Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im 27 if you are in your 40's, ask yourself, who is being mature here, and get back to me, just look at your crude post. You can pretend to be a grown up all you want, no skin off my back. You can't even post anything with out name calling. Grow up.
And its easy to see all you do is go to city vs city to name call, its available in your profile. You spend more time on that forum than anywhere else, which of course is not a surprise to me in the least.
Hi Pot! My name's Kettle!
Actually I'm 32; my comment just highlights how immature you appear to me through your pseudo-intellectual, 95%-negative comments. You come across like a child who wants to sound grown up. 27 still has me as your elder though, so my point still stands, kid.
If I can't post anything w/o name calling (which is complete BS), then you can't post anything w/o flame baiting. Of course, as I've already indicated, this flucuates depending on how far up your ass that gerbil has crawled on any particular day. Either way, you of all people are not in a position to tell anyone to grow up. Secondly, if all I do is go to "City vs. City," then all you do is troll the SF forum WHEN YOU AREN'T EVEN FROM HERE, NOR DO YOU LIVE HERE!!! Are you seeking some award for being a massive hypocrite or something?? You seriously need a life.
As for your book-keeping of my activity here on C-D, I guess you must suffer from MPD (Multiple-Personality Disorder) b/c you seem to be overlooking the fact -- as though you selectively black out and have no memory at all -- that the extent of YOUR City v. City contributions consist of bashing SF and the Bay Area at any opportunity. Convenient how you chose not to acknowledge this fact while calling me out for reacting to that exact brand of BS. No wonder we're at odds! You thrive off spewing unnecessary negativity and trying to argue with people, while my interest and activity on this site has been reduced to responding to the abundance of completely idiotic posts from your ilk!
But getting back to the maturity/content card you chose to play here, let's look at your activity here in the last hour or so. Out of a total of 13 posts, I see 5 bashing SF, 3 arguing with me, 2 arguing with others, 1 boosting Chicago while dissing Miami, 1 that was just plain stupid, and ONE that was ACTUALLY normal! I won't even bother looking at all the rest of the vapid posts you've polluted this forum with today b/c my point is easily made just taking this most recent sample group. You actively come on this site just argue with people, push your political agenda, and bash the places you don't care for. And then you occassionally lace your posts with some Chicaaaaaagooo and Whackramental boosting. Quite an exciting life you seem to lead there buddy!
Name calling is hardly my M.O., and the only reason there is even any in existence coming from me is b/c of all the instigating done by you and your kind. This forum is choking on your guys' BS, and this place has become a troll haven. I choose to keep quiet for the vast majority of what I read on here, but C-D (particularly the SF forum) has become as bad as Youtube and SFgate b/c of jerks like you. So congratulations on laming-up this once interesting forum, but you are CLEARLY not in any kind of position to be criticizing the content of anyone else's posts, nor can you realistically call anyone else out for lacking "maturity." LMAO Please!
And guess what Hypocrite Dude. YOU spend more time in the SF Forum than ANYWHERE ELSE (most particularly the Sac or Chi Forums!!!), which of course is not a surprise to ME in the least. More than twice as much time spent in the SF forum as you spend in the Sac forum, and an almost equal amount spent in the City vs. City forum yourself!! LOL DUUUUUDE, SERIOUSLY, why are you opting to be such a BLATANT hypocrite??? Man you're ridiculous!
Bottom line, I call it how I see it. I look at threads that I may find interesting and I chime in when I have something to say. Unfortunately (and it TRULY is unfortunate), I see more nonsense trolling/bashing/hating nowadays than I do regular conversations in the limited time I even spend on this site at all. So don't try and act as though you aren't well-aware of why the content of my posts has consisted of a lot of responses to flame baiting lately. You know exactly what you're doing here, so don't try and front like you don't. Want to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of the Bay Area? I'm all ears - or at least when I'm actually on here I am. That's the reason I come here in the first place. But I don't see that from you and your kind; I just see a bunch of hating and instigating.
And so what if I spend more time in City vs. City?? Wth is wrong with that, genius? The only forums on here I have any time for at all anymore are these two; is this somehow a bad thing? Do you think I'm the only one who's more active on there or something? LOL man you're a joke. You're too easy. SMH.
This is why you are a child. Because you do not comprehend how real estate works. Shopping has nothing to do with the value of homes or desirability. Some places (like glen ellyn) prefer to keep their cities from w***ing out to commercial venues. If having a bunch of stores makes an area so much more desirable why does it cost more to live in lamoraga where there is less shopping, point-dexter? Wake me up when you actually are capable of having a conversation about real estate with out sounding silly.
