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.
For diversity, I give the edge to Seattle as well.
What are you basing this on? I know there is a way to calculate a "diversity index" among the immigrant population, and I believe I've seen these numbers in the past, but, just glancing at the numbers at the beginning of this thread (Philadelphia is most often in the middle of every category, suggesting a greater balance), I would honestly hypothesize that Philadelphia has the most diverse immigrant population.
In terms of existing population, all three cities seem to have similar diversity levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPMiami
Philadelphia is dead last in all categories, it's just too much in the shadow of NYC to make relevant global connections or to attract immigrants.
This is simply incorrect. It's helpful to look up actual statistics, as opposed to relying in tired media cliches.
Over the past three years for which data is available (2010-2013), here are the net international migration numbers for each of these three metro areas:
Each of these cities is clearly in the same tier in terms of immigration. But if we wanted to nitpick, Philadelphia has come out ahead of Seattle and Atlanta ever-so-slightly in terms of immigrant attraction recently.
If we're counting international flight destinations as part of this conversation, Seattle and Atlanta would likely come out ahead of Philly. However, Seattle and Atlanta are also more isolated.
Philadelphia is also in the middle of the most globally-connected and most significant megalopolis of the US (BosWash), and as such, can easily access many more international destinations at NYC-area airports that are not available at PHL. In addition, as NYC airspace is effective "maxed-out" Philly is likely going to begin to absorb more international air traffic as an alternate to the immediate NYC region. Regarding the recent AA/USAirways merger:
"Philadelphia will likely become the premium east coast hub for international travel, as it’s a much more reliable airport than JFK to route people through"
What are you basing this on? I know there is a way to calculate a "diversity index" among the immigrant population, and I believe I've seen these numbers in the past, but, just glancing at the numbers at the beginning of this thread (Philadelphia is most often in the middle of every category, suggesting a greater balance), I would honestly hypothesize that Philadelphia has the most diverse immigrant population.
In terms of existing population, all three cities seem to have similar diversity levels.
This is simply incorrect. It's helpful to look up actual statistics, as opposed to relying in tired media cliches.
Over the past three years for which data is available (2010-2013), here are the net international migration numbers for each of these three metro areas:
Each of these cities is clearly in the same tier in terms of immigration. But if we wanted to nitpick, Philadelphia has come out ahead of Seattle and Atlanta ever-so-slightly in terms of immigrant attraction recently.
If we're counting international flight destinations as part of this conversation, Seattle and Atlanta would likely come out ahead of Philly. However, Seattle and Atlanta are also more isolated.
Philadelphia is also in the middle of the most globally-connected and most significant megalopolis of the US (BosWash), and as such, can easily access many more international destinations at NYC-area airports that are not available at PHL. In addition, as NYC airspace is effective "maxed-out" Philly is likely going to begin to absorb more international air traffic as an alternate to the immediate NYC region. Regarding the recent AA/USAirways merger:
"Philadelphia will likely become the premium east coast hub for international travel, as it’s a much more reliable airport than JFK to route people through"
How is the world is Atlanta "isolated" we only have the busiest airport in the WORLD??????
I'm speaking to geography and proximity to other urban areas. Neither Atlanta and Seattle are as isolated as, say, Denver, but neither lies within the same type of megalopolis as Philadelphia.
Atlanta is the only one of the three that sees a good amount of immigration from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean. Seattle is skewed heavily to Asia and Philadelphia's international immigration is underwhelming given it size.
Atlanta is the only one of the three that sees a good amount of immigration from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean. Seattle is skewed heavily to Asia and Philadelphia's international immigration is underwhelming given it size.
People will ignore this. These days, Seattle is seen as "diverse". How can a city that is 70% white be diverse? The metro is even more skewed towards white. The city of Seattle is actually becoming less diverse which is pretty hilarious to be honest.
How can you be international if the majority of your foreign born is from one region? Even if Atlanta's foreign born population is lower in %, if the foreign born comes from multiple regions and it's spread out, doesn't it make it more international?
