Revisiting the Politics and Demographics of Bay Area Enclavism

There is more nuance to the image of the Bay Area as a blue monolith. In the 2020 Democratic primary election, affluent suburban White communities were divided between Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg, and Asian areas were divided between Bernie Sanders, Bloomberg, and Biden. Sanders’ strength was in urban areas, Hispanic areas, much of the Silicon Valley, and even pockets of support among wealthy areas in San Francisco and Marin. Elizabeth Warren’s support came from areas most stereotyped as leftwing but more affluent than those for Sanders. With the 2020 general election, Biden won overwhelming, with much of San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley voting for Biden by 80-90% margins. Trump’s only strong support was in rural far eastern Contra Costa County. However, Biden only won by narrow margins around Alamo and Danville, which used to be a “Country Club Republican” stronghold that turned blue in the 2010s.

Source: LA Times

There is also more nuance among affluent White liberals than stereotyped. With the affirmative action vote, most of the White areas of San Francisco voted for affirmative action. Ultra-White Marin, voted yes as a county, the affluent White areas of San Mateo County were divided, Berkeley Hills was staunchly for it, Piedmont supported it more tepidly, and Contra County voted against it as a county. The SF Progressive Voter Index classifies the majority White Marina District and Pacific Heights as moderate, while the Castro, Haight Ashbury, and Noe Valley as ultra-left, alongside the mostly Latino Mission District. However, those areas of SF classified as moderate voted for affirmative action, albeit more tepidly than other parts of the City. Ranking the Bay Area’s affluent White areas from the most woke to moderate, I would place SF and the Berkeley Hills first, then Marin County, with Sausalito and Mill Valley the most liberal, while Tiburon and Kentfield/Ross are more moderate. Then the Peninsula, Los Gatos, and Piedmont, and then inland East Bay suburbs, such as Lafayette and Danville, as the most moderate.

Source: Nickan’s substack  

Red-White Green-Asian, Orange-Latino, Purple- Black

Overall, “the Bay Area is 35.8% non-Hispanic white, 31.4% Asian, 24.4% Latino or Hispanic, and 7.4% Black.” The region is remarkably diverse with close to balanced proportions between Whites, Hispanics, and Asians, yet still plurality non-Hispanic White. In contrast, the LA metro  is plurality and just shy of majority Latino. Demographic maps show how the region resembles a quilt-like patchwork or mosaic, broken up into a series of demographic blocks.

Source: Siddharth Khurana

The Bay Area’s White enclaves include the ultra-wealthy North-Central part of SF, including the Marina District, Pacific Heights, and Russian Hill, as well as Central SF, including the Castro District, Height Ashbury, and Noe Valley. In the Peninsula (San Mato County), Whites are concentrated along the coast, including Pacifica and Half Moon Bay, as well as much of the interior hillsides, including Belmont, San Carlos, Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, and Menlo Park. In the Silicon Valley, Whites are concentrated in the Northwest corner of Santa Clara County around Palo Alto, Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos. In the East Bay, Whites are concentrated in Central Contra Costa County, including Lamorinda, (Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda) Walnut Creek, Clayton, Alamo, and Danville, as well as the Berkeley Hills, Kensington, and Piedmont in the inner East Bay. Most of Marin is very White, especially Tiberon, Sausalito, Ross, San Anselmo, Kentfield, and Fairfax, except for more diverse parts of San Rafael and Marin City. Also much of Sonoma County, such as Petaluma, is very White.  

The Bay Area’s Latino enclaves include the Mission District in SF, East Palo Alto, East Central San Jose, Gilroy south of Silicon Valley, the Fruitville district of East Oakland, parts of Hayward, San Leandro, Richmond, Bay Point, and Antioch in the East Bay. The Bay Area’s Latino population is starting to stagnate and actually declining in many areas. The Bay Area’s Black enclaves include parts of the Filmore District and Hunters Point in SF, parts of West and East Oakland, and Richmond in the East Bay. Overall the Black population is declining, and even majority Black areas are small in scope, amounting to city blocks mixed in with other groups such as Latinos.

