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.
It's not just Europeans or people looking for walkability because they want it.
If you're immigrating from another country and you're trying to get settled, it's not easy to live in a city where you step off the plane and immediately need a car, a driver's license, insurance, etc. to do anything. Just from a practicality standpoint it's a lot easier to get settled in a city where transportation's barrier to entry is low.
Yet Houston was rated the best U.S. city for expats. People coming to America are generally going to favor cost of living, housing and career opportunities over walkability. That’s a luxury. I mean what you think? You think ppl dream of moving to America for the walkability? If walkability made it that much easier why are so many ppl moving out of those cities and in to more car centric cities? Maybe because people in this day and age prioritize cost of living and career opportunities over public transportation.
Thanks for recognizing that, yes, recent immigration numbers are much more relevant to the conversation that the foreign-born population stats you were pulling that include people who came to the US in the 1960s and probably have lived in 3-4 different metros.
Facts are facts, newcomers to the US tend to flock to large, urban and dense locations which is why the top cities for newcomers are not low-density metros like Houston, Dallas, etc. but rather Boston, Seattle, Washington, and SF, periodt.
You provided no proof of anything and are some reason claiming you did.
Show the TOTAL NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS that moved, not useless percentages that show nothing. Houston has more immigrants than Boston by a wide gap, so showing that 1.1% of the total Boston immigrant groups came in more recently vs. Houston's 0.8% is USELESS INFORMATION.
Number of immigrants than entered into the US after 2010 until 2019 by MSA:
New York: 1,416,139
Los Angeles: 740,340
Miami: 698,373
Houston: 505,270
Dallas/Fort Worth: 458,519
Washington DC: 396,687
Chicago: 352,207
San Francisco: 347,306
Boston: 332,295
Seattle/Tacoma: 287,786
Atlanta: 264,586
San Jose: 221,698
Philadelphia: 213,997
Austin: 113,601
Guess what? The metro areas on the top of the list are SUBURBAN in nature other than NYC. The BS theory about people just all moving to places like Seattle and Boston but then fanning out is pure garbage and the numbers show it. People move there from other countries alright, just not to the degree they do to LA, Miami, Houston, and DFW.
Last edited by As Above So Below...; 11-25-2020 at 08:29 PM..
Number of immigrants than entered into the US after 2010 until 2019 by MSA:
New York: 1,416,139
Los Angeles: 740,340
Miami: 698,373
Houston: 505,270
Dallas/Fort Worth: 458,519
Washington DC: 396,687
Chicago: 352,207
San Francisco: 347,306
Boston: 332,295
Seattle/Tacoma: 287,786
Atlanta: 264,586
San Jose: 221,698
Philadelphia: 213,997
Austin: 113,601
Guess what? The metro areas on the top of the list are SUBURBAN in nature other than NYC. The BS theory about people just all moving to places like Seattle and Boston but then fanning out is pure garbage and the numbers show it. People move there from other countries alright, just not to the degree they do to LA, Miami, Houston, and DFW.
Again, if you want an accurate look at recent immigrants, why not use the numbers for people who were overseas 1 year ago? Someone who entered a decade ago in 2010 isn't really a good way to find where new immigrants enter the US.
Number of immigrants that entered the US within the last year by MSA:
153,729 New York City
92,504 Los Angeles
86,331 Miami
69,085 Washington DC
60,585 Dallas
56,751 Chicago
56,529 Houston
53,603 Boston
47,318 San Francisco
43,778 Seattle
36,615 Philadelphia
33,383 San Diego
30,102 Atlanta
29,689 Phoenix
25,559 Tampa
23,253 Riverside
21,929 Minneapolis
21,598 Detroit
20,771 Denver
8,410 St. Louis
So again, if you use the most relevant statistic about recent immigrants, we can see your theory about suburban cities dominating falls apart.
Again, if you want an accurate look at recent immigrants, why not use the numbers for people who were overseas 1 year ago? Someone who entered a decade ago in 2010 isn't really a good way to find where new immigrants enter the US.
Number of immigrants that entered the US within the last year by MSA:
153,729 New York City
92,504 Los Angeles
86,331 Miami
69,085 Washington DC
60,585 Dallas
56,751 Chicago
56,529 Houston
53,603 Boston
47,318 San Francisco
43,778 Seattle
36,615 Philadelphia
33,383 San Diego
30,102 Atlanta
29,689 Phoenix
25,559 Tampa
23,253 Riverside
21,929 Minneapolis
21,598 Detroit
20,771 Denver
8,410 St. Louis
So again, if you use the most relevant statistic about recent immigrants, we can see your theory about suburban cities dominating falls apart.
Are you purposely ignoring the numbers? Suburban metro areas are just as dominant as urban ones. Of the top 5, are 3 suburban and 2 urban. Houston and Dallas dominate over the metro areas you claimed were superior in a previous post.
