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.
The thing with Osaka is that it's such a vast metropolis. It's huge, one of the worlds de facto largest cities with an oversized economy to boot.
I think the place gets unfairly overlooked because it plays second wheel to Greater Tokyo.
Japan in general meets all my requirements of "international". I finally read the OP's post and while he did emphasize on the linguistic & cosmopolitan/diversity features of a city I think he did a pretty thorough job of including other things as well.
Osaka like Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, Bay Area (California), New York, London, Hong Kong, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, Moscow, Toronto, Berlin, Sao Paulo, Mumbai, Mexico City, Shanghai, & Paris attracts talented & educated people. It's possibly one of the most innovative cities on the entire planet. It's technology so far ahead of the rest of the world (as are Tokyo & Seoul) with such modern infrastructure, road systems, train system, & so on. Some powerful business capabilities with a world class standard on crime & poverty- in extension prosperity.
Osaka has an economy nearly as large as that of Paris. It's definitely in the business discussion with a resume like that. However if multiculturalism & linguistic diaspora were the only things we were talking about then no doubt Seoul, Tokyo, & Osaka would make their exits and Los Angles, Toronto, Chicago, or the Bay Area would make their entrances into it.
I felt sort of weird not putting Los Angeles, Toronto, & Chicago in the top 10 initially- all of which on all accounts register but then thought of an international standard of how I view cities and they just barely fell short.
Right, but like I guessed and you said and confirmed, you aren't looking at what the OP asked.
I like Osaka and agree with your points to a large extent, but obviously it doesn't mesh with what's being asked in the topic.
What about it? Mostly Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Americans. There is cross-border trade, but there are other places with more and the trade there is mostly between two countries. There isn't really much in terms of international headquarters or anything, but there is a good deal of Department of Defense stuff which could be argued to be very international. However, I don't see a particularly strong top 10 argument overall.
Seoul, Moscow, Bangkok, Sao Paulo, Osaka, Mumbai?? Lol, just because a city is big doesn't mean it's international.
Don't see why you're lol'ling on some of these
Seoul -- only for large corporate conglomerates and that it exercises a strong international influence due to its media and corporate influence, but definitely not on the multiethnic end
Moscow -- has similar attributes to what was described for Seoul, while also having strong political influence and being one of the top multi-ethnic cities and metros due to its close relationship with several former Soviet Union and some Eastern Bloc and former Cold War allies. The foreign-born population listing has them ranked pretty high so it's odd that that's a surprise to you. In addition to that is Moscow being a magnet for internal migrants and there is pretty substantial variation within Russia's population.
Sao Paulo -- this has been discussed before with Sao Paulo being international in a lot of ways and though lower down on first-generation immigrant numbers than many of the other cities listed, it's still fairly high up. It also features quite a few ethnic enclaves and neighborhoods as you've asked for in the OP despite the strong assimilationist (is that a word?) aspect of it.
Osaka -- has similar attributes as Seoul but on a smaller scale, and I can understand this not making the cut based on what you mentioned
Mumbai -- there is a lot of internal diversity within India (arguably more so than any country) and they do form enclaves in Mumbai which attracts a lot more domestic migration than international (there is some, but not all that much compared to most of the top cities mentioned), so it's understandable why this should not be put near the top.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Chicago compared to what? It's easily more culturally diverse (not just racially/ethnically) and has a larger born population by numbers or percentages than most of the world and is regional/national/international headquarters for a lot of international corporations.
Here's a collection of indices on foreign-born population:
This is before you take into account the massive second and sometimes third generation migrants who still retain aspects of the old culture or the fairly significant internal diversity within the US (the southwest, Puerto Rico, northeasterners, african-american cultures from all parts, the upper midwest, etc.). I understand the easy argument for why LA, NYC, Paris or London in comparison to Chicago, but it's a much harder comparison in regards to other cities.
Do you have a percentage for Chicago?
It just annoys me when ignorant people 'pooh pooh' lol Australian cities knowing nothing about them only to cite American cities as being more international. Going by an estimate cities like Sydney have far more overseas born than Chicago. Although Chicago is probably more connected than I give it credit for. It's pretty isolated in the middle of the American continent which is a strike against it compared to a place like Singapore or Dubai.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Don't see why you're lol'ling on some of these
Seoul -- only for large corporate conglomerates and that it exercises a strong international influence due to its media and corporate influence, but definitely not on the multiethnic end
Moscow -- has similar attributes to what was described for Seoul, while also having strong political influence and being one of the top multi-ethnic cities and metros due to its close relationship with several former Soviet Union and some Eastern Bloc and former Cold War allies. The foreign-born population listing has them ranked pretty high so it's odd that that's a surprise to you. In addition to that is Moscow being a magnet for internal migrants and there is pretty substantial variation within Russia's population.
Sao Paulo -- this has been discussed before with Sao Paulo being international in a lot of ways and though lower down on first-generation immigrant numbers than many of the other cities listed, it's still fairly high up. It also features quite a few ethnic enclaves and neighborhoods as you've asked for in the OP despite the strong assimilationist (is that a word?) aspect of it.
