2013-14 Population Estimates for California Cities Released

[sofresh808]

^That area by the 15 is City Heights, that Mello was referring to earlier. It's similar to San Antonio/Fruitvale in character, building and population wise, and is a bit of a distance from Downtown (and the lack of rail transit and multiple freeways makes it feel more disconnected than it should). Compared to the northern reaches of SD City limits it's central, though not in the same sense of Lake Merritt or the south side of campus in Berkeley. Thanks for getting that link and numbers to back up my unsupported assertion

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by mello

Since when is SD a "suburb" you should visit the city compilations thread and see what is going on in the core of San Diego. Yes it is no San Francisco but the downtown area is quite impressive for a young city in the Sunbelt without a large corporate base like Seattle. If we had an Amazon like they did who knows what our urban core would look like.

Remember SF is only 49 square miles out of the huge Bay Area metro and it isn't like all of City of SF is super transit friendly. I'm not an expert on it but I'm sure fflint could point out the nabes where BART isn't within a 1/4 mile of most residents.

If you took the inner 49 square miles of SD there are quite a few spots where you could live without a car and get around ok. We are expanding light rail north to UCSD and a huge employment center just East of La Jolla with new high rise office being built there.

I'm not trying to be a homer or say SD is some urban paradise, I lived in Crown Heights for 2 years and know all about transit and such but calling this city a suburb is a bit offensive.

Most of San Francisco uses MUNI, not BART. There a 6 light (M, J, L, N, T, F) rail lines, and several heavily used bus routes. You can live w/o a car all over the city. Some areas are transit poor, in terms of frequency and routes, but most of the city residents, by MTA policy can access a transit stop. That said, MUNI really sucks in terms of service delivery.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by sofresh808

^That area by the 15 is City Heights, that Mello was referring to earlier. It's similar to San Antonio/Fruitvale in character, building and population wise, and is a bit of a distance from Downtown (and the lack of rail transit and multiple freeways makes it feel more disconnected than it should). Compared to the northern reaches of SD City limits it's central, though not in the same sense of Lake Merritt or the south side of campus in Berkeley. Thanks for getting that link and numbers to back up my unsupported assertion

Yeah, I just wasn't sure whether that would be considered central by locals or not. Initially I used the 15 as a boundary because it seemed reasonable and gave me a way to limit the census tracts I had to examine, but once I realized the areas in question were more dense than the ones I listed I wanted to post the numbers and ask if they should be included.

Ultimately, "centrality" doesn't really matter--the data above show there is a large chunk of San Diego with high population densities that we almost never see in American suburbs. So much for the "overgrown suburb" myth.

[mhays]

San Diego seems pretty efficient in its land use. It also crams a lot of cars into that otherwise-efficient space.

[fflint]

Five Densest Census Tracts - California Cities

Bakersfield
10,921 ppsm
9,972 ppsm
9,965 ppsm
9,300 ppsm
8,756 ppsm

Berkeley:
53,046 ppsm
36,741 ppsm
36,353 ppsm
26,207 ppsm
22,851 ppsm

Fresno
11,649 ppsm
11,625 ppsm
11,530 ppsm
11,478 ppsm
10,856 ppsm

Long Beach:
41,697 ppsm
41,358 ppsm
40,165 ppsm
38,250 ppsm
38,200 ppsm

Los Angeles:
94,490 ppsm
87,424 ppsm
79,151 ppsm
70,590 ppsm
70,447 ppsm

Oakland:
38,519 ppsm
32,646 ppsm
32,383 ppsm
29,757 ppsm
29,601 ppsm

Sacramento
15,416 ppsm
12,730 ppsm
12,174 ppsm
10,782 ppsm
10,677 ppsm

San Diego
36,254 ppsm
32,270 ppsm
27,511 ppsm
27,068 ppsm
25,847 ppsm

San Francisco
161,499 ppsm
142,919 ppsm
128,506 ppsm
101,880 ppsm
100,117 ppsm

San Jose
48,602 ppsm
25,053 ppsm
19,751 ppsm
18,775 ppsm
17,827 ppsm
17,194 ppsm

Source: the New York Times' amazing census widget*

*I'm eyeballing this stuff. I have already been served two cocktails. If you find denser tracts, let me know the tract number and general vicinity and I'll revise the list!

