Northern California 2010 Census results - Page 2

fflint · #21 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 6:05 PM**

The new American Fact Finder is the most atrocious, user-hostile piece of shit website I've ever suffered.

Thundertubs · #22 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

The new American Fact Finder is the most atrocious, user-hostile piece of shit website I've ever suffered.

This cannot be overstated. It's really horrible.

northbay · #23 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

The new American Fact Finder is the most atrocious, user-hostile piece of shit website I've ever suffered.

couldn't agree more

fflint · #24 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 7:07 PM**

Census: Population growth in San Mateo County slows to lowest rate in history

By Mike Rosenberg
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo...nclick_check=1
Updated: 03/09/2011 08:54:25 AM PST

San Mateo County's population grew last decade at its slowest rate in 150 years, showing one of the clearest signs that the affluent region has not escaped the clutches of the recession.

....About one-third of Peninsula cities actually lost population over the decade, led by Daly City, which saw a decline of 2,500 residents amid a rise in foreclosures.

....Among other the findings for San Mateo County: Asians and Hispanics are replacing whites, and nearly two-thirds of the county's new housing units are empty, leaving unoccupied space for some 18,400 people.

....The information also did not include income data, but it did show the number of vacant versus occupied housing units. The county now has 257,837 occupied households, about 3,700 more than a decade ago. But there are also now 13,194 vacant housing units, slightly more than double the total from 2000.

That last bit of data suggests that the recession has made it too expensive to live in a county that is consistently one of the nation's priciest places to own a house. Marin County, which is smaller but comparable in terms of housing prices and income levels, saw its population growth slow as well, to about 2.1 percent.

fflint · #25 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 7:34 PM**

And a tally of the Bay Area from a Bloomberg article:

In the 10-county San Francisco Bay area, the number of residents grew 5.3 percent, going to 7,413,121 from 7,039,362.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-jeopardy.html

That's not a bad rate of growth for such an expensive, built-out region.

northbay · #26 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

And a tally of the Bay Area from a Bloomberg article:

In the 10-county San Francisco Bay area, the number of residents grew 5.3 percent, going to 7,413,121 from 7,039,362.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-jeopardy.html

That's not a bad rate of growth for such an expensive, built-out region.

so almost 7.5 mil.

i agree. nice steady growth for most the bay area. sonoma county grew 5.5% - right on the average there.

fflint · #27 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 7:50 PM**

More details about Oakland and San Francisco from the Bay Citizen:

Oakland:
*33,000 blacks left the city
*The number of whites, Asians and Latinos in Oakland all increased--but not in big enough numbers to keep Oakland from shrinking 2.2%

San Francisco:
*Asian population increased by 'over 30,000'
*White population increased by 5,000
*Black and Latino populations declined, but not enough to prevent the city from growing 3.7%

What the Census Says about the Bay Area
Contra Costa County grows the fastest, while Oakland shrinks and San Francisco becomes more Asian

By Aaron Glantz on March 8, 2011 - 1:00 p.m. PST
http://www.baycitizen.org/census-201...bout-bay-area/

....Among California's 20 largest cities, Oakland was one of only two to shrink between 2000 and 2010....the East Bay city lost 8,760 residents over the past decade.

During the course of the decade, nearly 33,000 African-Americans left Oakland, the data shows, while the numbers of white, Asian and Hispanic residents increased.

The population loss came despite the building of thousands of new condo units, part of former Mayor Jerry Brown's much-ballyhooed "10K Plan" to reinvigorate downtown Oakland.

"A lot of people came, but a lot of people also left," Cobb said.
........

Like Oakland, San Francisco also saw an exodus of African-Americans, but this was more than offset by growth in the city's the city's Asian population — which rose by more than 30,000 even as the numbers of blacks dropped.

Overall, the city's population grew by 3.7 percent to 805,235 residents between 2000 and 2010.

"The Asian community is growing everywhere [in San Francisco] — the Excelsior, Portola, Visitacion Valley," said Max Kirkeberg, a professor emeritus of geography at San Francisco State University....

Many Asian Americans are also moving into newly built condos in the South Beach and Mission Bay neighborhoods, he said, fueled by the biotech campus of the University of California, San Francisco, which is still under construction.

The number of whites in the city rose by a modest 5,000.
...

ltsmotorsport · #28 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 8:55 PM**

Sacramento Grows At Double State's Rate, Census Shows

By Phillip Reese, Loretta Kalb and Stephen Magagnini
preese@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/09/346...at-double.html

The Sacramento region grew twice as fast as the rest of the state during the last decade, adding 350,000 residents, an increase of 20 percent, according to Census 2010 figures released Tuesday.

