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.
So a much bigger city wins in raw numbers? Big shocker there.
At the metro level, Austin has higher percentages of both foreign born and foreign language. Atlanta = "way more international" does not compute based on actual facts..
Ehhhh....lets look at those numbers in detail.
Foreign born populations by Metro Area:
Atlanta - 810,728 - 13.5%
Austin - 320,780 - 14.4%
Largest immigrant groups by Metro Area. Ill list all over 20K in Atlanta and 7.5K in Austin to account for size difference.
Atlanta:
Mexico: 150,554
India - 93,397
Jamaica - 40,397
China - 34,698
Korea - 33,691
Vietnam - 33,684
Guatemala - 28,920
Nigeria - 22,830
El Salvador - 20,510
Austin:
Mexico - 134,557
India - 32,154
China - 15,020
Vietnam - 11,390
Honduras - 8,882
Languages Spoken at Home other than English with a breakdown of them
Atlanta - 1,049,023 - 18.6%
Austin - 593,600 - 28.4%
Atlanta
Spanish - 527,076
Indo-European Languages - 225,178
Asian/Pacific Island Languages - 201,360
Other languages - 95,409
Austin
Spanish - 434,916
Indo-European Languages - 68,435
Asian/Pacific Island Languages - 70,475
Other Languages - 19,774
Diplomatic Missions by Metro Area
Atlanta - 27
Argentina, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and United Kingdom.
Austin - 2
Ireland and Mexico
Heres why I think the data clearly points to Atlanta being a significantly more international city. Austin's international ties are overwhelmingly to one country and that is Mexico with India being a distant secondary. Austin doesnt have a breadth of Hispanic cultures, it has a very large population of Mexicans. Atlanta actually preforms much better per capita among non-Mexican Hispanic cultures.
Then you have to look beyond simple demographics. Atlanta has a much larger presence of diplomatic missions and foreign companies with offices.
None of this is to hate on Austin. Its becoming more diverse by the day. But as for the opinion "Atlanta is significantly more international than Austin", I do agree with it.
Atlanta's historic architecture is all dinky or nonexistent compared to somewhere like Cleveland. It must have been a lackluster place in 1950. The city is known for being religious, but Denver (known for being not religious) has bigger, better, and nicer cathedrals than Atlanta.
Of course Cleveland has more historic architecture than Atlanta for sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean Atlanta's is "dinky." A lot was lost to the wrecking ball over time, but some jewels were preserved also, including the old downtown, the Fairlie-Poplar Historic District, the former Sears warehouse which now houses Ponce City Market, and the Fox Theater.
In 1950, Atlanta was the nation's 33rd largest city with 331K people, around the size of Rochester and San Diego. Here's how it looked from above and these are some street-level pics from the 50's.
I wouldn't doubt Denver has bigger, better, and nicer cathedrals than Atlanta as Atlanta doesn't have a significant Catholic/Anglican history compared to more historic cities, and when such cathedrals were being built, most of the country was pretty religious. Even so, I'm pretty sure Denver doesn't have a church that's as historic and well-known as Ebenezer Baptist Church. The largest Hindu temple of its kind outside of India is also located in the Atlanta area.
So looks to me like you're using Atlanta's city and county population to make your argument against Austin? I'm no fan of Austin but you can't have it both ways man.
I didn't know if he was using city stats for Austin or not, but my point was that the vast majority of Atlanta's foreign-born population is in the suburbs; I can't even think of a sizable immigrant community in the city proper off the top of my head. If the same is true of Austin, then it's fair game to use its core counties as well. The point is to get an accurate picture of the foreign-born population in each metro, not to employ a double standard so Atlanta can "win."
That would represent Atlanta having more international diversity. I don't agree at all that it would make Atlanta "way more international".
Agreed. And to be clear, I never made the point that Atlanta is way more international than Austin. I was only asking if your stats for Austin's foreign-born population were limited to the city because if so, that puts Atlanta at a statistical disadvantage since its foreign-born population is mostly located in suburban areas.
Quote:
But, it's not clear that this is the case anyway. Austin and Atlanta are effectively identical in terms of European and Asian-born populations. Atlanta has more people from Africa, whereas Austin has more people from Latin America. Overall Atlanta is more heavily American-born than is Austin, and a higher percentage of Austinites know how to speak a foreign language than do Atlantans.
Those are pretty broad categories though. For instance, the link I provided earlier concerning Austin's immigrant population shows that those born in Mexico by themselves make up about 42% of the immigrant population. Country-level data would be needed to get a sense of just how international each city is.
Also, I'm sure that Atlanta being a more popular destination for Black immigrants from the Anglophone Caribbean plays at least a small role in its lower share of non-English speakers.
Fair point, but Macon has more historical oomph and nice churches to it than ATL does and that's protestant too. It's just one indicator of how the new south just means there's not much nice old stuff around.
Sure Macon has more historical "oomph" to it given its size but I seriously doubt it has more historic churches. Note that not all historic houses of worship are architecturally ornate or what some would call impressive. And for various reasons, many, or probably even most, of the historic churches in Atlanta are worshipping in an edifice built several decades after its founding.
Foreign born populations by Metro Area:
Atlanta - 810,728 - 13.5%
Austin - 320,780 - 14.4%
Largest immigrant groups by Metro Area. Ill list all over 20K in Atlanta and 7.5K in Austin to account for size difference.