[TWAK]

I know sac has a huge unincorporated area, as well as LA. Any other cities suffer from impregnable unincorporated areas?

[Lipani]

Originally Posted by sofresh808

^Having the Kings really raises the profile of Sacramento nationally too (despite some really rough seasons recently).

A bit internationally as well. I'm in Spain right now and when I tell people that I grew up in Sacramento, quite a few respond with "Sacramento Kings!" Granted the NBA is popular here (and Pau Gasol playing for the Lakers in the same division and doesn't hurt). But for a city that is not that well-known abroad, the Kings certainly help raise its profile compared to 'larger' Fresno.

[Leo the Dog]

Five Densest Census Tracts - California Cities

Nice list fflint.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

It's kind of disappointing that even with the current historic building boom in the Bay Area, SF/Oakland are being outpaced in population growth by two overgrown suburbs, San Diego and San Jose. It looks like suburban living is still outpacing urban living in California.

I wonder what it would take to get momentum to really shift people into real cities and out of car-oriented suburbs like SJ and SD. Obviously one of the first steps would be to revise zoning to make it easier to build new construction in CA's city cores. Another step is building more transit - SF is doing this with the Central Subway, but the pace really needs to pick up. Cities like Berkeley and Oakland are relatively transit-starved for being so densely populated. LA has the right idea, for sure.

This board keeps shitting out self-parody...

[dennis1]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

This board keeps shitting out self-parody...

Lol why do you only respond to the SJ hate comments?

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by dennis1

Lol why do you only respond to the SJ hate comments?

all I have energy for anymore. the other arguments I just watch.

[dimondpark]

Im still trying to figure out why the inner Bay is growing faster than the outer Bay despite being way more expensive.

"Inner" Bay Area, Population 6,366,479
San Francisco MSA & Santa Clara County
County.......Median Home Price, March 2014....Annual Population Growth Rate
Alameda..........................$660,610.........................+1.5%
Contra Costa...................$703,490.........................+1.0%
Marin.............................$1,039,770........................+0.5%
San Francisco.................$902,540.........................+1.3%
San Mateo.....................$1,164,750........................+1.2%
Santa Clara......................$852,000........................+1.5%

"Outer" Bay Area, Population 2,093,807
Remainder of Bay Area CSA
Napa................................$585,530.........................+0.4%
San Benito.......................$418,000.........................+0.8%
San Joaquin....................$245,900.........................+1.3%
Santa Cruz.......................$635,000.........................+1.3%
Solano..............................$312,350.........................+0.9%
Sonoma............................$494,150.........................+0.4%

Anyhow, I think perhaps some have decided that having a larger house in exurbia isnt worth a 4-hr long round trip commute.

Here's data for the Southland
Los Angeles CSA
Los Angeles...................$395,780...........................+0.8%
Orange...........................$675,540...........................+0.9%
Riverside........................$310,670...........................+1.1%
San Bernardino.............$188,800...........................+0.8%
Ventura..........................$559,320...........................+0.8%

A few observations.
1. Clearly $395,780 buys nothing in much of LA county but I think South LA and northern LA county drag down the county median.

2. The Inland Empire's growth rate has really slowed down from the unreal gains they had from the 70s through the mid 2000s.

Sources for data:
Home Prices....March home sales and price report
Population Growth..... E-1 Current Population Estimates - California Department of Finance

[fflint]

I don't know why, but I can guess as to why the inner Bay Area is growing faster than the outer areas despite much higher house prices: much, perhaps most, of the inner Bay Area growth is driven by apartment construction and multifamily condo projects, whereas construction in the outer areas is more likely single family houses.

[memph]

What counties in the Bay Area have the good jobs (and growth in good jobs)? That should explain a lot of it.

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by sofresh808

^Having the Kings really raises the profile of Sacramento nationally too (despite some really rough seasons recently). Not sure even most forumers outside of CA know much about Fresno, or that it is "larger" the Sac.

Having a celebrity mayor in Kevin Johnson helps too. Johnson, former NBA star and current leader of the US Conference of Mayors, definitely raises the city's profile, just recently he has been on ESPN, Good Morning America, and Meet the Press talking about the racial remarks made by the Clippers owner.

