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.
And, I'm not saying SA isn't Southern. Obviously the flood of Anglos and blacks from the Southeast established a strong Southern culture in SA for MANY years. It's the Western South after all and did not develop like say Phoenix AZ. But for as many strong ties it has with the Southeast, it has just as many strong differences from the Southeast, that would downright give it the facade of being a ligate Southwestern city. MANY people, articles, etc, refer to it as so(The Southwest). Even though it is inaccurate, but that should say something about how it presents it's self.
I think he grew up in Houston and lived somewhere abouts in Texas. He moved to SF coupla months ago. think he went to UT
Yes, I grew up in Houston up until I was 9 but I have always visited Houston at least every year after I moved. After High School I moved back or a year to live and work with my brother but decided to move back to Austin. My sister and brother still live there, so Houston is like that city that's been for the most part a part of your life. That being said, I'm very familiar with Houston.
I also did move to San Francisco back in April, and I'm getting fairly acquainted with the city. I never went to UT though. Film school is not entirely necessary.
I think for the purposes of this poll, any answer would be the correct one depending on your criteria for what constitutes "vibrancy" and "noticeable", though I will say that Hispanics make up a larger (not that much larger, but still) percentage of people in DFW than either the Bay Area or Chicago.
I've never seen a poll between 3 extremely different places be so close before.
We have to look at the overall picture. ATL didn't have the same duration of time historically as being part of France/Spain or whatever for that to be as major for the development of Atlanta, as it did for SA. SA was a frontier city, and the largest Spanish mission in Texas for a greater part of it's history. Not, necessarily a Southern strong-hold like Atlanta. That was my original point.
That's because Atlanta and Georgia is so not the same thing.
If I'm not mistaken, from reading all of those, SE GA was already under the control and influence of the British(13 colonies) and there were a few skirmishes in which the British won. Either way, my point still stand ragarding ATL and SA. The Spaniards pretty much controlled everything from the Florida Panhandle throughout the Southern portions of modern day AL, LA, on West. Everywhere else was Angloland, or Angleterre(England in French.)
I would sat that the Bay area has a broader variety of peoples from
Latin America, south and central americans as well as mexican
this gives it more diversity and perhaps more vibrancy, they also appear to be more urbanized
Bay Area CSA latinos are a more suburban bunch (assuming SF to be the "city" in the metro area) than their DFW CSA and Chicago CSA counterparts. Latinos represent a significantly smaller share of the population of SF than of the entire CSA's population, whereas the opposite is the case in the CSA's of DFW and Chicago. This is just an observation and probably has nothing to do with vibrancy of the group at the CSA-level.
However, since the city limits of Chicago and San Francisco are more dense, transit-accessible, and pedestrian-friendly and since these qualities arguably make the cities more "vibrant", than one could make the case that the Latino neighborhoods in these cities (within the city limits) are more vibrant than those in Dallas (again, within the city limits).
Bay Area CSA latinos are a more suburban bunch (assuming SF to be the "city" in the metro area) than their DFW CSA and Chicago CSA counterparts. Latinos represent a significantly smaller share of the population of SF than of the entire CSA's population, whereas the opposite is the case in the CSA's of DFW and Chicago. This is just an observation and probably has nothing to do with vibrancy of the group at the CSA-level.
Interestingly, if you took the numbers of Latinos from Oakland, SF, and SJ and divide it by the total population of the three cities, it actually comes pretty close to the Bay Area's % of Latinos.
San Jose: 313,636
San Francisco: 121,774
Oakland: 99,068
TOTAL: 534,478 (25.0% of the combined population of 2,141,901; compared to 24.1% of the Bay Area)
Out of all the major US census defined "race" groups there are, Latinos are probably the most evenly spread across the whole metro region aside from Non-Hispanic Whites. Though I will say that Asians come in a close 3rd nowadays (omission would obviously be somewhere like Sonoma and Marin Counties, though even THAT is changing)
But again, I think most people on this board and in real life sort of miss that fact because the perceptions of the HUGE Asian population (Asians alone probably will overtake Latinos sometime this decade if growth trends hold the same, and Asians alone with combination ALREADY overtook Latinos) clouds people's perceptions how many Latinos are around.
Though one can make the argument for Blacks and Chicago, though Blacks in Chicago aren't growing at the same pace as Asians in the Bay Area and probably won't re-take the "largest minority' moniker for a while. Though with a high rate of intermarriage between Latinos (including Mexicans) and N-H Whites, it remains to be seen how much this has an affect in real life.
Hence, it sort of does make DFW's Latinos even look more noticeable overall since they are by far, the largest minority, and no other 'group' comes even close to touching that.
San Jose: 313,636
San Francisco: 121,774
Oakland: 99,068
TOTAL: 534,478 (25.0% of the combined population of 2,141,901; compared to 24.1% of the Bay Area)
Yup, I meant to say that they're overrepresented in San Jose (significantly) and Oakland (slightly) in comparison to their CSA share, but significantly underrepresented in SF.
