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.
The Bay Area has tons of options for urban exploration (along with outdoorsy stuff). SF is one the best in the country for that, then you have Berkeley, Oakland, some cool downtowns on the penninsula, East Bay, and North Bay, San Jose, etc. Theres a lot for one metro area...And SF has great nightlife (aside from the 2 am thing, although some places do stay open).
you just seem to have something against the bay area
I agree on all accounts, including the bolded. That poster definitely seems to have an odd distaste for the Bay. To each his own though, and I can appreciate that not everyone is going to dig it.
its too bad that your vagina monologues won't generate more votes for oakland.
Vagina monologues? Really, that's the best you could do?
Its too bad your brokeback comments haven't been getting to me the way mine have to you. If at any point you feel like joining the grown ups and pretending you've finally acquired more maturity than a 6 year old, let me know! Maybe we can finally let you have a seat by us so you won't have to keep sitting at the kiddie table.
Meh, doesn't do anything for me and I'm around her age. You can have her Of course, if you try to touch her, the South Korean police will kill you. On sight.
This thread has seem to run its course. It just seems to have devolved into a series of personal insult matches.
Rename thread to 'Barely Legal Korean Girls' and it will still be alive!
I have absolutely NO IDEA where you got those figures from, especially since you didn't provide any kind of a link (no surprise ), and this is not an area I'm particularly interested in so I could care less about discussing this part any further after this. But according to the one non-Trulia site I looked at comparing Brooklyn Heights with the Oakland Hills, your figures aren't even in the same continent as reality.
Top 2 zip codes with the highest median home sales price of each location:
This is far from my area of expertise, and I have never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable in the realty department. But how did you come up with figures that are 3-4 times the amount of the only 2 (out of 15!) zip codes that even exceeded $600,000? Not that I'm even interested in carrying this argument on any further, but you appear to be lying here. If you have a legit source to prove otherwise then that's cool (again, I don't care about home sales prices), but either way it doesn't change the fact that the amazingly beautiful properties in Oakland are highly desirable, no matter how you try and spin this.
Oops, that was from Nov 2009.
Quote:
The median sales price for homes in Brooklyn Heights for Sep 09 to Nov 09 was $2,092,500. This represents an increase of 0.5%, or $9,500, compared to the prior quarter and a decrease of 43.9% compared to the prior year. Sales prices have appreciated 52.2% over the last 5 years in Brooklyn Heights, Brooklyn.
3 Months Prior: $2,083,000
1 Year Prior: $3,732,000
Something must be wrong with the data or maybe it was the sales for townhouses specifically.
Anyway, Brooklyn Heights isn't the most expensive in BK.
Vinegar Hill, Brooklyn is currently at $1,400,000 median overall.
Bay Area has 6 pro sports teams (Giants, 49ers, Raiders, A's, Warriors, Sharks) just like NYC proper (Giants, Jets, Mets, Yankees, Knicks, Rangers) but what does all this have to do with Oakland vs. Brooklyn? Id say both have similar accessibility to tons of pro sports.
By the way, Oakland/Berkeley (as someone said, they should be combined) does have some really cool areas and a lot to offer. Definitely not on the same level as Brooklyn, though. On its own, Brooklyn is arguably top 4 or 5 in the country in terms of urban amenities, and Oakland/Berkeley doesn't come close to that.
Both Brooklyn and Oakland/Berkeley, though, are awesome for their proximity to two of the nations premier destinations, Manhattan and San Francisco.
I don't think comparing Brooklyn to Oakland makes sense at all. First of all, BK is a bourough of New York City, and although very often seperated from the rest of the city by it's residents, the fact remains that Brooklyn is in the same city. Brooklyn is enormous. On it's own it would be the 4th largest city in America. As such, Brooklyn has limitless faces. Closer to the city (i.e. manahattan) it is known as hipster paradise, and really is the current american epicenter of cool. There is an enormous amount of things happening artistically in BK. Other areas close to the city such as brooklyn heights, cobble hill, carroll gardens, these areas seem more similar to a cross between Boston and San Francisco than Oakland. Outer Brooklyn is very different. Tons of different ethnic communities. Russians, eastern europeans. There are carribean neighborhoods, jewish neighborhoods. I have seen diversity really unmatched by anywhere in america in NY and more specificly in Brooklyn.
Oakland is more polarized from SF. its its own thing. People dont really live in oakland as a cheaper alternative, they're just "from the east bay" It was most surprising to me how "on its own" SF is in the region. I had always assumed it would have more of a "hub effect" but the term "bay area" is most certainly correct, as opposed to "SF area." Its more of a region than a city's greater area. SF just happens to be in it. This is not the case at all in BKs relationship to manhattan. I will say, Oakland is cool, especially near the berkely border. Great coffee shops, restaurants etc, great weather. But NOTHING like BK.
I don't think comparing Brooklyn to Oakland makes sense at all. First of all, BK is a bourough of New York City, and although very often seperated from the rest of the city by it's residents, the fact remains that Brooklyn is in the same city. Brooklyn is enormous. On it's own it would be the 4th largest city in America. As such, Brooklyn has limitless faces. Closer to the city (i.e. manahattan) it is known as hipster paradise, and really is the current american epicenter of cool. There is an enormous amount of things happening artistically in BK. Other areas close to the city such as brooklyn heights, cobble hill, carroll gardens, these areas seem more similar to a cross between Boston and San Francisco than Oakland. Outer Brooklyn is very different. Tons of different ethnic communities. Russians, eastern europeans. There are carribean neighborhoods, jewish neighborhoods. I have seen diversity really unmatched by anywhere in america in NY and more specificly in Brooklyn.
Oakland is more polarized from SF. its its own thing. People dont really live in oakland as a cheaper alternative, they're just "from the east bay" It was most surprising to me how "on its own" SF is in the region. I had always assumed it would have more of a "hub effect" but the term "bay area" is most certainly correct, as opposed to "SF area." Its more of a region than a city's greater area. SF just happens to be in it. This is not the case at all in BKs relationship to manhattan. I will say, Oakland is cool, especially near the berkely border. Great coffee shops, restaurants etc, great weather. But NOTHING like BK.
You really, really hit the nail on the head here. Great post. Obviously you have a good understanding of Oakland and Brooklyn, and the dynamics of their greater metro areas. The wierd thing about SF not being the "hub" of the bay area is that it has nothing to do with physical proximity or urban form. The Bay Area is a very dense metro area and lots of cities are in very close proximity to each other. But for some reason is doesnt really have a main hub, although SF is always referred to as "The City" in the Bay Area.
Edit: The one part I disagree with is that people don't live in Oakland as a cheap alternative to SF. I definitely think some people who would prefer to live in SF choose the inner east-bay because it is cheaper yet is still easily accesible to SF.
Oakland is more polarized from SF. its its own thing. People dont really live in oakland as a cheaper alternative, they're just "from the east bay"
That is an incorrect statement. San Francisco is super-expensive [probably like Manhattan]. Many people live in the East Bay because it is so much more affordable.
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.
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.
), and this is not an area I'm particularly interested in so I could care less about discussing this part any further after this. But according to the one non-Trulia site I looked at comparing Brooklyn Heights with the Oakland Hills, your figures aren't even in the same continent as reality.
