|
foot posted:Not north of Los Angeles County it isn't. Sacrilege. The one true burrito god was born in Northern California in the 1960s, either in San Francisco or somewhere in the Central Valley, depending on who you ask 
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:People from Los Angeles like to tell themselves this, at least. Jack Black knows what's up at least: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-10-2002/jack-black (Skip to 3:00) A fat LA native says SF has the best burritos. Check mate 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:LA has a nice tidy system that only serves a fraction of the population. But the parts that it does serve are served pretty well, better than many American cities in fact. The bus system is large and widely used in the areas that it does serve well (over 1 million riders every weekday), and LA has been expanding it's metro and light rail lines, and has more expansions planned, so things have been steadily getting better over the past couple decades. It's not quite as lovely as it was in the 1950s-1980s, which is when LA really got famous for having bad public transit. The LA metro rail system has an average of 360,000+ riders every weekday, which is actually almost as many daily riders as BART, though neither systems have the best coverage...which is amplified for LA seeing as it has over twice the population of the Bay Area (plus the Bay also has the MUNI metro and VTA light rail in addition to BART). So it's a mix of pretty good and completely lovely in LA, depending on where you are. That's just LA county though, the rest of the LA area is even more hosed, but then so are the suburban regions of most US cities. Wax Dynasty posted:
All Of The Dicks posted:edit: agreed. Tex-Mex supremacy. Cal-Mex can take its beans and its dry-rear end tiny little tortillas and its no cheese and no steak and gently caress off back to Chihuahua or wherever it came from. The most wrong opinions. "Cal-mex" uses plenty of cheese and steak, and has tortillas of many shapes and sizes and moisture levels, what are you talking about? And tex-mex uses beans too. As for where most Mexican food in CA is from or based on, look at the Northern Mexico and Western Mexico sections of this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_food#Regional_cuisines You can find stuff from anywhere in Mexico though, this is a big state with a lot of Mexicans. I've seen some Yucatan-style Mexican restaurants, for example. gently caress the ROW posted:#1 income inequality in the nation means if you're rich enough to afford to live in San Francisco you can literally swim in a sea of poors. Splish splash! Yes, San Francisco, where only the wealthy live. Us working and middle class San Franciscans who make up the majority of the city, and the 12% living in poverty, and the thousands of homeless people are actually rich people in disguise. And nowhere else in CA has rich people or working class people, or middle class people. Just poors. redscare posted:There's no good possible outcome if things get left as they are, and I'd rather not see LA turn into Detroit. That's never going to happen. Detroit is the way it is because half the population abandoned the city because of the american automotive industry getting poo poo on/lost jobs, and to escape the scary black people. And to escape the crime that arose because of all that abandonment and neglect and the lovely economy combined with the disproportionately large population of poor people that remained. LA is a completely different situation: it has a much larger and more diverse economy, the second largest GDP and population in the US, non-stop population growth, much lower crime rates, much more money, etc. poo poo would have to go epically and amazingly wrong for LA to turn into another Detroit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The bus system is overcrowded, slow, unreliable, and they're actively cutting lines. People ride the bus because they have to, not because it's convenient. Often you'll see a bus go right by because it's too full. Yeah it's definitely not perfect (not even close), and I already said as much. It's a mix of good in some areas, and completely lovely in others. And you'll sometimes see overcrowded buses skipping passengers in other cities too, including ones with much better public transit, such as SF. My point was that the stereotype of public transit being 100% useless in LA is wrong. LA's public transit is very useful if you live somewhere that's well served (and a lot of people do live in those areas), and is miles better than the public transit you'll find in a lot of other US cities, despite being partially horrible. Try taking public transit in Tulsa, for example. Public transit in LA is like NYC or London in comparison. All Of The Dicks posted:Can someone explain the purpose of San Diego? Ground beef? Only a heathen tex-mex fiend would assume such a thing. That's carne asada, son  It's funny how you think authentic Mexican food is wrong. And yes they do look fantastic, but only to non-crazy people. Rah! fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Gavin Newsom, is he a PC charlatan as Adam Carolla states? Or is he something else entirely? He