Oakland or San Gabriel Valley for dense Asian populations? (San Francisco: condos, neighborhood)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by pbergen

to the OP:

didn't you say in another post that your wife is a filipina? if so, you may want to look into daly city, which is just south of san francisco. huge population of filipinos plus a lot of chinese. and it's pretty easy to get into sf from there.

oakland is another good choice. i'm a fan of its diversity, walkability, and unpretentious feel.

the san gabriel valley in southern california is a solid area for the most part (some cities more than others), but it really isn't walkable other than pasadena, south pasadena, and a handful of other spots. and you really do need a car to get around, even if you live in the walkable areas - that is, unless you plan on spending virtually all of your time in your specific neighborhood.

mass transit in the LA area is somewhat underrated, as the other poster mentioned, but it really depends where you live. for instance, the metro offers reliable transit service via heavy rail and light rail from downtown LA to some of the neighboring urban areas like hollywood and (soon) east LA. at the same time, suburban areas are hit-or-miss. there are large swaths of the region, including the bulk of the san gabriel valley, that are only serviced by buses - and sometimes those buses don't come all that frequently and/or exclusively operate M-F during rush hour. the SGV only has rail access in a handful of spots (pasadena, south pasadena, el monte, covina, etc) with spotty-to-decent bus service everywhere else.

so like i said, even if you were to live in a relatively walkable section of the SGV, you'd still need to commit yourself to a driving lifestyle if you wanted to enjoy all of the offerings in that area. the majority of the asian businesses in the SGV are located in strip malls that are scattered in various independent cities, and you'll be missing out on most of them if you were to live in, say, south pasadena or alhambra and limit yourself only to that area.

another issue to consider is that purchasing real estate is not cheap in any of these places. it's one thing if you're ok with renting long-term, but it's another story if you're looking to buy. also, it's important to note that many of the heavily asian san gabriel valley cities do not have a whole lot of rental apartment buildings for whatever reason. they're suburban communities that tend to be dominated by strip malls and detached houses with yards.

as you know, california's metropolitan areas with large asian populations tend to be really expensive. it's going to be very challenging to find a place to buy in a heavily asian neighborhood if you have a modest income. i mentioned this in response to another one of your posts, but you may want to look into a city like houston, which also has a large asian population and offers much better value for your dollar. as a matter of fact, i've actually looked into texas myself, but decided against it for the time being, as i'm still unmarried and am content with renting for the short term. once i'm hitched and looking to buy, though, i may look into it again.

i guess you just have to decide if renting for an indefinite period of time in a place like the bay area or southern california is worth it, long-term.

AS for diversity I think you have suggested some good ideas in the bay area, but I think in one of his threads (you are right there have been a couple or more) he seems to be looking of safe areas as well and a little upscale. If he is looking at a modest price range, I think he will have trouble in places like Oakland to find the safety he seems to want as well as everything else. Houston might be a good idea, I would never have thought of that. Many of the towns he is looking at in SO Ca fit the bill as well.

Nita

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by pbergen

the SGV encompasses way more than four municipalities.

Boy you can say that again: It starts pretty much with Pasadena and So Pasadena, goes through Alhambra, San Gabriel, clear into Hacienda Heights, Azusa, Covina, W. Covina, north to Arcadia, Monvrovia, Duarte, then to Glendora and even San Dimas, out to the IE. I Have only listed part of the cities, there are maybe, 10 or more I have missed, like Temple City, Rosemead, etc.

Nita

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by nmnita

AS for diversity I think you have suggested some good ideas in the bay area, but I think in one of his threads (you are right there have been a couple or more) he seems to be looking of safe areas as well and a little upscale. If he is looking at a modest price range, I think he will have trouble in places like Oakland to find the safety he seems to want as well as everything else. Houston might be a good idea, I would never have thought of that. Many of the towns he is looking at in SO Ca fit the bill as well.