Didn't you just call me out for name-calling? HYP - OOOOO - CRITE!!!!
Wow, what a drama queen you are and one that seems to lack some serious reading comprehension.
No kidding!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
WTF don't you comprehend about that? WC is exactly what it advertises itself as, you seem to have this idea that it presents itself as something it's not and I don't even know where you get that from. Anger and an inferiority complex is not a good combination.
Word! And he excels at having both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
And this is why you appear to be a child, an angry one at that, due to the lack of reading comprehension.
EXACTLY! Lol. I like how he tries to play things off as though he's actually displaying any sort of maturity by attempting to be "so above" that which he opposes. What a joke!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Nope
Cost of living index:
Chicagoland = 113
Sacramento = 115
Fresno = 113
Riverside - SB = 123
Hmm, so you're posting a You Tube video of a CARTOON and I'm the "child", haha. Again, POT MEET KETTLE.
Oh my Goodness, how pathetic LOL! He really needs to quit with the whole maturity thing, it couldn't possibly be blowing up in his face any worse!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
haha, nice comeback, yeah and I'm the child. haha! Unbelievable. You're angry inferiority complex is shining through loud and clear. I personally think the Bay Area is overrated by some and definately overpriced, but I can't help but laugh at all the angry people with an inferiority complex who irrationally rip on the place.
Yeah it truly is just plain sad. I mean you've given plenty of criticism of the Bay Area as long as I can remember, but the only difference is you're actually accurate and realistic in your commentary. (Well aside from the ass-backwards love of the A's/hate of the Giants lol j/p. ) But the complexes are clear when they come from people who are out of their comfort zone and rip the Bay or CA apart beyond any kind of realism and with pure fixation on only the negatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
It's not a world class city with world class culture and no one claimed it is, it's suburb.
Which is precisely why he isn't gaining any ground in his retarded argument. Man, this whole exchange is a perfect example of exactly why I don't care to post in here much anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
There aren't any really and no one ever claimed there was. It's a nice suburb, not a cosmopolitan big city. The only way you can rip on WC's amenties it try to compare it to the amenities of a large, world class cosmopolitan city. Gee maybe next you can rip on my Acura for not being a Bentley, haha.
Yeah he's really reaching here. Man this is just sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
your mom?!?! Haha, yeah and I'm the child. And look who is all smug and pretentious now. Your double standards and hypocrisy literally have no bounds.
LMFAO!! Wow he actually referenced his mommy while attempting to fool people into thinking he's mature here. And not just having mentioned it, but making maturity his theme for the last page or so LOL. I'm actually embarrassed for him!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
So am I.
Except YOU actually seem it. This dude just exudes a lack of maturity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
All one as to do is read your posts to quickly figure out what an angry, irrational hypocritical little child you are.
Agreed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Your point?
Oh I see he tried to throw that one at you too LOL. What an impotent jab! When did hitting up that forum become a sense of shame, while trolling the forum of a place you neither live in nor are from is somehow fashionable? LMAO what a tool!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Just look at how arrogant and smug you are. You call out me for being smug and then you try to talk down to me like this. Who the do you think you are? Considering how many people you p*ss off on this forum, you have no right or credibility to even begin to talk down to me about objectivity.
+1. I don't even get why he's bothering at this point. You couldn't have made a bigger fool of him (well not more than he's doing himself anyway). I knew the ownage was coming, but its nice to see you do it so thoroughly. Its obvious that he has no credibility here, but someone needed to shut him down and you stepped up, so good job!
Will going to San Ramon in the morning and back to San Francisco at night mean that I'm moving against most traffic coming in/out and save me some time?
I know here in Austin it's the same way, i.e. if you're coming to the city in the morning and leaving at night you'll hit a lot more traffic then if you're doing the opposite...
The reverse commute concept applies to certain routes leading away from San Francisco in the morning, but the three-bore, six lane Caldecott Tunnel acts as a bottleneck for the most direct San Francisco to San Ramon route. That's because the traffic flow of the middle bore of the tunnel is reversed in the morning hours to accommodate commuter traffic heading towards San Francisco/Oakland, leaving 2-lanes for those heading eastbound away from the City in the morning. In the afternoon, the middle bore is reversed once again to accommodate home-bound commuters heading away from Oakland or San Francisco.
