HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2019, 3:58 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
That's not a particularly low ratio, though. If 40% of London is English, or even British, that's pretty typical for global cities in Northern Europe. Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Zurich, Amsterdam, Brussels would have similar or lower ratios. I believe less than 20% of students in Frankfurt and Stuttgart schools have a German background.

And that would be quite high for North American standards. How many major U.S. or Canadian metros are 40% from a single national background?

Also, the top immigrant groups to London are mostly from neighboring countries or former Crown holdings. Ireland, Poland, Germany, Australia, India. An Irish immigrant to London doesn't contribute to cultural and linguistic diversity to the same level as, say, Persians or Sri Lankans in Toronto.

I don't think the previously referenced "loss of character" is directly tied to immigration. I think it's more globalization, and the UK's status as the European beachhead for U.S. cultural imperialism. A London high street has basically the exact same stores as in NYC and LA, and the cultural touchstones have nearly merged. It's kinda like Anglo Canada. I remember the singer Morrissey, when asked why he moved to LA when he was so pro-British, said something like "the U.S. consolidated UK culture so what does it matter". Places like Stuttgart and Brussels, while very multicultural (and quite boring, in contrast to London) don't feel remotely American, though.
I did not say that 40% was low or high. I agree that it is fairly common in big cities of the western world.

Good or bad? Not sure. But one thing is clear is that it is reality.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2019, 6:31 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Diversity only adds to character and culture if it creates new creative forms, works of art, etc. that synergize with the existing culture and produce something new and unique. having a bunch of Indian restaurants isn’t interesting .

I think it can be said that most recent immigration to the west has failed to produce the unique subcultures that 19th century immigration created in the USA. The culture of Hispanic Americans for example is pretty bare. Where is their ‘godfather’, or something with the richness of Jewish or Italian American culture?

Quebec and Japan have very unique and interesting cultures despite having stagnant gene pools , long-standing isolated cultures , and low immigration

White culture in places like Portland Oregon is much more interesting than diverse Indian/Chinese American culture in say suburban New Jersey. Meanwhile Punjabi culture in say Vancouver is more interesting
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2019, 8:34 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
White culture in places like Portland Oregon is much more interesting than diverse Indian/Chinese American culture in say suburban New Jersey. Meanwhile Punjabi culture in say Vancouver is more interesting
But isn't part of that being suburbs less likely to be centers of culture than cities in general, regardless of demographics?

Or what examples of suburban culture (or cultural communities that came out of them) are the most prominent and interesting?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2019, 10:09 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Diversity only adds to character and culture if it creates new creative forms, works of art, etc. that synergize with the existing culture and produce something new and unique. having a bunch of Indian restaurants isn’t interesting.

This actually describes the UK very well. Especially where music is concerned, it's been a post-war cultural powerhouse - and that's something that was heavily influenced by the fusing of working class British and Carribbean immigrant culture.



Quote:
I think it can be said that most recent immigration to the west has failed to produce the unique subcultures that 19th century immigration created in the USA. The culture of Hispanic Americans for example is pretty bare. Where is their ‘godfather’, or something with the richness of Jewish or Italian American culture?

That can probably be attributed to the fact that 19th century European immigrants came in larger numbers, relatively speaking, and to a smaller and less mature country - there was more of a cultural "blank slate" for them to leave their mark on. Today's immigrants are moreso assimilating to the established American culture (which many people would probably view as a good thing - the introduction of Jewish/Italian/Irish/etc culture to North America wasn't exactly warmly received).



Quote:
Quebec and Japan have very unique and interesting cultures despite having stagnant gene pools , long-standing isolated cultures , and low immigration
Quebec is approximately 13% foreign born - about the same as the US; with a higher rate of immigration. And Montreal has generally gone through the same historic waves of migration as most other big North American cities - starting with Irish in the early 1800s, then Jews, Italians, and post-war global immigration. Quebec is probably more diverse than most European countries, nevermind an actually homogeneous nation like Japan.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2019, 11:23 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
This actually describes the UK very well. Especially where music is concerned, it's been a post-war cultural powerhouse - and that's something that was heavily influenced by the fusing of working class British and Carribbean immigrant culture.