The Bay Area now has two Asian plurality counties, Alameda and Santa Clara, and the region’s largest city, San Jose is also plurality Asian. There is a vast continuous Asian region covering much of the Silicon Valley, the southern half of the East Bay, as well as large chunks of the Peninsula and the Westside of SF. The Bay Area has numerous Asian majority cities including Daly City, Sunnyvale, Fremont, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Union City, Dublin, Saratoga, Millbrae, Foster City, San Ramon, Hercules, and Milpitas, which has the highest proportion of Asians of any US city at 74%. Besides historic Chinatown and Japan Town in SF, most of these communities are newer suburban ethnoburbs.

National Origin of Foreign Born Population 

source: SF chronicle

Green: Mexico Magenta: China, Yellow: India, Violet: Philippines, Turquoise: other

About 30% of the Bay Area’s population is foreign born with various immigrant communities. Chinese are the largest immigrant group in much of San Francisco, in San Bruno and Millbrae in San Mateo County, and the westside of the Silicon Valley, while Vietnamese are concentrated in Eastern San Jose. There is a massive Indian belt including the southern East Bay and much of the Silicon Valley. Filipinos are concentrated in Daly City and South San Francisco, various parts of the East Bay such as Union City, and Vallejo. Japanese Americans have, on average, been in the region longer than other Asian groups, and are overrepresented among the Asian population in Whiter Marin and Sonoma County. Koreans are also more represented in White areas such as Walnut Creek and Lamorinda rather than Asian ethnoburbs. Iranians, who are counted as White, are the most represented around Walnut Creek. Mexicans are the largest immigrant group in Latino areas, including San Leandro, Richmond, and Antioch but also more White areas such as Half Moon Bay and Novato. Much of Marin County is so White that Canada, France, and the UK are the largest immigrant group in many areas. There are diverse Muslim communities scattered throughout the region, including many recent Afghan refugees. Besides Afghans, Nepalis are another smaller group that is rapidly increasing in demographic scope, as well as recent Ukrainian refugees.

Source: Nickan’s substack

Red White/Green Asian

Throughout the Bay Area, municipal borders often coincide with ethnic borders. For instance demographics abruptly change from Latino in East Palo Alto to White in Menlo Park, from Asian in Cupertino and Sunnyvale to White in Los Altos, and from Asian in Saratoga to White in Monte Sereno and Campbell, in the Silicon Valley, and from Asian in San Ramon to White in Danville, and from Asian in Camino Tassajara to White in Blackhawk in the Outer East Bay. Also Piedmont is an exclusive heavily White enclave surrounded by very diverse Oakland. These divides are an unofficially sanctioned form of enclavism, due to local government policy, school districts, what a city symbolizes, associations with or appeal to particular demographic groups, and zoning policy. For instance San Ramon, which is more Asian, is also more pro-development and has newer housing stock, in contrast with Danville which is more White and more anti-growth. This explains why Left-YIMBYs want to consolidate cities into larger cities.

Despite the trend of enclavism, the Bay Area has a number of communities that are genuinely diverse. The most diverse areas of SF are South of Market, Civic Center, Western Edition, and the Tenderloin. Except the part of South of Market with lots of new luxury high-rises, most of these areas are more working class. Other areas that stand out for diversity, are Downtown San Jose, Emeryville, Downtown Oakland, San Leandro, Morgan Hill, much of Antioch, Pinole, Rodeo, Fairfield, Suisan City, and Vallejo, which has long been known as one of the most diverse cities in the entire Nation. Downtown areas tend to be the most diverse. However, many of these diverse areas are undergoing a demographic transition and one group may become demographically dominant in the future. Overall there is a vast swath, from the bottom half of the inner East Bay to the eastern half of Silicon Valley, which has very few Whites.  

