enough.

LOL! I want some chicken nuggets. I had a meeting the other week (via phone) and the people on the other end (in VA) were complaining because one guy brought in Chickfila for himself to have during the meeting.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by EdJS

There are plenty of fast food restaurants in the San Leandro/Hayward/Union City/Fremont/Milpitas corridor. About as much as I've seen anywhere else in the country. From my house in Union City I'm five minutes from four McDonald's and two Burger Kings. That's not part of the Bay Area?

Even though the amounts of fast food on the 880 corridor is more than in the "trendy" parts, still not as bad as other parts of the US.

Every time I am over there, and I think, crap I need to get food, might as well get fast food. I look for it on my phone, and it is way farther that expected. It is always like 2 miles away.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by jade408

LOL! I want some chicken nuggets. I had a meeting the other week (via phone) and the people on the other end (in VA) were complaining because one guy brought in Chickfila for himself to have during the meeting.

Nuggets with the Buffalo sauce! AND a Sandwich with extra crispy waffles fries with an Arnold Palmer sounds amazing right now! My friend from SD came up last weekend and I told him to bring me a Chick-Fil-A sandwich, he thought I was joking, I wasn't. I would have reheated it.

[jade408]

I saw this recipe, and I think I need to try it. Being so conflicted and all about going to chickfila.

My Name Is Snickerdoodle: Fabulous Food Friday #79 -- Chickfila style nuggets

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by EdJS

There are plenty of fast food restaurants in the San Leandro/Hayward/Union City/Fremont/Milpitas corridor. About as much as I've seen anywhere else in the country. From my house in Union City I'm five minutes from four McDonald's and two Burger Kings. That's not part of the Bay Area?

I don't think anyone is saying they don't exist, but I'm having a hard time seeing it "as much as I've seen anywhere else in the country." There are certainly areas of the Bay Area that have their fair share of fast food restaurants around, but I don't think they're as prevalent, especially on a per-capita basis. Every study I've seen has certainly pointed to the opposite being true.

Looking at this site (fastfoodmaps.com | google maps + fast food) you can do your own somewhat "scientific" calculation to see how the Bay Area compares on the whole with other metros. It tabulates the total number of fast food restaurants (McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Wedny's, KFC, Jack in the Box, Hardee's, Carl's Jr. In-N-Out) located in the area of the map on the screen.

When looking at what most would consider the "Bay Area" (Marin County, SF, Sam Mateo CO, Santa Clara Co, Alameda CO, Contra Costa CO, Napa CO, Sonoma CO) I'm seeing around 950 fast food restaurants . If we're to do a rough "per-capita" estimate (using a population of ~7.15 million), that would give the Bay Area around 1.33e-4 fast food restaurants per person (~950 restaurants/7,150,000).

Now, how does this compare to the rest of the country? Just out of curiosity, I looked at other places around the country (rough estimate number of restaurants/Area population). This wasn't meant to be completely scientific, but I thought it'd be a good idea to get an idea of where the Bay Area stacks up against other metros.

Toledo, OH (where I grew up): 2.00e-4
Detroit, MI: 1.83e-4
Cleveland, OH (Born here, lived there for ~9 years): 2.07e-4
Pittsburgh, PA: 1.61e-4
Buffalo, NY: 1.18e-4 (2nd Lowest, Surprise!)
Rochester, NY (lived here for 7 years): 1.45e-4
Syracuse, NY: 1.67e-4
Boston, MA: 1.20e-4 (3rd Lowest)
NY: 1.17e-4 (Lowest)
Philly: 1.56e-4
DC: 1.65e-4
Richmond, VA: 1.89e-4
Raleigh, NC: 1.82e-4
Charlotte, NC: 1.75e-4
Atlanta, GA: 1.88e-4
Orlando, FL: 1.61e-4
Tampa, FL: 1.50e-4
Miami, FL: 1.55e-4
Birmingham, AL: 1.58e-4
Jackson, MS: 1.85e-4
Nashville, TN: 2.06e-4
Memphis, TN: 1.98e-4
Indianapolis, IN: 2.24e-4
Chicago, IL: 1.60e-4
Milwaukee, WI: 1.82e-4
Minneapolis, MN: 1.64e-4
St. Louis, MO: 1.79e-4
Kansas City, MO: 2.25e-4 (Highest)
Omaha, NE: 1.83e-4
Lincoln, NE: 1.83e-4
Oklahoma City, OK: 1.88e-4
Tulsa, OK: 1.72e-4
Dallas, TX: 1.83e-4
San Antonio, TX: 1.65e-4
Houston, TX: 1.83e-4
Denver, CO: 1.96e-4
Las Vegas, NV: 1.90e-4
Phoenix, AZ: 1.71e-4
LA: 1.82e-4
Sacramento, CA: 1.48e-4
Portland, OR: 1.43e-4
Seattle, WA: 1.37e-4

