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.
Anyone feel free to add to this thread. Please post cities/towns/suburbs/CDPs that are at least 30% Asian (alone or in combination with another race; percentage rounded to nearest tenth) or that have a particular Asian group that is in excess of 10%; please post cities/suburbs with populations greater than 1,000.
I'll start with my home metro area; the populations are listed in parentheses.
Washington, DC MSA
Virginia Suburbs
Centreville (71,135)- 10.4% Korean
Fair Lakes (7,942)- 35.7% Asian incl. 10.3% Korean
Fair Oaks (30,223)- 9.7% Korean
Floris (8,375)- 36.1% Asian incl. 14.9% Indian and 10.8% Chinese
Merrifield (15,212)- 37.6% Asian incl. 11.8% Indian
North Springfield (7.274)- 9.8% Vietnamese
Ravensworth (2,466)- 11.0% Vietnamese
Tysons Corner (19,627)- 30.8% Asian
Belmont (5,966)- 10.4% Indian
Brambleton (9,845)- 14.6% Indian
Dulles Town Center (4,601)- 11.3% Indian
Loudoun Valley Estates (3,656)- 64.1% Asian incl. 41.5% Indian
Oak Grove (1,777)- 49.1% Asian incl. 18.5% Indian
South Riding (24,256)- 31.6% Asian incl. 11.8% Indian
Stone Ridge (7,214)- 30.7% Asian incl. 13.3% Indian
Maryland Suburbs
Burtonsville (8,323)- 9.6% Indian
Clarksburg (13,766)- 35.8% Asian incl. 10.2% Chinese and 10.1% Indian
North Potomac (34,410)- 36.0% Asian incl. 18.4% Chinese
Travilah (12,159)- 31.9% Asian incl. 13.7% Chinese
Anyone feel free to add to this thread. Please post cities/towns/suburbs/CDPs that are at least 30% Asian (alone or in combination with another race; percentage rounded to nearest tenth) or that have a particular Asian group that is in excess of 10%; please post cities/suburbs with populations greater than 1,000.
I'll do the majority Asian alone places first:
Los Angeles Area
Alhambra (population 83,089, 52.4% Asian): 37.3% Chinese, 5.1% Vietnamese, 4.9% Other Asian (most likely other Southeast Asians), 2.5% Filipino, 1.5% Japanese, 1.0% Korean, 0.5% Indian
Los Angeles Area
Alhambra (population 83,089, 52.4% Asian): 37.3% Chinese, 5.1% Vietnamese, 4.9% Other Asian (most likely other Southeast Asians), 2.5% Filipino, 1.5% Japanese, 1.0% Korean, 0.5% Indian
It's really interesting how concentrated the Chinese population in greater Los Angeles is really concentrated in the San Gabriel Valley and how the other Asian-populated suburbs/cities have a higher presence of Filipinos, Koreans and Vietnamese (though Vietnamese seem to be quite concentrated in certain Orange County cities). This is in contrast to the Bay area, in which the Chinese population is pretty dispersed throughout the metro area.
It's really interesting how concentrated the Chinese population in greater Los Angeles is really concentrated in the San Gabriel Valley and how the other Asian-populated suburbs/cities have a higher presence of Filipinos, Koreans and Vietnamese (though Vietnamese seem to be quite concentrated in certain Orange County cities). This is in contrast to the Bay area, in which the Chinese population is pretty dispersed throughout the metro area.
Well, in the City of Los Angeles, the largest groups of Asians are Filipinos (like me ) and Koreans at around 100k each, while the Chinese population in Southern California, unlike around NYC, SF, Vancouver, or Toronto, is nearly almost concentrated ALL outside the center city (in fact, the city of Los Angeles has one of the LOWER percentages of Asians in LA County). The only Asian majority suburb represented that isn't in the SGV is Cerritos (which is in the South Bay, bordering Orange County), which has an extremely diverse Asian population. I always thought the area was way more Korean dominated than the census numbers indicate, but I guess it shows what I know.