An SF Chronicle article on the decline in families in the Bay Area shows which communities have the highest share under 18, and which underwent growth or decline in the share of the population under 18, from 2010 to 2020. Of Upper Class White suburban communities, Tiburon declined from 24% to 22.6%, Fairfax from 19.3% to 18.5%, Mill Valley from 23.7% to 22.5%, San Anselmo from 23.3% to 22.4%, Woodside from 23.5% to 20.4%, Atherton from 22.3% to 19%, Los Altos from 26.1% to 24%, Alamo from 25.7% to 22.3%,  Danville from 26.6% to 24.3%, Piedmont from 28.3% to 26.5%, Orinda from 25.6% to 24.9%, Lafayette from 24.9% to 24.3%, Corte Madera from 25.3% to 25.2%, and Los Gatos from 22.5% to 22.3%. Kentfield stayed the same at 25.6%, Larkspur stayed the same at 18.3%, and Moraga grew from 21.7 %  to 21.9%. Sausalito, while very low, actually grew from 8.7% to 9.5%, and similarly Walnut Creek from 16.7% to 17%.  

Among affluent White areas, Lamorinda is the most demographically stable, Marin has an older population but is also more stable, and the Peninsula started out healthier but is ageing more than the other areas. The Wine County is rapidly ageing, though it could attract more affluent families with remote work. I actually expected much more ageing in wealthy White areas due to zoomers being a smaller generational cohort than millennials, the increase in boomer empty nesters, and overall declining White fertility in California. However, certain areas catering specifically to affluent White families are more demographically stable.

However, stats for White middle class areas are bleaker. Windsor declined from 28.1% to 22.3%, Discovery Bay from 26.9% to 22.5%, Brentwood from 31.2% to 26.2%, Livermore from 25.5% to 22.2%, Oakley from 30.5% to 26.7%, Santa Rosa from 23.4% to 21.1%, and Sebastopol from 20.5% to 17.5%. This big decline for White middle class families is no surprise, even if certain cities, such as Brentwood and Oakley, started out with fairly high shares of families, and are traditionally more conservative. Besides overall decline, these middle class White cities had a much greater disparity with their school-age populations being much more diverse. For instance Santa Rosa is 64% White, while its public high school is only 32% White, and Livermore is about 60% White, while its school district is 44% White. In contrast Acalanes school district in Lafayette is 69.2% White, which is representative of the area’s demographics.

For majority Asian cities, Union City declined from 24.2% to 19.1%, Cupertino from 27.6% to 23.9%, Newark from 25.4% to 20.6%, Milpitas from 22.9% to 21.1%, and Fremont from 24.9% to 23.4%. For mixed White-Asian areas, Albany decline from 25% to 21.6%, San Ramon from 29.6% to 27.3%, and Pleasanton from 27.1%-24%. Pleasanton and San Ramon are both family oriented communities that underwent transitions form White to Asian. While the overall Asian population grew dramatically, California’s Asian births declined by 23.3% from 2013-2020.

However, heavily Asian Dublin grew from 22.4% to 26.3%, the highest growth rate of any Bay Area city. Dublin underwent a massive building boom of sprawl development, with lots of new single family homes. Even more urban Emeryville, which is one of the least family oriented cities with not so great schools, actually grew from 10.2% to 10.8%. Emeryville’s example shows that despite the newer units being smaller, just embracing pro-housing policies gave a modest boost in families. Regardless, most major cities saw declines in families, with Oakland declining from 21.3% to 19.1%, San Jose from 24.8% to 21.1%, and San Francisco, which has a reputation as one of the worst places to raise families, declining from 13.4% to 13%. Though Berkeley’s share increased modestly from 12.3% to 12.4%.

