In 25 years San Francisco will be a lot whiter

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Did I mention Atlanta in my post anywhere? There's a reason I only specified certain cities in my posts as those are culturally diverse and rich cities of the country from their immigrant, industrial pasts.

Nice try with the City Vs. City though. Just tired of people wanting everyone to assimilate to White American culture(middle class in particular) when it's nothing special. What makes the cities I mentioned so great is how diverse they are, not just racially or ethnically, but culturally as well. I wish Atlanta had a more industrial and immigrant past, but it didn't which is why it's mostly American white and black now(though it's suburbs are diverse).

EDIT: By the way, when most people are establishing ethnic diversity, they use MSA stats, not city proper stats, especially when it comes to a region like Atlanta where 8% of the metro pop's lives in the city limits. I can easily take the population of Gwinnett County, which is higher than the Seattle city, and show stats that are far more impressive.

True, I broke a rule I accuse others of breaking, and I used a small sample. Touche.

But Seattle is more diverse than people seem to think. Also, King County, pop 1,974,000 in 2013 including Seattle itself, had generally higher diversity stats than within the city limits, including Asians, international, etc.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Isn't like the whole western half of SF getting less white over time? I thought all those areas like Sunset and Richmond were traditionally white ethnic, and have become majority Chinese over time, with really only some elderly whites remaining for the most part.

Yes the western half of SF used to be overwhelmingly white (much like the rest of the city), but is maybe 50% white now.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The eastern half, with the tech-fueled hyper-gentrification and Hispanics and Blacks leaving for the burbs, that I can see. But no one is going to be living in Outer Sunset if they need access to Silicon Valley, I don't think.

It's not like the entirety of the eastern half of SF us undergoing "hyper gentrification", but yeah, that is the side of the city that's seen the most of it, and that is where most black and latino/hispanic people live. The city is gaining Latino residents, though. The mission district is getting less latino as it gentrifies, as everyone knows (and some poeple then assume the entire city must be losing latino people), but the city as a whole is getting more latino (and more asian, and less white and black).

[fflint]

There most certainly are Silicon Valley-bound commuters in the Sunset District, just look at all the 'google bus' stops and the morning traffic streaming southward on 19th Avenue and on Junipero Serra Blvd.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

They already have. Asians and Latinos dominate huge swaths of suburban CA. Those communities look the same to me.

I remember driving from downtown LA to Whittier, along Whittier Blvd., which is basically a 10 mile stretch that is virtually 100% Hispanic (Mexican). It might be the biggest Mexican population center in the U.S. What's remarkable about the towns along the way (Pico Rivera and the like) is how utterly unremarkable they look.

If you don't look carefully, you wouldn't even notice who lives there, as it's the same sea of Carl's Jr and tract homes as in any suburban area of Southern CA.

I don't know about you, but passing by billboards in Spanish, Waterias, El Supers and Northgate Gonzalez Markets don't scream assimilation to me. But don't get me wrong, I'm glad they exist. There's obviously a market for them.

If you weren't paying attention, MAYBE Pico Rivera might look like the typical SoCal suburb because of the shopping centers that were put in through redevelopment in the last 15-20 years or so of what used to be factories and an old GM plant. There might be a Target and multiplex cinemas there, but even then, I don't doubt that there might be a Big Saver Foods in the mix too somewhere.

There's also the San Gabriel Valley with billboards that will be completely in Chinese characters.

Originally Posted by Gordo

What exactly do you mean by "assimilate to white American culture"? I think when most folks here were talking about assimilation, they mostly mean learning English and participating in local politics, etc. As incomes increase you'll tend to see an abandonment of religious cultural stuff brought in from their home countries, but that happens anywhere as incomes rise.

Not the case in SoCal. With the increase of immigrant populations, I am seeing more gurdwaras, Buddhist temples, mosques, Taoist temples, etc., which I think is great. Why should immigrants feel the need to abandon their religions and join Saddleback Church or something?

The only place in SoCal that I know where this was a problem is Orange County and Temecula, where for some reason, mosques have been protested against. And in the 1980s, when the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple/Monastery opened in the San Gabriel Valley, some area white residents were against it, citing supposed traffic issues, even though there are plenty of churches nearby. It's often the case in conservative areas that they don't complain about churches going up, particularly Protestant churches, but "God"-forbid that a Zen Center should be built, and some residents will complain about supposed traffic problems.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Not the case in SoCal. With the increase of immigrant populations, I am seeing more gurdwaras, Buddhist temples, mosques, Taoist temples, etc., which I think is great. Why should immigrants feel the need to abandon their religions and join Saddleback Church or something?

