Population and Household Growth in San Francisco Bay Area, 1970-2000, Schemes and Mind Maps of Rent Control

Download Population and Household Growth in San Francisco Bay Area, 1970-2000 and more Schemes and Mind Maps Rent Control in PDF only on Docsity!

ResidentsResidents

Population and Household Growth, 1970Population and Household Growth, 1970--2000 2000

Key Findings:

ÿ Between 1970 and 1980, the Bay Area grew much more

rapidly than San Francisco (both population and households).

Households grew at a faster rate than population in the

region.

ÿ Since 1980, population growth has been more rapid than

household growth.

ÿ San Francisco lost population between 1970 and 1980, while

the number of households increased slightly.

ÿ Between 1980 and 1990, San Francisco’s population started

to grow again, but at a slower rate than for Bay Area.

ÿ During 1990s, the pace of population and housing growth

picked up in San Francisco, but was still slightly slower than

for Bay Area overall. Household growth was slightly more

rapid than population growth in the City during the decade.

Limitations of the Data: Relies on accurate enumeration by the

Census.

Indicator Description: Growth in total population and

households for San Francisco and the Bay Area since 1970.

Differences between population and household growth rates

usually indicate changes in household size.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco and Bay

Area region, comprising Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,

San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma

Counties.

Year Population Households Population Households 1970 4,628,199 1,552,373 715,674 295, 1980 5,179,784 1,970,549 678,974 298, % Change 1970-1980 11.9% 26.9% -5.1% 1.3% 1990 6,020,147 2,245,865 723,959 305, % Change 1980-1990 16.2% 14.0% 6.6% 2.2% 2000 6,783,760 2,466,019 776,733 329, % Change 1990-2000 12.7% 9.8% 7.3% 7.9%

Sources: ABAG; U.S. Census; BAE, 2001.

SF BAY AREA SAN FRANCISCO

Population & Household Growth, 1970-

Bay Area Population Growth Bay Area Household Growth San Francisco Population Growth San Francisco Household Growth

Population by AgePopulation by Age

Indicator Description: Age of residents of San Francisco,

compared to California.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco and State of

California.

Key Findings:

ÿ San Francisco’s median age is older than the state’s, with a

median of 36.5 years compared to 33.3 years for California in

ÿ The population of both the City and the State has been aging

gradually; San Francisco’s median age was 34.1 in 1980.

ÿ San Francisco has a far lower proportion of children under 18

than California as a whole, and the number of children in the

City has decreased even though the overall population has

increased over the last two decades.

ÿ San Francisco has a higher proportion of seniors 65 and

older than the State.

Limitations of the Data: See Appendix for detail on age

distribution for San Francisco and California.

Age Distribution for San Francisco and California 1980-

Under 18

San Francisco California

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980, 1990, 2000.

17% (^) 16% (^) 15%

27% (^) 26% 27%

12% (^) 10% 9%

14% (^) 11% 10%

22% 22% (^) 23%

18% 19% (^) 15%

12% 18% (^) 17%

12% 16% 16%

10% 10% (^) 14%

10% 10%^ 13%

11% 9%^

8% 9% 8%^ 8%

15% 15%^ 14%^ 10% 11% 11%

Percent of Total Population

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Over

Median Age

San Francisco California

Ethnicity, 1990Ethnicity, 1990--2000 2000

Key Findings:

ÿ San Francisco has a racially diverse population, with Whites

and Asian/Pacific Islanders being the two largest groups.

ÿ The City’s African American population declined by

approximately 18,000, or nearly one-fourth, between 1990

and 2000.

ÿ The White population increased slightly, although its share of

the total decreased. Asian/Pacific Islanders increased by

over 36,000, and the Latino population increased by almost

Limitations of the Data: In 2000, individuals were able to

specify more than one race, an option not available in 1990; this

amounted to 3% of the 2000 population. Persons of Hispanic

Origin may report any race; many select the “Other Race”

category.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco.

Indicator Description: Ethnic and racial composition of San

Francisco population, 1990 and 2000.

