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 can agree, perhaps NYC should move up to Tier 2. I think Chicago's Latino population is more dominant and diverse than the Bay Area and Dallas. It's also more influential than those two.
According to the US census, 81% of Chicagoland's 1.9 million Latinos are Mexican, while 75% of SF Bay's 1.8 million Latinos are Mexican. not a HUGE difference, but SF Bay's is more diverse.
In terms of dominance and influence, I don't know. However, I can see Chicago beating out SF Bay because there's a congressional district in Chicago that is represented by a Latino (Luis Guttierez, a Puerto Rican)
1) It's laid out in black and white in the census
2) Land areas and BOUNDARIES are officially calculated by each respective city.
Now, in turn, your propounding statement is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about CITIES, of which New York CITY as legally defined has more Latinos, a more diverse Latino pool, and more Spanish speakers than the legally defined CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
What goes in the metro area is irrelevant when the municipal boundaries of cities are clearly defined, not only by the US census, but by each respective city themselves. Please don't move the goal posts when they are convenient.
Fair enough.
The raw numbers of Latinos in NYC is 20% greater than the city of Los Angeles, but the percentage of Latino population in NYC is less than one-half that of Los Angeles. NYC's Latino culture is dilluted 2:1 relative to the city of LA, and the areas that ecompass the respective cities and sustain their latino cultures only enhances that difference.
I can agree, perhaps NYC should move up to Tier 2. I think Chicago's Latino population is more dominant and diverse than the Bay Area and Dallas. It's also more influential than those two.
The reason for my argument for that is because Chicago, DFW, and the Bay Area all have similarly sized Hispanic communities.
-The Bay Area has the smallest Hispanic community of the three, but it's the most diverse among Latinos. It has the Largest South American community of the three as well.
-DFW is between the two, but it has the highest concentration of the three and is fastest growing among Hispanics. It has the largest central American community of the three.
-Chicago has the largest of the three and has the largest Mexican and Islander community of the three, but has the lowest concentration.
All three have Hispanic populations between 1.7 million and 2 million. Houston is slightly higher at 2.1 million. Below the three in question are Phoenix and San Antonio with around 1.2 million.
That's my reasoning for saying these three belong together.
According to the US census, 81% of Chicagoland's 1.9 million Latinos are Mexican, while 75% of SF Bay's 1.8 million Latinos are Mexican. not a HUGE difference, but SF Bay's is more diverse.
In terms of dominance and influence, I don't know. However, I can see Chicago beating out SF Bay because there's a congressional district in Chicago that is represented by a Latino (Luis Guttierez, a Puerto Rican)
Can't be said the same for either Dallas or SF Bay.
Puerto Ricans actually have a lot of influence in the city too. Very vocal in Chicago. Chicago by far mostly Mexican, but it has a significant and very visible Puerto Rican population. There are also quite a few Cubans, Colombians and Ecuadorians in the city. However, the two most dominant are Mexicans and Puerto Ricans by far.
The raw numbers of Latinos in NYC is 20% greater than the city of Los Angeles, but the percentage of Latino population in NYC is less than one-half that of Los Angeles. NYC's Latino culture is dilluted 2:1 relative to the city of LA, and the areas that ecompass the respective cities and sustain their latino cultures only enhances that difference.
LA: Agave. NY: Mixto.
Well, the Bronx has 1.1 million people, and is 52-53% Latino. That's a HUGE area of the city.
There's also a huge difference between LA and NYC's Latino population: segregation. The neighborhoods that NYC's Latino populations live are more likely to be 100% Latino of various nationalities, rather than the multitude of LA's neighborhoods that may have a Latino plurality, but still have other ethnic groups in them.
Doesn't make it good nor bad, but its something that is heavily noticeable.
Though it does seem like Mexicans are all over the place nowadays, from Southern Orange County to Ventura County to San Bernardino.
Quote:
Puerto Ricans actually have a lot of influence in the city too. Very vocal in Chicago. Chicago by far mostly Mexican, but it has a significant and very visible Puerto Rican population. There are also quite a few Cubans, Colombians and Ecuadorians in the city. However, the two most dominant are Mexicans and Puerto Ricans by far.
