SF Guardian: Is Oakland Cooler than San Francisco? (Berkeley, Montclair: school, living in)

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

this article is not saying anything new.
if you are a young artist/hipster type and your rent is $500-$750 a month less because you live in oakland then you have more money for pabst blue ribbon,plaid shirts, instruments for your band and american eagle cigarettes(or clove).
i can see how that may be cool.

lol I like the way you put it.

And really, what this article is ignoring is that the reason this happened to San Francisco is precisely because the population that is currently moving to Oakland attracted an overabundance of wealthy people to SF. The majority of Oakland will more than likely be SF pt. 2 in 15 years and then the papers will be writing about "what happened to the Bay's working class culture?"

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

i agree that sf would be the place to go for a tourist. i don't think oakland and berkeley have anywhere near as much as sf for visitors.

I have to agree 100 percent. Its way more fun to visit SF over the East Bay, but there is more to life than visiting. It appears that a huge chunk of people are being priced out of the City and that group is altering Oakland.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

lol I like the way you put it.

And really, what this article is ignoring is that the reason this happened to San Francisco is precisely because the population that is currently moving to Oakland attracted an overabundance of wealthy people to SF. The majority of Oakland will more than likely be SF pt. 2 in 15 years and then the papers will be writing about "what happened to the Bay's working class culture?"

What a scary prospect.

[mayorhaggar]

SF is better for tourists and the overpaid rich. Oakland is better for actually living in especially if you're a normal person making mere mortal wages. After living in SF for 7 years it was a nice change to move to Oakland and be somewhere cleaner, quiter, less crowded, safer, and less inundated with yuppies and homeless people.

[evergraystate]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

SF is better for tourists and the overpaid rich. Oakland is better for actually living in especially if you're a normal person making mere mortal wages.

Yeah Oakland is great as long as you're still LIVING. Anybody want to take bets on how many people are going to get shot in Oakland today?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

SF is better for tourists and the overpaid rich. Oakland is better for actually living in especially if you're a normal person making mere mortal wages. After living in SF for 7 years it was a nice change to move to Oakland and be somewhere cleaner, quiter, less crowded, safer, and less inundated with yuppies and homeless people.

lol@"Mortal Wages"---I like that.

Detached homes in decent neighborhoods cost an arm and a leg in the city whether to rent or buy whereas in Oakland its way more doable for way more people.

[krudmonk]

When did Oakland get so full of itself? This is exactly the boosterism I used to see shunned there.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by SunDevil1212

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I've gathered reading comments on this forum for a while now, if you are educated and make decent money working a 9-5 job, no matter how hard you try, at best you are most certainly uncool and at worst you are an evil yuppy gentrifier. And if you also happen to be white - gasp - you might as well be Satan himself. And we all know Satan and white people are sooo uncool.

Let's be honest folks - the only way to be cool in 2012 is to have tattoo sleeves, work as a barista or a chef at a vegan restaurant, write poetry, protest the 1%, and play ironic mandolin in a roots-folk revival band. And baristas & mandolin players paying off their student loans for their Masters in French Literature can't afford to live in San Francisco anymore, ipso facto San Francisco is SO UNCOOL.

I only wish I had wild unreasonable dreams of actually making money as an artist....then I could live in the Mecca that is Oakland. Instead I do art and play music in my free time while slaving away Monday thru Friday for The Man, and therefore I am stuck in San Francisco - generally known around the world as the most boring, uninteresting town in the US, certainly in California. Life sucks.

I could live in SF. But I choose not too. And yes technically I am a gentrifier. But I get a free pass because I am black. So no one calls me a gentrifier. But frankly, I moved to Oakland because I live the amenities, friendly people, and it is because it is diverse. I have no official ties here, so I am in the gentrification club too. Well maybe not, since I live in an established area.

The thing is, Oakland has always had all of these things. But it doesn't count until white people discover it.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by jade408

I could live in SF. But I choose not too. And yes technically I am a gentrifier. But I get a free pass because I am black. So no one calls me a gentrifier. But frankly, I moved to Oakland because I like the amenities, friendly people, and it is because it is diverse. I have no official ties here, so I am in the gentrification club too. Well maybe not, since I live in an established area.

Same here. I could live anywhere but chose to move back to Oakland from Tiburon precisely because of the reasons you mentioned as well as deep family ties. It was the best decision I've made in a long time.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

When did Oakland get so full of itself? This is exactly the boosterism I used to see shunned there.

Oakland didn't get full of itself, the hipsters that are moving here - and writing these articles - are full of themselves. Hipsters always say that where they live is "cooler and more authentic" than the place they left, they wouldn't be hipsters if they didn't. And generally what that crap really means is "I got priced out of the 'cool and authentic' neighborhood I helped become overpriced so now I hate it".