The more diverse communities, both working and middle class, had especially big declines with El Sobrante declining from 28.8% to 23.8%, Suisan City from 27.5% to 23.3 %, Fairfield from 27.1% to 24.2%, Dixon from 29.2% to 24.7%, Morgan Hill from 28.6% to 24.2%, and American Canyon from 28.3% to 24.2%. This may signify displacement with implications that diversity could be bad for family formation. For BIPOC areas, East Palo Alto, which has also been impacted by gentrification, declined the most of any Bay Area city, from a fairly high share at 31.9% to 25.4%. Antioch declined from 28.1% to 24.3%, San Pablo from 28.3% to 24.8%, Pittsburgh from 27.5% to 24.2%, Bay Point from 30.5% to 27.1%, Richmond from 24.9% to 22.2%, Hayward from 24.5% to 21.2%, and San Leandro from 22.3% to 19.1%.  

Overall, working class BIPOC, as well as diverse and White middle class areas saw the biggest declines in families, even if many working class BIPOC and certain more conservative White middle class areas started out with fairly high proportions of families. Asian areas on average, declined less than White middle class and working class BIPOC areas, though more so than wealthy White areas. Comparing various city’s proportions of families to stats on fertility rates by race for California counties in 2019, my assessment is that Hispanic fertility is still highest but significantly declining, Black fertility is very low, Asian fertility is low but offset by high immigration, and while White fertility is low overall, affluent suburban Whites in particular, have greater family formation compared to other demographic groups.   

The push for more “integrationist” education policies could have a tremendous impact on family formation. A Vox report, on school segregation points out gerrymandered school districts in the Bay Area and advocates for consolidating districts to ensure greater equity and diversity. An  SFGate review of the report states that “the drawing of school district lines often reflects the aspirations of groups with the most political sway,” and that the interactive report explains that “These typically "wealthier, whiter communities" have encouraged "policies that help white families live in heavily white areas and attend heavily white schools.” Examples of demographically contentious issues in education include the controversy over anti-CRT candidates in Acalanes school district in Lafayette, Walnut Creek’s failure to separate from a more diverse school district, Berkeley’s history of school busing, the left’s push to end meritocracy at SF’s majority Asian Lowell High, and White flight out of heavily Asian schools in the Silicon Valley, due to the hypercompetitive academic environment. Overall California’s public school enrollment is now at an abysmal 21% (1.24 Million), White non-Hispanic, a net loss of over 200,000 students from 2018. However, California’s private schools had a net gain of White students enrolled after lockdowns at about 50-60%, or 250k to 300k, from about 49% in 2018. (source: "Private Schools in American Education" UCLA Civil Rights Project)

Most Segregated Bay Area Cities

Source: UC Berkeley Othering and Belonging institute

HCD Report on Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence

Source

Left-YIMBYs are also applying this “integrationist” framework to housing politics, such as pushes to ”desegregate” the Bay Area’s “White enclaves.” Recently California’s Department of Housing and Community Development published its Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence map, and there is a similar study from the nonprofit Bay Area Equity Atlas’s map of racial and economic segregation. Basically all of the neighborhoods that both studies identify as having “racially concentrated wealth” are in Marin County, Central Contra Costa County, and the Peninsula, including only a sliver of the Silicon Valley. It is notable that the report on racially concentrated areas of affluence, excludes this Census track in Cupertino, the home of Apple, which has a per capita income of $185k and is 70% Asian. Even some woke YIMBYs found it odd that large swaths of the Silicon Valley were excluded. The LA Metro’s wealthy Asian enclave of San Marino was also omitted from the HCD report. The public agency’s report’s focus on Whiteness besides just economics, could impact State guidelines for housing policy in the future.

There are parallels to the leftwing anti-gentrification response to White professionals transforming BIPOC communities and White resentment about tech immigrants changing the demographics of White suburbs. While these trends are discussed very differently, they are both products of the scarcity caused by the Bay Area’s failure to build up to accommodate the tech jobs boom of the 2010s, due to NIMBYism. Bay Area trends for the 2020s are on course with my prediction from a year ago, expecting a major decline in tech and likelihood of another tech crash, as high interest rates to fight inflation are already crashing tech stocks and causing mass layoffs. The 2010s tech boom was unique in that it was a bubble fueled by stock buybacks, low interest rates, and Quantitative Easing. Also there is less reason to geographically concentrate jobs with remote work.

