On a percentage basis or absolute? What area added most people on absolute basis?

@ details

The largest regional absolute growth was in Southern California with a gain of 758,700 residents but only a 4.2% growth.

The largest county growth was in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange and Riverside counties
(Santa Clara was fifth largest in absolute population growth). The other four counties are larger than Santa Clara and had smaller % growth.

You can check the data yourself at the web link in the blog.

Steve, I'm confused. If the population in Santa Clara county is increasing more than other regions, if these persons are housed, this implies that there has been more growth in housing stock (or greater occupancy rates) here than in other regions of the Bay Area and country. This does not imply, as far as I can see, that we should build more housing to accommodate even more people unless we desire that the population growth increase even more. Please explain.

Hi Confused,

I am sure some other readers share your question. I will respond in the next day or two but now want to give other readers a chance to weigh in. And they might have answers to your question.

The signs of a housing shortage for existing residents are:

1) Rent and home price increases out of line with other areas and historical norms. Yes, that is true in the region and county

2) One result is an increase in doubling up--young adults moving home or families sharing housing. Data for the county and region show increasing household size when it should be going down as births relative to population are declining and there are more older smaller households.

3) Involuntary displacement of residents, which in addition cause longer commutes

All of these situations would be improved if more housing was built in all affordability ranges and nearer to where the region and county job bases are

Building more housing will just increase the inventory for foreign money that's aggressively looking for just that. The result would be that more housing will go to those who least need it and use it to move money out of certain money and to launder dirty money, pushing housing prices even higher, which is exactly what is happening right now.

This is really depressing news for most locals, given the lack of comprehensive public transpo and the lack of housing. No wonder there are more people living in cars, crowding into housing and the streets are packed with too many cars.

A vast majority of the jobs here are served by knowledge workers. A lot of the work knowledge workers do can be performed without showing up at an office. And the technology exists (and has for some time) to allow them to get much if not most of there work done from a home office.

So a great deal of the perceived 'need' to build more affordable housing close to work is off the mark. Office space, housing prices and road congestion will all be better if these types of workers are allowed to function, produce and collaborate remotely.

Rebuilding all the towns in the Bay Area to accommodate businesses that want to be physically here does not seem like to smart way to go.

Not only can a lot of the work performed by knowledge workers be done at and from home, but the physical location of the knowledge companies, due to the nature of the products they produce and existing technologies is immaterial. They can be located just about anywhere. There is absolutely no reason for new tech companies to move into one of the most expensive, and short of supply real estate markets in the entire world. Some local tech companies have already moved some of their operations elsewhere, which is good thinking.

The development lobby is using the mantra that tech workers need housing as a ploy to get development approved, when the solution is to locate new companies and relocate some existing companies to areas with cheaper and more available housing.

@Mike-Crescent Park

Most high tech companies have adopted a more recent policy of open office space and everyone show up in the office on a daily basis for increased collaboration. For most high tech workers the luxury of working at home is no longer available which forces more people into their cars and onto the roads. Hence an increased need for more housing here in the Bay Area where the offices are located.

What this area is in desperate need of, is effective public transportation that can efficiently bring people to their jobs, even from areas just beyond the boundaries of the Bay Area. This might reduced the need for more housing here.

Home offices for many companies are a thing of the past. We can thank Yahoos Marissa Meyer for that.

Growth is the sign of a healthy economy and it does have its downsides for quality of life. However the notion that building new housing will only attract more "dirty money" from foreign (read Chinese) investors is simply false and implies a certain prejudice. Let's focus on improving quality of life starting with transportation. One great opportunity is extending BART around the Bay, increasing connectivity with other communities and improving education and access for the elderly are also worthy concepts. Let's not attempt to block progress but manage it so that we can all enjoy

Mauricio and Mike have posted some pretty wild non fact based arguments.

1) knowledge workers working from home

Maybe a few do so but the surging ridership on CalTrain and BART plus the surge in company buses suggests that more not fewer knowledge workers are going to the office.

And there is the fact that companies like Apple and Google and many others are expanding work spaces from Sf to SJ.

Then there is the fact that the vast majority of workers need to be onsite--like teachers and those who work at schools, like police and firefighters and EMTs, like nurses and doctors and those who work at clinics and hospitals, like those who work in stores and restaurants, at airports, in construction and manufacturing and government.

And, wherever people work they still need places to live.

2) Tech is leaving for other places

Yes some companies are establishing locations outside the Bay Area BUT

that overlooks the key fact in the blog--that the Bay Area leads the state in population growth, also in job growth, also in tech job growth.

And the fact that tech companies are expanding here, adding space and employees.

3) Foreign investors will buy all the new housing.

Really doubtful if you think about. Will they scoop up the 9,000 studios and 1 and 2 bdr apartments planned for North Bayshore or the subsidized housing for teachers now supported in some school districts or the Apartments, condos and townhouses in downtown
San Jose, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Sunnyvale.

So the bottom line remains that the region is growing and that there is a housing shortage for existing residents that is pushing up prices and rents, causing more doubling up and more displacement.

That is the reality today. Wishful thinking or telling other people how to live is not usually a successful solution. More housing of the right kind and location is.

Does 'immigration' mean from other parts of the US or is it foreign immigration? If it is foreign, could you please provide the country breakdowns? Also, can you tell us what is the education levels of those coming here and leaving?

@ Norman

Immigration is foreign immigration on a net basis--immigrants minus emigrants.

In the Bay Area most immigrants are Asian--china, India, Phillipines.

compared to other areas our immigrants have more college and advanced degrees.

Throughout California immigration from Mexico (legal and unauthorized) has fallen from previous levels and no longer contributes much to population growth.

In general in California for domestic migration, people leaving have lower average educational levels than people coming here.

Thank you for sharing this report.

"Also the idea that people are leaving the region in large numbers is not supported by this data. Since 2010 more than 10,000 people a year have moved here from the rest of the nation than left."

That's a little misleading. Internal migration for the Bay Area is almost a wash (seems to fluctuate a lot year to year). However, net internal migration for the state is negative. This appears to be due mostly to LA County, which is losing 50,000 people a year this way (0.5% of its total population).