Where do the Filipinos, Indians, and Koreans live in L.A. (Los Angeles: house, good schools)

[uptown_urbanist]

Actually, LA's Asian population has a very long history; while there have been waves of new immigrants arriving, there has been a significant Asian presence (not sure about all nationalities/ethnicites, but certainly Chinese and Japanese) since the end of the 19th century. It makes sense, if you think about it; immigrants from Europe at that time would have arrived in NYC (and did), but if you're coming from Asia it's more likely that you'd arrive in America via the West Coast. Why head all the way to NYC when there were opportunities to be found here?

[graciously]

more history in san francisco area than here and said nyc because it is one of the old cities or city that has been well known quite a long time. La is sort of new city and or not as known for before most of 19th century as many other cities. Nyc chinatown is largest in the country.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Actually, LA's Asian population has a very long history; while there have been waves of new immigrants arriving, there has been a significant Asian presence (not sure about all nationalities/ethnicites, but certainly Chinese and Japanese) since the end of the 19th century. It makes sense, if you think about it; immigrants from Europe at that time would have arrived in NYC (and did), but if you're coming from Asia it's more likely that you'd arrive in America via the West Coast. Why head all the way to NYC when there were opportunities to be found here?

L.A. has had Chinese since the Gold Rush era. Japanese and Filipinos go back a long time as well. As another poster mentioned Filipinos tend to intermarry with non-Asian nationalities. As for Koreans, not sure. They were definitely in CA in the early 20th century, not sure about L.A. though.

SF's Asian history is more extensive because it was the biggest city in California until 1930. In 1900 L.A. was smaller than Oakland and Sacramento - it didn't become CA's 2nd largest city until 1910, and didn't get close to SF population wide until 1920. That's the same reason why SF got more Euro immigrants in the early 20th century than L.A. As hard as it may be to believe now, L.A. pre-WW2 had a larger percentage of white Protestants than any city outside the former Confederacy - and that's even considering the massive migration of eastern white ethnics post-WW1 (especially Jews), the African-American migration beginning in the '20s, and the Mexican immigration of the '20s. Who would've thought?

[graciously]

right there was more of a presence in the more established cities of nocal.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by pbergen

while koreatown does have a ton of korean businesses, the majority of residents are still latino.

K-town also has other groups, too. It's a mecca for the multiracial poor. It even has non-Latino whites, who tend to fall into either three categories: Eastern Euro immigrants, adventurous hipster/artsy types priced out of Silver Lake and Hollywood nearby, or drug addict/criminal types. K-town today reminds me a great deal of Hollywood in the bad years, more so than Hollywood today. The same types of people who would've been in the Yucca Corridor in the '80s or '90s are now in K-town and the level of open prostitution and drug dealing is comparable to Hollywood back then.

most koreans who live in the neighborhood these days are young professionals, students, and expatriates (FOBs) who want to live close to all the restaurants, bars, clubs, and so forth.

Also some gang/criminal types.

but you don't see as many korean families there compared with other parts of the city such as hancock park (just west of ktown) or the san fernando valley (northridge, porter ranch, chatsworth). there are also a lot of koreans in suburban LA county cities and communities such as cerritos, torrance, glendale, la canada flintridge, rowland heights, hacienda heights, diamond bar, the palos verdes peninsula, etc. even beverly hills has a fair number.

I suspect much of Beverly Hills' rapidly increasing East Asian population is Korean due to proximity. I also suspect that much of Culver City's even more rapidly increasing East Asian population (according to the latest census estimates Asians are now almost equal with Latinos for being the 2nd largest ethnic group in Culver City) is also Korean although not exclusively As a former Culver City resident and west side native I do think Asians will eventually overtake non-Latino whites as the largest ethnic group there - I predict an Asian plurality by 2020. Not that the presence of Asians is anything new in CC, but the numbers are growing FAST, whereas the non-Latino white and Latino populations seem to be pretty much staying the same and the African-American population is slightly declining.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by graciously

Maybe correct now but would have taught about same amount. Probably got more history or been longer in nyc cause most if not all asian population are like latest or newest in la/oc.

not true at all. generally speaking, asian ethnic groups have a far longer history on the west coast and in hawaii than on the east coast. there have been chinese, japanese, and filipinos in the LA area since the 1800s. there were also a few koreans in the region beginning in the early 20th century, although the population didn't really take off until the late '60s/early '70s.

the west coast and hawaii have for the longest time been the only places in the country where you'd find third- or fourth-generation asian americans. that'll change in the upcoming years, of course.

