U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Oakland or Cleveland?
Oakland 50 54.35%
Cleveland 42 45.65%
Voters: 92. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-05-2015, 08:59 PM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,137,967 times
Reputation: 790

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by clevelander1991 View Post
Series: I am thinking right now with the news that Kyrie is out that it will be GSW in 5 Kyrie Irving of Cleveland Cavaliers fractures kneecap, will have season-ending surgery... That is what I expect at this point unfortunately. However, I say that with a caveat. If (and this is a very doubtful if, but if the Cavs are able to get it to a game 6 down 3-2, they WILL NOT, or at least more likely than not be closed out at home, in which case it'd go 7. Then there's my heart pick that says Cavs in 6 (hey, gotta dream, right?)

Numbers on Millionaires: I found this to be shocking also, and so I went to my buddy, Zillow.com. Fortunately (I think?) Cleveland was not shut out of this club entirely, with my count being 11 homes in the Edgewater neighborhood called the "Gold Coast" being priced over 1 Million, and 1 surpassing the 2 million mark, a significant percentage of that neighborhood is at least over $500K. I think it is well established that Cleveland prices are way more affordable than most anywhere, but by Cleveland standards, the steady neighborhood of Shaker Square is in the 350-500K range, as are a decent number of places in heavily gentrifying areas such as Little Italy, University Circle, Tremont, Ohio City, Gordon Square and Downtown. Also, the outskirt neighborhoods of Cleveland, which in many regards are more urban feeling than some parts of the actual Oakland city limits, including the parts of Lakewood (by the water at least), Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights nearest to the City of Cleveland, along with Bratenahl which is surrounded on all sides by Cleveland. There is a significant portion of Shaker Heights census blocks that are over the fabled $250K+ census demographic, which is actually more uncommon than you'd think coming from the Bay Area, coming from Florida, my curiosity wanted to look into that and the only place I could find that matched that portion of Shaker Heights in that regard was Palm Beach. Those parts even have certain homes that exceed 5$ Million in value.

As per that chart: at initial glance, it really does show a butt kicking, which the City of Oakland does to the City of Cleveland in some areas. However, I think the unique thing which makes these two so hard to compare is that the region of Cleveland allows for the City of Cleveland to have more amenities and entertainment overall than Oakland has, because it's likely that a lot of that entertainment is concentrated in San Francisco. There are many areas in Neighboring Suburbs (Lakewood/The Heights) that feel more dense/urban even than many parts of Cleveland for that matter, and are in much, much better financial straits, and so even including those 3 would yield much closer results. It at least appears to me, perhaps wrongly so also, that at least for Oakland and immediate suburbs and Cleveland and immediate suburbs, that even with the wage disparity between the two, Cleveland in all likelihood still has wages that are more commensurate with being able to afford a decent space for a family.

I don't doubt what you say about Cleveland, minus the part about it having a neighborhood like Palm Beach (Palm Beach is also less about actual income and more about parking money, but beside the point). I do think you need to get out more. The weighted average density of Oakland is multiples more that of Cleveland, and still significantly more than Lakewood. I highly doubt that outskirts of Cleveland are more urban than Oakland city limits. I don't even live in Oakland or rep it, but it is quite honestly still one of the most urban/dense cities I have been to in America. Something tells me Cleveland is just not there (Census Tracts of >10K ppsm are rare anywhere in or around Cleveland whereas the weighted average density of Oakland is pushing its way past 15K and onto 20K ppsm, which puts it up into DC stratosphere).

And as I mentioned before, Oakland is the primary city for nearly 3 million people and is home to a major university in Berkeley. I think you'd be impressed with nightlife. CA coastal areas in general have outstanding nightlife. Never heard the same about anywhere in OH with exception of Columbus due to the university there. 3 million E bay residents aren't going into San Francisco via a toll bridge or non-24 hour subway every weekend. Most are driving into Oakland/Berkeley or staying put.

