3 ms·

12,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014. How many new units of housing were built? Almost 4,000! What housing crisis? https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-

12,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014. How many new units of housing were built? Almost 4,000! What housing crisis? https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-crisis-3c0568a5dd44 https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-crisis-3c0568a5d...

raldi 10y ago
Actually, 64,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014. 7,000 moved into the 4,000 new housing units that were built. 5,000 crowded in with existing residents. 52,000 displaced 52,000 existing residents. Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/exposing-special-interests-room-ballot-box/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/exposing-special-interests-room-ba...
- timr 10y ago
  No. You're reading that incorrectly. That article says that 64k people were born or moved here, and that 63k moved out or died, for a net population gain of 1k. (EDIT: I misattributed this. That's Aaron Peskin's reading of the ACS numbers, which appear to be low. The actual ACS numbers suggest that the net gain has been around 12k per year since 2010. Still nowhere near a 64k net gain per year.) SF has grown by about 45k (edit: 60k) residents since 2010 -- which, by the way, is about 70% faster than average growth rates since the 1980s. No city can handle that level of hypergrowth without problems. http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-growing-way-faster-than-its-housing-stock http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-grow...
  - raldi 10y ago
    > That article says that 64k people were born or moved here, and that 63k moved out or died, for a net population gain of 1k. No, it really doesn't. Could you quote the part of the article that leads you to that conclusion? Here's the quote from the article that leads me to a different conclusion (that population growth was ten times higher): "In order to make room for the 52,000 people who come here each year that aren’t accommodated by new building or by crowding, 52,000 current residents have to leave [and] about 12,000 of those new people become a net addition to our city" Here's another: "The population estimate for San Francisco in 2014 is 852,537. The estimate for 2015 is 864,816. This represents a population increase of 12,279" > No city can handle [9,000 new people per year] without problems. Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people in 1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880. San Francisco went from 506,676 in 1920 to 634,394 in 1930. Shanghai did this: http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/chicago-architecture-in-china/img/grfc-shanghai.png http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/chicago-architecture-in-... What kind of problems are you referring to, and are they really worse than the horrific housing and displacement problems they would solve?
    - timr 10y ago
      I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin, which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is still way off: “This official census data [the American Community Survey] shows a one-year in-migration of 63,991 people, with an out-migration of 62,757 residents — a net population increase of 1,234.” That's the article's quote from Peskin. The article contends he's wrong, and that the net migration, per year since 2010, is ~10k. The actual census website [1] says that SF had a population of 805k in 2010, and estimates that it will be 865k by 2015. So ~12k per year, net. Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%. "Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people in 1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880." If you think that Manhattan was a magical wonderland between 1870 and 1880, I suggest you pick up a history book. It was a brutal time for poor people in that city. [2] [1] http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075 [2] http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm
      - raldi 10y ago
        > Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%. You misread my comment. I never claimed a net gain of 64,000 people. I said that 64,000 people moved in in 2014, 52,000 moved out, for a net gain of 12,000 people. This is exactly in line with your census numbers.
        timr 10y ago
        You said that 64,000 people moved in (incorrect; some were born) and that 52,000 were "displaced" (also incorrect). Every large city has a flux of people moving in and out, constantly. What matters is the net change. You can't simply take the top-line number, subtract housing, and conclude that everyone else was "displaced".

raldi 10y ago

Actually, 64,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014. 7,000 moved into the 4,000 new housing units that were built. 5,000 crowded in with existing residents. 52,000 displaced 52,000 existing residents. Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/exposing-special-interests-room-ballot-box/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/exposing-special-interests-room-ba...

timr 10y ago
No. You're reading that incorrectly. That article says that 64k people were born or moved here, and that 63k moved out or died, for a net population gain of 1k. (EDIT: I misattributed this. That's Aaron Peskin's reading of the ACS numbers, which appear to be low. The actual ACS numbers suggest that the net gain has been around 12k per year since 2010. Still nowhere near a 64k net gain per year.) SF has grown by about 45k (edit: 60k) residents since 2010 -- which, by the way, is about 70% faster than average growth rates since the 1980s. No city can handle that level of hypergrowth without problems. http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-growing-way-faster-than-its-housing-stock http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-grow...
- raldi 10y ago
  > That article says that 64k people were born or moved here, and that 63k moved out or died, for a net population gain of 1k. No, it really doesn't. Could you quote the part of the article that leads you to that conclusion? Here's the quote from the article that leads me to a different conclusion (that population growth was ten times higher): "In order to make room for the 52,000 people who come here each year that aren’t accommodated by new building or by crowding, 52,000 current residents have to leave [and] about 12,000 of those new people become a net addition to our city" Here's another: "The population estimate for San Francisco in 2014 is 852,537. The estimate for 2015 is 864,816. This represents a population increase of 12,279" > No city can handle [9,000 new people per year] without problems. Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people in 1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880. San Francisco went from 506,676 in 1920 to 634,394 in 1930. Shanghai did this: http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/chicago-architecture-in-china/img/grfc-shanghai.png http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/chicago-architecture-in-... What kind of problems are you referring to, and are they really worse than the horrific housing and displacement problems they would solve?
  - timr 10y ago
    I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin, which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is still way off: “This official census data [the American Community Survey] shows a one-year in-migration of 63,991 people, with an out-migration of 62,757 residents — a net population increase of 1,234.” That's the article's quote from Peskin. The article contends he's wrong, and that the net migration, per year since 2010, is ~10k. The actual census website [1] says that SF had a population of 805k in 2010, and estimates that it will be 865k by 2015. So ~12k per year, net. Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%. "Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people in 1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880." If you think that Manhattan was a magical wonderland between 1870 and 1880, I suggest you pick up a history book. It was a brutal time for poor people in that city. [2] [1] http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075 [2] http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm
    - raldi 10y ago
      > Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%. You misread my comment. I never claimed a net gain of 64,000 people. I said that 64,000 people moved in in 2014, 52,000 moved out, for a net gain of 12,000 people. This is exactly in line with your census numbers.
      - timr 10y ago
        You said that 64,000 people moved in (incorrect; some were born) and that 52,000 were "displaced" (also incorrect). Every large city has a flux of people moving in and out, constantly. What matters is the net change. You can't simply take the top-line number, subtract housing, and conclude that everyone else was "displaced".