Osaka -- has similar attributes as Seoul but on a smaller scale, and I can understand this not making the cut based on what you mentioned
Mumbai -- there is a lot of internal diversity within India (arguably more so than any country) and they do form enclaves in Mumbai which attracts a lot more domestic migration than international (there is some, but not all that much compared to most of the top cities mentioned), so it's understandable why this should not be put near the top.
Yes but demographically Moscow, Seoul, SP, Osaka are overwhelmingly Russian, Korean, Brazilian and Japanese. Go to the downtowns of these cities and I doubt you'll find yourself out-numbered by foreigners. Mumbai especially is huge in an Indian context but it's not one of the world cities.
Yes but demographically Moscow, Seoul, SP, Osaka are overwhelmingly Russian, Korean, Brazilian and Japanese. Go to the downtowns of these cities and I doubt you'll find yourself out-numbered by foreigners. Mumbai especially is huge in an Indian context but it's not one of the world cities.
True, I wouldn't put Seoul, Osaka, or Mumbai into contention (though Mumbai has ethnic enclaves/neighborhoods in spades, just not international enclaves/neighborhoods). Moscow does really well on the factors of international influence and the head of international corporations, conventions, institutes and universities, though it is percentage-wise heavily Russian though heavy on foreign-born population in absolute numbers. Sao Paulo is heavily Brazilian, but part of that is due to how accepting it is of foreign migrants and that doesn't mean the enclaves or the cultures from the ancestral countries have been erased. You did, after all, put some cities on your original list that do poorly in some of the metrics. I think depending on how we weigh the factors you put in, Sao Paulo and Moscow could contend pretty well with some of those cities. And again, I think leaving out the American metros of LA, the Bay Area and Chicago is pretty contentious.
It just annoys me when ignorant people 'pooh pooh' lol Australian cities knowing nothing about them only to cite American cities as being more international. Going by an estimate cities like Sydney have far more overseas born than Chicago. Although Chicago is probably more connected than I give it credit for. It's pretty isolated in the middle of the American continent which is a strike against it compared to a place like Singapore or Dubai.
I don't think anybody is denying Australian cities are diverse, but you have to understand the big cities of the US like NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago are very, very diverse.
About Chicago. There is a zip code in town which was recently THE most diverse zip code in the entire United States, and if it's not anymore, it's in the top 3. There's over 40 languages spoken in the schools in that area. There are MANY multi national corporations here. Just in my small division of my multi national corporation, I have coworkers from Poland, South Korea, China, Japan, Lebanon, Venezuela, Mexico, England, Australia, England, and another whose mother is from Brazil.
According to the 2011 American Community Survey, 580,000 of Chicago's 2.7 million people weren't even born in the US. That's 21% of everyone in the city, not counting someone even who is first generation born American from foreign parents.
Some of the biggest groups born outside of the US:
Mexico: 265,547
Poland: 40,540
China: 28,356
Philippines: 19,340
India: 17,531
Ecuador: 16,130
Guatemala: 15,541
Korea: 8261
Ukraine: 6976
Pakistan: 5746
Iraq: 4846
and many others. This is not counting the other 7+ million people who live in the suburbs. I could certainly maybe provide those numbers though.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
I don't think anybody is denying Australian cities are diverse, but you have to understand the big cities of the US like NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago are very, very diverse.
About Chicago. There is a zip code in town which was recently THE most diverse zip code in the entire United States, and if it's not anymore, it's in the top 3. There's over 40 languages spoken in the schools in that area. There are MANY multi national corporations here. Just in my small division of my multi national corporation, I have coworkers from Poland, South Korea, China, Japan, Lebanon, Venezuela, Mexico, England, Australia, England, and another whose mother is from Brazil.
According to the 2011 American Community Survey, 580,000 of Chicago's 2.7 million people weren't even born in the US. That's 21% of everyone in the city, not counting someone even who is first generation born American from foreign parents.
Some of the biggest groups born outside of the US:
Mexico: 265,547
Poland: 40,540
China: 28,356
Philippines: 19,340
India: 17,531
Ecuador: 16,130
Guatemala: 15,541
Korea: 8261
Ukraine: 6976
Pakistan: 5746
Iraq: 4846
and many others. This is not counting the other 7+ million people who live in the suburbs. I could certainly maybe provide those numbers though.
Let's compare metro with metro, if we're comparing world cities. Sydney's metro has almost as many foreign born people as Chicago's metro, and Chicago is about twice as big. If one compared Sydney to Chicago 'city', i.e. the inner area, it'd easily be over 50% born overseas. In inner city it hardly even feels like Australia culturally.
Let's compare metro with metro, if we're comparing world cities. Sydney's metro has almost as many foreign born people as Chicago's metro, and Chicago is about twice as big. If one compared Sydney to Chicago 'city', i.e. the inner area, it'd easily be over 50% born overseas. In inner city it hardly even feels like Australia culturally.
I'm not trying to get in a pissing match about Sydney. Anybody who knows about foreign cities knows that Sydney has one of the highest foreign born populations in the world.
What I'm saying has nothing to do with Sydney. I'm expanding on the fact that you seem to think Chicago is somehow cut off from the rest of the world which is extremely far from the truth. The Metro area of Chicago has over 1.7 million foreign born residents. Who knows how many others are first generation (many, many of them).
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.