The only place in SoCal that I know where this was a problem is Orange County and Temecula, where for some reason, mosques have been protested against. And in the 1980s, when the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple/Monastery opened in the San Gabriel Valley, some area white residents were against it, citing supposed traffic issues, even though there are plenty of churches nearby. It's often the case in conservative areas that they don't complain about churches going up, particularly Protestant churches, but "God"-forbid that a Zen Center should be built, and some residents will complain about supposed traffic problems.

None of this is different from what I said, and I'm certainly not talking about them joining an American church (where in the world did you get that from?). I said that you'll tend to see religious abandonment (as in, not changing religions, but abandoning religion entirely or simply becoming less outwardly religious), but of course this won't happen immediately. I'd be shocked to see evidence that second generation immigrants in LA are not less religious than first generation (assuming that we're talking about immigrants from less developed countries - it'll stay roughly the same for immigrants from rich countries, at least typically).

The only cases that I've seen where this isn't true are situations where immigrants are fleeing religious prosecution and keep the practice up as a means of defiance against their former government. A good example of this was Russian immigrants in SF/LA for half a century, though now that communism has fallen and Putin has sort of embraced the Russian Orthodox Church again, many of the Russian congregations in California are losing folks.

[RST500]

Are there any significant suburban areas other than Marin that are mostly white? They Silicon Valley is now majority Asian.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by RST500

They Silicon Valley is now majority Asian.

No, that's not true. Depending on how you define the geography of "Silicon Valley," Asians are at most a bare plurality (in Santa Clara County).

Santa Clara County:
34.1% Asian
33.9% White, not Hispanic or Latino
26.8% Hispanic or Latino
2.9% Black

San Mateo County:
41.1% White, not Hispanic or Latino
26.9% Asian
25.4% Hispanic or Latino
3.0% Black

San Francisco City and County:
41.9% White, not Hispanic or Latino
33.3% Asian
15.1% Hispanic or Latino
6.1% Black

Alameda County:
33.2% White, not Hispanic or Latino
28.2% Asian
22.7% Hispanic or Latino
12.4% Black

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Gordo

None of this is different from what I said, and I'm certainly not talking about them joining an American church (where in the world did you get that from?). I said that you'll tend to see religious abandonment (as in, not changing religions, but abandoning religion entirely or simply becoming less outwardly religious), but of course this won't happen immediately. I'd be shocked to see evidence that second generation immigrants in LA are not less religious than first generation (assuming that we're talking about immigrants from less developed countries - it'll stay roughly the same for immigrants from rich countries, at least typically).

The only cases that I've seen where this isn't true are situations where immigrants are fleeing religious prosecution and keep the practice up as a means of defiance against their former government. A good example of this was Russian immigrants in SF/LA for half a century, though now that communism has fallen and Putin has sort of embraced the Russian Orthodox Church again, many of the Russian congregations in California are losing folks.

I know several 3rd-generation Japanese-Americans who are very active at their Buddhist temples; one of them even helps organize the annual Obon Festival at her temple. Younger Americans might be abandoning Christianity (woo hoo!), but there are other religions out there that people are adhering to--converting to, even. Quite a number of westerners go to the Soto Zen Buddhist temple my partner and I go to.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Larkspirit

Besides San Francisco's high cost of living and terrible public schools, an unmentioned reason for blacks leaving the city was the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cash in on modest houses that had morphed into equity cash cows.

Starting about 25 years ago, two of the main black neighborhoods in San Francisco, Hunters Point and Bayview, became the target of gentrification. Both locales enjoy warmer, fog-free weather than the northern part of town, and if you angle your windows just right on some of the higher elevations, the views are superb.

What happened is simple: When black owners who had bought their blue-collar houses way back when for $10,000 found out that would-be buyers were willing to pay $400,000+, they did what any smart families would do: They took the equity and ran to East Bay where they could buy much larger houses and enjoy more sunshine than what they'd left behind. It didn't hurt that the crime rate in places like Hercules and Pinole was miniscule compared to SF.