is a vessel for hair gel and liquor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And he hosed his best friend's alcoholic wife. And Newsom is an alcoholic too. Or was, at least. dr.gigolo posted:San Diego has ruined Mission burritos for me. They always seem so surprised when I ask for no rice in my gigantic 3 pound burrito. There are taquerias in SF that don't put rice in their burritos. I agree that they're better with no rice, though sometimes having rice in there does hit the spot. Both SD and SF have great burritos, but SD is usually cheaper, which is always nice. Rah! fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The first section is going to be built in central CA where nobody will want to ride it, because it's cheaper to build it there. Then because nobody is riding it, they will use that as an excuse to kill the project before it connects a major city, taking the money to go build more prisons. I admit I don't follow state politics too much (or any politics much, because there's so much bullshit and I like my blood pressure to stay low) and am a bit ignorant about how much of it works, but I do know plenty of politicians (mostly conservative I think?) want to kill CA high speed rail, and have thrown up some roadblocks (as are some whiny, wealthy NIMBY types who hate noisy trains or whatever). But...I feel there's gotta be a chance that it actually happens (beyond the first central valley segment to nowhere). First off, tons of residents actually do want it, and poo poo tons of money has already been spent planning and designing the system and all that. Second, every major city in CA really wants it. San Francisco is already building an underground high speed rail station in the middle of downtown, and I like to think such a massive and expensive project wouldn't be under way if the powers that be weren't reasonably sure that the HSR system will get built. Finally, a lot of people high up in CA's government are from those cities that want the high speed rail, and that's gotta count for something right? Governor Jerry Brown is a San Francisco native/Oakland resident, and former mayor of Oakland, Lt. Goveror Gavin Newsom is an SF native/Bay Area resident and former mayor of SF (and was mayor when the HSR terminal was designed/approved and when it broke ground, so he's obviously supportive of it), Attorney General Kamala Harris is an Oakland native/SF resident, and former DA of SF, etc. Rah! fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:If you want to travel from a point in the tourist district of San Francisco to a point on the outskirts of LA, and you want to do something that takes twice as long as flying, then high-speed rail is a good choice for you. The transbay terminal in downtown SF is not a tourist district....it's an everything district. It's in the middle of a large business district, luxury highrise district, near a shopping and entertainment area, near the Bay Bridge off/on ramp, ferries, BART, near a low income residential district, etc, and yes, it's full of tourists too. And LA Union Station, where the main LA HSR rail terminal will be is not on the outskirts of LA, it's right next to downtown. Maybe you're thinking of the planned Palmdale/Sylmar/Burbank/Norwalk/Anaheim/Riverside/Industry/Ontario stations or something (drat that's a lot of stations in the LA area). And it will definitely be worth it to take a train from SF to LA that takes roughly as long as flying or maybe even less time (including getting to and from the airport and going through security), is cheaper than flying, and has much less or no bullshit security theater. You could take day trips between the two and actually have time to do lots of poo poo. edit: beaten 
Rah! fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
giznot posted:San Francisco Chronicle What? The SF chronicle is poo poo. I guess there's not much that's better though (it's all pretty much poo poo). e: f;b
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The SF Chronicle also has the worst website. Yup, and now they're charging for full access to their poo poo content on their poo poo website. edit: gently caress, beaten again! Amarkov posted:This, but unironically. The median household income in San Francisco is seventy three thousand dollars. I forgot to reply to this earlier. It's funny that you're acting like a household income of $73,000 is a massive amount of money in SF. That's a middle class income in SF. Don't forget that housing is insanely expensive here, and that pay is also high (SF has the highest minimum wage in the nation, at $10.55, and also had the highest average wage increase of any American city over the past year). $73,000 is not going to go nearly as far in SF as it will in say, Alabama, or most of the US for that matter. And tens of thousands of SF residents still have incomes that would be considered low anywhere in the nation. Here are the most recent household income stats for SF (2011): households making less than $10,000: 21,561 - 6.4% $10,000 to $14,999: 20,258 - 6.0% $15,000 to $24,999: 28,152 - 8.3% $25,000 to $34,999: 23,862 - 7.1% $35,000 to $49,999: 31,665 - 9.4% $50,000 to $74,999: 47,260 - 14.0% $75,000 to $99,999: 37,965 - 11.2% $100,000 to $149,999: 55,237 - 16.3% $150,000 to $199,999: 29,848 - 8.8% $200,000 or more: 42,558 - 12.6% Also: people living in poverty: 99,977 - 12.3% Don't get me wrong, there are tons of wealthy people in SF, probably more than your average US city, but they are not in the majority. Rah! fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