Change in Racial Composition, 1990-

1990 % of 2000 % of CATEGORY Number Total Number Total Non-Hispanic by Race White 337,118 46.6% 338,909 43.6% Black or African American 76,343 10.5% 58,791 7.6% Am. Indian, Alaska Native 2,635 0.4% 2,020 0.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 205,686 28.4% 241,775 31.1% Other Race 1,460 0.2% 2,580 0.3% More than One Race NA NA 23,154 3.0%

Total Non Hispanic 623,242 86.1% 667,229 85.9%

Persons of Hispanic Origin 100,717 13.9% 109,504 14.1%

Total Persons 723,959 100.0% 776,733 100.0%

Note: In 1990, there was no option to choose more than one race. Sources: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000; BAE, 2001.

White

Black or African

American

Am. Indian, Alaska

NativeAsian/Pacific Islander Other Race

More than One Race

Hispanic Origin

Percent of Total Population

Non-Hispanic by Race

Household and Per Capita Income, 1989Household and Per Capita Income, 1989 -- 2000 2000

Indicator Description: Income of households and persons,

1989 and 2000.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco and State of

California.

Key Findings:

ÿ Incomes in San Francisco are rising more rapidly than

statewide. Household income in the City rose 71 percent

between 1989 and 2000, over twice California’s rate.

ÿ The City’s median household income in 2000 was above

statewide levels, a reversal of 1989, when the statewide level

was higher.

ÿ Per capita income is over 40 percent higher in San Francisco

than for California.

ÿ Despite San Francisco’s overall relative affluence, the

proportion of households with incomes under $15,000 is

about the same as statewide.

Limitations of the Data: Household income data from 2000 are

estimates from the 2000 Census Supplementary Survey; final

Census data based on a larger sample are not yet available. Per

capita income data for 2000 may be overstated because of

exclusion of group quarters population.

Household Income Distribution, 2000

Median Annual Household Income, 1989-

Under $15,000 22% 13% 19% 14% $15,000-$24,999 15% 9% 15% 12% $25,000 to $34,999 15% 9% 15% 11% $35,000 to $49,999 17% 13% 18% 15% $50,000 to $74,999 17% 18% 18% 19% $75,000 to $99,999 7% 12% 8% 11% 100,000 to $149,999 5% 13% 5% 10% $150,000 or more 3% 12% 2% 7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Median HH Income $33,481 $57,259 $35,833 $46, % Change, 1989-2000 71% 30%

Per Capita Income $19,580 $36,328 $16,346 $22, % Change, 1989-2000 86% 39% Note: All 1989 income data from 1990 Census. 2000 income data from Census 2000 Supplementary Survey, which covers only population in households, excluding population in group quarters. Source: 1990 U.S. Census STF3; 2000 Census Supplementary Survey ; BAE 2001

San Francisco California

San Francisco California

$150,000 or more 100,000 to $149, $75,000 to $99, $50,000 to $74, $35,000 to $49, $25,000 to $34, $15,000-$24, Under $15,

San Francisco

California San Francisco

California

Household Income by Tenure Household Income by Tenure

Limitations of the Data: American Housing Survey data based

on a sample of only 1,842 households for San Francisco and thus

have a wider margin of error than decennial Census data. In

addition, data are weighted based on 1990 Census, which

introduces additional potential for error; note that as a result, total

household counts differ from other sources.

Key Findings:

ÿ The median household income of owner households is higher

than city median, while renter median income is lower than

city overall.

ÿ Almost 12% of owners and 25% of renters earned less than

$15,000 in 1998.

ÿ For the income categories between $25,000 and $49,999, the

share of all owners and all renters is very similar.

ÿ Although few renters fall into the $80,000 to $99,999 income

category, the highest income category, of $100,000 or more,

has a substantial proportion of renters in it (almost ¼ of all

renter households).

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco.

Indicator Description: Shows household income by owner or

renter status in 1998.