That can probably be attributed to the fact that 19th century European immigrants came in larger numbers, relatively speaking, and to a smaller and less mature country - there was more of a cultural "blank slate" for them to leave their mark on. Today's immigrants are moreso assimilating to the established American culture (which many people would probably view as a good thing - the introduction of Jewish/Italian/Irish/etc culture to North America wasn't exactly warmly received).





Quebec is approximately 13% foreign born - about the same as the US; with a higher rate of immigration. And Montreal has generally gone through the same historic waves of migration as most other big North American cities - starting with Irish in the early 1800s, then Jews, Italians, and post-war global immigration. Quebec is probably more diverse than most European countries, nevermind an actually homogeneous nation like Japan.
Quite true that Quebec is different from Japan in the ways you describe. Though it does have in common with Japan (and much of the world in fact) that what is the local culture is not a total free for all). Unlike a place like Toronto where the djembé and phô soup are considered by many as 100% as Torontonian and Canadian as hockey and Tim Hortons, no one in Québec would say that shawarma and pad thaï are as Québécois as poutine and tourtière. Even if we love all four.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2019, 11:29 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post

I think it can be said that most recent immigration to the west has failed to produce the unique subcultures that 19th century immigration created in the USA. The culture of Hispanic Americans for example is pretty bare. Where is their ‘godfather’, or something with the richness of Jewish or Italian American culture?
That is a good point. There are a few examples like Tejano music but generally speaking Hispanic culture in the US is simply the culture of the country of origin. The usual alternative is American mainstream culture.

There is not much of a fusion into something new and unique that is taking place between those two above.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2019, 11:48 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
That is a good point. There are a few examples like Tejano music but generally speaking Hispanic culture in the US is simply the culture of the country of origin. The usual alternative is American mainstream culture.

There is not much of a fusion into something new and unique that is taking place between those two above.
The cultural fusion took place centuries ago. The American southwest is the result.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 12:07 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
That is a good point. There are a few examples like Tejano music but generally speaking Hispanic culture in the US is simply the culture of the country of origin. The usual alternative is American mainstream culture.

There is not much of a fusion into something new and unique that is taking place between those two above.
Though I hear the argument that people say new immigrants no longer create their own culture in the new world rather than either keeping the "old country" culture or simply assimilating into the majority, to be fair the old country culture is never static and sometimes even just be doing nothing but losing in touch with the old country, their culture diverges. And also by virtue of adjusting to the new place, it can't be 100% the same as living as they were once in the "motherland".

It's also commonly that phenomenon where diasporas keep old country habits that aren't even around any more in the old country.

I find it hard to judge if "new immigrants' cultures are diverging from the old country" because if I'm not familiar with a given country in question, how would I know that the culture hasn't changed in even a couple decades or something.

I mean, people say that, even without moving to a new country, places they grew up with and left, only to return decades later are nothing like they used to be (e.g. someone who left say San Francisco or Montreal or something in 1980 and then comes back in 2019 to find the "culture" totally different).

How would I know that Mexican Americans in LA's culture is merely a carbon copy of Mexico's culture, or Punjabi Canadians in Vancouver are merely a carbon copy of the Punjab's, versus totally different from what actual Mexicans and Indians do, if I'm not familiar with what Mexico or India is like now, or even how it changed within a generation or two since the major waves of immigration happened?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 12:09 AM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
That's not a particularly low ratio, though. If 40% of London is English, or even British, that's pretty typical for global cities in Northern Europe. Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Zurich, Amsterdam, Brussels would have similar or lower ratios. I believe less than 20% of students in Frankfurt and Stuttgart schools have a German background.

And that would be quite high for North American standards. How many major U.S. or Canadian metros are 40% from a single national background?
That's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison though.

The 40% figure for London is those who are a) identify as British and B) identify as white. The comparable figure for US metro areas would be the proportion who a) identify as (US) American and B) identify as white. I would think there are many where that figure exceeds 40%.