Beneath those numbers are three key facts that will have profound effects on the region for the next decade:

• Most of the area's growth was driven by large increases in its Asian and Latino populations.

• Several cities added more residents than predicted, and a few added less, which will influence the amount of money each receives from federal and state governments.

• The region likely will pick up more representation in the state Legislature and U.S. House of Representatives.

The census is conducted every 10 years, primarily to determine how many representatives each state will send to Congress. It's also widely used for drawing political boundaries, appropriating funds and community planning.

As of April 1, 2010, the official population of the Sacramento region – El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties – was 2.15 million. The state had 37.3 million residents on that date, an increase of 10 percent from 2000.

"The future of California is within the interior part of the state, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley," said William H. Frey, senior fellow and demographer with the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, noting strong inland growth relative to the rest of the state. "Twenty years from now, that's where the action is going to be."

Locally, the most striking facts to emerge from Tuesday's census numbers were the huge population gains made by Latinos and Asians, who accounted for roughly two-thirds of the Sacramento region's growth in the last decade.

While the city of Sacramento has had a "majority minority" population for a decade, whites for the first time no longer make up a majority of residents in Sacramento County, and they barely constitute a majority (56 percent) regionwide.

About 32 percent of the region's population now identify as Asian or Latino, up from 24 percent in 2000.

.......

tech12 · #29 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

More details about Oakland and San Francisco from the Bay Citizen:

Oakland:
*33,000 blacks left the city
*The number of whites, Asians and Latinos in Oakland all increased--but not in big enough numbers to keep Oakland from shrinking 2.2%

San Francisco:
*Asian population increased by 'over 30,000'
*White population increased by 5,000
*Black and Latino populations declined, but not enough to prevent the city from growing 3.7%

Strange...the articles i've seen from SFgate and the SF examiner both have San Francisco with an increased latino population and a slight loss for the white population. I guess baycitizen might have their stats wrong (looks they already corrected that article once due to an error, so that may be another), but i don't feel like going through that crappy new american factfinder site to find out for sure right now. Then again, i'm also seeing some errors with the examiner stats for SF's 2000 census numbers, so who knows who is right right now...Could the discrepencies be caused by everybody getting confused by that crappy new factfinder website? LOL...it also doesn't help that the 2000 census stats are organized differently than they are now.

Anyways, the examiner's San Francisco stats (with a couple corrections to the 2000 data, by me):

White alone
2000 - 338,909 (43.6%)
2010 - 337,451 (41.9%)
Asian
2000 - 239,565 (30.8% -Asian alone)
2010 - 265,700 (33%)
black
2000 - 58,791 (7.8% -black alone)
2010 - 46,781 (5.8%)
Latino
2000 - 109,504 (14.1%)
2010 - 121,744 (15.1%)

source (click the picture for graphs with the data): http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011...e-census-climb

the rise in Latino population definitely seems right to me, and backs up what i've been telling the naysayers who thought it had been dropping over the past decade. The mission is definitely a bit less Latino due to gentrification, but i've also definitely noticed more Latino presence in general through out the city. I noticed this with the Asian population to an even greater extent, so no surprises there.

Dr Nevergold · #30 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

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.

fflint · #31 Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

Strange...the articles i've seen from SFgate and the SF examiner both have San Francisco with an increased latino population and a slight loss for the white population.

The statistics are so garbled and the platform so confusing on FactFucker--I honestly believe I have seen stats backing up both the Examiner and the Bay Citizen!

Here is how I read the charts--whites increased in number but decreased in percentage:

2000
White (alone): 385,728 -- 49.7%
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...html?fpt=table

2010
White (alone): 390,387 -- 48.5%
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...html?fpt=table

----

Interesting tidbit: SF added 30,000 units of housing over the last ten years! Links are the same as above, hopefully they work.

2000
Total housing units: 346,527
Occupied: 329,700 (95.1%)

2010
Total housing units: 376,942
Occupied: 345,811 (91.7%)

EDIT--looks like the bookmarks do not work, so I'll just say that is where I retrieved the info around 3:45pm today. Sorry--I don't know how to make FactFucker work well.

tech12 · #32 Posted **Mar 10, 2011, 12:47 AM**

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

fflint · #33 Posted **Mar 10, 2011, 1:23 AM**

Thanks, good job on that. I'm at work and just cannot dedicate that kind of time to FactFucker, the *new* worst website in history.

