[dimondpark]

This was a very interesting post by Lifeshadower at City-Data:

What is the most diverse metropolitan area?
(All data is from American FactFinder)

For the 2000 census, the US census released a diversity index (http://www.census.gov/population/cen...ensr01-104.pdf) calculating the statistical diversity of each county in the United States based on the 8 broad ethno-racial demographic groups seen in the census. If you look on the 4th page of the link above, the census demographers use simple mathematics to determine how they got the index to begin with:

1) Square the percentage of each group analyzed
2) Subtract that number from 1.00 (total diversity)

The range of diversity is from .00 (no diversity at all) to 1.00 (total diversity). For the sake of making our lives easier, I will only analyze five statistically significant groups: i) White Non-Hispanics ii) Black Non-Hispanics iii) Hispanics iv) Asian Non-Hispanics v)Two or more races

If you want to calculate it based on diversity within groups (like Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Indian Americans, etc.), just add those percentages based on the American Community Survey Link above and do the same thing.

Here's the top 11 United States primary census areas by population: Table of United States primary census statistical areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA
5 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA
6 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
7 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA
8 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA
9 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA
10 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA
11 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA


1. New York CSA (New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
54.0% White Non-Hispanic
15.7% Black Non-Hispanic
20.1% Hispanic
8.4% Asian
1.0% Two or More Races
US Census Diversity Index: .595

2. Los Angeles CSA (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
35.4% White Non-Hispanic
6.8% Black Non-Hispanic
43.9% Hispanic
11.3% Asian
1.6% Two or More Races
US Census Diversity Index: .664 (= {[.354*.354] + [.439*.439] + [.113+.113] + [.068*.068]+[.016*.016]} - 1.00)

3. Chicago CSA (Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
57.0% White Non-Hispanic
17.4% Black Non-Hispanic
19.2% Hispanic
5.1% Asian
1.1% Two or More Races
US Census Diversity Index: .605

4. Washington-Baltimore CSA (Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)56.2% White Non-Hispanic
25.9% Black Non-Hispanic
8.9% Hispanic
6.7% Asian
1.8% Two or More Races
US Census Diversity Index: .604

5. Boston-Providence CSA (Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
80.2% White Non-Hispanic
5.1% Black Non-Hispanic
7.8% Hispanic
4.6% Asian
1.3% Two or More Races
US Census Diversity Index: .346

6. San Francisco CSA (San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
46.2% White Non-Hispanic
6.4% Black Non-Hispanic
22.4% Hispanic
21.1% Asian
2.6% Two or more races
US Census Diversity Index: .687 (= {[.462*.462] + [.224*.224] + [.211*.211] + [.064*.064]+[.026*.026]} - 1.00)

7. Dallas-Fort Worth CSA (Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
54.3% White Non-Hispanic
13.3% Black Non-Hispanic
26.0% Hispanic
4.5% Asian
1.3% Two or more races
US Census Diversity Index: .618

8. Philadelphia CSA (Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
68.1% White Non-Hispanic
18.8% Black Non-Hispanic
7.4% Hispanic
4.0% Asian
1.3% Two or more races
US Census Diversity Index: .494

9. Houston CSA (Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
43.2% White Non-Hispanic
16.6% Black Non-Hispanic
33.1% Hispanic
5.6% Asian
0.9% Two or more races
US Census Diversity Index: .676

10. Atlanta CSA (Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
54.8% White Non-Hispanic
29.9% Black Non-Hispanic
9.7% Hispanic
3.9% Asian
1.1% Two or more races
US Census Diversity Index: .599

11. Miami MSA (doesn't have a CSA: Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
38.4% White Non-Hispanic
19.2% Black Non-Hispanic
38.9% Hispanic
2.1% Asian
0.9% Two or more races
US Census Diversity Index: .663

TOP 11 LIST OF MOST DIVERSE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN TERMS OF RACIAL GROUPS (out of the top 11 populated metro areas):
1) San Francisco (.687)
2) Houston (.676)
3) Los Angeles (.664)
4) Miami (.663)
5) Dallas (.618)
6) Chicago (.605)
7) Washington (.604)
8) Atlanta (.599)
9) New York (.595)
10) Philadelphia (.494)
11) Boston (.346)

There. If you want to calculate your metro area/city/county/etc. or add more variables, just do what I did in the above. Just remember that the formula is

1 - ([Group1 squared) + [Group2 squared] + [Group 3 squared] + .......)

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/862009-most-diverse-metropolitan-areas-using-2008-a.html

[dimondpark]

As far as median family incomes, it appears to be a duel between SF and DC.

2008 American Factfinder Community Survey, US Census Bureau

Median Non Hispanic White Family Income, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $110,885
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia $109,646
New York-Newark-Bridgeport $101,196
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana $92,979
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville $92,211
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos $90,527
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City $89,755
Boston-Worcester-Manchester $89,002
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland $88,465
Denver-Aurora-Boulder $87,729
Dallas-Ft Worth $85,044
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud $84,024
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville $83,912
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia $82,604
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach $78,818
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale $75,184
Detroit-Warren-Flint $74,450
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria $69,549

Median Hispanic Family Income, 2008
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia $60,283
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $56,256
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia $51,676
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City $49,208
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach $48,659
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud $48,697
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana $48,330
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos $47,421
Detroit-Warren-Flint $44,987
New York-Newark-Bridgeport $44,266
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale $43,626
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville $41,753
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland $40,445
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville $42,076
Dallas-Ft Worth $40,023
Denver-Aurora-Boulder $39,918
Boston-Worcester-Manchester $39,665
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria $38,989

Median Black Family Income, 2008
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia $65,844
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $57,382
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana $53,405
New York-Newark-Bridgeport $52,480
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville $50,900
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos $50,718
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale $50,459
Boston-Worcester-Manchester $50,215
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville $50,070
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia $46,408
Dallas-Ft Worth $45,562
Denver-Aurora-Boulder $45,463
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City $44,489
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach $44,226
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland $43,696
Detroit-Warren-Flint $37,654
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria $36,556
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud $33,663

Median Asian Family Income, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $102,141
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia $97,768
Detroit-Warren-Flint $90,581
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City $88,894
New York-Newark-Bridgeport $82,655
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos $82,468
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale $81,489
Boston-Worcester-Manchester $81,449
Dallas-Ft Worth $80,200
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville $79,753
Seattle-Tacoma-Bridgeport $78,008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana $77,899
Philadephia-Camden-Vineland $76,877
Denver-Aurora-Boulder $76,074
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville $73,486
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud $70,661
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria $70,408
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach $69,129

Median Multiracial(2 or more Races) Family Income, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $96,253
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia $81,262
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana $68,921
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia $66,905
Denver-Aurora-Boulder $66,177
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos $64,404
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud $63,504
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City $63,245
New York-Newark-Bridgeport $62,106
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville $61,178
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville $60,941
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale $60,798
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland $59,617
Boston-Worcester-Manchester $58,843
Dallas-Ft Worth $54,838
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach $54,373
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria $46,750

[dimondpark]

Here's some related data:

Foreign Born Population, 2008
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 5,774,910...26.0%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 5,446,593...30.6%
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 2,159,193...29.3%
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach 1,995,037...36.8%
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 1,696,418...17.3%
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 1,315,482...15.8%
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 1,246,084...21.3%
Dallas-Ft Worth 1,141,802...17.7%
Boston-Worcester-Manchester 1,049,191...13.9%
Altanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 747,368...13.0%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 682,869...15.9%
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 662,528...22.0%
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 577,610...14.1%
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 545,587...8.5%
Detroit-Warren-Flint 418,450...7.8%
Denver-Aurora-Boulder 372,803...12.2%
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud 292,384...8.1%
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria 148,314...5.1%

Born in Latin America, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 3,303,595
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 2,874,078
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach 1,707,287
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 866,969
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 822,366
Dallas-Ft Worth 776,538
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 726,495
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 490,687
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 484,294
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 391,862
Boston-Worcester-Manchester 474,914
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 345,862
Denver-Aurora-Boulder 214,326
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 161,471
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 123,232
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud 78,152
Detroit-Warren-Flint 54,920
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria 18,928

