2017 California City/County Population Estimates (Fresno, Sacramento: estimate, suburbs, farm)

[Finper]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

Great data, sacreole. Thanks for posting this.

You can slice the data any number of ways, but looking at the raw numbers is probably best, because a small town can have a large percentage increase with fewer people than a large city.

Here are the 20 fastest growing cities in the state in terms of RAW NUMBERS of people moving there -- the first number is the number of people who moved to that city in the last year. The second number is the current population of the city.

Los Angeles: 42,470 new residents; 4,041,707 total population

San Diego: 15,530 new residents; 1,406,318 total population

Irvine: 9905 new residents; 267086 total population

San Jose: 9754 new residents; 1,046,790 total population

Sacramento: 6249 new residents; 493,025 total population

Santa Clarita: 6249 new residents; 216,350 total population

Fresno: 5054 new residents; 525,832 total population

Bakersfield: 4302 new residents; 383,513 total population

Stockton: 4090 new residents; 320,554 total population

Ontario: 4069 new residents; 174,283 total population

Corona: 3828 new residents; 167,759 total population

Fontana 3607 new residents; 212,786 total population

Chula Vista 3006 new residents; 267,917 total population

Elk Grove, 2941 new residents; 171,059 total population

Oakland, 2883 new residents; 426,074 total population

Anaheim: 2703 new residents; 215,080 total population


Since the above is only the top 20, we probably need to be careful about drawing too many conclusions, but it is interesting to see so many "inland" cities on the list for the top 20 for raw number increases. Of course, this doesn't meant that that many people actually MOVED there -- part of the increase is likely attributable to birth/death rates.

I had no idea that many people live in Fresno. More people live there than Sacramento

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by jjpop

Wow, Crescent City had a big percentage loss. Would that have anything to do with Pelican Bay State Prison?

Crescent City is dying. There aren't jobs here or decent health care. Businesses regularly vacate buildings that have not been re-rented, etc. Highway 101 keeps falling into the ocean between Eureka and CC, which affects the minimal tourist traffic here.

The only steady employer is the prison. From what I recall, they recently hired a bunch of new employees. But, I also understand that most of them prefer to live in Brookings, OR and commute. Some people even live in Gold Beach, OR and commute to Crescent City.

Every now and then I hear people optimistically mention buying here because it's "the coast" of CA and therefore, it will eventually be worth a bunch of money.

My answer to them is that Alaska also has a lot of coastal property. Does that mean it's desirable?

Crescent City, which does have a lot of upsides, is still a very poor town that is very isolated and more so all the time with the bad Hwy 101 problems with landslides, etc. And it's a town of 5,000 people in town (the 8,000 figure includes the prison population).

So, if you want CA coastal property and don't mind that you'll be living where it's normal to regularly encounter store clerks with no front teeth, in order to be able to say you live on the coast of CA - then Crescent City is the town for you.

But, be aware if you should ever need dialysis or an oncology doctor or other specialist, you'll have to travel to Eureka - 2 1/2 hours away - when Hwy 101 isn't closed due to yet another landslide into the ocean - or then to Medford, about 3 hours away - assuming your healthcare works in OR. If not, then it's Redding, about 4 hours away - and all by winding mountain roads with no cell service for portions of the trip.

So, having lived here - and there are things I really love about Crescent City - I am not surprised by these numbers at all.

Oh yeah, and the dental clinic in town that accepts Denta-Cal, does not accept new adult patients. The closest clinic that does is Redding - 4 hours away.

Can you spell isolated?

Great place to take your dog to the beach off leash on a day that's not windy or rainy, though. And it's never too hot and it never snows.....

[sacreole]

Originally Posted by Finper

I had no idea that many people live in Fresno. More people live there than Sacramento

Even though Fresno proper has a larger population, Sacramento's metro area is 2.5 times larger. Fresno does really have any suburbs, unless you count Clovis and Madera Ranchos.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by sacreole

Even though Fresno proper has a larger population, Sacramento's metro area is 2.5 times larger. Fresno does really have any suburbs, unless you count Clovis and Madera Ranchos.

Why not count them? And even Visalia?

[sacreole]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Why not count them? And even Visalia?

Visalia is not part of the Fresno metropolitan area. Visalia is part of the Visalia-Porterville-Tulare metro area designation, which is essentially Tulare County.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Finper

I had no idea that many people live in Fresno. More people live there than Sacramento

There are several Sacramento neighborhoods with Sacramento addresses, school districts and zip codes that are next to and connected to Sacramento but are not technically in the city limits of Sacramento. These communities number about 100,000 people. If they were annexed into Sactown, the city of Sacramento would have a population of around 600,000.