Despite this, I don't think most people realize that the SGV as a whole is still 44% Latino, but many of the Latinos who live here are the more Americanized, 2nd-3rd generation variety (yeah CDers, people who grow up here tend to be more Americanzied ) as opposed to the extremely immigrant dominated Asian groups. San Gabriel Valley - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times
In the LA area, different Asian groups typically have their own cities, but not with really strong majorities in their Asian population except in a few areas. Artesia is mainly Indian, Carson is mainly Filipino and Polynesian, Long Beach is mainly a mix of Southeast Asian (Cambodian, Filipino, Vietnamese), Garden Grove/Westminster are Vietnamese, Torrance is Korean/Japanese, etc. Not to say there isn't any mixing between the Asian groups (my neighborhood has Koreans and Filipinos in equal numbers, and my HS yearbook will show a large number of different types of Asian groups but its sorta hard to see who's Filipino just by the name alone....), but it's not like the Bay Area.
The Bay Area DEFINITELY has more of the "Pan Asian" theme going on. Outside of San Francisco (where 2/3 Asians are Chinese) and Vallejo (3/4 Asians are Filipinos), the Asian populations of most of the cities are relatively diverse with good representations of South Asians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos. San Jose, despite it's relatively "Vietnamese" reputation in the Asian world, it has good representation of Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos in the city.
In the NY area, a near majority of Asians live in the city, which makes it more unique than other metro areas where a clear majority of Asians live outside of the central city (with nearly half being Chinese). The Chinese population there is becoming extremely dispersed between Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens (with Queens having a clear majority of Chinese in NYC), while most other Asians have claimed other areas of Queens with their presence without really sharing neighborhoods with other Asian groups (except Flushing has the Korean element in the strongly Chinese community). In New Jersey, there also seems to be the same sort of "one nationality" phenomenon that seems to go in SoCal's Asian population, but with even more apparent majorities in the Asian nationality than here, with places like Palisades Park and Fort Lee (Bergen County generally) being dominated by Koreans, Edison and Plainsboro (Middlesex County generally) being dominated by Indians, Jersey City being the center of the Filipino population, and so on.
However, the "one nationality" rule is even more apparent in Canada. There never has been a push for an "Asian Canadian" identity, so different Asian groups even have less of an incentive to mix amongst each other and typically remain amongst themselves (and not only vis-a-vis other Asians, but starkly, at least I feel like they are less "Canadian" than Asians here are "American"). In the starkest case, take the Vancouver area (source: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...ndex-eng.cfm):
Asians NORTH of the Fraser River (including Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, etc.) are dominated by Chinese.
Asians SOUTH of the Fraser River (including Surrey, Delta, Langley, and even though its outside of the metro area, Abbotsford) are dominated by Indians.
In the Toronto area, there's less of a contrast, but it's still there. In the city of Toronto itself, the Asian population has a near equal representation of South Asian and Chinese (both near 300,000) with a fair amount of Filipinos (100,000) and equal Southeast Asian (almost wholly Vietnamese) and Korean populations (~35,000). However, outside of the city, the Chinese seem to favor northern areas (corresponding to the region of York, including areas like Markham and Richmond Hill) while Indians seem to favor western areas (corresponding to the region of Peel, including areas like Mississauga and Brampton)
In terms of the 5 major Asian centers of North America, I'd rank the "Pan-Asianess" of the areas like this:
1) San Francisco Bay Area
2) Los Angeles Area
3-tied) New York Area
3-tied) Toronto Area (only because the city of Toronto itself doesn't have a clear Asian nationality majority)
5) Vancouver (definitely last)
I have a feeling that the up and coming Washington DC area is a BIT different, and could probably vie with at the very least, the LA area, in terms of being "Pan-Asian" but this could be a function of the much smaller Asian population. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
Very comprehensive post and eye-opening post, as usual.
Quote:
The only Asian majority suburb represented that isn't in the SGV is Cerritos (which is in the South Bay, bordering Orange County), which has an extremely diverse Asian population. I always thought the area was way more Korean dominated than the census numbers indicate, but I guess it shows what I know.
Yup, as data in your previous post indicates, Cerritos is a remarkably diverse Asian municipality. Among the Asian majority municipalities you've listed, Cerritos and Milpitas are easily the most diverse.
