[dimondpark]

Census estimates for 2008 came out so I did some adding up.

California 2 Largest Combined Statistical Areas, 2008

Los Angeles Area by County

Non Hispanic White 6,257,551 35.1%
Ventura 51.5%
Orange 46.2%
Riverside 42.2%
San Bernardino 35.6%
Los Angeles 28.8%

Black 1,207,932 6.7%
Los Angeles 8.6%%
San Bernardino 8.4%
Riverside 5.9%
Ventura 1.7%
Orange 1.5%

Asian 2,022,371 11.3%
Orange 15.9%
Los Angeles 12.8%
Ventura 6.2%
San Bernardino 5.6%
Riverside 5.1%

Hispanic or Latino of any race 7,906,495 44.4%
Los Angeles 47.6%
San Bernardino 47.4%
Riverside 43.8%
Ventura 37.8%
Orange 33.7%

San Francisco Bay Area by County

Non Hispanic White 3,371,083 45.8%
Marin 75.0%
Sonoma 68.2%
Santa Cruz 62.8%
Napa 59.3%
Contra Costa 50.7%
San Francisco 45.6%
San Mateo 45.3%
Solano 43.4%
San Benito 40.7%
Santa Clara 37.9%
Alameda 36.7%

Black 476,374 6.3%
Solano 14.4%
Alameda 12.5%
Contra Costa 9.1%
San Francisco 6.2%
Marin 2.8%
San Mateo 2.8%
Santa Clara 2.5%
Napa 1.8%
Santa Cruz 0.9%
San Benito 0.8%

Asian 1,571,607 21.3%
San Francisco 30.9%
Santa Clara 30.7%
Alameda 24.4%
San Mateo 23.7%
Solano 13.5%
Contra Costa 13.4%
Napa 5.9%
Marin 5.2%
Santa Cruz 3.8%
Sonoma 3.6%
San Benito 2.7%

Hispanic or Latino 1,715,078 23.3%
San Benito 53.7%
Napa 30.0%
Santa Cruz 29.2%
Santa Clara 25.9%
San Mateo 23.4%
Sonoma 23.1%
Contra Costa 22.8%
Solano 22.6%
Alameda 21.7%
Marin 14.1%
San Francisco 14.1%

[WesternGulf]

i never knew marin had a decent hispanic presence.

[IIan]

That's the weirdest clasification i've ever seen!! :lol:

language, color, continent?? wouldn't be better to decide in one of the three???

It's very confusing

[dimondpark]

That's the weirdest clasification i've ever seen!! :lol:

language, color, continent?? wouldn't be better to decide in one of the three???

It's very confusing
LOL

I guess its very oriented to the US and outsiders might scratch their heads.

[krudmonk]

That's the weirdest clasification i've ever seen!! :lol:

language, color, continent?? wouldn't be better to decide in one of the three???

It's very confusing
You make a good point, but I believe many have tried and failed to find more accurate terms for these breakdowns and failed. As long as we understand them, I guess it's fine.

[IIan]

Yes but, for example in which category do you put these people...

... a black brazilian guy living in the US, "latino of any race" or "black"??

... a white brazilian guy living in the US, "latino of any race" or "Non hispanic white"??

[BTinSF]

That's the weirdest clasification i've ever seen!! :lol:

language, color, continent?? wouldn't be better to decide in one of the three???

It's very confusing

Not so weird really if you understand it. It is actually geographic-cultural, based on the self-identification of people in the US. "Black" = African-American or African. "Hispanic or Latino" means "the Americas south of the US-Mexico border". "Non-Hispanic White mean European-American.

So what it really does is group people by the continent of the origin of their ancestors even though it purports to group them by the modern American ethnic and cultural subset they identify with.

[BTinSF]

Yes but, for example in which category do you put these people...

... a black brazilian guy living in the US, "latino of any race" or "black"??

... a white brazilian guy living in the US, "latino of any race" or "Non hispanic white"??

These categorizations are almost always self-identified in the US. No government official does it. So you are what you consider yourself.

My guess is in the US the black Brazilian guy would consider himself "Hispanic-Latino" and certainly the white Brazilian guy would, especially if they have been here any length of time.

[salaverryo]

Yes but, for example in which category do you put these people...

... a black brazilian guy living in the US, "latino of any race" or "black"??

... a white brazilian guy living in the US, "latino of any race" or "Non hispanic white"??

If you're categorizing by race, "black" in the first case and "Non hispanic white" in the second.

If you're categorizing by national origin, "latino of any race" in both cases.

Brazilians are not hispanics, since their mother tongue is not Spanish.

[IIan]

These categorizations are almost always self-identified in the US. No government official does it. So you are what you consider yourself.

aaahhh ok, that sounds a little better... didn't know :)

My guess is in the US the black Brazilian guy would consider himself "Hispanic-Latino" and certainly the white Brazilian guy would, especially if they have been here any length of time.

"Portuguese-latino" maybe!!!! :D

Not so weird really if you understand it. It is actually geographic-cultural, based on the self-identification of people in the US. "Black" = African-American or African. "Hispanic or Latino" means "the Americas south of the US-Mexico border". "Non-Hispanic White mean European-American.

So even if it is supposed to be about self-identification, the spaniards living in the US (European-American) can have a hard time choosing their category... :haha: Most of them are white and hispanics... by default they have to choose "Hispanic or latino of any race"

Sorry if it is turning a bit annoying... i'm just curious

byeee


.

[sofresh808]

i never knew marin had a decent hispanic presence.

The Canal area in San Rafael has a large hispanic population, according to the 2000 census SR was 43% Hispanic. Im always surprised by San Francisco's low Hispanic numbers, I get thats its a lot cheaper in the burbs, but the city remains a magnet for new immigrants from Asia:shrug: Stronger informal networks I guess.

[manuelpr]

Spaniards would fall into white hispanic and while brazilians are not Hispanics they are Latinos. A black Brazilian would be a black Latino.

[Crawford]

Hispanics in CA are mostly "white".

I will never understand the American penchant for thinking of all Spanish-speaking peoples as a separate race.

Why aren't Dutch or Portuguese-speaking folks a separate race? Not enough of them in the U.S. to bother?

[Crawford]

"Hispanic or Latino" means "the Americas south of the US-Mexico border".

But does it?

About half of the people living in the geography you identified don't speak Spanish. Brazil? The vast majority of the West Indies? Northeastern South America? Indigenous peoples from Mexico to Chile?

What then?

And what about Spain? Can Spainard be Latino? If not, then I'm even more confused by the term. It would be like saying an African cannot be African American.

[sopas ej]

i never knew marin had a decent hispanic presence.

What do you mean exactly by a "decent Hispanic presence?"

[sopas ej]

Hispanics in CA are mostly "white".

Are they really? Most, I would assume, are mestizos, like most northern Mexicans.


I will never understand the American penchant for thinking of all Spanish-speaking peoples as a separate race.

