Asian American demographics by city

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

It's hard to find up to date language data, but according to the 2010 census 104,000 spoke Panjabi at home in California - just under half of all Panjabi speakers in the US.

https://apps.mla.org/map_data

I wonder if the California Sikh community is still very connected to Canada's on the west coast?

Or if Canadian Sikhs are more likely to have both family in Surrey and Mississauga, rather than Sacramento and Surrey?

[Docere]

South Asian languages in selected states (2010):

California

Hindi 129,183
Panjabi 103,998
Gujarathi 42,895
Urdu 37,960
Telugu 31,971
Tamil 29,420

Illinois

Urdu 41,454
Gujarathi 38,303
Hindi 35,658
Telugu 13,508
Malayalam 11,990
Tamil 10,288

Maryland

Hindi 17,036
Urdu 11,942
Gujarathi 9,725
Telugu 6,571
Panjabi 4,758

Michigan

Hindi 15,387
Bengali 10,548
Urdu 10,417
Telugu 9,002
Gujarathi 8,653
Panjabi 5,676
Tamil 5,400

New Jersey

Gujarathi 68,224
Hindi 57,781
Urdu 27,671
Bengali 13,795
Panjabi 11,304

New York

Bengali 77,416
Urdu 60,345
Hindi 58,846
Panjabi 32,135
Malayalam 24,093
Gujarathi 20,602

Pennsylvania

Hindi 19,962
Gujarathi 17,203
Malayalam 10,521
Urdu 9,832
Telugu 5,986
Bengali 5,681
Tamil 5,597

Texas

Urdu 53,261
Hindi 50,789
Gujarathi 26,708
Telugu 22,031
Malayalam 18,686
Bengali 13,785

Virginia

Hindi 24,813
Urdu 21,794
Telugu 10,515
Panjabi 8,177
Gujarathi 5,829

Washington

Hindi 12,624
Panjabi 11,454
Tamil 4,568

[RST500]

Largest Indian Populations as of 2018 by metro area:
New York: 668,086
Chicago: 233,534
San Francisco: 218,254
Dallas: 205,400
San Jose: 188,861
Washington DC: 180,178
Los Angeles: 166,089
Houston: 154,352
Philadelphia: 124,692
Atlanta: 123,748
Boston: 100,246
Miami: 50,263

[edale]

Originally Posted by RST500

Largest Indian Populations as of 2018 by metro area:
New York: 668,086
Chicago: 233,534
San Francisco: 218,254
Dallas: 205,400
San Jose: 188,861
Washington DC: 180,178
Los Angeles: 166,089
Houston: 154,352
Philadelphia: 124,692
Atlanta: 123,748
Boston: 100,246
Miami: 50,263

Wow, when you combine SF and SJ, they have almost double the amount of Indians than the next biggest metro, Chicago. I had no idea there were so many Indian people in the Bay. I go up to SF about 4-5 times a year, and I'd have never guessed the Indian population was so high. They don't seem to be very visible in the parts of SF I spend time in.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

WI go up to SF about 4-5 times a year, and I'd have never guessed the Indian population was so high. They don't seem to be very visible in the parts of SF I spend time in.

Because they don't live there. Indians are mostly in the South Bay and East Bay, nowhere near SF.

If you're in, say, Fremont, it's pretty clear that the Indian population is gigantic.

[Docere]

Indians are one of the most suburbanized ethnic groups in the US.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Docere

Indians are one of the most suburbanized ethnic groups in the US.

Probably Canada too. Toronto has giant, roughly equivalent East Asian and South Asian populations, but the East Asian population seems much more visible in the city core.

If you're in the Eaton Centre or a downtown office building, you would never guess Toronto is as Indian as it is Chinese. Upscale retailers, in particular, seem like half East Asian patronage (though that could be visitors too).

[park123]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Probably Canada too. Toronto has giant, roughly equivalent East Asian and South Asian populations, but the East Asian population seems much more visible in the city core.

If you're in the Eaton Centre or a downtown office building, you would never guess Toronto is as Indian as it is Chinese. Upscale retailers, in particular, seem like half East Asian patronage (though that could be visitors too).

