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.
Apples to Apples is Metro Division if we're going to include ONLY the statistical area where Oakland is the largest city, the East Bay in the context of the Census Bureau is known as the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metro Division.
In other words,
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale MD vs Oakland-Fremont-Hayward MD
Or you could just compare the SF Bay Area and L.A. Metro area straight up. You can't expand and contract the boundaries you want to use whenever you see fit.
Or you could just compare the SF Bay Area and L.A. Metro area straight up. You can't expand and contract the boundaries you want to use whenever you see fit.
Yes but this thread is not about the entire Bay Area, but Oakland and its area of influence.
And it just so happens that the East Bay is recognized by the Census Bureau as the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metro Division.
That's apples and apples.
Black Alone or Combined With Another Race, 2011 US Census Bureau Estimates Oakland-Fremont-Hayward MD 321,095 12.3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale MD 932,066 9.4%
Yes but this thread is not about the entire Bay Area, but Oakland and its area of influence.
And it just so happens that the East Bay is recognized by the Census Bureau as the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metro Division.
That's apples and apples.
Black Alone or Combined With Another Race, 2011 US Census Bureau Estimates
Oakland-Fremont-Hayward MD 321,095 12.3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale MD 932,066 9.4%
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat
I don't mean just demographically, but in the overall culture of the city.
Well, if we're going to operate strictly by the OP, then it's still not apples to apples. The "East Bay" is not a city. Oakland, on the other hand, is. There was no mention in the OP about "area of influence." He only asked about "the city."
When comparing the city of Los Angeles to the city of Oakland, it swings more in favor of Oakland. But Los Angeles has nearly three times as many black people and that's something to consider as well.
Richmond, CA is probably the "blackest" place I have ever been. What is interesting though is that statistically it is more Hispanic in most areas - it just seemed like huge majority of the people walking around or in their yards were black.
But is that really apples to apples? I mean, you could simply ignore the non-black areas of L.A. and say, "The ______ area of Los Angeles has a stronger black presence than ______." I could cut out a section of Brooklyn that has a larger black population than the entire city of Atlanta. But that doesn't seem like a straight up comparison to me. Does it seem fair to you?
The thread is "which city on the West Coast has the strongest black presence" not "which metropolitan area on the West Coast has the strongest black presence". The "fairness" of it isn't really too important to me considering that we're already trailing off topic anyway.
And really, I don't see where the population stats factor into this anyway... are you going to argue that San Francisco has a stronger black presence than Richmond because it has a greater total black population than Richmond? That's essentially the same thing you're claiming to be true of LA vs. Oakland. The proportion of the population relative to the others (i.e. the percentage) is more important... 1 million of any one group will still feel like a teaspoon in a sea of 20 million whereas 500 will feel like a sea in a teaspoon of 1,000.
Or you could just compare the SF Bay Area and L.A. Metro area straight up. You can't expand and contract the boundaries you want to use whenever you see fit.
The point being that the Oakland Metro Division is what directly pertains to Oakland and vice versa for LA. Are we not comparing Oakland to LA?
The thread is "which city on the West Coast has the strongest black presence" not "which metropolitan area on the west coast has the strongest black presence". The "fairness" of it isn't really too important to me considering that we're already trailing off topic anyway.
Well, that's not a fair criticism to make since strict city limit boundaries rarely ever apply, particularly with respect to these two cities. When people say "L.A." on C-D, it's often difficult to tell if they mean the city limits, the County, or everything within a 60 mile radius of its downtown. But I'm willing to stick to city limits only if that's what the thread requires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
And really, I don't see where the population stats factor into this anyway... are you going to argue that San Francisco has a stronger black presence than Richmond because it has a greater total black population than Richmond? That's essentially the same thing you're claiming to be true of LA vs. Oakland.
No, it's not the same. At first, I said that L.A. had a stronger black presence because it had both a larger absolute number of blacks and a higher percentage of blacks at the metro level. Then I said the pendulum would swing back towards Oakland if just looking strictly at their city limits. However, I also said that the much larger number of blacks in L.A. should count for something. How much weight should it carry? I'm not sure, but it's a sufficiently large population that it can't be written off as easily as San Francisco's black population, which is only a fraction of the size of LA's.
Well, that's not a fair criticism to make since strict city limit boundaries rarely ever apply, particularly with respect to these two cities. When people say "L.A." on C-D, it's often difficult to tell if they mean the city limits, the County, or everything within a 60 mile radius of its downtown. But I'm willing to stick to city limits only if that's what the thread requires.
True, but my first comments on this thread were made under the impression that we were only comparing Oakland city to LA city.
Quote:
No, it's not the same. At first, I said that L.A. had a stronger black presence because it had both a larger absolute number of blacks and a higher percentage of blacks at the metro level. Then I said the pendulum would swing back towards Oakland if just looking strictly at their city limits. However, I also said that the much larger number of blacks in L.A. should count for something. How much weight should it carry? I'm not sure, but it's a sufficiently large population that it can't be written off as easily as San Francisco's black population, which is only a fraction of the size of LA's.
No, it's not the same. At first, I said that L.A. had a stronger black presence because it had both a larger absolute number of blacks and a higher percentage of blacks at the metro level.
In the context of this thread, absolute number is only relevant when weighed against the entire population, wouldnt you agree?
Also, even at CSA level LA now wins by only 2 tenths of a percentage point.
At MSA level, SF wins.
At Metro Division level, Oakland wins.
At county level, Alameda County wins.
At city level, Oakland wins.
Quote:
Black Alone or Combined With Another Race, 2011 US Census Bureau Estimates
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside CSA 1,392,158 7.6%
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA 564,799 7.4%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA 413,263 9.4%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA 999,267 7.7%
Oakland-Fremont-Hayward MD 321,095 12.3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale MD 932,066 9.4%
Alameda County, CA 210,706 13.7%
Los Angeles County, CA 932,066 9.4%
Oakland city, CA 121,182 30.7%
Los Angeles city, CA 387,058 10.1%
In the context of this thread, absolute number is only relevant when weighed against the entire population, wouldnt you agree?
Well, that's what I said. I don't know what more you expect me to say after I've already said that Oakland would have the advantage when looking at the city limits alone.
There's definitely a balancing act at work. If you have a large city like New York that had more blacks than the entire state of California at one time, and you have a city with far fewer raw numbers but a higher percentage, it's hard to say what the magic formula would be for determining which city has the strongest "black presence." Oakland, for example, has a higher percentage of blacks than NYC, but few would say it has a stronger black presence. Birmingham, on the other hand, has such a high percentage of blacks that many people would say that it has an advantage over NYC in that regard (and has generations of black families and culture to boot). There's no mathematical formula that's going to provide a right answer here.
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.
