U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Jose
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2007, 06:11 PM
 
34 posts, read 57,214 times
Reputation: 14

Advertisements

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%
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2007, 07:48 PM
 
10,400 posts, read 18,432,510 times
Reputation: 11266
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/www/2007/cb07-91factsheet.pdf (broken link)

Got a link for the numbers that you're talking about?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2007, 02:40 AM
 
28,246 posts, read 30,816,360 times
Reputation: 28763
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2007, 03:49 AM
 
18 posts, read 81,453 times
Reputation: 15
If they are right why the traffic is getting worse and worse every day in South Bay? So are the housing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,958 posts, read 20,062,322 times
Reputation: 6414
Supply and demand. Pure and simple.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2007, 08:21 AM
 
609 posts, read 1,983,294 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetalentedmisterdiamonte View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2007, 03:59 PM
 
7 posts, read 6,765 times
Reputation: 10
Works for me. The Bay Area doesn't need to get much more crowded.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2008, 05:32 AM
 
14 posts, read 34,817 times
Reputation: 20
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2008, 05:35 AM
 
1,831 posts, read 4,914,303 times
Reputation: 666
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2008, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
1 posts, read 3,059 times
Reputation: 10
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinPacificaCA View Post
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.
Rate this post positively 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 Jose
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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