Atlanta:
Mexico: 150,554
India - 93,397
Jamaica - 40,397
China - 34,698
Korea - 33,691
Vietnam - 33,684
Guatemala - 28,920
Nigeria - 22,830
El Salvador - 20,510
Austin:
Mexico - 134,557
India - 32,154
China - 15,020
Vietnam - 11,390
Honduras - 8,882
Languages Spoken at Home other than English with a breakdown of them
Atlanta - 1,049,023 - 18.6%
Austin - 593,600 - 28.4%
Atlanta
Spanish - 527,076
Indo-European Languages - 225,178
Asian/Pacific Island Languages - 201,360
Other languages - 95,409
Austin
Spanish - 434,916
Indo-European Languages - 68,435
Asian/Pacific Island Languages - 70,475
Other Languages - 19,774
Diplomatic Missions by Metro Area
Atlanta - 27
Argentina, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and United Kingdom.
Austin - 2
Ireland and Mexico
Heres why I think the data clearly points to Atlanta being a significantly more international city. Austin's international ties are overwhelmingly to one country and that is Mexico with India being a distant secondary. Austin doesnt have a breadth of Hispanic cultures, it has a very large population of Mexicans. Atlanta actually preforms much better per capita among non-Mexican Hispanic cultures.
Then you have to look beyond simple demographics. Atlanta has a much larger presence of diplomatic missions and foreign companies with offices.
None of this is to hate on Austin. Its becoming more diverse by the day. But as for the opinion "Atlanta is significantly more international than Austin", I do agree with it.
Pretty compelling data to support the assertion that Atlanta is indeed a good bit more international than Austin. Thanks for doing the legwork on that.
Foreign born populations by Metro Area:
Atlanta - 810,728 - 13.5%
Austin - 320,780 - 14.4%
Largest immigrant groups by Metro Area. Ill list all over 20K in Atlanta and 7.5K in Austin to account for size difference.
Atlanta:
Mexico: 150,554
India - 93,397
Jamaica - 40,397
China - 34,698
Korea - 33,691
Vietnam - 33,684
Guatemala - 28,920
Nigeria - 22,830
El Salvador - 20,510
Austin:
Mexico - 134,557
India - 32,154
China - 15,020
Vietnam - 11,390
Honduras - 8,882
Languages Spoken at Home other than English with a breakdown of them
Atlanta - 1,049,023 - 18.6%
Austin - 593,600 - 28.4%
Atlanta
Spanish - 527,076
Indo-European Languages - 225,178
Asian/Pacific Island Languages - 201,360
Other languages - 95,409
Austin
Spanish - 434,916
Indo-European Languages - 68,435
Asian/Pacific Island Languages - 70,475
Other Languages - 19,774
Diplomatic Missions by Metro Area
Atlanta - 27
Argentina, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and United Kingdom.
Austin - 2
Ireland and Mexico
Heres why I think the data clearly points to Atlanta being a significantly more international city. Austin's international ties are overwhelmingly to one country and that is Mexico with India being a distant secondary. Austin doesnt have a breadth of Hispanic cultures, it has a very large population of Mexicans. Atlanta actually preforms much better per capita among non-Mexican Hispanic cultures.
Then you have to look beyond simple demographics. Atlanta has a much larger presence of diplomatic missions and foreign companies with offices.
None of this is to hate on Austin. Its becoming more diverse by the day. But as for the opinion "Atlanta is significantly more international than Austin", I do agree with it.
I see a bunch of raw counting statistics comparing two metros of vastly different sizes. Of course a metro of 2 million people does not have diplomatic missions of foreign countries. How does that have any impact for a normal person living in the city?
At the end of the day, a higher percentage of Atlantans are born and raised in the United States than are Austinites. That means that, proportionally, more Austinites are international than Atlantans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I didn't know if he was using city stats for Austin or not, but my point was that the vast majority of Atlanta's foreign-born population is in the suburbs; I can't even think of a sizable immigrant community in the city proper off the top of my head. If the same is true of Austin, then it's fair game to use its core counties as well. The point is to get an accurate picture of the foreign-born population in each metro, not to employ a double standard so Atlanta can "win."
Austin's suburbs are a bit less diverse than the city limits overall, but not by a huge margin. Austin's metro remains more foreign-born (and much more likely to speak a language other than English) than Atlanta's metro.
I see a bunch of raw counting statistics comparing two metros of vastly different sizes. Of course a metro of 2 million people does not have diplomatic missions of foreign countries. How does that have any impact for a normal person living in the city?
At the end of the day, a higher percentage of Atlantans are born and raised in the United States than are Austinites. That means that, proportionally, more Austinites are international than Atlantans.
I accounted for the different sizes. As for the diplomatic missions, that data by itself doesnt mean a lot. In conjunction with many other factors (the much more diverse immigrant population groups, the larger concentration of international offices, etc.) it does say something.
What it really means is that Austin is a lot more Mexican. Yes, Mexico is an international country. But we have to follow the logic to the end. Are we going to say McAllen is more international than Atlanta? What about El Centro, CA?
Have a massive number of people from one country doesnt make a place more international than having large immigrant communities from a large number of countries.
I accounted for the different sizes. As for the diplomatic missions, that data by itself doesnt mean a lot. In conjunction with many other factors (the much more diverse immigrant population groups, the larger concentration of international offices, etc.) it does say something.
What it really means is that Austin is a lot more Mexican. Yes, Mexico is an international country. But we have to follow the logic to the end. Are we going to say McAllen is more international than Atlanta? What about El Centro, CA?
Have a massive number of people from one country doesnt make a place more international than having large immigrant communities from a large number of countries.
Uhmm, yes? Particularly in the context that this came up in. It's fair to say that McAllen with 75% of its population speaking Spanish at home may be a bit less traditionally southern in culture and have less southern accents than Atlanta.
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.
