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.
I think it is probably a tie between SF, LA and Honolulu, if not SF and LA first and then Honolulu. If we're talking specific ethnic grocery stores, gift shops, restaurants, language schools, etc. then I think SF might have more of a diverse range in a smaller area than LA, but LA will likely have more altogether in certain areas. Hawaii might be more limited to certain Asians - Japanese, some Chinese, Filipinos, but probably not South Asians or most Southeast Asians.
NYC would probably be runner up after these areas.
Realistically, I'd agree with you. However, I do think that by far, the NY area has the best South Asian options out of the three. The LA area really doesn't have that many (despite the recent proclamation of "Little Bangladesh" next to Koreatown Koreatown, Little Bangladesh Get Actual Borders | NBC Los Angeles) and the Bay Area, while it has a great amount (if you geographically ring the Bay from Fremont to Cupertino, there 80%-85% of the Bay Area's South Asians live there), doesn't have the sheer critical mass that the NY area has just yet. However, as time moves on, the Bay Area is getting better and better South Asian offerings. (South Asians, you can enlighten me on my sentiments) In addition, the NY area has a LOT of Indo-Carribeans from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, that adds a further element of South Asian cultural diversity that is lacking in California. In the LA Area and Bay Areas, there are Indians who come from the Pacific Islands (especially Fiji) but there aren't nearly as many South Asians from Fiji as there are Indo-Caribbeans from places like Guyana.
However, in terms of Southeast Asians, the NY area is SORELY lacking. Aside from having a somewhat large Filipino population, it lacks nearly all the other nationalities in large numbers. In the LA and Bay Areas, Filipinos make up a LARGE contingent, with a strong Vietnamese population backing it, along with some of the largest Thai, Burmese, Indonesian, Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong communities outside of their respective homelands.
Here's how I'd rank it by region:
South Asian (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka)
1. NY Area
2. Bay Area
(HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEE drop)
3. LA Area
East Asian (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan)
All three are equal, IMO, with the Bay Area having a lead in terms of historical communities, LA in suburban communities, and NY in urban offerings.
Bay Area = LA Area = NY Area
Southeast Asian [By FAAAAAAR, the most culturally diverse part of Asia with the most religions, most language families spoken, etc.] (Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore)
1. LA Area
2. Bay Area
(HUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE drop)
3. NY Area
IMO: The Bay Area has the best spread across all the groups and is probably the most Asian representative area out of the three (as in, the population looks a lot like the continent itself instead of being skewed one way or the other). In addition, Asians are pretty much spread out everywhere in the Bay Area, except for Marin and Sonoma Counties (which have a medium sized Hispanic minority, but are almost overwhelmingly N-H White).
If it makes you feel better (even though it said IMO, you know, my own opinion, not yours, mine), but I emphasize it more below the Bay Area because the LA Area isn't even #3 in South Asians in the US..it's around 5th (after NY, Bay Area, Chicago, DC/Balt). Hell, both San Jose (1/4 the size of LA population wise) AND Fremont (1/20th the size of LA population wise) BY THEMSELVES have more South Asians than the City of Los Angeles.
But you're right, there is a huge drop after the NY Area. Why you chose to focus on that, I have no clue why. I already said that by far, NY is THE tops for South Asians (more than twice the amount than the #2, the Bay, and more than 4 times than the LA area), but is a faaaaaar 3rd to the other 2 when it comes to Southeast Asians (which has less than half the amount of the Bay Area, and less than a 3rd of the LA area). East Asians, it's in the middle (LA area has the most, NY has the 2nd, and Bay has the 3rd)
IMO: The Bay Area has the best spread across all the groups and is probably the most Asian representative area out of the three (as in, the population looks a lot like the continent itself instead of being skewed one way or the other).
Wouldn't the NYC area's Asian population be most representative of Asian, in that the majority of NYC-area Asians are either of Indian or Chinese descent? The SF Bay and LA metros definitely have a more diverse Asian population, but in terms of being a representative sample of the population of Asia, I think the NYC area performs the best in the US at least insofar as the relatives sizes of the Indian and Chinese populations along with their sizes relative to the collective mass of other Asian groups are concerned...US Metro have too many Filipinos, Vietnamese and Koreans, and too few Indonesians (in particular), Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Japanese to *truly* be a representative cross-section of the Asian populace.
