California's power center - shifting to the north? (Los Angeles, San Diego: how much, closing)

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

That would be insane. NorCal is a really diverse place to live, so I can see it happening. It will likely depend heavily on how the economy recovers though.

If it weren't for the ability to transport water, I think the population of Southern California would be much smaller than what it is today. I took a geography class in college where the instructor said that the SF Bay Area was - in his words - "an excellent location" for a large city, whereas Southern California was "a terrible location" for a large city. I'm pretty sure he was referring to the port access and the water issues.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/ne...t20070710g.pdf

This LA Times article based on State Projections says SoCal will grow by 12 Million btwn 2000 and 2050, if that is the case, then by the same projection, Norcal is going to grow by a whopping 14 Million...or a 100% increase.

2050
Southern California 31 Million
Northern California 29 Million

Not really a fan of this happening to be honest.

The 100 Mile radius around SF will have over 25 Million people. That is mindnumbing.

Such projections are based on the flawed premise that world population (and hence US immigration) will rise throughout the century. Even the Malthusian UN projects the world population to turn around and start to fall mid century. That means immigration will drop off earlier. The poorest in Asia and Africa, who'll be the last to loose their fecundity, will never immigrate - most will never go more than 50 miles from where they were born.

(Tin foil hat) Sometimes I think these sorts of projections are planted by real estate speculators. (/Tin foil hat).

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

If it weren't for the ability to transport water, I think the population of Southern California would be much smaller than what it is today. I took a geography class in college where the instructor said that the SF Bay Area was - in his words - "an excellent location" for a large city, whereas Southern California was "a terrible location" for a large city. I'm pretty sure he was referring to the port access and the water issues.

The Bay Area is barely better, water wise, than LA. Without imported water, the Greater Bay Area would have fewer than a million people.

But is there anywhere in the Western US, other than the Pac NW, that does not depend on technology to make semi arid and arid lands bloom?

(Interesting fact - the 20 inch rainfall line - e.g. the border of aridity - goes right through SF. There are parts of the Bay Area where normal annual rainfall is in the realm of 11 - 15 inches - hard core semi arid - about the same as the Northern San Joaquin Valley)

[Screw Sacramento]

It seems like it. Sacramento feels like the new San Francisco or L.A.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Screw Sacramento

It seems like it. Sacramento feels like the new San Francisco or L.A.

Really? How so?

[Screw Sacramento]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Really? How so?

Just seems more congested, more regulated, more corporate, and less personal the more time we spend here.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/ne...t20070710g.pdf

This LA Times article based on State Projections says SoCal will grow by 12 Million btwn 2000 and 2050, if that is the case, then by the same projection, Norcal is going to grow by a whopping 14 Million...or a 100% increase.

2050
Southern California 31 Million
Northern California 29 Million

Not really a fan of this happening to be honest.

The 100 Mile radius around SF will have over 25 Million people. That is mindnumbing.

Wait a second... There's nothing in that article that cites those numbers. I'm not sure how you're extrapolating the numbers, but I see nothing that suggests the population of Northern California will be 29 million by the year 2050.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Screw Sacramento

Just seems more congested, more regulated, more corporate, and less personal the more time we spend here.

That would apply to any large city in America, I believe. I don't think that it's evidence of a "power shift" from Southern to Northern California.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Such projections are based on the flawed premise that world population (and hence US immigration) will rise throughout the century. Even the Malthusian UN projects the world population to turn around and start to fall mid century. That means immigration will drop off earlier. The poorest in Asia and Africa, who'll be the last to loose their fecundity, will never immigrate - most will never go more than 50 miles from where they were born.

(Tin foil hat) Sometimes I think these sorts of projections are planted by real estate speculators. (/Tin foil hat).

Well obviously we don't have a crystal ball but if the last 60 years are anything like the next 40--these projections are probably close to true.

San Francisco/Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto/Salinas combined CSA and MSA Population between 1940 and 2003.

Population
1940 2,526,054
1950 3,647,000
1960 5,066,320
1970 6,455,400
1980 7,530,800
1990 9,114,800
2000 10,498,800
2003 10,861,000

Net Population Change
1940-1950 +1,120,946(+44.3%)
1950-1960 +1,419,320(+38.9%)
1960-1970 +1,389,080(+27.4%)
1970-1980 +1,075,400(+16.6%)
1980-1990 +1,584,000(+21.0%)
1990-2000 +1,384,000(+15.1%)
2000-2003 +363,000(+3.4%)

Average Annual Population Change(1940-2003) +132,313

1940-2003 +8,335,746

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

but I see nothing that suggests the population of Northern California will be 29 million by the year 2050.

Um, the combined population the article gives to SoCal is 31 Million out of a projected 59.5 Million for California as a whole.

That leaves 28-29 Million-where do you suppose those people live?

The answer is Northern California.