Fresno having a bigger city population than Sac doesn't really bother me. It is what it is. People are attracted to the low cost of living, and everything is cheaper there, so I can see why people flock to Fresno.

While Sac is a government town, it offers the best quality of life in the Central Valley. Having the Sacramento Kings and being the capitol of California will always distinguish and favor Sacramento over Fresno. Like others have said, Sacramento has better bones downtown than Fresno. The new arena and surrounding developments will enhance the feel and bring synergy to a downtown that has been struggling to attract investors and visitors.

Fresno can have the population numbers (metro figures is what counts, really) but is nowhere in the same league as Sacramento.

[soleri]

Because I'm originally from Phoenix, I'm a bit astounded to read that San Diego is suburban. My exposure to the city is mostly its core and older neighborhoods so my view may be a bit distorted. Its downtown, however has made significant strides over the past 25 years, moving from comatose to rather lively. The new condo towers there constitute the most impressive change of any California city, San Francisco included. Because SD was not exactly dynamic in the past, it's all the more impressive to see these changes. Is it a great city? No. It has the feel of a resort town and lacks the gritty gravitas of truly great cities. It's not San Francisco or even LA, and never will be. It desperately needs a creative class to give it some edge and urban bona fides. Still, it could have flatlined like Phoenix with a dumpy downtown and sleepy central-city neighborhoods. But it didn't. It's changed dramatically and deserves some credit.

[dc_denizen]

My friends in suburban Carlsbad /north county can walk to a grocery store/coffee shop from their SFH. Yards in the development are nonexistent, and houses are tightly packed in. well-marked bike lanes are standard in the planning for the area--never had to leave a lane on a major road while biking for 300 miles in a week. It's a short trip (hilly though) to the beach towns or down to SD. Utility poles are generally buried or well-hidden. Infrastructure is generally new, and well taken care of. Lot of traffic is the downside.

SD suburbs seemed very well and sustainably planned to me, compared to their cousins on the east coast.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

My friends in suburban Carlsbad /north county can walk to a grocery store/coffee shop from their SFH. Yards in the development are nonexistent, and houses are tightly packed in. well-marked bike lanes are standard in the planning for the area--never had to leave a lane on a major road while biking for 300 miles in a week. It's a short trip (hilly though) to the beach towns or down to SD. Utility poles are generally buried or well-hidden. Infrastructure is generally new, and well taken care of. Lot of traffic is the downside.

SD suburbs seemed very well and sustainably planned to me, compared to their cousins on the east coast.

Accurate observations.

Carlsbad also has commuter rail (Coaster) which connects to Downtown SD and northbound to Oceanside where can transfer to LA's commuter rail or transfer to the Sprinter Line to Escondido.

[JustSomeGuyWho]

Originally Posted by soleri

Because I'm originally from Phoenix, I'm a bit astounded to read that San Diego is suburban. My exposure to the city is mostly its core and older neighborhoods so my view may be a bit distorted. Its downtown, however has made significant strides over the past 25 years, moving from comatose to rather lively. The new condo towers there constitute the most impressive change of any California city, San Francisco included. Because SD was not exactly dynamic in the past, it's all the more impressive to see these changes. Is it a great city? No. It has the feel of a resort town and lacks the gritty gravitas of truly great cities. It's not San Francisco or even LA, and never will be. It desperately needs a creative class to give it some edge and urban bona fides. Still, it could have flatlined like Phoenix with a dumpy downtown and sleepy central-city neighborhoods. But it didn't. It's changed dramatically and deserves some credit.

Who votes for Phoenix as most boring big city ever. It has my vote.

[dimondpark]

Very interesting stat I just noticed.

According to this report, most of CAs large Metros saw a net gain in domestic migration between 2010-2013.

San Francisco had a 3-year net change in domestic migration of +35,307
The Inland Empire had a 3-year net change in domestic migration of +27,375
Sacramento had a 3-year net change in domestic migration of +7,833
San Diego had a 3-year net change in domestic migration of +213

Conversely,
San Jose had a 3-year net domestic migration change of -8,119 and Los Angeles had a 3-year net domestic change of -145,709

This is the article I found.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014...s-cities/8873/

Data for all metros can be found at factfinder2.census.gov