It's a cultural issue; I know plenty of Mexican-Americans, who, though they were born and raised here, always refer to themselves as "Mexican." Some go so far as to tell other Mexican-Americans who are assimilated, that they act "white." It's a two-way street. If there are Americans who think of all Spanish-speaking peoples as a separate race, there are plenty of Spanish-speaking Latinos in the US who think of themselves as a separate race too.

[Kingofthehill]

Hispanics in CA are mostly "white".

Oh ?

[krudmonk]

Hispanics in CA are mostly "white".
Um, what? It's the racial stratification in Mexico that has forced economic strife onto the non-white population that inevitably immigrate north. Notice the people we see on Telemundo don't look too much like the guys outside Home Depot.

[sopas ej]

:previous:

Exactly. I feel that in the last 20 years, the Mexicans that have been moving here have been increasingly the more indigenous, Mayan type with the shorter, stockier bodies and darker skin. I remember some years ago, a report came out on the news saying that the average height of Americans was decreasing. The silly article said it could be because of poorer health conditions; I thought it was an obvious reason, that shorter people of other races have been immigrating into the US, and thus lowering the average height of people in the US.

[tech12]

The Canal area in San Rafael has a large hispanic population, according to the 2000 census SR was 43% Hispanic. I'm always surprised by San Francisco's low Hispanic numbers, I get thats its a lot cheaper in the burbs, but the city remains a magnet for new immigrants from Asia:shrug: Stronger informal networks I guess.

SF's latino population is mostly concentrated in the eastern/southeastern half of the city (which is the cheapest part). That part of SF is very heavily influenced by Latino culture...it has around 300,000 people, and most of SF's 110,000 Latino people live over there, so that's around 30%...that half of SF is your typical large California city in that regard.

Latino population in SF:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Latino_sf1.gif

The western and northern parts of SF however (with roughly 500,000 people), have very few latino residents (or black residents...that half of the city is very heavily white and asian, with not too much else).

[Crawford]

Are they really? Most, I would assume, are mestizos, like most northern Mexicans.

Probably, but then they would likely be "white". Remember this is self-reporting.

Mestizos are Indio-Spaniards, and they aren't checking off Native American. Black or Asian would not be options.

It's a cultural issue; I know plenty of Mexican-Americans, who, though they were born and raised here, always refer to themselves as "Mexican."

Mexican, yeah, as an ethnic identifier, but my issue is with Latino and Hispanic as racial constructs.

Some go so far as to tell other Mexican-Americans who are assimilated, that they act "white." It's a two-way street.

Maybe it's because I live part-time in Mexico, and I forget that Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are NOT really comparable, but the notion that an assimilated Mexican American would be considered "white" as a marker of assimilation is really strange to me.

They would be "gringo", of course, but gringos are all people who are Americanized, whether whites, blacks, Mexicans or whatever. To think that an Americanized Mexican is turning "white" makes as much sense to me as thinking they are turning "black" or whatever.

In Mexico there is no race really, only color and appearance. You have blunt, literal terms for blondies and darkies and fatties and shorties and the like, but this idea of a Latin race does not exist in Mexico.

[Crawford]

:previous:

Exactly. I feel that in the last 20 years, the Mexicans that have been moving here have been increasingly the more indigenous, Mayan type with the shorter, stockier bodies and darker skin.

I think this is true. The "average" Mexican immigrant I see in NYC does not exist in much of Mexico.

Most NYC Mexican immigration is very recent, and from Indio communities in rural Puebla and a few other Southern states. A handful don't even speak Spanish.

Now there has always been a small elite Mexican population in Manhattan and the like (Carlos Slim and Luis Miguel live part-time in Manhattan) but I am talking the typical immigrant experience.

The vast majority I have met have roots in Puebla or a few other states around Mexico City, and then heading south through Oaxaca.

[sopas ej]

Probably, but then they would likely be "white". Remember this is self-reporting.

Mestizos are Indio-Spaniards, and they aren't checking off Native American. Black or Asian would not be options.

Mexican, yeah, as an ethnic identifier, but my issue is with Latino and Hispanic as racial constructs.

Well many use the term Mexican for more than just an ethnic identifier, many, even though they were born and raised in the US, use the term as if they were not Americans.


Maybe it's because I live part-time in Mexico, and I forget that Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are NOT really comparable, but the notion that an assimilated Mexican American would be considered "white" as a marker of assimilation is really strange to me.

Well it does happen; it's not strange to me because I've seen it often, and I'm very sure other people living in SoCal have too.


They would be "gringo", of course, but gringos are all people who are Americanized, whether whites, blacks, Mexicans or whatever. To think that an Americanized Mexican is turning "white" makes as much sense to me as thinking they are turning "black" or whatever.

Again, that's what many say, even other ethnicities, that they are turning "white." "White" has another, cultural connotation in the US, and I would think you would be familiar with that.


In Mexico there is no race really, only color and appearance. You have blunt, literal terms for blondies and darkies and fatties and shorties and the like, but this idea of a Latin race does not exist in Mexico.

Which surprises me because like you said, they have blunt literal words for everything else, and, often they'll still use those terms here in the US, even though they might be considered offensive by Americans; it's as if they haven't learned the social mores of Americans to find out what might be offensive.

[dimondpark]

One thing that I found odd was the fact that San Mateo has more Hispanics than Alameda and Alameda has more Asians than San Mateo.

[Gordo]

One thing that I found odd was the fact that San Mateo has more Hispanics than Alameda and Alameda has more Asians than San Mateo.

More Hispanics in San Mateo than Alameda does surprise me (a lot actually). I'm not really surprised about there being more Asians in Alameda than San Mateo. Most younger Asian immigrants that I've worked with have or are looking for a place to live in Santa Clara County or southern Alameda County. I wouldn't be surprised to see Fremont become majority Asian by the 2010 census (I think it's around 45% or so now).

[WesternGulf]

What do you mean exactly by a "decent Hispanic presence?" uhhh, exactly what it sounds like. for whatever reason i always thought of marin as being the least diverse area of the bay area. to see that san francisco and marin county's hispanic presence/percentage is about the same is surprising. sorry no lines to read in between here.

[blade_bltz]

I was a bit surprised by San Mateo's Hispanic pop as well. But I guess it all adds up when you consider small cities like EPA, all the unincorporated communities in that area (heh, I've had some fun times biking through "North Fair Oaks" at night...I thought this was Atherton?), and the bigger municipalities: SSF, Redwood City, San Mateo.

Not surprised at all about Alameda's Asian population. Fremont, Union City, etc.

[tech12]

uhhh, exactly what it sounds like. for whatever reason i always thought of marin as being the least diverse area of the bay area. to see that san francisco and marin county's hispanic presence/percentage is about the same is surprising. sorry no lines to read in between here.

Aside from the latino population Marin county is mostly white though, unlike SF. Marin is still the least diverse part of the bay. It's 84% white, 2.9% black, and 4.5% Asian. Sonoma county too, which is 81% white 1.4% black, 3% asian, and 17.3% latino, as well as Napa county, at 80% white, 1.3% black, 3% asian, and 23.7% latino. The whole north bay is pretty white, with a sizable latino minority...and all other groups are pretty negligible.

[BTinSF]

But does it?

