SF equivalents to NY neighborhoods? (Oakland, Richmond: low income, crime, house)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by City Boy

I would say SF's Suburban area's have a decent mix as well. Richmond, Vallejo, Pinole, Daly City, San Leandro, etc San Pablo are all diverse economically and racially. Their area may be larger but I don't think anymore Diverse

The East Bay and Northern Peninsula is an extremely diverse(racially, socio-economically and ethnically) easily comparable to the NY burbs.

[Sassberto]

Originally Posted by City Boy

I would say SF's Suburban area's have a decent mix as well. Richmond, Vallejo, Pinole, Daly City, San Leandro, etc San Pablo are all diverse economically and racially. Their area may be larger but I don't think anymore Diverse

Many of those areas have serious crime problems no? Do those areas have good schools? Isn't Richmond considered high crime and Vallejo bankrupt?

NYC metro has a massive number of affordable, safe, well-kept, middle-and-working class postwar tracts that have terrific schools. As far as I am concerned there is nothing in California that compares. CA is much more stratified with rich vs. poor than NYC suburbs.

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Many of those areas have serious crime problems no? Do those areas have good schools? Isn't Richmond considered high crime and Vallejo bankrupt?

NYC metro has a massive number of affordable, safe, well-kept, middle-and-working class postwar tracts that have terrific schools. As far as I am concerned there is nothing in California that compares. CA is much more stratified with rich vs. poor than NYC suburbs.

As do many of the Suburban area's in NY. Area's of Long Island are rough as well. Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx , Staten Island same thing. You'll be in a nice decent area, then turn the corner and be in a huge high crime housing project complex. Projects not seen out here. NY is literally block to block in terms of crime.

The bad school thing in CA is overrated.

[CubsGiantsIndiansfan2008]

Originally Posted by Joe Bama!

Actually, lots of the wealthy in New York take the train from Long Island and WestChester. The young yuppsters take the train or taxi when they are late. People drive alot more in SF.

Nahh.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by City Boy

The bad school thing in CA is overrated.

No it's not, when you have to live in an upper middle class suburb just to have good schools then that is a serious problem. We rank in the bottom 5 states for education, how is that "overrated"?

[Sassberto]

Originally Posted by City Boy

As do many of the Suburban area's in NY. Area's of Long Island are rough as well. Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx , Staten Island same thing. You'll be in a nice decent area, then turn the corner and be in a huge high crime housing project complex. Projects not seen out here. NY is literally block to block in terms of crime.

The bad school thing in CA is overrated.

I grew up on Long Island. Aside from perhaps Hempstead or Roosevelt there is nothing that compares remotely to Richmond. The vast majority of LI is safe, with great schools, and high education levels.

Remember NYC is exponentially larger than SF bay metro so comparing the boros to the inner suburbs is comparing the distance from downtown SF to it's exurbs.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Many of those areas have serious crime problems no? Do those areas have good schools? Isn't Richmond considered high crime and Vallejo bankrupt?

NYC metro has a massive number of affordable, safe, well-kept, middle-and-working class postwar tracts that have terrific schools. As far as I am concerned there is nothing in California that compares. CA is much more stratified with rich vs. poor than NYC suburbs.

Huh?
Fremont, Newark, Union City, Hayward, San Leandro, Alameda, Albany, El Cerrito, Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae and San Mateo have lots of middle class households, are safe and have relatively good schools.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Many of those areas have serious crime problems no? Do those areas have good schools? Isn't Richmond considered high crime and Vallejo bankrupt?

Yes they do, Vallejo is awful. High crime, HORRIBLE schools, and now it's bankrupt. The best thing my mother and father did for my family was move out of that hell hole when I was young. You're an anomaly in Vallejo if you don't have at least one kid by age 21.

[Sassberto]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Huh?
Fremont, Newark, Union City, Hayward, San Leandro, Alameda, Albany, El Cerrito, Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae and San Mateo have lots of middle class households, are safe and have relatively good schools.

Don't houses cost 5,600k+ there?

You can buy a 3/2 rancher in East Northport for 350k... and it's a very nice area.

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by sav858

No it's not, when you have to live in an upper middle class suburb just to have good schools then that is a serious problem. We rank in the bottom 5 states for education, how is that "overrated"?

Why do you think thats unique to California? That goes for anywhere. There are good schools and bad schools as with everywhere. How many ESL students do those states who rank higher have in comparison to us? Probably nowhere near CA.