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.
This includes South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, etc.), East Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc.) and Southeast Asian (Filipino, Vietnamese, etc.).
For the hard numbers, as of 2011, the Toronto CMA had 1,767,100 Asians (excluding "West Asians"- who'd be classified as white in the US) out of a population of 5,521235, for an Asian percentage of ~32.0%. National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011
The ACS Factfinder 2013 5-year estimates put the Bay Area Asian population at 1,832,965 out of a total population of 8,271,601, for an Asian percentages of ~22.1%.
So by percentages alone, Greater Toronto is significantly more Asian...but some might argue that the Bay Area "feels" more Asian due to perhaps the more even representation between Filipinos/Vietnamese/Chinese, while in the GTA, the Chinese vastly outnumber the other two groups.
So all of that having been said, I do think this is a worthwhile debate.
Just want to add its not a good comparison between a Canadian CMA and a U.S CSA (which the OP is basing his comparison on since he is using 8.2 million for the Bay area) - the U.S CSA encompasses a MUCH larger area and is more regional in nature whereas a Canadian CMA is much more urban.. The Bay area is 27K sq km whereas the Toronto CMA is only 7K sq km to show why the comparison is imbalanced. The closest thing to a U.S CSA for Toronto would be the Golden Horsehoe which would put Toronto at the anchor of a region with 8.7 million covering 31K sq km..much more comparable to The Bay area CSA
Aside from all that - both regions have huge asian populations though I think T.O's might be a bit more eclectic and overall larger including not just east and southeast asian but a massive south asian population.
Just want to add its not a good comparison between a Canadian CMA and a U.S CSA (which the OP is basing his comparison on since he is using 8.2 million for the Bay area) - the U.S CSA encompasses a MUCH larger area and is more regional in nature whereas a Canadian CMA is much more urban.. The Bay area is 27K sq km whereas the Toronto CMA is only 7K sq km to show why the comparison is imbalanced. The closest thing to a U.S CSA for Toronto would be the Golden Horsehoe which would put Toronto at the anchor of a region with 8.7 million covering 31K sq km..much more comparable to The Bay area CSA
Point taken. I'd picked CSA for the Bay Area because it was the only way I could include the numbers from San Jose into the mix...I suppose I could've combined the numbers for the SF-Oakland MSA with those for the San Jose MSA. You're right that the CSA includes a ton of non-urban areas though, but it was the only way to combine the San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose MSAs using one geographical space. The corridors between San Jose and San Francisco, and San Jose and Oakland are both built-out, but they're surrounded by a bunch of exurban/lightly developed areas (some of this due to topography constraints) that are still included in the CSA.
Point taken. I'd picked CSA for the Bay Area because it was the only way I could include the numbers from San Jose into the mix...I suppose I could've combined the numbers for the SF-Oakland MSA with those for the San Jose MSA. You're right that the CSA includes a ton of non-urban areas though, but it was the only way to combine the San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose MSAs using one geographical space. The corridors between San Jose and San Francisco, and San Jose and Oakland are both built-out, but they're surrounded by a bunch of exurban/lightly developed areas (some of this due to topography constraints) that are still included in the CSA.
Nah its cool - just wanted to clarify it - its hard to make apples to apples comparison in terms of population because the countries don't measure in the same way.. The Horsheshoe has massive green areas in its topography with little population because of large marsh and farmlands which are some of the most valuable in Canada. Anyway, I think for purposes of the comparison it would be better to compare the Bay Area CSA to the Golden Horseshoe as they are the most comparable in terms of area and population..
The Golden Horseshoe imo includes CMAs that are (in my very subject opinion) not super connected to Toronto's...I wouldn't imagine that there's a ton of commuter interconnectivity between Hamilton, St. Catherines-Niagara, Kitchener-Waterloo, or Guelph, and Toronto...could be wrong though..
but in the case of the SF MSA and the SJ MSA, they are both VERY interconnected
The Golden Horseshoe imo includes CMAs that are (in my very subject opinion) not super connected to Toronto's...I wouldn't imagine that there's a ton of commuter interconnectivity between Hamilton, St. Catherines-Niagara, Kitchener-Waterloo, or Guelph, and Toronto...could be wrong though..
but in the case of the SF MSA and the SJ MSA, they are both VERY interconnected
Well you'd be surprised if we used U.S style measure of interconnectivity which we don't so its a moot point right? I mean great they are connected by highways with commuters covering huge distances but they aren't really a connected 'urbanized area' and certainly not any great urbanized connectivity with respectable level of contiguous density - but really that escapes the point of this excercise imo - If we are comparing which areas feel more 'Asian' you need to use comparitive areas/populations.. By all means - pick an Area within the Bay Area CSA that is equivalent to the GTA's 6.1 million (2011 census - 2013 estimates are more like 6.34m) over 7100 sq km (I think that you could get your S.F and S.J MSA in such an area.. It would also be easier to find demographic info for the GTA - we largely don't care about super regions that are geared more towards commuter patterns than actual urbanized areas.
Toronto. It has a larger recent immigrant population and the city even looks like a new asian megacity (dense, new, but mostly ugly construction).
lol - well things are on the up in terms of newest construction but yer right - in built form Toronto is certainly more verticle than S.F and more 'Asian' looking - heck Concord cityplace itself is more Asian looking that all of S.F in terms of built form. I know your not a big T.O fan but if you are interested in the development in the city you should take a look at the newest stuff - it really is becoming more showtime with work by Libeskind and soon to be Gehry and Foster to name a few.
Last edited by fusion2; 12-08-2014 at 08:33 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.