I figured that was enough to look at. n = 43
Average = 1.72e-4
Standard deviation = 2.56e-5
AVG - 1 STDEV= 1.46e-4
AVG - 2 STDEV = 1.21e-4

Except for NY, Boston, and Buffalo, NY (Surprise!), the Bay Area was below all of the other metros I looked at, and well below the average by more than 1 standard deviation.

If you want to look at the "core Bay Area" (for simplicity's sake: SF county, Marin county, Alameda county, San Mateo county, Santa Clara county), the numbers improve. I got ~700 restaurants/5,050,000 people = ~1.20e-4. This is below 2 standard deviations of the average for all of the metros I looked at.

While this may not prove anything since this isn't 100% scientific, I do think it goes to show that the Bay Area is definitely below the national average for fast food prevalence (especially on a per capita basis). I'm not arguing that fast food isn't popular with some people, or that there aren't lines for some restaurants...or, even, that many people here "hate" it (although, I suppose that could be argued). But I do think there is a statistically significant difference between the number of fast food restaurants here vs. the rest of the country.

This was an opinion I previously had purely based on observation (e.g. "it seems harder to find fast food here", or "I know almost no one here who consumes fast food on a regular/semi-regular basis"). And the more I look into, it does seem to be supported by studies and data.


P.S. In regards to this thread, I actually really like Chick-Fil-A's food. I used to go there when I was a kid (there was one in a mall in Toledo, OH). I never eat fast food anymore...but I was considering going to get some chicken there. Although, all of this anti-gay marriage press they're getting has made me second-guess that...too bad, their chicken and waffle fries are good!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I don't think anyone is saying they don't exist, but I'm having a hard time seeing it "as much as I've seen anywhere else in the country." There are certainly areas of the Bay Area that have their fair share of fast food restaurants around, but I don't think they're as prevalent, especially on a per-capita basis. Every study I've seen has certainly pointed to the opposite being true.

Looking at this site (fastfoodmaps.com | google maps + fast food) you can do your own somewhat "scientific" calculation to see how the Bay Area compares on the whole with other metros. It tabulates the total number of fast food restaurants (McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Wedny's, KFC, Jack in the Box, Hardee's, Carl's Jr. In-N-Out) located in the area of the map on the screen.

When looking at what most would consider the "Bay Area" (Marin County, SF, Sam Mateo CO, Santa Clara Co, Alameda CO, Contra Costa CO, Napa CO, Sonoma CO) I'm seeing around 950 fast food restaurants . If we're to do a rough "per-capita" estimate (using a population of ~7.15 million), that would give the Bay Area around 1.33e-4 fast food restaurants per person (~950 restaurants/7,150,000).

Now, how does this compare to the rest of the country? Just out of curiosity, I looked at other places around the country (rough estimate number of restaurants/Area population). This wasn't meant to be completely scientific, but I thought it'd be a good idea to get an idea of where the Bay Area stacks up against other metros.

Toledo, OH (where I grew up): 2.00e-4
Detroit, MI: 1.83e-4
Cleveland, OH (Born here, lived there for ~9 years): 2.07e-4
Pittsburgh, PA: 1.61e-4
Buffalo, NY: 1.18e-4 (2nd Lowest, Surprise!)
Rochester, NY (lived here for 7 years): 1.45e-4
Syracuse, NY: 1.67e-4
Boston, MA: 1.20e-4 (3rd Lowest)
NY: 1.17e-4 (Lowest)
Philly: 1.56e-4
DC: 1.65e-4
Richmond, VA: 1.89e-4
Raleigh, NC: 1.82e-4
Charlotte, NC: 1.75e-4
Atlanta, GA: 1.88e-4
Orlando, FL: 1.61e-4
Tampa, FL: 1.50e-4
Miami, FL: 1.55e-4
Birmingham, AL: 1.58e-4
Jackson, MS: 1.85e-4
Nashville, TN: 2.06e-4
Memphis, TN: 1.98e-4
Indianapolis, IN: 2.24e-4
Chicago, IL: 1.60e-4
Milwaukee, WI: 1.82e-4
Minneapolis, MN: 1.64e-4
St. Louis, MO: 1.79e-4
Kansas City, MO: 2.25e-4 (Highest)
Omaha, NE: 1.83e-4
Lincoln, NE: 1.83e-4
Oklahoma City, OK: 1.88e-4
Tulsa, OK: 1.72e-4
Dallas, TX: 1.83e-4
San Antonio, TX: 1.65e-4
Houston, TX: 1.83e-4
Denver, CO: 1.96e-4
Las Vegas, NV: 1.90e-4
Phoenix, AZ: 1.71e-4
LA: 1.82e-4
Sacramento, CA: 1.48e-4
Portland, OR: 1.43e-4
Seattle, WA: 1.37e-4

