Facts about the population of San Francisco?

I just got back from SF last night. Before I got on the BART to go to the airport, I had a conversation with a homeless guy. He seemed to speak with some authority, but he may have been exaggerating to make a point. His claim:

“Only 20% of people you meet in San Francisco actually live here. And 30% of those 20% live on the streets.”

That seems a little far-fetched. But I talked to a ton of people over the weekend, and indeed most were tourists. The few natives I met live in East Bay or South Bay or Berkeley or Oakland. And the homeless population was overwhelming. (FWIW, I spent most of my time in Union Square.)

What are the real numbers?

I don’t see how anyone can speak to what percentage of people you met actually live in San Francisco. Likewise, how can anyone speak to the ratio of those people you met being homeless?

His claims are predicated upon who you meet. I would say that as a tourist you are going to be predisposed to meeting homeless people, since they tend to congregate in many of the popular tourist locations.

I am not seeing how the question is answerable.

Based upon Wikipedia’s population numbers, the City of San Francisco has about 800,000 residents. The SFO metropolitan area has over 4 million residents. By my math, it’s entirely reasonable to assume that only 20% of the people you meet will live in the City. Cite: San Francisco - Wikipedia

Now as for the percentage of people you meet being homeless, according to this article SFO had a homeless population of a little over 6000 in 2005. I am sure those numbers are no longer entirely accurate, but a good yardstick. Surely the rate has gone up, given the economy, but SFO is also quite progressive in proactively fighting homelessness and offering programs to get the homeless off the street and reintegrated into society.

For the sake of this conversation let’s say 1% of SFO residents are homeless.

I do not find it reasonable to assume that 30% of the people you meet in SFO are homeless.

The figure of 6000 is a low in 2005, down from 8000 in 2002. Let’s assume that the 2002 figure is more accurate, and let’s assume that it’s only half of the actual number – then yeah, that’s still only 2%. I think the guy was inflating the number a bit.

It did amaze me that of all the people I met (and there were a lot), I can only remember one that actually lived there.

Of course, it also matters what part of S.F. you were in. Out in the neighborhoods (Richmond, Sunset districts) I’d say most people you meet do live in San Francisco.

To be fair he said that 30% of the SF residents that you meet will be homeless, but only 20% of the people you will meet will be SF residents, so 6% of the people you would meet overall would be homeless.

I think it really depends on how you define “meeting” somebody. My wife and I were out there a few years back and neither of us is the type to strike up a conversation with a stranger. Sure we likely encountered thousands of residents and tourists, but of the people we “met”, as in had an actual conversation with, a high percentage were homeless people trying to make friendly before making their pitch.

Of course if you were there on business or to visit family that lived there, your homeless and tourist encounter quotient would likely plummet.

How were you meeting people? That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if way more than 6% of the people who went out of their way to talk to you were homeless. I’m in the city every day and the only strangers I ever talk to are the homeless guys saying good morning as I walk to the office from the BART station.

But yes, if you were mostly in Union Square, Fisherman’s Wharf, etc., then your sampling is going to be seriously skewed. Big difference between being on Muni’s 1-line at 5:30 on a Tuesday afternoon and the California street cable car at noon on a Saturday.

San Francisco, like many another ‘anchor’ city for a metropolitan area, has a lot of commuter jobs. I’m not prepared to quantify ‘a lot’. But here’s a way to quantify the numbers:

  1. Take the (adjusted Census) population of San Francisco.

  2. From that number, identify how many are gainfully employed, and how many fall in other demographics: schoolchildren, preschool kids, unemployed, retired, homemakers, etc.

  3. Take a Labor Department statistic or estimate on how many jobs are physically located in San Francisco.

  4. Take the ‘gainfully employed residents’ from #2, eliminate the small satistical handful of people who live in SF and work elsewhere (“I teach at Berkeley but I love the ambience of the city” and the like). Subtract the resultant number from the figure in #3. These comprise the ‘daytime-only’ population – they are in the city daily (except days off, holidays, etc.) making use of its resources and contributing to its consumer economy, but are not census-definition residents. They’re included in the ‘number of people you meet’ figure.

  5. Take the Chamber of Commerce or tourism bureau estimate of the average daily number of tourists, which for SF is a serious figure.

Youi now have a working universe of staistics. The Census figure will give you how many people eat and sleep in SF, he base population. Add the tourism figure for a ‘nighttime population.’

Now, add in the commuters you calculated in #4 to give a ‘daytime population.’ This will be a higher number because nearly all the ‘nighttime’ residents will still be there in the daytime – the kids in school, the preschoolers and homemakers at home, the unemployed and retired doing whatever they do during the day. The employed residents, less those few who commute out, will be there – and so will those who live in the East Bay, Marin County, down the Peninsula, and commute into the city for jobs. And the tourists will be active during the day, a not insignificant figure for somewhere like SF.

Anyone want to take a stab at getting the actual figures? The Polycarp Rectal Statistical Bureau (i.e., where I pulled hypothetical estimates by way of example from) says:

800K residents
–6K homeless included
–450K employed, of whom 10K work outside the city
–350K ‘not gainfully employed’ (students under 18, small children, disabled, retired, homemakers, and all the other ‘niche’ statistics)

900K jobs in the city
–440K held by city residents
–460K held by commuters

25K average daily tourists

Nighttime population: 800K residents + 25K tourists = 825K

Daytime population: 790K residents (800K less the 10K working elsewhere) + 460K commuters + 25K tourists = 1275K

Probability a randomly encountered person in SF during the day is a resident = 62%, a non-resident = 38%

The real numbers will obviously be different, but that’s a rough-guess scenario.

“Hey, how are you doin’? I love this city. Are you from around here?”

Just out being social.

One “commuter” data point for the overall mix:

My immediate workgroup is five people working in a South of Market building. Three of us live in San Francisco, so if you were visiting my office, 60% of the people you meet are San Francisco residents.

An excellent fit with **Polycarp’s **figures.

A lot depends where you’re meeting people. Out in the residential neighborhoods (Marina, Sunset, Richmond, Pacific Heights, etc.), I think that most of the people you meet live in the city. If you’re talking about downtown or touristy places (like Fisherman’s Wharf, Lombard Street, Chinatown), then most of the people walking around are probably tourists, and the people sitting or loitering in the streets are homeless. Also, in the evenings the commuters leave town and just about everyone you meet will live in SF, although some may be homeless.

I like Manhattan where, according to the chamber of commerce, 4.5 million people live in the day time. Manhattan has approx 1.65 population so tha means 2.85 million people commute into Manhattan daily (on average) for work, shopping and touristy things.

Makes you wonder if terrorists merely shut down the subways, not killed anyone but merely managed to damage the tunnels and damage the bridges how much economic damage they could do without even killing people.

I’d say the 2005 number is probably going to be the more accurate, considering the efforts SF is doing (and leading) in the way of dealing with the homeless issue these days. I also don’t know why you’d assume that’s half the actual total.

Here’s 2009’s numbers:
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2009/04/mayors_homeless_count_report_j.html

6,514 in 2009.

One thing to bear in mind is the OPer was in the Financial District, unlike alot of SF (which has the best nightlife scene I’ve encountered in the US) the Financial District is almost entirely commercial and shuts down at 7pm (and is close to the Tenderloin, one of the most deprived areas). If you’re there at night or on a weekend , I wouldn’t be surprised if the 20% figure is in the right ballpark for homeless-vs-.