Quote:
But again, I think most people on this board and in real life sort of miss that fact because the perceptions of the HUGE Asian population (Asians alone probably will overtake Latinos sometime this decade if growth trends hold the same, and Asians alone with combination ALREADY overtook Latinos) clouds people's perceptions how many Latinos are around.
Though one can make the argument for Blacks and Chicago, though Blacks in Chicago aren't growing at the same pace as Asians in the Bay Area and probably won't re-take the "largest minority' moniker for a while. Though with a high rate of intermarriage between Latinos (including Mexicans) and N-H Whites, it remains to be seen how much this has an affect in real life.
Hence, it sort of does make DFW's Latinos even look more noticeable overall since they are by far, the largest minority, and no other 'group' comes even close to touching that.
Yup, Hispanics do get overlooked in the Bay b/c Asians have a massive presence there and are a bit of a "novelty" in lots of other places, so the Asians get the attention. Another potential reason is the comparison of Hispanic shares in the LA CSA with the Bay CSA leads people to believe that Hispanics are a drop in the bucket in the Bay compared to in the LA CSA. In spite of Bay Area Hispanics going unnoticed, IIRC the Bay as a CSA has the sixth highest share of Hispanics among the 3 million+ CSAs (or MSAs when CSAs are non-existent for that particular metro area) after metros based around LA, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Fort, and San Diego. The Hispanic population in the NYC CSA receives a lot more attention than does that of the Bay despite the Bay having a share of its residents who are Hispanic because of two factors (imo):
1) The total numbers of Hispanics are much higher in the NYC CSA (because the total number of people is much higher in the NYC CSA)
2) The Hispanic population in the NYC CSA is more "Pan-Latin" (though this is up for debate since Mexico is a large country and Puerto Rico and the DR can't collectively compete with regard to demographic origins, though I may be wrong...in the NYC CSA's defense though, it does have a significant South American population, which is not really rivaled anywhere else in the US besides Miami and is also a likely explanation for why the NYC area is more discussed than the Bay area in the context of Hispanics)
Another potential reason is the comparison of Hispanic shares in the LA CSA with the Bay CSA leads people to believe that Hispanics are a drop in the bucket in the Bay compared to in the LA CSA.
True that. But its also helpful to know that the areas of the Bay Area that people most go to typically do have more Asian people than Hispanics, while the opposite is true for the LA area (not all of the time of course, but is true for a huge chunk of the time)
Quote:
In spite of Bay Area Hispanics going unnoticed, IIRC the Bay as a CSA has the sixth highest share of Hispanics among the 3 million+ CSAs (or MSAs when CSAs are non-existent for that particular metro area) after metros based around LA, Miami, Houston, Dallas-Fort, and San Diego.
What's weird is that out of those 6, SF Bay has the 2nd most diverse Latino population in terms of percentage (not by a LOT, it's still there), and out of the top 10 areas with the most Hispanics, the Bay Area has the 3rd most diverse Latin population (though the drop between 2 and 3 is HUGE!)
Top 10 2010 CSA/MSA Hispanic population (largest group share of Latino population)
1. Los Angeles: 8,028,831 (80.6% Mexican)
2. New York: 4,790,542 (28.7% Puerto Rican)
3. Miami: 2,312,929 (42.5% Cuban)
4. Houston: 2,124,875 (75.4% Mexcan)
5. Chicago: 1,973,340 (79.3% Mexican)
6. Bay Area: 1,797,078 (74.4% Mexican)
7. DFW: 1,795,412 (83.3% Mexican)
8. Phoenix: 1,235,718 (86.4% Mexican)
9. San Antonio: 1,158,148 (83.9% Mexican)
10. San Diego: 991,348 (87.7% Mexican)
However, if DC cracks the top 10, then it would be ranked 1st (DC Latinos are 27.4% Salvadorian out of a total population of 912k)
Quote:
The Hispanic population in the NYC CSA receives a lot more attention than does that of the Bay despite the Bay having a share of its residents who are Hispanic because of two factors (imo):
1) The total numbers of Hispanics are much higher in the NYC CSA (because the total number of people is much higher in the NYC CSA)
2) The Hispanic population in the NYC CSA is more "Pan-Latin" (though this is up for debate since Mexico is a large country and Puerto Rico and the DR can't collectively compete with regard to demographic origins, though I may be wrong...in the NYC CSA's defense though, it does have a significant South American population, which is not really rivaled anywhere else in the US besides Miami and is also a likely explanation for why the NYC area is more discussed than the Bay area in the context of Hispanics)
Well, you have to remember that NYC has media exposure to an extent that almost every place in the US doesn't have.
Though out of all the places on the top for Latino population, places like DC, Chicago and the Bay Area get pretty overlooked, while it's sort of the norm for places like DFW.
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.