Quote:
Despite this, I don't think most people realize that the SGV as a whole is still 44% Latino, but many of the Latinos who live here are the more Americanized, 2nd-3rd generation variety (yeah CDers, people who grow up here tend to be more Americanzied ) as opposed to the extremely immigrant dominated Asian groups. San Gabriel Valley - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times
Whoa, I didn't realize that Hispanics/Latinos outnumbers Asians in the SGV. I didn't realize that the San Gabriel Valley is nearly as populated as the San Fernando Valley.
This is a bit off of the main topic in the thead, but I think it's ridiculous when people claim that the Los Angeles area is largely only Hispanic. Sure, Hispanics in the LA area may be the clearly dominant minority, but when immigrant diversity is examined, Mexicans in LA should be left out of the discussion, as Mexicans are to LA as "ethnic whites" are to New York. When you leave out the Mexicans, the immigrant population of greater Los Angeles is remarkably diverse (with diversity being indicated by representation from a TON of nationalities with no predominant nationalities, excluding Mexicans of course).
Quote:
In the LA area, different Asian groups typically have their own cities, but not with really strong majorities in their Asian population except in a few areas. Artesia is mainly Indian, Carson is mainly Filipino and Polynesian, Long Beach is mainly a mix of Southeast Asian (Cambodian, Filipino, Vietnamese), Garden Grove/Westminster are Vietnamese, Torrance is Korean/Japanese, etc. Not to say there isn't any mixing between the Asian groups (my neighborhood has Koreans and Filipinos in equal numbers, and my HS yearbook will show a large number of different types of Asian groups but its sorta hard to see who's Filipino just by the name alone....), but it's not like the Bay Area.
Even though Artesia has a reputation of being largely Indian, Indians constitute only 7.9% of the total population, whereas Asians of one race represent 37.1%. Indians are actually outnumbered by Filipinos in Artesia.
Quote:
The Bay Area DEFINITELY has more of the "Pan Asian" theme going on. Outside of San Francisco (where 2/3 Asians are Chinese) and Vallejo (3/4 Asians are Filipinos), the Asian populations of most of the cities are relatively diverse with good representations of South Asians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos. San Jose, despite it's relatively "Vietnamese" reputation in the Asian world, it has good representation of Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos in the city.
By "Pan-Asian", do you mean that each city/suburb has a mixed Asian population or do you mean the Asian population of the entire metro contains are balanced representation of all major nationalities? If it's the first, I'll have to agree that the Bay Area is definitely more Pan-Asian, as there are fewer towns in which a particular Asian subgroup constitutes a majority or near majority of the Asian populace. However, if it's the second, I contend that the Los Angeles metro area is more Pan-Asian due to the Bay Area's significantly smaller representation of Koreans, Japanese and other Asian nationalities minimally present in the contiguous United States (such as Thais, Malaysians, etc.).
Quote:
In the NY area, a near majority of Asians live in the city, which makes it more unique than other metro areas where a clear majority of Asians live outside of the central city (with nearly half being Chinese). The Chinese population there is becoming extremely dispersed between Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens (with Queens having a clear majority of Chinese in NYC), while most other Asians have claimed other areas of Queens with their presence without really sharing neighborhoods with other Asian groups (except Flushing has the Korean element in the strongly Chinese community). In New Jersey, there also seems to be the same sort of "one nationality" phenomenon that seems to go in SoCal's Asian population, but with even more apparent majorities in the Asian nationality than here, with places like Palisades Park and Fort Lee (Bergen County generally) being dominated by Koreans, Edison and Plainsboro (Middlesex County generally) being dominated by Indians, Jersey City being the center of the Filipino population, and so on.
VERY true. In the NYC metro area as a whole, the Chinese and Indian populations really dwarf everything else. Also, there aren't too many towns with "kaleidoscopic" Asian populations (i.e. ones in which all subgroups are substantially, if not equally, represented).
Quote:
However, the "one nationality" rule is even more apparent in Canada. There never has been a push for an "Asian Canadian" identity, so different Asian groups even have less of an incentive to mix amongst each other and typically remain amongst themselves (and not only vis-a-vis other Asians, but starkly, at least I feel like they are less "Canadian" than Asians here are "American"). In the starkest case, take the Vancouver area (source: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...ndex-eng.cfm): (http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm%29: - broken link)
It's been a while since I've visited Vancouver, but on my recent trips to Toronto, I noticed that Asians there were more of the "FOB" variety than the assimilated variety; this is likely due to the Asian population in the greater Toronto area literally exploding overnight, unlike the CA metro areas which have lots of 2nd-4th generation Asian-North Americans.
