Northern California 2010 Census results

[pesto]

dimondpark: agreed; this seems implicit in the numbers: the Bay Area continues to be highly diverse or growing in diversity except for SF, which is certainly diverse, but declining in the percentage of underrepresented minorities (black way down, Latino up a little) compared to California as a whole.

The areas compared do look odd. I guess you are comparing LA to East Bay, without SF and SJ. Even in the broadest definition of "East Bay", I wouldn't include Sacto. and surrounding counties. But I suspect the numbers would be similar for the 9 county Bay Area.

Also, taking just LA county and not the OC or IE seems somewhat arbitrary and has been the subject of some criticism at other sites.

[pesto]

Oakland Renaissance: very much agree, but this has been going on for 20 years, starting with Rockridge, areas around Lake Merritt and toward the Bay, and has long since transformed downtown. As was noted, this is hardly news except to the SF newspapers who are somewhat reluctant to recognize the existance of Oakland, SJ and the East Bay generally.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by pesto

dimondpark: agreed; this seems implicit in the numbers: the Bay Area continues to be highly diverse or growing in diversity except for SF, which is certainly diverse, but declining in the percentage of underrepresented minorities (black way down, Latino up a little) compared to California as a whole.

Please stop combing latino and black people, and then saying things like "SF is declining in the percentage of underrepresented minorities".... because it isn't. SF lost black people, but it gained latino people. SF was about 21% black/latino in 2000, and SURPRISE, it's also about 21% black and latino in 2010.

So as you can see, even if you were to combine blacks and latinos as one group, then their population would have stayed basically the same this decade, as SF lost around 10,000 blacks, and gained around 10,000 latinos. So where do you get this "SF is losing underrepresented minorities" idea from? If you want to talk about SF's decline in black population, then talk about that, but stop throwing latinos in there as well.

SF dropped from 44% white to 42% white. It dropped from 7% black to 6% black. And It went from 32% asian to 33% asian and 14% latino to 15% latino. The multiracial population also grew.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by pesto

the Bay Area continues to be highly diverse or growing in diversity except for SF, which is certainly diverse, but declining in the percentage of underrepresented minorities (black way down, Latino up a little) compared to California as a whole.

For those of us who don't intentionally exclude Asians from our concept of "diversity," your claim that SF is an exception to the growing diversity of California cities is not obviously true.

[1977]

The Bay Area continues to have some of the most diverse neighborhoods in CA.

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1

[dimondpark]

1 dot=1,000 people
Green=White, Blue=Black, Yellow=Hispanic, Red=Asian

Greater Northern California 2010

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1301586063

Greater Southern California 2010

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1301586313

New York & Philadelphia 2010

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1301586313

Chicagoland and Milwaukee 2010

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1301586313

[dimondpark]

One dot=200 people

San Francisco & Oakland 2010

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1301587455


Santa Clara Valley 2010

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1301587085

[RST500]

awsome maps. do you have a link to the orginals from the NY Times?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by RST500

awsome maps. do you have a link to the orginals from the NY Times?

here ya go....
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

I could play on it for hours. LOL.

[peanut gallery]

Very cool maps. Thanks Dimond!

[tech12]

some numbers from the 2010 census to go with the CA maps dimondpark posted:

White:
Los Angeles - 1,086,908
San Diego - 589,702
San Francisco - 337,451
San Jose - 271,382
Sacramento - 161,062
Fresno - 148,598
Long Beach - 135,698
Oakland - 101,308

Black:
Los Angeles - 347,380
Oakland - 106,637
San Diego - 82,497
Sacramento - 64,967
Long Beach - 59,925
San Francisco - 46,781
Fresno - 37,885
San Jose - 27,508

Asian:
Los Angeles - 420,212
San Jose - 300,022
San Francisco - 265,700
San Diego - 204,347
Sacramento - 83,841
Oakland - 65,127
Fresno - 60,939
Long Beach - 58,268

Latino:
Los Angeles - 1,838,822
San Diego - 376,020
San Jose - 313,636
Fresno - 232,055
Long Beach - 188,412
Sacramento - 125,276
San Francisco - 121,774
Oakland - 99,068

Two or More Races:
Los Angeles - 76,353
San Diego - 42,820
San Francisco - 26,079
San Jose - 25,827
Sacramento - 21,111
Oakland - 14,076
Long Beach - 12,572
Fresno - 10,414