I also predicted that the Bay Area would embrace more YIMBY policies. AB 2011 allows for underutilized commercial properties to be turned into housing, and an East Bay Times article quotes housing activist, Louis Mirante, who “expects developers to use the bills to build along corridors such El Camino Real in the South Bay, Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley and other “central business areas that are already starting to see more development.” While the lot split bill, SB9’s, implementation has been slow, overall most of the new projects are in wealthy areas such as Atherton, Palo Alto, and Danville. Though in LA, most SB9 permits have been in the middle class San Fernando Valley, but far fewer on the affluent Westside or low income East and South LA. SB9 will not create large amounts of low income units that right-NIMBYs feared and left-YIMBY’s desired, nor will it increase gentrification as left-NIMBYs feared. Since SB9 has a clause that grants homeowners the power to be homebuilders, I could see empty nesters splitting their units for housing for their relatives. SB9 won’t dramatically change demographics but it could help more young people stay where they grew up and also create more family oriented units without sprawl development.

The recession and high interest rates may slow down new construction and there are signs of a major crash in both commercial and residential real estate, though the financial crash could benefit YIMBY policies long-term. Expect more bankruptcies due to small scale residential and commercial landlords forced to refinance at higher interest rates, that will open up lots of properties to development. Other likely trends are commercial high-rises being transformed to residential and a major crash in retirement pensions causing many senior citizens to downsize.

The problem with trend forecasting is the assumption that current trends will continue. Upper middle class Boomer homeowners and tech immigrants seemed to be the two groups thriving more than others during the 2010s, but ironically could both be disproportionately impacted by the incoming economic crisis. Asians have been the majority of the Bay Area’s tech workforce since 2010 and the region’s dramatic Asian growth in the 2010s was heavily linked to tech, while Whites and Blacks declined and Latinos grew very modestly. However, East Asian immigration has declined nationwide and South Asian immigration was way up, until the pandemic, and is especially linked to tech. With low Asian fertility and the decline in tech, Asian population growth may slow down in the Bay Area. The Bay Area will continue to be a diverse region, but the combination of YIMBY housing policies and the slowdown in tech could ease displacement.

While the argument that zoning restrictions are historically linked to segregation has some truth, the “integrationist” framework neglects that people select communities based upon aesthetic, social, cultural and demographic traits, which isn’t inherently bad. Though the degree of housing scarcity gives some legitimacy to left-YIMBY arguments. Both right and left NIMBYs practice some form of enclavism but their actions stifle overall housing supply. The essence of enclavism is groups growing alongside each other without displacement. Enclavism could also be a compromise between the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate, in regards to each community building to meet its needs and aesthetic and neighborhood character concerns. However, I don’t see enclavism as a top down policy to be implemented or a mass political movement, but rather something that is evolving organically. I do expect to see a growing backlash from both well off White suburbs as well as immigrant enclaves against coercive “integrationist” type policies.

In multi-racial regions, White neighborhoods increasingly function similarly to immigrant enclaves or ethnoburbs. However, more so for the wealthy and White middle class areas are becoming more diverse. For instance upper class White Californians having their own exclusive spaces while also enjoying the benefits of diversity. Though the use of economic elitism as a substitute for enclavism is not sustainable long-term, and it could be replaced by either outright enclavism, leftwing integrationists policies, or more economic stratification but with more diversified elites. Both the LA and SF Metro are ranked as highly segregated and it is remarkable how insular the Bay Area’s many sub-regions are from one another, almost like many micro nations in one metro. The UC Berkeley’s Othering and Belonging Institute’s report defines segregation as “the separation across space of one or more groups of people from each other on the basis of their group identity.” Diversity is great for California and the Bay Area as a whole, but it is ridiculous to scrutinize certain areas for lacking diversity. If anything that mentality is a kind of coercive homogenization rather than an embrace of diversity in the true sense.