Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well no it was you who brought up regional geographies: I lived in cities in southern California that were in the middle of the desert with 30% unemployment...absolutely miserable with nothing around. Guess what....they gain population every year like literally every other city in SoCal.
Anyhow, since you seem to be pressed about something, let's look at the cities themselves then. San Francisco Population & Density:
1980: 678,974(14,760 pop density)
2000: 776,733(16,885 pop density)
2017: 884,363(19,225 pop density)
Los Angeles Population & Density
1980: 2,966,850(6,325 pop density)
2000: 3,694,820(7,878 pop density)
2017: 3,999,759(8,528 pop density)
I don't see LA trending upwards in such a way that itll catch SF because SF is densifying faster.
I brought up other cities, not regions. Can San Francisco support 20,000+ density? I don't see any indication of that.
So San Francisco had 884,000 population at last count.
According to the planning commission, there are 70,000 housing units in the pipeline, 16,000 are either under construction or have been approved, which takes forever in SF.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
That’s actually not the city owned part of Poplar Point. The link you posted is another development next to the 110 acre Poplar Point that is city owned. The city is releasing an RFP for their portion soon.
Thanks I was searching the links and actually looking for that one. I would love to see the RFP for Poplar once it comes out from the city too. Keep me posted.
Im not an expert but the SE corner of SF has been the most economically depressed quadrant of SF for decades. It was the location of Candlestick Park, which has been torn down, and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, which has been closed for decades.
I know that the city has major plans for both Candlestick Point and Hunters Point. These are my pics of the renders.
Candlestick Point
Hunters Point
Anyhow, San Francisco Population & Density:
1980: 678,974(14,760 pop density)
2000: 776,733(16,885 pop density)
2017: 884,363(19,225 pop density)
The city has gotten taller...
My pic
Honestly, given the high housing costs and sheer demand of people wanting to move to SF, wouldn't it make more sense to build a bunch of high rises in the old disused shipyard area and connect it better to transit, especially since that part of the city has become a deadzone?
In DC, we've revitalized many of those previously dead areas by building midrises in them, and as the other DC posters have posted, gotten many construction projects on the way. Is it all just government intransigence?
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubb Rubb
Honestly, given the high housing costs and sheer demand of people wanting to move to SF, wouldn't it make more sense to build a bunch of high rises in the old disused shipyard area and connect it better to transit, especially since that part of the city has become a deadzone?
In DC, we've revitalized many of those previously dead areas by building midrises in them, and as the other DC posters have posted, gotten many construction projects on the way. Is it all just government intransigence?
I watched that San Francisco video which was nice, and I totally agree. Those shipyard areas seem like the last dead zone land available to be developed to a high density without tearing down existing homes. The point about Brickell portion of Miami made sense, but Miami is truly a "condo city". The areas in DC we've been mentioning are comparable in the sense that they too hug the water with immediate development, a ballpark, bike trails, and multi-level mixed use apartment/condo buildings.
Honestly, given the high housing costs and sheer demand of people wanting to move to SF, wouldn't it make more sense to build a bunch of high rises in the old disused shipyard area and connect it better to transit, especially since that part of the city has become a deadzone?
All told, there will be 15-20 highrises and combined with other structures will total 9,000+ units, that will be served by several transit lines and probably ferry service of some kind.
We can't do wall-to-wall highrises in SF, the lawsuits and community objections would take decades to deal with.
A million residents since, what, 1950? Chicago rightsized to about 3 million people and has stayed there. It doesn't seem to be in danger of dropping outside of the area of 2.6-2.9 million. 90% was an exaggeration, St. Louis has actually lost something like 75-80% of its population, that is a reading comprehension error.
You're seemingly obsessed with trends and raw numbers but are ignoring the part where the population of the country keeps rising and the fact that those increases are asymmetric. Places in the west and south were woefully underpopulated, they should all be denser. It is a good thing that small towns in California are seeing infill. But with density, inherently, comes suburbanization and sprawl. It'll happen in LA, likely before we see the city hit peak-Chicago levels of density at ~7 million people. There's a lot of space in between Los Angeles and Lancaster that could be filled in, the Inland Empire could become denser and denser, too. There is reason to think, because they are booming in a country that is larger than ever, that Sunbelt cities will be larger and as dense as their eastern and midwestern counterparts. But there is nothing to suggest that they won't be subject to the same cycles as all cities everywhere.
Eventually the US will have something like 1 billion people and density comparable to Germany nationwide and that requires cities like LA to reach Chicago levels of density AND then to have negative growth as the suburbs sprawl further than they already do.
If Los Angeles lost a single resident in a census (which won't happen), you can imagine the slew of "people are fleeing L.A." articles propagating the usual "California is a mess" stereotypes. So Chicago can lose nearly a million residents and they are "rightsizing"...got it. They lost population during the same time and for the same reasons as other rust belt cities.
If Los Angeles lost a single resident in a census (which won't happen), you can imagine the slew of "people are fleeing L.A." articles propagating the usual "California is a mess" stereotypes. So Chicago can lose nearly a million residents and they are "rightsizing"...got it. They lost population during the same time and for the same reasons as other rust belt cities.
Why do you single out Chicago? All the Midwest and Northeast lost people. It does not have the California climate and lost much of its manufacturing base.
But it is true the census revised Chicago's numbers upward last claim of losses. But it has been bleeding African Americans especially last decades by a few hundred thousand.
Plenty of land cleared of blight, for a future it has those lots gain infill again. But its gentrification continues .... just not so much into current hoods.
If it had California winters ....... or further south. Clearly it would be on steroids as the city is given regards on C-D alone and by visitors. Just not for winters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
