PDA
You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version, click the link below.

View Full Version : 60,000,000 in California by 2050


The Agonist
07-10-2007, 12:37 PM
I wish I could live a couple hundred years to see how things turn out.

60 million Californians by mid-century
Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says.
By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara Lin, Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007


Graphic


Graphic
Changing face of California
click to enlarge

"We don't know where to go. Maybe Arizona."
— Fifi Bo, a nurse who moved from Los Angeles to Corona nine years ago and is now considering moving even farther east
Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday.

California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development.

But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined.

Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market.

"It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."

Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.

If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today.

And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C.

Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties.

L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century.

Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates.

But many residents face agonizingly long commutes to work in other areas. And Monday, the state's growth projections raised some concerns in the Inland Empire.

Registered nurse Fifi Bo moved from Los Angeles to Corona nine years ago so she could buy a house and avoid urban congestion. But she'd consider moving even farther east now that Riverside County is grappling with its own crowding problems.

"But where am I going? People used to move to Victorville, but [housing prices in] Victorville already got high," the 36-year-old said as she fretted about traffic and smog and public services stretched thin. "We don't know where to go. Maybe Arizona."

John Husing, an economist who studies the Inland Empire, is betting that even in land-rich Riverside County, more vertical development is on the horizon. Part of the reason: a multi-species habitat conservation plan that went into effect in 2005, preserving 550,000 acres of green space that otherwise would have vanished.

"The difficult thing will be for anybody who likes where they live in Riverside County because it's rural," Husing said. "In 2050, you might still find rural out by Blythe, but other than that, forget rural."

Husing predicts that growth will be most dramatic beyond the city of Riverside as the patches of empty space around communities such as Palm Springs, Perris and Hemet begin to fill in with housing tracts. The Coachella Valley, for example, will become fully developed and seem like less of a distinct area outside of Riverside, he said. "It'll be desert urban, but it'll be urban. Think of Phoenix," he said.

Expect a lot of the new development in Riverside County to go up along the 215 Freeway between Perris and Murrieta, according to Riverside County Planning Director Ron Goldman. Thousands of homes have popped up in that area in the last decade, and Goldman said applications for that area indicate condominiums are next. The department is so busy that he's hiring 10 people who'll start in the next month.

"We have over 5,000 active development applications in processing right now," he said.

No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.

USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."

If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.

If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents.

"It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth."

The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties.

Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century.

In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold.

The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim.

The result?

The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038.

The figures show that the majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."

That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade.

"The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed…. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."

subterranean
07-30-2007, 11:40 AM
What a disaster.

brickell
07-30-2007, 02:43 PM
And only two senators?
Time to split her up.

Guatemalanking
08-20-2007, 01:18 AM
:worship:

SSLL
08-22-2007, 03:32 AM
Yikes! What's the population of the US projected to be by then?

ltsmotorsport
09-02-2007, 11:02 PM
And only two senators?
Time to split her up.

Seriously. Perfect east-west line at northern side of SLO, Kern, and SB county lines. I'm sure there will be some kind of talk by about 2025. We'll see.

totheskies
09-24-2007, 06:06 PM
Honestly, that's kind of scary.

MolsonExport
09-25-2007, 09:56 PM
rather too many people, me thinks.

edluva
10-09-2007, 05:59 AM
CA will be on the scale and density of some asian countries if that pans out.

Derek
10-09-2007, 06:07 AM
I don't even want to imagine the traffic problems.

ocman
10-09-2007, 06:20 AM
CA is physically bigger than England which has a current population of 50 million. And England can sprawl, so it's good to keep that in mind.

subterranean
10-11-2007, 06:29 AM
CA will be on the scale and density of some asian countries if that pans out.

If you combine the area of Michigan, Illinois and Ohio, it is smaller than the size of California, and nearly the same population.

If the East Coast of the U.S. had a state the size of California it would be much more populated than California if it included NYC, Jersey, Philly, Boston, DC, etc.

Something to consider.

I vote Nor Cal a separate state. We could use 2 more liberal senators.

dimondpark
10-30-2007, 05:16 PM
I dont know why people think its scary?

