New York Magazine: Is San Francisco New York? (San Jose, Oakland: area, cities)

[04kL4nD]

Unlike you, I try my best not to trash ENTIRE cities or generalize ALL of their residents.

I get that you have an axe to grind, but geez...

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Also, considering median family incomes are nearly identical in sf and san leandro, I suppose that makes sf a lesser city, no? Lolololol

...says the Internet troll who is trying too hard.


San Leandro:

Median household income: $51,081
Median family income: $60,266


San Francisco:

Median household income: $72,947
Median family income: $87,329

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

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?

This is not a matter of debate! SF is not very diverse compared to many major American cities. Even bay area cities like San Jose and Oakland are more diverse. Compared to NYC, DC, LA, Dallas, Houston etc SF is not very diverse.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

This is not a matter of debate! SF is not very diverse compared to many major American cities. Even bay area cities like San Jose and Oakland are more diverse. Compared to NYC, DC, LA, Dallas, Houston etc SF is not very diverse.

So, even you--someone who purportedly lives in SF--is confounded by arbitrary city limits lines? Is it so hard to understand that you could draw a 49-square-mile circle within any of those cities you list that would appear very homogenous?

The Bay Area is a different animal from those places. SF is a small part of the larger urban area--the symbolic center of it, sure--but only a small part of it. These disparate cities work as one urban area comprised of a few distinct urban areas in their own right.

Perhaps you can relate to this: My old neighborhood of inner-Loop Houston was very, very white and getting whiter every year. If you were to draw a seven-mile radius circle around it, you would have an area that is even less diverse than San Francisco, at the symbolic center of Greater Houston. Does that mean that Houston is not diverse?

Of course it doesn't. It simply means its city limits are drawn wider to include more diverse areas.

About 275,000 people commute into SF every day for work from those "more diverse" cities of the Bay Area you mention. Likewise, over 100,000 or so "non-diverse" San Franciscans commute out into the larger Bay Area. If you won't concede that this indicates how connected to the Greater Bay Area San Francisco is, surely you will concede that a roughly 20% daily exchange of its population with its very diverse surroundings should count in its favor when discussing its diversity, right?

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

...says the Internet troll who is trying too hard.


San Leandro:

Median household income: $51,081
Median family income: $60,266


San Francisco:

Median household income: $72,947
Median family income: $87,329

Holy wikipedia stats from the year 2000 batman!

Hate to burst your bubble, but try the us census from 2010 plzmmkaythx.

San leandro-median family income=73K

SF-88k.

So if san leandros middle class incomes are lesser, sf isn't too far behind.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Holy wikipedia stats from the year 2000 batman!

Hate to burst your bubble, but try the us census from 2010 plzmmkaythx.

Your posts make you sound like an eight year-old girl. Please post your link showing Median Family Income from the US Census.

San leandro-median family income=73K

SF-88k.

Even if your numbers are accurate, a difference of 20% more, especially when expressed as a median, is quite significant.

So if san leandros middle class incomes are lesser, sf isn't too far behind.

This last line is incomprehensible. Please try again.

My response in red.

[Perfect Stranger]

Originally Posted by Deezus

Also if SF is comparable to 80s Manhattan, what is the current drug of choice, because I heard cocaine had fallen out of favor again since the last decade... Or do people just get their rocks off trading bitcoins these days?

I would imagine anime and ironic My Little Pony cult are the drugs of choice.

[rah]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

This is not a matter of debate! SF is not very diverse compared to many major American cities. Even bay area cities like San Jose and Oakland are more diverse. Compared to NYC, DC, LA, Dallas, Houston etc SF is not very diverse.

Complete BS. Which isn't surprising, coming from you.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Actually, it sounds pretty accurate to me. SF has the inferiority complex, not NYC. I love both cities, but it's pretty obvious SF is trying to Manhattanize. SF is a wonderful city, but it will probably never be on NYC's level of global importance, no matter how hard it tries.

Quality of life easily trumps "global importance". In that category, we can all agree the choice is San Francisco.I think that is all that counts to most in the Bay Area. FWIW, both places are too expensive. The small percentage of so called influential "movers and shakers" in the Bay Area may desire the global importance, while everyday families and individuals want the quality of life. No one in the San Francisco region has to worry about shoveling away snow in the winter. The big Bay Area earthquake of 1989 took fewer than 200 lives while the 911 terrorist attack in NYC in 2001 took more than 3,000 lives. Case closed.

[04kL4nD]

Given that I've lived in the Bay Area for almost 8 years, I don't see myself moving to NYC any time soon. But the city HAS changed a lot since I've moved here. It's definitely more corporate and the creative/bohemian class is being squeezed out. It's becoming more and more like NYC everyday, and less and less like Oakland or Berkeley.