Chinese seem richer than Indians in Canada. Indians in Canada are different than Indians in the USA. In Canada a lot came as refugees (Sikhs, Tamils), whereas in the USA Indians are a small but very affluent and educated group. The closest thing to Indians in Canada would be Bangladeshis and Indo-Guyanese in NYC.

[park123]

Originally Posted by RST500

Largest Indian Populations as of 2018 by metro area:
New York: 668,086
Chicago: 233,534
San Francisco: 218,254
Dallas: 205,400
San Jose: 188,861
Washington DC: 180,178
Los Angeles: 166,089
Houston: 154,352
Philadelphia: 124,692
Atlanta: 123,748
Boston: 100,246
Miami: 50,263

This goes to show you how much of an outlier metro LA is in terms of Indian population. It's per capita on par with Miami, which is famous for having very few Asians in general.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Probably Canada too. Toronto has giant, roughly equivalent East Asian and South Asian populations, but the East Asian population seems much more visible in the city core.

If you're in the Eaton Centre or a downtown office building, you would never guess Toronto is as Indian as it is Chinese. Upscale retailers, in particular, seem like half East Asian patronage (though that could be visitors too).

This is very true. The Chinese population is much larger in the core than the South Asian population.

Vancouver as well - Chinese are mostly in Van proper, Richmond and Burnaby, while the South Asians are concentrated further out in Surrey and Delta. The vast majority of South Asians in BC are Sikh.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Indians are one of the most suburbanized ethnic groups in the US.

Even more than white ethnic groups like Italians?

Though in general, I think suburbs of this generation are getting more and more diverse.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1203...ore-thing-past

"As recently as 1980, less than one-half of metropolitan minorities resided in the suburbs. Only beginning in 1990 did more than half of metropolitan Asians become suburban residents, while Hispanics did not reach that tipping point until 2000. Moreover, it was not until 2010 that more than half of metropolitan blacks became suburban residents. An important milestone was passed when that year’s census became the first to show a majority of each of the nation’s largest racial minority groups residing in the suburbs. And those communities will only become more diverse in the years to come: Each of the major minority groups—Hispanics, Asians, and blacks—now contributes more than whites to suburban gains."

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you're in the Eaton Centre or a downtown office building, you would never guess Toronto is as Indian as it is Chinese. Upscale retailers, in particular, seem like half East Asian patronage (though that could be visitors too).

But to be fair, it's not uncommon for downtowns of many cities to not look like their city's demographics as a whole.

Is downtown LA as demographically Hispanic as the city as a whole, or downtown Chicago as demographically black as the city or metro area as a whole? Manhattan's not representative of the demographics of New York city either.

What city's downtowns are most reflective of their actual city's demographics?

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

This is very true. The Chinese population is much larger in the core than the South Asian population.

Vancouver as well - Chinese are mostly in Van proper, Richmond and Burnaby, while the South Asians are concentrated further out in Surrey and Delta. The vast majority of South Asians in BC are Sikh.

In BC, the Sikhs already had a long-time presence in places further inland in the lower mainland like Abbotsford (home of the first Sikh temple/gurdwara in Canada and North America as a whole). Does that explain why they are in places like Surrey or Delta, or is it a separate wave of movement where the Vancouver metro area and the Abbotsford area are different communities? Surely, both South and East Asians had their communities arrived across the Pacific and naturally had their immigration gateway closer to the coast than inland, right?

Suburban South Asian Canadians are more middle class or lower middle class/working class/manual laborers, and South Asian Americans are more upper middle class/professional, but for some reason, both are more suburban than urban.

So what explains this? It's not income alone, otherwise, you'd have well-off South Asians in the US in cities too, just like well-off whites or east Asians, or more working class South Asians in cities in Canada too, just like the working class of other minorities.

Do South Asians have a strong cultural preference for home ownership?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by park123

This goes to show you how much of an outlier metro LA is in terms of Indian population. It's per capita on par with Miami, which is famous for having very few Asians in general.

Don't know where RST500 is getting his numbers from, but these are the numbers from the Census' ACS (2013-2017)* by CSA. Greater LA's 2.7x the size of South Florida and still more Indian percentage-wise. If it was the same per capita, the population would be 28% less than what it is.

