Los Angeles population reaches 4 million, CA @ 38 million

[Tender Branson]

By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer
7:51 PM PDT, May 1, 2007

Finally, something to explain the gridlock at your local coffeehouse and clogged freeways that seems to extend well into the night.

The population of L.A. quietly surpassed the 4-million mark for the first time last year, the California Department of Finance announced Tuesday.

Angelenos probably don't need a demographer to tell them what they already know: that the city is growing more densely populated. But the numbers show that the city gained 37,758 residents last year, and as of Jan 1., 2007, its population was 4,018,080.

"It's a spectacular arc of development when you consider that in 1900, L.A. had a population of 102,459," said historian Kevin Starr.

L.A. lore holds that the city was founded in 1781 by 44 people, transplants from the San Gabriel Mission. That puts the 226-year gain in population at 4,018,036.

The L.A. numbers were part of a report released Tuesday that pegged the state's population at almost 37.7 million. That represents a growth of almost 1.3%, or 470,000, in 2006.

State demographers use a variety of data — including driver's licenses, school enrollments, Medi-Cal recipients, birthrates, immigration and state to state migration — to estimate population change.

The Riverside County city of Beaumont saw the state's fastest growth rate, 21.2%. Irvine passed 200,000 in population, bringing to 20 the number of cities in the state that exceed 200,000 in population.

But it was the Los Angeles numbers that had most people talking Tuesday.

Just how big does that make L.A.?

With 4 million people, the city of Los Angeles has more people than 24 states, according to federal census data. And it's got roughly the same number as the entire country of New Zealand.

The increase occurred over the last year, as L.A. added 10,239 housing units, according to the state data.

Many of those units were downtown, where the city has seen a marked increase in population as former commercial buildings have been converted into lofts and apartments and a number of new residential buildings have opened.

The city, Starr said, is "embracing and exulting in its urbanism."

Starr and other historians have said that Los Angeles' role as an international city, attracting immigrants from all over the world, has been a key factor in its quick demographic rise.

Los Angeles, said Harry Pachon, a USC public policy professor, has "been in a growth mode.... The dynamism of Los Angeles continues to attract people."

Pachon sees modest growth in the foreseeable future. Families in Latin and Central America are having fewer children, he said, diminishing population pressures there. He also said that the continued increase in housing prices in Southern California meant that more people are seeking economic opportunity outside the region.

L.A. threw itself parties (and the L.A. Times produced banner headlines) when the city reached the 1-million and 1.5-million levels, in 1923 and 1940. (The 1-million mark was estimated by counting the number of, among other things, barber shops.)

But don't expect a lot of celebrating of the new milestone.

Edward Soja, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, called passing the 4-million mark "not that dramatic a transition," especially as L.A.'s population gains are eclipsed, in percentage, by growth elsewhere in the region.

But he said that he worried that Southern California in general is ill-equipped to deal with rapid growth, especially the area's administrative and governmental structures.

"I would say never before is it more needed to have some form of regional coordination, whether we are talking about housing and homelessness or transportation and airports or environment and pollution," Soja said.

The L.A. region, he added, "has the worst housing crisis anywhere in the developed world. It's not being addressed with the urgency it needs to be addressed."

Janelle Erickson, a spokeswoman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, wasn't weighing in about whether the numbers were a good or bad thing. But she did hint that she understood why people were moving to the city.

"What the mayor always says is that Los Angeles is a city where the world comes together," Erickson said. "Los Angeles is a city of America's hope and promise, where the dreams of so many have come to life."

Except, perhaps, on the 405 Freeway at rush hour. Or the Starbucks line at 8:30 a.m.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-population2may02,0,5953587.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Cubby]

L.A. threw itself parties (and the L.A. Times produced banner headlines) when the city reached the 1-million and 1.5-million levels, in 1923 and 1940. (The 1-million mark was estimated by counting the number of, among other things, barber shops.)...................

But don't expect a lot of celebrating of the new milestone.

This is what I can't stand about demographics these days. Why aren't milestones like this something to be proud of anymore? People are such lazy anti-immigrant complainers they can't be bothered to celebrate anything other than sports victories.

An increasing population is a healthy sign, and something to be proud of. Except if its increasing too fast or its Muslims in Europe, because that is a terrible trend. Latinos want to become American, Euro-Muslims hate Europe and want to subvert it.

[Padfoot]

This only further strengthens my resolve to have California divided up into many smaller states like on the East Coast.

[Cubby]

This only further strengthens my resolve to have California divided up into many smaller states like on the East Coast.

No, 2 states would be enough. Northern California would not be uber-liberal b/c it would have places like Placer County, Stockton and Modoc.

Southern California is all Republican except LA County and Santa Barbara.