Quote:
In the Toronto area, there's less of a contrast, but it's still there. In the city of Toronto itself, the Asian population has a near equal representation of South Asian and Chinese (both near 300,000) with a fair amount of Filipinos (100,000) and equal Southeast Asian (almost wholly Vietnamese) and Korean populations (~35,000). However, outside of the city, the Chinese seem to favor northern areas (corresponding to the region of York, including areas like Markham and Richmond Hill) while Indians seem to favor western areas (corresponding to the region of Peel, including areas like Mississauga and Brampton)
Yup, VERY TRUE regarding the Chinese favoring northern (York Region) suburbs and the South Asians favoring western (Peel Region) suburbs. Interestingly enough, in the Scarborough area of Toronto (a former large suburb annexed by the city, and containing close to 700,000 people), South Asians and Chinese are in near equal numbers.
Quote:
In terms of the 5 major Asian centers of North America, I'd rank the "Pan-Asianess" of the areas like this:
1) San Francisco Bay Area
2) Los Angeles Area
3-tied) New York Area
3-tied) Toronto Area (only because the city of Toronto itself doesn't have a clear Asian nationality majority)
5) Vancouver (definitely last)
I generally agree. Depending on the definition of Pan-Asian (as alluded to above), I might switch LA with the Bay. I really wish they came out with more specific nationality breakdowns; also Iranians make LA's Asian population remarkably diverse, but they're counted as "non-Hispanic whites" for Census purposes, even though Iran is clearly in Asia.
Would you say that the majority of Vancouver's Asian population is Cantonese?
Quote:
I have a feeling that the up and coming Washington DC area is a BIT different, and could probably vie with at the very least, the LA area, in terms of being "Pan-Asian" but this could be a function of the much smaller Asian population. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
Yeah, in spite of the smaller numbers, the DC Area (unlike the NYC area) has a pretty kaleidoscopic Asian population. This is less so in the Maryland suburbs, but very much the case in Northern Virginia. In spite of being much smaller than the NYC area number-wise, the DC and NYC MSAs have very similar percentages of Asians as do the corresponding Urban Areas.
Whoa, I didn't realize that Hispanics/Latinos outnumbers Asians in the SGV. I didn't realize that the San Gabriel Valley is nearly as populated as the San Fernando Valley.
In terms of the SGV, larger municipalities such as El Monte, South El Monte, Whittier, Baldwin Park and to a lesser extent, and West Covina (which also has a LARGE Filipino population) are either Latino majority or have a LARGE Latino plurality. Places like Covina are also 40% Latino, but are still barely outnumbered by non-Hispanic White.
We hear a LOT about the Asian population of the SGV mostly because they're so new, and the turnover was so drastic. For example, Monterey Park back in 1960 was 75% Non-Hispanic White and 25% Hispanic with a small Japanese population. Same thing with San Marino and Temple City. Over time, the Latino and Non Hispanic White populations are being replaced with Asian populations. Even a place like El Monte, which has ALWAYS had a large Hispanic population is giving way to having more and more Asians (I believe mostly Vietnamese, with some Filipinos).
Quote:
This is a bit off of the main topic in the thead, but I think it's ridiculous when people claim that the Los Angeles area is largely only Hispanic. Sure, Hispanics in the LA area may be the clearly dominant minority, but when immigrant diversity is examined, Mexicans in LA should be left out of the discussion, as Mexicans are to LA as "ethnic whites" are to New York. When you leave out the Mexicans, the immigrant population of greater Los Angeles is remarkably diverse (with diversity being indicated by representation from a TON of nationalities with no predominant nationalities, excluding Mexicans of course).
Well, even with the native born Hispanics here, Mexicans come far and away as the largest foreign born nationality in the Los Angeles area with them alone making up 46% of the total foreign born.