Born in Asia, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 1,686,347
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 1,523,741
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 1,116,701
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 475,994
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 413,087
Boston-Worcester-Manchester 282,269
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 273,623
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 264,402
Dallas-Ft Worth 242,928
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 232,071
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 205,375
Detroit-Warren-Flint 202,883
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 189,588
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud 110,817
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach 100,892
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 95,838
Denver-Aurora-Boulder 75,553
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria 46,736

Born in Europe, 2008
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 1,087,579
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 398,182
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 293,124
Boston-Worcester-Manchester 252,535
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 215,347
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 156,923
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach 125,952
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 122,927
Detroit-Warren-Flint 114,499
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 102,216
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 74,994
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria 69,873
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 57,867
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 56,867
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 55,846
Denver-Aurora-Boulder 52,959
Dallas-Ft Worth 50,257
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud 38,511

Born in Africa, 2008
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 220,200
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 171,546
Boston-Worcester-Manchester 95,765
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 76,821
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 75,729
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud 55,501
Dallas-Ft Worth 52,812
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 44,814
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 42,409
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 40,282
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 36,722
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 36,646
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach 22,703
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 18,866
Denver-Aurora-Boulder 17,443
Detroit-Warren-Flint 15,160
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 12,335
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria 6,759

Born in Oceania, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-0akland 26,850
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 23,503
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 14,265
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 10,670
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 4,182
Denver-Aurora-Boulder 4,127
Dallas-Ft Worth 3,953
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 3,676
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 3,660
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 3,114
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 3,007
Boston-Worcester-Manchester 2,946
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 2,753
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach 1,918
Detroit-Warren-Flint 1,497
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 1,329
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud 945
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria 793

[novawolverine]

Thanks for doing this. I think to me, anything above .5 is pretty diverse. I don't think it's significant, but SF and DC have the highest % of two or races among these metro's, with SF significantly highest at 2.6, which is what I am. I believe this is self-reported though, so I'm not sure really if this even matters.

I don't know if it was you who did it, but someone broke down the metro's by country, which was pretty interesting.

[Crawford]

This is definitely interesting, but IMO is not a super proxy for diversity.

An area can be 25% Latino, but almost all Latinos are from Mexico. That isn't particularly diverse.

Similarly, an area can be 25% black, but almost all blacks are African Americans. Again, not super-diverse.

The best measure of ethnic diversity (IMO) would be a breakdown of ethnic origin, rather than just putting all folks in one of four bins.

One cannot compare the Latino population in El Paso and the Bronx, and then conclude they're similarly diverse.

[novawolverine]

Also, as with a lot of census data, it can be broken down further. The difference in diversity between inner and outer burbs/counties can be pretty stark, especially when you consider how large some of these CSA's get.

[fleonzo]

This is definitely interesting, but IMO is not a super proxy for diversity.

An area can be 25% Latino, but almost all Latinos are from Mexico. That isn't particularly diverse.

Similarly, an area can be 25% black, but almost all blacks are African Americans. Again, not super-diverse.

The best measure of ethnic diversity (IMO) would be a breakdown of ethnic origin, rather than just putting all folks in one of four bins.

One cannot compare the Latino population in El Paso and the Bronx, and then conclude they're similarly diverse.


:previous: Agreed! And I don't see how the different Ethnic Family Incomes are relevant in this discussion when you have the two largest metros (NYC & LA) having most of the foreign borned populations. That would bring the average down for the different groups as a whole (i.e. Hispanics and Asians).

[brickell]

Recalculating Miami I actually get .664 with rounding... neither here nor there.

I also tried this exercise. Separating the counties of the Miami MSA, Broward (Fort Lauderdale area) is actually the more diverse by this measure. I don't think anyone would actually say that about the place though. It's just that it's southern end as more in common with Miami while it's northern end has more in common with Palm Beach. In simpler terms, there's a south to north gradient of Hispanics and Broward is right in the middle. Although the large Jamaican (and other Caribbean) population certainly gives them a boost too.

Miami-Dade - 0.541
# White non-Hispanic: 17.8%
# Black non-Hispanic: 19.5%
# Hispanics or Latinos of any race: 62.4%
# Asian: 1.6%
# Two or more races: 1.0%

Broward - .652
# White non-Hispanic: 47.3%
# Black non-Hispanic: 25.5%
# Hispanic or Latino of any race: 24.0%
# Asian: 3.1%
# Two or more races: 1.5%

Palm Beach - .540
# White non-Hispanic: 63.3%
# Hispanic or Latino of any race: 17.8%
# Black non-Hispanic: 16.5%
# Asian: 2.2%
# Two or more races: 1.2%


Would be interesting to see the NYC Burroughs too

[iheartthed]

What is the difference between MSA and PCSA?

[Cirrus]

Median Asian Family Income, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $102,141
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia $97,768
Detroit-Warren-Flint $90,581

Detroit at number 3 in that category. Weird.

[iheartthed]

Detroit at number 3 in that category. Weird.

Not really. A lot of them are engineers...

[brickell]

Just using the 5 set groups.

Queens - .743
Brooklyn - .678
Manhattan - .646
Bronx - .530
Staten - .518

[novawolverine]

Detroit at number 3 in that category. Weird.

Ihearthed is right, there are lots of engineers, doctors and professors. If you are educated and can find a job, it's not a bad place to be, but it's probably not the first place people looking to get off the ground would want to go. The two above it in this category have significantly higher populations of that group, which is telling.

[dimondpark]

I don't know if it was you who did it, but someone broke down the metro's by country, which was pretty interesting.
No it wasnt me but that would be interesting.

I did the 11 Bay Area counties based on the 2006-2008 ACS

Alameda .741
Solano .717
Santa Clara .695
San Mateo .680
San Francisco .671
Contra Costa .662
San Benito .552
Napa .549
Santa Cruz .504
Sonoma .474
Marin .244

[pj3000]

"Hispanic" is a meaningless word

[dimondpark]

5 LA Area Counties

Orange .673
Los Angeles .669
San Bernardino .640
Riverside .627
Ventura .552

[dimondpark]

This is definitely interesting, but IMO is not a super proxy for diversity.
I don't think its the end all as far as diversity. But its very cool anyway.

Harris, TX .688

[brickell]

"Hispanic" is a meaningless word

In this context so is White, Black and Asian. But it's what we have to work with.

[Crawford]

In this context so is White, Black and Asian. But it's what we have to work with.

Agreed, but Hispanic, unlike the others isn't a racial or geography category, and is really completely meaningless.

It basically means "people who may be from countries where people speak Spanish, maybe excluding Spain, and maybe including Brazil".

[novawolverine]

Yeah, I was going to say if we're looking at ethnic diversity in broad terms, than maybe it's not meaningless, but it's obvious we're talking about racial diversity, so it is a bit inconsistent here.

[dimondpark]

Here's another brilliant post by Lifeshadower at City-Data posted here with his permission as is the first post of this thread.:D


Top 10 ethnicities for the top 11 American metropolitan area (from American Community Survey)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since its World Cup season and many different ethnic groups are beginning to come out with their flags cheering for their favorite country to win (usually their country of origin), I have taken it upon myself to calculate the ethnic composition by the top 10 most prolific nationality/ancestry for our nation's most populated metropolitan areas.

Table of United States primary census statistical areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA
5 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA
6 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
7 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA
8 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA
9 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA
10 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA
11 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA

All information for this thread is from American FactFinder (American FactFinder). If you click on Data Sets, then under American Community Survey click on "Data Profiles", the American Community Survey has organized their information by geographic region. After that, you can either choose "Metropolitan Statistical Area" or "Combined Statistical Area" to get the information about your metro region.

All this information is done by clicking on both the "Social" part of the data, where the ancestry is laid out on the bottom of the page (however inaccurate it may be), and by going to the demographic page for more detailed information about non-White groups.

For groups that may be in the top 10 but aren't on either page, I went back to the Data Sets page and clicked on "Selected Population Profiles", chose the metro region I want to see under geographic selection, and then the population I want to see. It becomes much more detailed at that point.

All African American populations are calculated by taking the Black Non-Hispanic categories, then subtracting that total by how many West Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans there are (other predominantly Black groups).
I'll immediately point out flaws to avoid any drama:
i. People can be more than 1 ethnicity, so it really depends if they mark 1, 2, or more. Totals can be more than 100%
ii. Hard to keep track what multi-racial consider themselves, since they are more than likely to be of a few ethnicities AND few races.
iii. The Hispanic question; much of Latin America got immigration from all over the world, so they might mark down two or more, while being Mexican, Puerto Rican, etc.
iv. Any problems with self-report data are right here plain to see.

