Bay Area Has Least Population Gain After Detroit Metro (Los Angeles: buying a house, buying)

[thetalentedmisterdiamonte]

According to the newest Census figures released for increases in population from 2000 to end of 2006, the San Francsico metropolitan area has the second least gain in popuation only after Detroit out of the top 25 most populated metropolitan areas. Detroit sits squarely on 1.0% whereas San Francisco's at 1.9%. Phoenix's metropolitan area took the top spot with 24.2% followed by Atlanta's 20.5% increase. Out of all the metropolitan areas West of the Mississippi River, San Francisco' metropolitan area had the lowest in migration.

I wonder why this is the case. You can make the argument that it's because it's extremely expensive but the San Diego metropolitan area is too and there it gained an incease of 4.5%

[kdog]

Metro SF is probably a poor metric for assessing growth in the bay area. It's about as built-up as it's every going to be.

According to this census report, San Jose rates #10 in the country for historical growth.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...1factsheet.pdf

Got a link for the numbers that you're talking about?

[mysticaltyger]

Yeah, I think you have to look at the WHOLE Bay Area to get the picture. That would include the East Bay & South Bay as well as The North Bay...Most of the growth is not happening in San Francisco because it's too built up already. Marin & San Mateo Counties (part of the SF metro area) are also very anti-growth.

[sc101]

If they are right why the traffic is getting worse and worse every day in South Bay? So are the housing.

[DMenscha]

Supply and demand. Pure and simple.

[tigerclaws]

Originally Posted by thetalentedmisterdiamonte

According to the newest Census figures released for increases in population from 2000 to end of 2006, the San Francsico metropolitan area has the second least gain in popuation only after Detroit out of the top 25 most populated metropolitan areas. Detroit sits squarely on 1.0% whereas San Francisco's at 1.9%. Phoenix's metropolitan area took the top spot with 24.2% followed by Atlanta's 20.5% increase. Out of all the metropolitan areas West of the Mississippi River, San Francisco' metropolitan area had the lowest in migration.

I wonder why this is the case. You can make the argument that it's because it's extremely expensive but the San Diego metropolitan area is too and there it gained an incease of 4.5%

SD is not as expensive as the Bay area. Bay area is bigger and more densely populated as well. I read a poster that said that you need about 200k a year to live comfortably (meaning buying a house, commute etc. etc.). The main reason for the disparity is because San Fran area has more jobs from financial services, banking, IT, start-ups to some old economy jobs.

[adagio926]

Works for me. The Bay Area doesn't need to get much more crowded.

[JustinPacificaCA]

take my advice... never trust the U.S. census when it comes to estimates. worst source you could back yourself up with. First of all the U.S. census is inaccurate in measuring metro regions considering they measure them by county and not cities and CDPs. A perfect example of this would be the Greater Los Angeles MSA which is now what like 17 mill???? however that is because that includes the whole population of San Bernardino County. Now if anyone knows California counties they would know that the area of san bernardino county is larger than most states in New England. it goes all the way from the LA suburbs to Arizona. now correct me if I am wrong but isn't AZ just a little bit too far away from LA to be considered part of its metro area? another thing there are cities in both LA and San Bernardino counties that are considered part of the LA region. cities like Palmdale or Apple Valley or Palm Springs and all of Coachella valley are considered to be part of the LA area according to the U.S. census.
The bay area on the other hand is different when measured by the U.S. census. Considering the counties in the Bay Area are much smaller, therefore alot of cities and towns are unaccounted for in the Central Valley or in Santa Cruz county. Cities like Tracy, or Stockton, or Rio vista, or Santa Cruz which are growing like crazy ever since the Bay Area ran out of places to develop. California is unlike many other areas of the country where there is plenty of room to sprawl.

[sheri257]

This has been showing up in the census data for awhile now ...

Pretty much all of the expensive cities/areas have been gradually losing population.

Especially when you look at where people are moving from and where they're moving to ... A LOT of people are moving out of SF, San Diego, LA, etc.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p25-1135.pdf

People tend to migrate to cheaper housing. Nothing new there ... it's always been that way.

[WorldBFree]

U.S. Census data, while not always accurate, does take into account that San Bernardino and Riverside Counties extend to Arizona. But since no one lives East of The Coachella Valley it is statistically insignificant to pointedly eliminate that area, so they just leave it in. I lived 10 years in San Francisco and 18 in Los Angeles, LA continues to grow by leaps and bounds because of weather, relatively low living costs if you scan the whole thing, and massive diversity. The San Francisco Bay Area, while pleasant, takes money and effort to live in. You are right, Tracy is the growth area for San Francisco, but at that point - Welcome to Sacramento.

Originally Posted by JustinPacificaCA

take my advice... never trust the U.S. census when it comes to estimates. worst source you could back yourself up with. First of all the U.S. census is inaccurate in measuring metro regions considering they measure them by county and not cities and CDPs. A perfect example of this would be the Greater Los Angeles MSA which is now what like 17 mill???? however that is because that includes the whole population of San Bernardino County. Now if anyone knows California counties they would know that the area of san bernardino county is larger than most states in New England. it goes all the way from the LA suburbs to Arizona. now correct me if I am wrong but isn't AZ just a little bit too far away from LA to be considered part of its metro area? another thing there are cities in both LA and San Bernardino counties that are considered part of the LA region. cities like Palmdale or Apple Valley or Palm Springs and all of Coachella valley are considered to be part of the LA area according to the U.S. census.
The bay area on the other hand is different when measured by the U.S. census. Considering the counties in the Bay Area are much smaller, therefore alot of cities and towns are unaccounted for in the Central Valley or in Santa Cruz county. Cities like Tracy, or Stockton, or Rio vista, or Santa Cruz which are growing like crazy ever since the Bay Area ran out of places to develop. California is unlike many other areas of the country where there is plenty of room to sprawl.