[fflint]

New estimates from the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit ( http://bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/state_population_report_050207.pdf ), for January, 2007:

1. Los Angeles - 4,018,080
2. San Diego - 1,316,837
3. San Jose - 973,672
4. San Francisco - 808,844
5. Long Beach - 492,912
6. Fresno - 481,035
7. Sacramento - 467,343
8. Oakland - 415,492
9. Santa Ana - 353,428
10. Anaheim - 345,556

[dl3000]

Whoa since when did LA break 4 million?

[seaskyfan]

Is this the first time San Francisco's population has been over 800K?

[KB0679]

Wow, four cities in the Greater LA area.

[bmfarley]

Is this the first time San Francisco's population has been over 800K?


Here's what wikipedia lists as historical polulation for San Francisco:

1860 56,802
1870 149,473
1880 233,959
1890 298,997
1900 342,782
1910 416,912
1920 506,676
1930 634,394
1940 634,536
1950 775,357
1960 740,316
1970 715,674
1980 678,974
1990 723,959
2000 776,733
2005 739,426

[seaskyfan]

So it's a new milestone.

Happy record population SF!

Rice-a-Roni for everyone!

[Fusey]

Wasn't L.A. just 3.4 million people 10 years ago? It's incredible how much that city (and area) continues to grow.

[Reminiscence]

With all the highrise construction in SF slated to start within the next 5 to 10 years, we may see something like 850,000 to 900,000 by 2025 or so. :)

[ltsmotorsport]

Sacramento needs to go rustle themselves up some county residents.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

That top 4 will not change for a VERY long time.

[soleri]

Fresno is booming!

[tuy]

The only way that the top four will change soon, is if Sacramento goes on an annexation spree. There are around a half million county residents in Sacramento.

[SacTownAndy]

:previous:

"There are around a half million county residents in Sacramento."

Just to clarify what tuy was saying- There are around a half million county residents in Sacramento...who live near or adjacent to the city limits of Sacramento but aren't incorporated into any municipality. :)

[CityKid]

If we use land area data from the US Census Bureau 2000 census (www.census.gov), we can also estimate the new population density for each city:

1. Los Angeles - Population 4,018,080 - Land Area 469.07mi - Density 8,566/mi
2. San Diego - Population 1,316,837 - Land Area 324.34mi - Density 4,060/mi
3. San Jose - Population 973,672 - Land Area 174.86mi - Density 5,568/mi
4. San Francisco - Population 808,844 - Land Area 46.69mi - Density 17,324/mi
5. Long Beach - Population 492,912 - Land Area 50.44mi - Density 9,772/mi
6. Fresno - Population 481,035 - Land Area 104.36mi - Density 4,609/mi
7. Sacramento - Population 467,343 - Land Area 97.16mi - Density 4,810/mi
8. Oakland - Population 415,492 - Land Area 56.06mi - Density 7,412/mi
9. Santa Ana - Population 353,428 - Land Area 27.14mi - Density 13,022/mi
10. Anaheim - Population 345,556 - Land Area 48.94mi - Density 7,061/mi


Please correct my calculations if there are any errors.

[solongfullerton]

the density of santa ana seems awfully high. i know that santa ana is heavily latin now, but 13k/mi seems like an unhealthy density level for that city. santa ana doesnt have many, if any, residential units over 2 floors. it also has lots of single level family homes. this can only mean one thing, that big families and/or multiple families are living in units not desinged for that many people.

[dl3000]

Wasnt it a couple years ago that San Francisco was losing population? Wow. And the only problem with densities is that the density distribution really differs between the cities. For example, LA is mostly flat and full developed in areas as is San Francisco, San Diego has canyons and open space running through the whole city. San Diego must be more dense than Fresno in its developed areas.

[KarLarRec1]

Re SF's population: Isn't there a discrepency between how the Census and the CA Dep't of Finance tabulate the population?

Re LA's "flatness": Santa Monica Mountains

[dl3000]

According to this map
http://www.laalmanac.com/images/Map_LA%20City.gif
Looks like only Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Bel Air, and Beverly Crest are in Santa Monica Mountains with the periphery of San Fernando Valley, and then Griffith Park is low density. These areas are mostly a central belt through the city. Its north and south of these that I was referring as flat and dense.

[fflint]

Re SF's population: Isn't there a discrepency between how the Census and the CA Dep't of Finance tabulate the population?
The state Department of Finance calculates every California city's population statistic according to the same exact formula, a formula that differs from that used by the US Census Bureau.