[memphis]

L.A. threw itself parties (and the L.A. Times produced banner headlines) when the city reached the 1-million and 1.5-million levels, in 1923 and 1940. (The 1-million mark was estimated by counting the number of, among other things, barber shops.)...................

But don't expect a lot of celebrating of the new milestone.

This is what I can't stand about demographics these days. Why aren't milestones like this something to be proud of anymore? People are such lazy anti-immigrant complainers they can't be bothered to celebrate anything other than sports victories.

An increasing population is a healthy sign, and something to be proud of. Except if its increasing too fast or its Muslims in Europe, because that is a terrible trend. Latinos want to become American, Euro-Muslims hate Europe and want to subvert it.

Go drive for a day in LA traffic and you'll figure out very quickly why nobody is celebrating. Short-sighted urban planning has f'ed them so hard!

[Padfoot]

This only further strengthens my resolve to have California divided up into many smaller states like on the East Coast.

No, 2 states would be enough. Northern California would not be uber-liberal b/c it would have places like Placer County, Stockton and Modoc.

Southern California is all Republican except LA County and Santa Barbara.

I made a map in which I divided it into 9 different states.

[Verily]

This only further strengthens my resolve to have California divided up into many smaller states like on the East Coast.

No, 2 states would be enough. Northern California would not be uber-liberal b/c it would have places like Placer County, Stockton and Modoc.

Southern California is all Republican except LA County and Santa Barbara.

I made a map in which I divided it into 9 different states.

I would divide it in three. California (capital San Francisco), San Joaquin (capital Sacramento), and Mojave (capital Los Angeles).

[muon2]

This only further strengthens my resolve to have California divided up into many smaller states like on the East Coast.

No, 2 states would be enough. Northern California would not be uber-liberal b/c it would have places like Placer County, Stockton and Modoc.

Southern California is all Republican except LA County and Santa Barbara.

I made a map in which I divided it into 9 different states.

I would divide it in three. California (capital San Francisco), San Joaquin (capital Sacramento), and Mojave (capital Los Angeles).

Very similar to a division I did a few years ago for the forum as part of a resplit of the 50 states. For three states the only differences are that I would put San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara with your California, and I would put Shasta with your San Joaquin.

Since I was doing the whole US, I also put many of the mountain counties along the east with Nevada, but that's not an option if you are just splitting CA. That keeps counties like Lassen and Mono from being so far removed from the main population of their "states".

In my version I also split Movave into two states with Ventura, LA and Orange in their own state, but that was primarily to keep population balanced within the nation as a whole.

[Verily]

Very similar to a division I did a few years ago for the forum as part of a resplit of the 50 states. For three states the only differences are that I would put San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara with your California, and I would put Shasta with your San Joaquin.

I could see Shasta being a part of San Joaquin; I believe it does form the northernmost end of the valley. I left it in California to keep things a bit more contiguous and to help balance the population a bit.

As for San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, I left those in Mojave because there is a long strip of coastline between Monterey and San Luis Obispo with no cities at all. I thought relatively a unpopulated area would be a good place for a split.

[muon2]

Very similar to a division I did a few years ago for the forum as part of a resplit of the 50 states. For three states the only differences are that I would put San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara with your California, and I would put Shasta with your San Joaquin.

I could see Shasta being a part of San Joaquin; I believe it does form the northernmost end of the valley. I left it in California to keep things a bit more contiguous and to help balance the population a bit.

As for San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, I left those in Mojave because there is a long strip of coastline between Monterey and San Luis Obispo with no cities at all. I thought relatively a unpopulated area would be a good place for a split.

My selection was based more on cultural differences than pure geography. Even in terms of geography, one can make a case for Oxnard/Ventura being the northwestern limit of the LA region since it is the last urban area contiguous to areas connected with urban LA.

[12th Doctor]

L.A. threw itself parties (and the L.A. Times produced banner headlines) when the city reached the 1-million and 1.5-million levels, in 1923 and 1940. (The 1-million mark was estimated by counting the number of, among other things, barber shops.)...................

But don't expect a lot of celebrating of the new milestone.

This is what I can't stand about demographics these days. Why aren't milestones like this something to be proud of anymore? People are such lazy anti-immigrant complainers they can't be bothered to celebrate anything other than sports victories.

An increasing population is a healthy sign, and something to be proud of. Except if its increasing too fast or its Muslims in Europe, because that is a terrible trend. Latinos want to become American, Euro-Muslims hate Europe and want to subvert it.

It's something to be proud of if you have a well planned out, well-thought out city.  Clearly, you are not quiet familiar with the situation in Los Angeles.  It is a city planners nightmare and the sprawl in the city has long since surpassed epic proportions.

BTW... this thought

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and this thought

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clash a bit.  Not to mention that your signature contains the candidate who is popular with a number of those people you are railing against.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'd divide California up into several states and combine a bunch of the intermountain west states into one.