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander:
Sacramento - 6,392
San Diego - 5,178
Long Beach - 4,915
Los Angeles - 4,300
San Jose - 3,492
San Francisco - 3,128
Oakland - 2,081
Fresno - 663

American Indian/Alaska Native:
Los Angeles - 6,589
San Diego - 3,545
Fresno - 3,127
Sacramento - 2,586
San Jose - 2,255
San Francisco - 1,828
Long Beach - 1,349
Oakland - 1,214

Some other Race:
Los Angeles - 12,057
San Diego - 3,293
San Francisco - 2,494
San Jose - 1,820
Sacramento - 1,253
Oakland - 1,213
Long Beach - 1,118
Fresno - 984

[RST500]

The 10 Whitest Cities in the Bay Area (Plus: Slideshow)
Marin, with seven, unveils diversity plan after feds say it flouted Civil Rights Act
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/129Ff)


Asians Flock to South Bay, Census Shows
High-tech jobs and an Asian infrastructure lure immigrants
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/129fk)


Asians and Hispanics Drive Increase in Bay Area Diversity
Former white enclaves are now more mixed, but black population sank in most parts of the Bay
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/129mA)

[RST500]

Census: Whites Leaving Bay Area
As Asian and Hispanic populations increase, number of whites drops in eight counties
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12cav)

[tech12]

Originally Posted by RST500

Census: Whites Leaving Bay Area
As Asian and Hispanic populations increase, number of whites drops in eight counties
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12cav)

That article claims SF gained whites, but that's including Hispanic people. SF's non-Hispanic white population (what 99% of Americans think when they think "white") actually dropped from 43.6% (338,909) in 2000 to 41.9% (337,451) in 2010, and that's while the city gained 30,000 new residents. SF may have added over 4,000 white people (who were latino) in the past decade and may have been the only Bay Area county to do add whites, but their percentage of SF's total population actually dropped from 49.7% in 2000 to 48.5% in 2010...so yes, SF gained white people, but not non-Hispanic white people, who actually dropped as a share of the total population, just as they have been dropping since the 1950's (SF was over 80% white back then)...and the asian and latino population have continued to rise, just as they have since the 1950's.

just to make it a bit more clear:

SF in 2000:
population: 776,733
white: 385,728 (49.7%)
non-Hispanic white: 338,909 (43.6%)
Hispanic/Latino of any race: 109,504 (14.1%)

SF in 2010:
population: 805,235
white: 390,387 (48.5%)
non-Hispanic white: 337,451 (41.9%)
Hispanic/Latino of any race: 121,774 (15.1%)

Going by American standards of what is "white" than SF definitely did not gain white people (and SF lost as a percentage anyways). Lazy reporting...

[RST500]

Originally Posted by tech12

That article claims SF gained whites, but that's including Hispanic people. SF's non-Hispanic white population (what 99% of Americans think when they think "white") actually dropped from 43.6% (338,909) in 2000 to 41.9% (337,451) in 2010, and that's while the city gained 30,000 new residents. SF may have added over 4,000 white people (who were latino) in the past decade and may have been the only Bay Area county to do add whites, but their percentage of SF's total population actually dropped from 49.7% in 2000 to 48.5% in 2010...so yes, SF gained white people, but not non-Hispanic white people, who actually dropped as a share of the total population, just as they have been dropping since the 1950's (SF was over 80% white back then)...and the asian and latino population have continued to rise, just as they have since the 1950's.

just to make it a bit more clear:

SF in 2000:
population: 776,733
white: 385,728 (49.7%)
non-Hispanic white: 338,909 (43.6%)
Hispanic/Latino of any race: 109,504 (14.1%)

SF in 2010:
population: 805,235
white: 390,387 (48.5%)
non-Hispanic white: 337,451 (41.9%)
Hispanic/Latino of any race: 121,774 (15.1%)

Going by American standards of what is "white" than SF definitely did not gain white people (and SF lost as a percentage anyways). Lazy reporting...

were are all those white hispanics comming from? I had no clue that Calfiornia was a major magnet for white hispanic immigration.

[sofresh808]

Originally Posted by RST500

were are all those white hispanics comming from? I had no clue that Calfiornia was a major magnet for white hispanic immigration.

