SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[NOPA]

Originally Posted by Dale

Any projections on when the city might hit one-million at current pace ?

The Chronicle did an article not long ago on San Francisco at 1 million http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2659836

As it mentions, some recent reports say this will happen in 2032, however, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sooner. the 2020 census should give us a good idea.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by NOPA

The Chronicle did an article not long ago on San Francisco at 1 million http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2659836

As it mentions, some recent reports say this will happen in 2032, however, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sooner. the 2020 census should give us a good idea.

The Examiner is not the chronicle. Just saying.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by NOPA

The Chronicle did an article not long ago on San Francisco at 1 million http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2659836

As it mentions, some recent reports say this will happen in 2032, however, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened sooner. the 2020 census should give us a good idea.

Just would like to point out, the SF Examiner is not the SF Chronicle.

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by Dale

Any projections on when the city might hit one-million at current pace ?

The Examiner story linked above is using projections from the Plan Bay Area report, which projects a population of 1.085 million in 2040 (source).

Separately, the CA Department of Finance projects only 891,607 by 2040 and 926,555 by 2060 (source). Note that in 2013 we already surpassed their 2015 projection, and by 2015 we're probably going to surpass their 2020 projection.

San Francisco has been growing by about 10,000 per year from 2010 to 2013 (from 805,235 to 837,442). If SF keeps that pace indefinitely, it'll hit one million by 2030. Using the longer time frame of 1990 to 2013, the city grew by about 4,900 per year (from 723,959 to 837,442). At that pace, it'll take until 2046 to reach one million.

The city is booming right now and practically bursting at the seams. I don't think anyone expects the boom to continue uninterrupted for the next 16 years. I'm not sure we can physically handle 10,000 new residents per year for the next two decades, especially considering how long it takes to get new housing entitled and permitted.

So, the Plan Bay Area projection seems too optimistic, but the CA DoF projection seems way too low on the other hand. Hitting a million around 2040 seems more realistic, but that's just my personal guess.

[mt_climber13]

The city already has well over 1 million people in city limits on any day- workers who live outside, tourists, undocumented immigrants..

Hell, for pride, the "population" is over 2 million.

[fimiak]

Its a different thing having 2 million people walking around and 2 million living and working in the city. NYC has something like 8 million living in the city and 14 million passing through daily.

A lot of politicians need to wake up to the fact that the US is going from 287 - 438 million people from 2000-2050....thats 150 million more people that have to fit inside of this country. If SF grows from 2000-2050 at the same pace as the US, the city will need room for something like from 750,000 in 2000 up to 1,175,000 people in 2050. This is not taking into account the recent drive towards urbanization that has picked up since the recession, either, nor SF's unique position as a tech driven peninsula. This is simply comparing the 2000 and the 2050 population of the country and applying its simple facts. Every city in the bay area will be bursting at the seams.

[Dale]

Thanks, guys!

[Jerry of San Fran]

For the last 43 years this space has been wasted on a parking lot - glad to see a 13 story apartment building going up on the corner.

The San Francisco Art Academy must have know that a highrise was to be built on the site next door, but a mural was painted anyway. The development was made know a few years ago I really like the mural & hate to see it disappear.

101 Polk Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

[peanut gallery]

^Great news. It's not a large building, but I like it. More people in that neighborhood should only continue to make it better.

[fimiak]

Mid-Market is changing faster than I think anyone could have imagined even two years ago, and there are still many huge projects on the way, like 150 Van Ness, One Van Ness, the Goodwill Bldg, Plumbers union building/parking lot, as well as the Honda building. This is the Market Sq Place / Twitter courtyard testing the new lights.

[fflint]

Any renderings for 101 Polk?

[timbad]

Originally Posted by fflint

Any renderings for 101 Polk?

there are some here

[NickB1967]

The City has actually *lost* residents since the 1950's, although it has rebounded in recent years.

[Folks3000]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

The City has actually *lost* residents since the 1950's, although it has rebounded in recent years.

1940 634,536 +0.0%
1950 775,357 +22.2%
1960 740,316 −4.5%
1970 715,674 −3.3%
1980 678,974 −5.1%
1990 723,959 +6.6%
2000 776,733 +7.3%
2010 805,235 +3.7%
2013 837,442 +4.0%

That's not accurate, unless you mean "recent years" as since the 80s. Or passed it's population peak in 1950 fourteen years ago.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by ozone

For fflint:

Heller Manus has designed a 87-unit rental building to rise at 2198 Market Street (the triangular shaped lot on the northeast corner of Market and Sanchez).
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...d_sanchez.html


Now

Fenced off and ready to rise:

[mt_climber13]

This project on Mission St., between 21st and 22nd:

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Folks3000

1940 634,536 +0.0%
1950 775,357 +22.2%
1960 740,316 −4.5%
1970 715,674 −3.3%
1980 678,974 −5.1%
1990 723,959 +6.6%
2000 776,733 +7.3%
2010 805,235 +3.7%
2013 837,442 +4.0%

That's not accurate, unless you mean "recent years" as since the 80s. Or passed it's population peak in 1950 fourteen years ago.

And this is all the more impressive when you take a look at average household sizes in 1950 compared to today. Number of households:

1950: 259,055
2010: 345,811

We've likely broken the 350,000 mark by now, for more than a 35% (!!!) increase over the 1950 number.

[simms3_redux]

^^^Fewer and fewer families as the city becomes exorbitantly expensive. I wouldn't say that it's necessarily a very good thing that the city limits is becoming more and more a singles haven. I mean, maybe good on the surface, but when our generation starts moving out of the city, where to? It's not like the San Mateo County or Alameda County cities are pushing for more housing either, lol.

[fflint]

The Census Bureau (as of 2012) estimates San Francsco has 376,924 housing units, as opposed to 'households'. As to why some SF housing units are not considered households, I can only surmise they are counting units like rooms in dormitories and elderly care facilities, etc.

The Bureau also estimates 39.4% of San Francisco households consist of a single individual. Meanwhile, some 10.4% of San Franciscans in households are living with unrelated, non-partner roommates/apartment mates. I want to point out those are two different kinds of data points and they cannot necessarily be combined--but it should be clear there's still a lot of people living with spouses, children, other relatives, and unmarried partners. And no doubt many who live alone or with unrelated/non-partner roommates are not technically 'single,' either.

[LMich]

Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding something, here. But the reason housing unit counts and households don't match up is simply the vacany rate, right? That's what you guys are talking about, right? There is almost always a difference between the numbers of households and the number of housing units in an American city. And, yes, the Census does make the distinction between single quarters and group quarters like dorms, nursing homes, jails/prisons, etc...