About half of the people living in the geography you identified don't speak Spanish. Brazil? The vast majority of the West Indies? Northeastern South America? Indigenous peoples from Mexico to Chile?

What then?

And what about Spain? Can Spainard be Latino? If not, then I'm even more confused by the term. It would be like saying an African cannot be African American.

We had this argument once before and I argued that several decades ago when people used the term "latin" as in "latin lover", it referred to people from countries speaking a Latin-derived language including those in Europe like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal (and, yeah part of Switzerland ;) ). I further argued (and provided support from various web sites) that the term "latino" meant much the same thing. Of course, I got roundly disputed by the culture warriors here but if I am right (and I still think a portion of the American population--mainly those from areas with a lesser Mexican-American population not finely attuned to these distinctions), then yes, a Spaniard would be "latino".

So would a Brazilian, by the way, though they wouldn't be "Hispanic". The indigenous people, if they speak Spanish and are really of mixed race as most are, would also be "Hispanic-latino" just as black people with white ancestors (most of them these days) are considered black by nearly everyone including themselves. Pure indigenous types living in Mexico and not speaking Spanish would probably be considered "Native American" by everyone but themselves though that's a quandry. I don't know what they consider themselves, having never talked to one.

And when I said south of the US-Mexico border, I meant on the continents--not the Caribbean islands which are diverse as everyone knows (I think you were bringing that up just to argue the point ;) ).

[sopas ej]

uhhh, exactly what it sounds like. for whatever reason i always thought of marin as being the least diverse area of the bay area. to see that san francisco and marin county's hispanic presence/percentage is about the same is surprising. sorry no lines to read in between here.

I was just curious about your choice of the word "decent." To me it sounds like you think a higher percentage is better, that's the implication I got.

[sopas ej]

It's funny to me that what's considered the SF Bay Area has grown since I was younger. I've always considered the immediate SF Bay Area to be SF, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties. I always considered San Jose to be its own entity, but being that it's grown so much, and technically its city limits do touch San Francisco Bay, I guess I can consider it as part of the SF Bay Area. But I'm sorry, I still don't consider Solano County as part of the Bay Area, it already feels like you're out in the boondocks by the time you reach Benicia. And when did people start thinking that Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties are part of the Bay Area? Santa Cruz and Hollister don't feel anything like "Metro San Francisco" to me.

[Gordo]

It's funny to me that what's considered the SF Bay Area has grown since I was younger. I've always considered the immediate SF Bay Area to be SF, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties. I always considered San Jose to be its own entity, but being that it's grown so much, and technically its city limits do touch San Francisco Bay, I guess I can consider it as part of the SF Bay Area. But I'm sorry, I still don't consider Solano County as part of the Bay Area, it already feels like you're out in the boondocks by the time you reach Benicia. And when did people start thinking that Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties are part of the Bay Area? Santa Cruz and Hollister don't feel anything like "Metro San Francisco" to me.

You wouldn't have considered Palo Alto (Santa Clara County) and Vallejo (Solano County) as part of the Bay Area? That would seem bizarre to me, even 20 years ago. Benicia is kind of out in the boondocks, but it's basically the farthest east that you can go in Solano County and is pretty small. The other larger cities in Solano (besides Vallejo), Fairfield and Vacaville, have become much more intertwined in the Bay Area over the last 20 years - I would bet that more than 50% of each city is people that used to live in one of those other counties that you mention. One of the current members of the board of supervisors in SF just bought two houses in Fairfield to move his kids and wife there while he lives in a condo in the city.

The nine county area is what is typically called the Bay Area, I think that dimondpark just included Santa Cruz and San Benito for those interested.

[tech12]

The nine county area is what is typically called the Bay Area, I think that dimondpark just included Santa Cruz and San Benito for those interested.

The census designates the SJ-SF-Oakland CSA as including San Benito and Santa Cruz counties, that's probably why he included them. Not everyone in those areas consider themselves as Bay Area residents...but some do, or at least they consider them selves "semi-Bay Area residents". For example my friend who lives in SF has a girlfriend in Hollister, and they both regularly travel back and forth between the two. My friend even has a job in Hollister.

[dimondpark]

The census designates the SJ-SF-Oakland CSA as including San Benito and Santa Cruz counties, that's probably why he included them.

Yup.

The CSA includes Santa Cruz and San Benito.

[Ronin]

I can see what sopas ej means. For me, growing up in Hayward, San Jose was a totally foreign land to us, and we pretty much considered it a different area altogether. I guess you can blame BART for that. Also, for Solono County, when Marine World moved out to Vallejo, people were like, "WHERE?!"

Anyhow, I'm surprised at the extremely low black population in LA County. You would have thought from the media that there were many more. I must say, the black population in LA is quite influential around the country and the rest of the world considering their numbers aren't that high.

[Gordo]

Yup.

The CSA includes Santa Cruz and San Benito.

Oops, forgot about that. And I guess that even the SJ MSA includes San Benito County.

[dimondpark]

Oops, forgot about that. And I guess that even the SJ MSA includes San Benito County.

Yes, San Benito County is now part of the San Jose MSA.

[BTinSF]

It's funny to me that what's considered the SF Bay Area has grown since I was younger. I've always considered the immediate SF Bay Area to be SF, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties. I always considered San Jose to be its own entity, but being that it's grown so much, and technically its city limits do touch San Francisco Bay, I guess I can consider it as part of the SF Bay Area. But I'm sorry, I still don't consider Solano County as part of the Bay Area, it already feels like you're out in the boondocks by the time you reach Benicia. And when did people start thinking that Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties are part of the Bay Area? Santa Cruz and Hollister don't feel anything like "Metro San Francisco" to me.

For a while, I commuted from San Francisco to Vallejo (Solano County). Plenty of people commute the other way--there was a ferry service from the Vallejo waterfront to downtown SF for commuters (I assume still is but I haven't checked). When an "edge city" like this is both a bedroom commuter town and part of the metro media market as Solano clearly is, it's part of the metro in my book. On the other hand, if Solano house prices weren't included in SF metro numbers, our stats would look a lot better because it has been ground zero for the housing melt-down.

I suppose it's also true that people started thinking of Santa Cruz and San Benito as part of the Bay Area when people started commuting to downtown jobs from there. Highway 17 to Santa Cruz gets ugly at rush hour in bad weather suggesting how many people now commute from there. CalTrain goes as far south as Gilroy--not quite to San Benito but close enough to be used by San Benito residents.

One other change may matter. When KRON in San Francisco lost the NBC affiliation to Channel 11 in San Jose, San Franciscans who watch their evening news on NBC started learning more than they ever realized they didn't know about South Bay communities, including Hollister and Santa Cruz.

[The Agonist]

It is suprising how WHITE sf is compared to LA. LA county has 10-11 million people and is only 20-somthing percent white while SF metro as a whole has only 6 million people or whatever and is close to half white.

It is also surising how much more affluent SF is than LA even though LA is known for over the tops glitz. Asians have higher median incomes than whites and are more likely to be college grads and professionals. SF is almost 75% asian and white while LA is only 35%. I guess that explains the uniform upscaleness of SF versus the disparity in LA.

