Are You Really Sure You Want To Move SF? (Daly City: price, budget)

[Dapper Zoom]

It seems that some of you are just saying that SF needs more Hispanics and blacks to be more diverse. That may be true, if racial diversity is what you're after (although I don't know why anyone would be).

But SF lacks diversity in several other ways, mostly culturally. A large and growing proportion of the population seems to work in a small number of industries as white collar workers. Pull up a bar stool and ask the guy or girl next to you what they do for a living, and you probably won't be very surprised. Do the same in Chicago, and you might get a carpenter, an architect, a professional musician, or a lawyer.

SF does get a few diversity points in the alternative sexuality column. But it seems to me that is moving elsewhere.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Here in Silicon Valley, that is definitely not the case! I live in Sunnyvale, and at LEAST 60% of my neighbors are foreign-born (mostly India/China); so it might be different in SF these days, but if we're talking Bay Area in general we are still very diverse. But are we talking nationality or race? On the latter I'd agree, but we have a very wide array of nationalities. Even the white folks aren't often from the US, lol.

Out of the 5 immediate neighbors on my lot, this is the breakdown: Two households are white/American-born (me and my landlord), one is a family from Ukraine, two are couples from India, and the other is a Muslim family of unknown non-US origin. That's pretty mixed by any standards, no?

To your points, I would add the following:
As someone pointed out earlier, "Asian" is such a broad category, it's almost meaningless, in terms of "race". A huge swath of Asia consists of Indo-European peoples, including India, as well as Semitic peoples. Those bear no relation to East Asians. If you have a community that's of West Eurasian heritage (Western & Eastern Europe), plus Persian, South Asian, Israeli, and various East Asian, along with Hispanic, and a small percentage of Black and Native, say, is that not diverse? A designation based on continent of origin or heritage is not a racial designation, in the case of Asia.

Clearly, we need to define "diversity" for the purpose of this discussion, but it doesn't seem likely that we're going to come to agreement.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I still don't understand your take, either. SF doesn't have as many Blacks as the national average (it used to have more, to which I alluded twice, but didn't mention specifically), so that's bad, but has more Asians than the national average, but somehow, that's also bad? Why is having more Asians bad? I did address that very thoroughly, I didn't leave it out.

SF is doing pretty well diversity-wise, except for fewer African-Americans than the national, or even its own prior, metric. So because of that, it's not diverse? Are African American percentages the measure of diversity, but Asians aren't? This is what you need to clarify: why discount Asians, and give more weight to the size of the Black presence?

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering too... it does seem that diverse = large Black presence to many folks, so I guess it could seem "not diverse" here because of that one lacking demographic. But even in comparison to other big US cities, we still have a wide variety of nationalities/races.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

To your points, I would add the following:
As someone pointed out earlier, "Asian" is such a broad category, it's almost meaningless, in terms of "race". A huge swath of Asia consists of Indo-European peoples, including India, as well as Semitic peoples. Those bear no relation to East Asians. If you have a community that's of West Eurasian heritage (Western & Eastern Europe), plus Persian, South Asian, Israeli, and various East Asian, along with Hispanic, and a small percentage of Black and Native, say, is that not diverse? A designation based on continent of origin or heritage is not a racial designation, in the case of Asia.

And that is simply moving the goal post. It is a designation that has always been used so no, I'm not buying that or any of this other spin. We can agree to disagree.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by Dapper Zoom

It seems that some of you are just saying that SF needs more Hispanics and blacks to be more diverse. That may be true, if racial diversity is what you're after (although I don't know why anyone would be).

There are many reasons why one might seek a diverse environment... I usually prefer blended neighborhoods, whether it's a mix of races, nationalities, ages, or whatever. Living among a bunch of people who are all the same is BORING!!

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Dapper Zoom

It seems that some of you are just saying that SF needs more Hispanics and blacks to be more diverse. That may be true, if racial diversity is what you're after (although I don't know why anyone would be).

But SF lacks diversity in several other ways, mostly culturally. A large and growing proportion of the population seems to work in a small number of industries as white collar workers. Pull up a bar stool and ask the guy or girl next to you what they do for a living, and you probably won't be very surprised. Do the same in Chicago, and you might get a carpenter, an architect, a professional musician, or a lawyer.

SF does get a few diversity points in the alternative sexuality column. But it seems to me that is moving elsewhere.