1. New York CSA (New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA - Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2006-2008)
1. Italian: 15.9% of the population
2. Irish: 12.4% of the population
3. African-American: 10% of the population
4. German: 8.6% of the population
5. Puerto Rican: 6.2% of the population
6. Polish: 4.9% of the population
7. English: 4.3% of the population
8. Dominican: 3.7% of the population
9. American: 3.0% of the population
10. Russian: 2.9% of the population
Top 10 ancestries total: 71.9% of the population

2. Los Angeles CSA
1. Mexican: 35.7% of the population
2. German: 8.0% of the population
3. Irish: 6.2% of the population
4. African American: 5.7% of the population
5. English: 5.6% of the population
6. Italian: 3.5% of the population
7. Chinese: 2.8% of the population
8. American: 2.7% of the population
9. Filipino: 2.7% of the population
10. Salvadorian: 2.4% of the population
Top 10 total: 75.3% of the population

3. Chicago CSA
1. German: 17.3% of the population
2. African American: 16.4% of the population
3. Mexican: 15.1% of the population
4. Irish: 12.8% of the population
5. Polish: 10.3% of the population
6. Italian: 7.4% of the population
7. English: 5.1% of the population
8. American: 2.2% of the population
9. Swedish: 2.2% of the population
10. French: 1.9% of the population
Top 10 total: 90.7% of the population

4. Washington CSA
1. African-American: 21.9% of the population
2. German: 15.1% of the population
3. Irish: 12.0% of the population
4. English: 9.4% of the population
5. Italian: 5.4% of the population
6. American: 4.8% of the population
7. Polish: 3.3% of the population
8. Salvadorian: 2.4% of the population
9. French: 2.1% of the population
10. Scottish: 2.0% of the population
Top 10 total: 78.4% of the population

5. Boston CSA
1. Irish: 23.6% of the population
2. Italian: 15.0% of the population
3. English: 12.5% of the population
4. French: 9.9% of the population
5. German: 6.8% of the population
6. Portuguese: 5.4% of the population
7. French Canadian: 4.8% of the population
8. Polish: 4.3% of the population
9. American: 3.0% of the population
10. Scottish: 2.9% of the population
Top 10 total: 88.2% of the population

6. Bay Area CSA
1. Mexican: 17.1% of the population
2. German: 10.2% of the population
3. Irish: 8.7% of the population
4. English: 7.8% of the population
5. Chinese: 7.5% of the population
6. Italian: 5.6% of the population
7. African American: 5.3% of the population
8. Filipino: 5.1% of the population
9. Asian Indian: 2.9% of the population
10. French: 2.5% of the population
Top 10 total: 72.7% of the population

7. Dallas-Fort Worth CSA
1. Mexican: 22.2% of the population
2. African American: 11.7% of the population
3. German: 11.6% of the population
4. Irish: 9.2% of the population
5. English: 9.1% of the population
6. American: 7.4% of the population
7. French: 2.4% of the population
8. Italian: 2.2% of the population
9. Scottish: 2.0% of the population
10. Scotch-Irish: 2.0% of the population
Top 10 total: 79.8% of the population


8. Philadelphia CSA
1. Irish: 20.8% of the population
2. German: 19.0% of the population
3. African American: 16.8% of the population
4. Italian: 14.5% of the population
5. English: 8.7% of the population
6. Polish: 5.8% of the population
7. Puerto Rican: 4.0% of the population
8. American: 3.3% of the population
9. Russian: 1.9% of the population
10. French: 1.7% of the population
Top 10 total: 96.5% of the population

9. Houston CSA
1. Mexican: 25.6% of the population
2. African American: 14.7% of the population
3. German: 10.3% of the population
4. Irish: 7.1% of the population
5. English: 6.8% of the population
6. American: 4.9% of the population
7. French: 2.8% of the population
8. Salvadorian: 2.3% of the population
9. Italian: 2.3% of the population
10. Scottish: 1.5% of the population (outnumber Vietnamese by 2000 people)
Top 10 total: 78.3% of the population


10. Atlanta CSA
1. African American: 25.6% of the population
2. American: 9.7% of the population
3. English: 9.2% of the population
4. Irish: 9.1% of the population
5. German: 8.7% of the population
6. Mexican: 6.1% of the population
7. Italian: 3.0% of the population
8. Scottish: 2.1% of the population
9. Scotch-Irish: 2.1% of the population
10. French: 1.8% of the population
Top 10 total:77.8% of the population

11. Miami MSA
1. Cuban: 16.4% of the population
2. African American: 9.9% of the population
3. German: 6.4% of the population
4. Italian: 6.1% of the population
5. Irish: 6.1% of the population
6. Haitian 4.9% of the population
7. English: 4.4% of the population
8. American: 4.1% of the population
9. Puerto Rican: 3.6% of the population
10. Colombian: 3.4% of the population
Top 10 total: 59.2% of the population

Least representation of the 10 top ethnicities
1. Miami: 59.2%
2. New York: 71.9%
3. Bay Area: 72.7%
4. Los Angeles: 75.3%
5. Atlanta: 77.8%
6. Houston: 78.3%
7. Washington: 78.4%
8. DFW: 79.8%
9. Boston: 88.2%
10. Chicago: 90.7%
11. Philadelphia: 96.5%

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1002273-top-10-ethnicities-top-11-american.html

[lawfin]

That is interesting but I also notice that the two areas with the largest % of the somewhat monolithic "african american" are also the two with the highest scores for top 10 compostion

[pj3000]

In this context so is White, Black and Asian.

No they are not. They are distinct races. Hispanic is such an overwhelming generalization that it is completely meaningless, aside from attempting to classify people on the basis of the language spoken in their native land (which is a terribly inaccurate measure of diversity).

Agreed, but Hispanic, unlike the others isn't a racial or geography category, and is really completely meaningless.

It basically means "people who may be from countries where people speak Spanish, maybe excluding Spain, and maybe including Brazil".

True. "Hispanics" may be of any race and the term attempts to group people together based on language and ethnic background, when that is an incredibly misleading method of gauging ethnic diversity. There are millions of people who speak Spanish and live in primarily Spanish-speaking nations who are not ethnically Spanish, Latino, etc.

Example: a business partner of mine speaks fluent Spanish and it is his native language... he is fourth generation from Argentina... he is of German-Swiss ancestry... he is pale-skinned, with blond hair and blue eyes... I am third generation American, speak English as my native tongue... am of Polish-French-Spanish ancestry... I have blue eyes as well, but have a darker skin tone than him (I tan, he just gets pink)... I'm the one with Spanish blood - the ethnically Spanish one... he is the one considered "Hispanic" because he is from a supposed "Hispanic" country (even though Argentina, like Brazil, is a melting pot of races and ethnicities), while I am considered "white".

The term "Hispanic" simply attempts to group way too many diverse ethnic backgrounds into one ethnic classification based on a shared language. Shared language does not equal shared ethnicity by a long shot.

[Crawford]

My wife is 100% Italian (all grandparents), but is Hispanic or Latina because she was born in Mexico.

But if they would have moved to the U.S., she would be non-Hispanic white, and, by some measures, not "diverse". :shrug:

I would guess that Hispanic and Latino are still used so much because in much of the U.S. Hispanic = Mexican, and most Mexicans are some blend of Indio and European.

[pj3000]

^ Exactly. Perfect example.

[sofresh808]

Having probably moved from probably the 2nd most diverse county (Alameda, CA) to the most diverse (Queens, NY), I think NYC deserves a slight higher edge than the Bay Area, given the greater diversity of its hispanic/latino population (Dominican, Puerto Rican, South American), Black population (West Indies, Senegalese) and recent White/foreign born population (Poles, Russian/Slavic Countries).

[brickell]

It basically means "people who may be from countries where people speak Spanish, maybe excluding Spain, and maybe including Brazil".


How is that different than people who might be from Europe, The Middle East or the Americas who's sole characteristic is being not dark enough.

How is Asian a meaningful racial category when it includes both Indians and Chinese? Ditto for black when it includes Jamaicans, Hatians and African Americans in the same group.