[Gordo]

:previous: I don't really find that surprising. Basically, the entire difference is in number of Hispanics in LA versus the Bay Area. It makes sense on many levels why there would be a lot more Hispanics in LA than in the Bay Area, and a lot more Asians in the Bay Area than the LA area (though not as many Asians in the Bay Area versus Hispanics in the LA area).

[sopas ej]

It is suprising how WHITE sf is compared to LA.

It's very apparent, too, when visiting SF.

[Gordo]

It's very apparent, too, when visiting SF.

I think it has a lot more to do with where most people visit in SF. There are plenty of majority white neighborhoods in LA too, and they just so happen to be most of the tourist areas as well. For example, I don't think that many people would guess that LA County has a larger percentage of Hispanics than SF has of whites, just from visiting the touristy places in both areas.

[tech12]

I think it has a lot more to do with where most people visit in SF.

Definitely, but even then there are tons of Asians, so i dunno what's up with some people and their claims about SF's demographics.

This trend of calling SF a "Very white" city is somewhat baffling. Yes tourists almost always visit the whitest parts of the city (which is where all the tourist attractions are of course), but SF's white population is only 17 percentage points higher than LA. That is higher, but it hardly qualifies SF as "so much more white." And the Asian population, at 30% is very significant. It's not much lower than the white population's 45%. Not to mention as a percentage LA's black population is only 2.4% higher than SF's, and their asian population is 17.2% lower. Going by the logic of some people, I could then claim that LA is so un-asian. Which it obviously isn't...

I spend most of my time in the southern/eastern half of the city. like i said in a previous post, nearly all of SF's black population lives there, as does most of the Latino population. based on this knowledge, i can deduce that the southern/eastern half of SF, population 300,000 or so, is:

roughly 30% latino
roughly 15% black

and based on my own experience, also around:

30% asian
25% white

My San Francisco is a very diverse place, as is the San Francisco of anyone else who spends time all over, rather than just in the northern/western "white half" of the city. Hell even that "white half" of the city isn't close to all white. As I said, and as we hopefully all know by now, there are hundreds of thousands of Asian people all over SF (roughly 260,000 of them). And then of course there are the smaller but still sizable black population and latino population, at 50,000 and 110,000 respectively. Yet i then come on here and see people claiming all SF is WhiteyMcWhiteland.

case in point:

white:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/White_sf1.gif

asian:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Asian_sf1.gif

black:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Black_sf1.gif

latino:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Latino_sf1.gif

If you look at that, and claim SF is all so white, you need some glasses. It's pretty apparent that a good quarter of the city has barely any white people at all.

[sopas ej]

You wouldn't have considered Palo Alto (Santa Clara County) and Vallejo (Solano County) as part of the Bay Area? That would seem bizarre to me, even 20 years ago. Benicia is kind of out in the boondocks, but it's basically the farthest east that you can go in Solano County and is pretty small. The other larger cities in Solano (besides Vallejo), Fairfield and Vacaville, have become much more intertwined in the Bay Area over the last 20 years - I would bet that more than 50% of each city is people that used to live in one of those other counties that you mention. One of the current members of the board of supervisors in SF just bought two houses in Fairfield to move his kids and wife there while he lives in a condo in the city.

The nine county area is what is typically called the Bay Area, I think that dimondpark just included Santa Cruz and San Benito for those interested.

I always considered Palo Alto to be the San Jose area. And Vallejo to me was (and still kinda is) the boondocks. It's adjacent to Benicia, even. Walnut Creek I even consider borderline. It's funny, because I'm not even from the SF Bay Area. I'm totally from LA. But I travel to the Bay Area often, I really love SF.

[Kingofthehill]

I think SF appears lilly-white because many of the Asians ARE white...from a social standpoint, anyways.

At any rate, San Francisco, must be on track to be the first city, and is showing promise, to fully gentrify – and thoroughly sandblast away any “unwanted” or “undesirable” elements, allowing it to adhere to a uniformly upscale, white (and white-washed Asian cronies) hegemony. A boutique city, if you will. Indeed a harrowing and unfortunate reality.

;)

[dimondpark]

I think SF appears lilly-white because many of the Asians ARE white...from a social standpoint, anyways.

At any rate, San Francisco, must be on track to be the first city, and is showing promise, to fully gentrify – and thoroughly sandblast away any “unwanted” or “undesirable” elements, allowing it to adhere to a uniformly upscale, white (and white-washed Asian cronies) hegemony. A boutique city, if you will. Indeed a harrowing and unfortunate reality.

;)

Actually if you look at projections by the state, SF will be the only Metropolitan County in the state that isnt going to be 50%+ Hispanic by 2050.

Perhaps it okay that SF is the way it is.

[sopas ej]

I think it has a lot more to do with where most people visit in SF. There are plenty of majority white neighborhoods in LA too, and they just so happen to be most of the tourist areas as well.

Well I'm not saying it's a bad thing; if anything, for me, anyway, it's refreshing. LA has become very Hispanic in the last few decades, less so, it seems, on the Westside, but their presence is still very felt.


For example, I don't think that many people would guess that LA County has a larger percentage of Latinos than SF has of whites, just from visiting the touristy places in both areas.

But even in the touristy areas, if you observe the people who work in the service industry, many are Latino. And traveling throughout LA County you see many Latinos. You can go into any restaurant in LA, even ethnic ones, and guaranteed, you'll hear Spanish coming from the kitchen, Mexican music, even. It's very telling when you go into a Japanese restaurant, and even the Japanese servers will use some Spanish phrases to communicate to the kitchen workers. I've heard Indians in Indian restaurants, too, communicating in Spanish with some of the kitchen workers. It makes me wonder what they think, these Indian immigrant restaurant owners, who come to the US; would they even have guessed that they'd have to learn Spanish too?

[BTinSF]

It is suprising how WHITE sf is compared to LA.

Not really--at least I'm not surprised by it. LA is 300 miles closer to the border and its thriving Latino culture attracts even more Latinos. SF for a long time has had something similar going on with Asians but let's face it--getting to the US from Asia is a little harder than getting here from Mexico or Central America.

[BTinSF]

I think SF appears lilly-white because many of the Asians ARE white...from a social standpoint, anyways.

At any rate, San Francisco, must be on track to be the first city, and is showing promise, to fully gentrify – and thoroughly sandblast away any “unwanted” or “undesirable” elements, allowing it to adhere to a uniformly upscale, white (and white-washed Asian cronies) hegemony. A boutique city, if you will. Indeed a harrowing and unfortunate reality.

;)

Wrong, unfortunately. I wish it were true to a greater extent but SF probably does more than any other place I can imagine to try to counter the prevailing economic forces that would otherwise make this happen.

In the 27 years I've lived here, the Tenderloin, the Mission, and most of the Western Addition have not substantially gentrified. SOMA has and I think Bayview may be on the verge (thanks, perhaps, to the T LRV line).

I'd like to see fewer druggies and derelicts in the Tenderloin, fewer street gangs in the Mission, fewer drive-bys in the Western Addition but it isn't happening.

