Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [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 05-11-2012, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Springfield, Ohio
14,643 posts, read 14,539,391 times
Reputation: 15365

Advertisements

The "Asian" category is diverse within itself though, as it includes South Asians (and often Filipinos, depending how they report). SF also has a significant Latino population still, and biracial people are nearly 5% of the population.
If you crunch the numbers, San Francisco is one of the most diverse cities in the United States, behind NYC, Oakland & Long Beach, but ahead of other "diverse" cities like LA & Miami.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2012, 04:39 PM
 
388 posts, read 1,013,978 times
Reputation: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayDude View Post
If a city consisted largely of just two races (with other races at the margins and single digit percentages), I wouldn't call that "diverse" either. Its like calling Mobile, Alabama "diverse". It's almost equal parts white and black.
Hispanic or latino of any race makes up 15.1% of SF
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 08:03 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,914 posts, read 14,692,405 times
Reputation: 3119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
A higher percentage of Asian families are above the six-figure income mark than white. Once you climb over the middle-class, however, it does get white in a hurry. And there's a lot of those clashes. Miraloma and Sunny Side, Japantown/Lower Pac Heights and Pac Heights, Nob Hill and the 'Loin. There's also still a fair amount of San Francisco that is neither privileged nor marginalized, although that is shrinking everyday. Of course, the same is true of Oakland. Rockridge, for example, is whiter and less diverse than most of San Francisco. Rockridge and Marina are too sides of the same Obama Sticker on my Prius Liberal Tolerance coin. I'm sure you'd see a similar sentiment of NIMBY if Oakland tried to plop down a massive "affordable" housing apartment in Upper Rock Ridge as you would in Marina.
I agree that the same thing is beginning to happen on this side of the Bay Bridge. However, your comments on Rockridge are somewhat disingenuous... there are more "Rockridges" demographics-wise in SF than there are in Oakland.






vs.








And saying that Rockridge is "whiter than most of San Francisco" as a compliment for SF makes even less sense when put in the context that it's also whiter than nearly all of the rest of Oakland.

And there's affordable housing literally a block away from Rockridge...

Rockridge - Google Maps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,685 posts, read 24,867,337 times
Reputation: 18933
So why did you say it was a compliment if it makes no sense?

San Francisco is twice as populous as Oakland, so is I take it your point is that Oakland has a greater number of majority white neighborhoods for the affluent than San Francisco relative to its size? Or did you have some other point that you weren't mentioning.

Your example of a "massive affordable housing project in Upper Rock Ridge" is a perfect example of Oakland Hills NIMBYism and exactly my point. It's not in Upper Rock Ridge but Temescal. And it's not massive. It might very well be as massive and as close to Upper Rockridge as is tolerable, however, which was exactly my point. Good example to reinforce it with. It's also old. (lower) Rockridge wasn't so gentrified when it was built, I wonder how much resistance there would be today if one tried to build a similar project a block from the boundary? Compare that to all the SRO hotels in the Tenderloin and their proximity to "Lower Nob Hill". The SROs and affordable housing in the 'Loin is NOT popular with the people pushing Lower Nob Hill either. Same mentality.

And it's not like I even like "affordable (afforded by someone else's money)" housing either. Maybe for a different reason, maybe not. Nor do I really care if people with money like to isolate themselves geographically. Those neighborhoods are everywhere, not just San Francisco or Oakland. Fact is, it's their money, not mine. They should spend it how they like, and I'll spend mine how I like. Kids and schools would complicate that, but I don't have those yet nor have any plans to.

Last edited by Malloric; 05-11-2012 at 09:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 10:07 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,914 posts, read 14,692,405 times
Reputation: 3119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
You're example of a "massive affordable housing project in Upper Rock Ridge" is a perfect example of Oakland Hills NIMBYism and exactly my point. It's not in Upper Rock Ridge but Temescal.
How did you manage to get "Upper Rockridge" out of:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
And there's affordable housing literally a block away from Rockridge...
? You stated "Upper Rockridge" in your post but you were more generally talking about Rockridge.