Los Angeles CSA
Foreign Born population: 5,466,672 (30.9% of the total population)
Top 10 total: 4,389,626 (80.3% of the foreign born population)
With that being said, more and more of the Hispanics here are native born. There are around 8 million Hispanics in the LA area (according to the census). Officially, around 3 million of them are foreign born (or 37.5% of Hispanics). Even if there are 1 million illegal Hispanic immigrants here, that would put the foreign born amount at around 44-45% . However, that is for another thread.
Quote:
Even though Artesia has a reputation of being largely Indian, Indians constitute only 7.9% of the total population, whereas Asians of one race represent 37.1%. Indians are actually outnumbered by Filipinos in Artesia.
Yup, you're right. I just happened to mention Artesia because it's really the one of the few places in SoCal that actually has a notable concentration of Indians. However, I will say that lately, I've been noticing more and more Desis walking around and coming here. It's just that Desis tend to be EXTREMELY spread out throughout the region.
Quote:
By "Pan-Asian", do you mean that each city/suburb has a mixed Asian population or do you mean the Asian population of the entire metro contains are balanced representation of all major nationalities? If it's the first, I'll have to agree that the Bay Area is definitely more Pan-Asian, as there are fewer towns in which a particular Asian subgroup constitutes a majority or near majority of the Asian populace. However, if it's the second, I contend that the Los Angeles metro area is more Pan-Asian due to the Bay Area's significantly smaller representation of Koreans, Japanese and other Asian nationalities minimally present in the contiguous United States (such as Thais, Malaysians, etc.).
I did mean the first that every suburb (or nearly every suburb) has a mix. By "diversity of Asian population" as a whole in the metro, I'd agree with you that the LA area takes it, but the Bay Area isn't a slouch either in my experience. The Bay actually has a larger population of Hmong (if Stockton and San Joaquin County is ever included in the Bay Area CSA, it would be an absolute blowout), Laotians, Mongolians, Tibetans, and Afghans (counted as Non Hispanic White because of their linguistic connection to Iran, not that I would agree) than the LA area.
However, there really isn't any dominant nationality in the LA area, as much as the Chinese are for the Bay Area. However, the Chinese in the Bay Area has a significant percentage of American born that the LA area doesn't have. Take it for what it is.
Quote:
It's been a while since I've visited Vancouver, but on my recent trips to Toronto, I noticed that Asians there were more of the "FOB" variety than the assimilated variety; this is likely due to the Asian population in the greater Toronto area literally exploding overnight, unlike the CA metro areas which have lots of 2nd-4th generation Asian-North Americans.
Well, Asians east of the Rockies GENERALLY are way more foreign born than those west of it. Remember: most of the Asians in LA, SF, and Vancouver are either foreign born or 2nd generation to North America. However, due to history and geography, there have been notable long time Asian residents in those regions from the mid-late 1800s onwards. East of the Rockies, these communities literally exploded overnight, contributing to the overall feeling of being way more of the FOB variety because most of these regions were oriented way more toward Europe and (former) European colonial dominions than Asia.
Sure, NYC and Toronto had small Chinese communities (Manhattan's Chinatown is only 8 years younger than SF's) but they were generally an afterthought compared to the millions of Europeans that ended up coming over to the East.
In terms of Vancouver, at least, my friend from up there (he's Indian) once made a joke: the Fraser River forms the boundary between India and China. There's such a stark difference between where the different Asian groups in Vancouver based on that river unlike any other place I've seen in North America. The city of Vancouver (population ~550,000), for example is around 30% Chinese and 5.7% South Asian, while across the river in Surrey (population ~400,000), the population is 27.6% South Asian and 5.1% Chinese.
Quote:
I generally agree. Depending on the definition of Pan-Asian (as alluded to above), I might switch LA with the Bay. I really wish they came out with more specific nationality breakdowns; also Iranians make LA's Asian population remarkably diverse, but they're counted as "non-Hispanic whites" for Census purposes, even though Iran is clearly in Asia.
I wish they did too, but we make do with what we have. It's weird how Central Asians, such as Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and Kirghiz are considered Non-Hispanic White on the US census, despite the fact the NATIVE non-European population is clearly Mongoloid in appearance. However, most of the people from those countries who come here were the European populations (Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, etc.) fleeing the fall of the Soviet Union.
