SkyscraperCity Forum banner

SF Bay Area population to swell by 2 million

9K views 33 replies 21 participants last post by  rst22 
#1 ·
This is in response to those worried about global warming and the Bay Area.
I guess you guys will have so much more to worry about.

From San Francisco Chronicle:

BAY AREA
Population expected to swell by 2 million
ABAG report says number of jobs and people will increase through 2035, but region's housing stock may not keep pace
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, December 15, 2006

Printable Version Email This Article
The Bay Area's population will rise by about 2 million people over the next 30 years, with the largest increases in San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland, the Association of Bay Area Governments projected in a report released Thursday.

Planners and demographers said Thursday it may be time for the Bay Area to bite the bullet and plan for density, because people will continue coming here to work.

San Jose is expected to be the first Bay Area city to surpass the 1-million-population mark, in 2010, and San Francisco should see about 161,000 new residents by 2035, according to the projections, which the organization makes every two years.

Regional planners who wrote the report predicted 1.5 million new jobs will be created in the Bay Area between 2000 and 2035, with large increases in health and education services; professional and managerial services; and arts and recreation and restaurant services.

"There's no question the Bay Area is going to grow in jobs and population," said Paul W. Fassinger, research director for the organization.

That population growth is likely to exacerbate the long-standing housing shortage in the Bay Area, say regional planners inside and outside the association. The housing shortage is something that must be addressed regionwide and not just city by city, they say.

"Obviously we're going to need to do something we haven't done in the past and that is build high-density cities," said Ted Egan, an economist at the planning and consulting firm ICF International who is helping San Francisco create an economic development strategy.

"If the region doesn't rise to that challenge we're going to have more people living in the Central Valley who are driving into the city and contributing to urban sprawl," Egan said.

The association's projection shows that the jobs-to-housing imbalance should lessen slightly by 2035, though there will still be about 230,000 people commuting to the nine Bay Area counties for work. Some regional planners consider areas outside the traditional nine-county area, like San Joaquin and San Benito counties, as part of the region, but they are not part of the association's projection.

At a presentation of the 30-year plan in Oakland on Thursday, planners with the association said cities will need to create multifamily housing and boost growth in areas that are hubs of public transportation to accommodate the projected 2035 Bay Area population of 9 million.

The report recommends cities create a variety of housing options, from single-family residences to multifamily residences such as townhouses, and believe that 20,000 to 25,000 units of housing will be created each year.

Even if that much housing is built, it may not be enough, however.

"It has been a very difficult problem in the Bay Area," Fassinger said. "It's hard to say we will meet that need completely."

The report blames the high cost of housing on lagging construction of new units and a concentration of multifamily units in Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose.

Cities in the Bay Area should plan where new housing can be built and minimize red tape that delays construction, Fassinger said, repeating a refrain commonly heard in the Bay Area for at least two decades.

That's much easier to say than to do, said Hans Johnson, a research fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California. Surveys conducted by that organization show that city planners rate interest in creating multifamily housing just above creating zones of heavy industrial development.

That has a lot to do with the state's tax structure, as municipalities keep much more of the tax revenue from sales taxes than they do from property taxes, Johnson said.

The need for dense housing will probably change the look of San Jose, which is projected to have 1.35 million residents by 2035.

"I think San Jose is going to have to become more urbanized in certain areas," Fassinger said.

The city may be ready for that kind of development, said Jim Gollub, who worked on a campaign in Santa Clara County several years ago to engage the region in a conversation about housing needs.

"What's great about the South Bay is that San Jose has had a renaissance in its thinking about higher density," said Gollub, senior vice president at ICF International.

In addition to the population growing, planners expect it to age, with the median age in the Bay Area increasing from 36.5 years old to 42.5 years old by 2035. People 60 years old and older will make up an increasing portion of the total population, and the 60-to-69 age group will be the second largest behind people 20 to 29 years old, according to Thursday's projections.

That growth largely is due to the Baby Boomer generation aging, planners say, though the residents are older on average in the Bay Area and especially San Francisco and Marin County than in other parts of the country.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHART:
Bay Area demographics
The number of people age 60 and older will grow faster than any other group according to new projections released Thursday. -- Bay Area population and age projections, 2005 - 2035

Projected median age

2005: 36.5

2015: 38.8

2025: 40.9

2035: 42.5


-- Wage and salary employment, 2000 to 2006

Bay Area employment decreased 7% from 2000 to 2006, but it is expected to increase 52%, and top 5 million jobs, by 2035.