All Owner- Percent Renter- Percent Household Occupied Occupied of Occupied of Income Units Units Total Units Total Less than $15,000 62,800 12,000 11.8% 50,600 24.7% $15,000 to $24,999 31,700 7,300 7.1% 24,400 11.9% $25,000 to $34,999 31,500 10,300 10.1% 21,000 10.2% $35,000 to $49,999 33,800 10,500 10.3% 23,200 11.3% $50,000 to $79,999 45,000 17,600 17.2% 27,300 13.3% $80,000 to $99,999 16,500 8,600 8.4% 7,900 3.9% $100,000 or more 86,300 35,800 35.1% 50,600 24.7% Total 307,600 102,100 100.0% 205,000 100.0%

Median $47,334 $66,862 $38,

Note: Some totals may not add due to independent rounding. All numbers rounded to nearest 100. Totals may vary from other sources due to sampling error.

Sources: American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area , HUD and U.S. Bureau of the Census; BAE, 2001

Income by Tenure, 1998

10%

10% 17%

13%

35%

25%

12% 25%

7%

12% 10%

11%

8%

4%

Owner-Occupied Units

Renter-Occupied Units

Percent of Households

$100,000 or more

$80,000 to $99, $50,000 to $79,

$35,000 to $49,

$25,000 to $34,

$15,000 to $24,

Less than $15,

Household Size by Rent Control StatusHousehold Size by Rent Control Status

Indicator Description: Comparison of household size for

occupied rent controlled units and market rate units.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco.

Key Findings:

ÿ Average household size for market rate units in San

Francisco is 2.26 persons, compared with 1.94 for rent

controlled units.

ÿ Nearly half of rent controlled units are occupied by one

person. Only 36% of market rate units have only one

occupant.

ÿ 19% of market rate units contain households of four or more

persons, compared with only 11% of rent controlled units.

Limitations of the Data: AHS sample size is relatively limited

(895 rent controlled units and 265 market rate units) and

weighted based on 1990 census data, leading to potential margin

of error. See Appendix for methodology for classification as rent

controlled or market rate units. Note that some units do not fall in

either category (e.g., public housing), and are not shown here.

Household Size by Rent Control Status, 1998

Rental Unit Type Rent Controlled (a) Market Rate (a) Household Size Number Percent Number Percent One person 71,100 49% 8,200 36% Two persons 41,700 29% 7,700 33% Three persons 16,100 11% 2,800 12% Four or more persons 16,700 11% 4,300 19%

Total 145,600 100% 23,000 100%

Average Household Size 1.94 2.

Notes: Totals may not add due to independent rounding. Numbers should be considered in light of potential sampling error of weighted sample. Sample size = 895 rent-controlled units and 265 market rate units. (a) See Appendix for methodology regarding how units were typed as rent controlled and market rate. Rent controlled excludes units subject to eviction control only.

Source: BAE, 2001, based on microdata analysis of the 1998 American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, from the U.S. Department of the Census.

One person Two persons Three personsFour or more

persons

Rent Controlled

0% Market Rate

Percent of HH in Category

Age of Householder by Rent Control Status Age of Householder by Rent Control Status

Indicator Description: Comparison of age of householder for

occupied rent controlled units and market rate units.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco.

Key Findings:

ÿ There is a higher concentration of younger householders in

market rate rental units than in rent controlled rental units.

ÿ There is a higher concentration of householders aged 45 to

54 in rent controlled units as compared to market rate units.

ÿ There is a higher concentration of senior householders aged

65 and older in rent controlled units as compared to market

rate units.

Limitations of the Data: AHS sample size is relatively limited

(895 rent controlled units and 265 market rate units) and

weighted based on 1990 census data, leading to potential margin

of error. See Appendix for methodology for classification as rent

controlled or market rate units. Note that some units do not fall in

either category (e.g., public housing), and are not shown here.