nm posted:San Francisco is a fascinating city because the gap between rich and poor is so visible and so close together. Very true, but SF does have plenty of middle class people too, it's not just wealthy and poor people. And I know that $73k goes farther in the rest of the Bay Area, but I was just talking about SF city proper. As for poor people getting pushed out, it's been going on to some extent for a few decades now but it's been speeding up over the past 15 years, and is even affecting places like Oakland. Poor people are ending up in places like Antioch, Fairfield, Richmond, Vallejo, etc, and also to the central valley, in places like Sacramento, Stockton, etc. In regards to Stockton, the US census actually added it (and San Joaquin county) to the San-Francisco-San Jose-Oakland Combined Statistical Area earlier this year due to the percentage of commuters coming to the Bay Area (a number which has been rising for a long time, but which just recently passed the threshold to be combined with the SJ-SF-Oakland CSA).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
sincx posted:Yep. One of the best parts of the city (Nob Hill) is literally two blocks or less away from one of the worst (Tenderloin). It's always amusing seeing confused tourists wandering through the tenderloin. Not amusing when poo poo goes wrong though, like robberies, or people getting shot/stabbed/assaulted or stepping in hobo poo poo. Black Dynamite posted:I can absolutely confirm that the green chile chicken milanesa burritos in New Mexico beat the crap out of anything, ever. California is basically Tex-Mex but "fresher" and even more so meant for white people. Green chile is great, but what is with people thinking dumb things about Mexican food in CA? CA Mexican food is for the most part not like tex mex. And much of it is pretty drat authentic and not "for white people", as you put it (yet poo poo tons of white people eat it anyways!  ), while plenty more of it is Americanized "white people food". Which makes perfect sense, seeing as CA has millions of Mexicans and millions of non-hispanic white people. In fact, there are as many hispanic/latino people (mostly Mexican) in California now as there are non-hispanic white people. In a few years, non-hispanic whites will be a minority in CA.
Rah! fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Casual Yogurt posted:Is there anywhere in the bay worth living as a young person besides SF/Oakland? As a mid 20s hipster the only options I see: Crazy expensive rent for 10 sq feet in SF, or dodging bullets in Oakland. There are plenty of safe areas in Oakland, and you can end up dodging bullets in SF too. It's not like all of SF is wealthy and nice and all of Oakland is poor and crime-ridden. SF has a bit more high end stuff, while Oakland has a bit more low end stuff, but you can find plenty of wealth/poverty and good/bad in both cities. SF is more expensive though, obviously. As for hipstery places besides SF and Oakland....Try Berkeley, i guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Kenning posted:All the shawarma in America is too much like a salad wrap. A real shawarma is essentially just meat, with maybe some pickles, and then garlic sauce and hot pepper sauce. Also it should be so dripping in fat that you have to have a plastic bag on the bottom to catch the grease. Meaty type shawarmas with pickles/garlic/hot sauce, that are not like a "salad wrap": Truly Mediterranean at 16th and Valencia in SF Taboun on parnassus and stanyan in SF Yummas on 8th and Irving in SF Those are all good choices, but the best shawarma I've had in the Bay Area, which also happens to be of the lots of meat/pickles/hot sauce type, is at "Taste In Mediterranean Food" on Broadway and Laguna in Burlingame: http://www.yelp.com/biz/taste-in-mediterranean-food-burlingame-2 edit: i guess none of those have just meat plus some hot sauce/pickles, they usually have some vegetables too, but they're good and not at all like salad wraps. Jerry Manderbilt posted:Oasis in Berkeley? There's one in downtown SF too. That place is pretty good. ntan1 posted:Also, the Chinese food in South Bay is better than the Chinese food in San Francisco. There's tons of good chinese food in the south bay, but there is in SF too. It would be hard for there not to be, with a population that's 20% Chinese. As far as Pizza goes, my favorite in SF is probably Marcellos on castro and Market/17th. Beats the hell out of Escape from New York which is much more popular and has a location right down the block. I somehow have never tried Chicago style pizza though...I should probably get on that and go to Little Star or something. CA food chat is serious poo poo because CA has awesome food 