After you wait the ~5 minutes to go through the tunnel, and there are no accidents, the cars pick up speed and may go 60 mph+ with little traffic. However, I am not sure what happens when you switch onto southbound I-680 at Walnut Creek to head to San Ramon, as I have not taken that route during morning rush hour.
There is another 2-lane bore under-construction, to be finished in 2013-14, but I doubt it will be finished by the time you start your job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus6638
Anybody else care to share some insight?...
Thank you guys very much for the responses, they've been really helpful. I'm heading out to the area this week to scope it out and I'll have to make a decision. I might try to make the drive to see whether or not I'll be able to handle it.
If your job is at or near Bishop Ranch and the San Ramon Transit Center, and if you decide that you don't want to drive from SF, it is possible to take BART and transfer to a County Connection commuter bus at Walnut Creek BART. There are two commuter express routes, the 95X and the 96X. According to BART's schedules and CCCTA's schedules, the trip should be about 1 Hour and 10~ minutes from station to transit center, although you may get off before the transit center and shave off some time.
I've seen so many threads about newcomers who want to live in SF because of the cultural amenities and nightlife but have a job that is quite aways from SF.
I think that all that time spent in commuting will tend to sap a lot of energy away that they can't really enjoy what SF has to offer in the long run.
It's probably a better bet to live closer to the workplace and come out to SF on the weekends.
I've seen so many threads about newcomers who want to live in SF because of the cultural amenities and nightlife but have a job that is quite aways from SF.
I think that all that time spent in commuting will tend to sap a lot of energy away that they can't really enjoy what SF has to offer in the long run.
It's probably a better bet to live closer to the workplace and come out to SF on the weekends.
I have to agree with you. I don't like the idea of a long commute, either, especially if it is for the long term.
However, the OP mentioned that he or she is from out-of-state, anticipates a six month stay, and would like to experience San Francisco as much as possible.
Wow, what a drama queen you are and one that seems to lack some serious reading comprehension. I wasn't even really referring to property values, I was referring to why people find WC desirable and enjoy it whether they live in it or not. Places like Lamorinda are more pricey because it is wealthier. The homes are on larger lots and the area is more scenic, hence higher property values. I was never implying having a lot of retail makes a city very expensive, good god you just made that crap up and flew off the handle and that isn't what I was even saying. It has amenities and people like it's amenities, but that doesn't make it the wealthiest or most expensive place to live and I never claimed it did.
And those suburbs everywhere else are also looked at as good places to live, just like WC. WTF don't you comprehend about that? WC is exactly what it advertises itself as, you seem to have this idea that it presents itself as something it's not and I don't even know where you get that from. Anger and an inferiority complex is not a good combination.
Apparently you don't understand how climate will affects certain aspects of where one lives. I guess WC not having snow plow machines like Chicagoland must mean it simply can't afford it.
And this is why you appear to be a child, an angry one at that, due to the lack of reading comprehension. Just because YOU personally have a strong fetish for municipal water parks doesn't make it a priority for others. I would think schools and safety would be top priority over waterparks. But hey I guess by your logic we could stick a waterpark in the middle of East Oakland and then the area will be all of a suddenly desirable for families. You call me a child by pointing out WC's retail amenities then go into a rant about how waterparks make a suburb so much more desirable, haha give me a fkn break! Take a look in the mirror before you open your mouth.
Well I guess you have a different definition of world class. I'd rather go to Waterworld and it would be cheaper than your local waterpark too for the summer.
When it comes to the cost of real estate is most certainly does. Anyone with a half of brain knows that, and you act like some expert on real estate, haha.
Nope
Cost of living index:
Chicagoland = 113
Sacramento = 115
Fresno = 113
Riverside - SB = 123
Of course I can't find the cost of living specifically for inland SD or Bay Area exurbs but I'd be willing to bet they are more expensive than the exurbs of Chicagoland.
Apparently you don't know either.
And you've never lived in WC, great point!
Pot meet kettle!!! I have actually names amenities aside from shopping but since you lack reading comprehension let me name them again:
-good parks, open space
-good recreational facilities
-good cultural amenities such as Lesher Performing Arts Center.
-good schools
-good transportation options
Hmm, so you're posting a You Tube video of a CARTOON and I'm the "child", haha. Again, POT MEET KETTLE.
haha, nice comeback, yeah and I'm the child. haha! Unbelievable. You're angry inferiority complex is shining through loud and clear. I personally think the Bay Area is overrated by some and definately overpriced, but I can't help but laugh at all the angry people with an inferiority complex who irrationally rip on the place.