Age of Householder by Rent Control Status, 1998

Rental Unit Type Rent Controlled (a) Market Rate (a) Age Category Number Percent Number Percent Under 25 17,000 12% 5,200 23% 25 to 34 45,600 32% 6,900 30% 35 to 44 33,100 23% 6,100 27% 45 to 54 22,900 16% 1,800 8% 55 to 64 10,000 7% 1,500 7% 65 and older 16,000 11% 1,200 5% Total (b) 144,600 100% 22,800 100%

Median Age 37.0 32. Notes: Totals may not add due to independent rounding. Numbers should be considered in light of potential sampling error of weighted sample. Sample size = 895 rent-controlled units and 265 market rate units. (a) See Appendix for methodology regarding how units were typed as rent controlled and market rate. Rent controlled excludes units subject to eviction control only. (b) Data not reported for all surveyed households.

Source: BAE, 2001, based on microdata analysis of the 1998 American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, from the U.S. Department of the Census.

Under 2525 to 3435 to 44 45 to 5455 to 64

65 and older

Rent Controlled

Market Rate

Percent of HH in Category

Household Income by Rent Control StatusHousehold Income by Rent Control Status

Indicator Description: Comparison of annual household

incomes for occupied rent controlled units and market rate units.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco.

Key Findings:

ÿ The median annual household income for households living

in rent controlled units is lower than that for market rate units.

ÿ Households in rent-controlled units are more likely to have

annual incomes below $50,000 than households in market

rate units.

ÿ Approximately one-fourth of all households in rent controlled

units have incomes of $100,000 or more.

Limitations of the Data: 1998 American Housing Survey

sample size is relatively limited (895 rent controlled units and 265

market rate units) and weighted based on 1990 census data,

leading to potential margin of error. See Appendix for

methodology for classification as rent controlled or market rate

units. Note that some units do not fall in either category (e.g.,

public housing), and are not shown here.

Annual Household Income by Rent Control Status, 1998

Rental Unit Type Rent Controlled (a) Market Rate (a) Household Income Number Percent Number Percent Less than $15,000 27,000 19% 4,500 20% $15,000 to $24,999 18,400 13% 1,800 8% $25,000 to $34,999 15,300 11% 2,300 10% $35,000 to $49,999 19,700 14% 1,300 6% $50,000 to $79,999 21,100 14% 3,900 17% $80,000 to $99,999 5,800 4% 2,200 10% $100,000 or more 38,400 26% 7,000 30% Total 145,600 100% 23,000 100%

Median $43,000 $60, Notes: Totals may not add due to independent rounding. Numbers should be considered in light of potential sampling error of weighted sample. Sample size = 895 rent-controlled units and 265 market rate units. Reflects 1997 incomes of 1998 households. (a) See Appendix for methodology regarding how units were typed as rent controlled and market rate. Rent controlled excludes units subject to eviction control only. Source: BAE, 2001, based on microdata analysis of the 1998 American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, from the U.S. Department of the Census.

Less than $15, $15,000 to $24,999$25,000 to $34, $35,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $79, $80,000 to $99,999$100,000 or more

Rent Controlled

Market Rate

Percent of HHs in

Category

Household IncoHousehold Income by Age for Rent Controlled Unitsme by Age for Rent Controlled Units

Indicator Description: Household income distributions by age

category, for rent controlled units only, 1998.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco.

Key Findings:

ÿ There is considerable difference between the

incomes of different age groups in rent controlled

units.

ÿ Elderly renters in most places tend to have lower

incomes than other renters, and this pattern holds

for San Francisco’s rent controlled units. The

median 1997 household income of elderly renter

households is very low, at $15,000.

ÿ The age group with the highest incomes is the 25 to

34 age group, with a median 1997 household

income of $65,400.

Limitations of the Data: 1998 American

Housing Survey sample size is relatively

limited (895 rent controlled units and 265

market rate units) and weighted based on

1990 census data, leading to potential

margin of error. See Appendix for

methodology for classification as rent

controlled or market rate units. Note that

some units do not fall in either category

(e.g., public housing), and are not shown

here.