By the way, I think the accusation that SF Asians are too "white" is amazingly patronizing and offensive--to both whites and Asians.

[tech12]

At any rate, San Francisco, must be on track to be the first city, and is showing promise, to fully gentrify – and thoroughly sandblast away any “unwanted” or “undesirable” elements, allowing it to adhere to a uniformly upscale, white (and white-washed Asian cronies) hegemony. A boutique city, if you will. Indeed a harrowing and unfortunate reality.

;)

Here you go again, saying this. Maybe it's possible to an extent (it sure does look like it at times). But then again, maybe not, who knows what the future will bring...and wasn't last year the first time you had ever even been to SF? And suddenly you're such an expert on SF and how it's gentrification compares to all other US cities?

Also, "white-washed asian cronies?" I guess in some people's minds it's impossible for any significant culture to exist in SF without all those pesky yuppie white people hordes assimilating them into little white-washed yuppie minions... Seriously...this "harrowing and unfortunate reality" you speak of does not currently exist, and it doesn't exactly look set in stone that it will exist.

I think SF appears lilly-white because many of the Asians ARE white...from a social standpoint, anyways.

What the hell are you talking about? You're wrong, and the more you post about SF, the more you expose your ignorance towards it. I'll tell you how many asian people I've encountered who identify their culture as white: zero. Nearly all asian people I've known take pride in their culture, and view being "white-washed" as a negative thing.

[Kingofthehill]

You do know that the second part of my post, was, uh..a joke, right?

Do people no longer heed or notice the corresponding smileys to such posts anymore? Oh, and nice edit on your post there, tech -- no need to cover things up ;)

[tech12]

It is also surising how much more affluent SF is than LA even though LA is known for over the tops glitz. Asians have higher median incomes than whites and are more likely to be college grads and professionals. SF is almost 75% asian and white while LA is only 35%. I guess that explains the uniform upscaleness of SF versus the disparity in LA.

and I'm on a roll...there is no "uniform upscaleness" in SF. Not at all. There's a lot of upscale areas. And there are lots of non-upscale areas. There are even some highly poor ghetto areas.

[tech12]

You do know that the second part of my post, was, uh..a joke, right?

Do people no longer heed or notice the corresponding smileys to such posts anymore? Oh, and nice edit on your post there, tech -- no need to cover things up ;)

First off, that edit was because I initially completely misread that part of your post. I have no need to cover anything up, but I'm not about to agree that SF's Asian population is "socially white," as I initially accidentally did.

Second, that's a lame joke. What's the comic value? It's just a rehash of stereotypes about SF. Stereotypes that you seem to repeat over and over in various threads about SF.

So uh, sorry i didn't "get it."

[tech12]

I always considered Palo Alto to be the San Jose area. And Vallejo to me was (and still kinda is) the boondocks. It's adjacent to Benicia, even. Walnut Creek I even consider borderline. It's funny, because I'm not even from the SF Bay Area. I'm totally from LA. But I travel to the Bay Area often, I really love SF.

You may think this. But that doesn't mean everyone else does. Vallejo is out there, but it's not quite the boondocks. And even if it were, it's still part of the Bay Area. And Palo Alto is part of the San Jose MSA. But the San Jose MSA is part of the SJ-SF-Oakland CSA...also known as..drum roll...the Bay Area.

What's your point about Benicia? Fairfield, Vacaville, Pittsburg, Suisin City, Antioch, Brentwood and Discovery Bay are all farther east than Benicia. And they're part of the Bay Area too. Walnut creek borderline? Nope, plenty of bay Area cities are east of it too including those I listed above, plus some more.

[Gordo]

I always considered Palo Alto to be the San Jose area. And Vallejo to me was (and still kinda is) the boondocks. It's adjacent to Benicia, even. Walnut Creek I even consider borderline. It's funny, because I'm not even from the SF Bay Area. I'm totally from LA. But I travel to the Bay Area often, I really love SF.

Yeah, I dunno. I think most people in San Jose (let alone Palo Alto or Vallejo - a city which has an extensive coastline on the Bay and has had regular ferry service to SF and Oakland for decades) would consider themselves part of the Bay Area. I've always thought that the term "Bay Area" wasn't necessarily a synonym for San Francisco metro area or San Francisco and its suburbs, but was similar to "Southland" for the LA area - that's how it tends to be used by residents and the media at least. I don't think that San Jose is really a suburb of San Francisco, but I certainly think that both cities are part of the Bay Area.

[sofresh808]

^Mac Dre and E-40 are from the Valley Joe, its hella bay.

[sopas ej]

Yeah, I dunno. I think most people in San Jose (let alone Palo Alto or Vallejo - a city which has an extensive coastline on the Bay and has had regular ferry service to SF and Oakland for decades) would consider themselves part of the Bay Area.

Vallejo is on San Pablo Bay, no?

I've always thought that the term "Bay Area" wasn't necessarily a synonym for San Francisco metro area or San Francisco and its suburbs, but was similar to "Southland" for the LA area - that's how it tends to be used by residents and the media at least. I don't think that San Jose is really a suburb of San Francisco, but I certainly think that both cities are part of the Bay Area.

Fair enough. I never considered San Jose to be suburb of San Francisco either. I still think it's pretty much its own entity.

The Greater LA area has amorphous boundaries too. "Greater LA" is considered the 5 counties of Ventura, Riverside, LA, San Bernardino and Orange... but Riverside and San Berdoo are huge in area. I can see the Inland Empire cities of, say, Corona and Upland being part of Greater Los Angeles, but San Bernardino County includes cities like Barstow and Needles--- places that are way out there. Riverside County includes Palm Springs, which is a 2 hour drive from LA. Temecula is in Riverside County too, and I don't consider it to be part of the LA area.

[BTinSF]

Vallejo is on San Pablo Bay, no?

Yes.

Fair enough. I never considered San Jose to be suburb of San Francisco either. I still think it's pretty much its own entity.



It is its own entity but SF and SJ are becoming increasingly a pair of conjoined twins. They are tied together by rail, soon to be high speed and possibly both served by BART as well. It is one TV market (the NBC affiliate being in SJ, the ABC and CBS affiliates being in SF) and one sports market (with the San Francisco Giants soon to be in the South Bay) and San Jose Sharks having plenty of fans outside the South Bay. Many Silicon Valley firms have their lawyers and bankers in SF. And many SF lawyers and bankers serve clients in Silicon Valley. More than a few Silicon Valley tycoons have pied-a-terres (or large homes) in SF for when they take in the symphony, opera or just a night on the town. Some Silicon Valley firms (like Google and Sun Micro) have opened branches in SF because a substantial number of their employees live in "the City" or want to.

[BTinSF]

What the hell are you talking about? You're wrong, and the more you post about SF, the more you expose your ignorance towards it. I'll tell you how many asian people I've encountered who identify their culture as white: zero. Nearly all asian people I've known take pride in their culture, and view being "white-washed" as a negative thing.