Nope, never said it was the most vibrant in the East Bay. It does have culture and has good shopping, it adds to the appeal of it but those are not the main reasons it's a great place to live. Walnut Creek - Arts
It's not a world class city with world class culture and no one claimed it is, it's suburb.
There aren't any really and no one ever claimed there was. It's a nice suburb, not a cosmopolitan big city. The only way you can rip on WC's amenties it try to compare it to the amenities of a large, world class cosmopolitan city. Gee maybe next you can rip on my Acura for not being a Bentley, haha.
your mom?!?! Haha, yeah and I'm the child. And look who is all smug and pretentious now. Your double standards and hypocrisy literally have no bounds.
So am I.
No child and rent and yes I'm moving back to the Bay after losing my job. Do you think knocking someone up somehow gives you some rational perspective? It's cheap where you live, I'd own a home if I lived somewhere as cheap as that too.
And you've never lived in WC. And I only stated general things about GE, never claimed to be an expert. Nothing I said about that place wasn't true was it.
I was making a point. I don't like new sterile suburbs and that is exactly what those places Andy mentioned. Because of my profession I have knowledge about those places in TX mentioned and a pretty good ideas the types of developments that I do like and don't like. Frisco and the Woodlands were the type of places I was referring to.
And because you've lived in one more place than me, Chicago, that somehow makes you more objective? All one as to do is read your posts to quickly figure out what an angry, irrational hypocritical little child you are.
Your point?
Just look at how arrogant and smug you are. You call out me for being smug and then you try to talk down to me like this. Who the do you think you are? Considering how many people you p*ss off on this forum, you have no right or credibility to even begin to talk down to me about objectivity.
I've enjoyed debating with you, because save when you get hot headed about your own home town, you usually have very rational and well thought out posts. Which is more than I can say than a few others but the crux of the issue is this:
You more or less agree with me. Walnut Creek is a nice place to live, but there is nothing amazingly stand out ish about it. You have even conceded that some people over hype it, and that it is over priced.
I really don't think there is much else to discuss here. Your anger is not with me, it is with the liberals in this state that have allowed an underclass to grow so much that the only way you can afford to live in your home town , and enjoy some sort of middle class life style is to make 150k a year.
If I was in that position, I would be upset and hyper sensitive too.
Thats not my fault, I think walnut creek is a nice place, but the only reason I think it is the best in its area, is because the rest of the california suburbs are so bare minimum that it gives one the perception that walnut creek is fully loaded, when it is not.
You know this too, drive around danville, black hawk, dublin, brentwood, you've seen how bare minimum and unmeritorious it gets.
The best advise I can give you is join the peace core or if you have a degree do teach for america. Get out of California and live some where else and emerse yourself with the local population, take in a culture that is distinctly not californian, it would give you a much more broad perspective.
If your job is at or near Bishop Ranch and the San Ramon Transit Center, and if you decide that you don't want to drive from SF, it is possible to take BART and transfer to a County Connection commuter bus at Walnut Creek BART. There are two commuter express routes, the 95X and the 96X. According to BART's schedules and CCCTA's schedules, the trip should be about 1 Hour and 10~ minutes from station to transit center, although you may get off before the transit center and shave off some time.
If you end up choosing any area other than SF or WC, then visit 511.org for commuter carpool and public transportation options.
I should clarify that the entire trip from Embarcadero BART Station to San Ramon takes ~1 hour, including both the train ride (35 minutes) AND the bus ride (20-30 minutes depending on the express route and where you get off the bus).
I've enjoyed debating with you, because save when you get hot headed about your own home town, you usually have very rational and well thought out posts. Which is more than I can say than a few others but the crux of the issue is this:
You more or less agree with me. Walnut Creek is a nice place to live, but there is nothing amazingly stand out ish about it. You have even conceded that some people over hype it, and that it is over priced.
.
I defend my hometown because it's one of the places I know best, I'm not gonna do that for places I've never lived in. I'll call out people's misconceptions and stereotypes of it whenever I hear them. Call that being hot headed, I don't really care, it's calling out BS in my book. When people from places like Petaluma and Sacramento get on their high horse and call WC some suburban wasteland or saying it's just like any other suburb, I can't help but wonder do they look around to see what's they're surrounded by. At least if you're gonna rant about WC, come from a better suburb or place like Tiburon, Palo Alto, etc..