Household Income by Age for Rent Controlled Units, 1998

Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and Older Household Income Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Less than $25,000 5,500 32% 8,400 18% 9,400 28% 5,600 24% 4,800 48% 10,900 68% $25,000 to $49,999 5,300 31% 10,000 22% 7,100 21% 7,900 34% 2,300 23% 2,300 14% $50,000 to $99,999 3,800 22% 8,000 18% 7,600 23% 3,800 17% 1,700 17% 1,600 10% $100,000 or more 2,400 14% 19,100 42% 9,000 27% 5,600 24% 1,200 12% 1,200 8% Total 17,000 100% 45,600 100% 33,100 100% 22,900 100% 10,000 100% 16,000 100% Median $33,000 $65,400 $50,000 $43,000 $28,000 $15, Notes: Sample size too limited to provide crosstabulated data for market rate units. Totals may not add due to independent rounding. Numbers should be considered in light of potential sampling error of weighted sample. Sample size = 895 rent-controlled units and 265 market rate units. Reflects 1997 incomes of 1998 households. See Appendix for methodology regarding how units were typed as rent controlled and market rate. Rent controlled excludes units subject to eviction control only. Source: BAE, 2001, based on microdata analysis of the 1998 American Housing Survey for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area , from the U.S. Census Bureau.

$

$10,

$20,

$30,

$40,

$50,

$60,

$70,

Under 25

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and Older

Median Household Income

Jobs per Employed Resident, 1990Jobs per Employed Resident, 1990--2020 2020

Key Findings:

ÿ Between 1990 and 2020, the number of jobs to employed

residents in San Francisco ranges from 1.47 in 1995 to 1.

in 2020.

ÿ For the Bay Area region as a whole, the ratio of jobs to

employed residents is well below the City’s, and more

balanced, ranging from 1.02 in 1990 to 1.06 in 2020.

ÿ The City’s ratio of jobs to employed residents is projected to

increase slightly more rapidly than the Bay Area region’s.

Indicator Description: Ratio of jobs to employed residents,

1990 through 2020 in five-year intervals.

Jobs per Employed Resident, 1990-

San Francisco Bay Area Jobs per Jobs per Employed Employed Employed Employed Year Jobs Residents Resident Jobs Residents Resident 1990 579,180 391,292 1.48 3,206,080 3,151,993 1. 1995 559,300 379,800 1.47 3,227,390 3,127,800 1. 2000 628,860 422,100 1.49 3,688,590 3,538,000 1. 2005 660,610 439,600 1.50 3,966,990 3,799,000 1. 2010 687,350 454,100 1.51 4,227,560 4,017,500 1. 2015 714,700 460,700 1.55 4,460,660 4,230,700 1. 2020 731,660 467,300 1.57 4,687,950 4,438,300 1.

Sources: ABAG Projections 2000 ; BAE 2001.

Year

Jobs per Employed Resident

San Francisco Bay Area

Limitations of the Data: Data from 1995 forward are estimates

and projections by the Association of Bay Area Governments

(ABAG), last actual Census data from 1990.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco and nine-

county Bay Area region.

Residents’ Occupation, 1990Residents’ Occupation, 1990

Indicator Description: Occupation of working residents, 2000.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco and State of

California.

Key Findings:

ÿ San Francisco has considerably higher concentrations of

workers in management and professional occupations than

California, with nearly half of the City’s residents in these

types of occupations.

ÿ The City has lower concentrations of workers in production-

related occupations than the State.

Limitations of the Data: Data are from the Census 2000

Supplementary Survey – data from 2000 Census, which is based

on a larger sample (one-in-six households) not yet available. See

Appendix for details on the Supplementary Survey.

Residents' Occupation, 2000

Occupation Number % of Total Number % of Total Management, business and financial 88,340 20.5% 2,223,214 14.7% Professional and related 118,490 27.4% 3,105,809 20.5% Service 61,291 14.2% 2,341,005 15.5% Sales and related 49,924 11.6% 1,701,922 11.2% Office and administrative support 60,862 14.1% 2,307,022 15.2% Farming, forestry, and fishing 197 0.0% 226,896 1.5% Construction and extraction 12,884 3.0% 772,252 5.1% Installation, maintenance, and repair 8,194 1.9% 511,813 3.4% Production 17,815 4.1% 1,139,511 7.5% Transportation and material moving 13,675 3.2% 817,833 5.4%

Total Employment 431,672 100.0% 15,147,277 100.0%

Sources: Census 2000 Supplementary Survey ; BAE, 2001.