The NE is about the physical size of California and has about 60 Million people. They seem to be fine.

dimondpark
10-30-2007, 05:22 PM
Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties.

Uh,
the real story here is Northern California. If SoCal grows by 12 Million, then based on this article, Norcal is going to grow by 14 Million...or a 100% increase.

2050
Southern California 31 Million
Northern California 29 Million

edluva
11-25-2007, 10:48 PM
If you combine the area of Michigan, Illinois and Ohio, it is smaller than the size of California, and nearly the same population.

If the East Coast of the U.S. had a state the size of California it would be much more populated than California if it included NYC, Jersey, Philly, Boston, DC, etc.

Something to consider.

I vote Nor Cal a separate state. We could use 2 more liberal senators.



true, but california has a greater proportion of wilderness, with a far greater share of its entire population concentrated in a few discrete metros. one could eliminate the entire swath of CA north of SF, the sierras, and the deserts, and the population would remain almost exactly the same. for that it will be much denser than the midwest. (and already is). something to consider.

kcexpress69
01-27-2008, 03:30 AM
That article just focused on California. What do you think Arizona's population will be by 2050? New Mexico? South Texas? Edluva made me think of an interesting point as well. It's true that if you put Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio together, you would have the same size and population as California. However, the population of those three states have also stablized. By 2050 that population might have increased by a few million whereas California would almost double. That state is going to have a huge problem if it doesn't already now. If the population growth exceeds economic growth, you can bet that the able bodied people will move east in a heartbeat. And not just Riverside county or Fresno. Perhaps the Midwest.

JDRCRASH
01-29-2008, 05:31 PM
^
That is if nothing is done to accomadate that population.
As of now, there are no Desalinization Plants or Non-Polluting plants in California.....none.
At a population THAT size, there should be ABSOLUTELY NO excuse not to pay for expensive undertakings.

This is simply a government estimate, which means it's probably far understated as always.........
And all this may not even take into account the suburbization the High-Speed Rail and High-Speed Maglev projects that are proposed will create.

It looks like for sure that SanSan will pass Boshington by 2050.....
If anybody thinks otherwise by saying that that is BS.......This is my message for them:
:lmao:, :sly: :koko:, :haha:

I wonder how urbanized SoCal will be then.

MolsonExport
01-30-2008, 01:22 AM
Wow. Sounds like childplay.

JDRCRASH
01-30-2008, 04:42 PM
:sly:

More like adults play

People have many more reasons to come to California than the Northeast...

alleystreetindustry
02-01-2008, 01:14 AM
oh dear.

MolsonExport
02-01-2008, 06:11 PM
TalB, anyone? Anyone?

Nicko999
02-02-2008, 01:21 AM
Too much time between 2008 and 2050. This prediction probably won't happen

davedensf
02-02-2008, 02:58 AM
I dont know why people think its scary?

The NE is about the physical size of California and has about 60 Million people. They seem to be fine.

Very little desert in the NE, however.

MolsonExport
02-02-2008, 04:32 AM
^indeed, although plenty of peaks

Hot Rod
02-02-2008, 06:30 AM
I think there will be a ceiling at around 40M, which will be reached in 2050. CA doesn't have a lot of resources (ie water) and so this will be a delimiting factor - not to mention the number of Californians who are already migrating to other metros even as we speak.

Is there ANY major metro that doesn't have a large influx of Californians?

Gordo
02-02-2008, 05:15 PM
I think there will be a ceiling at around 40M, which will be reached in 2050. CA doesn't have a lot of resources (ie water) and so this will be a delimiting factor - not to mention the number of Californians who are already migrating to other metros even as we speak.

Is there ANY major metro that doesn't have a large influx of Californians?

Current estimates put the CA population somewhere around 37 million - 40 will be reached in less than a decade. There are no desalinization plants in CA yet, there are in TX - look for plenty to be built in the next 40 years.

Is there ANY major metro in California that doesn't have a HUGE influx of immigrants from all corners of the globe?

LucasS6
02-02-2008, 08:15 PM
Is there ANY major metro in California that doesn't have a HUGE influx of immigrants from all corners of the globe?

Is there any in the country?