[BTinSF]

Wasnt it a couple years ago that San Francisco was losing population? Wow. And the only problem with densities is that the density distribution really differs between the cities. For example, LA is mostly flat and full developed in areas as is San Francisco, San Diego has canyons and open space running through the whole city. San Diego must be more dense than Fresno in its developed areas.

If you look at the historical figures posted above, you'll see that since WW II San Francisco's population declined (as many US cities did) until about 1980 (or probably the mid to late 70s), then began to recover with a transient drop after the "dot-com" collapse drove a lot of overpaid 20-somethings out of town. Temporally, the resumption of growth in the late '70's corresponds to San Francisco's becoming a gay mecca which led to gentrification and renewal of large parts of town: the Castro, Haight, Noe Valley and large swaths of the Mission. I think that renewal is what made San Francisco once again attractive to middle class straight people and stopped the hollowing out that continued in so many eastern and midwestern cities.

Somebody posted pictures here of what the San Francisco neighborhoods that I associate with lovingly restored Victorians and bright colors looked like in the 50s and 60s--and I was shocked (I first came here in 1976): houses in gross disrepair, peeling paint and so on. The kind of thing I associate with places like Detroit (everybody's punching bag--sorry).

[BTinSF]

The state Department of Finance calculates every California city's population statistic according to the same exact formula, a formula that differs from that used by the US Census Bureau.

We had this argument once before, but I said then and will repeat: Who you gonna believe, the guys who actually collect the taxes or some agency from far-off Washington that can only come up with numbers from people who will talk to them (like illegal immigrants who aren't exactly aching to talk to somebody from the government)? I believe the CA-based tax guys.

[dimondpark]

If we use land area data from the US Census..
8. Oakland - Population 415,492 - Land Area 56.06mi - Density 7,412/mi


a lot of Oakland is denser then that...

zip code 94606:17,550.1 per sq mile
zip code 94601:15,417.8 per sq mile
zip code 94610:14,240.1 per sq mile
zip code 94612:12,964.6 per sq mile
zip code 94609:12,141.8 per sq mile
zip code 94603:10,771.5 per sq mile
zip code 94602:8,859.9 per sq mile

the others are parklands,( thousands of acres of Oakland's eastern borders are wilderness type parks)historically industrial areas with residential blocks weaved into them, steep hillside areas where its hard to build or rich areas that have larger lots.

[fflint]

For density, I've got some figures for our "Densest CBD + Contiguous Residential 25 Square Mile" thread from a while back.

The idea was to find each city's "Manhattan," which is to say, an area as close to 25 square miles as possible that contained its entire central business district, plus as many contiguous residential neighborhoods as would fill the remainder. Here's what we got for California:

City - Population - Core Area (Sq. mi.) - Core Density (Persons/sq. mi.)

San Francisco - 552,044 - 24.32 - 22,702
Los Angeles - 560,138 - 25.21 - 22,218
Santa Ana - 363,314 - 26.49 -13,715
Long Beach - 245,018 - 23.36 - 10,490
Oakland - 258,126 - 25.03 - 10,311
San Diego - 225,485 - 23.71 - 9,512
San Jose - 208,582 - 24.08 - 8,664

[rs913]

I'm not sure how relevant these "largest cities" lists are. Sure, "L.A." has 4 million people, but that just tells you how many people live within that city's irregularly shaped borders (which stretch down to San Pedro but exclude Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood). It doesn't really tell you how crowded an area is or how many people are fighting for freeway space, resources, etc. Does it really say anything other than how many people each of these city governments is responsible for?

Seems like the more important stats are either metro area sizes or the "tweak" in fflint's post above.

[RAlossi]

^ Well, it kind of gives you an idea of how well a city is doing in some respects. Think of how many people left LA after '92 and after the Northridge quake, then compare that with today's population. Of course, more people doesn't necessarily mean more prosperity or a "comeback," but it's helpful.

[DaveofCali]

1. Los Angeles - Population 4,018,080 - Land Area 469.07mi - Density 8,566/mi

Someone at SSC made this map (don't mind the sasquatch thing :) ) highlighting the Los Angeles City limits and how much of it is taken up by the Santa Monica Mountains, and while the eastern part of the map isn't that accurate, it pretty much points out the flaw in taking a whole city density figure like that:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/samceb/losangeleswithoutmountains-1.jpg

[latennisguy]

:previous: can you delete that image please

*edit - (NM, i did it myself)

here's a better one:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/samceb/losangeleswithoutmountains2.jpg

[StethJeff]

My guess is that Bakersfield will blow past the two OC cities some time soon. It's only like a 20-30K difference. According to the figures from Wikipedia, Bakersfield's 2000 population swelled from about 250,000 to the current 323,000!!

