Oakland as a tourist destination (Los Angeles, San Francisco: home, costs, budget)

[DocGoldstein]

Because it's not marketing. It's also over coming the negative crime image most people have in their mind of Oakland. Detroit or Camden may attract lots of locals, but I am for damn sure not going to book a flight soon to pay a visit.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

And you have said Oakland has many safe areas and businesses in other threads, so why say it on this thread?

Nowhere in this thread do I mention safety.

#owned

See your logic?

The logic behind moving to the anus crack of SF and then have the nerve to pontificate about Oakland?

No, I dont see your logic one bit.

[VictorSS]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Because it's not marketing. It's also over coming the negative crime image most people have in their mind of Oakland. Detroit or Camden may attract lots of locals, but I am for damn sure not going to book a flight soon to pay a visit.

You can't compare Oakland to Detroit or Camden. AT ALL, in fact it makes no sense what so ever unless you're trolling.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by VictorSS

You can't compare Oakland to Detroit or Camden.

Of course I can. All three cities have major problems attracting tourist because of crime. They are very similar in that regard.

[VictorSS]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Of course I can. All three cities have major problems attracting tourist because of crime. They are very similar in that regard.

If you've ever been to all three cities, like I have. You'd know it's the most ridiculous comparison possible based on over a dozen different factors. Geography being just one.

[ssmaster]

The New York times voted Oakland #5 on it places to visit in 2012
between LONDON #4 and TOKYO #6
Oakland Ranks #5 On New York Times’ List Of Places To Visit In 2012 « CBS San Francisco

that ship has already sailed the way these publications talk about oakland :
cnn/ money magazine,forbes,the huffingtonpost,new yorktimes ,food & wine magazine , boston globea times ,washington post,new york magazine,travel +leisure,sunset magazine,7x7 sf,smartertravel,sacremento bee,tastingtable,diablo magazine,conde nast traveler,businessweek,outside magazine,the city traveler,bon appetit magazine .,the independent(uk)and wall street journal

[ssmaster]

new orleans is a more apt comparison as people love going to new orleans but it has some problems with crime.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Of course I can. All three cities have major problems attracting tourist because of crime. They are very similar in that regard.

As someone that lives in the East Bay now, me and my husband ALWAYS seem to end up in Oakland for concerts, dining, bars, etc. San Francisco has become more of a hassle lately. As you should know, Lafayette is full of old folks and middle aged parents. That's fine during the day. The place is completely dead after 8:30. We're tired of being the last people to leave any given restaurant on a weekend. Blech...BORING.

I have had some fantastic nights over the past several years... two BART stops away from the sleepiness and whatever crime you're always going on about--stuff I haven't encountered...just everyday type people and a younger, hipper crowd mixed in with families, couples...just more diverse.

I like that it's attracting more regular folk of all ages that just can't afford the City anymore. I think it'll just keep getting better over time as San Francisco keeps losing and/or not attracting more diversity, creative types, families, and less wealthy folk. I know you'll just keep arguing, but hey...I'm livin' the good life with Oakland being so close, thank goodness. If it weren't for Oakland/Berkeley so near, I'd be tearing my hair out on weekends. I've got the best of both worlds! Sorry you are unhappy enough just complaining about some place you don't even live....or visit.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by matt345

I know starting any thread about Oakland is a very risky move on this forum, but I’m hoping we can keep this one civil. I was just thinking the other day – Oakland has a TON of untapped tourism potential, especially with the heart of SF being only a 15-minute BART ride away. Most tourist attractions out there rely mostly on promotion and publicity to bring in the crowds. Just look at how many visitors to Chicago absolutely “must” go out of their way to see the cloud gate, an attraction that wouldn’t bring in nearly as many people if it weren’t for the publicity it receives. If a giant kidney bean-shaped mirror can draw in throngs of tourists, I see no reason why the Grand Lake Theater, the Tribune Tower, the Fox Theater, and the Cathedral Building couldn’t do the same with the proper marketing and publicity. San Francisco and Oakland should be working together to market themselves as a single tourist destination, rather than trying to act like the other city doesn’t exist – it’s only a 7-mile difference, but I digress.

Anyway, with all the publicity about the “Oakland Renaissance” in recent years, do you ever see this town becoming a tourist hotspot? Maybe not on the level of SF, but maybe on par with what Portland, OR has done over the past decade?

So the famous quote about "There's no 'there' there", re: Oakland, is obsolete? There is a 'there' there?

Good news. Great news. I especially like the news about the redwood forest in the hills. Gonna go check that out. And don't forget Lake Temescal.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

new orleans is a more apt comparison as people love going to new orleans but it has some problems with crime.

That actually fits, but Oakland is more like Detroit because New Orleans IS actually a world destination, while Oakland and Detroit are both desperately trying to become that (not even close yet).