Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-10-2017, 04:25 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,668,735 times
Reputation: 13635

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Yes it's factually correct but it means nothing in the terms of what was actually being discussed.

Oakland's population went negative for a multi year period, and just started recovering after the recession. That doesn't equate to a sudden explosion in new housing construction which is what we were actually talking about. Damn, no wonder I can't take your post seriously, it's like you're purposefully trying to be wrong.
Yes focusing on the time period that includes the current economic/employment boom and subsequent housing shortage caused by it means "nothing"....

Why do you solely focus on Oakland, that isn't the only city I mentioned. But even if you want to use the year 2000 the three cities of SF, Oakland, and Berkeley combined have grown 10% compared to 5% for Concord and Vallejo over the same period. So either way I'm right. You clearly don't know the Bay Area when you're grouping in Concord and Vallejo's growth with Dublin's.

You don't want to take my post seriously because of your inability to admit you're wrong but facts are facts. Three central Bay Area cities (SF, Oak, and Berk) combined have grown much more than two farther out, cheaper cities (Concord and Vallejo) over the last 15 years. FACT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2017, 05:46 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,990,256 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Yes focusing on the time period that includes the current economic/employment boom and subsequent housing shortage caused by it means "nothing"....

Why do you solely focus on Oakland, that isn't the only city I mentioned. But even if you want to use the year 2000 the three cities of SF, Oakland, and Berkeley combined have grown 10% compared to 5% for Concord and Vallejo over the same period. So either way I'm right. You clearly don't know the Bay Area when you're grouping in Concord and Vallejo's growth with Dublin's.

You don't want to take my post seriously because of your inability to admit you're wrong but facts are facts. Three central Bay Area cities (SF, Oak, and Berk) combined have grown much more than two farther out, cheaper cities (Concord and Vallejo) over the last 15 years. FACT.
Totally wrong on everything again, Berkeley didn't experience growth because of a construction boom. That's ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 06:01 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,668,735 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Totally wrong on everything again, Berkeley didn't experience growth because of a construction boom. That's ridiculous.
Everything I stated was factually correct and unlike you I actually presented stats.

Concord hasn't built anymore housing units than Berkeley over the last 15 years, another FACT.

Concord and Vallejo's growth is nowhere near Dublin's, FACT.

FACTS are FACTS, stop making up stop and lying already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
12,059 posts, read 13,896,729 times
Reputation: 7257
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Lot of available land and the city is very pro-growth.
Isn't all the valley land in Dublin "used up"? I notice a lot of the developments go up the hillsides. I thought that was outlawed in most of the Bay Area hence the "valley only" style development. Is there something different in the city codes there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 09:28 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,668,735 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
Isn't all the valley land in Dublin "used up"? I notice a lot of the developments go up the hillsides. I thought that was outlawed in most of the Bay Area hence the "valley only" style development. Is there something different in the city codes there?
Not quite, there are still decent sized tracts of flat land available for development that is getting the denser housing. The rolling hills are pretty easy to develop and as long as they are within the urban growth boundary and zoned for housing they can be developed. Dublin is probably running out of land though and its growth will slow in the coming years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 10:07 AM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,990,256 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Everything I stated was factually correct and unlike you I actually presented stats.
You presented "stats" but not meaningful or useful stats, unless I missed something.

Can you post your data for residential housing starts for Concord, Vallejo, and Oakland, Berkeley for 2000-2015?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 10:37 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,668,735 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
You presented "stats" but not meaningful or useful stats, unless I missed something.

Can you post your data for residential housing starts for Concord, Vallejo, and Oakland, Berkeley for 2000-2015?
Well it's certainly a lot more meaningful that what you have posted, which has been nothing but totally incorrect information. You still don't get that Vallejo and Concord are nowhere near Dublin's growth rate do you?

Units built since 2000
SF: 29,904
Oakland: 12,743
Vallejo: 3,665 (over 10% of Vallejo's housing units are vacant, higher than any other city)
Berkeley: 2,734
Concord: 2,347
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 12:37 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,990,256 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Well it's certainly a lot more meaningful that what you have posted, which has been nothing but totally incorrect information. You still don't get that Vallejo and Concord are nowhere near Dublin's growth rate do you?

Units built since 2000
SF: 29,904
Oakland: 12,743
Vallejo: 3,665 (over 10% of Vallejo's housing units are vacant, higher than any other city)
Berkeley: 2,734
Concord: 2,347
Oakland had lower percentage growth since 2000 than Concord (6% vs 4%) and had more housing starts, so that proves your point that Oakland's population exploded because of... residential housing starts?

Ooook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 12:43 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,668,735 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Oakland had lower percentage growth since 2000 than Concord (6% vs 4%) and had more housing starts, so that proves your point that Oakland's population exploded because of... residential housing starts?

Ooook.
I didn't claim that, you should probably should go back and reread what I wrote as you seemed confused and misinformed. And Oakland's growth is 5% and Concord's is more like 5.6%. Do you know what facts are?

Did it sink in that Concord and Vallejo aren't high growth cities with a lot of new construction like Dublin yet? Can you at least admit that much now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 05:26 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,990,256 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I didn't claim that, you should probably should go back and reread what I wrote as you seemed confused and misinformed. And Oakland's growth is 5% and Concord's is more like 5.6%. Do you know what facts are?

Did it sink in that Concord and Vallejo aren't high growth cities with a lot of new construction like Dublin yet? Can you at least admit that much now?
sav858: "Oakland is a high growth city."

sav858: "Concord has ONLY slightly higher growth than Oakland since 2000."

save858: "Concord isn't a high growth city."

WTF?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top