New York Magazine: Is San Francisco New York? (Oakland, San Leandro: landlord, incomes)

[ttocs99]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I'll agree with until you get to "Mo-Ro-Yal", Montreal, love that city, the Province, people, culture, and language!

I'll definitely take Napa, Sonoma, and Marin counties over upstate NY for many reasons, but primarily for the weather.

I love Montreal as well. Been there 3 times. To me, it's especially beautiful in the winter. Old Montreal is a great area to visit as well, truly feels like you are in an older European city, with cobble stone streets, old architecture, etc. Also some beautiful ice sculptures.The one time I visited in the summer, I was kinda bored.

Also, like you said, the people are awesome. It's so funny that it gets some sort of stigma that the French Canadians hate Americans, yet I only found nice, helpful people (especially women who loved my NY accent for some reason).

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by GalacticDragonfly

I laughed when I read that they were comparing NY's population to SF's. Everybody knows, including New Yorkers, that any serious comparison of SF to NY demands that you count the rest of the Bay Area as 'San Francisco.' At least in my experience, I've heard New Yorkers mention Oakland and Silicon Valley like they're neighborhoods of San Francisco. The Bay is a lot like New York, but instead of boroughs, it's cities. The article even counts Silicon Valley as if it's in San Francisco.

Secondly, why does SF have to be the new New York? What, in terms of importance? Perhaps, because technology is the new field and NorCal certainly dominates not only the country, but the world in that regard. But the cultures are not the same. New York is all about historical culture, and San Francisco (including surrounding cities) are all about being 21st century, and updated.

If there's any comment I've heard the most from Yorkers, it's that, "You have no history." San Francisco is new, it's the new San Francisco. And to qualify to be a 'San Francisco', you have to be new, innovative, independent, and new-age. So, maybe Seattle someday might be the new 'San Francisco.' But it's not the new New York.

And what's with the diversity statements? Yes, there aren't many blacks in the Bay Area in comparison to New York and certainly not San Francisco. But that might change (I see a lot more African immigrants coming) and since when does 'More black people' = Diversity? The racial aspects have been noted countless times, it's starting to sound like last-minute comebacks.

No one said anything about diversity. Nyc has black people and sf does not. Pretty simple concept and not that hard to figure out.


Yes you need blacks to be diverse. And asians, and latinos. Is this some sort of shocking news to you? May I suggest looking the word up in the dictionary?

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

No one said anything about diversity. Nyc has black people and sf does not. Pretty simple concept and not that hard to figure out.


Yes you need blacks to be diverse. And asians, and latinos. Is this some sort of shocking news to you? May I suggest looking the word up in the dictionary?

adjective
1.
showing a great deal of variety; very different.

No, you do not need African Americans to be diverse. Do you not think that there're differences among Asians, Latinos, and whites too? Or did you think that all of them are just one big homogenous group?
San Francisco's demographics are already present in its cultural enclaves. There's Chinatown, Japantown, the Richmond and Sunset Districts for Asians. For Latinos, there's the Mission and Excelsior neighborhoods. For gay people, we have Polk Street and the Castro (of course). And, even then, there is a large population of blacks downtown, in the Tenderloin. Walking through the the Tenderloin's sometimes doesn't even give you a sense of San Francisco's overall diversity given that there are just so many African-Americans residing there. San Francisco also was home to Italian and Irish communities (some of which still exist) in North Beach and the Mission, respectively, in its early history. Diversity encompasses more than just race. San Francisco, with 2.125% of California's population, also has variety among its religions- the city accounts for 9% of the state's Muslims, nearly 7% of its Hindus, 37% of its Taoists, 11.3% of its Buddhists, a large number of Christian and Catholic churches, and so on. Oh yeah, and last time I checked, San Francisco had one of the highest income inequalities in the United States- how's that for diversity in all departments?

[jade408]

Diversity for me = different types of people at the same place. SF used to be like this in the mission. These days? Not so much.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by gteearyjohnyang

adjective
1.
showing a great deal of variety; very different.

No, you do not need African Americans to be diverse. Do you not think that there're differences among Asians, Latinos, and whites too? Or did you think that all of them are just one big homogenous group?
San Francisco's demographics are already present in its cultural enclaves. There's Chinatown, Japantown, the Richmond and Sunset Districts for Asians. For Latinos, there's the Mission and Excelsior neighborhoods. For gay people, we have Polk Street and the Castro (of course). And, even then, there is a large population of blacks downtown, in the Tenderloin. Walking through the the Tenderloin's sometimes doesn't even give you a sense of San Francisco's overall diversity given that there are just so many African-Americans residing there. San Francisco also was home to Italian and Irish communities (some of which still exist) in North Beach and the Mission, respectively, in its early history. Diversity encompasses more than just race. San Francisco, with 2.125% of California's population, also has variety among its religions- the city accounts for 9% of the state's Muslims, nearly 7% of its Hindus, 37% of its Taoists, 11.3% of its Buddhists, a large number of Christian and Catholic churches, and so on. Oh yeah, and last time I checked, San Francisco had one of the highest income inequalities in the United States- how's that for diversity in all departments?