San Francisco California

Management, business and

financial

Professional and related

Service

Sales and related

Office and administrative support

Farming, forestry, and fishingConstruction and extraction Installation, maintenance, and

repair

Production

Transportation and material moving

San Francisco

0% California

Percent of All Jobs

TravelTravel Time to WorkTime to Work

Limitations of the Data: 2000 data are from the Census 2000

Supplementary Survey – data from 2000 Census, which is based

on a larger sample (one-in-six households) not yet available. See

Appendix for details on the Supplementary Survey.

Key Findings:

ÿ Counting those working at home, 31% of employed San

Francisco residents traveled less than 20 minutes to work in

ÿ The largest category is those traveling 30 or more minutes to

work. These workers may still work within San Francisco –

time of travel may account for lengthy time but short distance

commutes.

ÿ San Francisco has a longer mean travel time to work than

statewide.

ÿ On average, employed residents of San Francisco and

California had longer commute times in 2000 than in 1990.

Indicator Description: Number of minutes reported by Census

respondents for their travel time to work. Range of times for 2000

and mean travel time for 1990 and 2000.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco and State of

California.

Travel Time to Work

San Francisco California 2000 Journey to Work (Minutes) Number % of Total Number % of Total 0-9 Minutes 22,159 5% 1,715,576 12% 10-19 Minutes 88,181 21% 4,137,535 28% 20-29 Minutes 93,249 22% 2,898,386 20% 30+ Minutes 195,836 47% 5,487,668 37% Work at home 20,176 5% 541,002 4% Total 419,601 100% 14,780,167 100%

1990 Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 26.9 24. 2000 Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 29.6 26.

% Change in Mean Commute Time, 1990-2000 10% 9%

Sources: 1990 U.S. Census STF3; Census 2000 Supplementary Survey ; BAE, 2001.

San Francisco California

Work at home 30+ Minutes 20-29 Minutes 10-19 Minutes 0-9 Minutes

Trends in Total Employment, 1990 - Trends in Total Employment, 1990 - 2000 2000

Indicator Description: Total annual average nonfarm

employment in each geographic area, 1990 through 2000.

Geographic Areas Covered : City of San Francisco and State of

California.

Key Findings:

ÿ For the whole decade, employment in San Francisco grew by

seven percent, less than half of the growth rate for California.

ÿ Employment in San Francisco declined more proportionally

than did the State’s during the recession of the early 1990s,

and did not recover as quickly even with the regional boom of

the late 1990s.

ÿ In 2000, there were approximately 600,000 wage and salary

jobs in San Francisco.

Limitations of the Data: Excludes self-employed workers and

sole proprietors. These data are for all persons employed in the

City, not just those also living in the City. Comparisons should be

considered in light of the higher rate of population growth

statewide.

Total Annual Average Nonfarm Employment

Nonfarm as % Nonfarm as % Year Employment of 1990 Employment of 1990 1990 558,400 100% 12,499,900 100% 1991 546,100 98% 12,359,000 99% 1992 528,900 95% 12,153,500 97% 1993 521,300 93% 12,045,300 96% 1994 512,200 92% 12,159,500 97% 1995 513,300 92% 12,422,200 99% 1996 529,800 95% 12,743,400 102% 1997 549,300 98% 13,129,700 105% 1998 563,800 101% 13,596,100 109% 1999 574,700 103% 13,991,900 112% 2000 598,700 107% 14,518,600 116%

Note: Includes only wage and salary workers working in area.

Sources: CA State Employment Development Department, 2001; BAE, 2001

Nonfarm Employment, San Francisco 9,000,

Nonfarm Employment, California

San Francisco California