Northern California 2010 Census results

[Dralcoffin]

Cities

3 3 San Jose city…………………………………………………. 894943.......945942.......50999.......5.7%
4 4 San Francisco city …………………………………………… 776733.......805235.......28502.......3.7%
5 6 Fresno city…………………………………………………. 427652.......494665.......67013.......15.7%
6 7 Sacramento city………………………………………………. 407018.......466488.......59470.......14.6%
8 8 Oakland city………………………………………………… 399484.......390724.......-8760....... -2.2%
13 13 Stockton city……………………………………………………. 243771.......291707.......47936.......19.7%
15 14 Fremont city……………………………………………………. 203413.......214089.......10676.......5.2%
18 17 Modesto city……………………………………………………… 188856.......201165.......12309.......6.5%

Top counties

6 5 Santa Clara County………………………………………………….. 1682585.......1781642.......99057.......5.9%
7 7 Alameda County……………………………………………. 1443741.......1510271.......66530.......4.6%
8 8 Sacramento County……………………………………………. 1223499.......1418788.......195289.......16.0%
9 9 Contra Costa County………………………………………….. 948816.......1049025.......100209.......10.6%
10 10 Fresno County……………………………………………….. 799407.......930450.......131043.......16.4%
13 11 San Francisco County……………………………………….. 776733.......805235.......28502.......3.7%
14 13 San Mateo County…………………………………………… 707161.......718451.......11290.......1.6%
15 15 San Joaquin County………………………………………….. 563598.......685306.......121708.......21.6%
16 17 Stanislaus County……………………………………………. 446997.......514453.......67456.......15.1%
17 16 Sonoma County…………………………………………… 458614.......483878.......25264.......5.5%
18 21 Tulare County…………………………………………………. 368021.......442179.......74158.......20.2%
20 18 Monterey County………………………………………………. 401762.......415057.......13295.......3.3%

[Thundertubs]

Congrats to San Francisco on breaking 800k.

Oakland seems to be a case like so many other cities across the country: even though it is gentrifying in the central city, the suburbanization of minorities is affecting the overall population.

[urbanactivist]

Seems that the Bay Area is another unique formation of the "urban layout". If one were to consider all of San Francisco as the "revitalized urban core" it's clear that some slow growth has occurred. Oakland has a mix of some revitalization, but it also has some project areas where poorer families have been priced out. San Jose OTOH is in a slow urban transition, but still has room for some sprawl building.

Fresno perplexes me though. I don't get what the growth motivator is for that city.

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

Fresno perplexes me though. I don't get what the growth motivator is for that city.

Relative cheapness, I'd assume. Same with Bakersfield, Stockton, et al.

[Lipani]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

Relative cheapness, I'd assume. Same with Bakersfield, Stockton, et al.

Some Silicon Valley companies have expanded their presence in the Sacramento area in the last decade or two. HP and Intel (in Roseville and Folsom, respectively) come to mind. Roseville exploded in the last decade and is now the center of retail and white collar jobs in the region. If it weren't for a lack of land and water, Folsom could have sprawled out even more than it already does.

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by Lipani

Some Silicon Valley companies have expanded their presence in the Sacramento area in the last decade or two. HP and Intel (in Roseville and Folsom, respectively) come to mind. Roseville exploded in the last decade and is now the center of retail and white collar jobs in the region. If it weren't for a lack of land and water, Folsom could have sprawled out even more than it already does.

Ironically, though, Apple has reduced its Sacramento-area presence (in Elk Grove).

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by Lipani

Some Silicon Valley companies have expanded their presence in the Sacramento area in the last decade or two. HP and Intel (in Roseville and Folsom, respectively) come to mind. Roseville exploded in the last decade and is now the center of retail and white collar jobs in the region. If it weren't for a lack of land and water, Folsom could have sprawled out even more than it already does.

Just give Folsom time. They are currently wanting to annex open land south of Hwy 50 to add another 30k or so people. More sprawl for everyone!

For your enjoyment...
http://www.folsom.ca.us/home_nav/sph..._documents.asp

[TWAK]

If Sacramento could just annex some of the unincorporated areas that are Sacramento anyway (S Sac/Florin) and Arden Arcade..we wouldn't like like a big K anymore

[RST500]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Just give Folsom time. They are currently wanting to annex open land south of Hwy 50 to add another 30k or so people. More sprawl for everyone!

For your enjoyment...
http://www.folsom.ca.us/home_nav/sph..._documents.asp

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/23/364...break-the.html

[tech12]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

Seems that the Bay Area is another unique formation of the "urban layout". If one were to consider all of San Francisco as the "revitalized urban core" it's clear that some slow growth has occurred. Oakland has a mix of some revitalization, but it also has some project areas where poorer families have been priced out. San Jose OTOH is in a slow urban transition, but still has room for some sprawl building.

Fresno perplexes me though. I don't get what the growth motivator is for that city.

All of San Francisco is most definitely not revitalized/gentrified...plenty of poorer people have been priced out of SF as well over the decades (to a larger extent than Oakland, seeing as SF is the larger and more expensive city...plenty of them moved from SF to Oakland in fact), and it continues to happen here. But, i guess SF still attracts enough immigrants (from every economic spectrum), singles who may not be wealthy, but who don't mind living in small spaces on tight-ass budgets, and enough upper middle class to wealthy Americans in general, to more than make up for the numbers lost from the middle class/working class.