[Guatemalanking]

My guess is that Bakersfield will blow past the two OC cities some time soon. It's only like a 20-30K difference. According to the figures from Wikipedia, Bakersfield's 2000 population swelled from about 250,000 to the current 323,000!!
Yes and t will continue to grow and pass Oakland IMO, but they really need to focus on density and not make it just huge homes everywhere the downtown has potential but needs the attention and good planning.

[Reminiscence]

I was just driving through Bakersfield yesterday on my way back from Vegas, and change is really visible. A stretch of road designated to (or near) State Route 58 was dirt when I came by a few years ago, now its paved and is pretty crowded with cars, a sure sign of growth.

[StethJeff]

I was just driving through Bakersfield yesterday on my way back from Vegas, and change is really visible. A stretch of road designated to (or near) State Route 58 was dirt when I came by a few years ago, now its paved and is pretty crowded with cars, a sure sign of growth.

I haven't been back there in years so I'm sure that it'll look very different in the time that I've been gone. Love to see how things've changed.

[WonderlandPark]

Irvine already over 200K, wow, they still annexing land?

Fontana and Santa Clarita likely to be at 200K by next US census.

All top 10 counties in the state will likely be over 1 million by the next US census or a year after, if Fresno would just pick up the pace by a hair.

[204]

I'm not sure how relevant these "largest cities" lists are. Sure, "L.A." has 4 million people, but that just tells you how many people live within that city's irregularly shaped borders (which stretch down to San Pedro but exclude Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood). It doesn't really tell you how crowded an area is or how many people are fighting for freeway space, resources, etc. Does it really say anything other than how many people each of these city governments is responsible for?

Seems like the more important stats are either metro area sizes or the "tweak" in fflint's post above.

You said it. What about the Coachella Valley? It's made up of a number of different cities, but is obviously one continuous urban area.

"The Coachella Valley's population grows by 53 people daily. The Palm Springs Destination Marketing Analysis boasts a permanent population of over 410,000 with an estimated seasonal influx of roughly 100,000 people. The Coachella Valley is home to some of the fastest growing cities in California such La Quinta, which had a five-year growth rate of over 52% from 2000 to 2005.

Between 2005 and 2020, some 212,000 permanent residents are projected to move to the Coachella Valley. The growth translates to 75,750 new households with 5,050 new homes needed to be built annually.

California officials estimate the valley's population will pass 600,000 by 2020 and 1.1 million by 2066."

[urban_encounter]

The only way that the top four will change soon, is if Sacramento goes on an annexation spree. There are around a half million county residents in Sacramento.


As of January 2007 there were approximately 561,951 residents living in the unicorporated urban area of Sacramento; (referred to by the California Supreme Court as a "Pseudo City") mostly in the South Sacramento, Fruitridge/Florin, Antelope, Rosemont and Arden Arcade areas.

Were those areas to be annexed into the City of Sacramento, or there were to be a City and (unincorporated) County consolidation (ala San Francisco); Sacramento would become the third largest city in California with approximately 1,029 294 city residents (using 2007 population stats)..

However both city/county consolidation efforts have failed at the polls; most recently in 1990 and the City of Sacramento tends to avoid annexation of older neighborhoods of the county. Sacramento County basically exists as a secondary municipal entity in its own right.

So San Jose is probably safe at the number three spot for the forseeable future.

[Phil McAvity]

I'm much more interested in a city's metropolitan population because I believe it paints a far more accurate picture of the size of a city. Just look at L.A.'s incredible smog. How many other cities with populations of around 4 million people have smog like that? Not many. Like none! This is where Los Angeles really shines and becomes one of the world's largest cities. According to wikipedia, L.A. proper is only the world's 42nd largest city, but when you factor in all the suburbs it becomes the world's 12th largest metro area.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

I'm much more interested in a city's metropolitan population because I believe it paints a far more accurate picture of the size of a city. Just look at L.A.'s incredible smog. How many other cities with populations of around 4 million people have smog like that? Not many. Like none! This is where Los Angeles really shines and becomes one of the world's largest cities. According to wikipedia, L.A. proper is only the world's 42nd largest city, but when you factor in all the suburbs it becomes the world's 12th largest metro area.

