Worst Article on Oakland Ever? (San Francisco, Berkeley: 2013, neighborhoods, theater)

[CirclingLogan]

KQED | A San Franciscan's Guide to Living in Oakland


Wow. This lady seems to manage to offend everyone in one horribly written article.

For me, the most jarring part was just how BORING this woman made Oakland seem. Dismisses Art Murmur, but spends multiple paragraphs on book stores? Are you kidding (and this is coming from someone who loves book stores)? Goes on and on about Zachary's (really, a 25-year-old deep dish place? It's good, but not particularly interesting), and dismisses Boot & Shoe because her cheap ass didn't want to pay a plating fee for her cake she brought in? Also, she doesn't know what a plating fee is? When's the last time she went to a restaurant? Never goes to downtown, the most dynamic, up-and-coming section of Oakland, yet seems to think she's qualified to write about Oakland?

Pretty funny that someone who likes to whine about "start-up" types comes across as far more insufferable and boring than people who talk nonstop about VCs and coding.

[wooliemonster]

What is the paragraph that was removed?

[GioLM]

Didn't see the "offensive" paragraph that was removed, but I didn't need to...that article had no merit(t) XD being published. I hate to fight negativity with negativity but that was a completely unfair tone in which to write about Oakland, and it was a bit thoughtless

[CirclingLogan]

The paragraph removed basically said "avoid East and West Oakland completely".

So, she doesn't go East Oakland, West Oakland, downtown; fails to mention the Paramount, Fox Theater, Piedmont Theater, Grand Lake Cinema, New Parish, Uptown, New Parkway Theater, etc. Dismisses the Oakland art scene as "fine", and completely writes off its burgeoning culinary destinations. Ignores West Oakland and Fruitvale, black and Latino cultural centers, respectively. She sure does like stale bars and restaurants on Piedmont & College Ave, though.

It's fine that hers is a myopic viewpoint -- that's what opinion articles are. I just wish they chose someone who did anything interesting.

[wooliemonster]

The article was written in an awful "dude speak" dialect. Her bio says she's an artist, not a writer, which I translate as "parental support". She lives in the East Bay only due to lack of funds. However, the ultimate irony may come when gentrifiers like myself force her out of even Piedmont Ave area. Where will she go, the dreaded East Oakland? Aren't artists supposed to be the spear tip of gentrification? Maybe it's just the circle of life...

[Radical347]

Ehh...it reads more like a blog post than an article, and I'm not going to get worked up about someone's blog even if 90%+ of what she's promoting holds no interest to me. She likes books and pizza and doesn't like the Art Murmur...big deal. (She's also not singling out Oakland...note how also rips on Berkeley and SF.)

[04kL4nD]

Besides being predictable and vanilla, I didn't really think there was anything I'd find offensive. She probably only went to Art Murmur once and I'm guessing she showed up late when it's too crowded to move- rookie mistake, since smart people go early and avoid Uptown right after it ends. She sounds like a total bore, but I'll agree that Golden Lotus and Bittersweet are awesome.

[Malloric]

Me either. Seemed pretty pro-Oakland, of course I missed the paragraph that was edited out because Oakland is overly sensitive and offended when people point out it's the most violent city in California.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Me either. Seemed pretty pro-Oakland, of course I missed the paragraph that was edited out because Oakland is overly sensitive and offended when people point out it's the most violent city in California.

Maybe because it was a familiar BS slight against Oakland of the sort that's all too often been the rule rather than the exception from silly third-rate media wankers waxing lazily about the place. The Oakland = Armageddon thing has been done to death by the banned DocG, btw.

[CityGuy88]

There are probably as many people who weren't offended by the article as those who are. IMO, it was quite frankly a dumb article that has done what several articles like it have done before: give San Franciscans who increasingly can't afford to stay in their preferred city a "guideline" to living in the city they will inevitably come to gentrify. The problem with this trend (and it is definitely a trend), is that it totally diminishes the complexities and diversity that come with Oakland being Oakland. Living in Oakland doesn't come with directions. And if anyone is coming with directions, they'd better give themselves a reality check fast because no two neighborhoods or sections of Oakland are alike.

The other big problem with this article is that it speaks to the larger issue this society has with perceptions of race and class. This article is clearly written for White San Franciscans whose economic security has shielded them from the likes of Oakland for years. They haven't had to deal with a whole lot of helicopters, police sirens, grit, African-Americans, low-income citizens, etc. But now even their economic prosperity is not exactly prosperous by San Francisco's standards. Now, they have to go to the next best thing, which is right across the Bay in Oakland. But instead of embrace the already existing culture that has existed in Oakland, articles like these are supposed to help them find the most 'San Francisco-like' things about Oakland. The problem is, there is nothing in Oakland that is like San Francisco. Which is what many articles like these fail to mention.

Luckily, KQED deleted that disaster of an article.