Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBuildings888
I read that SF actually has 46 some square miles not 49. They just rounded up to 7x7 to make it 49. BTW, there is no way that SF can make it to 100k/sq mile. With all the hills and it being surrounded by water, it just can’t happen. I could be wrong. I think 25k to 30k per square mile is the densiest it can get.
|
I am pretty sure they were being facetious with that number. The goal that SF should have for the time being is really just to follow the US national population target. Pew Research says the US pop. was 282 million in 2000, and should be 438 million in 2050. This is a 55% increase over half a century.
San Francisco had 777,340 population in 2000. A ~55% increase thus creates our 2050 minimum goal, 1,207,358, an increase of 430,000. With a pop. of 866,320 in 2015 SF is growing, but will not hit that goal at current growth. In 2015 we were 30% of the way to 2050, but we only achieved 21% of the overall 2050 pop. goal (~90,000 pop. growth 2000-2015). SF still has to find room for 340,000 people over the next 30-35 years.
All this is to simply maintain the relative proportion of SF pop. to US pop. Of course there is nothing limiting SF to these numbers, and it does not take into effect immigration's impact on SF in particular vs the nation-at-large, legal or not.