San Francisco

Jan. 2000 1,078,600

Oct. 2002 985,000

Oct. 2004 942,300

Oct. 2006 970,300

San Jose

Jan. 2000: 1,059,500

Oct. 2002 : 909,000

Oct. 2004: 874,600

Oct. 2006: 890,900

Oakland

Jan. 2000: 1,054,600

Oct. 2002 : 1,048,700

Oct. 2004 : 1,031,400

Oct. 2006: 1,063,900

Vallejo

Jan. 2000: 114,400

Oct. 2002 : 126,100

Oct. 2004 : 128,400

Oct. 2006: 133,300

Napa

Jan. 2000: 62,200

Oct. 2002 : 67,500

Oct. 2004: 66,600

Oct. 2006: 68,500

Santa Rosa

Jan. 2000: 191,300

Oct. 2002 : 194,800

Oct. 2004: 193,100

Oct. 2006 : 192,400

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments The Chronicle

E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
 
See less See more
#3 ·
How could anyone make accurate projections about 2030? I mean go back the same distance ... let's say to 1980- the PC hadn't even been invented. Or barely. Who could predict then that the US would have troops scattered all over South Asia, and something called "global warming would be an issue?

No-one knew about AIDS then ... no-one knew about "gene shears" or DNA testing ... no-one knew, or even suspected, that the USSR would collapse. No-one had digital cameras, or mobile phones. I could go on. OK, you might infer where the climate is going, but population figures 23 years hence? You're joking.
 
#7 ·
a lot of it (population growth) probably from illegals and immigrants. namely mexicans and a whole bunch of asian groups (filipinos, thais, koreans, chinese, japanese, etc)
 
#10 ·
Where will they put the new people? The Bay is already entirely built up, there's no space left. If they don't accept densification, people will have to settle in far away places like Concord or Livermore. The problem is that communities by the Bay don't want higher densities. I know in the Silicone Valley they tried to raise the density in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, meaning destroying some individual houses and building apartment blocks instead, but the residents opposed it. You can't have population increase and at the same time wish to keep low density neighborhoods as if we were still in the 1970s!

Another problem will be transportation. There are already two freeways along the Peninsula, and they are choked with cars during rush hours. With two million more inhabitants they'll need at least one more freeway, but where to build it? in the middle of the Bay???

Anyway, let's hope that the Bay Area doesn't become like LA. What's great about the Bay Area is that nature is still around the corner, and pollution is still in control.
 
#13 ·
The City itself is literally packed, but as far as the entire Metro Area, the total developed land(including all housing, commercial, industrial and agricultural) only takes up 14% of our 7,000 sq miles of land. A lot of that is due to the terrain being so rugged and a lot of that has to do with extreme nimbyism that has halted tens of thousands of housing units from every seeing the light of day....heck, the metro would probably already have over 10 Million people were it not for developers being pushed to our neighboring metros due to such strong opposition here in the bay area.

But who the heck needs that many people anyway, I really wish we only had 3 Million people, that seems more manageable instead of 50-mile long traffic jams inh both directions between Oakland and San Jose*eek*

Our ideal locale and beautiful weather and all the things that make The Bay Area such a jewel seem to be choked by ridiculous traffic and high cost of living.
 
#14 ·
Traffic in the Bay Area is still nothing compared to LA or Paris. Let's keep a sense of perspective. I wish traffic in these two megacities would be as light as in the Bay Area. In Paris the freeways are completely jammed from 7 in the morning pretty much till 9pm. Even during week-ends it's jammed now. One accident is enough to create total havoc. The other morning one truck went on fire on the southern Paris beltway, and the result was a mega traffic jam reaching several hundreds miles (that's what was reported), with traffic on all the freeways in the southern suburbs not moving at all for the whole day! It wasn't until midnight that the situation was cleared. Do you ever see that in the Bay Area? I have never seen it. In LA, I could tell same horror stories.
 