Southeast Asian [By FAAAAAAR, the most culturally diverse part of Asia with the most religions, most language families spoken, etc.] (Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore)
1. LA Area
2. Bay Area
(HUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE drop)
3. NY Area
I'd love to see a much larger Southeast Asian diaspora in the US; the Southeast Asian population is IMO a major characteristic difference between the West Coast (sub)urban Asian population (Seattle, SF, LA, SD) and the East Coast (sub)urban Asian population (Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, DC).
Quote:
South Asian (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka)
1. NY Area
2. Bay Area
(HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEE drop)
3. LA Area
You're spot on that greater NYC's Indo-Caribbean population adds an element to the South Asian diaspora that's missing in the Bay Area. The NYC area also has a significantly larger Pakistani and Bangladeshi population than the Bay Area.
That being said, (I think) South Asians in the Bay Area now represent a greater proportion of the total populace than they do in the NYC area, and they're less geographically concentrated in the Bay Area (which could contribute more or less to the extent or perception of the extent of South Asian offerings of the metro)...though they certainly reside in the belt from Cupertino to Fremont, they can also be found in pretty large proportions elsewhere too such as Union City, Foster City, Dublin and Pleasanton. In the NYC area, South Asians are barely found in the borough outside of Queens, in Long Island outside of western Nassau, in Westchester, in the lower Hudson Valley, anywhere in CT, anywhere in the high density corridor of Northeastern NJ including most of Essex County, most of Bergen County or Union County (Hudson County is the exception here, largely b/c of Jersey City), or anywhere in Passaic County. They're mostly concentrated in Queens; Middlesex County, NJ; parts of Morris and Somerset Counties in NJ; parts of Western Nassau County; and a sliver of Brooklyn.
But you're right, there is a huge drop after the NY Area.
Not as far as proportion of the entire population:
Percentage of the Total Population who are Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans:
Bay Area CSA 226,713 3.1%
New York CSA 651,287 2.9%
Los Angeles CSA 167,867 0.9%
Furthermore, the South Asian populations in California are far more integrated on a metro level than in New York, where a full 43% live in the city of New York-in both the Bay Area and LA, over 75% of South Asians live in suburbs.
New York City 284,107 43.6% of all South Asians in the CSA
SF+Oakland+SJ 51,340 22.6% of all South Asians in the CSA
Los Angeles 38,024 22.6% of all South Asians in the CSA
Wouldn't the NYC area's Asian population be most representative of Asian, in that the majority of NYC-area Asians are either of Indian or Chinese descent? The SF Bay and LA metros definitely have a more diverse Asian population, but in terms of being a representative sample of the population of Asia, I think the NYC area performs the best in the US at least insofar as the relatives sizes of the Indian and Chinese populations along with their sizes relative to the collective mass of other Asian groups are concerned...US Metro have too many Filipinos, Vietnamese and Koreans, and too few Indonesians (in particular), Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Japanese to *truly* be a representative cross-section of the Asian populace.
Well, you're right that the NYC area has a large Indian and Chinese population being sorta representative of Asia, but the great LACK of a Southeast Asian population sort of offsets that (and really, 3/4 Southeast Asians in NY area are Filipino).
South Asia: ~1.7 billion
East Asia: ~1.6 billion
Southeast Asia: ~600 million
(at least according to US census) Asia is 43.5% South Asian, 41.1% East Asian, 15.4% Southeast Asian
So you're right: Southeast Asians are pretty overrepresented in the LA (especially) and Bay Areas.
You bring up a greater point though: the US Asian population won't ever really be representative of Asia, but out of all Western countries with a significant Asian presence, the US has the most diverse representation of Asian country diasporas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bballniket
I'd love to see a much larger Southeast Asian diaspora in the US; the Southeast Asian population is IMO a major characteristic difference between the West Coast (sub)urban Asian population (Seattle, SF, LA, SD) and the East Coast (sub)urban Asian population (Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, DC).
Yup, pretty much. Unlike South Asians (especially) and East Asians, Southeast Asians have an absolute MAJORITY of their population in the West Coast.
South Asians
31.9% Northeast
16.6% Midwest
28.6% South
22.9% West
East Asian
24.0% Northeast
9.7% Midwest
16.6% South
49.7% West
Southeast Asian
11.1% Northeast
11.3% Midwest
21.0% South
56.3% West
Quote:
You're spot on that greater NYC's Indo-Caribbean population adds an element to the South Asian diaspora that's missing in the Bay Area. The NYC area also has a significantly larger Pakistani and Bangladeshi population than the Bay Area.