[Verily]

Very similar to a division I did a few years ago for the forum as part of a resplit of the 50 states. For three states the only differences are that I would put San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara with your California, and I would put Shasta with your San Joaquin.

I could see Shasta being a part of San Joaquin; I believe it does form the northernmost end of the valley. I left it in California to keep things a bit more contiguous and to help balance the population a bit.

As for San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, I left those in Mojave because there is a long strip of coastline between Monterey and San Luis Obispo with no cities at all. I thought relatively a unpopulated area would be a good place for a split.

My selection was based more on cultural differences than pure geography. Even in terms of geography, one can make a case for Oxnard/Ventura being the northwestern limit of the LA region since it is the last urban area contiguous to areas connected with urban LA.

I was looking at both culture and geography, actually. California is a very good example of somewhere where culture and geography and closely intertwined. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, so I may have placed them where they don't belong inadvertently.

Of course, "Mojave" would have so many problems that the map is totally unrealistic anyway.

[Serenity Now]

Latinos want to become American, Euro-Muslims hate Europe and want to subvert it.

Could you refrain from bringing your ill-informed prejudices against European Muslims into this thread, and instead talk about the subject at hand? I'm sure its something you actually know about..

Also, find some sources (e.g. opinion polls) that actually prove that the majority of European Muslims hate Europe and want to subvert it before you make those kinds of generalizations..

[Jaggerjack]

This only further strengthens my resolve to have California divided up into many smaller states like on the East Coast.

No, 2 states would be enough. Northern California would not be uber-liberal b/c it would have places like Placer County, Stockton and Modoc.

Southern California is all Republican except LA County and Santa Barbara.

Stockton itself leans Democratic. But it's surrounded by rock-solid Republican suburbs and farms. But we can expect strong margins in NorCal for a long time, as long as the Bay Area continues to throw Democrats huge margins (though, from what I hear the Bay Area's losing population cause it's pretty damn expensive. I live here, so I should know, the average cost of a home in my town is $1000000).

[Tender Branson]

It seems there´s not really any slowdown in the CA population growth compared to the 90's. While growth averaged 1.2% annually back then, it now stands at 1.5% each year. If trends continue CA will top the 50 Million milestone sometime in the 2030s.

The same accounts for the LA Metro region. It will overtake the NY metro in the 2030s to become the nations biggest Metro area with 25 Mio. people.

Also LA city is about to top 5 Mio. in the 2030s.

And CA will certainly gain some EV's in the future.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We need to split Cali up into several states.

[SPC]

We need to split Cali up into several states.

I know. I would really like it if Northern California from Fresno up split from SoCal from Fresno down.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'm talking 4-5 states at minimum for the split not just NoCal/SoCal. also all residens of NoCal and the bay area lose their rights. SoCal uber alles.

[Padfoot]

I'm talking 4-5 states at minimum for the split not just NoCal/SoCal. also all residens of NoCal and the bay area lose their rights. SoCal uber alles.

lol.  I'm not sure I agree that all residents outside of SoCal should lose their rights but the state should certainly be divided up into 4-5 smaller states.  It isn't right to have one state with control over 10% of the electoral votes.  LA county should become its own state as should the historic State of Jefferson.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

We need to split Cali up into several states.

Why?  Not that I think you are wrong I'm just interested in your reasoning. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

California as one state means its votes matter less than votes in placesl ike Wyoming.

[Verily]

We need to split Cali up into several states.

I know. I would really like it if Northern California from Fresno up split from SoCal from Fresno down.

You live in SoCal, right? Trust me, you don't want your state to break up. SoCal would be a disaster zone within a decade; it can't sustain itself economically or environmentally (water shortages).

[Cubby]

Not to mention that your signature contains the candidate who is popular with a number of those people you are railing against.

I had that picture of Sarkozy in my signature because I don't like him. The picture said Sarkozy=Le Pen. Sarkozy won because he appealed to Le Pen's fascist supporters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why are Modoc and Lassen put with San Francisco and Monterrey? They have nothing in common with the other liberal coastal counties of the New California.

Mono should be in the new San Joaquin State, its isolated from the rest of Mojave.

[Verily]

Why are Modoc and Lassen put with San Francisco and Monterrey? They have nothing in common with the other liberal coastal counties of the New California.

Mono should be in the new San Joaquin State, its isolated from the rest of Mojave.

Modoc and Lassen have much more in common with the northern coast (Mendocino and north) than with the Central Valley. (They'd be even better off in Oregon, but that wasn't an option.)

Geographically and demographically, Mono belongs in Mojave. In terms of which highways run through it, Mono belongs in San Joaquin. I ignored current highways. (The best place for Mono [and Inyo], is not one of these three Californias, but Nevada.)