Put it this way, if Oakland weren't right next to SF and were it's own city surrounded by 3 million people with the infratsructure it has in place, it would probably be up there with Cleveland, Baltimore, Stl, etc. it wouldn't be "that crime pit" next to SF. Being coastal and having Berkeley could put it in a league ahead of those other cities. Just sit on that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2015, 09:43 PM
 
3,466 posts, read 2,585,990 times
Reputation: 2131
I should've phrased that better.. Definitely not like Palm Beach not sure any place is. Just that Palm Beach was the only other place in Florida that I saw which had entire census blocks above 250K. Even Windermere and Winter Park in Orlando, Bayshore in Tampa and Ponte Vedra didn't reach that mark.

Honestly density doesn't weigh that heavily for me as a factor in a city, if anything I like that density can exist in certain spots throughout an area and not be so present elsewhere. A reason why Lakewood is so dense compared to the rest of the region is that it is mostly apartments. Cleveland in the 19th century had a decent number of rowhouses and some remnants are left, but virtually all construction about 1900 on during the point when city population peaked at 900,000 were single family homes. I guess density could make a place feel more urban, but I do think Detroit still feels very urban and vibrant downtown and in surrounding neighborhoods, despite having "urban meadows" scattered in different parts of city limits. So to some degree density is an uneven comparison.

Perhaps I do. The only place I've spent significant time living outside of Cleveland is Florida, where I'm at now, and compared to that, Cleveland feels very urban (even mighty Miami's "downtown" consists of a mall by the waterfront. Not sure, nightlife is a very difficult metric to compare and I don't go out all that much. I thoroughly enjoy Ohio City when in town , which was voted one of worlds top 10 places in which to bar hop, and I mean even if there are more per capita out in Oakland, if I could find even a few places that have a cool vibe, that's enough for me.

Columbus nightlife is probably much more collegey, whereas Cleveland has a more mature scene , with numerous craft breweries, cocktail bars, and more nightlifey street (West 6th) mixed in. Frankly I prefer that combination since I like a relaxed atmosphere any day of the week.

Being it's "own city" would be a big if thing for the city that would help significantly. It would likely mean that culture, attractions etc. Would be centered all there which would help a lot.

The only other side of that coin though would be: if Oakland was by it's lonesome, would it have become as popular a port as it had, or have as much of bones or density or amenities in that regard if SF hadn't been there? I think even still , it'd be a tremendous place to live, with beautiful weather, <2 hours from the best portions of the PCH, and being close enough to reasonably do a long weekend at Yosemite at very least once a summer.

Last edited by cavsfan137; 06-05-2015 at 10:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 11:16 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,408,127 times
Reputation: 8775
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
And as I mentioned before, Oakland is the primary city for nearly 3 million people and is home to a major university in Berkeley. I think you'd be impressed with nightlife. CA coastal areas in general have outstanding nightlife. Never heard the same about anywhere in OH with exception of Columbus due to the university there. 3 million E bay residents aren't going into San Francisco via a toll bridge or non-24 hour subway every weekend. Most are driving into Oakland/Berkeley or staying put.
Oakland is not the primary destination for East Bay residents like you seem to be making it sound, quite a lot of people skip right over Oakland and head straight into SF. It's nightlife is better now but until recently Walnut Creek arguably had the most vibrant nightlife in the East Bay. Oakland's retail scene is terrible as well, especially if you want to call it a "primary city for nearly 3 million people".

One thing I wonder about Cleveland is whether or not it still has good urban "bones". While it presently isn't as dense as Oakland it was much denser at one point with a much higher population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 02:53 AM
 
3,466 posts, read 2,585,990 times
Reputation: 2131
How would you define "urban bones"? I would say the architecture present downtown compares favorable to many cities. And Clevelans still has certain sections like Little Italy, etc. That feel extremely dense due to the brownstone nature. However; as mentioned. Many throughout the city are single family homes so it isn't like an east coast city in that regard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 05:44 AM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,137,967 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Oakland is not the primary destination for East Bay residents like you seem to be making it sound, quite a lot of people skip right over Oakland and head straight into SF. It's nightlife is better now but until recently Walnut Creek arguably had the most vibrant nightlife in the East Bay. Oakland's retail scene is terrible as well, especially if you want to call it a "primary city for nearly 3 million people".

One thing I wonder about Cleveland is whether or not it still has good urban "bones". While it presently isn't as dense as Oakland it was much denser at one point with a much higher population.