Mexico City, Tokyo, all of china, India, etc etc etc.

[Ronin]

What about Fremont? Surely it has to be somewhere in the #11-15 range.

[Michael Kramer]

What about Fremont? Surely it has to be somewhere in the #11-15 range.



It's exactly #15, but don't count on it staying it's likely to get passed by several faster growing cities soon. Remember, the Bay Area isn't really known for rapid growth.

Here are the top 25 as of 1/1/07 from the Depoartment of Finance...the middle column is for 2006.

(And don't call me "Surely" or Shirley)

LOS ANGELES 3,980,422 4,018,080 0.9 1
SAN DIEGO 1,305,625 1,316,837 0.9 2
SAN JOSE 957,915 973,672 1.6 3
SAN FRANCISCO 800,099 808,844 1.1 4
LONG BEACH 490,798 492,912 0.4 5
FRESNO 471,599 481,035 2.0 6
SACRAMENTO 458,001 467,343 2.0 7
OAKLAND 411,334 415,492 1.0 8
SANTA ANA 352,090 353,428 0.4 9
ANAHEIM 342,717 345,556 0.8 10
BAKERSFIELD 312,087 323,213 3.6 11
RIVERSIDE 289,747 291,398 0.6 12
STOCKTON 285,966 289,789 1.3 13
CHULA VISTA 223,533 227,723 1.9 14
FREMONT 210,150 211,662 0.7 15
MODESTO 207,738 209,174 0.7 16
GLENDALE 206,578 207,157 0.3 17
SAN BERNARDINO 201,699 205,010 1.6 18
HUNTINGTON BEACH 201,346 202,250 0.4 19
IRVINE 194,126 202,079 4.1 20
OXNARD 189,846 192,997 1.7 21
FONTANA 165,359 181,640 9.8 22
MORENO VALLEY 175,769 180,466 2.7 23
SANTA CLARITA 167,631 177,158 5.7 24
OCEANSIDE 174,986 176,644 0.9 25

[subterranean]

Somebody posted pictures here of what the San Francisco neighborhoods that I associate with lovingly restored Victorians and bright colors looked like in the 50s and 60s--and I was shocked (I first came here in 1976): houses in gross disrepair, peeling paint and so on. The kind of thing I associate with places like Detroit (everybody's punching bag--sorry).

Don't worry. We generally use a lot of CA cities as punching bags, too. You're usually just too busy paying attention to yourselves to notice...

[mthd]

It's exactly #15, but don't count on it staying it's likely to get passed by several faster growing cities soon. Remember, the Bay Area isn't really known for rapid growth.

certainly true in concept - but it's interesting to note that SF grew faster than LA or San Diego, San Jose grew faster than all of them, oakland grew faster than santa ana or riverside, etc etc. the big growth is in places like fontana and santa clarita which have a long way to go before they approach the top 10.

[yakumoto]

Someone at SSC made this map (don't mind the sasquatch thing :) ) highlighting the Los Angeles City limits and how much of it is taken up by the Santa Monica Mountains, and while the eastern part of the map isn't that accurate, it pretty much points out the flaw in taking a whole city density figure like that:


Um, its not like these figures have anything to do with actual density of a city. Its just statistics, it doesn't mean anything. Statistically midtown manhattan is one of the least dense part of new york city.

[tech12]

According to this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/03/10/MN3OUP1LK.DTL&o=0

San Francisco now has 817,500 people...

That makes a discrepancy of over 70,000 between the US Census number and the State of CA number. That's a big difference...

[sopas ej]

the density of santa ana seems awfully high. i know that santa ana is heavily latin now, but 13k/mi seems like an unhealthy density level for that city. santa ana doesnt have many, if any, residential units over 2 floors. it also has lots of single level family homes. this can only mean one thing, that big families and/or multiple families are living in units not desinged for that many people.

Well... yeah, I would think that'd be an obvious one. The industrial L.A. suburbs of Maywood, Cudahy and Bell have very high population densities relative to their respective city limit areas because of multiple families living in residential units meant for only one family or less. Even in South Gate, another industrial suburb, its population and pop. density have increased because you now have multiple families living in garages there. You even see multiple families in one vehicle when you drive through there.