If more Hispanics more exactly self-identified as mixed race or amerindian, then fine. But as it is, I don't have a problem with it.

Edit: Yes I realize not all Hispanics are mixed race. I live in Miami after all.

[dimondpark]

Having probably moved from probably the 2nd most diverse county (Alameda, CA) to the most diverse (Queens, NY), I think NYC deserves a slight higher edge than the Bay Area, given the greater diversity of its hispanic/latino population (Dominican, Puerto Rican, South American), Black population (West Indies, Senegalese) and recent White/foreign born population (Poles, Russian/Slavic Countries).

Well if we're just comparing the 2 cities, NY is definitely more diverse overall than SF.

But I've found that comparing the NY Tri State and the SF Bay Area actually gives the advantage to the Bay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Linguistically Diverse Counties
New York Area (10 counties out of the top 50. Tri-State Region has 27 counties []Error, meaning that 37% of the Tri-State Area has counties that speak more than 75 languages)
6. Queens- 105
11. Kings- 96
11. New York (Manhattan): 96
25. Middlesex, NJ: 84
34. Bergen, NJ: 80
35. Westchester, NY: 79
40. Nassau, NY: 78
41. Bronx, NY: 77
47. Essex, NJ: 75
47. Suffolk, NY: 75

San Francisco Bay Area [/B](5 out of the Top 50. The San Francisco Bay Area has 9 counties []Error, meaning that 55% of the Bay Area has counties speaking more than 75 languages)
7. Santa Clara: 104
8. Alameda: 101
14. San Francisco: 94
30. San Mateo: 83
31. Contra Costa: 82

http://www.usefoundation.org/userdata/file/Research/Regions/united_states.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Residents of 2 or more Races
New York CSA 442,649...1.9% of total population
San Francisco CSA 290,547...3.9% of total population

Black & White
New York CSA 119,282
San Francisco CSA 35,446

White & American Indian
San Francisco CSA 44,029
New York CSA 43,199

Asian & White
San Francisco CSA 94,916
New York CSA 75,755

Black & American Indian
New York 20,491
San Francisco 7,775

All other two-race combinations
New York CSA 153,958
San Francisco CSA 79,032

Residents of 3 races
New York CSA 27,790
San Francisco CSA 27,196

Residents of 4 or more races
New York CSA 2,174
San Francisco CSA 2,133

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, on a regional level,
The NY CSAs diversity outside of NYC is not as impressive as the Bay Area without its major cities.

NY CSA
47.3% of all foreign born residents live outside of NYC

Racially speaking:
48.8% of all Hispancs(of all races) live outside of NYC
47.7% of all Asians live outside of NYC
43.7% of all Blacks live outside of NYC

All major non-white groups have their majorities in NYC proper and the majority of immigrants live in NYC Proper.

On the other hand:

Bay Area CSA
66.0% of all foreign born residents live outside of San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland.

Racially speaking:
70.0% of all Hispanics live outside of SJ, SF and Oakland
62.4% of all Asians live outside of SJ, SF and Oakland
61.2% of Blacks live outside of SJ, SF and Oakland

[B]All major non-white groups have their majorities outside of SF, SJ and Oakland and two-thirds of Bay Area immigrants do not live in either SF, SJ or Oakland.

[manuelpr]

If more Hispanics more exactly self-identified as mixed race or amerindian, then fine. But as it is, I don't have a problem with it.

That's the problem though, that you can't choose amerindian only Native American which would be wrong. So if your a mixed Hispanic (mestizo) the only one you can check is "white" and if you are a full Indio, well then I guess you check "other".

[Buckeye Native 001]

Anyone else find it hilarious that as uptight as Phoenix (the consensus fifth-largest city in the country by population) gets about illegal latinos, it doesn't even crack the top ten in diversity per the OP's parameters?

[brickell]

Anyone else find it hilarious that as uptight as Phoenix (the consensus fifth-largest city in the country by population) gets about illegal latinos, it doesn't even crack the top ten in diversity per the OP's parameters?


Even in total Hispanic population it ranks pretty lowly. I was surprised that Houston and Dallas were as low as they were also.

[emathias]

Anyone else find it hilarious that as uptight as Phoenix (the consensus fifth-largest city in the country by population) gets about illegal latinos, it doesn't even crack the top ten in diversity per the OP's parameters?

I think it wasn't included because while the city might be fifth, the MSA is not. For MSA, the Phoenix area is 12th-largest in the U.S.

[Sekkle]

Anyone else find it hilarious that as uptight as Phoenix (the consensus fifth-largest city in the country by population) gets about illegal latinos, it doesn't even crack the top ten in diversity per the OP's parameters?

Isn't that just the top ten (or top 11 as listed in the original post) metro areas by population? I wouldn't be surprised if the Phoenix metro area wasn't in the top 10 in "diversity" but I'd be surprised if it wasn't in the top 10 in total Hispanic population.

[Westsidelife]

Even if we're strictly looking at race and not taking into account ethnic variety within those racial categories, it still amazes me that Atlanta comes out ahead of NYC. I was in Atlanta last summer and in the 3 days I was there, I literally only saw 2 Asians and less than 5 Latinos.

[bnk]

How is that different than people who might be from Europe, The Middle East or the Americas who's sole characteristic is being not dark enough.

How is Asian a meaningful racial category when it includes both Indians and Chinese? Ditto for black when it includes Jamaicans, Hatians and African Americans in the same group.

If more Hispanics more exactly self-identified as mixed race or amerindian, then fine. But as it is, I don't have a problem with it.

Edit: Yes I realize not all Hispanics are mixed race. I live in Miami after all.


Your point about China and India is a great example.



That said thanks diamond park for your thread... but every list can be broken down so fear none.






That said I would say that Chicagoland numbers in these lists are short of Asian Indians and Islamic Pakistanis [ the engineers and doctors of course, they have a very important presence in the metro more than these numbers are representing], Russians, Ukrainians, and.... Well at least they got the Polish right. We have more Polish than the largest city and Capital of Poland, Warsaw [[B]Chicagoland is the largest Polish community in the world believe it or not....]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_American


but they seem to get the worst of it from the INS [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service ] vs Mexicans for some odd reason or another....

In the Chicagoland CSA.


As far as quantifying Hispanics it is easier in Chicagoland when the most are from Mexico and a sub minority is from Puerto Rico and other South Mid Latin American.

Chicago cannot compare to Miami, NYC, and LA when it comes to the diversity of these immigrants.

Quite frankly most of the local Hispanics are from regional parts of Mexico and then much less so from elsewhere.

The point is is that each grouping of a class of people become more difficult the less they become the center of immigration like some of the major centers like NYC, Miami and LA. Everyone else is more than a bit notch below them when it comes to Hispanic diversity.


That said I find it hard to believe that

Top 10 total: 90.7% of the population in Chicagoland

is represented as much as the top 3 ethnicities.

I personally know more Indians than blacks and Hispanics combined but that may have to do more with my job title vs. who I know on the street or cuts my grass.

[dimondpark]

Even if we're strictly looking at race and not taking into account ethnic variety within those racial categories, it still amazes me that Atlanta comes out ahead of NYC. I was in Atlanta last summer and in the 3 days I was there, I literally only saw 2 Asians and less than 5 Latinos.

Well, that might be attributed to segregation. A region can be diverse on paper, but depending on where you go, you might never know it.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

2. Los Angeles CSA
1. Mexican: 35.7% of the population
2. German: 8.0% of the population
3. Irish: 6.2% of the population
4. African American: 5.7% of the population
5. English: 5.6% of the population
6. Italian: 3.5% of the population
7. Chinese: 2.8% of the population
8. American: 2.7% of the population
9. Filipino: 2.7% of the population
10. Salvadorian: 2.4% of the population
Top 10 total: 75.3% of the population

Thanks for the lists. I found LA's breakdown to be one of the most interesting. According to the data, over a third of its CSA is composed of a single "ethnicity" (inasmuch as Mexican is an ethnicity-- obviously the country has a mix of people with 'Mesitzos,' Indigenous and European ancestry). I knew the city itself had a large Mexican population but I didn't realize the CSA did as well. I wonder what the breakdown of that 35.7% would be (in terms of those three categories).

[pj3000]

How is that different than people who might be from Europe, The Middle East or the Americas who's sole characteristic is being not dark enough.