Are you purposely ignoring the numbers? Suburban metro areas are just as dominant as urban ones. Of the top 5, are 3 suburban and 2 urban. Houston and Dallas dominate over the metro areas you claimed were superior in a previous post.
I don't know what your standard of "suburban" and "urban" are when it comes to major cities, but facts are facts - out of the top 10, 6 are traditionally dense cities with substantial rail infrastructure, and 2 (LA and Miami) are sunbelt cities but still have heavy rail systems and are two of the most dense metros in the country.
Only 2 out of 10 would be considered low-density cities where cars are a necessity.
So yes, my initial hypothesis (that urban, dense and transit-oriented cities are the biggest ports of entry for immigrants) has been proven correct.
I don't know what your standard of "suburban" and "urban" are when it comes to major cities, but facts are facts - out of the top 10, 6 are traditionally dense cities with substantial rail infrastructure, and 2 (LA and Miami) are sunbelt cities but still have heavy rail systems and are two of the most dense metros in the country.
Only 2 out of 10 would be considered low-density cities where cars are a necessity.
So yes, my initial hypothesis (that urban, dense and transit-oriented cities are the biggest ports of entry for immigrants) has been proven correct.
I grew up in Los Angeles. I spend 24 of my 37 years there. Not having a car in LA is as unpleasant there as it would be in Dallas. I suppose if you want to live in North Hollywood and only go downtown, you could get away with it. Almost all of the LA area is VERY car dependent. Miami is the same. They are very much suburban. LA wrote the book on sprawl. As for San Francisco, while the city is very urban, the Bay Area as a whole is definitely not. Most immigrants in the Bay Area are not in SF city.
No, the numbers show that people are not preoccupied with public transit and urbanity when choosing a place to live in the US. Immigrant community size is a MUCH more likely target.
I grew up in Los Angeles. I spend 24 of my 37 years there. Not having a car in LA is almost every bit as unpleasant there as it would be in Dallas. I suppose if you want to live in North Hollywood and only go downtown, you could get away with it. Almost all of the LA area is VERY car dependent. Miami is the same. They are very much suburban. LA wrote the book on sprawl. As for San Francisco, while the city is very urban, the Bay Area as a whole is definitely not. Most immigrants in the Bay Area are not in SF city.
No, the numbers show that people are not preoccupied with public transit and urbanity when choosing a place to live in the US. Immigrant community size is a MUCH more likely target.
I mean, that's an interesting take but the numbers speak for themselves. LA and Miami are two of the densest metropolitan areas in the entire country and the most immigrant-heavy sections in both cities are the densest and most walkable. Yet another stat that backs up my hypothesis.
Two metros (Houston and Dallas) did manage to crack the top 10, but let's accept the stats: large, traditional cities (or denser neighborhoods of the older Sunbelt like LA and Miami) with low barriers of entry for transportation are the top ports of entry for new immigrants, point blank periodt.
I mean, that's an interesting take but the numbers speak for themselves. LA and Miami are two of the densest metropolitan areas in the entire country and the most immigrant-heavy sections in both cities are the densest and most walkable. Yet another stat that backs up my hypothesis.
Two metros (Houston and Dallas) did manage to crack the top 10, but let's accept the stats: large, traditional cities (or denser neighborhoods of the older Sunbelt like LA and Miami) with low barriers of entry for transportation are the top ports of entry for new immigrants, point blank periodt.
Density doesnt equal walkability. The densest neighborhoods are not always the most walkable. This is true in LA, Dallas, and Houston. Dhaka, Bangladesh is the most dense city in the world and its rail map is barely preferable to what Dallas has.
The densest neighborhood in LA is Pico/Union. Its barely pedestrian friendly, there is no public rail transit, and its full of immigrants from El Salvador and Guatemala.
The densest neighborhood in Houston is Gulfton. Its not pedestrian friendly either and there is no rail transit either. Just like Pico/Union, its full of immigrants from El Salvador and Honduras.
Miami is different because you have a lot of people living in high rises by the water which creates density, but Miami's metro rail is pretty useless unless you live along the Dixie Highway or Downtown.
Now, why are these Sunbelt places the most dense? Poverty. You have a bunch of people who cant afford more living a 10 to an apartment in places. Unless youre dealing with a place like NYC or Chicago that is historical dense, density doesnt equal something positive.
Its not density these people are seeking its immigrant community. People move to cities where they can find people like them. If youre from Poland, certainly Chicago would be the first place youd look. If youre from Nigeria, youll look at Houston. If youre Haitian, Miami will probably be your first choice.
Support system. Thats what immigrants are looking for.
Last edited by As Above So Below...; 11-25-2020 at 09:22 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.