Gordo
02-02-2008, 09:09 PM
Is there any in the country?

You're partially correct - I was just pointing out that domestic net-outmigration has little bearing on population growth in California. There are certainly many metros that are experiencing much less growth from immigration than any of the CA metros. With current domestic out-migration, California is still growing by half a million residents per year.

JDRCRASH
02-05-2008, 04:49 AM
Current estimates put the CA population somewhere around 37 million - 40 will be reached in less than a decade. There are no desalinization plants in CA yet, there are in TX - look for plenty to be built in the next 40 years.

There you go. Thank you.

nwroots
08-03-2008, 03:16 AM
The fires, lack of water, and the population increase in Southern California compelled me to move back to Oregon! It's so fresh and clean here in Portland..:)

kcexpress69
08-03-2008, 04:10 PM
The fires, lack of water, and the population increase in Southern California compelled me to move back to Oregon! It's so fresh and clean here in Portland..:)

Hopefully the cost of living and the amount of taxes you pay are lower as well!!:D

delts145
08-04-2008, 03:36 PM
That article just focused on California. What do you think Arizona's population will be by 2050? New Mexico? South Texas? Edluva made me think of an interesting point as well. It's true that if you put Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio together, you would have the same size and population as California. However, the population of those three states have also stablized. By 2050 that population might have increased by a few million whereas California would almost double. That state is going to have a huge problem if it doesn't already now. If the population growth exceeds economic growth, you can bet that the able bodied people will move east in a heartbeat. And not just Riverside county or Fresno. Perhaps the Midwest.

Perhaps the Midwest, but that would be a BIG perhaps. As someone who has lived in So. Cal for many years, I think I understand it's selling points pretty well, and what additional options Southern Californians will seek out most. Most alternative states would be located in the West. Eastern Oregon and Washington are more of an attractive alternative for Californians, or even the Boise area. Utah and Denver/Western Colorado will continure to be at the top of California's wish list nationally, for both having a large urban core and adjacent requisite jaw-dropping scenery and convenient outdoor amenities, of the spectacular variety. One up and coming metro to watch will be Southern Utah's St. George area. The climate is Las Vegas like, but the surrounding scenery is mind blowing, and it is a very short clip to Vegas for world class diversion.

delts145
08-04-2008, 03:52 PM
Current estimates put the CA population somewhere around 37 million - 40 will be reached in less than a decade. There are no desalinization plants in CA yet, there are in TX - look for plenty to be built in the next 40 years.

Is there ANY major metro in California that doesn't have a HUGE influx of immigrants from all corners of the globe?

Gordo, could you elaborate a little more on the desalination plants in Texas. I have this very powerful gut feeling that these plants will prove very critical to the West's future, particularly So. Calif. and the I-15 corridor, and the Intermountain West and Southwest. What is the consensus in Texas so far on the plants?

Gordo
08-04-2008, 06:06 PM
Gordo, could you elaborate a little more on the desalination plants in Texas. I have this very powerful gut feeling that these plants will prove very critical to the West's future, particularly So. Calif. and the I-15 corridor, and the Intermountain West and Southwest. What is the consensus in Texas so far on the plants?

I don't know what the consensus has been so far. To my knowledge, the only plants open so far are for brackish ground water, rather than straight from the sea. This link talks about the one in El Paso quite a bit:

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/iwt/desal/faqgeneral.html

Mr. Rochester
09-26-2008, 04:34 PM
After reading this, I am happy to live in the old east.

StethJeff
09-27-2008, 11:00 PM
screw splitting the state. secession would be better.

edluva
10-25-2008, 09:51 AM
I concur

murdoc9
11-09-2008, 05:00 AM
Interesting - sure good for development. Makes for a much more interesting conversation than Indiana in 40 years.

LivingInExile
11-16-2008, 06:06 AM
I'm so glad our immigration is starting to get a bit more diverse.

Most would think Mexicans are like 90% of the immigrants here, but there's also a large segment of Asians coming here, along with a rapidly increasing population of sub-saharan Africans. Brazilians are also becoming more and more noticeable in many areas too.

In 2050, California's going to have a very diverse mix of people. :D

Forums Directory