It's completely different because "Hispanic" attempts to group people into a single classification based on ethnicity simply because they share a common language. It is not a classification based on race, as white, black, asian, etc. are.


How is Asian a meaningful racial category when it includes both Indians and Chinese? Ditto for black when it includes Jamaicans, Hatians and African Americans in the same group.

"Asian" and Indian are separate races. They are not the same race. Jamaicans, Haitians, and African Americans are all black (African) - that is a race. Hispanic is a flawed attempt to classify ethnicity based on language, not race. That is the point... it is an over-generalization. Like the example I used earlier... I actually am ethnically Spanish (what "Hispanic" attempts to describe), whereas my colleague is German/eastern European (decidedly non-Hispanic), but grew up in Argentina speaking Spanish... yet he is the one who is considered Hispanic simply because he's from a Spanish-speaking country and I'm just plain white... ridiculous. Not that I care one way or the other what I am or am considered to be. I just dislike the term, as it causes much confusion and seems to breed ignorance (is breeding ignorance actually possible?). Hispanic is not a race and it is not an ethnicity. My rant for the evening:haha:

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

That said I find it hard to believe that

Top 10 total: 90.7% of the population in Chicagoland

is represented as much as the top 3 ethnicities.

I personally know more Indians than blacks and Hispanics combined but that may have to do more with my job title vs. who I know on the street or cuts my grass.

I'm not sure I understand you here. You don't think there are as many Germans, African-Americans and Mexicans (the top three ethnicities) as the breakdown claims?

And remember: this is Chicagoland we're talking about. There are many suburbs that are lilly-white. In the city proper-- well, that's a different story, but I can't think of any suburban region where people of East Asian or South Asian descent form a majority or even a sizable minority outside of Des Plaines and the communities that feed into Maine East High School. I imagine the perception is just due to the thriving South Asian community along Devon and the disproportionate representation of South Asians in Chicagoland's medical field.

[bnk]

I'm not sure I understand you here. You don't think there are as many Germans, African-Americans and Mexicans (the top three ethnicities) as the breakdown claims?

.


No I’m not talking about the top 90-10% represented by diamond park in his last list that he quoted. I have no doubt about the numbers of Whites, Black, and Hispanics...

I think that the bottom list needs to look at more closely. That is all.


Sorry if I was not clear about me talking about the 10% remander and I did not make myself clear enough.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I actually am ethnically Spanish (what "Hispanic" attempts to describe), whereas my colleague is German/eastern European (decidedly non-Hispanic), but grew up in Argentina speaking Spanish... yet he is the one who is considered Hispanic simply because he's from a Spanish-speaking country and I'm just plain white... ridiculous.

If you're ethnically Spanish, can't you (according to Census rules) claim to be "Hispanic"? Anyway, you're both 100% European and should be categorized accordingly.

I think I prefer Canada's system of "visible minorities" or, at least, the stress on appearance. Isn't that really what this is all about anyway?

[dimondpark]

So I got to thinking about the Bay Area corridor that spans from Fairfield all the way to San Jose along I-80 from Fairfield to Oakland and then I-880 from Oakland to San Jose. The diversity is striking for most of the nearly 80-mile drive which goes through suburbs, semi-rural, urban areas, rich areas, poor areas etc.

Homemade Map taking a pic from the USGS.:D
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m293/luiinsac/bayareabigmap-1.jpg?1277292708

[brickell]

Not that I care one way or the other what I am or am considered to be. I just dislike the term, as it causes much confusion and seems to breed ignorance (is breeding ignorance actually possible?). Hispanic is not a race and it is not an ethnicity. My rant for the evening:haha:

It's not a race, it's not an ethnicity, but it is a shortcut to determining what type of people are living in our cities. Since it's such a big impact in this era I have no problem with it. But we can agree to disagree.

I know many people, groups, magazines etc that self identify as Latino or Hispanic. They obviously don't have a problem with it.

[pj3000]

It's not a race, it's not an ethnicity, but it is a shortcut to determining what type of people are living in our cities. Since it's such a big impact in this era I have no problem with it. But we can agree to disagree.

I know many people, groups, magazines etc that self identify as Latino or Hispanic. They obviously don't have a problem with it.

And here you illustrate it perfectly... yes, it is a shortcut, but it does NOT determine what type of people are living in our cities. That's been the point all along. "Hispanic" is just way too broad a generalization to have any real meaning... a shortcut, if you will.

While it is true that many people, groups, etc. may identify as this... it can be attributed to ignorance and failure to understand the significance of the broad generalization. But hey, why should I care? I'm not Hispanic. Let's just continue grouping white, European Cubans, Argentinians, Uruguayans with Mestizo Central and South Americans, indigenous Amerindian groups Quechua, Aymara etc., and black Caribbeans... (hell let's throw Filipinos in there too, why not?)... into one, single convenient group for everyone (how's that for "diversity"?). A shortcut like that just makes it easier for us all to "understand", right? And that's better than actual education. "Hispanic" makes it easy, but it's still kinda confusing... so let's just stick with calling them all "Mexicans" to describe all those people that talk different than us Americans and take our jobs... easier that way... especially since to much of the US, "Hispanic" and "Mexican" are interchangeable anyway.

Hopefully, you can understand how a lot of people in this country think outside of South Florida.

[novawolverine]

Well, now you know how Indian people feel when they're instructed to classify themselves as Asian, like it was mentioned earlier. Technically, they are Asian, but it's another over-generalization which you acknowledged earlier.

[brickell]

And here you illustrate it perfectly... yes, it is a shortcut, but it does NOT determine what type of people are living in our cities. That's been the point all along. "Hispanic" is just way too broad a generalization to have any real meaning... a shortcut, if you will.



But again, if we're accepting this is just a shortcut then we're accepting the same shortcut that all Blacks are the same, all Asians are the same and all whites are the same. This is clearly not true and it clearly doesn't give us a full picture of how diverse or un-diverse a place is. They are all rather broad generalizations. But it is a good starting point. That's all.

Someones race tells me nothing other than that they may or may not be at an increased susceptibility to lactose intolerance (for example). That may be useful in some circles but not in determining diversity.

If you want to throw out all the generalizations then where does that leave us? Should we measure by nationality (doesn't work in the italian-mexican case )? Ethnicity (how many ethnic groups are there in mexico? in china?) Pigmentation? Hair color? What type of sausage they eat?

[pj3000]

But again, if we're accepting this is just a shortcut then we're accepting the same shortcut that all Blacks are the same, all Asians are the same and all whites are the same. This is clearly not true and it clearly doesn't give us a full picture of how diverse or un-diverse a place is. They are all rather broad generalizations. But it is a good starting point. That's all.

Someones race tells me nothing other than that they may or may not be at an increased susceptibility to lactose intolerance(for example). That may be useful in some circles but not in determining diversity.

If you want to throw out all the generalizations then where does that leave us? Should we measure by nationality (doesn't work in the italian-mexican case )? Ethnicity (how many ethnic groups are there in mexico? in china?) Pigmentation? Hair color? What type of sausage they eat?

You're not getting it. It is NOT the same type of shortcut. Of course I fully agree that all Blacks are not the same, nor are all Whites or Asians the same. But what is the common thread there?... all of those descriptions are RACES. As narrow a description that each of those are, they do provide specific information about a person's RACE (this is the number one indicator of diversity). The "Hispanic" description cannot do that, nor can it describe ethnicity. It basically tells you nothing.

As for your second paragraph... are you serious? Someone's race tells you nothing about a person? And race is not useful in determining diversity? Wow... it's obviously a pointless discussion if you truly believe those assertions.

[pj3000]

Well, now you know how Indian people feel when they're instructed to classify themselves as Asian, like it was mentioned earlier. Technically, they are Asian, but it's another over-generalization which you acknowledged earlier.

No, technically, they are Indian, which is a separate RACE from Asian. They are only Asian by continental location.

[novawolverine]

No, technically, they are Indian, which is a separate RACE from Asian. They are only Asian by continental location.

How come they don't have their own box in the RACE section of various forms? The "Indian" race is really a hybrid that has developed over a lot of years with many variations.

There are a lot of inconsistencies whether you go by race or ethnicity. That's why I tend to side with Brickell in the sense that you do get a broad view and shouldn't expect it to be perfect, as uncomfortable as that may be.

[brickell]

You're not getting it. It is NOT the same type of shortcut.

