L.A.'s Population Tops 4 Million for the First Time

[dktshb]

Second year in a row with an increase in homelessness of over 10% from the previous year and the greatest increase was apparently among the young. I do not know how they defined "young," but if you're a millennial you might want to think twice about coming to this city without a job already lined up.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Second year in a row with an increase in homelessness of over 10% from the previous year and the greatest increase was apparently among the young. I do not know how they defined "young," but if you're a millennial you might want to think twice about coming to this city without a job already lined up.

I totally believe it. I feel like I've been seeing more homeless over the last year; I even see people who look newly homeless; a suitcase or two with them, I've even seen one homeless person with suitcases and a vacuum cleaner, like it was a possession he took with him that he for some reason just didn't get rid of.

It's really very sad.

[a very long weekend]

^ build baby build. los angeles is on the right track, expanding metro and building everywhere. the city needs another century city to go rogue though and massively upzone. and long beach is too far away. hollywood has had nothing but trouble but what about east la or just south of the coliseum? or push la live as far as it'll go south. the dream of los angeles has always been that you could move there with little, work for cheap and somehow figure it all out. the economy hasn't been this good in years! it could still be like that if we could just get the rents down.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I totally believe it. I feel like I've been seeing more homeless over the last year; I even see people who look newly homeless; a suitcase or two with them

I feel like the same thing is happening in the Bay Area. The housing situation is insane, to say the least.

[chris08876]

I'd imagine illegal housing units are through the roof. A friend of mine is a drafter in NYC, and he goes around measuring rooms and rooftops, and the amount of illegal units he runs into is alarming. Not that its a bad thing, as most sensible people aren't going to snitch, but lets just say that its common for them to have 10 people or more living in 800 sq ft.

Probably less in LA, but I could see 1 bedroom rentals being the source of of many occupants. Often having some sort of mattress in one room, and they share everything else or a couple of mattresses in a small room. Usually small twin in size. Also couch. Can't forget about people sleeping in the couch.

I mean, if you trust the people sure. It could also be one way to live in an actual Mansion. Here in NJ, a couple of 20,000 sq ft homes are actually owned by more than 12 people. Its those houses in Watchung Hills for those who know the area. Usually big families including cousins and so on all share the costs. Again, there has to be a level of trust. One of them has a big Indian family. But I know Indians tend to be heavily into family. Even the siblings who are married, live with their parents.

So there are ways around costs. Just like if you wanted to buy a Lambo. You could if you have others to share the costs, but its kinda rare to see that level of financial interconnection among people these days.

[ChargerCarl]

^This is why it's folly to cap density via regulations. The density still comes, except its in the form of overcrowding.

I hate NIMBYs.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

^This is why it's folly to cap density via regulations. The density still comes, except its in the form of overcrowding.

I hate NIMBYs.

I agree. Until places like SF or parts of LA rezone, we will continue to see this problem. The thing is, developers want to build denser developments with numerous units. They get more bang for the buck in terms of long term profit. If its rentals, its a continual cash flow. But the cities themselves make it difficult. Put these restrictions and in some places , there is a bureaucratic lag that does nothing but raise costs.

People have to realize that nothing is for free. If we want developers to build housing, we have to make it easier for them and allow them to build much more than they currently can with zoning and density restrictions.

They would be more inclined to add even more affordable housing if they see that they can make a profit. Its profit that allows them to build even more. Because even with all of the revenue, after all of the soft, hard, taxes, operational costs, and so on, even big companies can see their reserves become inadequate, and thats not good for future investment which will generate these units in the long run.

So in the end, either you want neighborhoods to stay the same or change with new units. Sure we can do conversions of existing structures, but thats not going to add as many units compared to buying a parcel, razing it, building a tower or multi-use development thats denser due to zoning modifications. People have to pick in this case.

They bitch about prices, but frown when developers want to add more units. NIMBYism is a contradicting bastard.

[YSL]

Millennials? Are there numbers to back that up? I'm pretty sure LA is growing at birth rates only at this point.

According to the American Community Survey, Los Angeles County has had slightly negative migration for the last five years.

These are the only top 20 Counties in the U.S. that have seen more people have leave than have moved in in the last 5 years:

Net Migration:
Los Angeles County : -3,965
Cook County (Chicago) : -106,395
Wayne County (Detroit): -89,890
Shelby County (Memphis): -20,671
El Paso County: -11,514

But yea, LA grows because it has a high birth rate.

NY, Houston, Dallas, SF, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia etc all have contributions to their growth via people actually moving there.

Unless LA County and LA City are showing completely different migration pattern (census doesn't do city, only county so I don't know)..

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by YSL

Millennials? Are there numbers to back that up? I'm pretty sure LA is growing at birth rates only at this point.

According to the American Community Survey, Los Angeles County has had slightly negative migration for the last five years.

These are the only top 20 Counties in the U.S. that have seen more people have leave than have moved in in the last 5 years:

Net Migration:
Los Angeles County : -3,965
Cook County (Chicago) : -106,395
Wayne County (Detroit): -89,890
Shelby County (Memphis): -20,671
El Paso County: -11,514

But yea, LA grows because it has a high birth rate.

NY, Houston, Dallas, SF, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia etc all have contributions to their growth via people actually moving there.

Unless LA County and LA City are showing completely different migration pattern (census doesn't do city, only county so I don't know)..

Well why don't you ask Demographer Dowell Myers of USC's Sol Price School of Public Policy how she derived at that... Or look through the full report apparently posted to the State Department of Finance website.

[mhays]

Sometimes "millennials are moving in" is actually more about certain core neighborhoods or certain subsets like the college-educated, regardless of the total numbers.