To be fair, the NYC area doesn't have as many Indians from Fiji, Burma, and Malaysia either, but again, these populations are absolutely MINISCULE compared to the Indo-Carribbean community in the NY area. I tried, and here were the results
Asian Indians by world region of birth
LA CSA: 91.4% Asia, 3.4% Africa, 1.8% Europe, 1.7% Oceania, 1.0% Latin America (includes most of the Anglo-Caribbean, I know, weird), 0.7% Northern America
NY CSA: 84.0% Asia, 13.4% Latin America, 1.5% Africa, 0.7% Europe, 0.3% Northern America, 0.1% Oceania
Bay Area CSA: 93.4% Asia, 2.9% Oceania, 1.6% Africa, 1.1% Europe, 0.6% Northern America, 0.4% Latin America
Quote:
That being said, (I think) South Asians in the Bay Area now represent a greater proportion of the total populace than they do in the NYC area, and they're less geographically concentrated in the Bay Area (which could contribute more or less to the extent or perception of the extent of South Asian offerings of the metro)...though they certainly reside in the belt from Cupertino to Fremont, they can also be found in pretty large proportions elsewhere too such as Union City, Foster City, Dublin and Pleasanton. In the NYC area, South Asians are barely found in the borough outside of Queens, in Long Island outside of western Nassau, in Westchester, in the lower Hudson Valley, anywhere in CT, anywhere in the high density corridor of Northeastern NJ including most of Essex County, most of Bergen County or Union County (Hudson County is the exception here, largely b/c of Jersey City), or anywhere in Passaic County. They're mostly concentrated in Queens; Middlesex County, NJ; parts of Morris and Somerset Counties in NJ; parts of Western Nassau County; and a sliver of Brooklyn.
Notably though, South Asians make up such a low proportion of the population in the place that people visit the most: San Francisco. There is a notable Indian presence in Berkeley (especially along University Avenue) and the rest of the East Bay, but it's almost eerie to see how low the population of Indians in SF are.
By FAR, the fastest growing ethnic group in the Bay Area are South Asians (there were maybe 155k back in 2000, now there are around ~265k today). Back in 2000, Asian Indians (alone) overtook the Vietnamese to be the 3rd largest Asian group in the Bay Area after Chinese and Filipinos. I wouldn't be 100% surprised if by the end of this decade, Indians outnumbered Filipinos given the propensity of many Indian workers being drawn in by Silicon Valley, while Filipino growth rates slow down given cheaper home values elsewhere (especially the Sacramento and Stockton areas).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Not as far as proportion of the entire population:
Percentage of the Total Population who are Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans:
Bay Area CSA 226,713 3.1%
New York CSA 651,287 2.9%
Los Angeles CSA 167,867 0.9%
Furthermore, the South Asian populations in California are far more integrated on a metro level than in New York, where a full 43% live in the city of New York-in both the Bay Area and LA, over 75% of South Asians live in suburbs.
New York City 284,107 43.6% of all South Asians in the CSA
SF+Oakland+SJ 51,340 22.6% of all South Asians in the CSA
Los Angeles 38,024 22.6% of all South Asians in the CSA
Agreed, but it's still hard to ignore the HUGE number disparity between the Bay Area and NY areas in terms of South Asians. However, as I noted above, South Asians are growing at an extremely fast pace in the Bay Area, while South Asian growth in the NY area is beginning to slow down a bit (mostly has to do with the large numbers).
However, unlike the other major Asian groups in California, an absolute MAJORITY of South Asians live in Northern California than Southern California (most other groups are around 50/50, except Koreans who have an absolute majority in Southern California)
The Indian population in the NY area grew by 173k, from 400k to 573k from 2000-2010. The Indian population in the Bay Area grew by 101k, from 144k to 245k.
Realistically, I'd agree with you. However, I do think that by far, the NY area has the best South Asian options out of the three. The LA area really doesn't have that many (despite the recent proclamation of "Little Bangladesh" next to Koreatown Koreatown, Little Bangladesh Get Actual Borders | NBC Los Angeles) and the Bay Area, while it has a great amount (if you geographically ring the Bay from Fremont to Cupertino, there 80%-85% of the Bay Area's South Asians live there), doesn't have the sheer critical mass that the NY area has just yet. However, as time moves on, the Bay Area is getting better and better South Asian offerings. (South Asians, you can enlighten me on my sentiments) In addition, the NY area has a LOT of Indo-Carribeans from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, that adds a further element of South Asian cultural diversity that is lacking in California. In the LA Area and Bay Areas, there are Indians who come from the Pacific Islands (especially Fiji) but there aren't nearly as many South Asians from Fiji as there are Indo-Caribbeans from places like Guyana.
