Vallejo sure doesn't seem that bad (Oakland, Salinas: to rent, townhomes, safe area)

[Lifeshadower]

As echoed in the rest of this thread, east and west of I-80 are two COMPLETELY different worlds. I have relatives who live on both sides of the freeway, and you can sense the vast difference over such a small area.

If you've ever heard of the saying "across the train tracks" to describe how one side of the train track is normal, and even nice and the other side is completely destitute, well the same would apply here.

Google map it if you don't believe us

[jade408]

One of the number one things about California people don't realize is that the "hood" doesn't always look like the hood. In most parts of the country, the "hood" looks really ominous and you know you are there. In California, some place are really easy to tell right of the bat. Abandoned homes, los of overgrowth and so on. Other neighborhoods look completely normal with nice homes, interesting architecture. The only clue that something might be amiss is wire fences. But you can visit some of the roughest neighborhoods and not be sure you were even there. Half off the bad neighborhoods in Oakland have cute victorian and craftsman homes. And the poshest neighborhoods can literally border the worst ones.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by jade408

Half off the bad neighborhoods in Oakland have cute victorian and craftsman homes. And the poshest neighborhoods can literally border the worst ones.

Please, this thread is about Vallejo, not Oakland. You can't compare the "hoods" in Oakland and Vallejo. Vallejo may be bad, but it's not 100 homicides a year bad.

Also, four Oakland cops died due to AK-47 fire trying to serve a warrant in one of those "cute" Victorian homes in Oakland last year. You shouldn't make light of their memory.

[keninaz]

When I lived in Vallejo, most of my life for that matter, you did not go into Country Club Crest at night if you were white.
But you are correct in that I would trade that many areas in Oakland any day.
But I am sure both have changed a lot today.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Please, this thread is about Vallejo, not Oakland. You can't compare the "hoods" in Oakland and Vallejo. Vallejo may be bad, but it's not 100 homicides a year bad.

Also, four Oakland cops died due to AK-47 fire trying to serve a warrant in one of those "cute" Victorian homes in Oakland last year. You shouldn't make light of their memory.

The moral of the story is that things aren't always as they appear..... apparently you didn't read the first sentence. "The hood doesn't look like the hood in California." AKA appearances are misleading.

I don't know how remarking that things "appear" nice in parts of Oakland makes light of the fact that there was a police shooting. No relationship there. I am sure this sentence must have just flagged on your Oakland alert so you missed the rest.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by jade408

One of the number one things about California people don't realize is that the "hood" doesn't always look like the hood.

And vice versa.. sometimes great neighborhoods look like crap when you put them under a microscope, especially in San Francisco and San Jose.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

And vice versa.. sometimes great neighborhoods look like crap when you put them under a microscope, especially in San Francisco and San Jose.

So true. For 90% of the country, the housing stock in California looks crappy and overpriced.

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by jade408

So true. For 90% of the country, the housing stock in California looks crappy and overpriced.

Having lived the midwest and on the east coast and the deep south, I'm not sure about this one. The west looks far newer than much of the rest of the country. I always felt like in other areas of the country, when a neighborhood was bad - it looked the part. I.e. Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Birmingham, Jackson, Miami, etc.

If what I interpreted about your message is true, I disagree and would say it's the opposite, but I could be misinterpreting you.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Parti Rhinocéros

Having lived the midwest and on the east coast and the deep south, I'm not sure about this one. The west looks far newer than much of the rest of the country. I always felt like in other areas of the country, when a neighborhood was bad - it looked the part. I.e. Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Birmingham, Jackson, Miami, etc.

If what I interpreted about your message is true, I disagree and would say it's the opposite, but I could be misinterpreting you.

I think bad neighborhoods rarely look bad here. And middle class neighborhoods here look worse than middle class neighborhoods than other places. Especially if you live in an under developed area, there are plenty of shiny new homes on spacious lots. Or spacious lots in general.

So all in all, California is misleading. $600K houses don't look like $600K and the hood doesn't really look like the hood.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Meh. Acres of McMansions.

"Daddy, which one is ours? I can't tell."


One should deeply investigate the rep of the builders of these kind of tracts before buying - it's well known within the industry that the people who actually construct these things (the crews) would rarely put a dime into investing in one themselves. They know how many corners have been cut in their construction quality to maximize the per-unit profit, at the expense primarily of longevity. Stuff starts breaking/failing quickly.

Well, to be fair, blanket statements like that perpetuate stereotypes about ALL builders. It does depend on the builder. Nobody wants a bad reputation if they're building for many years, but yes, some are poorly built, while others are pretty solid. Research pays off. Ask local realtors too.