Rah! fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Easier than you'd think given how bad the food is in parts of China that are like 100 percent Chinese. Yeah, but there is plenty of good stuff in SF, and why wouldn't there be, seeing as it's a place where food is taken seriously and which has a large Chinese population (which is mostly from Hong Kong and Southern China, if anyone's curious). My Taiwan-born, SF Chinatown-raised Chinese friend who has been to Taiwan and Hong Kong many times, and has also lived in San Jose, who constantly tries every drat Chinese restaurant he can find, backs this up, and I can confirm it too, as can tons of other people . I think the idea of Chinese food in SF being inferior to the south bay stems from the high concentration of mediocre tourist-oriented places in Chinatown and other touristy parts of SF. You won't find as much of that in the south bay, but it doesn't mean you can't find plenty of good/legit stuff in SF.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:"Food taken seriously" likely has less to do with it. It's mainly the fact that there is a large Chinese population. My point is, SF is a good food city, and is well-known known as a good food city, and there are high standards for food quality in SF because of that, and it would be wrong to think absolutely none of it applies to the Chinese community/Chinese food in the city. Being so close to so much fresh produce definitely plays a huge part in that good reputation/high standards (both in Sf and elsewhere in the Bay Area), and I've heard people specifically claim that good quality produce makes a big difference in lots of Chinese food in SF vs. say, a lot of parts of the mainland China. Of course the number of Chinese people has more to do with it though, because it creates a greater demand for good and authentic stuff. quote:Backs what up? If it's the fact that the Bay Area as a whole has decent Chinese food, that's correct. However, Taiwan and Hong Kong have larger diversity, better selection, more competition, authenticity, and taste when you get down to it. It backs up that SF has plenty of good and authentic Chinese food. He's had a poo poo ton of exposure to good/authentic chinese food throughout his life in the Bay Area and in Hong Kong and Taiwan. And while I'm not an expert myself, I trust his judgement, and my own tastebuds work too. I can tell poo poo from non-poo poo. And I've heard plenty of people claim SF itself has lots of good stuff, just as I've also heard people claim it doesn't have enough. I wouldn't be surprised if the south bay has more of it, as it does have a larger population than SF (including Chinese people), as well as fewer tourists to take advantage of with half-assed food. But my point is that you can find the good stuff here too, and it's not hard. That's all. quote:It also has to do with demographics of the type of Asian people who live in SF versus the South Bay. You'll find good places in SF, but the South Bay has better selection. I'm genuinely curious here, what's the difference in demographics you're talking about? I know SF is full mainly of southern/Cantonese-speaking Chinese people, but I'm not as familiar with the Chinese community in the south bay. I'm guessing it's more diverse? I'm also going to guess out of my rear end that the Chinese community in SF might have a larger proportion of lower class Chinese people than the South Bay as a whole? I know Chinatown for example has the lowest average income of any neighborhood in SF and is full of chinese immigrants living in SROs and tiny apartments and such, and I can't think of a similar area in the South Bay. I guess that could possibly have some impact on food quality, especially considering the higher cost of leasing business space and housing in SF. And I do know there are a lot of upper and middle class Chinese people in the south bay too. Rah! fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I've never understood why northern California people don't see the hypocrisy in being huffy about southern California importing their residential water. At least the water we import is from our half of the state
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Rather than walkscore, here are some plain old census numbers showing the percentage of commuters who use public transit to get to work. These are city-proper stats from 2010, for the top 50 cities by transit usage with over 100,000 residents: 1. New York, New York - 55.66% 2. Jersey City, New Jersey - 45.82% 3. Washington, D.C. - 38.30% 4. San Francisco, California - 34.05% 5. Boston, Massachusetts - 32.82% 6. Arlington, Virginia - 28.54% 7. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 27.19% 8. Cambridge, Massachusetts - 26.60% 9. Newark, New Jersey - 26.50% 10. Chicago, Illinois - 26.50% 11. Yonkers, New York - 24.95% 12. Daly City, California - 21.45% 13. Hartford, Connecticut - 21.19% 14. Alexandria, Virginia - 21.12% 15. Seattle, Washington - 18.19% 16. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 18.03% 17. Baltimore, Maryland - 17.64% 18. Berkeley, California - 17.36% 19. Oakland, California - 17.21% 20. Minneapolis, Minnesota - 15.18% 21. East Los Angeles, California - 14.85% 22. Buffalo, New York - 13.74% 23. Edison, New Jersey - 13.08% 24. New Haven, Connecticut - 13.03% 25. Richmond, California - 12.93% 26. Elizabeth, New Jersey - 12.37% 27. Paterson, New Jersey - 12.14% 28. Portland, Oregon - 12.07% 29. Stamford, Connecticut - 11.95% 30. Atlanta, Georgia - 11.43% 31. Los Angeles, California - 11.16% 32. St. Louis, Missouri - 11.03% 33. Bellevue, Washington - 10.78% 34. Bridgeport, Connecticut - 10.53% 35. Miami, Florida - 10.52% 36. Concord, California - 10.37% 37. Honolulu, Hawaii - 10.32% 38. Fremont, California - 10.30% 39. Naperville, Illinois - 10.15% 40. Cleveland, Ohio - 9.84% 41. San Juan, Puerto Rico - 9.46% 42. Ann Arbor, Michigan - 9.00% 43. St. Paul, Minnesota - 8.72% 44. Madison, Wisconsin - 8.57% 45. Providence, Rhode Island - 8.42% 46. Cincinnati, Ohio - 8.29% 47. Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 7.94% 48. Gresham, Oregon - 7.48% 49. New Orleans, Louisiana - 7.30% 50. Rochester, New York - 6.83% Of the 9 CA cities on there, 7 are in the Bay Area .
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Pain of Mind posted:I had no idea that Concord or Daly City had over 100k people until this post. I never really go to them though. I don't know much about other metro areas, but could there be a bias in this list where other metro areas don't have as many cities over 100k preventing them from being well represented for this list, rather than the bay area being exceptional when it comes to public transport? I grew up in Fremont and if it can make this list, it feels like any city with some rail system should make it, since it felt like everyone drove everywhere. Actually, when you look at it at the metropolitan area level, the Bay Area comes out in second in the US for transit usage by commuters, after the NYC metro. It actually does have some of the highest transit ridership rates in the US. It's just that aside from a handful of other metropolitan areas, the US is really horrible for public transit. Here's the list for metro areas (MSA):  source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf As you can see the MSA definition (metropolitan statistical area) splits the Bay Area up, and this is due to census methodology not playing nice with the Bay's geography-constrained development patterns. There are a total of 7 different MSAs in the Bay Area CSA: SF-Oakland-Fremont, SJ-Santa Clara-Sunnyvale, Napa, Vallejo-Fairfield, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and as of 2013, Stockton (LA is the other notable example that gets split up a bunch by the MSA definition). Santa Cruz and Stockton aren't usually considered as part of the Bay Area, but the census does include them due to the number of commuters crossing between them and traditional Bay Area counties. Anyways, the larger CSA definition (combined statistical area) keeps the Bay all combined as it should be, and as I remember, the Bay Area comes in second for transit usage by commuters under that definition too. I can't seem to find the list for CSAs right now though. SF-Oakland comes in second for transit usage when measuring by urban areas as well....and yet again I can't find the list for that. I know I've seen it before
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:I live in Northern CA and I love it. But I've been to Seattle, and their bus system + light rail is way better and cheaper than Bart + the SF bus system. I call bullshit on that chart. Yeah, gently caress statistics. Public transit in Seattle is way better than in SF because you say so. Public transit in Seattle is better than a lot of US cities, and maybe it is better than SF in terms of pricing and maybe in terms of amount of crazy people making GBS threads on the bus or something (though I'm sure Seattle has its share of that too), but coverage and usage is certainly higher in SF and the Bay Area vs. Seattle and the Seattle metro area. And for the record, SF has more than BART and buses. Muni includes buses and light rail (and the cable cars of course), and there are tons of other bus systems with service to SF and throughout the Bay Area. There's light rail in the south bay as well, and there's a new light rail system getting built in the north bay too (its a pretty lame one, but better than nothing). Can't forget commuter trains and ferries too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:As a San Francisco native living in Seattle, I feel like I can say with some authority that King County Metro's buses blow Muni out of the water in terms of (relative) reliability and on-time performance That may be the case, but it is a smaller bus system than Muni, with less coverage, fewer riders, and a lower percentage of commuters who use it to get to work. And a less crowded city to move through too, which is the main contributor to Muni having on-time performance issues.