As you and I both know, the SF Asian community is incredibly politically powerful and proud of its history in this community. I'm guessing they have more real power and independent identity in SF than in LA--though I admit I don't know the details of LA politics. I do know that SF politicians don't do much without the support of people like Pius Lee and Rose Pak.

[Gordo]

Vallejo is on San Pablo Bay, no?

Sure, but if we're getting that technical then Marin and Contra Costa are question marks as well. The only counties that definitely border the San Francisco Bay are San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda under most definitions. Where does the San Rafael Bay begin and the San Francisco Bay end?

[Ronin]

San Francisco Giants soon to be in the South Bay)

I think you mean the Niners. ;)

[Crawford]

You can go into any restaurant in LA, even ethnic ones, and guaranteed, you'll hear Spanish coming from the kitchen, Mexican music, even. It's very telling when you go into a Japanese restaurant, and even the Japanese servers will use some Spanish phrases to communicate to the kitchen workers.

Wait a sec, where isn't this happening? This is hardly an LA thing.

I see the same thing in restaurants in Michigan, of all places. Even in outer exurban Detroit, restaurant kitchens are dominated by Latinos, and the staff communities to them in Spanish, even if they are from India or Greece or wherever.

[krudmonk]

Sidestepping all the race talk, San Francisco Bay is the entire estuary of which San Pablo Bay is a part. The same applies to Richardson Bay, Suisun Bay, etc.

[Crawford]

One problem I have with this discussion is that we are using LA County as a proxy for LA city, and then comparing to SF city. Shouldn't we do city to city comparisons? And if county-to-county is all that's available, then we shouldn't be talking about LA city.

As to SF's preceived "whiteness", I agree it's unfair, BUT I think there's something of an explanation. While SF is not overwhelmingly white, the whites that are in SF more or less tend to be of a single cultural/socioeconomic block. Not ALL, of course, but many, or even most.

Most SF whites I have met are liberal, educated, secular, outdoorsy, tech-savy, healthy, granola, into food, and not into in spectator sports.

Contrast with say, NYC, where you have super-observant Hasidic Jews, conservative working-class Italians, recent immigrant Russians, Poles, Israelis, Lebanese, Turks, Irish, etc.

So perhaps it is not that SF is so white, but that it is perceived as being characterized by a single white cultural/demographic worldview.

[BTinSF]

I think you mean the Niners. ;)

Yes. That post was around 2 AM. I should have gone to bed earlier. ;)

[peanut gallery]

Sidestepping all the race talk, San Francisco Bay is the entire estuary of which San Pablo Bay is a part. The same applies to Richardson Bay, Suisun Bay, etc.

Yes, those others are bays of other bays.


Where does the San Rafael Bay begin and the San Francisco Bay end?

The RSR Bridge. But see krudmonk's post above. It's like asking where does Half Moon Bay begin and the Pacific Ocean end. The answer is the Pacific ends at the shoreline and encompasses HMB as well. (I realize you were asking rhetorically -- just adding my 2 cents to your comment.)

[peanut gallery]

Yes. That post was around 2 AM. I should have gone to bed earlier. ;)

I was going to say: what, Pac Bell isn't good enough for them anymore?

[BTinSF]

Most SF whites I have met are liberal, educated, secular, outdoorsy, tech-savy, healthy, granola, into food, and not into in spectator sports.

Contrast with say, NYC, where you have super-observant Hasidic Jews, conservative working-class Italians, recent immigrant Russians, Poles, Israelis, Lebanese, Turks, Irish, etc.

So perhaps it is not that SF is so white, but that it is perceived as being characterized by a single white cultural/demographic worldview.

Again, we have the issue of where visitors visit. Those Russians and other eastern Europeans exist, for example--in the outer Richmond District where few tourists venture. The Irish were once the dominant force in the outer Sunset (a few Irish bars and a lot of Irish cops and firemen remain to document it). The Castro, which now fits your stereotype, was, prior to the 1960s, a Scandinavian neighborhood (see the movie "I Remember Mama" about a Norwegian family living there). North Beach was, and remains (at least as much as any NYC neighborhood) Italian. A few blocks from my house is a sizable Yemeni community (mixed in with Pakistanis and Vietnamese). My local pizza joint is run by Algerians.

Admittedly, Hasidic Jews are a little scarce here. Dianne Feinstein is more typical of local Jewry (and we have a gay synagogue).

But you wouldn't know any of this if you spent your time at Fisherman's Wharf. You'd think the members of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers' Association were typical San Franciscans :haha: (local "in" joke).

[Gordo]

:previous: Agreed. A friend of mine recently moved into the Richmond (around Geary and 18th) and he's the only non-white person in the building - and also the only non-immigrant. Several Russian, Polish, and Irish families along with a very cranky Lebanese guy. His building is actually right next door to the Irish Immigration Pastoral Center:

http://www.sfiipc.org/

BT - LOL at the THD comment :)

[The Agonist]

Again, we have the issue of where visitors visit. Those Russians and other eastern Europeans exist, for example--in the outer Richmond District where few tourists venture. The Irish were once the dominant force in the outer Sunset (a few Irish bars and a lot of Irish cops and firemen remain to document it). The Castro, which now fits your stereotype, was, prior to the 1960s, a Scandinavian neighborhood (see the movie "I Remember Mama" about a Norwegian family living there). North Beach was, and remains (at least as much as any NYC neighborhood) Italian. A few blocks from my house is a sizable Yemeni community (mixed in with Pakistanis and Vietnamese). My local pizza joint is run by Algerians.

Admittedly, Hasidic Jews are a little scarce here. Dianne Feinstein is more typical of local Jewry (and we have a gay synagogue).

But you wouldn't know any of this if you spent your time at Fisherman's Wharf. You'd think the members of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers' Association were typical San Franciscans :haha: (local "in" joke).

SF does have a lot of ethnic neighborhoods for sure, but the Italians and Irish abandoned North Beach, Sunset, Richmond etc... opening the door for the thousands of immigrants from Hong Kong who were able to move into those neighborhoods for basically nothing and who are still very much entrenched there today.

My friend and her parents (and many other of my friends and colleagues) were part of that wave of immigrants. She moved to SF from HK in the early 70s and lived in North Beach and then her father with a grade school education, no English skills and a job as a cook at a North Beach Chinese restaurant was able to buy a 3 story single family home on 4th and Balboa (inner richmond for those that don't know the streets). She said that part of the city was completely vacant back then, huge swaths of open land and empty houses. Talk about being at the right place at the right time as his house is now worth 1.5 million or more, and he still can't speak English. Good luck buying a house in the inner richmond today, with no education, and minimum wage job and no English skills. The ethnic whites abandoning SF was probably the best thing that ever happened to SF.

And lastly if you have ever been to a neighborhood that stlll has a lot of eastern europeans, you would not consider the inner part of the outer sunset as one.

[Gordo]

And lastly if you have ever been to a neighborhood that stlll has a lot of eastern europeans, you would not consider the inner part of the outer sunset as one.

