4 ms·

> I am extremely skeptical that, even if all the logistical problems could feasibly be solved, we'd find 70 million people in this country that would choose to

> I am extremely skeptical that, even if all the logistical problems could feasibly be solved, we'd find 70 million people in this country that would choose to live in that region once all the dust settled. Well they'll have to, because there are a limited number of areas in the US making jobs. And the US population is growing not shrinking, so even if jobs fan out to other, less-crowded population centers, we're just kicking the can down the road. Let's not forget about all the pollution that vehicles cause, which is a direct side effect of suburban sprawl. According to US gov't data [1], transportation is almost 30% of our emissions. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_2.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_2.pdf

thaumaturgy 6y ago
Did San Francisco stop making jobs in 2000? Because its population growth has been flatlined or declining since then [1]. The numbers don't support the argument that jobs alone are enough of an incentive for people to move to San Francisco. Guess which California cities are currently the fastest-growing. Ready? Bakersfield and Sacramento [2]. The numbers suggest that the role of jobs tends to be overestimated when it comes to the places that people choose to live. No disagreement from me that denser population centers have net lower carbon emissions when compared to the same population over a larger area. [1]: https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/popul... [2]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article243402621.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article243402621.html
- Karrot_Kream 6y ago
  > Did San Francisco stop making jobs in 2000? Because its population growth has been flatlined or declining since then [1]. The numbers don't support the argument that jobs alone are enough of an incentive for people to move to San Francisco. No, it has nothing to do with job growth. San Francisco and Daly City have tried to block as much new housing as possible, so everyone simply spills out into the rest of the Bay Area. Neighboring Daly City [1] gained 3k people out of 103k, so ~3% increase but looking southward, South San Francisco [2] went from 60.6k to 68.1k people, a 12.4% increase. Further down in the Peninsula, Redwood City [3] went from 75.4 to 76.4k people, an increase of 13.3%. San Mateo [4] went from 92.5k to 104.4k people, a 12.9% increase. A bit more South, Mountain View [5] went from 70.7k to a peak of 83.2k, growth of 17.68%. Palo Alto [6] went from 58.6k to 67k people, a 14.3% increase. And finally, San Jose [7] went from 894.9k people to 1M people, an increase of 11.74%. Most cities in the Bay Area have seen tremendous growth in the last 20 years, it's just that San Francisco and Daly City continue to block new housing being built. Moreover I really don't think jobs will get much more decentralized in the future. Post-COVID, some businesses probably will distribute themselves more, but not enough to have an effect. I only see urbanization increasing in the long term in the US. Clinging to our SFH only model of development is just short-sighted thinking based on our population growth alone, let alone environmental targets that we will need to hit to avert climate change disasters. [1]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/daly-city-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/daly-city-ca-pop... [2]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/south-san-francisco-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/south-san-franci... [3]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-pop... [4]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-pop... [5]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-pop... [6]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-pop... [7]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-jose-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-jose-ca-popu...

thaumaturgy 6y ago

Did San Francisco stop making jobs in 2000? Because its population growth has been flatlined or declining since then [1]. The numbers don't support the argument that jobs alone are enough of an incentive for people to move to San Francisco. Guess which California cities are currently the fastest-growing. Ready? Bakersfield and Sacramento [2]. The numbers suggest that the role of jobs tends to be overestimated when it comes to the places that people choose to live. No disagreement from me that denser population centers have net lower carbon emissions when compared to the same population over a larger area. [1]: https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/popul... [2]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article243402621.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article243402621.html

Karrot_Kream 6y ago
> Did San Francisco stop making jobs in 2000? Because its population growth has been flatlined or declining since then [1]. The numbers don't support the argument that jobs alone are enough of an incentive for people to move to San Francisco. No, it has nothing to do with job growth. San Francisco and Daly City have tried to block as much new housing as possible, so everyone simply spills out into the rest of the Bay Area. Neighboring Daly City [1] gained 3k people out of 103k, so ~3% increase but looking southward, South San Francisco [2] went from 60.6k to 68.1k people, a 12.4% increase. Further down in the Peninsula, Redwood City [3] went from 75.4 to 76.4k people, an increase of 13.3%. San Mateo [4] went from 92.5k to 104.4k people, a 12.9% increase. A bit more South, Mountain View [5] went from 70.7k to a peak of 83.2k, growth of 17.68%. Palo Alto [6] went from 58.6k to 67k people, a 14.3% increase. And finally, San Jose [7] went from 894.9k people to 1M people, an increase of 11.74%. Most cities in the Bay Area have seen tremendous growth in the last 20 years, it's just that San Francisco and Daly City continue to block new housing being built. Moreover I really don't think jobs will get much more decentralized in the future. Post-COVID, some businesses probably will distribute themselves more, but not enough to have an effect. I only see urbanization increasing in the long term in the US. Clinging to our SFH only model of development is just short-sighted thinking based on our population growth alone, let alone environmental targets that we will need to hit to avert climate change disasters. [1]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/daly-city-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/daly-city-ca-pop... [2]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/south-san-francisco-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/south-san-franci... [3]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-pop... [4]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-mateo-ca-pop... [5]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-pop... [6]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/palo-alto-ca-pop... [7]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-jose-ca-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-jose-ca-popu...