after longstanding immigration quotas were loosened in 1965, LA and the SF bay area were always ahead of the curve compared with the rest of the continental u.s. as far as east asian and southeast asian immigration were concerned. LA's koreatown was the first in this country and is still the largest, and don't forget that there are numerous unofficial koreatowns in suburban areas (fullerton, cerritos, garden grove, irvine, hacienda heights/rowland heights, etc).

also, the west coast was the first place in the continental u.s. to have municipalities with asian majorities - i believe monterey park in the san gabriel valley was technically the first with its chinese population. now there are numerous small cities in california with asian majorities, while the east coast is still waiting for its first one (palisades park, nj, which is just outside of nyc, will probably have an east asian majority in the 2010 census).

[majoun]

Originally Posted by pbergen

not true at all. generally speaking, asian ethnic groups have a far longer history on the west coast and in hawaii than on the east coast. there have been chinese, japanese, and filipinos in the LA area since the late 1800s. there were also a few koreans in the region beginning in the early 20th century, although the population didn't really take off until the late '60s/early '70s.

Thanks for confirming that there were Koreans in L.A. in the early 20th century. I knew there were Koreans in early 20th century CA due to studying the incident in which Teddy Roosevelt forced California to end "Jim Crow" type policies against Japanese in CA schools in order to avoid a war, but I didn't know for a fact they were in L.A. Accounts of that era tended to focus on San Francisco because it was a larger city. (FWIW, TR's decision was uniformly unpopular in the "Yellow Peril" obsessed California of that time.)

[graciously]

Originally Posted by pbergen

not true at all. generally speaking, asian ethnic groups have a far longer history on the west coast and in hawaii than on the east coast. there have been chinese, japanese, and filipinos in the LA area since the 1800s. there were also a few koreans in the region beginning in the early 20th century, although the population didn't really take off until the late '60s/early '70s.

more mainly around bay area never said whole west coast. Said la as a major city is very new compared to bay area and alot of cities in nocal and many other cities.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by graciously

Nyc chinatown is largest in the country.

depends how you look at it. in a sense, you're right, but the issue is far more complex than that.

there are numerous chinatowns within the city of new york. there's the "official" one in lower manhattan, and then there's a much larger and far less touristy unofficial one in flushing, queens. there are also smaller clusters of chinese residents and businesses elsewhere in queens (elmhurst) as well as brooklyn (sunset park, bensonhurst, and homecrest).

which of these are you referring to - the "official" one or all of them taken together? and what basis are you using to make this claim: the total chinese population in the five boroughs? the square area of the chinatown(s)? the amount of commercial activity?

if you're going by raw population, then yes, there are more chinese in the city of new york than in any other city proper in the country. but keep in mind that the majority of the nyc metro's chinese population live in the city rather than the suburbs, whereas in the sf bay area and the greater LA area, the reverse is true. so i'm not sure whether the entire nyc metro has more chinese than the greater LA region or the bay area - it may, or it may not.

i'll say this: it certainly doesn't feel that way due to the larger proportion of chinese in the bay area and greater LA.

while the population of chinese in the city of LA is not super huge, their presence in LA county and the region in general is enormous. a huge swath of the san gabriel valley is like one big, fragmented chinatown - or, looking at it another way, it's like multiple, separate, suburban chinatowns in close proximity to one other.

in the bay area, the city of san francisco has by far the largest percentage of chinese of any major city in the country (around 20%). the raw total of chinese residents is not as large as nyc's due to the fact that nyc is more than 10x larger than sf, but sf feels much more chinese overall, at least to me. this is even more apparent in the outlying suburbs and satellite cities.

flushing, queens and manhattan's chinatown are undoubtedly significant enclaves, but IMO they really can't compare with what the san gabriel valley or the bay area's various chinatowns have to offer.

[uptown_urbanist]

Graciously, no offense meant, but your history is off - LA was not a huge city in the 19th century, but it was still large enough for both LA and the region to be home to many Asian residents. It was certainly big enough to provide many jobs to 19th century Asian arrivals - there would have been no need to trek across the country to NYC. I think you are making guesses based on vague assumptions about the past.

Also, I don't know the current numbers, but I think there's a good change that the modern LA metro area has a larger number of Chinese residents than does the Bay Area. I remember someone reading the list of top 10 CA cities as far as population of Chinese, and other than SF I think they were all (or maybe almost all?) in the San Gabriel Valley. Parts of the SGV feel just as Chinese as SF.