Latino population vibrancy: Chicago, SF Bay, DFW (market, living, cost)

[4seasonlover]

SF Bay has Latinos? Why would they go there if LA is nearer to Mexico and has more jobs?

[rah]

Originally Posted by 4seasonlover

SF Bay has Latinos? Why would they go there if LA is nearer to Mexico and has more jobs?

You're right, Bay Area latinos are actually Mongolians in disguise.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by rah

You're right, Bay Area latinos are actually Mongolians in disguise.

They could be mid-easterners without headscarves. Possibly Armenians.

Don't worry about that making sense; apparently its new screen-name Monday.

[polo89]

Originally Posted by 4seasonlover

sf bay has latinos? Why would they go there if la is nearer to mexico and has more jobs?

I hate having to deal with 4 seasons!! Cities in the northeast have no vibrant latino communities!!!!

[VX-Nefarious]

Originally Posted by justme02

I wrote a thesis on it in college. Im going based on what I remember researching. Things may have changed since 2004 so I cant say for sure, but thats the way it was. From what I researched at the time:

Mexicans in Houston came from: Veracruz, Yucatan, Quintana Roo, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Puebla, Chihuahua, Oaxaca, and Jailisco.

Mexicans in Dallas came from: San Luis Potosi, Durango, Augascalientes, Nuevo Leon, Zacatecas, Queretaro, Toluca, and Chihuahua.

Mexicans in Chicago were largely from Guanajuato, Durango, Zacatecas, Queretaro, and Jailisco (some Nuevo Leon too).

Mexicans in Phoenix were fairly homogenous in that they came almost entirely from Sonora, Chihuahua, Michoacan, and Baja.

LA has Mexicans from just about everywhere though the greatest concentrations are from Baja.

Again, that was based off of a paper I wrote in college years ago. Things may be different now, I havent looked it up. However, the point of the paper was that there seemed to be some reigional patern. Coastal Mexicans overwhelmingly prefered Houston and Los Angeles. Interior Mexicans (including Chihuahua) prefered Dallas and Chicago. Finally, desert Mexicans prefered Phoenix and Los Angeles.

I've read a few articles, saying the big majority of Chicago residents come from the state of Michoacan, surprised Michoacan is not among the Mexican states that prefer Chicago.

[Lifeshadower]

Instead of making a new topic, I decided to revive this one.

I find it interesting that while these three areas have nearly 2 million Latinos, which isnt too far off from SoFla's 2.4 million Latinos, these three areas definitely fly under the radar.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by Lifeshadower

Instead of making a new topic, I decided to revive this one.

I find it interesting that while these three areas have nearly 2 million Latinos, which isnt too far off from SoFla's 2.4 million Latinos, these three areas definitely fly under the radar.

Not sure why, I thought the latino element was very strong in both these metros, in some cases extremely strong for long stretches in the neighborhoods.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

I think these three are kind of birds of a feather when we talk about their Latino communities.

If you think about it in tiers based on Latino community size:

You have your big three: LA, NYC, Miami

Then you have Houston which is not of the status of the above.

Then you have Chicago, DFW, and the Bay Area.

I think its pretty close. All three have huge Hispanic communities, but are not really recognized for it.

[Amercity]

Do you mean affluent or influential? Chicago's Latinos are more influential then Dallas's latinos. I think chicago wins in terms of overall importance while dallas wins in more latinos overall. Dallas's latinos are spread everywhere from the city to almost all the suburbs while chicago its mainly in the city and some inner ring suburbs. Yes there are latinos outside of those areas but not in large or materful numbers.

[polo89]

Yeah, these 3 do fly under the radar.