And so they could be around more faces like them. The title of the thread jumped out at me considering I didn't think it was possible for SF to get any whiter or at least have fewer blacks. It's not a place I associate much with black culture (despite a black mayor some years back) while Oakland on the other hand is the polar opposite. It's the home to the urban poor that most major metropolises have in the same single city that in this case is in a separate municipality from San Francisco.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

And so they could be around more faces like them. The title of the thread jumped out at me considering I didn't think it was possible for SF to get any whiter or at least have fewer blacks. It's not a place I associate much with black culture (despite a black mayor some years back) while Oakland on the other hand is the polar opposite. It's the home to the urban poor that most major metropolises have in the same single city that in this case is in a separate municipality from San Francisco.

SF is only 42% non Hispanic white (the lowest number ever, after shrinking for 75 years), which is less white than a lot of US cities. SF's black population has definitely shrunk a lot too (as has Oakland's), but there are still 40,000-50,000 black people here, and SF actually has one of the largest black communities in the Bay Area/Northern CA. For the record, there were few black people in the Bay Area until WWII (SF and Oakland each had just a couple thousand black people before 1940), when most of them arrived from the south to work in the shipyards.

Also, SF has plenty of "urban poor" within city limits, with 100,000 residents below the poverty line and another 100,000 just above it. That's more poor people than in Oakland (though lower as a percentage). Oakland has a lot of wealth too...it's not like SF is all fancy and Oakland is all working class.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by tech12

SF is only 42% non Hispanic white (the lowest number ever, after shrinking for 75 years), which is less white than a lot of US cities.

Though 42% white is a fairly high percent. It's higher than almost all the other major U.S. cites.

And in the context of the state and region, it's high. The city is whiter than most of the surrounding counties, and whiter than the state as a whole.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by tech12

SF is only 42% non Hispanic white (the lowest number ever, after shrinking for 75 years), which is less white than a lot of US cities. SF's black population has definitely shrunk a lot too (as has Oakland's), but there are still 40,000-50,000 black people here, and SF actually has one of the largest black communities in the Bay Area/Northern CA. For the record, there were few black people in the Bay Area until WWII (SF and Oakland each had just a couple thousand black people before 1940), when most of them arrived from the south to work in the shipyards.

Also, SF has plenty of "urban poor" within city limits, with 100,000 residents below the poverty line and another 100,000 just above it. That's more poor people than in Oakland (though lower as a percentage). Oakland has a lot of wealth too...it's not like SF is all fancy and Oakland is all working class.

Well of course it's gonna have one of the largest black communities in the region, it's one of the largest cities in the entire country, so even 1% would be relatively sizable. Doesn't change the cultural aspect. Like, just because NYC/Long Island for so long housed more ethnic Irish, Italians, Jews than even 99% of the cities and towns in their own homelands (and now Israel in the case of the latter) doesn't necessarily mean the ethnic community is more vibrant than the various homeland communities. And 42% non-Hispanic white (which is sticky since many Latinos have Americanized and blend in) is also a large number for a major city, though obviously not on the same plane as a plane such as Portland.

I'm not saying San Francisco doesn't have a black community but it's not something I really associate much with the city as opposed to Oakland across the bay.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Though 42% white is a fairly high percent. It's higher than almost all the other major U.S. cites.

And in the context of the state and region, it's high. The city is whiter than most of the surrounding counties, and whiter than the state as a whole.

But it's not more white than most of the surrounding counties. In fact, the opposite is true.

Non-Hispanic white population of the 9-county Bay Area, 2010 census:

Marin - 72.8%
Sonoma - 66.1%
Napa - 56.4%
Contra Costa - 47.8%
San Mateo - 42.3%
San Francisco - 41.9%
Solano - 40.8%
Santa Clara - 35.2%
Alameda - 34.1%

And if you include all counties in the SJ-SF-Oakland CSA (which includes a lot of migrant farm workers in the numbers as it stretches out into agricultural areas), you still have a majority of nearby counties that are more white than SF:

Santa Cruz - 59.6%
San Benito - 38.3%
San Joaquin - 35.9%

You could include more nearby counties though:

Lake -74.1%
Mendocino - 68.6%
Sutter - 50.4%
Yolo - 49.9%
Sacramento - 48.4%
Stanislaus - 46.7%
Colusa - 39.8%
Monterey - 32.9%
Merced - 31.9%

And the majority of counties near SF would still be more white than SF is.

