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.
Regarding diversity....if you look at it like White/Black/Hispanic/Asian, then certainly LA is on par with NY.
However - if you break those racial categories down further - NYC destroys LA.
Take the Black population for instance. In LA it is primarily African American. In NYC the Black population is highly represented by West Indians (mainly Jamaicans, Hatians, Trinidadians and Guyanese), and sub-Saharan Africans - all first or second generation immigrants. I'd say the latter two categories account for approximately 35-40% of the black population in NYC,
Let's look at the Asian population. LA's is very diverse, no doubt, but again, is overwhelmingly represented by East Asian varieties. While NYC also has large amounts of East Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese), it also has a very large South Asian population. NYC proper (not the metro) has over 300,000 South Asians (roughly 200,000 Indians and 50K Pakistanis and Bangladeshis each). LA does not have one tenth of those numbers.
As for Hispanic population, of course LA is renowned for being a centre of Mexican immigration. The Mexican population in NYC is relatively smaller, however, the Hispanic population is comprised of Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians and Ecuadorians in large large quantities.
Finally - the White population, Over 500,000 New Yorkers who consider themselves "White" were born in Europe. That's almost 1/5th of the entire NYC white population. Foreign born. If you think about that statistic, it's incredible.
So all in all, while LA may appear to be as diverse as NYC, when you break down the racial and ethnic categories it becomes clearly apparent that NYC is far more international and diverse. The only cities which can compare are Toronto and London.
Which city comes after LA in terms of its international, cosmopolitan ambiance?
NYC is way more cosmopolitan than LA. That's fact, not opinion. NYC is the definition of cosmopolitan. You think a large Hispanic population makes a city cosmopolitan? Because it doesn't, NYC is far ahead of LA.
Who cares what New Yorkers say? Why don't you show the maturity that Angelenos have over New Yorkers and admit there are cities better than LA. I mean in a world with a population nearing 7 Billion, I'm sure there's some city that out does LA. Right? And if you still deny that, then you're on some really wicked drugs and have altered every thought in your brain.
LA better than NYC? that's a good one lol.. because NYC is the best city in the world.
Regarding diversity....if you look at it like White/Black/Hispanic/Asian, then certainly LA is on par with NY.
However - if you break those racial categories down further - NYC destroys LA.
Take the Black population for instance. In LA it is primarily African American. In NYC the Black population is highly represented by West Indians (mainly Jamaicans, Hatians, Trinidadians and Guyanese), and sub-Saharan Africans - all first or second generation immigrants. I'd say the latter two categories account for approximately 35-40% of the black population in NYC,
Let's look at the Asian population. LA's is very diverse, no doubt, but again, is overwhelmingly represented by East Asian varieties. While NYC also has large amounts of East Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese), it also has a very large South Asian population. NYC proper (not the metro) has over 300,000 South Asians (roughly 200,000 Indians and 50K Pakistanis and Bangladeshis each). LA does not have one tenth of those numbers.
As for Hispanic population, of course LA is renowned for being a centre of Mexican immigration. The Mexican population in NYC is relatively smaller, however, the Hispanic population is comprised of Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians and Ecuadorians in large large quantities.
Finally - the White population, Over 500,000 New Yorkers who consider themselves "White" were born in Europe. That's almost 1/5th of the entire NYC white population. Foreign born. If you think about that statistic, it's incredible.
So all in all, while LA may appear to be as diverse as NYC, when you break down the racial and ethnic categories it becomes clearly apparent that NYC is far more international and diverse. The only cities which can compare are Toronto and London.
Case closed.
This is true, on the surface, LA might appear nearly as racially diverse, but get right down to it, there is no comparison. This is a deal of facts, and NYC is far more diverse than LA.
I'm from California and now live in NYC. No doubt, NYC is far more diverse and cosmopolitan. The post below sums up my thoughts exactly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraza9
Regarding diversity....if you look at it like White/Black/Hispanic/Asian, then certainly LA is on par with NY.
However - if you break those racial categories down further - NYC destroys LA.
Take the Black population for instance. In LA it is primarily African American. In NYC the Black population is highly represented by West Indians (mainly Jamaicans, Hatians, Trinidadians and Guyanese), and sub-Saharan Africans - all first or second generation immigrants. I'd say the latter two categories account for approximately 35-40% of the black population in NYC,
Let's look at the Asian population. LA's is very diverse, no doubt, but again, is overwhelmingly represented by East Asian varieties. While NYC also has large amounts of East Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese), it also has a very large South Asian population. NYC proper (not the metro) has over 300,000 South Asians (roughly 200,000 Indians and 50K Pakistanis and Bangladeshis each). LA does not have one tenth of those numbers.
As for Hispanic population, of course LA is renowned for being a centre of Mexican immigration. The Mexican population in NYC is relatively smaller, however, the Hispanic population is comprised of Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians and Ecuadorians in large large quantities.
Finally - the White population, Over 500,000 New Yorkers who consider themselves "White" were born in Europe. That's almost 1/5th of the entire NYC white population. Foreign born. If you think about that statistic, it's incredible.
So all in all, while LA may appear to be as diverse as NYC, when you break down the racial and ethnic categories it becomes clearly apparent that NYC is far more international and diverse. The only cities which can compare are Toronto and London.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkhyperchaos
This is true, on the surface, LA might appear nearly as racially diverse, but get right down to it, there is no comparison. This is a deal of facts, and NYC is far more diverse than LA.
It's one of the only two cities that can compete in diversity, the other being London. And even then, I think NYC is more diverse than London.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Haha, man, if you read my posts above, I've already been saying NYC is more diverse. The person you'd want to tell all this to is theoneandonlyLA. He's your guy. I already know these things man.
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.