*in combination with other groups and races

NYC: 759,779
Bay Area: 401,270
Chicago: 225,353
DC: 215,881
LA: 207,383
Dallas: 161,189
Houston: 137,170
Philadelphia: 132,205
Atlanta: 122,751
Boston: 119,324
Miami: 58,643


2018 CSA estimates:

NYC: 22,679,948
Bay Area: 9,666,055
Chicago: 9,866,910
DC: 9,778,360
LA: 18,764,814
Dallas: 7,957,493
Houston: 7,197,883
Philadelphia: 7,204,035
Atlanta: 6,775,511
Boston: 8,285,407
Miami: 6,913,262


% Indian:

NYC: 3.4%
Bay Area: 4.2%
Chicago: 2.3%
DC: 2.2%
LA: 1.1%
Dallas: 2%
Houston: 1.9%
Philadelphia: 1.8%
Atlanta: 1.8%
Boston: 1.4%
Miami: 0.8%

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is downtown LA as demographically Hispanic as the city as a whole, or downtown Chicago as demographically black as the city or metro area as a whole? Manhattan's not representative of the demographics of New York city either.

I'd say downtown LA and Manhattan, to a lesser extent, are both pretty reflective of their overall metro demographics. Downtown LA is very Mexican and Asian. Downtown Chicago, probably no.

Manhattan is stereotyped as white and wealthy, but the overall racial and economic demographics are reflective of the metro, and there are large tracts of subsidized housing in even the wealthiest neighborhoods. There are housing projects on the Upper East Side.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

So what explains this? It's not income alone, otherwise, you'd have well-off South Asians in the US in cities too, just like well-off whites or east Asians, or more working class South Asians in cities in Canada too, just like the working class of other minorities.

I'm guessing you could find high South Asian representation in some affluent core urban Census tracts. The waterfront towers in Jersey City are very Indian.

[Docere]

In Toronto the downtown core itself is quite diverse in its population and the people you see around reflects the city's diversity (as it's a space where everybody congregates). While inner Toronto is whiter than the periphery, it's really the gentrifying "hipster" neighborhoods and the established old money areas that are lilywhite. The downtown condos have a sizeable Asian presence, and the TCHC and subsidized housing is mostly nonwhite.

[park123]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

In BC, the Sikhs already had a long-time presence in places further inland in the lower mainland like Abbotsford (home of the first Sikh temple/gurdwara in Canada and North America as a whole). Does that explain why they are in places like Surrey or Delta, or is it a separate wave of movement where the Vancouver metro area and the Abbotsford area are different communities? Surely, both South and East Asians had their communities arrived across the Pacific and naturally had their immigration gateway closer to the coast than inland, right?

Suburban South Asian Canadians are more middle class or lower middle class/working class/manual laborers, and South Asian Americans are more upper middle class/professional, but for some reason, both are more suburban than urban.

So what explains this? It's not income alone, otherwise, you'd have well-off South Asians in the US in cities too, just like well-off whites or east Asians, or more working class South Asians in cities in Canada too, just like the working class of other minorities.

Do South Asians have a strong cultural preference for home ownership?

I think in India until quite recently, the wealthy tended to own their own detached houses in affluent areas of Indian cities. The only exception would be Bombay/Mumbai, which was too expensive for detached houses even in the 1970s and 1980s. But generally it's more of the culture there.

[Docere]

Canada only does religion in the census every 10 years - but here's some 2011 data on the Indian immigrant population.

CANADA

Born in India 547,890

Sikh 269,100 49.1%
Hindu 167,730 30.6%
Christian 53,250 9.7%
Muslim 33,775 6.2%

ONTARIO

Born in India 310,410

Hindu 119,360 38.5%
Sikh 109,620 35.3%
Christian 39,130 12.6%
Muslim 27,355 8.8%

BC

Born in India 143,345

Sikh 114,725 80%
Hindu 15,080 10.5%
Christian 5,675 4%
Muslim 2,365 1.6%

[RST500]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Because they don't live there. Indians are mostly in the South Bay and East Bay, nowhere near SF.

If you're in, say, Fremont, it's pretty clear that the Indian population is gigantic.

In SF proper there were hardly any Indians 20 years ago but there are a lot now due to Mayor Ed Lee's incentives for tech companies to relocate.