Nita

that's a good point about oakland - despite the fact that certain areas have gentrified in recent years, crime is still a concern in more than a few sections of the city. and while oakland offers the amenities and demographics the OP is looking for (at least in certain neighborhoods), i'm not sure that the city is the best place to raise a family on a limited budget.

personally, i'd have no problem living there as a young single male renter, but of course the OP is in a different situation and stage of his life.

the bay area or southern california would be a good choice for the OP if he's willing to make compromises (i.e. rent for a while). but if he's dead set on buying, he's going to have to expand his housing budget or look elsewhere.

houston (and the south in general) seems to offer great value for the money. over the past few years, i've talked with some friends and acquaintances who moved to places like atlanta, dallas, houston, and charlotte. all of these people wanted a certain standard of living but could not afford it in the large metropolitan areas of the west coast and northeast, so they looked to the larger metro areas of the south. and i couldn't believe what these people were able to get: large houses on sizable lots or very upscale townhouses/condos in safe, clean neighborhoods at what i consider very low prices (certainly much cheaper than in comparable communities of the bay area, LA/OC, SD, nyc, dc, boston, etc).

while i totally understand the OP's desire to live in a place like the bay area or the SGV, in order to do so, something has to give. if he wants a certain standard of life (i.e. to be a homeowner in a safe asian-dominated neighborhood with good schools and asian shops and restaurants), he's going to have to expand his budget or else seriously look at the lower-cost metros in this country.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think Eagle Rock has a sizable Filipino population, doesn't it? Not sure, bit it is home to a Jollibee. (and is also a nice neighborhood, technically in LA but adjecent to Pasadena.)

[Tiger Beer]

Some great posts in this thread, thank you to pbergen in particular for the lengthy description of SGV which is quite helpful and informative.

I'm beginning to feel that SGV would be much better than Oakland, due to having a kid in particular. But the description of the housing situation doesn't sound so good.

I've also been coming to the conclusion that I'd be resigned to renting, due to housing costs. Which makes me wonder, why not HONOLULU over SGV? It would be condensed and walkable, high asian, and the pricing situation wouldn't be much different.

I've heard a lot of Houston, and might end up somewhere like that, but the idea of Texas doesn't sound that appealing. It could happen though. Las Vegas Nevada seems like they are starting to attract Asian for similar reasons - affordable housing, not as much as Houston seems to though.

Anyways, anyone have much familiarity with Honolulu? It can't be any MORE expensive than SGV, right? I mean, figuring gas would be less for a smaller geographical area, and either way I'd be resigned to renting, and the buying possibility really wouldn't be a possibility either way.

(So many very interesting responses on here so far, thanks to everyone who has posted).

[uptown_urbanist]

I don't have direct comparisons, but I would assume that Honolulu is more expensive than the SGV. I think Honolulu is one of the most expensive cities in the US - I may be wrong, but I think most lists currently put it third after NYC and SF. The SGV isn't that bad, really, cost-wise, at least in comparison to the Bay Area. You could rent a nice house (not huge, but nice) in South Pasadena for around $2,000/month if you're lucky (which is a great location for kids and has very good public schools), or for less than that in Alhambra (which isn't as well known for its schools, but I think they're okay, and there are some great - and walkable - neighborhoods for families). It may well be that Honolulu is the perfect place for you, but I doubt it would be cheaper than the SGV.

I can't speak much to Houston, other than to say that I visited once and was pleasantly surprised. I don't think I could handle the seasonal humidity and hurricanes, but there were some very nice walkable neighborhoods, great cultural opportunities, a nice light rail line (maybe more now?), a lot of Asian influence, and overall just didn't seem as stereotypically Texan as I guess I'd been expecting.

[Urksher]

I would vouch for the SGV area in terms of affordability, schools, and representation of the Asian population and culture. Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, and Diamond Bar in particular are recently gentrified versions of Alhambra and Monetary Park - much less DENSE and cleaner. Alhambra and its surrounding cities have severe traffic issues that would make me hesitant to go out on the weekends.

Public transportation is hard to find in So Cal in general..

[BayAreaHillbilly]

If I were in the OP's shoes, based on some things mentioned on other threads, especially the critique of SF proper, I would go for the SGV or Houston. I think Oakland might bother the OP in a manner similar to SF. If still wanting to be in the Bay Area, if the OP's wife is Pinoy then I would recommend, as well, like another poster did, checking into Daly City, especially its more upscale hoods.

[Boompa]

Chinatown Oakland is much more walkable than San Gabriel, which is Suburban, plus you can BART to the real Chinatown. Have you looked at Outer Richmond District of San Francisco, that's the real Chinatown. Clement St

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Chinatown Oakland is much more walkable than San Gabriel, which is Suburban, plus you can BART to the real Chinatown. Have you looked at Outer Richmond District of San Francisco, that's the real Chinatown. Clement St

Oakland has a very real Chinatown.