Suburbs of San Francisco and Oakland (San Jose, Stockton: hotels, homes, neighborhoods)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Los Angeles del Norte! LOL!

(Except for parts of SF proper and other pockets, in terms of look and feel.)

But in terms of commute patterns and freeway dependency, largely, my moniker is true.

[artemis78]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

Originally it was ALL a suburb of San Francisco...

This actually isn't true historically (though maybe it is today). Many of the cities and towns in the Bay Area had independent---and vibrant---local economies up until the mid-20th century. (Oakland, for instance, had its own commerce and industry centers rivaling SF's at times, and several surrounding residential areas---including many East Oakland areas that are now part of Oakland proper---were originally Oak suburbs, not SF suburbs....there wasn't an easy way to get to SF until the Bay Bridge went up in the late 1930s. It was just ferries.) Some of the cities (anything with "San" or "Santa" in its name) date back as far as the Spanish settlements and had small local economies from that time on. Up in the North Bay and in the Oakland hills, timber was king and there were a lot of related jobs and industries; people who lived there worked there. During the war years, Richmond was a primary job center, and much of the housing there grew in response to that demand.

Over time, the larger cities grew into each other, and after the freeways went in in the early 1960s, suburbs filled the gaps between the major clusters of activity. That's one reason it's so hard to draw clear lines today; it was a big deal to cross the Bay or go down the Peninsula at the turn of the century, but by the post-war era, those were easily commutable, so patterns of development changed in response.

There are a few true suburbs where the majority of residences were developed exclusively to serve workers in another area (the Lamorinda developments are one for Oakland, for instance---today lots of SF workers live there, but it was built with Oakland professionals in mind originally). But most of the cities and older communities have their own histories, and have only become bedroom communities for SF in recent generations.

[D-Towner]

In the mid 20th century, Oakland was thought of as more blue collar than San Francisco right?

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

In the mid 20th century, Oakland was thought of as more blue collar than San Francisco right?

No -- I don't think so. There were thriving industries on both sides. We had the Port of Oakland which was bigger and we had the railroads, but SF had a lot of building and construction.

That's why this area is (or was ) so Union dependant. The Unions are HUGE out here. not like they used to be, but still pretty strong.

My husband came out here as a lad of 8 with his family to a Union convention from PA -- his Dad was a carpenter, and held some small position with the local union back home.

He loved it out here so much, he vowed to come out here to live...

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

Originally it was ALL a suburb of San Francisco, and many of us continue to consider even Santa Clara County just another San Francisco Suburb. High -tech aside, this place- it is all the same. San Jose has no real decent Downtown to speak of still. it is more like LA (who also lacks a real downtown fun kind of feel). The campuses in the south bay are so spread out it hardly matters which side of the bay you live on, People commute from Santa Cruz daily all the way up to Cupertino etc..l.

Oakland has hardly any commerce and it is a suburb of SF even though many Oaktowners won't agree. All the surrounding Counties blend into one another. Marin, Solano, Sonoma, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and up to SF. You are just as likely to see someone in Walnut Creek work in Fremont/Milpitas as you are to see someone in Fremont work in SF or San Jose as to see someone in San Jose who works in San Mateo as to See someone in Oakland who works in San Ramon, as to see someone in Palo Alto who works in Mt View and someone who lives on MT view work in Palo Alto. and around and around we go. This is why the traffic is ridiculous. It truly is every which way you go.

So how does everyone commuting all over the bay mean San Francisco is the center or it all? You stated your thesis and then disproved it.

[Beat02]

Livermore is over the hill and down the road a few miles from Oakland. I wouldn't lump the two together.

[tstieber]

Yeah, some suburbs like Livermore are so far from Oakland as to have no connection or identity to Oakland at all. It would take about 30 or 40 minutes to drive from Oakland to Livermore, and Oakland is a dense city, while Livermore is practically out in the country.

[D-Towner]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Yeah, some suburbs like Livermore are so far from Oakland as to have no connection or identity to Oakland at all. It would take about 30 or 40 minutes to drive from Oakland to Livermore, and Oakland is a dense city, while Livermore is practically out in the country.

Is Dublin a suburb of Oakland?

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

Is Dublin a suburb of Oakland?

No.

Oakland at one time had suburbs, but as it grew it pretty much filled up its Oakland footprint. It's surrounded by Berkeley, Orinda and San Leandro -- each of those are cities in their own rights.

As is Dublin.

I come from Pennsylvania, so I get what you are talking about when you say suburbs -- and it's not like that here. Basically, our "suburbs" have been sprawled into each other and created larger sprawly cities.

I live in what would have been considered the Oakland suburbs years ago. Our neighborhood is called "North Stonehurst" on the parcel maps -- it's now simply East Oakland.

I can tell my place was more "suburban", because as you go closer into the city the lots get tinier, and the housing is far more old style city housing -- big house-no land. But I have (for here) a nice sized lot, where you could put a little garden in the back.

[Taboo2]

Historically SF was the center of this universe.
When the miners came here in 1840's for gold. SF was the hub.
The rest of this area was just cowlands or coastal wetlands. Ranches and rural.


As SF built up, so did the surrounding burbs. Alameda, Oakland these were suburbs of SF even when there was no bridge and only ferries serviced the bay commute. My family has been here for 5 generations and they all worked in SF and lived east bay. Even Oakland started as a "bedroom community" for SF.

Oakland, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The California state legislature incorporated the town of Oakland on May 4, 1852. In 1853, John Coffee "Jack" Hays, a famous Texas Ranger, was one of the first to establish residence in Oakland while performing his duties as sheriff of San Francisco [8][9]."

Originally Posted by artemis78

This actually isn't true historically (though maybe it is today). Many of the cities and towns in the Bay Area had independent---and vibrant---local economies up until the mid-20th century. (Oakland, for instance, had its own commerce and industry centers rivaling SF's at times, and several surrounding residential areas---including many East Oakland areas that are now part of Oakland proper---were originally Oak suburbs, not SF suburbs....there wasn't an easy way to get to SF until the Bay Bridge went up in the late 1930s. It was just ferries.) Some of the cities (anything with "San" or "Santa" in its name) date back as far as the Spanish settlements and had small local economies from that time on. Up in the North Bay and in the Oakland hills, timber was king and there were a lot of related jobs and industries; people who lived there worked there. During the war years, Richmond was a primary job center, and much of the housing there grew in response to that demand.

Over time, the larger cities grew into each other, and after the freeways went in in the early 1960s, suburbs filled the gaps between the major clusters of activity. That's one reason it's so hard to draw clear lines today; it was a big deal to cross the Bay or go down the Peninsula at the turn of the century, but by the post-war era, those were easily commutable, so patterns of development changed in response.

There are a few true suburbs where the majority of residences were developed exclusively to serve workers in another area (the Lamorinda developments are one for Oakland, for instance---today lots of SF workers live there, but it was built with Oakland professionals in mind originally). But most of the cities and older communities have their own histories, and have only become bedroom communities for SF in recent generations.