It's an ambiguous term, but plenty of the Mexican immigrants and those from elsewhere in Central and South America are mostly of European descent. It's what I and my siblings identify as (half irish-american/half-salvadoran). I have some native american/indian heritage, but it's so distant I'd feel disingenuous to qualify it on any form. Since Hispanic/Latino isn't considered a race as well, and I have no Black/Asian/Pac. Islander roots, I wouldn't check mixed either.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by fflint

For those of us who don't intentionally exclude Asians from our concept of "diversity," your claim that SF is an exception to the growing diversity of California cities is not obviously true.

No issues with Asians of any sort and for sure they count as diversity; but they are not (in general) under-represented minorities under federal and state law. In fact, Asians, like whites, have sued and won for reverse discrimination. The point being that these groups are generally wealthier and better educated than average and do not recieve federal protection based on quotas or more general affirmative action principles. Black and Hispanic quite often do.

In any event, it is hardly news that SF is gentrifying, and in the process turning more white and Asian.

My main comparison was that SJ and SF were surprisingly similar in percentages of Asian (large) and black (small) but with SF much higher in white and SJ much higher in Hispanic. If you prefer to say that black was down and Hispanic fairly flat in SF, I wouldn't disagree.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by pesto

No issues with Asians of any sort and for sure they count as diversity; but they are not (in general) under-represented minorities under federal and state law.

San Francisco's black and white populations declined, while Asian and Latino populations increased. From those facts you concluded "the Bay
Area continues to be highly diverse or growing in diversity except for SF."

The truth of your conclusion relies explicitly on the your unstated premise that the diversity of California cities in this discussion is defined as only the combined "Percentage of underrepresented minorities (black...Latino....)."

If "diversity" means something more expansive than only the sum total of blacks and Latinos, then your conclusion fails. If "diversity" in California cities includes Asians, your conclusion fails. If we can discuss "diversity" and decouple blacks and Latinos then your conclusion fails. And all those things are apparent--it's pretty obvious "diversity" as we use the word on this forum exceeds the narrow definition you promote, in at least those three ways, and a few forumers have said so explicitly. Another points out your conclusion may even fail on its own terms, calculating the combined proportion of blacks and Latinos in SF didn't really drop after all.

I think you sense the the shakiness of your definitional premise, as you have made a vague but illegitimate appeal to authority--the State apparently defines "underrepresented minorities" as blacks and Latinos. So...what? Why should that particular legal/governmental term of art become our concept of the word "diversity" in this thread? Do civil authorities decide how we shall define diversity on the forum? No. Should they?

San Francisco is not obviously an exception to the growing diversity of Bay Area cities. It is, however, obviously a city with a rapidly declining black population--and if you'd like to highlight that some more, then just be honest about that. It's a legitimate topic of conversation that doesn't require controversial personal definitions of commonly used words or appeals to irrelevant authority.

[tech12]

^i think that's probably what's getting Pesto whipped up into his "underrepresented minorities" frenzy in regards to SF--the drop in black population. It's not like it's something new though, and it's definitely not like it's something unique to SF either, as blacks have been leaving most non-southern cities it seems (and there were never too many blacks in most places on the west coast anyways compared to the south/east/midwest, even during their peak on the west coast, decades ago...even Oakland for example had less than 10,000 black residents in 1940). Anyways, here are some Bay Area cities by their drop in black population over the past decade:

East Palo Alto - 31%
Oakland - 23%
Richmond - 23%
Berkeley - 20%
San Francisco - 19%

Originally Posted by pesto

SF: 22 to 21

that's true, if combined, SF's black/latino population dropped by about 1% of the total (due solely to the drop in blacks, as SF actually gained latinos, as you've already been told multiple times).

But, at the same time the combined black/latino population actually grew by 260 people when it comes raw numbers, going from a pop. of 168,295 to 168,555, so i'm not really sure if it's much of a true "drop" all things considered.

But none of that really matters, because you shouldn't keep combining blacks and latinos in the first place...and i don't know why you keep excluding asians from your definition of "diverse", or whites for that matter. They're people too, and also add towards "diversity." The fact remains that SF added latinos and asians, and lost blacks and non-Hispanic whites.

[CyberEric]

It's interesting, it seems like the common misconception is that SF proper is getting less diverse, when the reverse is in fact true.
Still, some keep stating otherwise, as if they actually want the SF-is-less-diverse claim to be true.