Quote:
San Francisco is twice as populous as Oakland, so is I take it your point is that Oakland has a greater number of majority white neighborhoods for the affluent than San Francisco relative to its size? Or did you have some other point that you weren't mentioning.
That's false actually. Oakland and SF have about the same number of neighborhoods (120 and 115 respectively) and most of the aforementioned San Francisco neighborhoods are a lot more densely populated than the suburban-like hill neighborhoods in Oakland. The combined population of the aforementioned SF neighborhoods is 102,848 (or a little over 1/8 of SF) vs. a combined population of 24,601 (or a little over 1/16 of Oakland) for the aforementioned Oakland neighborhoods. No matter which way you slice it, SF has a larger concentration of affluent predominantly white neighborhoods than Oakland. I'm not sure why you're contending something so clear-cut.

Quote:
So why did you say it was a compliment if it makes no sense?
You made the statement that Rockridge is whiter than most San Francisco neighborhoods for (as far as I can tell) no other reason than to make the false implication that there are less neighborhoods that are demographically similar to Rockridge in SF than in Oakland. I said that makes no sense because Oakland is more diverse than San Francisco.


Quote:
And it's not massive. It might very well be as massive and as close to Upper Rockridge as is tolerable, however, which was exactly my point. Good example to reinforce it with. It's also old. (lower) Rockridge wasn't so gentrified when it was built, I wonder how much resistance there would be today if one tried to build a similar project a block from the boundary? Compare that to all the SRO hotels in the Tenderloin and their proximity to "Lower Nob Hill". The SROs and affordable housing in the 'Loin is NOT popular with the people pushing Lower Nob Hill either. Same mentality.
What is your point? Building affordable housing in or adjacent to any upper income neighborhood anywhere in the country would be met with contention. Is this your response to what I saying in my post about wealthier liberal white people who tend not to live next to people unlike themselves? What I'm confused about is why you appear to be implying that the only way a neighborhood like Rockridge could become more racially diverse is if low-income housing was plopped in it. You do realize that it's more than white people living in the Oakland Hills right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 10:12 PM
 
1,054 posts, read 2,149,575 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0'Farrell View Post
Hispanic or latino of any race makes up 15.1% of SF
"Hispanic" is not a race. Therefore, technically it's not a category that counts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 10:20 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,914 posts, read 14,692,405 times
Reputation: 3119
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayDude View Post
"Hispanic" is not a race. Therefore, technically it's not a category that counts.

Race technically isn't a scientific classification... it's still used in everyday conversation as if it is. In the USA, latinos are a race if only because they're not considered to be native Americans and European whites (the majority of this country) do not consider latinos to be white either. A lot of that is due to racial bias, but again race itself isn't real either so technicalities don't appear to mean much here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 11:44 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,573 posts, read 27,289,271 times
Reputation: 9007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Race technically isn't a scientific classification... it's still used in everyday conversation as if it is. In the USA, latinos are a race if only because they're not considered to be native Americans and European whites (the majority of this country) do not consider latinos to be white either. A lot of that is due to racial bias, but again race itself isn't real either so technicalities don't appear to mean much here.
Latinos can be of any race so even in the non scientific way, they're not a race but an ethnicity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2012, 12:08 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,685 posts, read 24,867,337 times
Reputation: 18933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
How did you manage to get "Upper Rockridge" out of:
"I'm sure you'd see a similar sentiment of NIMBY if Oakland tried to plop down a massive "affordable" housing apartment in Upper Rock Ridge as you would in Marina." And note, in case you missed it, that's an understatement.
Quote:
That's false actually. Oakland and SF have about the same number of neighborhoods (120 and 115 respectively) and most of the aforementioned San Francisco neighborhoods are a lot more densely populated than the suburban-like hill neighborhoods in Oakland. The combined population of the aforementioned SF neighborhoods is 102,848 (or a little over 1/8 of SF) vs. a combined population of 24,601 (or a little over 1/16 of Oakland) for the aforementioned Oakland neighborhoods. No matter which way you slice it, SF has a larger concentration of affluent predominantly white neighborhoods than Oakland. I'm not sure why you're contending something so clear-cut.
It also has more affluent people than Oakland, and exactly like in Oakland they pay more to live away from diversity. Frankly, I don't care about racial diversity. I think it's largely irrelevant. Socioeconomic diversity is far more relevant. Nobody in Marina or Rockridge would bat an eye if a block doctor moved next door, and they'd raise hell if you tried to put in a massive affordable housing project.