Not sure if this was directed at me, as I was talking about the inner part of the Outer Richmond (and BT was mentioning Irish, not Eastern Europeans), but I wasn't implying that it was majority European immigrants, but that there are still significant amounts of Russians, other Eastern Europeans, and a handful of Irish as well (I was very surprised that an Irish Immigration help center was opened there - in 1997). The amount of Cyrillic script along Geary from 15th to 27th, as well as just walking and listening to people, are enough to tell you that there is still a sizable population there. Hell, the meeting last week regarding BRT in the Richmond was offered in ONLY three languages - English, Chinese, and Russian.

[sofresh808]

^^Huge swaths of open land in the 1970s?!? I know I wasnt born till the 80s but I highly doubt that. Maybe the remnants of the razed fillmore, or possibly a few cemeteries, but the richmond definitely dates well in the early to mid 1900s. The only newer developed places I can think are by the beach, well into the outer richmond. My parents lived out there till the early 80s and left since houses were over 100k (the humanity!), more than double what a newer home in the suburbs would cost. Theres still some Russian influence in the Richmond, you'll see shops and service catering to the community (not so much in the sunset). Its no Brighton Beach, but they are a visible minority.
My great-aunt who never learned english well bought a home in Bernal Heights in the 70s (which my family described as real rough at the time). Unfortunately for me she sold it pretty soon after (probably for a whole 20k profit, too)

[Buckeye Native 001]

Riverside County includes Palm Springs, which is a 2 hour drive from LA. Temecula is in Riverside County too, and I don't consider it to be part of the LA area.

Hell, Riverside and San Bernardino counties extend all the way to the Arizona border. Needles and Blythe could be considered parts of LA! ;)

And while I don't really consider Palm Springs/Banning/Beaumont to be part of the greater Southland, it is pretty much suburban/city driving the rest of the way into Los Angeles County once you get past the windmills on the 10.

[dimondpark]

Hell, Riverside and San Bernardino counties extend all the way to the Arizona border. Needles and Blythe could be considered parts of LA! ;)

And while I don't really consider Palm Springs/Banning/Beaumont to be part of the greater Southland, it is pretty much suburban/city driving the rest of the way into Los Angeles County once you get past the windmills on the 10.

I once drove from Thousand Oaks to Redlands. Its definitely one big humongous mass of development and people. Incredibly HUGE.

[sopas ej]

I once drove from Thousand Oaks to Redlands. Its definitely one big humongous mass of development and people. Incredibly HUGE.

That was like what, a 2-hour drive for you, maybe? In Chicago, if you drove for two hours in one direction you'll know when you've left the city; that's what I was trying to convey in another thread.

The Southland has been one continuous development for a long time now, whereas in other metro areas, the big city ends so abruptly.

[Buckeye Native 001]

With upwards of 19 to 20 million people living in one area within the United States, that sort of sprawl is almost expected.

[dimondpark]

That was like what, a 2-hour drive for you, maybe? In Chicago, if you drove for two hours in one direction you'll know when you've left the city; that's what I was trying to convey in another thread.

The Southland has been one continuous development for a long time now, whereas in other metro areas, the big city ends so abruptly.

Yup. About 100 miles in 2.5 hrs. Traffic was heavy in some spots and lighter in others.

[BTinSF]

thousands of immigrants from Hong Kong who were able to move into those neighborhoods for basically nothing and who are still very much entrenched there today.

My friend and her parents (and many other of my friends and colleagues) were part of that wave of immigrants. She moved to SF from HK in the early 70s and lived in North Beach . . . .

And lastly if you have ever been to a neighborhood that stlll has a lot of eastern europeans, you would not consider the inner part of the outer sunset as one.

It seems that Asians are taking over "Little Italy" neighborhoods in a lot of cities. A similar thing to SF is happening in NYC. But North Beach still retains at least as much Italian flavor as the "Little Italy" areas of Manhattan and the Bronx.

The eastern European part of SF is the outer Richmond (not Sunset). Admittedly, it is not as dominated by Russians as, say, Brighton Beach because, let's face it, Asians dominate both the Richmond and Sunset these days. But a lot of the "white" people out there are eastern European (mainly Russian) and there is plenty of evidence (restaurants, groceries, churches and so on) of their presence.

[BTinSF]

^^Huge swaths of open land in the 1970s?!? I know I wasnt born till the 80s but I highly doubt that. Maybe the remnants of the razed fillmore,

I first came to SF in 1976. It wasn't true then although there were a number of adjacent empty blocks in the Fillmore (basically, the blocks where those Fillmore Center apartment towers and the Safeway are now).

[BTinSF]

Yup. About 100 miles in 2.5 hrs. Traffic was heavy in some spots and lighter in others.

I recall once driving from Long Beach to San Diego on I-5. It took 7 hours (4 PM to 11 PM). I don't know how many miles that is but I essentially crawled in heavy traffic the entire way.

[tech12]

I recall once driving from Long Beach to San Diego on I-5. It took 7 hours (4 PM to 11 PM). I don't know how many miles that is but I essentially crawled in heavy traffic the entire way.

Man, that's pretty bad, especially considering you can drive from SF all the way to SD in 6 or so hours, if you go at night when there's little traffic.

[sopas ej]

I recall once driving from Long Beach to San Diego on I-5. It took 7 hours (4 PM to 11 PM). I don't know how many miles that is but I essentially crawled in heavy traffic the entire way.

I would think that would be highly unusual, being that that's about a distance of 100 miles or so. I assume you were on the 405 at some point, maybe? Being that the 5 doesn't go through Long Beach.

[pizzaguy]

Man, that's pretty bad, especially considering you can drive from SF all the way to SD in 6 or so hours, if you go at night when there's little traffic.

It's impossible to go from SF to SD in 6 hours.

[tech12]

It's impossible to go from SF to SD in 6 hours.

No, it's not. It usually takes around 8, but myself, and other people I've known have done it in 6 or 7 hours as well.

[sopas ej]

:previous:
Wow, you'd obviously have to drive very fast to get from SF to SD in 6 hours. And I guess it would also depend on where in San Diego you'd be going to, La Jolla vs. downtown.

I once drove from LA to SF in under 4 hours, like 3 hours and 50 minutes or something like that. It was at night, I drove 100mph for most of the way and I took the 5 to the 580; oh, and I only stopped once for gas.

I still like to drive to San Francisco, and it usually takes me around 6 or 6.5 hours. The 5/580 route is the fastest from LA, of course, but it's also the most boring and ugliest drive. I usually take the 101, and I like to stop in San Luis Obispo for a break and a bite to eat. SLO is basically the halfway point between LA and SF on the coast; it's also a nice little town.

[dimondpark]

:previous:
Wow, you'd obviously have to drive very fast to get from SF to SD in 6 hours. And I guess it would also depend on where in San Diego you'd be going to, La Jolla vs. downtown.

I once drove from LA to SF in under 4 hours, like 3 hours and 50 minutes or something like that. It was at night, I drove 100mph for most of the way and I took the 5 to the 580; oh, and I only stopped once for gas.