And if you come at me like the way you did you can expect me to respond the way I did, so don't try to play innocent here. And that is another thing that gets me about you and this rant about WC, where is this animosity even coming from? No one is going around saying WC is better than suburbs like it in Illinois, New York, NJ, etc.. I don't really hear anyone say it's "amazing". It's simply a nice place to live and that is how MOST people see it as, nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
I really don't think there is much else to discuss here. Your anger is not with me, it is with the liberals in this state that have allowed an underclass to grow so much that the only way you can afford to live in your home town , and enjoy some sort of middle class life style is to make 150k a year. If I was in that position, I would be upset and hyper sensitive too
If you're trying to imply that I'm upset and hypersensitive because WC is pricey, I'm not. I actually really don't even want to live there at this stage in my life, SF is probably the only place that currently appeals to me as a place to live in the Bay Area. But you do seem to get pretty upset and hypersensitive about some of the praise that WC gets and one has to wonder where they comes from, I have an idea.
Quote:
Thats not my fault, I think walnut creek is a nice place, but the only reason I think it is the best in its area, is because the rest of the california suburbs are so bare minimum that it gives one the perception that walnut creek is fully loaded, when it is not.
You know this too, drive around danville, black hawk, dublin, brentwood, you've seen how bare minimum and unmeritorious it gets.
I don't really see what is so bare minimum about some of these places. Danville and Blackhawk are pretty nice places overall and have good public facilities. I'm not sure what they are lacking; yeah waterparks and indoor soccer field I suppose but they have every other amenity one would expect in a place like it. Just look at Pleasanton, a suburb that has pretty much everything WC has except development wise it's not as nice unless one prefers a giant indoor mall to a nice, developed pedestrian friendly downtown.
Quote:
The best advise I can give you is join the peace core or if you have a degree do teach for america. Get out of California and live some where else and emerse yourself with the local population, take in a culture that is distinctly not californian, it would give you a much more broad perspective.
Good and bad suburbs, cities, etc.. exist everywhere. Not every suburb in Illinois or NY or wherever is loaded with amenities. I don't think CA is the best, the Bay area is the best, or WC is the best. They are nice places to live with issues like everywhere else with some issues being more of a problem here than elsewhere and vice versa.
Wow -- so much hostility on this thread! I would say this much, as I grew up in Walnut Creek. It's come a long way, it's the shopping and dining hub of the 680/24 corridor, and it's got beautiful open space with regional and state parks. My parents still live there (near the Mt. Diablo foothills) on a big, quiet lot with fruit trees and a view of the hills, and they love it. It's got some very expensive, very nice housing, as well as less expensive rental housing, but mostly it's safe suburban neighborhoods. WC housing stock is definitely not super impressive except for newer development on its fringes with the larger mediterranean mansions, but there are almost no beautiful old homes or anything. The downtown is really nice because it does make the most of the California climate, having lots of outdoor restaurants, the mall integrated with the downtown, and it's generally high-end (Nordstrom, Tiffany, Neiman's coming soon) without being overly flashy. You do have the Ferraris valeting at the mall, but mostly it's regular families. All in all, a suburb much like other higher-end suburbs across the country, only more scenic, more outdoorsy, and with a better climate.
I've been to other suburbs across the country, and they honestly haven't struck me as very impressive. Chicago or NJ suburbs are definitely not very pretty as far as scenery or city planning, even if they have some nice individual houses. Out of towners always seem to rave about Walnut Creek as feeling like you're on vacation all the time, but it's still just a former bedroom community turned Edge City. Some suburbs of DC or LA (and even Bellevue in Seattle) are a bit more urban and thus flashier, but that's a different lifestyle.
Walnut Creek is expensive, but not too bad by California or Bay Area standards really. Palo Alto will cost you 2 to 3 times as much for the same amount of home; just check out the $4 million listings for small craftsman houses on tiny corner lots near downtown Palo Alto. You could easily get a newer gated home on an acre in WC for half that.
In my opinion, the most beautiful suburb in the Bay Area would have to be Piedmont. Although it doesn't offer a lot in its downtown (almost nothing really), it's laid out and has a curb appeal that I think far surpasses Hillsborough or Atherton. The lots and the homes truly look like they are right out of Beverly Hills, especially on some of the main street like Sea View. The parks and schools are incredible.
So bottom line, suburbs can rank highly without amenities too. WC would be cheaper without its amenities, no doubt, but the average housing stock keeps the city's appeal moderate. Still, I'd rather live in WC than Chicago or NJ suburbs any day. I'd trade for La Jolla, Laguna Beach, or Tiburon though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seriously need a life.
Mythology about SF in enduring a hard commute?