SF isn't more white than "almost all other big US cities", either. More like "most US cities are whiter than SF". Here are a ton of cities with 100,000+ people, that are whiter or about equally as white as SF (the list is incomplete, but you get the idea):

Amarillo, TX - 88.5%
Dearborn, MI - 86.7%
Boise, ID - 85.2%
Spokane, WA - 84.0%
Sterling Heights, MI - 83.8%
Scottsdale, AZ - 83.7%
Portland, ME - 83.6%
Boulder, CO - 83.0%
Eugene, OR - 82.0%
Evansville, IN - 80.9%
Warren, MI - 77.1%
Erie, PA - 75.0%
Carlsbad, CA - 74.9%
Knoxville, TN - 74.2%
Cape Coral, FL - 73.5%
Lexington, KY - 73.0%
Gilbert, AZ - 72.9%
Portland, OR - 72.2%
Peoria, AZ - 72.2%
Surprise, AZ - 71.2%
Roseville, CA - 71.0%
Wilmington, NC - 70.8%
Colorado Springs, CO - 70.7%
Salem, OR - 70.7%
Louisville, KY - 70.5%
Des Moines, IA - 70.5%
Ann Arbor, MI - 70.4%
Fort Wayne, IN - 70.3%
Thousand Oaks, CA - 70.2%
Cary, NC - 68.9%
Charleston, SC - 68.6%
Omaha, NE - 68.0%
Huntington Beach, CA - 67.2%
Frisco, TX - 67.2%
Seattle, WA - 66.3%
Salt Lake City, UT - 65.6%
Pittsburgh, PA - 64.8%
Virginia Beach, VA - 64.5%
McKinney, TX - 64.5%
Mesa, AZ - 64.3%
St. Petersburg, FL - 64.3%
Pensacola, FL - 64.3%
Arlington, VA - 63.8%
Lakeland, FL - 63.1%
Simi Valley, CA - 62.8%
Anchorage, AK - 62.6%
Reno, NV - 62.5%
Abilene, TX - 62.4%
Tempe, AZ - 62.3%
Cambridge, MA - 62.1%
Denton, TX - 61.9%
Chandler, AZ - 61.7%
Port St. Lucie, FL - 61.6%
Glendale, CA - 61.5%
Toledo, OH - 61.4%
Akron, OH - 61.2%
Tacoma, WA - 60.5%
Minneapolis, MN - 60.3%
Ventura, CA - 60.0%
Santa Rosa, CA - 59.7%
Chesapeake, VA - 59.7%
Worcester, MA - 59.6%
Columbus, OH - 59.3%
Grand Rapids, MI - 59.0%
Indianapolis, IN - 58.6%
Plano, TX - 58.4%
Burbank, CA - 58.3%
Tulsa, OK - 57.9%
Gainesville, FL - 57.8%
Temecula, CA - 57.2%
Oklahoma City, OK - 56.7%
Nashville, TN - 56.3%
Santa Clarita, CA - 56.1%
Chattanooga, TN - 55.9%
South Bend, IN - 55.8%
Murrieta, CA - 55.7%
Lubbock, TX - 55.7%
Lansing, MI - 55.5%
Jacksonville, FL - 55.1%
Kansas City, KS - 54.9%
Berkeley, CA - 54.7%
Alexandria, VA - 53.5%
Tallahassee, FL - 53.3%
Raleigh, NC - 53.3%
Stamford, CT - 53.3%
Syracuse, NY - 52.8%
Lowell, MA - 52.8%
Fort Lauderdale, FL - 52.5%
Denver, CO - 52.2%
Albany, NY - 52.0%
Midland, TX - 51.9%
Costa Mesa, CA - 51.8%
Glendale, AZ - 51.5%
Dayton, OH - 50.5%
High Point, NC - 50.4%
Concord, CA - 50.3%
Visalia, CA - 50.0%
Columbia, SC - 49.6%
Modesto, CA - 49.4%
Austin, TX - 48.7%
Cincinnati, OH - 48.1%
Las Vegas, NV - 47.9%
Tuscon, AZ - 47.2%
Winston-Salem, NC - 47.1%
Boston, MA - 47.0%
Orange, CA - 46.8%
Little Rock, AR - 46.7%
Phoenix, AZ - 46.5%
Tampa, FL - 46.3%
Carrollton, TX - 46.3%
Newport News, VA - 46.0%
Buffalo, NY - 45.8%
Waco, TX - 45.8%
Greensboro, NC - 45.6%
Waterbury, CT - 45.4%
Pueblo, CO - 45.2%
San Diego, CA - 45.1%
Charlotte, NC - 45.1%
Irvine, CA - 45.1%
Arlington, TX - 44.9%
Oceanside, CA - 44.8%
Norfolk, VA - 44.3%
Mobile, AL - 43.9%
Allentown, PA - 43.2%
Rancho Cucamonga, CA - 42.7%
Torrance, CA - 42.3%
St. Louis, MO - 42.2%
Albuquerque, NM - 42.1%
San Francisco, CA - 41.9%
Fort Worth, TX - 41.7%
Mesquite, TX - 41.6%
Yonkers, NY - 41.4%
Fayetteville, NC - 41.3%
Orlando, FL - 41.3%