[sopas ej]

the big growth is in places like fontana and santa clarita which have a long way to go before they approach the top 10.

... places I honestly wouldn't want to live in... yucky. Too far out in the boondocks, which would mean very long commutes for work and very long drives to do anything cultural or fun. People say that those areas are booming and there are more "amenities" being built but you go there and your only choices to eat are places like Applebee's. No museums or arthouse movie theaters, either, and everything looking so cookie-cutter.

And it's places like those that contribute to sprawl and car-oriented environments.

[rgw91521]

I just came off of the Transportation Commission in Santa Ana, and believe me, the city is extremely dense. One of our constant problems within the city is not freeway usage, but arterials since the city is very small (26 or so sq. miles).

In fact, we were just implementing a $200 million widening project of Bristol, which is a main arterial that runs on the western edge of the downtown core to Costa Mesa/South Coast Plaza.

The city council is even planning on building higher density condo towers in various areas of the city, which will obviously increase traffic even more.

Alas, I'm no longer there to deal with the frustration of it all. I'm in San Diego now, lol.

[CityDataForumSUX]

Sf wont be breaking a million anytime soon, as long as 1000 bucks a month gets you a roach motel in the ghetto. People just cant afford it, and there is simply too many rich people willing to pay a premium for anything.

[ReDSPork02]

I'm much more interested in a city's metropolitan population because I believe it paints a far more accurate picture of the size of a city. Just look at L.A.'s incredible smog. How many other cities with populations of around 4 million people have smog like that? Not many. Like none! This is where Los Angeles really shines and becomes one of the world's largest cities. According to wikipedia, L.A. proper is only the world's 42nd largest city, but when you factor in all the suburbs it becomes the world's 12th largest metro area.


Most of the time its not even smog.
Its called the Marine Layer from the Pacific.

Dallas Raines and Jackie Johnson would be proud of me.:)

[plinko]

New numbers for Jan 1, 2008 are out today:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1_2006-07/

SACRAMENTO— California's population topped 38 million as of January 2008, adding 490,000
residents over the past year, according to new population estimates released today by the state
Department of Finance.
The report shows preliminary January 2008, as well as revised January 2007, population data
for the cities. Highlights include:
• The City of Los Angeles, California's largest city, has a population of 4,045,873, which
makes the city more than three times the size of the state's second largest city, San
Diego, which now has an estimated 1,336,865 residents.
• San Jose, in Santa Clara County, the third largest city in California, is closing in on the
one million population mark with an estimated 989,496 inhabitants on January 1, 2008.
The city added 2,915 housing units and 17,306 additional residents since January 1,
2007.
• San Francisco has attained its highest population on record with a population of 824,525
as of January 1, 2008. This continues the significant upward trend in growth that began
in 2006. The city grew by 1.5 percent this past year.
• San Joaquin in Fresno County was the state's fastest growing city, increasing by 17.4
percent. The next four fastest growth rates were in Beaumont in Riverside County (11.3
percent), California City in Kern County (9.6 percent), Imperial in Imperial County (8.3
percent), and Dublin in Alameda County (7.7 percent). All these cities added a large
number of new housing units relative to their overall population sizes.
• The biggest numeric increases occurred in some of the state's largest cities – Los
Angeles (49,803), San Diego (19,240), San Jose (17,306), San Francisco (12,284), and
Sacramento (8,762). All cities in this group added a large number of newly constructed
housing units.
• The 2008 report lists 478 California cities, of which 439 gained population, 2
experienced no change, and the remaining 37 lost population. Compared to last year's
report, more cities gained population and fewer cities lost population.
• While California population as a whole grew at roughly the same rate in 2008 as it did in
the previous year, the 10 fastest growing cities experienced a decline in their rate of
growth, from an average of 13 percent in 2006-2007 to 8.5 percent in 2007-2008.
• There are now 67 cities in California with a population exceeding 100,000. Temecula
(101,057) and Murrieta (100,173) both in Riverside County now exceed 100,000 in
population.
• Since the April 1, 2000 census, the top four fastest growing California cities all have
more than doubled in size, including Lincoln in Placer County (255 percent), Beaumont
and Murrieta in Riverside County (177 and 126 percent respectively), and Brentwood in
Contra Costa County (117 percent).
• Annexation activity for California cities has tapered off dramatically this past year with
only 3,082 housing units being annexed statewide, versus 14,886 in 2006.
In population-related developments, California's housing growth showed a marked decline in
2007 compared to recent years. This past year, the state added an estimated 131,107 housing
units – the smallest change since 2001. The state's housing growth peaked in 2005 when it
gained 197,229 housing units, and added 172,568 in 2006. The most notable decline occurred
in single-family detached homes, with a decrease of 40 percent from 2006, and a 49-percent
drop from 2005. There was a net increase of 131,788 single family detached homes in 2005,
111,481 in 2006, and only 67,266 last calendar year. However, apartment housing units grew by
17 percent over the gain in 2006 (40,514) and numbered 47,313, which was close to the 48,300
added in 2005.