Sf diversity =white, gay, asian. With latinos busing your dishes at your favorite foodie joint. Mean while new york is more diverse and less segregated than sf.

Oh and income disparity is not diversity. In fact it is the opposite. Only rich and poor, with nothing in the middle.

Accept that fact that nyc outclasses sf in everything that matters, and move on.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Sf diversity =white, gay, asian. With latinos busing your dishes at your favorite foodie joint. Mean while new york is more diverse and less segregated than sf.

Oh and income disparity is not diversity. In fact it is the opposite. Only rich and poor, with nothing in the middle.

Accept that fact that nyc outclasses sf in everything that matters, and move on.

More diverse sure but while NYC may not seem that segregated (as a tourist at least), it's actually one of the most segregated cities in America.

Most Segregated Cities Census Maps - Business Insider

Most Segregated Cities In America - Business Insider

The 22 Most Segregated Cities In America - Business Insider

Notice how Sf and the Bay Area are completely absent from those rankings.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by sav858

More diverse sure but while NYC may not seem that segregated (as a tourist at least), it's actually one of the most segregated cities in America.

Most Segregated Cities Census Maps - Business Insider

Most Segregated Cities In America - Business Insider

The 22 Most Segregated Cities In America - Business Insider

Notice how Sf and the Bay Area are completely absent from those rankings.

The Bay Area in general isn't super segregated.

But SF the city is pretty segregated. It is significantly different outside of SF county. The Bay Area gets praise for integration, but SF has a different pattern.

Great comments from Fast Company:
"However, other cities present better pictures of racial integration. The San Francisco Bay, for example. While the northern part San Francisco proper is very, very white while the other parts are relatively segregated, the outlying bay communities such as Oakland have fascinating patches of integration -- perhaps partly because in those areas no one minority totally dominates:"

Infographics of the Day: How Segregated Is Your City? | Co.Design | business + design

[sav858]

Originally Posted by jade408

The Bay Area in general isn't super segregated.

But SF the city is pretty segregated. It is significantly different outside of SF county. The Bay Area gets praise for integration, but SF has a different pattern.

Great comments from Fast Company:
"However, other cities present better pictures of racial integration. The San Francisco Bay, for example. While the northern part San Francisco proper is very, very white while the other parts are relatively segregated, the outlying bay communities such as Oakland have fascinating patches of integration -- perhaps partly because in those areas no one minority totally dominates:"

Infographics of the Day: How Segregated Is Your City? | Co.Design | business + design

I was trying to find something that looked at cities specifically and not metro area but I didn't in the few minutes of searching. I still would say NYC is more segregated than the city of SF though when you look at those maps but I'm curious to see what one of those indexes looks for each city proper.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by sav858

I was trying to find something that looked at cities specifically and not metro area but I didn't in the few minutes of searching. I still would say NYC is more segregated than the city of SF though when you look at those maps but I'm curious to see what one of those indexes looks for each city proper.

NYC and Chicago are more segregated than SF. But if you look at the SF map, you'll see a line.

The NYC and Chicago lines are clearly divided on a single street, SF follows a more general pattern, with mixing on the edges. Which doesn't happen in the most segregated places. LA (the city) is also pretty segregated.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by jade408

The Bay Area in general isn't super segregated.

But SF the city is pretty segregated. It is significantly different outside of SF county. The Bay Area gets praise for integration, but SF has a different pattern.

Great comments from Fast Company:
"However, other cities present better pictures of racial integration. The San Francisco Bay, for example. While the northern part San Francisco proper is very, very white while the other parts are relatively segregated, the outlying bay communities such as Oakland have fascinating patches of integration -- perhaps partly because in those areas no one minority totally dominates:"

Infographics of the Day: How Segregated Is Your City? | Co.Design | business + design

The Bay Area isn't super-segregated for an American city, but it is segregated. Here are a couple of great studies on residential segregation:

http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report2.pdf

http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/...obalfinal2.pdf

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr05-573.pdf (look at the maps starting on page 32 and the tables following)

And for data junkies:

US2010

Broadly speaking, its probably fair to say that western cities are less segregated than northeastern and midwestern cities.

Originally Posted by sav858

I was trying to find something that looked at cities specifically and not metro area but I didn't in the few minutes of searching. I still would say NYC is more segregated than the city of SF though when you look at those maps but I'm curious to see what one of those indexes looks for each city proper.

Take a look at the UMich link (its using 2000 census data, but still interesting. Data puts NYC near the top for each category of racial residential segregation. With that said, NYC, like SF, is small and dense and involves a lot of public transportation--so that, while residential segregation may be high, contact is not necessarily low.