"Look at West Oakland, for example. There are no grocery stores there." (San Francisco: health insurance, home)

[Stephen1110]

What about the Walmart in East Oakland. Thriving!

What about the Target that's coming to North Oakland.
That must don't count.

Or Krogers is bringing 2 new grocery stores to East Oakland.
I guess that doesn't count either

I guess we are just looking the other way

[lmk1707]

Large swaths of East & West Oakland are rapidly gentrifying, and I don't think retail has caught up. I'm pretty sure it will, though, as I know people in my demographic (young, urban) are flocking to Oakland in droves. Oakland's population grew by 25,000 in the last year, and I would guess that most of the newcomers didn't move to the hills.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by jade408

There is absolutely zero new development in Oakland over the past 10 years. I mean clearly all that new stuff in Jack London Square is in Alameda. And well the shiny new Michelin starred restaurant on Piedmont Ave is in Piedmont. And the new luxury apartment complexes in Downtown (The Uptown, the Grand) are mirages. As are the renovations at Lake Merritt. That 10k plan for residents downtown was a figment of my imagination. Oh and the new Walmart, oh that must be in San Leandro since it is by the airport. Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Farmer Joes, renovated Safeways. Another figment of my imagination. I clearly did not read any articles about a Target opening up in the former Expo. Or the article originally mentioned in thes thread about a Walmart coming to town.

I mean there is no possible way that economic development is increasing with the Airport Connector or the Broadway shuttle downtown.

I can't even fathom why the new online publications Oakland North and Oakland Local have development sections. There must be no possible content for those.

How do "Micheline starred" restaurants help the unemployed or near 20% of Oakland residents living below the poverty line?
//www.city-data.com/poverty/pov...alifornia.html

That's the problem with talking about a new fancy restaurant in Downtown Oakland that sells $75 4oz portions of Salmon, 1/5 of the population of the city is living below the poverty line!

I'm sure people who can afford to go to Jack London Square and dine out love it, but the 20% of people who can't get screwed. That's why Oakland is an unhealthy city, the diffusion of wealth is incredibly skewed. It's also a reason why Oakland's development will be stunted for the time being.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Once again you prove my point perfectly. You single out Oakland for problems that every large California city has.

Name me one city in California in the same demographic population group that has a higher violent crime rate than Oakland.


That's right, there isn't.

Its pure hypocrisy especially since the OCs own two largest cities suffer from severe defincies in culture and sophistication vs.Oakland.

"Sophistication" is just an imagined analytic you throw around to equate to "I'm better than you." Who cares? I could care less about how "sophisticated" you are Kalen, or what bars you think are cool, or any other made up subjective badge of honor you come up with to brandish around these forums. I deal with facts, and verifiable data.

The facts and data say Oakland is broke, has high crime, and has trouble attracting private investment. That spells doom for any economic development in the city.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

How do "Micheline starred" restaurants help the unemployed or near 20% of Oakland residents living below the poverty line?
//www.city-data.com/poverty/pov...alifornia.html

That's the problem with talking about a new fancy restaurant in Downtown Oakland that sells $75 4oz portions of Salmon, 1/5 of the population of the city is living below the poverty line!

I'm sure people who can afford to go to Jack London Square and dine out love it, but the 20% of people who can't get screwed. That's why Oakland is an unhealthy city, the diffusion of wealth is incredibly skewed. It's also a reason why Oakland's development will be stunted for the time being.

FYI: the nation's poverty rate these days is 14.3%
U.S. Poverty Rate Highest Since 1994 : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129905272 - broken link)

I bet if you review the pace of development over the past let's say 30 years, you'll find that it has increased and improved. This is positive momentum. The levels of crime have decreased over the past few years. Again, this is another positive sign. Cities do not become "perfect" overnight, and there is plenty of evidence the city is in a positive cycle.

These new businesses are adding jobs to the neighborhoods. And looking at the job trends, for better or worse we are headed towards a service economy. But each of these new businesses are adding service jobs, constructions jobs and foot traffic to their respective neighborhoods. And this helps keep Oakland resident's money in Oakland which leads to positive development.

Even if 20% of Oakland's residents can't afford an expensive plate of food, everyone reaps the benefits of increased sales tax revenue and keeping more dollars in the city limits instead of neighboring towns.

[18Montclair]

Fanatic, its a FACT that to find the urban vibrancy, art and food scenes Oaklanders enjoy, people from Anaheim and Santa Ana have no choice but to drive all the way to LA. There is nothing in either of those miserable 'cities' that even comes close to even Laurel, Dimond or Glenview let alone areas the likes of Lakeshore, Montclair or Rockridge(AS IF). Furthermore areas like Caballo Hills or Sequoyah which are full of rich BLACK people might confuse them. LMAO.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Fanatic, its a FACT that to find the urban vibrancy

Again, this is just an invented analytic without any stats or facts to back it up. "Urban vibrancy"?

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by jade408
There is absolutely zero new development in Oakland over the past 10 years. I mean clearly all that new stuff in Jack London Square is in Alameda. And well the shiny new Michelin starred restaurant on Piedmont Ave is in Piedmont. And the new luxury apartment complexes in Downtown (The Uptown, the Grand) are mirages. As are the renovations at Lake Merritt. That 10k plan for residents downtown was a figment of my imagination. Oh and the new Walmart, oh that must be in San Leandro since it is by the airport. Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Farmer Joes, renovated Safeways. Another figment of my imagination. I clearly did not read any articles about a Target opening up in the former Expo. Or the article originally mentioned in thes thread about a Walmart coming to town.

I mean there is no possible way that economic development is increasing with the Airport Connector or the Broadway shuttle downtown.

I can't even fathom why the new online publications Oakland North and Oakland Local have development sections. There must be no possible content for those.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

How do "Micheline starred" restaurants help the unemployed or near 20% of Oakland residents living below the poverty line?
//www.city-data.com/poverty/pov...alifornia.html

That's the problem with talking about a new fancy restaurant in Downtown Oakland that sells $75 4oz portions of Salmon, 1/5 of the population of the city is living below the poverty line!

I'm sure people who can afford to go to Jack London Square and dine out love it, but the 20% of people who can't get screwed. That's why Oakland is an unhealthy city, the diffusion of wealth is incredibly skewed. It's also a reason why Oakland's development will be stunted for the time being.

please notice how mr fantastic actually did not respond to main point of your post :the residential developments in uptown ,old oakland and jack london square.
anyone with knowledge oakand has to admit these are success and excellent examples of urban infill that have led to growth in retail ,dining and entertainment.

mr fantastic can't address this

[Mr. Fantastic]

I did address them. With 20% of the population of Oakland UNDER the poverty line, how does the development of "boutique restaurants" help those people?

You guys have to make the connection because I didn't bring up those points.

How do those restaurants directly affect the poor in a meaningful way?

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

I did address them. With 20% of the population of Oakland UNDER the poverty line, how does the development of "boutique restaurants" help those people?

You guys have to make the connection because I didn't bring up those points.

How do those restaurants directly affect the poor in a meaningful way?

this is what i posted
mr fantastic actually did not respond to main point of your post :the residential developments in uptown ,old oakland and jack london square.
anyone with knowledge oakand has to admit these are success and excellent examples of urban infill


do you not know what residential development means?
it does not mean "boutique restaurants"