We'll just have to disagree. We're not going to change each others minds. We both think it's a lazy way of classifying people. I just don't have a problem with it. What are you going to do.


As for your second paragraph... are you serious? Someone's race tells you nothing about a person? And race is not useful in determining diversity? Wow... it's obviously a pointless discussion if you truly believe those assertions.

Maybe in Hattiesburg or Youngstown, it tells you exactly what you need to know. In a multicultural society, no. To call someone "Black" tells me nothing more than that they have an ancestor somewhere along the line from Africa. They could be ethnically Mexican, Jamaican, Haitian, American, Canadian, Colombian, Brazilian, British, German, Chinese, Hutu, Zulu, Nigerian, Egyptian, or even a combination of several of these (Tiger Woods) etc... but in America, they're just "Black". I really don't see it as being all that different.

:shrug:

[pj3000]

^^ I don't know. Forms are not very good examples.

And... all races are hybrids to some extent, of course. That doesn't mean that Indian is not a separate race. It is.

And no, "Hispanic" does not really give you a broad view. It does not give you information about race or ethnicity. It's not about it being perfect... it's about it being meaningless. Every other description we have is based on race and that at least does give you some idea of someone's ancestry, and thus diversity.

Just saying someone's Hispanic gives you nothing. That person could be a black Dominican, a white Argentinian, Aymara Bolivian...

Or we can just generalize like many Americans do, and just consider "Hispanic" to mean those "brown people".

[pj3000]

We'll just have to disagree. We're not going to change each others minds. We both think it's a lazy way of classifying people. I just don't have a problem with it. What are you going to do.



Maybe in Hattiesburg or Youngstown, it tells you exactly what you need to know. In a multicultural society, no. To call someone "Black" tells me nothing more than that they have an ancestor somewhere along the line from Africa. They could be ethnically Mexican, Jamaican, Haitian, American, Canadian, Colombian, Brazilian, British, German, Chinese, Hutu, Zulu, Nigerian, Egyptian, or even a combination of several of these (Tiger Woods) etc... but in America, they're just "Black". I really don't see it as being all that different.

:shrug:

Exactly... but you at least know that they are Black... of African descent... that's their race, their ethnicity... all else is nationality or culturally. You can't say the same for "Hispanic" since it can be of any ancestry.

We can disagree, that's fine. It's an interesting discussion to me. I don't have a "problem" with it per se. It doesn't anger me or anything like that, but I do feel that it's a troublesome term with little understanding in the US.

[Gordo]

^Well, that's sort of why we use the non-white Hispanic breakdown in many cases. What would you suggest the change be? For the census to get rid of Hispanic and create a new "brown" race box?

[dimondpark]

Or we can just generalize like many Americans do, and just consider "Hispanic" to mean those "brown people".

Not in the least.

The Census Bureau actually classifies Hispanics separately from racial background.

I, and most others, use the "Hispanic by Race or Origin" category because in my opinion, I feel its a better breakdown because Hispanics may come from different races(obviously), but generally speaking they share much of the the same language, same culture, same traditions-obviously not 100% the same but very similar(in the most general sense).

More importantly from the vantage point of collecting data on behalf of the US govt, the group as a whole has many of the same social, political and economic issues with each other here in the US.

And so in the context of coming from the same region of the world, because of their shared language, much of the shared culture and tradition and because they deal with many of the same social issues here, I think its fair to them that they be classified by themselves as a single group.

Its obviously not perfect but as far as fitting the needs of the Census Bureau to know who is here. Perhaps "Latin American" would have been better? I don't know.

[brickell]

Exactly... but you at least know that they are Black... of African descent... that's their race, their ethnicity... all else is nationality or culturally.


Ignoring the race issue, it's not their ethnicity either.

A black Nigerian is going to be coming from a very different place culturally than an African-American in South LA who is coming from a very different place than a 2nd generation British Jamaican who lives in Manhattan. The only common theme is there skin color. I just don't see it as being more relevant than country of origin or language spoken.

A black, mestizo and white Honduran have more in common with each other ethnically than they have differences racially in my opinion.

And again, we are in an era of incredible Hispanic and Latino immigration which makes all of this relevant. If this was the 1890's we might be talking about how Irish and Italians shouldn't be counted as white just because they are catholic.

I also find it a interesting discussion. It's as much about our own perceptions as it is other peoples. Maybe I was reading more into your post than was there. In that case, discuss on... :cheers:

[pesto]

The new "brown" box may not be that off-the-wall.

I was in LA this weekend and saw literature explaining that both Hispanic and Latino are inaccurate and insulting (basically because they emphasize a European aspect of the culture). Instead we should use "Children of Aztlan" or some such.

I mention this because this is self-described as a "brown power" movement and excludes those of primarily European origin. This raises the same issues that were raised by Black Power 50 years ago: why try to deny racism when it is natural and obvious? I don't expect (or hope) this will happen but it is interesting to see the same issues popping up. Who knows, maybe "brown" will be a choice some day.

[novawolverine]

But brown doesn't mean anything either. South Asians are brown, a lot of black people are brown, as are a lot of asians.

[pesto]

agreed; this was more a comment on using "brown" as a simplification for "those Hispanics that are poor and speak little English and are in need of social services" rather than a real proposal. Color per se doesn't tell you much useful about a person.

But, figuring out the right metric for the job can be tough.

[lawfin]

You know us white folks....especially those of us who were either born in europe or whose parents were are not all simply "white" people either

growing up in rogers park in chicago most of the people I knew growing up either were themselves immigrants or 1st generation (parents were immigrants)....of many many different nationalities.....

zip 60626, 60659, 60625

The term race is an anachronism

[eaguir3]

Rogers Park, Uptown, and most of all the neighborhoods up north are very diverse. In South Chicago, South Deering, Hegewisch, and the East Side, you know the forgotten area of the city under the Skyway, you would be lucky to find an Asian or someone of Middle Eastern decent living in the neighborhood. But there are countless numbers of eastern European and Latin American immigrants in the southeast side.

[emathias]

... most of the people I knew growing up either were themselves immigrants or 1st generation (parents were immigrants)....of many many different nationalities.....
...

I'm glad you clarified what you meant by "1st generation," because it is an extremely ambiguous term although, as Wikipedia points out, people rarely acknowledge that it is ambiguous when they use it.

In much of academia (esp. sociology and psychology) and in the U.S. Census, the term "first generation" refers to the immigrants themselves, as whether they are legally citizens of the United States or not, they moved here and are the first in their line to became (defacto) Americans. Children of immigrants are therefore "second generation." In sociological studies, the issues of "second generation" children are widely studied under that term. I use it this way because I have a degree in sociology.

I'm pretty sure that "first generation" started as a mostly academic term, and the ambiguity mostly happened as the term got picked up outside of academia and people applied their own interpretation to what it means.

It may also be that part of the ambiguity has sprung from a change in what the word "American" means. It used to be that anyone in this country, intending to stay, and working to better their life and the lives of their children, were American - with no consideration of the technicality of legal status. But today, with so many people so eager to trample of the rights of people to move about the Earth as they see fit, what was once at most a technicality has become some sort of definite, hard line in the sand. If this has fed the ambiguity, then that's a sad thing in my opinion.

So, back to the short of it, it's best to avoid "first generation, second generation" in discussions unless they're explicitly defined. I personally usually use the more direct "immigrant" and "children of immigrants" to avoid any confusion.

[dimondpark]

most of the people I knew growing up either were themselves immigrants or 1st generation (parents were immigrants)

fairus.org calls that group "Immigrant Stock"(im a part of that group me-selfLOL) Immigrants & the US Born children.

Anyway, the 4 areas with the highest percentage were Miami and LA(both over 50% of their respective metro populations are Immigrant Stock), SF(about 47%) and New York(about 40%). After that the other large metros were all below 30%.

[dktshb]

Well this really doesn't take into account how diverse some cities really are. For example, in Los Angeles and Glendale there are more Armenians than anywhere outside Armenia and Russia... They make up 26% of the population in Glendale alone. Los Angeles Tehrangeles has over 500,000 Persians living in the metro area, which is the largest outside Iran. There are more than a million Filipino people living in the Los Angeles area and Los Angeles has the largest Salvadoran population than any community in the US and so on... It is just that there are so many Mexicans here too that they skew other numbers when you look at it as strictly percentage wise and not population wise.