I think the massive increase in Asians in two of the big three Bay Area cities is the most newsworthy. And check out San Jose--whites are the third-largest racial/ethnic group. That's quite something for a city of nearly a million--are there any other major US cities in which whites aren't even the second-largest group?

brickell · #34 Posted **Mar 10, 2011, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

I think the massive increase in Asians in two of the big three Bay Area cities is the most newsworthy. And check out San Jose--whites are the third-largest racial/ethnic group. That's quite something for a city of nearly a million--are there any other major US cities in which whites aren't even the second-largest group?

2009 estimates for Miami (Dade County) show non-hispanic whites as 3rd.

I'm sure there are others, but good for San Jose too. The amount of Asians on the west coast is pretty staggering.

krudmonk · #35 Posted **Mar 10, 2011, 7:43 PM**

That's why it's funny when people in Oakland say that Lew Wolff wants to move the A's south because he's just a big, white racist...

fflint · #36 Posted **Mar 10, 2011, 8:05 PM**

^Well, nobody should accept that kind of talk, just on principle. San Jose is a growing market, Oakland...eh, not so much.

Oakland's core is more vibrant and safe than it's been in decades. I suspect those thousands of new units downtown have pushed the core's population to an all-time high, too, which will in turn support more business enterprises and further enliven the area--but outside the core, people are decamping Oakland by the tens of thousands. Even the largely successful 10K project couldn't make up for the loss.

dimondpark · #37 Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 4:47 AM**

One of the most interesting things about Census 2010 imo is that while Oakland apparently lost 2.2% of its population, Downtown Oakland grew by a whopping 31%!

Quote:

OAKLAND -- Mark Efe, his wife and young daughter moved a few months ago from American Canyon to a downtown Oakland area that until recently was populated by parking lots, a few auto-related businesses, and some hardy arts groups.

The family joined a population shift sparked by former Mayor Jerry Brown's ambitious plan to reinvigorate downtown Oakland with 10,000 new residents and new housing for them all.

While Oakland as a whole lost more than 8,000 people, or 2 percent of its population, its downtown bucked that trend in the past decade, adding 5,000 people since the 2000 census, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released this week.

According to the latest census figures, population in the seven census tracts that make up Oakland's downtown -- which includes Uptown, Old Oakland, Chinatown and Jack London Square -- grew by 5,134 people, from 16,399 people counted in the 2000 census to 21,533 today.

Slightly more than 3,500 new downtown condominiums, townhouses and apartments have been finished in the past decade, and hundreds more are either under construction or still moving slowly through the planning phase, waiting for the recession to end and financing and customer demand to pick up again...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1

Urbanguy · #38 Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 4:53 AM**

I'm still waiting for Northern California to separate so we up North can claim it as a part of our region!

fflint · #39 Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 5:05 AM**

More on the black exodus from the Bay Area core to the periphery:

Census: Blacks leaving urban core for East Bay suburbs
By Josh Richman
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 03/09/2011
http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci...urce=autofeed#

....
To some extent it's a statewide phenomenon. The 2010 census "Black or African American alone" category, including black people who don't identify as mixed-race but including those who also identify as Latino, now accounts for 6.2 percent of California's total population, down from 6.7 percent in 2000.

The change has been precipitous in the Bay Area's historically black cities: Oakland's and Richmond's black populations each dropped by 23 percent from 2000 to 2010. That means black people accounted for 35.7 percent of Oakland's population at the decade's start and 27.3 percent at its end; in Richmond, blacks went from being 36.1 percent to 25.9 percent of the city's population.

Elsewhere, Berkeley's black population decreased by 20 percent, San Francisco's by 19 percent, and East Palo Alto's by 31 percent.

Many people moved to the suburbs. Antioch, in Contra Costa County's eastern reaches, saw its black population double while nearby Brentwood's almost quintupled. Manteca's black population more than doubled, Tracy's by 91 percent, Stockton's by 30 percent. And further inland, Sacramento suburbs such as Carmichael, Elk Grove and Roseville saw significant black population increases.
....

dimondpark · #40 Posted **Mar 11, 2011, 5:21 AM**

Although it saddens me to see the diaspora of Oakland's black population, I applaud the the fact that more and more Blacks have risen to a financial position where they can make such a move to suburbia if they so choose. Its a shame that they are leaving Oakland though cause I think we need them. A good deal of my Black friends growing up now reside in and around Atlanta as well.

Otoh, Oakland's black middle and upper class is still concentrated in Sequoyah, Oak Knoll, Maxwell Park, Frick, Caballo Hills, Leona Heights, Toler Heights and Chabot Park.