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But compared to say Sacramento.... To be fair, Sacramento is one of the most integrated cities in the nation: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,340694,00.html That article's a decade old, but it's not like Sacramento's gotten less diverse since then. And on the topic of diversity, here are the 10 largest combined statistical areas (basically "greater" metropolitan areas) by racial diversity index in 2000 and 2010. The diversity index was released only in the 2000 census, but this dude here used the same methodology with 2010 data to find out what the updated numbers would be. Higher numbers show a more even representation of all races than lower numbers, with a score of zero equalling zero diversity (all people are of one race), and a sore of 100 equalling complete diversity (equal representation across all racial groups). Unsurprisingly, the Bay Area and the LA area are at the top, though I was surprised to see Houston in the number 2 spot in 2010: 2010 Index Rank 1. SJ-SF-Oakland CSA: 69.9 2. Houston CSA: 68.4 3. Los Angeles CSA: 66.4 4. New York CSA: 65.3 5. Dallas-Fort Worth CSA: 63.6 6. Washington-Baltimore CSA: 63.3 7. Atlanta CSA: 62.5 8. Chicago CSA: 61.8 9. Philadelphia CSA: 52.5 10. Boston CSA: 38.2 2000 Index Rank 1. SF-SJ-Oakland CSA: 66.2 2. Los Angeles CSA: 66.1 3. Houston CSA: 65.5 4. New York CSA: 61.2 5. Chicago CSA: 58.4 6. Dallas-Fort Worth CSA: 58.1 7. Washington-Baltimore CSA: 56.3 8. Atlanta CSA: 55.4 9. Philadelphia CSA: 46.2 10. Boston CSA: 31.1 Rah! fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Glad to see we're in a post segregation society You cut off a little bit of the southern part of SF there...I might as well repost my version of that map in this thread, as it also includes Oakland, and some suburbs like Daly City, Berkeley, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Alameda, Emeryville, Albany, and parts of a few others:  edit: sorry, I forgot the key: blue = white red = asian green = black yellow = hispanic/latino grey = other Rah! fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are large swaths of northern california where the local "taqueria" is in fact worse than Chipotle. Not in the Bay Area, Central Valley, or Salinas Valley/Monterey Bay Area. There are poo poo tons of Mexicans in those parts, and plenty of great Mexican restaurants/taquerias.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you're including "within driving radius" sure, but there are vast sections of suburban terribleness that peaks at chipotle especially in the blandest parts of the bay. You said "large swaths" of Northern California have Mexican food no better than Chipotle. Maybe you should define what you mean by "large swath"? There are definitely neighborhoods in the Bay Area (or Sacramento, or LA, or San Diego) that only have lovely Mexican food options, but you'd have a hard time finding an entire city that has absolutely no good Mexican food. Even in many (most?) suburbs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
One of the reasons BART workers are striking is because of concerns about safety. And guess what happened today? Two BART workers were struck by a train and killed: http://sfappeal.com/2013/10/bart-train-reportedly-strikes-two-people/ But according to your average person who's only concerned about any of this just because their commute was screwed with, it's the workers and unions that are horrible and at fault for anything that goes wrong. "gently caress workers rights, it took twice as long for me to get to my own job, therefore unions are all horrible and all BART workers should be fired!" 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Speaking of management loving things up, here's some more info on those two workers getting killed today: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_24345866/bart-train-strikes-two-people-near-walnut-creek quote:Sources say the two dead workers were non-union engineers performing track inspections when a manager operating a four-car train with six people on board hit them... But let's not be naive, it's clearly the fault of the workers and unions, and them alone, when things like this happen!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
withak posted:The responsibility for track safety is ultimately on the workers on the ground. The main thing pounded into anyone who works on foot around track (BART or otherwise) is that a train can always come, even when one is not scheduled, and there is always supposed to be one person whose only responsibility is to keep their head up and watch for approaching trains. Maybe, but it sounds like unqualified people were moving the trains around, and there had already been warnings that letting those people move them would create a more dangerous environment than normal. Not to mention the article makes it sound like dispatch may have dropped the ball (I assume dispatch would be responsible for letting trains and workers know when one or the other are going to be in the way of each other?). Maybe the fault is completely on the workers not paying attention, and this accident would still have happened without the strike, even if conditions were 100% perfect...but the timing sure isn't looking good for management IMO, regardless of who's at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