Quote:
You made the statement that Rockridge is whiter than most San Francisco neighborhoods for (as far as I can tell) no other reason than to make the false implication that there are less neighborhoods that are demographically similar to Rockridge in SF than in Oakland. I said that makes no sense because Oakland is more diverse than San Francisco.
Maybe you spend less time conjuring up false implications you want to read into things. Oakland is more diverse. It has fewer affluent households. Yet they do the same thing in Oakland they do in San Francisco. In other words, the Obama on my Prius tolerances is at least as endemic in Oakland's affluent individuals as San Francisco.

Quote:
What is your point? Building affordable housing in or adjacent to any upper income neighborhood anywhere in the country would be met with contention. Is this your response to what I saying in my post about wealthier liberal white people who tend not to live next to people unlike themselves? What I'm confused about is why you appear to be implying that the only way a neighborhood like Rockridge could become more racially diverse is if low-income housing was plopped in it. You do realize that it's more than white people living in the Oakland Hills right?
That was my point that any upper income neighborhood anywhere is not integrated and does not want to be integrated. It's why I don't personally like most upper income neighborhoods. If you tried to put affordable housing in Haight-Ashbury you'd see a different reaction than if you tried it in Upper Rockridge or Pac Heights. There are plenty of "wealthier liberal white people" who don't mind living beside people unlike themselves. They just live someplace like Haight-Ashbury instead of Rockridge.

Piedmont Ave and Haight-Ashbury are both slightly above average income for their respective cities.
Piedmont Ave Income Distribution:

Haight-Ashbury Household Income Distribution:


It's the absence of wealthy households that makes Piedmont Ave's median income lower mostly. Otherwise, the two are fairly similar. For some reason, Haight-Ashbury attracts many more upper income households than Piedmont Ave. Regardless, both are pretty diverse. Perhaps the wealthy decided to continue up the hill (in typical Oakland fashion) to Piedmont?
Piedmont Income Distribution:

Noe Valley Income Distribution:

If East Bay and Oakland is your norm, I guess it makes sense that most rich people only want to live with other rich people. Regardless of that, there are more over $200k households in Noe Valley than Piedmont. But that's one of the beauties of San Francisco's upper income neighborhoods. They don't tend to be as exclusively upper income as people such as yourself like to pretend. The truth is Oakland's (and the East Bay's) upper income neighborhoods are very often much less integrated than San Francisco's. Even Pac Heights, while very white, is more inclusive if one looks beyond race to socioeconomics. It's not about superior or inferior. It's just what it is.

Last edited by Malloric; 05-12-2012 at 12:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2012, 02:02 AM
 
1,054 posts, read 2,149,575 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Race technically isn't a scientific classification... it's still used in everyday conversation as if it is. In the USA, latinos are a race if only because they're not considered to be native Americans and European whites (the majority of this country) do not consider latinos to be white either. A lot of that is due to racial bias, but again race itself isn't real either so technicalities don't appear to mean much here.
So your saying race is a figment of peoples imaginations?

Your confusing social concepts with anatomical characteristics, which are real and consistent enough to create distinct groupings of similar looking people. Hispanics are not a race *because* they can be of any race.

Nobody cares what some social group "considers" you to be. Do you need someone to "consider" you to be black?
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 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