That isn't the same as those people having one single national background. For example Boris Johnson the current UK Prime minister will be counted among that 40% of Londoners who are 'White British' but he was born in NYC while his grandparents and great-grandparents included people from Turkey, France, Germany and Russia. There will be many many others in London who identify as white British but who have ancestry from outside the UK, just as there are many in NYC who have Irish or Italian ancestors but still identify as white and American.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 12:17 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
The usual alternative is American mainstream culture.
Or the usual alternative is to make their culture (or attempt to make it) part of the American mainstream without being a separate "outsider" culture.

For example, how Jewish Americans opted to integrate but bring Jewish humor/comedy into American culture in the 20th century so now Jewish American culture is a part of broader American culture, rather than in Europe where Jewish culture wasn't as much of a part of what made Poland Polish or France French, but merely Jewish culture in France or Poland. This was of course due to the much greater tolerance in the US at the turn of the last century.

That's why you see groups today like Asian/Arab Americans fight to become part of the US mainstream (it was only within a couple generations earlier when African American culture wasn't even as prominent in American media culture, like say depictions of 50s America, even thoough they were part of the US demographically for centuries, it took some time for things like hip hop to be seen as global American culture or black Americans to be depicted as "regular" American families, gradually over the course of the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 12:27 AM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
A London high street has basically the exact same stores as in NYC and LA.
I wouldn't agree with that either to be honest.

Here is a typical London High Street (in Ealing), move up and down the length of it and how many of the retail units are occupied by stores that you would find in NYC or LA?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/rYq9b1txPoAsULVYA

It's mostly in fast food that you will find a huge number of US brand stores I think, plenty of Subways, McDonald's etc on many High Streets but the vast majority of other units are not occupied by stores that you will also find in US cities. Obviously there are some, you'll find H&M, Gap, Zara etc in both countries but that is also true for other European countries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 12:46 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
That's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison though.

The 40% figure for London is those who are a) identify as British and B) identify as white. The comparable figure for US metro areas would be the proportion who a) identify as (US) American and B) identify as white. I would think there are many where that figure exceeds 40%.

That isn't the same as those people having one single national background. For example Boris Johnson the current UK Prime minister will be counted among that 40% of Londoners who are 'White British' but he was born in NYC while his grandparents and great-grandparents included people from Turkey, France, Germany and Russia. There will be many many others in London who identify as white British but who have ancestry from outside the UK, just as there are many in NYC who have Irish or Italian ancestors but still identify as white and American.
Well, I think it becomes an arbitrary and dubious line-drawing exercise as to why a white (but not having any more than recent ancestry in the islands) Brit by virtue of being white counts more than a non-white Brit as being "indigenous" British (like why does a Londoner whose ancestors came from France or Russia count more as "old stock" Brit than a Londoner whose ancestors came from India or Jamaica, if say both are three generations removed from Britain).

Either way you're not really getting at who are the people whose ancestors are of (or predominantly are of) the "Smith" and "Wilson" lineages anyway. By saying "white" and "identifies as British", you're just saying that somehow, by being of European descent and looking closer to a "Smith" by skin tone and apperance, even if your surname is Schmidt or Ricci or something, somehow that's meaningful. That would be like saying if an indigenous South American immigrant moved to the US, and identified as "American" then there are equally as Native US American as the actual Najavo or Ojibwe, just because of their "looks" and broad "racial classification".

Also, on that note, why is "white" and "identifies as American" significant over not white and "identities as American"? Shouldn't the "identify as American" be the key since most Americans are not predominantly indigenous to begin with.

Many people are tired about how people won't shut up about race and diversity, but maybe we wouldn't have so many conversations if people would just be more chill about obsessing over who is the legit "old stock" and stop trying to make others act like they don't belong in their own cities of origin because of some claimed legitimacy over ancestry.