I'm an SF native too, and there are plenty of SF residents and natives who say "Frisco". It's mostly working class people and rappers/hop-hop fans who say it. And gangsters and Hells Angels. I've noticed that wealthy people, older people, tourists, and transplants are more likely to dislike the name "Frisco" and assume only clueless visitors say it. People who have little contact with SF's lower classes often aren't aware of it's use, I guess. Rah! fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:The CV is literally a desert based on climate classification; the west side (along I5) gets maybe 3-6"/yr of rain. Part of it is in the south, or rather it's a "Mediterranean steppe" climate around Fresno, and a "low-latitude desert" around Bakersfield, as Wikipedia tells me. Most of the central valley has a wetter (but not very wet) Mediterranean climate though, just like most of coastal CA. It wouldn't be such a successful and highly productive agricultural area if it was all desert, even with the extensive water pipelines/irrigation canals. SirPablo posted:Also gently caress the smog here, this poo poo is on par with Beijing based on observations. Wait, it is a actually worse right now. You can blame part of that smog on us here in the Bay Area. The only reason we have such nice air quality most of the time is because the pacific wind blows all the smog inland, and then it gets trapped in the central valley by the coastal and sierra mountain ranges. Excuse me while I go breath a nice ocean breeze, you central valley smog-havers
Rah! fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The Central Valley wouldn't be a major agricultural area without those canals either, its too dry for the high value crops otherwise. Definitely, but my point is that it wouldn't be as productive as it is if it were all a desert climate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:For someone from the LA area, what does the Tenderloin most closely compare to? Gardena? Lawndale? Compton? Skid row, but with a lot more people living there, a lot more interesting stuff to do, and more drug dealers. edit: Or maybe like Skid row and the area around Broadway in downtown LA combined...but with less Mexicans, and more drug dealers. It's a neighborhood with a lot of cool restaurants and dive bars, a lot of immigrants from Asia and latin america, a lot of poor people, a lot of homeless people and addicts, a lot of drug dealers, a lot of cool architecture, historic apartment buildings and SROs, many of which are in poor condition and owned by slum lords. It's seeing some gentrification too, and there are an increasing number of hipster and yuppie types living there because of the relatively cheap rent for a central area in SF and/or because it's edgy and cool. edit again: Here look around the tenderloin on Google streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/place/8...627655b!6m1!1e1 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.782799,-122.414037,3a,75y,357.03h,86.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sp7xheG1oaIkdIGgHhFf9mg!2e0!6m1!1e1 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.785802,-122.413133,3a,75y,84.98h,89.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sj4ultJtfiuHTOJMmH03FvQ!2e0!6m1!1e1 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.786519,-122.414797,3a,75y,211.21h,88.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snRXshIc-jS0yxGosnIUztA!2e0!6m1!1e1 edit yet again: The tenderloin is in many ways a cool place despite being a poor/rough area, but some people get overconfident and act like it's not a bad neighborhood at all because they're able to get a cheap hotel room, or walk through or get a drink and some food or whatever, and not get immediately raped and/or murdered upon stepping foot in the neighborhood. But don't forget that it's the type of neighborhood where stuff like this happens with some regularity: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/7-injured-in-S-F-drive-by-shooting-5343098.php Rah! fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
nm posted:A burrito with french fries in it. Best drunk (or other other altered state) food ever. I wish it was easier to find them in SF. Thankfully there's a place near my house that has them...and they deliver 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Casual Yogurt posted:CA burrito culture is cool. SD is all about California Burritos with french fries in them, SF/Bay has "mission style" whatever the gently caress that is, and LA has tacos and tortas. SF has good tacos and tortas too And a mission-style burrito is basically a super-sized burrito with everything in it. Supposedly first created in the mission district in the 1960s, they include Meat, beans, cheese, salsa, avocado/guacamole, sour cream, hot sauce, and usually rice as well, which is the main ingredient that makes it stand out from most burritos in SD or LA. I prefer to get them with no rice though, and there are some old school SF taquerias that don't put rice in there by default (they are the best ones). The mission style burrito is basically what every national burrito chain restaurant (chipotle, freebirds, whatever the hell else is out there) and many foreign places are trying to emulate. Grand Prize Winner posted:I dunno. Ever had a teryaki burrito before? There are a few Mexican and/or Chinese places in Torrance/Gardena that do them. Delicious teryaki chicken slathered in teryaki sauce and salsa picante wrapped in American cheese and rice and served hot in a rolled flour tortilla. Tell me that's anything less than amazing. That does sound pretty good, except for the American cheese. Rah! fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 01:41
|
|
.