[fflint]

*There are more San Franciscans today than there have ever been in the city's 235-year history

*Current population density is roughly 17,242 persons per square mile

*SF is now more populous than either Boston or Washington DC ever were

*On just a city-limits to city-limits comparison, built-out San Francisco grew faster in the 2000s than roomier cities Dallas and Los Angeles

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by fflint

*On just a city-limits to city-limits comparison, built-out San Francisco grew faster in the 2000s than roomier cities Dallas and Los Angeles

You mean percentage-wise, right? Because LA grew by like 80 or 90K.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

You mean percentage-wise, right? Because LA grew by like 80 or 90K.

Obviously.

[Brandon716]

Originally Posted by fflint

*There are more San Franciscans today than there have ever been in the city's 235-year history

*Current population density is roughly 17,242 persons per square mile

*SF is now more populous than either Boston or Washington DC ever were

*On just a city-limits to city-limits comparison, built-out San Francisco grew faster in the 2000s than roomier cities Dallas and Los Angeles

SF has been a primary urban growth incubator as opposed to just suburban growth, which is most impressive.

[tech12]

ok, i'm starting to get the hang of the factfinder 2 website. It looks like the differing stats from different news articles is because the Baycitizen article was listing stats for total white people, including Latino people, whereas the Examiner separated those two apart.

Here are the the big Bay Area cities by race and latino population:

NOTE: Hispanic people are not included in any of the following stats, except of course where it says "hispanic or latino of any race".

San Francisco:
2000 - 776,733
2010 - 805,235
white alone:
2000 - 338,909 (43.6%)
2010 - 337,451 (41.9%)
black alone:
2000 - 58,791 (7.6%)
2010 - 46,781 (5.8%)
American Indian/Alaska native alone:
2000 - 2,020 (0.3%)
2010 - 1,828 (0.2%)
Asian alone:
2000 - 238,173 (30.7%)
2010 - 265,700 (33.0%)
native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone:
2000 - 3,602 (0.5%)
2010 - 3,128 (0.4%)
some other race alone:
2000 - 2,580 (0.3%)
2010 - 2,494 (0.3%)
two or more races:
2000 - 23,154 (3.0%)
2010 - 26,079 (3.2%)
Hispanic or Latino of any race:
2000 - 109,504 (14.1%)
2010 - 121,774 (15.1%)

San Jose:
2000 - 894,943
2010 - 945,942
white alone:
2000 - 322,534 (36.0%)
2010 - 271,382 (28.7%)
black alone:
2000 - 29,495 (3.3%)
2010 - 27,508 (2.9%)
American Indian/Alaska native alone:
2000 - 2,959 (0.3%)
2010 - 2,255 (0.2%)
Asian alone:
2000 - 238,378 (26.6%)
2010 - 300,022 (31.7%)
native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone:
2000 - 3,093 (0.3%)
2010 - 3,492 (0.4%)
some other race alone:
2000 - 1,699 (0.2%)
2010 - 1,820 (0.2%)
two or more races:
2000 - 26,796 (3.0%)
2010 - 25,827 (2.7%)
Hispanic or Latino of any race:
2000 - 269,989 (30.2%)
2010 - 313,636 (33.2%)

Oakland:
2000 - 399,484
2010 - 390,724
white alone:
2000 - 93,953 (23.5%)
2010 - 101,308 (25.9%)
black alone:
2000 - 140,139 (35.1%)
2010 - 106,637 (27.3%)
American Indian/Alaska native alone:
2000 - 1,471 (0.4%)
2010 - 1,214 (0.3%)
Asian alone:
2000 - 60,393 (15.1%)
2010 - 65,127 (16.7%)
native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone:
2000 - 1,866 (0.5%)
2010 - 2,081 (0.5 %)
some other race alone:
2000 - 1,229 (0.3%)
2010 - 1,213 (0.3%)
two or more races:
2000 - 12,966 (3.2%)
2010 - 14,076 (3.6%)
Hispanic or Latino of any race:
2000 - 87,467 (21.9%)
2010 - 99,068 (25.4%)

It looks like Oakland was the only of the three cities that gained white, non-Hispanic people, and it also lost the largest proportion of it's black population, both of which may surprise some people. But of course that's all assuming there were'nt any significant undercounts in any of these cities.

Those numbers are all DEFINITELY correct (i promise), and required me to spend way too much time navigating the new fact-finder website, as well as finding and manually subtracting/figuring out non-hispanic race stats from the old factfinder website, in order to find the true numbers for "race alone" in every non-white group (the census themselves only listed white-alone-non hispanic pop. in the general info section of the 2000 census, for some reason, even though all the data is there to figure it out for every racial group). Why is it so hard for government stuff to be non-convoluted? I never would have thought the new census website would suck even more than the old one

[Gordo]

I'm curious to do some diving into the Oakland numbers, but I suspect that the number of households still grew at a decent clip, and the drop is mostly due to household sizes shrinking.

SF's population fell right about where I thought it would.

[fflint]

I honestly thought this would be the year that San Jose officially hit 1 million.

When I first saw the Chicago statistics a while back, my first thought was "smaller family sizes." I thought that because the effect of family size on overall population was one of my first lessons in demography, back when I was young and perplexed by a population drop in a city I knew had seen lots of construction. My Dad worked for the city and that was their analysis. I think we're seeing this again, in city after city, from Dallas to LA to Oakland--most every home can be occupied, and new units built all over the place, but if the family sizes are dropping then the city will 'lose' people.

[ltsmotorsport]

Those areas plus Rosemont would add upwards of 150k to Sacramento instantly. Would be great to see that happen.

[austlar1]

What about Marin County. What is the 2010 county population and also largest towns?

[northbay]

Originally Posted by austlar1

What about Marin County. What is the 2010 county population and also largest towns?

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...prodType=table

here in sonoma:
Santa Rosa city, CA: 167,815 (+20,220)

not too shabby!