Even if (and I will be sympathetic to this in quite a few ways) you truly care about globalization undermining local culture, I'll still be way more sympathetic if you actually make it clear you care about cultural preservation and that it's not about hidden connotations of favoring any lineage and "blood ties". I've seen Acajack's posts about Quebec and immigrant cultural minorities and one thing I do admire is how in some places though Quebec may be tarred as being xenophobic sometimes, they in many ways have shown that they really do care about culture over "pure laine" lineage -- they'll in some places see a Haitian Francophone immigrant as their "us" over a blonde guy named Desjardins who grew up 100% English speaking only and cares not one lick about French Canadian culture.

The people who claim that they care about cultural change but really care about blood and race really undermine the credibility of those who generally want to have the conversation about real cultural change (such as globalization and loss of local culture). Surely, if you really cared about cultural change, you would rather an immigrant next door who looks different than you but is more than willing to share and help preserve your culture with you, over an old stock neighbor of your same lineage or "race" who has no interest in your culture at all but is in fact favoring the Subway, H&M, McDonalds, mass consumer culture in your quaint little town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 1:01 AM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
I'm basically agreeing with you. I'm just questioning why there would be two different standards for measuring these things depending on if we are talking about A North American city or a European city which many seem to assume there is.

If an Italian-American in NYC with no meaningful connections to Italy for the last few generations is 'adding to diversity' then why not the same for a Londoner who has ancestors that were French Huguenots or Baltic Jews that arrived in the 19th century. Those people would both be among the 40% 'White British' on the census results.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 1:29 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
I'm basically agreeing with you. I'm just questioning why there would be two different standards for measuring these things depending on if we are talking about A North American city or a European city which many seem to assume there is.

If an Italian-American in NYC with no meaningful connections to Italy for the last few generations is 'adding to diversity' then why not the same for a Londoner who has ancestors that were French Huguenots or Baltic Jews that arrived in the 19th century. Those people would both be among the 40% 'White British' on the census results.
Probably because there are no consistent standards on how countries measure diversity in their own censuses. Most people just get used to counting diversity the way their own society teaches them to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 2:12 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Well, I think it becomes an arbitrary and dubious line-drawing exercise as to why a white (but not having any more than recent ancestry in the islands) Brit by virtue of being white counts more than a non-white Brit as being "indigenous" British (like why does a Londoner whose ancestors came from France or Russia count more as "old stock" Brit than a Londoner whose ancestors came from India or Jamaica, if say both are three generations removed from Britain).

Either way you're not really getting at who are the people whose ancestors are of (or predominantly are of) the "Smith" and "Wilson" lineages anyway. By saying "white" and "identifies as British", you're just saying that somehow, by being of European descent and looking closer to a "Smith" by skin tone and apperance, even if your surname is Schmidt or Ricci or something, somehow that's meaningful. That would be like saying if an indigenous South American immigrant moved to the US, and identified as "American" then there are equally as Native US American as the actual Najavo or Ojibwe, just because of their "looks" and broad "racial classification".

Also, on that note, why is "white" and "identifies as American" significant over not white and "identities as American"? Shouldn't the "identify as American" be the key since most Americans are not predominantly indigenous to begin with.

Many people are tired about how people won't shut up about race and diversity, but maybe we wouldn't have so many conversations if people would just be more chill about obsessing over who is the legit "old stock" and stop trying to make others act like they don't belong in their own cities of origin because of some claimed legitimacy over ancestry.

Even if (and I will be sympathetic to this in quite a few ways) you truly care about globalization undermining local culture, I'll still be way more sympathetic if you actually make it clear you care about cultural preservation and that it's not about hidden connotations of favoring any lineage and "blood ties". I've seen Acajack's posts about Quebec and immigrant cultural minorities and one thing I do admire is how in some places though Quebec may be tarred as being xenophobic sometimes, they in many ways have shown that they really do care about culture over "pure laine" lineage -- they'll in some places see a Haitian Francophone immigrant as their "us" over a blonde guy named Desjardins who grew up 100% English speaking only and cares not one lick about French Canadian culture..
And the fact that a FOB Haitian or Senegalese person might be quickly accepted as part of the Québécois "us", pisses off some Anglo-Quebecers to no end. Since some of the latter have roots here going back to the late 1700s.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 2:17 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Diversity only adds to character and culture if it creates new creative forms, works of art, etc. that synergize with the existing culture and produce something new and unique. having a bunch of Indian restaurants isn’t interesting .
While places like Markham in the Toronto area have stuff like world beating extremely authentic Chinese cuisine that cannot be disputed, poutine italienne, poutine mexicaine, poutine algérienne/marocaine/maghrébine etc. from Montreal would still like to say hi!
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 2:21 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
That's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison though.