Ever since 2012 though, Seattle has been vastly overrated in many aspects on this forum. I'd imagine that's due to it's massive hype at the moment. Diversity and internationalism are just 2 more of those that's overrated.
Atlanta has more international clout than both of these cities(and it's going to continue to increase). I'm not going to pigeon hole myself into believing foreign born automatically means you're more international or global especially if you don't begin to go deeper into the stats like how much of the foreign born comes from one region.
Atlanta is the only one of the three that sees a good amount of immigration from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean. Seattle is skewed heavily to Asia and Philadelphia's international immigration is underwhelming given it size.
The data don't provide a comprehensive diversity statistic.
In addition, I posted the net international migration numbers in a recent post for each of these metro areas from (2010-2013). As I noted, you will see the Philly has, slightly, come out ahead of Seattle and Atlanta:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Over the past three years for which data is available (2010-2013), here are the net international migration numbers for each of these three metro areas:
Each of these cities is clearly in the same tier in terms of immigration. But if we wanted to nitpick, Philadelphia has come out ahead of Seattle and Atlanta ever-so-slightly in terms of immigrant attraction recently.
Atlanta is the only one to make top 10 out of the three. So how about the Globalness and international clout? But but but, Austin having a higher foreign born population clearly means it's more international than Atlanta though.
And for people who say foreign consulates don't mean much, just look at the top 10...I'd fully believe these are the top 10 most international cities in this county.
Top 10: NYC, DC, LA, Chicago, SF, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, then Seattle/NOLA(tied).
Atlanta is the only one to make top 10 out of the three. So how about the Globalness and international clout? But but but, Austin having a higher foreign born population clearly means it's more international than Atlanta though.
And for people who say foreign consulates don't mean much, just look at the top 10...I'd fully believe these are the top 10 most international cities in this county.
Top 10: NYC, DC, LA, Chicago, SF, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, then Seattle/NOLA(tied).
I'm sure it is mostly to do with the fact that Philly is smack dab in between NYC and DC-the cities with the most foreign consulates in the country BY FAR. I mean DC has 176. NYC has 117 and the UN. The next city on the list is Los Angeles with only 62.
Even Boston, which is much farther away from NYC/DC seems to be effected by the concentration of foreign consulates on The East Coast, as it's stature and foreign born population implies it should have more than Houston, Miami and Atlanta.
I think there is a big difference between "diversity" and "internationalism." Noticeable enough difference too.
For example, if we looked at Sacramento, we would find it to be a very diverse city - perhaps the most diverse in all of the United States - but not an international city though.
Where you live, San Francisco is BOTH diverse and international. At the conclusion of World War II, San Francisco was the chosen location for the Treaty of San Francisco, I would say a very culturally significant international event personally, Sacramento on the other hand is not capable of fostering a diplomatic event of this scale.
Officially signed by representatives of 48 nations that were at the delegation in September of 1951.
I generally agree with this. There's also more to being "cosmopolitan" than having people from different places in the world. There's the dictionary definition which defines it as being "free from local, provincial or national ideas or prejudices" and then the synoynyms for the word, which include "urbane," sophisticated" and "cultured." I think most people usually think of the synonyms when the hear the word "cosmopolitan" than they do the actual textbook definition.
Even Boston, which is much farther away from NYC/DC seems to be effected by the concentration of foreign consulates on The East Coast, as it's stature and foreign born population implies it should have more than Houston, Miami and Atlanta.
Miami-Dade has the highest Foreign Born population (by percentage) in the USA.
I would say after NYC, DC, and LA there is no city clearly more globally connected/international than Miami. Miami has her peers (San Francisco, Boston) but there I'd argue it's more of a case of each city having something the other city not having. In the case of Boston, the Foreign Born population of Miami is staggeringly larger and Miami is more connected to the goings on in Latin America than Boston is to Europe. I'd also say Miami is better globally connected than Houston, and Chicago but these could be contentious.
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.