Iran and Afghanistan are defined weirdly. LA definitely has more of the former and the Bay Area definitely has more of the latter. They're sort of the connectors between the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia. In the case of Afghanistan, 44% of the population is ethnic Pashtun, which are also present in Pakistan. However, depending on which side of the border someone was born in, one would be considered "Non-Hispanic White" in the US census or "Asian". But unlike the Pashtun in Pakistan, a HUGE chunk of Pashtun in Afghanistan speak Dari, which is a subdialect of Persian.
In the case of Iran, many of the Iranians who come to the United States come from minorities that may or may not have their own boxes that could be checked off on the US census, diminishing the possible numbers that could be counted part of their population. Many of the Iranians in the LA area (and I would extend to say in the rest of the US) aren't part of the Muslim, Farsi speaking majority but either Jewish or Christian (mostly Armenian) who may identify more with their respective diaspora rather than the Iranian community.
However, barring all that, even if Iranians and Afghans were included in the Asian category, I'd still give it to the Bay in terms of residential diversity with other Asian groups (according to the American Community Survey, they're actually #2 in Iranian population in the US, but a waaaaaaay distant #2 behind LA while SF Bay is #1 for Afghans but not as far ahead of LA in that department as LA is for Iranians vs. the Bay source: Detailed Tables - American FactFinder ). Iranian Jews are pretty concentrated on the southern edge of the San Fernando Valley, West Los Angeles, and Beverly Hills, Iranian born Armenians living in places like Glendale and La Crescenta, and Iranian Muslims (well, those that still identify with it anyways) are in Orange County. In terms of total Asian diversity of the region, it would really only solidify LA as the CLEAR #1.
The nationality data for the 2010 census will be released later this year or early next year. Then I can add it all up.
Quote:
Would you say that the majority of Vancouver's Asian population is Cantonese?
Well, the StatCan website is down right now, so I can't access the exact numbers of people by language, but if I had to guess, I would say a majority, or at least a plurality of Chinese people in Greater Vancouver are Cantonese speaking, given the rush of immigrants from Hong Kong and Southern China in the late 1990s, but it's not like there aren't any from the rest of Mainland China.
On the same token, the VAST majority of South Asians in Greater Vancouver are Sikhs from Punjab. Unlike elsewhere in North America where South Asians are pretty representative in proportionate from city to city, Punjabi Sikhs CLEARLY dominate the landscape for Desis in Vancouver.
I'll post the data when the site comes up again.
Quote:
Yeah, in spite of the smaller numbers, the DC Area (unlike the NYC area) has a pretty kaleidoscopic Asian population. This is less so in the Maryland suburbs, but very much the case in Northern Virginia. In spite of being much smaller than the NYC area number-wise, the DC and NYC MSAs have very similar percentages of Asians as do the corresponding Urban Areas.
That's the sort of impression I got from reading the numbers. I don't live there, and have only visited the area once, so I really honestly don't know. It will be interesting to see if that changes over time.
There were other countries that received sizable Asian immigration. I believe Brazil has more Japanese than any other nation in the Western Hemisphere. Peru also received a fair amount of East Asian immigration. Suriname, or maybe it was Guyana, I think is almost as South Asian as it is Black.
I think it was more encouraged to emigrate to colonies, particularly if the native people had been wiped out or had been sparsely populated. Granted Peru doesn't fit that at all as it had a large native civilization, the Inca, but still otherwise makes sense. So you also see some Pacific islands, ruled by various peoples, that are fairly diverse.
States that still seem to be less than 1% Asian
Mississippi
Montana
South Dakota
West Virginia
Tennessee looks to be the largest states to have less than 1.5% of its population be Asian.
Nashville, TN alos happend to have one of the largest populations of Kurdish people in the USA
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.
Cities/Suburbs with large Asian populations
) and Koreans at around 100k each, while the Chinese population in Southern California, unlike around NYC, SF, Vancouver, or Toronto, is nearly almost concentrated ALL outside the center city (in fact, the city of Los Angeles has one of the LOWER percentages of Asians in LA County). The only Asian majority suburb represented that isn't in the SGV is Cerritos (which is in the South Bay, bordering Orange County), which has an extremely diverse Asian population. I always thought the area was way more Korean dominated than the census numbers indicate, but I guess it shows what I know.
) as opposed to the extremely immigrant dominated Asian groups. 
