December 20, 2007
JustQuotes: CA DOF Estimates Population Growth In San Francisco
“The Bay Area's population growth rate outpaced the state last year as the nine-county region, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, added nearly 90,000 new residents, according to the Department of Finance's latest data released Wednesday.
Santa Clara County saw the area's biggest gain, attracting 29,904 new residents for a 1.67 percent increase from the previous year for a population of 1.8 million as of July 1. San Francisco was second, growing by 1.4 percent to 11,327 and bringing its population to 817,537. Contra Costa County was third with 13,189 new residents, or a growth rate of 1.28 percent. It now has 1.04 million residents.”
First Published: December 20, 2007 11:03 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I'd like to see population growth by district in SF. I'll bet that South Beach/Mission Bay experienced a major increase. I definitely notice that the streets there are a lot more crowded than 2 years ago, when it seemed more like a ghosttown.
Posted by: SFhighrise at December 20, 2007 11:08 AM
So if it is population growth that’s going to keep property values from falling here in San Francisco, shouldn’t somebody enlighten the poor residents of Contra Costa Country? They just added 2,000 more residents than SF but home sales are tanking and they are leading the way in foreclosures.
Posted by: Michael at December 20, 2007 11:36 AM
Contra Costa average household income, housing prices, available inventory, and rental prices are in a different galaxy than San Francisco.
Posted by: anon at December 20, 2007 1:19 PM
Contra Costa County is much larger in area than SF, with far more undeveloped land, and CoCo has been growing at a much faster rate than SF over the decades, so it is a dramatic turnaround for SF to be growing at a faster rate than Contra Costa. Vast tracts of new houses have been built in Contra Costa-- far more than in SF.
Posted by: Dan at December 20, 2007 2:37 PM
"Contra Costa average household income, housing prices, available inventory, and rental prices are in a different galaxy than San Francisco."
So? The prices in CC should reflect the local dynamics (income, available land, inventory, etc), but if the hypothesis is a growing population = more demand = higher prices then prices in CC should be increasing relative to where they were now that there are more people.
Posted by: Michael at December 20, 2007 3:05 PM
While Contra Costa country has more demand, you need to take a look at the supply side. Don't use absolute numbers. Use percentage.
If the demand increased 1%, and supply increased 5%, we all know what happens.
Same applies to SF. With the # of residents at 800K, assuming average household have two people, a 1% increase in population per years means it needs 4000 new residential units per year. If the number is higher, there will be a downward pressure on price. If the number is lower, there will be upward pressure.
Posted by: John at December 20, 2007 3:18 PM
It's pretty clear that job growth and population growth is driving these ridiculous rental increases in SF, and keeping real estate prices high. Do you guys not notice the massive traffic, and book restaurants?
Posted by: anon at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
“Contra Costa average household income, housing prices, available inventory, and rental prices are in a different galaxy than San Francisco.”
You’re from another planet if you think that BART transports me to a “different galaxy” in the 24 minutes it takes to travel from my office in San Francisco’s Financial District to my home in Orinda.
Posted by: AnonN at December 20, 2007 6:06 PM
All that was said was that SF's population has actually increased. It was probably posted as an FYI because so many people on here have said the opposite, repeatedly. Neither of the articles linked to nor the lede said anything about a correlation with the real estate market. Of course, it is a real estate blog. I've been thinking that for a while myself, and have even said as much on here.
Because heck yeah there are more people living in South Beach than there were in 2000, a large portion of them bought too. You can't tell me there are more renters than owners down there.
Posted by: fluj at December 20, 2007 6:47 PM
Fertility gone wild?
Posted by: Jamie at December 20, 2007 10:30 PM
i'm curious how this fits into the general "ghost town", "housing surplus" meme that's been so popular this week. for me, this increase in population certainly seems to fit what i see on a daily basis (and experience in traffic).
Posted by: satchel checker at December 20, 2007 11:15 PM
Re: the idea that geography is meaningless in the new economy-- this article in the NY Times suggests that geography is all-important.
Posted by: Dan at December 21, 2007 9:28 AM
Great link, Dan. Timely, insightful article about the SF-Valley dynamic in our little-big corner of the world. Money quote:
"The Valley residents see themselves as true entrepreneurs, entirely focused and dedicated. Marc Andreessen, 36, the co-founder of three companies in the Valley (Netscape, Opsware and Ning), concedes that San Francisco is generating more start-ups these days.
“'But in general, the nerds with minimal social lives like me are well down in the Valley, and the cool kids with the trendy glasses and Prada shoes who like to go to parties are in San Francisco,'” Mr. Andreessen said in an e-mail message. 'You can guess who has the leg up in building companies.'”
Posted by: sanfrantim at December 25, 2007 11:40 AM