Is it weird some life long Bay Areans never set foot in Oakland? (San Francisco: theatre, schools)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by MrJester

Right. And speaking as a longtime resident of Irvine, I only very occasionally went to Downtown LA, maybe only once a year. Not worth the 45 minute drive to go to an underwhelming Downtown that is less impressive then even the Downtown's of smaller metro areas like Atlanta or SF or Chicago.

I have never been to Venice Beach, only been to Santa Monica maybe three times, been to Beverly Hills once. Irvine is much better than many of these inner suburban areas.

Sure if you have a preference for cookie cutter subdivisions and strip malls.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by MrJester

And speaking as a longtime resident of Irvine, I only very occasionally went to Downtown LA, maybe only once a year. Not worth the 45 minute drive to go to an underwhelming Downtown that is less impressive then even the Downtown's of smaller metro areas like Atlanta or SF or Chicago.

We can't compare San Francisco with downtown L.A.; the latter doesn't hold a candle to S.F.

Originally Posted by MrJester

I have never been to Venice Beach, only been to Santa Monica maybe three times, been to Beverly Hills once. Irvine is much better than many of these inner suburban areas.

You grew up in Irvine and never once went to Venice? Jester!

[MrJester]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

We can't compare San Francisco with downtown L.A.; the latter doesn't hold a candle to S.F.

OK, I'll agree with you there, the SF metro area (except for Silicon Valley) is more Downtown Centric than LA metro area is, seems like Bay Areas actually go to Downtown SF on weekends much more than SoCal people go to Downtown LA.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by MrJester

Right. And speaking as a longtime resident of Irvine, I only very occasionally went to Downtown LA, maybe only once a year. Not worth the 45 minute drive to go to an underwhelming Downtown that is less impressive then even the Downtown's of smaller metro areas like Atlanta or SF or Chicago.

I grew up in Orange County, but in the far northwestern corner (La Habra). Los Angeles didn't seem so far from there. We went frequently, to the zoo, museums, concerts, restaurants. We saw Star Wars at Mann's Chinese Theater (now Grauman's) when it first came out. My brother would take his dates downtown for the evening.

The LA beaches no; we stuck to the OC beaches.

Now that I am in South OC, Los Angeles seems a lot farther away. It takes half an hour just to get to the county line, instead of merely having to cross the street. And the traffic is a lot worse than it was 30+ years ago, and we have most of the above attractions closer to home.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by EggshellMind

Don’t be ridiculous, getting across the bay is a few dollars, not a second mortgage, and if anything Oakland has become more popular as prices in the City have gotten more and more insane since lots of people and places have moved to the East Bay.

As anyone who lives in SF (or this side of the Bay) knows, the cost of transportation is not the point relative to anyone who rarely sets foot in Oakland. It's a question of necessity/desire/lack of a reason (particularly since the Warriors moved).

That Oakland has gained traction/popularity due to its COL, by comparison, isn't the point relative to the thread, either; obviously, they are going to set foot in Oakland if they live in (or near) Oakland. :-)

Originally Posted by MrJester

No, it's not weird, because the cost of living is so high in the Bay Area, that lower income people seldom have any money to travel that far for day trips, even to Oakland.

There are many outdoor activities, parks, trails (jog/bike), wineries and incredible views to be enjoyed via a 'day trip' (or closer) in the Bay Area; most don't think of Oakland as being one of them.

[Vic Romano]

Originally Posted by MrJester

Right. And speaking as a longtime resident of Irvine, I only very occasionally went to Downtown LA, maybe only once a year. Not worth the 45 minute drive to go to an underwhelming Downtown that is less impressive then even the Downtown's of smaller metro areas like Atlanta or SF or Chicago.

I have never been to Venice Beach, only been to Santa Monica maybe three times, been to Beverly Hills once. Irvine is much better than many of these inner suburban areas.

How can you have any credibility if you yourself said you've only been to Downtown LA "occasionally"??? You don't even bother to explore just outside the LA city limits yet you think your comparison to Irvine is valid? On what basis do you declare yourself an authority on the subject on the basis of three or less visits to a city? What a joke. You sound like the poster who tried to characterize Reno by driving through two streets in Downtown.

[DeanoSF]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

As anyone who lives in SF (or this side of the Bay) knows, the cost of transportation is not the point relative to anyone who rarely sets foot in Oakland. It's a question of necessity/desire/lack of a reason (particularly since the Warriors moved).

That Oakland has gained traction/popularity due to its COL, by comparison, isn't the point relative to the thread, either; obviously, they are going to set foot in Oakland if they live in (or near) Oakland. :-)



There are many outdoor activities, parks, trails (jog/bike), wineries and incredible views to be enjoyed via a 'day trip' (or closer) in the Bay Area; most don't think of Oakland as being one of them.

I have to agree. For the year prior to lockdown, I worked in Oakland and even then rarely found much of a reason to stay very long after work. We'd grab a cocktail at Elbo Room before the ferry home or something like that, but not much else.

There was a pretty good brewery scene developing around Jack London Square and Old Town, too. Not sure how or if that has survived COVID.

That said, things like First Fridays and the regular Friday night food truck events around OMCA, farmers markets at JLS and the like are fun and I even thought to myself on a few occasions that I might consider crossing the bridge with friends or out-of-town guests to attend these events if I weren't already there for work. But I never did.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by DeanoSF

I have to agree. For the year prior to lockdown, I worked in Oakland and even then rarely found much of a reason to stay very long after work. We'd grab a cocktail at Elbo Room before the ferry home or something like that, but not much else.

I had been to the Elbo Room in SF a couple of times, before it closed last year (not too long after the owners opened the new location in Oakland).

That said, the point/thread isn't applicable to you, obviously, since Oakland was your commute; work is a valid reason in and of itself, lol.

[DeanoSF]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I had been to the Elbo Room in SF a couple of times, before it closed last year (not too long after the owners opened the new location in Oakland).

That said, the point/thread isn't applicable to you, obviously, since Oakland was your commute; work is a valid reason in and of itself, lol.

Sure, I was speaking to the idea of motivation and admitting that, if I didn't have to commute for work, there would be no reason to go to Oakland, despite some draws it has that might be appealing to someone coming from elsewhere in the Bay Area.

[Ultrarunner]

4th generation Oakland resident and met many Bay Area residents that know nothing about Oakland... just the way it is.

Some only know the sports teams or airport...

When I have visitors and show them around they are always pleasantly impressed... Lake Merit, Redwoods in Roberts Park, Oakland Zoo, Jack London Square, Dunsmuir House and Gardens... etc.

Also... Oakland's Skyline drive provides some of the best city lights view of the Bay and SF...

Home to North America's 1st Wildlife Refuge, Lake Merit.

Birthplace of the California UC system and historic Mills College.

Children's Fairyland inspiration for Walt Disney.

Oakland Museum, Rose Garden, Chabot Space and Science Center, etc.