[Westsidelife]

^ Nitpicking here, but those numbers are a bit off.

1) Glendale is 29% Armenian, according to the LA Times' "Mapping LA" feature.
2) The US Census estimates that there are a little over 137,000 Iranians and just under 500,000 Filipinos in the five-county CSA.

But I agree with your overall point in that ethnicity (and not race) is a far better method of gauging real diversity, as opposed to perceived diversity (diversity in its own right, but it can be deceptive).

[brickell]

The new "brown" box may not be that off-the-wall.



I would agree, except that I think it takes us down a slippery slope of further racial segregation. Sooner or later we'll be beyond this but until then, adding brown seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. But there is something racial going on that could be better categorized. Brown just might be the best way to do it, but it sure does make me uncomfortable.

I was thinking about this last night. The aspect of race does come into play, but I see it much more with 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, as they meld (or are culturated) to America's racial paradigm. These are still very broad generalities, but it's part of what I see here in Miami. 3rd generation black Bahamians are more likely to be a part of the American Black community. 3rd generation white Cubans and Jews are more likely to be among with the white community. 2nd generation Guatemalans or Dominicans are still "Hispanic" or "brown". They fit with neither group culturally or racially.

[brickell]

11. Miami MSA
1. Cuban: 16.4% of the population
2. African American: 9.9% of the population
3. German: 6.4% of the population
4. Italian: 6.1% of the population
5. Irish: 6.1% of the population
6. Haitian 4.9% of the population
7. English: 4.4% of the population
8. American: 4.1% of the population
9. Puerto Rican: 3.6% of the population
10. Colombian: 3.4% of the population
Top 10 total: 59.2% of the population

[B][COLOR="Red"]Least representation of the 10 top ethnicities
1. Miami: 59.2%
2. New York: 71.9%
3. Bay Area: 72.7%




This is pretty interesting also. The stereotype, even in Miami, is that it's all Cubans, but this shows that it's just not true at all. There is a very broad range of immigration to here. In my office we have 16 different nationalities represented.

[sofresh808]

Well if we're just comparing the 2 cities, NY is definitely more diverse overall than SF.

But I've found that comparing the NY Tri State and the SF Bay Area actually gives the advantage to the Bay.
[/B][/I]


Love the stats and work you did, I haven't been to the suburbs since I moved here, but have suspected they are less-diverse and integrated than the bays. Could you pull up a formula for Pittsburg, Antioch, Tracy and Stockton? Im curious if other any other regions find some of their most diverse areas at the fringes of their metros?

[dimondpark]

Love the stats and work you did, I haven't been to the suburbs since I moved here, but have suspected they are less-diverse and integrated than the bays. Could you pull up a formula for Pittsburg, Antioch, Tracy and Stockton? Im curious if other any other regions find some of their most diverse areas at the fringes of their metros?
Well, I sort of have a lot of stats comparing NY and the Bay Area on hand because of a massive thread in another forum where we compared diversity.

Non Hispanic White Population, 2008
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 53.5%
County Rate
Litchfield, CT 91.9%
Sussex, NJ 89.3%
Hunterdon, NJ 87.5%
Ocean, NJ 86.4%
Putnam, NY 83.8%
Ulster, NY 83.4%
Monmouth, NJ 77.5%
Dutchess, NY 76.3%
Morris, NJ 75.9%
Suffolk, NY 74.5%
Rockland, NY 70.1%
Orange, NY 69.9%
New Haven, CT 69.7%
Fairfield, CT 69.0%
Nassau, NY 68.0%
Somerset, NJ 65.1%
Bergen, NJ 63.7%
Mercer, NJ 57.4%
Middlesex, NJ 52.4%
Union, NJ 47.2%
Passaic, NJ 47.1%
Essex, NJ 35.5%
New York City, NY 34.9%
Hudson, NJ 34.1%

Non Hispanic White Population, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 45.5%
County Rate
Marin 74.5%
Sonoma 68.0%
Santa Cruz 62.8%
Napa 58.6%
Contra Costa 50.5%
San Francisco 45.2%
San Mateo 45.2%
Solano 43.2%
San Benito 40.7%(Stat for 2007)
Santa Clara 37.9%
Alameda 36.4%

CSAs by Non-Hispanic Whites as a Percentage of the Total Population, 2008
Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud, MN-WI 82.4%...2,935,653
Boston-Manchester-Nashua, MA-RI-NH 79.5%...6,003,963
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 76.2%...2,202,548
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 73.2%...2,994,406
Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 70.0%...3,751,117
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 67.7%...4,332,178
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 58.6%...2,510,423
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 56.4%...5,531,148
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 55.6%...4,616,198
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 54.0%...3,091,629
New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 53.6%...11,875,453
Dallas-Ft Worth, TX 53.5%...3,558,903
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 50.6%...1,520,331
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 45.5%...3,351,099
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 42.6%...2,484,336
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 37.7%...2,044,501
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 34.9%...6,218,518

Birthplace of Foreign Born Population, 2008
New York-Newark-Bridgeport
Europe 18.8%
Asia 26.3%
Latin America 49.7%
Canada 0.9%
Africa 3.8%
Oceania 0.2%

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland
Europe 10.0%
Asia 51.6%
Latin America 33.6%
Canada 1.6%
Africa 1.6%
Oceania 1.2%


County Foreign Born Populations, 2008
New York Combined Statistical Area
Hudson, NJ 40.2%
New York City, NY 36.4%
Bergen, NJ 29.5%
Union, NJ 28.8%
Middlesex, NJ 28.2%
Westchester, NY 24.5%
Passaic, NJ 23.4%
Essex, NJ 22.8%
Somerset, NJ 21.7%
Fairfield, CT 20.8%
Nassau, NY 20.8%
Rockland, NY 20.6%
Mercer, NJ 19.3%
Morris, NJ 19.0%
Suffolk, NY 14.1%
Monmouth, NJ 13.5%
Orange, NY 11.4%
New Haven, CT 11.0%
Dutchess, NY 10.9%
Putnam, NY 9.6%
Ocean, NJ 7.9%
Hunterdon, NJ 8.4%
Sussex, NJ 7.2%
Ulster, NY 6.2%
Litchfield, CT 5.5%

San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area
Santa Clara, CA 36.8%
San Francisco, CA 35.0%
San Mateo, CA 34.2%
Alameda, CA 29.7%
Contra Costa, CA 24.1%
Napa, CA 23.6%
Solano, CA 19.9%
Santa Cruz, CA 18.7%
Marin, CA 18.0%
Sonoma, CA 17.0%

(Cities Pop 65,000+)30%+ Foreign Born Population
NY/NJ/CT
Union City, NJ 56.4% New York
Elizabeth, NJ 44.5% New York
Passaic, NJ 44.1% New York
Stamford, CT 37.4% New York
Jersey City, NJ 36.8% New York
New York, NY 36.8% New York
Patterson, NJ 35.8% New York
Yonkers, NY 32.8% New York
Clifton, NJ 31.7% New York
New Rochelle, NY 31.7% New York

SF Bay Area
Daly City, CA 53.1% San Francisco
Milpitas, CA 51.3% San Francisco
Union City, CA 45.2% San Francisco
Sunnyvale, CA 43.6% San Francisco
Fremont, CA 43.1% San Francisco
Santa Clara, CA 41.4% San Francisco
San Jose, CA 39.8% San Francisco
Mountain View, CA 38.3% San Francisco
San Leandro, CA 37.8% San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 35.3% San Francisco
San Mateo, CA 35.2% San Francisco
Hayward, CA 35.0% San Francisco
Richmond, CA 33.1% San Francisco
Alameda, CA 31.5% San Francisco
Redwood City, CA 30.2% San Francisco

Percent of the Total Population
Who Are Two or More Races, 2008
New York-Newark-Bridgeport 2.0%
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk 1.3%
Kingston, NY 2.0%
New Haven-Milford 2.1%
New York-Northern NJ-Long Island 2.0%
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown 2.5%
Torrington 1.9%
Trenton 2.0%

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 4.0%
Napa 2.8%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont 4.1%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 3.4%
Santa Cruz-Watsonville 3.7%
Santa Rosa-Petaluma 3.2%
Vallejo-Fairfield 6.6%

Anyway, there's a ton. Bottom line is that NYC itself is definitely more ethnically diverse than SF. Just layers of people more-on a regional level however, many indicators point to the Bay Area being quite a bit more diverse throughout the entire area.