Agreed about retail (and for the entire E Bay in general, just terrible...though we are spoiled in the Bay, I can still guarantee you for being the "poor" side of the metro area there is more/better retail in E Bay than other cities of equivalent population). Bay St/Emeryville and Alameda are kind of the only significant close-in destinations, though they both appear to be much closer to downtown Oakland than any equivalents are in Cleveland. Very few American cities actually have significant retail in their cores. We can't expect the same thing in Oakland that we have in San Francisco, though of course that would be nice. RE: nightlife, how long ago was Walnut Creek the main spot? I'm in my prime and I have never heard of one person who goes out there for anything related to nightlife (seems a bit far...are we talking about where the 40+ year olds are hob nobbing? ). Oakland at least has a variety of bar scenes, and a music scene. Clubbing is definitely a San Francisco thing, though there are still some parties I hear about that are thrown in Oakland. The area definitely does feel like it's exploding right now. Overflow from SF is a real thing, and having Berkeley as a base certainly helps a lot.

One thing that I noticed just in looking at the two cities online (well I know one fairly well from experience), there is a fairly contiguous urban fabric in Oakland (in fact Oakland's overall density is really brought down by the fact that 1/3 at least of the city limits if not way more is Oakland Hills...Oakland is not SF dense, but relative to most other cities in the US it's pretty darn dense and it's quite apparent in person). At some point in some directions it gives way to higher crime areas, but there aren't gaps in buildings and activity. And going north from Oakland in particular is a pretty solid stretch of safe walkability all the way to Berkeley (yuppified neighborhoods with densities in the 10-25K ppsm arena). Looking at densities and Google Earth, I just can't find the same thing in Cleveland (point me in the direction?), so I echo the question about whether there are solid bones that remain. I don't doubt the architecture there is MUCH MUCH better. Pictures probably don't do it justice and I'm still drooling. Oakland leaves a lot to be desired.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,598 posts, read 53,157,788 times
Reputation: 14516
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Oakland is not the primary destination for East Bay residents like you seem to be making it sound, quite a lot of people skip right over Oakland and head straight into SF. It's nightlife is better now but until recently Walnut Creek arguably had the most vibrant nightlife in the East Bay.
It totally depends on the crowd. Hipsters overwhelmimgly prefer Oakland as a hang out spot toanywhere else in the East Bay, if not the entire Bay Area.

The city's( meaning Oakland) nightlife, music, art and dining scene are all quite good these days.

But it's not really frequented by tourists, who stay in SF for the most part. Two thirds of restaurant patrons in Oakland are from the suburbs or SF according to the SJ Merc.

Quote:
One thing I wonder about Cleveland is whether or not it still has good urban "bones". While it presently isn't as dense as Oakland it was much denser at one point with a much higher population.
Ive been to Cleveland. Its a nice city, but as far as being urban and vibrant, I didnt sense the crush of traffic and density one finds in the urban East Bay. I think its due to Cleveland's flatness and greater amount of available space while Oakland is constrained by the bay on one side and the hills on the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 12:57 PM
 
3,466 posts, read 2,585,990 times
Reputation: 2131
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mo...6b2c25!6m1!1e1 Moreland Courts (just east of Shaker Square)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Co...fe8d77!6m1!1e1
Coventry Village (whole area is fascinating)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Li...38b68e!6m1!1e1 Little Italy

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5022...8mjiOi4PzA!2e0 Cedar Fairmount

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5018...VbyvxcAihg!2e0 Only major remaining example I can think of luxury rowhouse in Cleveland

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4858...Mw!2e0!6m1!1e1 Ohio City

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4861...4MH8mSVYBQ!2e0 On Cleveland-Lakewood border

Cleveland Heights https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4883...gQ!2e0!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cl...621842!6m1!1e1 I wanna say Birdtown? Lakewood

Just a general tour of some of the residential in the Cleveland area.

I'm guessing that Oakland area is way more dense overall than CLE, but in your opinion what are the positives in that? I think that could be a give or take, as there are consequences that come with both.

Lakewood comes out to about 9,500 PSQM. I'm sure other areas within it are more or less so. Lakewood I think also comes with most bars per capita in the midwest and one of the highest percentages of park space per capita (due to the Rocky River Reservation and Lakewood Park overlooking the water). I think somewhat high density is good, but I don't know if there's a balance point at which it's too much, because there's a lot of variables at play.