That's a lot more cities that are whiter than there are cities that are less white. Big cities in that list that are whiter than SF: San Diego, Boston, Seattle, Portland, Louisville, Austin, Nashville, Denver, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tuscon, Tulsa, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Albuquerque, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Raleigh, Kansas City, Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News, Mobile, Charlotte, Buffalo, Syracuse, Tampa, Little Rock, Dayton, Albany, Akron, Toledo, Anchorage, Omaha, Des Moines, etc (and then Fort Worth and Orlando are ever so slightly, just barely, less white than SF).

You are right that SF is whiter than the state of CA as a whole, including many cities in CA (though not all; San Diego is more white than SF, for example), and it wouldn't be on the "10 least white big cities in America" list...but it would be close to making it, and it sure as hell wouldn't be on the "most white" cities list. It's certainly not whiter than most cities in the US.

Of course it makes a lot more sense to compare metropolitan areas with each other than city-limits, but the thread has been focused on city-limits so far. Of course when going by metro area, SF is still less white than the majority of US metros (it's actually the most diverse metro area in the US, if I remember right).

[ThePhun1]

Most of those cities on that list either aren't major cities or are even suburbs. The first major city on the list is Portland and that's already been pointed out (I can't let you get away with Boise or Lexington though they are close) followed closely by Louisville and Seattle, none of which are on San Francisco's level. (on a side note, not to be a stereotyping prick but Salt Lake City is surprisingly low on the list).

And in this case it wouldn't make sense to compare metro areas because we're talking about a single municipality. We could analyze and look deeper, perhaps excluding suburban portions of town (Houston has two plus an international airport that were annexed and skew the numbers for example) or parts of a city that are technically in it but not really all that much a part of it (Staten Island, NY fits both criteria) but we're looking at the racial makeup of each city not in the region in general because nine times out of ten those numbers differ dramatically.

[fflint]

San Francisco proper ranks thirteenth in total population among US municipalities. Is it notably white compared with cities of comparable population, as some forumers insist we should believe? Let's take a look:

#11: Austin, population 912,791: 48.7% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#12: Jacksonville, population 853,382: 55.1% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#13: San Francisco, population 852,469, 41.9% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#14: Indianapolis, population 848,788: 58.6% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#15: Columbus, population 835,957: 59.3% white, non-Hispanic/Latino

As it turns out, the statistics show San Francisco is the least white city of the bunch. It would appear some forumers are intent on having us believe something that, while it may suit their own personal biases and agendas, is not supported by the facts.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by tech12

SF is only 42% non Hispanic white (the lowest number ever, after shrinking for 75 years), which is less white than a lot of US cities. SF's black population has definitely shrunk a lot too (as has Oakland's), but there are still 40,000-50,000 black people here, and SF actually has one of the largest black communities in the Bay Area/Northern CA. For the record, there were few black people in the Bay Area until WWII (SF and Oakland each had just a couple thousand black people before 1940), when most of them arrived from the south to work in the shipyards.

Also, SF has plenty of "urban poor" within city limits, with 100,000 residents below the poverty line and another 100,000 just above it. That's more poor people than in Oakland (though lower as a percentage). Oakland has a lot of wealth too...it's not like SF is all fancy and Oakland is all working class.

FWIW, the black population has shrunk in other older cities like San Francisco, too. (I'm thinking New York, Chicago, and IIRC LA, probably others?)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by fflint

San Francisco proper ranks thirteenth in total population among US municipalities. Is it notably white compared with cities of comparable population, as some forumers insist we should believe? Let's take a look:

#11: Austin, population 912,791: 48.7% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#12: Jacksonville, population 853,382: 55.1% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#13: San Francisco, population 852,469, 41.9% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#14: Indianapolis, population 848,788: 58.6% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#15: Columbus, population 835,957: 59.3% white, non-Hispanic/Latino

As it turns out, the statistics show San Francisco is the least white city of the bunch. It would appear some forumers are intent on having us believe something that, while it may suit their own personal biases and agendas, is not supported by the facts.