For example NY, SF, and some others draw the brightest and most ambitious, even while the totals might not change much.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by YSL

NY, Houston, Dallas, SF, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia etc all have contributions to their growth via people actually moving there.

.

LA has seen a sharp drop in the unemployment rate and now has a lower unemployment rate (4.8) than NYC (5.0), Houston (4.9), Seattle (5.1), Atlanta (5.2), Miami (4.9), and Philadelphia (5.0).

http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by YSL

Millennials? Are there numbers to back that up? I'm pretty sure LA is growing at birth rates only at this point.

According to the American Community Survey, Los Angeles County has had slightly negative migration for the last five years.

These are the only top 20 Counties in the U.S. that have seen more people have leave than have moved in in the last 5 years:

Net Migration:
Los Angeles County : -3,965
Cook County (Chicago) : -106,395
Wayne County (Detroit): -89,890
Shelby County (Memphis): -20,671
El Paso County: -11,514

But yea, LA grows because it has a high birth rate.

NY, Houston, Dallas, SF, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia etc all have contributions to their growth via people actually moving there.

Unless LA County and LA City are showing completely different migration pattern (census doesn't do city, only county so I don't know)..

NYC and NYC metro have the same migration issues as LA does.
LA County is ten million people alone. Comparing to much smaller cities is dumb.
It's basically a state.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by LA21st

NYC and NYC metro have the same migration issues as LA does.
LA County is ten million people alone. Comparing to much smaller cities is dumb.
It's basically a state.

NYC actually has positive migration.

Net Migration, 2010-2015
Manhattan + 15,520
Brooklyn + 1,339
Queens + 29,029
Bronx + 7,212
Staten Island -3,539

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by YSL

NYC actually has positive migration.

Net Migration, 2010-2015
Manhattan + 15,520
Brooklyn + 1,339
Queens + 29,029
Bronx + 7,212
Staten Island -3,539

He's talking about the NYC metro. NYC metro's growth drivers are natural increase(birth/deaths) and foreign immigration. It's domestic migration is in the negatives.

[LA21st]

Ny state and the entire northeast has been struggling with migration issues longer than la.
There's countless articles on it.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Ny state and the entire northeast has been struggling with migration issues longer than la.
There's countless articles on it.

You're right but that's not relevant to this discussion. It's Los Angeles so I'm comparing it to cities.

[ChargerCarl]

I think it is relevant. LA, like the rest of our nations large metros, suffers from an acute shortage of affordable housing. That this is occurring despite LA's lack of economic opportunities is testament to just how large this shortage is. After all, it's not like LA's residents are decamping for San Francisco, they're mostly moving to lower cost of living red states. If we want growth back in LA we have to fix the housing crisis first.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'd imagine illegal housing units are through the roof. A friend of mine is a drafter in NYC, and he goes around measuring rooms and rooftops, and the amount of illegal units he runs into is alarming. Not that its a bad thing, as most sensible people aren't going to snitch, but lets just say that its common for them to have 10 people or more living in 800 sq ft.

Probably less in LA, but I could see 1 bedroom rentals being the source of of many occupants. Often having some sort of mattress in one room, and they share everything else or a couple of mattresses in a small room. Usually small twin in size. Also couch. Can't forget about people sleeping in the couch.

I can believe it. And, outside of LA City, in the Chinese areas of LA County (in the San Gabriel Valley), I know for a fact that many Chinese people rent out or sublet their kitchens, living rooms, any place that someone can sleep, to Chinese immigrants, legal and illegal.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by YSL

Millennials? Are there numbers to back that up? I'm pretty sure LA is growing at birth rates only at this point.

According to the American Community Survey, Los Angeles County has had slightly negative migration for the last five years.

These are the only top 20 Counties in the U.S. that have seen more people have leave than have moved in in the last 5 years:

Net Migration:
Los Angeles County : -3,965
Cook County (Chicago) : -106,395
Wayne County (Detroit): -89,890
Shelby County (Memphis): -20,671
El Paso County: -11,514

But yea, LA grows because it has a high birth rate.

NY, Houston, Dallas, SF, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia etc all have contributions to their growth via people actually moving there.

Unless LA County and LA City are showing completely different migration pattern (census doesn't do city, only county so I don't know)..

Why is it that every time something interesting happens in LA, Everyone from Houston jumps on it to rain on its parade? Like they are always competing with LA even though they haven't even passed Chicago in relevance? like... why attack number 2 when you're still number 4 and still miles behind number 3? .

The US census bureau is known for being inaccurate and flawed. So relying on the robo calls and door to door knocks is laughable on its own. On its website, it even states "these numbers are estimates".

I can assure you that Millennials are the ones in the drivers seat in LA right now. Saying "LA is only growing because of its birthrate" is ridiculous.

While Houston is only growing because of its purging from the rest of the country because of its low tax rate and zero zoning and environmental laws making it "business friendly" and dirt cheap housing, LA is growing by both attracting people from around the country but also from around the world, making LAs population more dynamic in the ranks of NYC, Chicago, Seattle, SF and etc.

LA universities/colleges, Movie industry, Silicone beach, aerospace industry, fashion industry, heavy investment from Chinese and Canadian investors, small tech start ups, densifying core, rapidly expanding core and etc. are making it a millennials wet dream and fantasy.

Thanks for trying to make its recent achievements seem void but........ NO.

And whether its population is from its birthrate or from outsiders is irrelevant. You're arguing 2 different arguments. And the census actually does break it down between city and county.... since not every city has its own county

[LA21st]

I've only been to Houston once near the airport.
Hoeever , looking at the Google maps, it just looks like a dull, uninteresting place.
It doesn't resemble la at all.

Maybe the inland empire or something. .

Maybe that's why they're bitter.