However, in terms of Southeast Asians, the NY area is SORELY lacking. Aside from having a somewhat large Filipino population, it lacks nearly all the other nationalities in large numbers. In the LA and Bay Areas, Filipinos make up a LARGE contingent, with a strong Vietnamese population backing it, along with some of the largest Thai, Burmese, Indonesian, Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong communities outside of their respective homelands.
Here's how I'd rank it by region:
South Asian (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka)
1. NY Area
2. Bay Area
(HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEE drop)
3. LA Area
East Asian (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan)
All three are equal, IMO, with the Bay Area having a lead in terms of historical communities, LA in suburban communities, and NY in urban offerings.
Bay Area = LA Area = NY Area
Southeast Asian [By FAAAAAAR, the most culturally diverse part of Asia with the most religions, most language families spoken, etc.] (Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore)
1. LA Area
2. Bay Area
(HUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE drop)
3. NY Area
IMO: The Bay Area has the best spread across all the groups and is probably the most Asian representative area out of the three (as in, the population looks a lot like the continent itself instead of being skewed one way or the other). In addition, Asians are pretty much spread out everywhere in the Bay Area, except for Marin and Sonoma Counties (which have a medium sized Hispanic minority, but are almost overwhelmingly N-H White).
Very good breakdown, and I like that you brought up the South Asian populations that come from the various island areas. I went to high school and worked with quite a few Indians from Fiji, and they actually do add a completely different element to the overall South Asian population out here. So I could see how much that must be the case for those in NYC from Guyana, etc. I very much agree with this assessment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower
If it makes you feel better (even though it said IMO, you know, my own opinion, not yours, mine), but I emphasize it more below the Bay Area because the LA Area isn't even #3 in South Asians in the US..it's around 5th (after NY, Bay Area, Chicago, DC/Balt). Hell, both San Jose (1/4 the size of LA population wise) AND Fremont (1/20th the size of LA population wise) BY THEMSELVES have more South Asians than the City of Los Angeles.
But you're right, there is a huge drop after the NY Area. Why you chose to focus on that, I have no clue why. I already said that by far, NY is THE tops for South Asians (more than twice the amount than the #2, the Bay, and more than 4 times than the LA area), but is a faaaaaar 3rd to the other 2 when it comes to Southeast Asians (which has less than half the amount of the Bay Area, and less than a 3rd of the LA area). East Asians, it's in the middle (LA area has the most, NY has the 2nd, and Bay has the 3rd)
Exactly. He's just stuck on the idea that South Asians play second fiddle to other Asians out here and are basically forgotten in the grand scheme of things, based on his own assumptions and minimal experience out here where he wasn't even exposed to where the community truly thrives. He's opting to be ignorant on the subject, and then sticking to that script by filtering out all the knowledge that people keep sending his way. Don't worry about the fact that you presented all sides of the story and gave detailed statistics as to the reality. His presumptions are what matters most.
Dude, you really gotta get your momentary passing through two little slivers of the Bay out of your head. You've never even been to where the vast the majority of the Indians in the Bay Area live and have all the stuff that's being discussed here, and your super-limited sample of what you saw one day should hardly encourage you to argue with statistics, facts, and the opinions of everyone else who actually knows.
Your insistence on NJ/NYC being "so much more South Asian" than the Bay is based on you not even seeing what really exists here. That's like me flying into LaGuardia, taking a cab to Brownsville and hanging out in 2 of the buildings there for an hour, and then flying home telling everyone NY (or to be exactly like you, the entire East Coast ) doesn't have any white people.
You're like one of those dudes who has an incident with one person of a different race, and from that day on views that entire race as being the same as the one guy he clashed with. You didn't see any Indians in Union Square, we get it. The fact that you're so unaware of how many South Asians there really are out here and how much a part of the Bay they are really just makes it clear that you don't know what's up. And that's just funny considering how often you of all people make these crazy accusations of how no one in the West knows what's going on on your side. Lol.
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.
