Sacramento vs Oakland (San Francisco, Folsom, Granite Bay: rental homes, crime, houses)

[french paris]

So the criteria would be;

- Life style



- Economy overall




- Education




- Metropolitan Area population




- Public Transportation




- Housing






- Food (Ethnic food, unique food of it's own, etc..)



- Economy growth and diversity (Post Recession climate)




- Parks




- Shopping




- Climate (which you prefer, and why?)

[Shope]

Errr, the nice part of Oakland or like Oakland Oakland?

[french paris]

Originally Posted by Shope

Errr, the nice part of Oakland or like Oakland Oakland?

Oakland Oaklandvs Sac Sac

[CityGirl72]

Oakland is really rough and is dangerous and dirty and has a small nice area

Sac is mostly nice and has a small dangerous and dirty area

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by CityGirl72

Oakland is really rough and is dangerous and dirty and has a small nice area

Sac is mostly nice and has a small dangerous and dirty area

What do you base this on? Yes, Oakland does have some really horrible areas that I won't even speed through with my doors locked and windows up in broad daylight. There are also some really nice areas as well where if you weren't familiar with the area would probably have no clue that you're actually in Oakland. The nice areas do cover quite a large chunk of the city.

I have many family members/friends in the Sac area and spend a considerable amount of time there and have to disagree with your assessment. The actual city of Sacramento and many of the unincorporated areas surrounding it have plenty of crime-ridden areas. I have a cousin who's a Sac county sheriff and he has plenty of stories to tell!

At least in Oakland when you're in the ghetto, you know you're in the ghetto. When you're in an area like Natomas for example, where there's mostly newer houses, you think you're in a nice area and it's very misleading. My father-in-law owns three rental homes in Natomas that he purchased brand new. All three neighborhoods have had reasonably serious crime issues and in one of of his rentals, another resident was raped in her home directly across the street by an intruder!

Don't get me wrong. I actually like the Sac area and my wife and I may end up there in the next few years since the cost of living is so much better than the Bay Area and since we have friends and family there. I just think that Sac and Oakland are pretty comparable in the land area that's covered by nice areas and by ghetto areas. Honestly, I think the nicest parts of Oakland are nicer than the nicest parts of Sac. Most of the upscale areas of Sac are not even in the city itself, but along the outskirts such as Granite Bay/Eldorado Hills/Folsom, etc. I love those areas, but the city of Sac itself doesn't have a whole lot of areas like that. The nicest parts of Sac that are within the city limits tend to be very close to crappy areas.

[Snort]

Arsenic or cyanide. It's your pick. The results are similar.

[wburg]

mstnghu2: Like the Bay Area, many of the upscale areas aren't in San Francisco but out in the Oakland Hills or on the Peninsula or in Marin County. It's a geographically larger area with four times the population, so both the rich and poor areas tend to be bigger--but even there, wealthy and poor areas in San Francisco and Oakland are often quite physically close to each other. Sacramento's wealthy neighborhoods are often physically close to poor neighborhoods as the crow flies, but often there are dividing landmarks--generally, a freeway (like Hwy 50 between East Sacramento and Oak Park, I-5 between Pocket and Meadowview, Hwy 99 between Curtis Park and Oak Park.)

I haven't really chimed in because I'm not very familiar with the details of life in Oakland that the OP is asking for. Both cities have about the same population.

The worst parts of Oakland are far and away worse than the worst parts of Sacramento, and the wealthiest parts of Oakland are far and away wealthier than the wealthiest parts of Sacramento, using an apples-to-apples (within the city of Oakland and within the city of Sacramento only) comparison.

Natomas is a brand-new neighborhood--as you probably know, it was mostly open fields ten years ago, and there is no rule that new neighborhoods have to be good neighborhoods. Being built out during a massive land boom, but lacking a lot of the social infrastructure amenities that it will probably need for long-term stability and desirability, it could go either way--we'll kind of have to wait and see.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

Both cities have about the same population.

Sacramento has almost 100,000 more people than Oakland.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by wburg

mstnghu2: Like the Bay Area, many of the upscale areas aren't in San Francisco but out in the Oakland Hills or on the Peninsula or in Marin County. It's a geographically larger area with four times the population, so both the rich and poor areas tend to be bigger--but even there, wealthy and poor areas in San Francisco and Oakland are often quite physically close to each other. Sacramento's wealthy neighborhoods are often physically close to poor neighborhoods as the crow flies, but often there are dividing landmarks--generally, a freeway (like Hwy 50 between East Sacramento and Oak Park, I-5 between Pocket and Meadowview, Hwy 99 between Curtis Park and Oak Park.)

I haven't really chimed in because I'm not very familiar with the details of life in Oakland that the OP is asking for. Both cities have about the same population.

The worst parts of Oakland are far and away worse than the worst parts of Sacramento, and the wealthiest parts of Oakland are far and away wealthier than the wealthiest parts of Sacramento, using an apples-to-apples (within the city of Oakland and within the city of Sacramento only) comparison.

Natomas is a brand-new neighborhood--as you probably know, it was mostly open fields ten years ago, and there is no rule that new neighborhoods have to be good neighborhoods. Being built out during a massive land boom, but lacking a lot of the social infrastructure amenities that it will probably need for long-term stability and desirability, it could go either way--we'll kind of have to wait and see.

I understand what you're saying. I was mainly just pointing out my disagreement with CityGirl72 on her post since I just don't like when people spout off inaccurate info on this site. I don't have any ties to Oakland other than the fact that I happen to live in the same county.

Since the OP was specifically comparing two cities and not necessarily their surrounding areas, I was just pointing out that the nicest areas of Oakland that are within the city limits are nicer than the nicest neighborhoods within the city limits of Sac and that all of Oakland is not a s***hole.

You are right that Oakland's worst areas are worse than Sac's worst areas.