I figured that was enough to look at. n = 43
Average = 1.72e-4
Standard deviation = 2.56e-5
AVG - 1 STDEV= 1.46e-4
AVG - 2 STDEV = 1.21e-4

Except for NY, Boston, and Buffalo, NY (Surprise!), the Bay Area was below all of the other metros I looked at, and well below the average by more than 1 standard deviation.

If you want to look at the "core Bay Area" (for simplicity's sake: SF county, Marin county, Alameda county, San Mateo county, Santa Clara county), the numbers improve. I got ~700 restaurants/5,050,000 people = ~1.20e-4. This is below 2 standard deviations of the average for all of the metros I looked at.

While this may not prove anything since this isn't 100% scientific, I do think it goes to show that the Bay Area is definitely below the national average for fast food prevalence (especially on a per capita basis). I'm not arguing that fast food isn't popular with some people, or that there aren't lines for some restaurants...or, even, that many people here "hate" it (although, I suppose that could be argued). But I do think there is a statistically significant difference between the number of fast food restaurants here vs. the rest of the country.

This was an opinion I previously had purely based on observation (e.g. "it seems harder to find fast food here", or "I know almost no one here who consumes fast food on a regular/semi-regular basis"). And the more I look into, it does seem to be supported by studies and data.

+1

Fascinating info.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by sav858

I agree it's below the national average and I was never saying it was on par or close to what places in the South consume, but with nearly 85% of people in the SF media market eating fast food at least once in the last month that's still a lot imo but clearly better than most. Sure it's not nearly as bad as places with a quarter or more people eating it at least 20X a month, I can't believe people enjoy eating it that much.

I agree, 85% of people in the SF media market is still a good amount...I guess it just goes to show that no matter how progressive an area is, there are still people that eat and love fast food. I personally don't, and can't say I have many (any?) friends that do...but obviously, people here do eat fast food (otherwise they'd all be closed!).

Originally Posted by sav858

I'm curious to see what the national and regional averages are and how much of a difference there is. Clearly SF would be more in line with the West and North.

From my last post, on a per-capita restaurants/people, SF does seem to be more in line with the west coast and east coast than the south/midwest/central parts of the country.

Originally Posted by sav858

And I was mainly comparing it to Southern CA since that's the only other place I lived. I haven't spent a ton of time in the suburbs of other cities as I mainly stay in the central city. I think there are more chains in SoCal, some of which are starting to or have opened up here, but to me it's not that big of a difference as far as the suburbs go.

The Bay Area as a whole does seem to like fast food less than Southern CA...but part of that could be driven by SF/Berkeley/Oakland, and the differences between the suburban areas could be less significant (like you're suggesting). It's hard to break them apart to show that, though, as the urban areas and the suburban areas of SF are so linked/connected. My gut tells me that the suburban areas are still below the national average, but they're certainly closer to the average without SF/Berkeley/Oakland included. I guess this point about pure suburban differences is hard to prove either way...

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Kansas City, MO: 2.25e-4 (Highest)

Having spent much time there and in Springfield...this is eminently believable for this and the vast surrounding region. Fast food places flourish where people are scared to "eat outside the box."

We could stumble through a few more pages of arguing in a similar fashion about Bay Area microbrew vs. macrobrew consumption elsewhere, but it will surely mirror the results of the fast food comparisons. Admitting that your area generally has more sophisticated, thoughtful tastes for food and drink should be a point of pride. Better choices for such are a big reason people move to and stay out here.