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.
That's not the point. His point is basically that Asians stay confined to these ghetto-like urban enclaves within the city limits. My point is that if you take NYC as a whole, the Asians here are very geographically dispersed.
Not nearly enough to compare with the Bay Area. Not even close actually.
To scale map from the New York Times:
Quote:
There are Asians all the way in the Bronx and Asians all the way down in Staten Island. And then half of the Asians in the Metro area don't even live in NYC.
1 Million Asians live outside of New York and 1 Million Asians live outside of SF, SJ and Oakland.
Not nearly enough to compare with the Bay Area. Not even close actually.
To scale map from the New York Times:
1 Million Asians live outside of New York and 1 Million Asians live outside of SF, SJ and Oakland.
Food for thought.
No, it's not food for thought. First, I don't see why it makes a difference where people are concentrated. If all 2 million Asians in the Tri-State lived in Queens, then what would it matter? Second, the map shows concentrations by percentage, not numbers. There are way more people in the Tri-State than there are in the Bay Area, so the Asian percentage of any community is not going to be as high. Third, those maps don't even appear to be of the same scale, though I don't think that's a particularly imporant point in light of my two previous ones.
SF has a better kind of vibrancy, the people are better etc. Stats dont mean anything
Eh, I can feel the difference in places that are around 8k, vs those that are 12k...And so can others which has been a premise in many a thread. Much less the gigantic spread Manhattan has over SF.
No, it's not food for thought. First, I don't see why it makes a difference where people are concentrated. If all 2 million Asians in the Tri-State lived in Queens, then what would it matter? Second, the map shows concentrations by percentage, not numbers. There are way more people in the Tri-State than there are in the Bay Area, so the Asian percentage of any community is not going to be as high. That's common sense.
NYC is 8.2 mil out of 22 mil.
SF is 805k out of 7.4 mil.
A lot more people can officially call themselves New Yorkers and be correct about it than San Franciscans, 10x as many as a matter of fact.
Behold, the teeming sidewalks of the most vibrant place in the United States, Guttenberg:
Eat your heart out Upper East Side.
You can keep your podunk Fifth Avenue, Guttenberg is where the real action is SON.
From this point forward, we all bow to Guttenberg.
Horrible try. But you have been known to skew statistics before, possibly being nefarious, possibly just having a mild grasp of them. It is #'s AND scale which hold any actual value, anything else is strictly being manipulative. Manhattan holds that over 23 square miles.
Keep avoiding the actual #'s though.
for the record Guttenberg is only 11k people
nice try though? I'm sure everybody will have a laugh at your miserable rebuttal.
No, it's not food for thought. First, I don't see why it makes a difference where people are concentrated. If all 2 million Asians in the Tri-State lived in Queens, then what would it matter? Second, the map shows concentrations by percentage, not numbers. There are way more people in the Tri-State than there are in the Bay Area, so the Asian percentage of any community is not going to be as high. Third, those maps don't even appear to be of the same scale, though I don't think that's a particularly imporant point in light of my two previous ones.
1. It was YOU who brought up ethnocentric neighborhoods in this thread trying to have a gotcha moment that failed miserably. *yawns*
2. There are 1 Million Asians outside of NYC and 1 Million Asians outside of SF, Oakland and SJ. Its crystal clear which has the heavier Asians influence. I dont even know why you are continuing on this failed tangent but whatever.
3. So call the NY Times and tell them that NYCs map needs to be inflated to match the egos of folks on C-D. In the meantime, that's life.
Horrible try. But you have been known to skew statistics before, possibly being nefarious, possibly just having a mild grasp of them. It is #'s AND scale which hold any actual value, anything else is strictly being manipulative. Manhattan holds that over 23 square miles.
Keep avoiding the actual #'s though.
for the record Guttenberg is only 11k people
nice try though? I'm sure everybody will have a laugh at your miserable rebuttal.
Haha. Quite ridiculous, right? The problem comes in when a certain place (like Manhattan) has a greater density and a larger population than SF. Brooklyn and Queens have the trifecta on SF: (1) larger population; (2) higher population density; and (3) larger land mass.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 12-08-2011 at 09:54 AM..
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.