True to some extent; the professional musicians have left the area, as have the artists, pretty much. There are still plenty of lawyers, architects, engineers, bankers, and stock brokers, though. Sure, some of those live in the East Bay and commute in for work, but SF still has doctors, lawyers, etc. among its residents, along with writers, events planners, non-profit directors, a few Muni workers. Is SF changing? Without.a doubt, Most of the teachers are gone, unless they're married to doctors, lawyers, techies, etc. Plumbers, carpenters, electricians, probably also on the way out, or are in San Bruno, Daly City, South San Fran, Bernal Heights, the Richmond and Sunset, etc. The trend has obviously been in the direction of the highest earners, though, for sure.

[Dapper Zoom]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

True to some extent; the professional musicians have left the area, as have the artists, pretty much. There are still plenty of lawyers, architects, engineers, bankers, and stock brokers, though. Sure, some of those live in the East Bay and commute in for work, but SF still has doctors, lawyers, etc. among its residents, along with writers, events planners, non-profit directors, a few Muni workers. Is SF changing? Without.a doubt, Most of the teachers are gone, unless they're married to doctors, lawyers, techies, etc. Plumbers, carpenters, electricians, probably also on the way out, or are in San Bruno, Daly City, South San Fran, Bernal Heights, the Richmond and Sunset, etc. The trend has obviously been in the direction of the highest earners, though, for sure.

To me, a lot of it has to do with the lack of housing in SF (see NIMBYism). The unaffordability of the city is limiting diversity and a smaller and smaller sociodemographic class is the result. I sometimes sort of look at the Bay Area as a whole, though, with SF proper as just a neighborhood. Upon this view, there is quite a bit of diversity across many criteria.

I also think we're unfortunately seeing a death of diversity in the local establishments in SF such as bars and restaurants. Generally, when a new place opens it is on the upscale end of the spectrum. The majority of real dive bars and lowbrow restaurants are places that have been here for a while. Don't get me wrong - I love many of the restaurants in SF. But sometimes I just want a burger, not a sustainably famed Niman Ranch organic buffalo patty with a pomegranate and basil reduction topped with pickled chervil and organic blood orange and Meyer lemon chutney.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Dapper Zoom

To me, a lot of it has to do with the lack of housing in SF (see NIMBYism). The unaffordability of the city is limiting diversity and a smaller and smaller sociodemographic class is the result. I sometimes sort of look at the Bay Area as a whole, though, with SF proper as just a neighborhood. Upon this view, there is quite a bit of diversity across many criteria.

I also think we're unfortunately seeing a death of diversity in the local establishments in SF such as bars and restaurants. Generally, when a new place opens it is on the upscale end of the spectrum. The majority of real dive bars and lowbrow restaurants are places that have been here for a while. Don't get me wrong - I love many of the restaurants in SF. But sometimes I just want a burger, not a sustainably famed Niman Ranch organic buffalo patty with a pomegranate and basil reduction topped with pickled chervil and organic blood orange and Meyer lemon chutney.

lol. What's going on in North Beach? Is the funkiness totally gone? City Lights Books is still there... Maybe. you could find your burger out on Clement, in the Richmond?

[Siberiaboy]

I checked apartments for rent just to see if I could afford the real estate and I see that if you go out to Daly City it is possible to land a 1 bedroom clean and pretty and cozy for just below $2,000/month. For SF area that’s not bad when you consider you are a BART ride to the downtown and salaries will pay more, considering in SF proper you can’t rent a decent anything below $3,500/month

If you want diversity you have it but you have Daly City, Oakland, Berkeley,

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

To your points, I would add the following:
As someone pointed out earlier, "Asian" is such a broad category, it's almost meaningless, in terms of "race". A huge swath of Asia consists of Indo-European peoples, including India, as well as Semitic peoples. Those bear no relation to East Asians. If you have a community that's of West Eurasian heritage (Western & Eastern Europe), plus Persian, South Asian, Israeli, and various East Asian, along with Hispanic, and a small percentage of Black and Native, say, is that not diverse? A designation based on continent of origin or heritage is not a racial designation, in the case of Asia.

Clearly, we need to define "diversity" for the purpose of this discussion, but it doesn't seem likely that we're going to come to agreement.

Yeah, we kicked out our black population, but look at how diverse the rich techie population is that’s moving in!