I don't think this is a reasonable response. These aren't major cities, and don't have comparable city boundaries.

Cities that one could reasonably compare to SF would probably be LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami and the like. The biggest and most important U.S. cities. Among these probably only Boston is as white, and even Boston is notably more nonwhite than SF in terms of regional context (Boston region is lily white compared to Bay Area).

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think this is a reasonable response. These aren't major cities, and don't have comparable city boundaries.

Cities that one could reasonably compare to SF would probably be LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami and the like. The biggest and most important U.S. cities. Among these probably only Boston is as white, and even Boston is notably more nonwhite than SF in terms of regional context (Boston region is lily white compared to Bay Area).

If it were true we cannot legitimately compare San Francisco with US municipalities of comparable population because the differences in land area are too great, then it must also necessarily be true we cannot compare San Francisco with the nation's most vast municipalities like New York City, Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago. Your line of reasoning here, intended only to shore up a pre-ordained conclusion that is alas not supported by the facts, fails because it is internally inconsistent.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by fflint

San Francisco proper ranks thirteenth in total population among US municipalities. Is it notably white compared with cities of comparable population, as some forumers insist we should believe? Let's take a look:

#11: Austin, population 912,791: 48.7% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#12: Jacksonville, population 853,382: 55.1% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#13: San Francisco, population 852,469, 41.9% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#14: Indianapolis, population 848,788: 58.6% white, non-Hispanic/Latino
#15: Columbus, population 835,957: 59.3% white, non-Hispanic/Latino

As it turns out, the statistics show San Francisco is the least white city of the bunch. It would appear some forumers are intent on having us believe something that, while it may suit their own personal biases and agendas, is not supported by the facts.

I tip my cap to you, stats are stats. None the less, I still don't associate black culture with San Francisco all that much in comparison to Oakland or as I would with pretty much any city of SF's size and notoriety. That's not to say it's not present but it's not something I think much of in regards to San Francisco.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think this is a reasonable response. These aren't major cities, and don't have comparable city boundaries.

Cities that one could reasonably compare to SF would probably be LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami and the like. The biggest and most important U.S. cities. Among these probably only Boston is as white, and even Boston is notably more nonwhite than SF in terms of regional context (Boston region is lily white compared to Bay Area).

They aren't major cities? They may not be as cosmopolitan and as important or famous but those are all legit major cities though with that said, I like the alternate comparison you made. I'm reminded of minority culture or their presence in general one way or another in those places. Even in Boston, it is (in)famous for issues pertaining to race relations and friction between certain groups, particularly the Irish and blacks (or so I've read and seen, stop me if I'm wrong).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by fflint

If it were true we cannot legitimately compare San Francisco with US municipalities of comparable population because the differences in land area are too great, then it must also necessarily be true we cannot compare San Francisco with the nation's most vast municipalities like New York City, Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago. Your line of reasoning here, intended only to shore up a pre-ordained conclusion that is alas not supported by the facts, fails because it is internally inconsistent.

I don't see the inconsistency. I'm saying it's more reasonable to compare SF to cities that are most alike- the LA and NYC and DC type places. Big, rich, cosmopolitan cities with lots of immigrants and nonwhites. These cities, generally speaking, have smaller white populations than SF, and tend to be less white than their surrounding regions. SF is somewhat of an outlier in that it's generally as white as surrounding counties.

I don't think city boundaries usually play a significant role in relative diversity amongst similar cities. If you shrank NYC to the core neighborhoods, or expanded it somewhat outward, the racial balance wouldn't change much. It isn't like Hudson County/Essex County and other inner suburban areas would make NYC whiter, and it isn't like reducing NYC to Manhattan and adjacent areas would make a big difference either. I think LA would be about the same too. If you expanded SF down the peninsula somewhat, I doubt that would make a big difference either.

I don't think it's reasonable to judge relative diversity or whiteness in SF by comparing to suburban Columbus or suburban Indianapolis, as these are sprawly, heavily white metro areas with little immigration, and much smaller than that of the SF area. One would expect lots of whites in some suburban area in Indiana; the same isn't necessarily true in an urban area in California.