The 40% figure for London is those who are a) identify as British and B) identify as white. The comparable figure for US metro areas would be the proportion who a) identify as (US) American and B) identify as white. I would think there are many where that figure exceeds 40%.
This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, obviously. England was traditionally a country for English people; it wasn't ever defined by white Germans, French, Persians and Turks, all white in U.S. context. The U.S. native equivalent would be Native Americans, but they barely exist in metropolitan America.

And I don't think this is remotely true. No way is London only 40% white. I bet you SE England is at least 75-80% white, and Greater London at least 60-65% white, which is whiter than any major American metro. And London's visible white population is almost certainly higher than in Paris, Brussels or in every major U.S. city. It's a pretty obvious difference when you head from Gare du Nord to the UK.

If you compare to, say, NYC, there is no group with more than 10%-15% of the overall population. Jews, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Italians. None of these groups rise above that proportion. In contrast, London is at least half British (and I bet you SE England is overwhelmingly British, and probably overwhelmingly English).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 7:12 AM
bilbao58's Avatar
bilbao58 bilbao58 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Homesick Houstonian in San Antonio
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
While places like Markham in the Toronto area have stuff like world beating extremely authentic Chinese cuisine that cannot be disputed...
As someone who lived in Thornhill almost 50 years ago I find that...almost shocking. But not really. Toronto had already begun changing by then. And I've seen the same happen in certain suburbs of Houston that I never dared hope would someday be interesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 8:26 AM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, obviously. England was traditionally a country for English people; it wasn't ever defined by white Germans, French, Persians and Turks, all white in U.S. context. The U.S. native equivalent would be Native Americans, but they barely exist in metropolitan America.

And I don't think this is remotely true. No way is London only 40% white. I bet you SE England is at least 75-80% white, and Greater London at least 60-65% white, which is whiter than any major American metro. And London's visible white population is almost certainly higher than in Paris, Brussels or in every major U.S. city. It's a pretty obvious difference when you head from Gare du Nord to the UK.

If you compare to, say, NYC, there is no group with more than 10%-15% of the overall population. Jews, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Italians. None of these groups rise above that proportion. In contrast, London is at least half British (and I bet you SE England is overwhelmingly British, and probably overwhelmingly English).
40% white British was the claim, not 40% white total.

At the 2011 census 45% of the London population were white British, it has probably fallen a bit since then so 40% now is not going to be too far off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20680565
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2019, 10:07 AM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Also, the top immigrant groups to London are mostly from neighboring countries or former Crown holdings. Ireland, Poland, Germany, Australia, India. An Irish immigrant to London doesn't contribute to cultural and linguistic diversity to the same level as, say, Persians or Sri Lankans in Toronto.
European foreign-born communities account for 34% of London’s total, for comparison, New York’s America’s foreign-born communities accounts for 52%. Large swathes of the world were at one point or another under the direct or indirect control of the British Empire, but those days are long in the past and have little (if any) bearing on migrant flows into London.

For people born outside their host country, London is the primary destination for 99 countries, double that for New York (45) and 10x more than Toronto (9). Two thirds of New York’s count are countries in the America’s compared to 31% for London with European countries. Considering New York’s population is declining, it is likely that the gap between London and New York has grown on the linguistic front.

__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2023_07_12 | London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2022_03_09
London General Update Thread updated: 2019_04_03 | High Speed 2 updated: 2021_09_24
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.