Oakland = mini LA? (Los Angeles, San Diego, Pasadena: apartment, homes, neighborhoods)

[CirclingLogan]

I know a lot of people from back east who have no idea what to think of Oakland. They have perceptions (not always accurate) of LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, San Diego, but Oakland draws a big blank outside of some murky conception of it being pretty rough.

I used to say a cross between Portland and Baltimore, but it never quite struck me as particularly useful.

Then, I was looking at a map of LA and realized how similar much of it is.

1. Climate. Oakland is a bit cooler, but still dominated by sunny, warm weather like LA.
2. Revitalizing Downtown. LA is a bit ahead on this, but similarly, Oakland's downtown went through years of neglect, but is now becoming a center of entertainment and nightlife.
3. Art Deco architecture. Both downtowns have prominent buildings from the 20s and 30s.
4. Dense, but car-friendly. Both pack in a lot of people per square mile, but still have freeway and boulevards throughout.
5. Residential = single-family home + apartment. Much of both cities is a combination of tightly packed craftsmans, 20s and 60s apartment buildings.
6. Hills. Both are dominated on one side by hills punctuated by large homes with great views.
7. Skyline Drive = Mulholland Drive.
8. Diversity. Both have an incredibly range of people; whites, Asians, blacks and latinos galore.
9. Inferiority complex. Neither are SF.

Obviously some major caveats. Replace the entertainment + beach culture with quirky/alternative + burgeoning tech.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

ange of people; whites, Asians, blacks and latinos galore.
9. Inferiority complex. Neither are SF.

LOL, LA doesn't have any inferiority complex when it comes to SF, it's more the other way around.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

I know a lot of people from back east who have no idea what to think of Oakland. They have perceptions (not always accurate) of LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, San Diego, but Oakland draws a big blank outside of some murky conception of it being pretty rough.

I used to say a cross between Portland and Baltimore, but it never quite struck me as particularly useful.

Then, I was looking at a map of LA and realized how similar much of it is.

1. Climate. Oakland is a bit cooler, but still dominated by sunny, warm weather like LA.
2. Revitalizing Downtown. LA is a bit ahead on this, but similarly, Oakland's downtown went through years of neglect, but is now becoming a center of entertainment and nightlife.
3. Art Deco architecture. Both downtowns have prominent buildings from the 20s and 30s.
4. Dense, but car-friendly. Both pack in a lot of people per square mile, but still have freeway and boulevards throughout.
5. Residential = single-family home + apartment. Much of both cities is a combination of tightly packed craftsmans, 20s and 60s apartment buildings.
6. Hills. Both are dominated on one side by hills punctuated by large homes with great views.
7. Skyline Drive = Mulholland Drive.
8. Diversity. Both have an incredibly range of people; whites, Asians, blacks and latinos galore.
9. Inferiority complex. Neither are SF.

Obviously some major caveats. Replace the entertainment + beach culture with quirky/alternative + burgeoning tech.

I've held that opinion for a long time (that Oakland feels quite a bit like LA), largely for different reasons than those you listed though. Definitely disagree with #9, LA doesn't have an inferiority complex. Out of towners project it onto the city, you seldom see it in the natives.

[18Montclair]

I see some similarities but revitalization or not, Id rather live in Downtown Oakland over Downtown LA by a mile.

Downtown Oakland is way more pleasant, more upbeat and less grimy imho.

I love LA and could easily live there and I really like the grand improvements in downtown LA, but downtown Oakland is just better to me as a place Id want to live in.

[borninamess]

LA sucks. if it burned to the ground, i'd throw a party.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by borninamess

LA sucks. if it burned to the ground, i'd throw a party.

Welcome to this forum. Do you have any more wonderfully insightful you'd like to throw out?

[Bisaro TMF]

Originally Posted by borninamess

LA sucks. if it burned to the ground, i'd throw a party.

[ccm123]

In some ways, yes. But, there are differences between Oakland and LA, especially the vibe. LA is "glitzy", while Oakland really is not. Some neighborhoods in Oakland, such as Rockridge remind me of neighborhoods in LA (such as Pasadena).

[infinitekid]

yeah right, oakland wishes it was anything like Los Angeles.

Load of hogwash.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by ccm123

In some ways, yes. But, there are differences between Oakland and LA, especially the vibe. LA is "glitzy", while Oakland really is not. Some neighborhoods in Oakland, such as Rockridge remind me of neighborhoods in LA (such as Pasadena).

Of course. Structurally, Oakland and LA are similar; culturally, not so much. Oakland has a much more educated populace, and comes across more intellectual, while LA has a big party and glamor scene.