It's weird, because even though Mexicans outnumber Puerto Ricans by a factor of 7-1 in the city of Chicago, Puerto Ricans seem very much more vocal politically and socially than the Mexican population, which seems a lot more muted.
Anyways, here are the respective numbers of each area (will do groups above 10k):
Chicagoland Latinos: 1,973,340 (20.4% of the population, 8 groups)
Mexican: 1,559,992 (81.1% of Latinos)
Puerto Rican: 189,435
Guatemalan: 33,659
Ecuadorian: 22,496
Cuban: 20,778
Colombian: 18,053
Salvadorian: 13,740
Honduran: 11,701
SF Bay Latinos: 1,797,078 (24.1% of the population, 9 groups)
-Dominicans (NY area has 863,400, Miami area has 95,966)
-Costa Ricans
-Salvadorians
-Ecuadorians
-Paraguayans
That isn't to say that Miami's Latin community isn't diverse, because it is arguably 3rd after NYC and DC (the largest group in the DC area are Salvadorians, and only make up 28% of the Latino community) but IMO it falls short of NYC.
Its weird, but your link shows that San Francisco area has the 3rd most diverse Latino community with communities above 1 million in the US. Never thought of that.
Once DC gets there (DC CSA is at 900k), it'll be 2nd.
Boston also has a pretty diverse Latino community, but is only at 600k.
That may be true, but some of the nationalities you listed, NYC only has more in raw numbers(Miami/SoFla MIGHT have higher percentage of Costa Ricans than the Tri-State area does. 12,000 in the tri-state, 9,000 in SoFla). But Miami has more Cubans, Colombians, Brazilians, Spaniards, Argentinians, Venezualans, Guatemalan(Maybe only in percentage only, while NY has more in raw numbers), Chilean, Nicaraguans, etc. It's tit-for-tat really.
And of the ones you listed that are more concentrated in NYC, most of them have at least a large population center in SoFla as well. And with DC it's even more of a numbers game. DC doesn't have the combination of sheer numbers AND percentage that Miami or NY does. What Miami lacks vs NYC in raw numbers, it makes up for in percentage and a sheer presence of those nationalities. And what Miami lacks in percentage vs NYC, it makes up in sheer numbers. With DC, it's just a better percentage of different Latin countries, but not that huge in sheer numbers. With NYC and Miami, it truly is tit-for-tat.
There's also a huge difference between LA and NYC's Latino population: segregation. The neighborhoods that NYC's Latino populations live are more likely to be 100% Latino of various nationalities, rather than the multitude of LA's neighborhoods that may have a Latino plurality, but still have other ethnic groups in them.
I think you often find neighborhoods that have more than one ethnic group. Jackson Heights, Corona and Sunset Park are good examples. The biggest difference between NYC and everywhere else is that so many different Hispanic groups have been able to win physical territories. So you'll have a Dominican block, a Mexican block, a Peruvian block or a Bangledeshi block all in the same neighborhood.
This thread is about CITIES, of which New York CITY as legally defined has more Latinos, a more diverse Latino pool, and more Spanish speakers than the legally defined CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
Where does the OP state that this thread is just about cities? You made about just "cities" because you know the LA area has way more latinos than the NY area. NYC has twice as many people than the city of LA, over 4 million more, and with it's diversity it should have more in every ethnic group. Nobody made this strictly about cities except you because you know you'll lose the argument if you don't restrict it to just cities. You're so transparent, give me a break.
Quote:
Please don't move the goal posts when they are convenient.
Irony at it's best, that is EXACTLY what you did here. Rarely does a thread on this forum focus solely on city limits.
The OP never stated this comparison is strictly for city limits so it is perfectly fair to compare metro areas. You didn't set the parameters of this thread nor did you create this thread, so quit acting like you did and stop trying prevent people from comparing metro areas.
What's even more ironic is that you only use cities when it comes to NYC and LA but sure don't hesitate to use Chicaoland's and the Bay Area's latino figures. At least be consistent with your BS.
Last edited by sav858; 04-11-2012 at 03:08 PM..
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.