Population Estimates for California Cities
10 Largest Cities
City Population Percent Change
January 1, 2008 2007-08
1. Los Angeles 4,045,873 1.2
2. San Diego 1,336,865 1.5
3. San Jose 989,496 1.8
4. San Francisco 824,525 1.5
5. Long Beach 492,642 0.5
6. Fresno 486,116 1.5
7. Sacramento 475,743 1.9
8. Oakland 420,183 1.4
9. Santa Ana 353,184 0.4
10. Anaheim 346,823 0.8

[urban_encounter]

It will be interesting to see whether the city of Sacramento looks towards annexation of unicorporated neighborhoods; in order to fill the void left by a building moratorium beginning in December of 2008. (This moratorium is expected to last at least two years). According to the CDoF, the population of unincorporated Sacramento is 563,514.

With municipalities hurting from a decrease in the housing boom, combined with a building ban in one Sacramento's growth areas it will leave cities such as Sacramento looking for new sources of revenue. I will be curious to see if they turn to some of the old neighborhoods they've traditionally avoided for annexation.


But without Natomas there isn't many other areas to grow except infill downtown & midtwon; the railyards and the waterfront (which are still a couple years from being ready to build on.)


I think it may depend on what the rate of return would be vs. providing municipal services. Something the County hasn't done very well.

[JDRCRASH]

New estimates from the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit ( http://bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/state_population_report_050207.pdf ), for January, 2007:

1. Los Angeles - 4,018,080
2. San Diego - 1,316,837
3. San Jose - 973,672
4. San Francisco - 808,844
5. Long Beach - 492,912
6. Fresno - 481,035
7. Sacramento - 467,343
8. Oakland - 415,492
9. Santa Ana - 353,428
10. Anaheim - 345,556

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't accept those estimates; maybe because they're :sly: :koko:

[SoCal Alan]

Cool. San Jose is getting close to that magical 1 million population. Good job, San Jose. :tup:

[krudmonk]

Cool. San Jose is getting close to that magical 1 million population. Good job, San Jose. :tup:
Thankfully, we won't be using Coyote Valley to get there.

[fflint]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't accept those estimates; maybe because they're :sly: :koko:
Why are you quoting a post from one year ago as if it were relevant after new estimates have already come out?

[bmfarley]

Why are you quoting a post from one year ago as if it were relevant after new estimates have already come out?
Some people give US Census figures more credit than they are entitled to. True, decinenial counts conducted by the Census are the best and most accurate figures... for those years. That's because they go through a much higher level of surveying and scrutiny.

However, inbetween estimations conducted by the Calif. Department of Finance trump US Census efforts and end up having greater accuracy when all is said and done. This is not a secret with California demographers and planners.

I checked wiki. It appears the latest figures were not rejected; however, the inclusion of all the data was. Listing every single city in the state over 100,000 is ridiculous. I am sure contributors and editors on that site would welcome/accept the latest figures if the subject was narrowed much more; perhaps only citing the state estimate, maybe the most populous 2-4 cities, and maybe the fastest 1-3 growing cities. ...And, within a paragrapgh versus lists.

[JDRCRASH]

Why are you quoting a post from one year ago as if it were relevant after new estimates have already come out?

You're missing the point.

Its relevant because my point is that it doesn't matter whether you come up with State department-based statistics, regardless if it was true or not; its baseless to wikipedia because as a part of "WPCities" policy, only federal census numbers are valid.

[plinko]

Of course that also begs the question though...why would you go to Wikipedia for population stats?

Besides this thread is about CADoF estimates, not the census numbers.

[JDRCRASH]

Of course that also begs the question though...why would you go to Wikipedia for population stats?

Besides this thread is about CADoF estimates, not the census numbers.

Exactly; I believe Los Angeles surpassed 4 Million a long time ago.