I still like to drive to San Francisco, and it usually takes me around 6 or 6.5 hours. The 5/580 route is the fastest from LA, of course, but it's also the most boring and ugliest drive. I usually take the 101, and I like to stop in San Luis Obispo for a break and a bite to eat. SLO is basically the halfway point between LA and SF on the coast; it's also a nice little town.

omgoodness once I made the mistake of arriving in SLO and then taking Hy 1 all the way back to the bay area:hell:

By the time I figured out that the cliffside road as far as the eye could see was the road I was on-it was too late to turn around.

I dont see what people like about Hy 1. Its hella scary and your like hundreds of feet above the ocean on a very narrow roadway.

Never again.

[peanut gallery]

Really? I love driving 1, if I have the time that is. It's an absolutely gorgeous drive. Being on the edge of the continent, hundreds of feet above the ocean is one of things I like about it.

[tech12]

I just realized another obvious reason that might make SF seem extra white to a visitor. Downtown, and other tourist areas are always swarming with thousands of tourists, most of whom are white. The next largest group of tourists would be asian, followed by everyone else. In the union square area for example, on any given day, probably 75% of the people you see are tourists.

:previous:
Wow, you'd obviously have to drive very fast to get from SF to SD in 6 hours. And I guess it would also depend on where in San Diego you'd be going to, La Jolla vs. downtown.

I once drove from LA to SF in under 4 hours, like 3 hours and 50 minutes or something like that. It was at night, I drove 100mph for most of the way and I took the 5 to the 580; oh, and I only stopped once for gas.

I still like to drive to San Francisco, and it usually takes me around 6 or 6.5 hours. The 5/580 route is the fastest from LA, of course, but it's also the most boring and ugliest drive. I usually take the 101, and I like to stop in San Luis Obispo for a break and a bite to eat. SLO is basically the halfway point between LA and SF on the coast; it's also a nice little town.

Haha yeah that's how you do it...take 5 in the middle of the night/early morning to avoid traffic, and drive fast with minimal stops.

[dimondpark]

Really? I love driving 1, if I have the time that is. It's an absolutely gorgeous drive. Being on the edge of the continent, hundreds of feet above the ocean is one of things I like about it.

Its awesome that you like it. I suggest you take a drive along the Amalfi Coast-you'd probably love it.

I personally can't stand it. Maybe cause I was sort of in a rush. I screamed .for joy when I finally arrived in Carmel.:cheers:

[Buckeye Native 001]

I recall once driving from Long Beach to San Diego on I-5. It took 7 hours (4 PM to 11 PM). I don't know how many miles that is but I essentially crawled in heavy traffic the entire way.

That's only about a 120 or 130 miles one way if my calculations are correct. On weekends, I've seen the southbound traffic to San Diego back up as far north as Oceanside, but were you traveling on a weekend or holiday by chance?

[Fusey]

LA to SD can be like SF to Sac. I've noticed Friday evenings are the worst and 4 or 5 hours trips aren't out of the ordinary.

[Scottolini]

I just realized another obvious reason that might make SF seem extra white to a visitor. Downtown, and other tourist areas are always swarming with thousands of tourists, most of whom are white. The next largest group of tourists would be asian, followed by everyone else. In the union square area for example, on any given day, probably 75% of the people you see are tourists.


Another thing I've noticed is that people from areas with large Black populations will consider an area with a relatively small Black population to be very White. You can have less than half your population be non-Hispanic White, but if the Black population is less than 15 or 20% it's "lilly-white". I guess Hispanic's and Asian's complexions aren't dark enough.:shrug:

[Buckeye Native 001]

Really? I love driving 1, if I have the time that is. It's an absolutely gorgeous drive. Being on the edge of the continent, hundreds of feet above the ocean is one of things I like about it.

The time to do so being the imperative. I decided to drive the 101 from San Francisco back down to LA, by myself on a Sunday, after a night of heavy drinking, and going back to work on Monday. Took about five hours to get to SLO and I was ready to go insane. Traffic to LA began backing up in Santa Barbara.

Took about twelve hours, all-in-all. I wouldn't do it again by myself (a traveling companion would've helped immensely, especially with driving duties). I drive at least 85 on average and its never taken less than five-and-a-half to six hours to get from Orange County to where the 580 meets the 5.

[peanut gallery]

Its awesome that you like it. I suggest you take a drive along the Amalfi Coast-you'd probably love it.

I personally can't stand it. Maybe cause I was sort of in a rush. I screamed .for joy when I finally arrived in Carmel.:cheers:

I've never been there, but seen it on a show and in pix. Yes, I will love that when I visit someday. If you're in a hurry (or prone to car sickness) I can see 1 being torturous. :)

[BTinSF]

That's only about a 120 or 130 miles one way if my calculations are correct. On weekends, I've seen the southbound traffic to San Diego back up as far north as Oceanside, but were you traveling on a weekend or holiday by chance?

Friday evening, but I wasn't going all the way to downtown SD. I was going from the Long Beach Naval Station (near the port) to visit someone for the weekend who lived off the 805 around, maybe, Serra Mesa.

[Gordo]

I've never been there, but seen it on a show and in pix. Yes, I will love that when I visit someday. If you're in a hurry (or prone to car sickness) I can see 1 being torturous. :)

I'm not even prone to car sickness, but if I'm not driving I'll start to feel it a couple hours into a drive on 1 (going south or north). If I'm driving there are no issues.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Friday evening, but I wasn't going all the way to downtown SD. I was going from the Long Beach Naval Station (near the port) to visit someone for the weekend who lived off the 805 around, maybe, Serra Mesa.

I don't doubt the traffic. Whenever I'd leave on a Friday night after work for Phoenix from Orange County, it'd sometimes take three hours or more just to get through the Inland Empire following the 91 freeway up to the 10.

[peanut gallery]

I'm not even prone to car sickness, but if I'm not driving I'll start to feel it a couple hours into a drive on 1 (going south or north). If I'm driving there are no issues.

I haven't been a passenger on 1 since I was a kid, but I'd probably have the same experience. The worst stretch of 1 for car sickness might just be Stinson down to Muir. My wife is really prone to car sickness and that section is a killer. I have to pull over a lot. She's actually done pretty well on the Big Sur section, all things considered.

Edit: I just realized we've gotten completely off topic. Sorry about that.

[dktshb]

I've never been there, but seen it on a show and in pix. Yes, I will love that when I visit someday. If you're in a hurry (or prone to car sickness) I can see 1 being torturous. :) It is torturous for the person driving it. I drove it from SLO north and it is a couple hours straight of nothing but continuous winding road. If you're a passenger it is okay but to drive it, it really drains you. I was very happy too when I got to Carmel. I went back to LA the usual route down the 5 on cruise control.

[BTinSF]

It is torturous for the person driving it. I drove it from SLO north and it is a couple hours straight of nothing but continuous winding road. If you're a passenger it is okay but to drive it, it really drains you. I was very happy too when I got to Carmel. I went back to LA the usual route down the 5 on cruise control.

It is torturous unless you really love to drive and own a Porsche. This is one of America's premier workouts for any sportscar fan and his (her) machine.

By the way, if you can't get enough between SF and LA, there's plenty more awaiting you north of SF--to Ft. Bragg and beyond.