#17 · (Edited)
I hope to god the population doesn't get that high. The Bay area seems just about right population wise to me, and that is being liberal because of all the exurbs sprouting about in San Joaquin county. Matter of fact, since I have visitited most big metros in this country, and granted I am elated about all the upgrading and development that has been going on, I think we are just about right now. We may need a little more population and development, so here are some ideas, and I'm speaking metro wide.
Nation wide: Crack down on illegal immigrants but with a twist, let the ones who have U.S. born children or can prove they have been here more than 10 years stay, the rest go. Cut legal immigration in half (about 400,000 per year) and distribute Green cards by Continents. 14% to each of seven geographic regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Middle East (Morroco to Bangledesh), Central Asia/Russia and former Soviet states), East Asia/Australia and Pacific islands, North America, South America. This without doubt is the most fair system.
New York: the older industrial areas and vacant blighted areas should be redone for lower to middle class residents. A few satellite cities need some work and enterprises immigrants (Asian/Eastern European/South American).
LA: Busting at the seems, Develop downtown and Hollywood as much as possible, major expansion of mass transit.
Chicago: Seems just about right
Wash/Balt: Gentrifying nicely, a little more commuter rail should do it, and I like all the TOD development going on.
San Francisco: Just add that Bart should be extended to San Rafael and SMART continue on to Cloverdale with a spur to Sebastopol. Extend Bart to Brentwood, Livermore, San Jose-continuing on to Los Gatos.
Boston: Upgrade some of those all industrial towns along the rivers there, great potential, I know some has been done already, but it should be greatly accelerated. Build that 1000 footer with a few 7-900 footers and Boston is good.
Philadelphia: Center City is just becoming O.K. but still a long a way to go. Kind of reminds me of the Detroit of the Northeast, needs lot's of work. ( I grew up here).
Dallas: Ubanize that central core till your blue in the face, improve that zoning, those massive develoments of industrial parks just seems faceless.
Miami: Speaks for itself, Miami is not holding back, it's pulling it's own weight, considering the size.
Houston: Zoning, well should I say more. Urbanzie that central core as much as you can. Rest seems decent.
Atlanta: Your getting there, still think Buckhead is like a vampire sucking the life of what could possibly make this city very pedestrian. Suburbs fine.
Phoenix: No comment (Scottsdale deserves honorable mention, Tempe also).
Seattle: Can't go rong, definitely headed in the right direction. (More row houses pease though)

That's enough, maybe we need another 30-50 million people tops, to achieve this goal.
 
#18 ·
There was a guy over here- an academic or think-tanker allegedly- who was talking on Radio National here to Michael Duffey regarding transport and other urban issues, specifically in regard to the Bay Area and LA.

I'm sorry I can't remember the guy's name ... it was at least 6 months ago. Since our Government thinks our National Broadcaster is staffed by Stalinists at public expense, this is offered as a "Counterpoint".

Don't quote me here, because it was a long time ago, but he seemed to be saying that BART was running only about 10% full ... and the public transport star of the US was LA.

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) puts most of these radio programs on transcript ... I won't go too far here until I've tracked the transcript down.

It didn't actually ring true with me ...
 
#19 ·
BART 10% full? Was he talking about overall during all operating hours 7 days a week? Hell, many places would see very low averages if you count every single train. I'm sure all those trains from 11pm until 6am in Chicago would drag the % down greatly. It's still a huge asset to have those trains as options at 4am, I've thanked them many times when I randomly happen to be out at 4am and need to get home. There isn't anyone on them, but they're quite useful when you need one.

And LA the transport star of the US? Oh TOTALLY....
 
#24 ·
is traffic here, worse, then say, san diego or san bernardino?
 
#26 ·
Is it safe to say that when dealing with the issue of growth, the Bay Area is virtually unique in the US: no huge metro area comes close to having a sizable body of water like San Francisco Bay right smack in its midst.

There is no comparison really:
• Tampa Bay is still a smallish area and its bay can't compete in scope with SF Bay
• NY's upper bay is relatively small in size and despite the georgraphy of rivers, the sound, and the ocean, the NYC metro area is not built around a single large body of water.
• a small percentage of metro SD lies west of its bay

Again, nothing like San Francisco.

So it would seem to me, the question you have to ask here regarding transporation is: how are the transbay bridges going to do the work? Consider (excluding BART):

• SF-Marin connection: one, GGB

• Marin-East Bay connection: one, R-SR B

• THE BIG ONE: SF-Oakland (and the heart of East Bay): the overworked Bay Bridge

• Peninsula to East Bay: Primarily SM-H B

Those four bridges, carry either extreme length or risky construction (GG).

Can we reasonably expect more bridges (or tunnels) to cross the bay? And if not, how does the Bay Area expect to funnel traffic between SF, Marin, East Bay?

Other metro areas don't have to deal with those type of issues but the Bay Area does and needs to seriously consider the implications of massive growth.
 
#30 ·
^^ what influx??? i don't think people will move to $450.000 homes just yet, unless they are ilegal and poor.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top