Heck, it maybe about 4.1 Million by now.

[fflint]

You're missing the point.

Its relevant because my point is that it doesn't matter whether you come up with State department-based statistics, regardless if it was true or not; its baseless to wikipedia because as a part of "WPCities" policy, only federal census numbers are valid.
On point: new CaDOF estimates in a year-old thread about CaDOF estimates.

Off point: quoting only prior years' CaDOF estimates after new CaDOF estimates have been released for the current year; citing Wikipedia as if it were a better source of population estimates than those who are charged with tracking such stats; arguing your opinion is literally the point of this thread.

[StethJeff]

On point: new CaDOF estimates in a year-old thread about CaDOF estimates.

Off point: quoting only prior years' CaDOF estimates after new CaDOF estimates have been released for the current year; citing Wikipedia as if it were a better source of population estimates than those who are charged with tracking such stats; arguing your opinion is literally the point of this thread.

I'm struggling to decide which of the two I love more: these beat-downs or his posts in defense after the beat-downs.

[JDRCRASH]

On point: new CaDOF estimates in a year-old thread about CaDOF estimates.

Off point: quoting only prior years' CaDOF estimates after new CaDOF estimates have been released for the current year; citing Wikipedia as if it were a better source of population estimates than those who are charged with tracking such stats; arguing your opinion is literally the point of this thread.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I did not post my opinion; I posted facts concerning the fact that Wikipedia doesn't except that data. I apologize if you cannot understand that. You don't believe me? Ask "Loodog"(a wikipedia user). Maybe he could clarify better.

Let me postulate: Since when is it wrong to express opinions in this thread?

Besides, if the new CaDOF estimates are really the focus, then why not delete the old statistics then?

[fflint]

Haha, oh man...

Pure comic gold right there. Pure comic gold.

[Fusey]

If Loodog can keep Wikipedia updated so well I can only imagine what he can do for my investment portfolio.

[fflint]

Ahh, Loodog--famous for stinking up Sublime's tour van back in the 1990s.

[ThreeHundred]

Postulate??

Anyway, which city do you think will become the new #10?

Most likely it'll be a city from the I.E. In 2006, Riverside (where I live) had 305,255 (according to wiki). I wouldn't doubt that it would be near 330,000 people now.

[Echo Park]

I guess we'll just have to wait for Loodog to verify that info, ThreeHundred.

[SLO]

Postulate??

Anyway, which city do you think will become the new #10?

Most likely it'll be a city from the I.E. In 2006, Riverside (where I live) had 305,255 (according to wiki). I wouldn't doubt that it would be near 330,000 people now.

Riverside then Stockton, although I think Bakersfield is on its way past both....

[JJC50]

Riverside then Stockton, although I think Bakersfield is on its way past both....

Bakersfield has already surpassed Stockton if memory serves me correct. As to Fresno, most of that metro area is whithin the city as well as inside Clovis, there are not much county areas that are not unincorporated. Someone mentioned Sacramento incorporating some county residents, well Bakersfield is in the same situation (although much smaller). Little less than half of the Bakersfield metro is within the city, most of Easter Bakersfield, Oildale, Rosedale and large patches throughout the city are un-incorporated. Just a small point.

[bmfarley]

Bakersfield has already surpassed Stockton if memory serves me correct. As to Fresno, most of that metro area is whithin the city as well as inside Clovis, there are not much county areas that are not unincorporated. Someone mentioned Sacramento incorporating some county residents, well Bakersfield is in the same situation (although much smaller). Little less than half of the Bakersfield metro is within the city, most of Easter Bakersfield, Oildale, Rosedale and large patches throughout the city are un-incorporated. Just a small point.
At a much smaller scale is Chico in northern California.

When I was in high school and college there it was said that half the city's urban area was in unicorporated areas and that the city had the most pockets of unincorporated area than any city in California. That was said to include San Jose which was supposedly in a similar situation.

Anyway, that was then... circa 1987-1993. Then, the city's population was around 40k inside city limits, but 85k in the urban area. Today, the urban area is around 120k.... I believe.

[JDRCRASH]

Postulate??


From www.dictionary.com

pos·tu·late /v. ˈpɒstʃəˌleɪt; n. ˈpɒstʃəlɪt, -ˌleɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)

1. to ask, demand, or claim.
2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, esp. as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.
4. Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.


;)

[Echo Park]

"ask" in that sense would mean to propose something. postulate does not mean ask a question.