Last edited by cavsfan137; 06-06-2015 at 01:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 01:02 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,408,127 times
Reputation: 8775
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
Agreed about retail (and for the entire E Bay in general, just terrible...though we are spoiled in the Bay, I can still guarantee you for being the "poor" side of the metro area there is more/better retail in E Bay than other cities of equivalent population). Bay St/Emeryville and Alameda are kind of the only significant close-in destinations, though they both appear to be much closer to downtown Oakland than any equivalents are in Cleveland. Very few American cities actually have significant retail in their cores. We can't expect the same thing in Oakland that we have in San Francisco, though of course that would be nice. RE: nightlife, how long ago was Walnut Creek the main spot? I'm in my prime and I have never heard of one person who goes out there for anything related to nightlife (seems a bit far...are we talking about where the 40+ year olds are hob nobbing? ). Oakland at least has a variety of bar scenes, and a music scene. Clubbing is definitely a San Francisco thing, though there are still some parties I hear about that are thrown in Oakland. The area definitely does feel like it's exploding right now. Overflow from SF is a real thing, and having Berkeley as a base certainly helps a lot.
I don't think the East Bay's retail scene is terrible overall and matches it's market pretty well, just Oakland's is particularly bad considering the only department store it has is a Sears. Walnut Creek is pretty upscale at this point (Bloomingdales, Neiman Marcus, etc..), Pleasanton, and Bay Street being the other more upscale areas. The rest has fairly solid middle to lower middle class shopping options that match the demographics of the area. Unfortunately I don't see the retail shopping scene changing for Oakland anytime soon, there is too much competition from places like Bay Street/E-ville and Walnut Creek. If they built any major upscale shopping in DT Oakland they would probably burn it down or loot at this point in time too lol.

Walnut Creek probably draws mostly from along the 680 corridor. Oakland always had nightlife, it was just spottier and more spread out than before whereas WC's has always been concentrated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 01:12 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,408,127 times
Reputation: 8775
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
It totally depends on the crowd. Hipsters overwhelmimgly prefer Oakland as a hang out spot toanywhere else in the East Bay, if not the entire Bay Area.

The city's( meaning Oakland) nightlife, music, art and dining scene are all quite good these days.

But it's not really frequented by tourists, who stay in SF for the most part. Two thirds of restaurant patrons in Oakland are from the suburbs or SF according to the SJ Merc
True but I would think nearly all the hispters in the East Bay would already live there or close by. Most of the East Bay are suburbanites.

I agree, it's a lot better and probably over time as it continues to grow it likely will become more of a regional draw. It's probably already pulling in a fair amount of restaurant diners from some suburbs. I just think it has a long way to go before a significant of people from some of the more middle and upper class suburbs start seeing it as a destination. With the lack of retail it will be harder to do. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing imo, it probably will allow Oakland to retain more of it's local culture and "flavor".

I honestly think if it could get a big regional draw like an new Downtown A's stadium then that would really open up people's eye's to what Oakland offers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 01:23 PM
 
3,466 posts, read 2,585,990 times
Reputation: 2131
With shopping, I feel like I almost have to give to Oakland because San Francisco is right across the bay. In our Downtown, we have Tower City Center, which is a middling mall, it was high end when it opened, then really fell hard and now is making a comeback along with the city plus is being helped quite a bit by the casino. Obviously it's nice to have a downtown mall period, and it does have a Brooks Brothers and Victoria's Secret, but isn't exactly grand central. About 10 miles to the east of DT Cleveland or about 20 minutes is Beachwood Mall and Legacy Village an outdoor lifestyle center, which with almost 2 million square feet between them, a multi floor Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue + Lacoste, Chanel, Coach, etc. is likely the upscale shopping destination not just for Northeast Ohio, but for the entire state of Ohio and anywhere within at least a 3 hour drive. But, on the other hand, I'm certain that San Francisco has better shopping than NE Ohio could even wrap it's mind around, and to be fair, Oakland is about as far a drive from SF as Cleveland is from Beachwood. Also though, I probably wouldn't even be able to afford most of the stores at Beachwood, so it isn't a significant criterion for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top