Now, as far as Antioch, Pittsburg and Stockton, I added Eastern Contra Costa County to the map:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m293/luiinsac/bayareabigmap-2.jpg?1277394947

[Crawford]

I guess they're counting West Indians as living in Latin America? :shrug:

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

^ Nitpicking here, but those numbers are a bit off.

1) Glendale is 29% Armenian, according to the LA Times' "Mapping LA" feature.
2) The US Census estimates that there are a little over 137,000 Iranians and just under 500,000 Filipinos in the five-county CSA.

But I agree with your overall point in that ethnicity (and not race) is a far better method of gauging real diversity, as opposed to perceived diversity (diversity in its own right, but it can be deceptive).

Im about 99% sure those numbers are WAY WAY off.

[pesto]

The Armenian numbers sound about right. I think Glendale and LA are the among the largest Armenian cities in the world outside Armenia (this also makes them among the leading chess and junior chess centers).

Filipino numbers sound reasonable to me but Iranians has to be an old number. The westside has more than that and the OC has its share.

[Westsidelife]

Im about 99% sure those numbers are WAY WAY off.

Maybe so, but there's no way there are 500,000 Iranians.

[dktshb]

Maybe so, but there's no way there are 500,000 Iranians.


Not that Wikipedia is a rock solid source but I don't doubt that there are 500,000 persians out of 12 million:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrangeles

Tehrangeles is a portmanteau deriving from the combination of Tehran, the capital of Iran, and Los Angeles. It is used when referring to the large number (estimates range from 500,000 to 600,000) of former Iranian nationals and their descendants residing in the Los Angeles metropolitan area; it is the largest such population outside of Iran.


The Persian population of Beverly Hills may be as high as 40% of the total population.
http://www.lapersianpages.com/aboutus.html

[Westsidelife]

^ Do you really think there are more Iranians than Chinese?

[pesto]

The LA Chinese population is much smaller than the Bay Area, for example. Most of the "far-East" Asians are Korean, Philipino, Vietnamese and Japanese. Of course, if you live in Arcadia or Monterey Park you may find this hard to believe.

"Non-Hispanic white" is an awfully broad term. In some cities this may mean mostly people named Smith and Jones. In LA or NY it also means people named Agajanian, Bar-Hillel, Mostafarian, Hussain or Petrov.

[Westsidelife]

^ You couldn't be more wrong:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B02006&-tree_id=308&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=33000US348&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en

[pesto]

WSL: are you kidding? I'm more wrong than this half a dozen times a day. I can be more wrong than this without even trying.

All I said was that in LA the non-Chinese Asians outnumber the Chinese Asians, which is supported by your chart.

My other comments relate to the Bay Area having a higher percentage of Chinese than LA does, and to non-Hispanic whites in LA including many people thought of as "ethnic" rather than Western European. I believe that both of these are accurate.

[Westsidelife]

All I said was that in LA the non-Chinese Asians outnumber the Chinese Asians, which is supported by your chart.

What does your original post have anything to do with my original post? I implied that there aren't as many Iranians in LA as there are Chinese. Then you said, "The LA Chinese population is much smaller than the Bay Area, for example."

[pesto]

You seemed to think there were lots of Chinese, much more than Iranians. I just said there weren't that many Chinese. Maybe my tossing in the Bay Area comment just confused matters.

I also said there were more than 137,000 Iranians but never claimed there were more than Chinese. I would guess they are roughly comparable but I don't know if there are any good stats on "non-Hispanic whites".

[Crawford]

Unless the Persians in Beverly Hills are different than all the other Persians in LA, there's no way there's 500,000 in the region.

I know a bunch of Beverly Hills Persians through contacts in Great Neck, which is basically the East Coast Persian Beverly Hills (Great Neck is a Long Island suburb on the Queens border). The Beverly Hills Persians the same as in Great Neck- all Jewish, prosperous, and came over after the Shah was overthrown in the late 70's.

Assuming the other LA Persians are the same as in Beverly Hills, this means they're pretty much all prosperous Jews. According to Wikipedia (I know, bad source), metropolitan LA has 600,000+ Jews. This would mean that well over 80% of LA-area Jews are Persian, which sounds crazy.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Unless the Persians in Beverly Hills are different than all the other Persians in LA, there's no way there's 500,000 in the region.

I know a bunch of Beverly Hills Persians through contacts in Great Neck, which is basically the East Coast Persian Beverly Hills (Great Neck is a Long Island suburb on the Queens border). The Beverly Hills Persians the same as in Great Neck- all Jewish, prosperous, and came over after the Shah was overthrown in the late 70's.

Assuming the other LA Persians are the same as in Beverly Hills, this means they're pretty much all prosperous Jews. According to Wikipedia (I know, bad source), metropolitan LA has 600,000+ Jews. This would mean that well over 80% of LA-area Jews are Persian, which sounds crazy.


There are plenty of non jew persians in LA. The persian jews are mostly concentrated in Beverly Hills and West LA. but there are also plenty of Persians in Glendale, the Foothills and so on.

[Westsidelife]

You seemed to think there were lots of Chinese, much more than Iranians. I just said there weren't that many Chinese. Maybe my tossing in the Bay Area comment just confused matters.

Don't the numbers prove that there are much more Chinese than Iranians (463,000 vs. 137,000)? And really, 463,000 Chinese people isn't a lot?

[Crawford]

There are plenty of non jew persians in LA. The persian jews are mostly concentrated in Beverly Hills and West LA. but there are also plenty of Persians in Glendale, the Foothills and so on.

Aha, I see. My mistake.

I assumed all the LA Persians were like the Great Neck-Beverly Hills types. I had no idea there were large numbers of Muslim Persians in the U.S.

[Crawford]

According to the 2000 Census, 10 of the 12 most heavily Persian communities in the U.S. are on Long Island, all right by the Queens county line. Kings Point is the most heavily Persian.

Source-
http://www.epodunk.com/ancestry/Iranian.html

I think this is a bit misleading, though. Really all these 10 communities are basically the Great Neck Peninsula area. It's all essentially Great Neck.

And I bet you the LA community is more dispersed across more cities, which dilutes the numbers. LA definitely has the larger community.

[pesto]

I think the only thing we real disagree on is the Iranian population. 137,000 total people of Iranian descent in LA sounds very low to me. I am guessing that the wikipedia number is in the ballpark (500-600k). Various other internet articles say between 300k and 600k as of 2000 or so, but who knows how accurate these are.

400k Chinese is a lot but then again the metro LA area has 18M, which makes it a little over 2 percent; as a percentage this is small by (for example) Bay Area standards. The total East Asia population of LA is, of course much larger.

In any event, try Westwood any evening for a good kebab or hookah and the SGV for dim sum daily.

[dimondpark]

I was doing some research and was impressed by this neighborhood because of its affluence and diversity. I would love to learn of other neighborhoods like this...anyone feel free.:)

Caballo Hills neighborhood, Oakland, CA
Average HH Income, 2008(Onboard LLC): $121,583
http://pics.city-data.com/nraces/5277.jpg

The views up there are amazing...
http://www.sherrybenninger.com/6157_ridgemont_drive/images/6157_ridgemont_view.jpg
http://www.sherrybenninger.com/6157_ridgemont_drive/images/6157_ridgemont_view.jpg

http://sherrybenninger.com/images/4608_Rockingham_blue_sky.jpg
http://sherrybenninger.com/images/4608_Rockingham_blue_sky.jpg

http://www.listingproducer.com/Uploads/53/02/25302/51536/Photos/_smh2207.jpg
http://www.listingproducer.com/Uploads/53/02/25302/51536/Photos/_smh2207.jpg

http://womenbuildingwealth.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/ridgemont5.jpg?w=468
http://womenbuildingwealth.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/ridgemont5.jpg?w=468

http://media.cdn-redfin.com/photo/10/bigphoto/052/40472052_8_0.jpg
http://media.cdn-redfin.com/photo/10/bigphoto/052/40472052_8_0.jpg

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Rockingham_1.jpg
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Rockingham_1.jpg

http://p.rdcpix.com/v01/l4f82a142-w0m.jpg
http://p.rdcpix.com/v01/l4f82a142-w0m.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/ontheblock/2009/05/09/Rockingham_ext499x333.jpg