|
Chinatown posted:Yeah I would take meth-heads over "tech" workers any day. Yes, we're all tech workers here in the Bay Area. Every last one of us. And there's no meth-heads here, no sir! FCKGW posted:there's no drugs in the Bay Area anymore What the gently caress alternate reality version of the Bay Area are you familiar with? Chinatown posted:Oh boy here we go. Fool, Chipotle was founded in Colorado by a guy from Indiana who lived in SF for a year or some poo poo. It's a cheap imitation of a true mission burrito, but I do not expect you lowly San Diegans to know such things. You guys have good burritos in SD though. Except for that one time I was directed to a "good" burrito place, where the burritos were tiny and had nothing but chewy meat, a gallon of grease, hot sauce, and onions in it. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
kittenkicker posted:Orange County is pretty safe except for Santa Ana. I second the sentiment that South OC is sterile, but Irvine is the prime example. They recently closed down one of the best indie coffee houses (with open mic nights and everything) because of noise complaints. At least it has plenty of Asian food. Santa Ana actually has a low violent crime rate (though it is the highest in Orange County, which has really low violent crime rates all around). Compared to most other US cities of it's size it's pretty safe, but I'm guessing it got its bad reputation among suburban Orange County weenies because it has way more poor Mexicans than they're comfortable with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's not so much armed muggings as it is stepping over and through human filth, people living in your doorway, trannies doing tricks in your doorway, needles and meth pipes, etc. The Tenderloin actually has the highest robbery rate of any neighborhood in the city, and SF overall already has an above average robbery rate for a big US city. It's mostly strong arm robberies, but it's not like armed robberies are rare (as of 2008, about 25% of robberies in SF involved a gun. Can't find exact stats for other weapons/strong arm). Though having problems like stepping in poo poo, seeing needles on the ground, or getting yelled at by a crazy hobo will always be way more likely than getting robbed or stabbed or witnessing a drive-by shooting or whatever...unless you're a drug dealer I guess. Rah! fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
I used to hate on California burritos, because I was a stupid dumb rear end in a top hat. But a taqueria in my neighborhood in SF has them (which they call Nor Cal burritos ), and I tried it, and it's really good if you're in the mood for some fried potato flavor in your burrito. It's exactly the same as their other burritos (meat, salsa, avocado, hot sauce, cheese, etc) but they replace the beans with french fries.Kenning posted:And yes, lengua is absolutely the best burrito meat. It's good, but it's all about carne asada, carnitas, and chorizo It's a sad day when they get hosed up by a lovely restaurant. celeron 300a posted:Is lengua the best burrito/taco meat that someone can try for an "exotic" taste (i.e. something not found at Chipoltle) or can the best (aka worst) experience only be found by an authentic chorizo burrito followed by several hours of indigestion? I feel sorry for your inability to digest chorizo properly. edit: for a more exotic meat option, try sesos (brain). Live life on the edge, mad cow disease ain't poo poo. Rah! fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
KoB posted:They probably have to differentiate them as Nor Cal Burritos since they dont have beans and are therefore poo poo. Motherfucker I'm not paying 50 extra cents to add beans what am I, Mr. Money McRitch Fancy the III?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
You know the topic of burritos and/or tacos has been brought up when there are a bunch of new posts in this thread.FRINGE posted:Beans are wasted space. More meat and rice can go where those beans were. Beans are good, rice is wasted space.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 02:59
|
|