- Next »
- « Previous
The Hatin' on Oakland
I ran across a post about why to live in Oakland, which mentions many outdoors and some other things to see and do. I agree with some of it, but am not feeling quite such great love of Oakland, but it does have some practical advantages for me over living in San Francisco.
Let's quit the high school name calling. "I wasn't a cheerleader in high school, so now I'm living in San Francisco and I can act like a cheerleader for my team (Yay! Goooooo San Francisco!!1!1!!1!1!!)." Yeah, you're cool. For the record, I've lived both places and been mugged both places. There are advantages and disadvantages to each city, but if your identity is threatened by living anyplace but San Francisco, then please don't let it get damaged, we want you to feel good about yourself. Here's a "feel good" medal for living there.
But I digress, so let me enumerate those reasons:
- My workplace is in Oakland and I can get there in less than 15 minutes from my house (yes, without a car). I can 85% reliably get to the Financial District in San Francisco in less than 25 minutes from my house. If I extend the time to 30 minutes it's closer to 95% of the time.
Even if I switched jobs and moved into San Francisco and worked downtown, I would have a longer commute anywhere to the west of Stanyan Street than where I currently live. This is a very optimistic estimate based on SFMTA's "schedules," not on what actually happens on that joke of a transit system.
Muni/SFMTA is seriously FUBARed. It's never going to get fixed. They've been trying to fix it for at least 20 years and it just gets worse from year to year. Yes, AC Transit also sucks, but I live near BART which is about the closest thing to a reliable and on-schedule transportation system in the entire Bay Area. It has its problems, but it actually has a schedule and comes close to meeting it. - Any place of a similar size to my current apartment would cost me at least 25% to 200% more in San Francisco. Even if I lived in suburban San Francisco in the Richmond or Sunset I'd be paying at least a little more than I am currently. And I'd have at least a 60 to 75 minute commute to my current job each way. Even to downtown San Francisco I'd have a longer commute to come close to the rent that I currently pay. If I got a place with a much shorter commute, I'd for sure be paying at least 50% to 100% more than I currently pay in rent.
- The crime problem can be bad in some places in Oakland, but honestly it's variable by neighborhood. I'm pretty certain that the Western Addition, The Mission, The Tenderloin and many parts of Potrero Hill are worse areas for crime than where I live. There are more parts of Oakland with bad crime problems than San Francisco, but Visitacion Valley, Hunter's Point and other areas aren't exactly great. I'd think they compare to some of the worse parts of Oakland.
- A bunch of my friends live over here in Berkeley and other places, so I can see them in 15 minutes or so. I guess if I was into "scene" things than San Francisco might be more compelling.
Overall, Oakland is ok. San Francisco has more quaint, trendy flavor, but it comes at a price. It depends what tradeoffs you're willing to make to live there.
Maybe in the future I'd live there again, but probably at least not right now while I'm working in Oakland.
Comments
It's a fun and interesting city, but it depends what you're willing to put up with and how much you're willing to pay to live there. I listed reasons I don't currently live there as a personal example. As I mentioned I've lived there before so I think I have a pretty good idea. I have nothing against San Francisco and would probably live there if I made a lot more money, worked in a more convenient spot for living there, and could afford to live in areas of the city that are more conveniently located.
It's pretty obvious that San Francisco is a well known and nice city. Does Oakland have all the things going on and culture? Nope. This is just in response to all the idiotic trolls who post really brilliant replies to blogs like I linked to and say things like "Anywhere outside of San Francisco sux" or "You're gonna get shot if you go to Oakland!!!!!!" If you look at http://sfgate.com and any articles mentioning anything outside of San Francisco there are always a number of people with this attitude. This is despite the fact that they've probably been to Oakland like 1 or 2 times, don't know any of the neighborhoods or anything going on. Or maybe some people just don't like it because of what they're looking for, which is also fine.
My main points are that 1) I pay a lot less rent, 2) I can get to downtown San Francisco faster than people who live in many parts of the city and can enjoy it when I want to, while still saving on rent, 3) though Oakland has a reputation for crime problems there are many parts of San Francisco that seem to have as bad of crime (or worse) than some parts of Oakland, and 4) I'm not all that "scene" and am OK not going out to major activities on a nightly basis and don't have a problem doing a 25 minute commute to get there when I want to go.
I'm sure for someone who wanted to go out every night San Francisco would be better. For someone who just liked the atmosphere and had the money to live somewhere besides in a fog bank in the Richmond or the Sunset districts then it would be better. For someone who saved on their commute by living there it would be better.
Every place has advantages and disadvantages about living there. That's the point. You've got to balance the advantages and disadvantages for your values and what you want.
The same could be said for other cities in the area. Are you going to school? Berkeley or Palo Alto are much better cities for higher education than San Francisco unless you're going to Medical School, and then UCSF might be better.
The whole idea of "this city is better for everything" is like some high school football team rivalry. It's stupid and most people over the age of 17 should have figured out that it depends what you're looking for and that everyplace has some good and bad things.
I think the good things about San Francisco are pretty obvious and are very well known. The bad things tend to be that it's very expensive, transit is pretty terrible in many parts of the city and it's becoming increasingly yuppie and gentrified and less diverse than it has been in the past with its increasing costs.
So figure out if it's worth it and live someplace that works for you.
You probably have more restaurants within a 5 block radius on average in San Francisco than in Oakland.
You are more likely to encounter crime on average in Oakland than in San Francisco.
You are more likely to own and/or need a car on average in Oakland than in San Francisco.
You are more likely to pay significantly more for the same amount of living space on average in San Francisco than in Oakland. You are also likely to pay more for parking, food and gasoline there.
You are more likely to live near a hip bar or night club on average in San Francisco than in Oakland.
The weather is likely to be warmer on average in Oakland than San Francisco.
You're more likely to live near trendy young people on average in San Francisco than in Oakland.
In San Francisco, you're more likely to have rich neighbors than in Oakland.
You're more likely to have White, Chinese-American or Russian-American neighbors in San Francisco while in Oakland you're more likely to have African-American neighbors.
There is likely to be more foot traffic on average in a neighborhood in San Francisco than in a neighborhood in Oakland.
You're more likely to live closer to a significant cultural center such as a museum in San Francisco than Oakland.
You're more likely to be closer to high-end shopping in San Francisco than Oakland.
You're more likely to see tourists in San Francisco than Oakland.
You're more likely to live near a tourist attraction (or tourist trap) in San Francisco than Oakland.
So as you can see there are advantages to living there and it depends what you want overall.
These are all generalizations and there are neighborhoods from each city that often contradict these averages. For example, there is probably less crime in my neighborhood than some in San Francisco. There are probably neighborhoods in San Francisco that are less expensive for rent than mine.
There are actually enough contradictions to these generalizations that it actually probably makes sense to talk about neighborhoods more than about entire cities, really.