The Sac Metro is 2.3 million, the greater Sacramento area is 2.65 million.

The greater Fresno metro is 1.1 million.

[RosieSD]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

There are several Sacramento neighborhoods with Sacramento addresses, school districts and zip codes that are next to and connected to Sacramento but are not technically in the city limits of Sacramento. These communities number about 100,000 people. If they were annexed into Sactown, the city of Sacramento would have a population of around 600,000.

The Sac Metro is 2.3 million, the greater Sacramento area is 2.65 million.

The greater Fresno metro is 1.1 million.

The demographic figures in this state report only look at the population within the actual city limits; the figures aren't for the metro area.

So, it is correct to say that the city of Fresno has a larger population than the city of Sacramento, regardless of what the population in near-by areas might be.

Metro statistical areas (MSAs) were NOT part of this report. But, in terms of Metro areas, the Sacramento Metropolitan statistical area as defined by the U.S. census department does have a larger population than the Fresno-Madera metro statistical area (again, as defined by the U.S. Census.

However, it is important to note how the U.S. Census Department defines these two metro statistical areas. The Sacramento Metro statistical Area as defined by the U.S. Census encompasses a MUCH larger geographic area than the Fresno-Madera MSA.

The Sacramento Metro statistical area (again as defined by the U.S. Census) encompasses 21,429 square miles and seven counties. The Fresno-Madera Metro area (again as defined by the U.S. Census) encompasses just 8,099 square miles and 2 counties. So, that alone accounts for part of for the difference in population between the two MSAs.

If you defined the two metro areas differently so that their square mileage and number of counties were more similar, it's likely that the size of both metro's populations likely would be more similar too.

But, of course, the U.S. Census has their own reasons for defining metro statistical areas the way they do. MSAs are based on Census dept. estimates of how many people commute to the metro core city from outlying areas.

My hunch is that the reason the Fresno-Madera MSA is defined as a smaller area is that so much of the central valley is farmland. Farmers and farm workers don't commute to the big city. But, if we're going to start talking about nearby areas that should be lumped together to make the population look bigger, then perhaps we should redefine the two areas so that they are similar in land size and number of counties to make a more accurate comparison.

[Moddedintegra56]

Originally Posted by Finper

I had no idea that many people live in Fresno. More people live there than Sacramento

yea 5th largest city in CA. LA 1st, San Diego 2nd, SJ 3rd, San Francisco is 4th, Sacramento is 6th. Prepare for that population to go even higher if the HSR ever gets completed since the first major leg from 1 big city to another is SJ to Fresno. Sacramento housing has peaked IMO to as high as it gets. It was the 2 hour relief for housing for many in the bay area in another big city. Fresno is starting to get some of that benefit 2 hours south of the south bay. With that said, Fresno's prices is not Sacramento level, but when it does I would say the same. Median home price is sac is $100K more than fresno county. Only an xfactor like the HSR can bring prices higher after that unless something crazy happens and they become the next silicon valley. 40min HSR comfortable commute from the 5th largest city to the 3rd in San Jose sure beats 2+ hour stress and traffic filled commutes from small bedroom communities in the stockton/tracy area where homes are already $400-500K in irrelevant small towns/cities--which many do today to work in SJ area. Many got suckered there with the "only an hour drive to the bay area". They should have put an asterik there saying *but expect anywhere from 2-3 hrs each way during the work week. Would have put up with it if I was one of the lucky to snag homes in the mountain house/tracy area when they were in the 200s-300s. But now most of those same nice homes are in the 400s-500s. no way!

Originally Posted by sacreole

Even though Fresno proper has a larger population, Sacramento's metro area is 2.5 times larger. Fresno does really have any suburbs, unless you count Clovis and Madera Ranchos.

north fresno is all suburbs. also some in south east. a lot of sprawl there that has created a lot of suburb sprawl but mostly all to the north. Unless you are speaking of strictly neighboring towns/cities.

[sacreole]

Originally Posted by sacreole

Even though Fresno proper has a larger population, Sacramento's metro area is 2.5 times larger. Fresno does really have any suburbs, unless you count Clovis and Madera Ranchos.

I meant to say, Fresno doesn't really have any suburbs other than Clovis and the Madera Ranchos north of the San Joaquin River. I agree that the northern parts of Fresno are suburban in nature, but are still contained in city limits.

[Chimérique]

RosieSD, You are missing numerous major points of how much bigger Sacramento is than Fresno.