Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bballniket There was an asterisk next to Silver Spring's data in my original post. Toward the bottom of the original post, the asterisk noted that the data is taken from the 2009 American Factfinder survey.
The data can be found here. As I mentioned in my original post, in order to give credence to individuals of mixed race background, the black and asian populations were determined by counting those who are even part black as black and those who are part asian as asian. Silver Spring CDP, Maryland - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2009
I mentioned many of the East Bay cities you've provided in my OP. I purposely left out Vallejo b/c it's in Solano county, which isn't in the San Francisco-Oakland Urbanized area, though it may be in the MSA. (I personally don't like MSAs as the standard for the extent of reach of a metropolitan area).
To go back to my mention of "diverse" cities, let me take you to my post in the 3rd page of this thread.
"Diverse" cities are clearly distinguished from diverse cities. I mentioned "diverse" cities in response to the post noting Chicagoland cities with Asian/Hispanic populations over 10%, but lacking in black population. My description following the terming of "diverse" cities should indicate the distinction.
Truly diverse cities, as you say, should have black/non-hispanic white/hispanic/asian in nearly equal proportions. I am a bit more lenient and allow a city to be term truly diverse if it has black/asian/hispanic population proportions all above 10% and a foreign born share greater than 25% (these two occurences are often simultaneous, as I alluded to previously). One could be even more stringent and say that in order for a city to be categorized as truly diverse its foreign born population must be nearly equal parts from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe, and that numerous countries should be represented among these continents of origin. If one is this stringent, such a truly diverse city is nearly impossible to find.
Totally understand your points!
u'll have to forgive my enthusiasm-this is one of my favorite topics...LOL
haha it's one of my favorite topics too
I've been obsessively looking this stuff up for a few years now and have been lurking on CD forums for quite a while. I've only recently mustered up the courage to start posting.
How many of these suburbs have diverse schools? And if the schools are diverse, are they stable or in transition? A lot of Chicago suburban schools are losing there white student population to private schools when black and Hispanics enroll. However, the white population tend to be more stable if Asians are the primary minority group.
Whoa, they are pretty diverse! Irving has a pretty substantial Indian population from what I've read (I'm Indian btw, haha). They're pretty large suburbs too. It'll be interested if Plano and Richardson become blacker (and Plano more hispanic as well) to join the ranks of Garland and Irving.
Richardson is pretty much already there. It is home to a growing middle-class African American community. Plano isnt attracting African Americans as fast, but Asians are flooding Plano like ants on a Snickers Bar.
Evanston is white majority(though less than 70%) with a significant Black minority(one-fifth of the city). Asians and Hispanics make up about 6-8% each. Oak Park has similar demographics. Waukegan and North Chicago are minority-majority but has an Asian makeup below 10%. South Holland is over 70% Black with a declining white population . I never heard of a suburb called Hillcrest around here. I think you're referring to Hillcrest high school in Country Club Hills, which is predominately black anyway. Merriville is majority white.
Yes, I got that mixed up and meant to say Crest Hill. I think that is mostly White though.
Also, keep in mind that Asians only make up about 5% of the country's population. So, Waukegan and North Chicago are still close to the national average. What about Forest Park?
Southern California's most racially diverse cities:
Lakewood, CA 42.4% Non-Hispanic White
29.5% Hispanic
16.3% Asian and Pacific Islander
8.4% Black
21.6% Foreign Born
Long Beach, CA
40.2% Hispanic
30.0% Non-Hispanic White
13.8% Asian and Pacific Islander
13.2% Black
27.5% Foreign Born
Gardena, CA
36.0% Hispanic
27.7% Asian
23.4% Black
10.0% Non-Hispanic White
35.1% Foreign Born
Carson, CA (hmm..I never realized that one. Guess I gotta pay closer attention when visiting family there next time)
37.1% Hispanic
27.0% Asian and Pacific Islander
25.0% Black
7.5% Non-Hispanic White
33.1% Foreign Born
West Carson, CA
30.8% Hispanic
28.1% Asian and Pacific Islander
23.3% Non-Hispanic White
15.0% Black
34.4% Foreign Born
Culver City, CA
47.7% Non-Hispanic White
22.1% Hispanic
15.0% Asian and Pacific Islander
11.5% Black
25.6% Foreign Born
Pasadena, CA 40.8% Non-Hispanic White
33.5% Hispanic
11.6% Asian and Pacific Islander
11.4% Black
28.7% Foreign Born
In California, its becoming increasingly difficult to find an area with a substantial black population. Unlike in the rest of the US, Blacks are by far the smallest minority group in California (out of the 4 big ones). More likely or not, the places that have some of the largest % of Blacks would probably be the places that have some of the most racial diversity. It's no surprise that Oakland and Long Beach (with both have more than 400,000 in their city limits, larger than many primary cities in the US) are thus amongst the top.
In the rest of the US, more likely or not that some of the places with the highest % of Asians would be the most diverse place in their metro area since Asians are by far the smallest minority at around 5% (not THE highest, but some of the highest)
Amongst the Bay Area 3 Principle Cities:
Oakland = 3rd largest city, largest division in the Bay Area
San Jose = Largest city, 2nd largest division in the Bay Area
San Francisco = 2nd largest city, smallest division of the Bay Area
Why did you split the San Francisco-Oakland MSA into two metropolitan divisions and then compare it to SJ's MSA? Why not just compare the two MSAs (equal criteria = equal comparison). You're basically implying that Oakland's "area" is more populated than San Francisco's "area" yet they are both part of the SAME "area"/metro/MSA. Even SJ should be within that same MSA, IMO, but that's a whole other discussion. SJ's MSA is also definitely not more populated than SF's "area" (aka the much larger SF-Oakland MSA), like your list implies.
SF and Oakland are basically the "Twin cities" of their MSA. Oakland is definitely NOT a suburb, but you don't have to use these weird MD stats to prove it. I've only ever seen those used in some studies, such as on education levels, in order to get more detailed pictures of larger metro areas (which SF-Oakland is, at 4.5 million people). Using MDs for population comparison, especially with entire metros doesn't really make sense though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
