NEED HELP please! San Francisco OR Pleasanton? (to live)

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by bazooze28

As far as what I can afford/roommates: I'm currently looking to live by myself in a 1 bedroom. However, I am open to a roommate. In terms of price, I dont want to pay more than $1500 a month for rent. Looking online, it seems really hard to find a decent apartment in SF for that price. Does anyone know if this is even possible? In Pleasanton and the surrounding areas, though, I've found some nice looking places for about $1300.

Rockridge is a really nice part of North Oakland and you can get a 2 bedroom for around $1200 or so, or a 1br for around $1100. BART I think would take about 45 minutes which is a long ride but you say you want to have stuff to do, and there's a lot to do in Oakland compared with Walnut Creek or Pleasanton, and you're 20 minutes or less from SF on BART.

You could use a bike to get from the Pleasanton BART station to work, either you could keep a beater bike down there and lock it up well or you could bike from your apartment in Oakland to say Macarthur station then ride south, you can take bikes on trains if they are going away from San Francisco (such as to Pleasanton). You could also maybe look at apartments around Lake Merritt like in Adams Point which is even cheaper than Rockridge, and bike to the Lake Merritt station which would shave some minutes off your BART ride compared to coming in from Rockridge.

[Ceece]

If I were you I would rent close to your job at first, get a feel for the place and explore the area, meet your coworkers and find out where they live, join some groups maybe, then move again when your lease is up if you want. The only thing worse than moving somewhere new is moving somewhere new and having to commute.

[gotigers123]

Originally Posted by bazooze28

Ok, so here's my situation. I'm a 21 year old senior at the University of Illinois, and have lived in the Chicago suburbs most of my life. I am graduating this May and I have a job lined up in Pleasanton.

So I have two options that I am considering:
1. Live near the Pleasanton/Dublin area. If I lived in this area, I would most likely buy a car.
or
2. Get an apartment in San Francisco and commute to Pleasanton via BART every day. This means I would not buy a car, because I am told that parking is a headache in the city and I can just commute everywhere.

I know that apartments in the city are more expensive than in the Pleasanton area. I guess my main concern is having the opportunity to meet young new people and having a good time. From the one time that I visited Pleasanton, I got the impression that it was a very upscale suburban family town. Now, don't get me wrong, it seemed like a very nice neighborhood. I'm just not sure if it's whats I'm looking for.

So I guess it comes down to: in Pleasanton, I would live where I work and commute to play, and in SF, I would live where I play and commute to work.

What do you guys think? And advice? Any help is appreciated!

I was in the exact same position as you a couple of years ago. I refused to live in Pleasanton and got an apartment in the city (Mission/Bernal area). I both drove and took BART. Driving is MUCH easier and more convenient. I could get from my apartment to Pleasanton in 40 minutes most mornings. The afternoon commute was a bit worse, but still well under an hour. The BART commute is nice because you can sleep/relax the entire time, but the real problem is getting from the Pleasanton BART station to your office.

I'd recommend renting a place in the city near 101 (SOMA, Potrero, Mission, Bernal) and finding a rental with parking included. This will be tough to do on your $1500 budget but it is possible. Another alternative would be to live in Oakland and drive from there. Easier commute and you'd still get to enjoy city life.

[jade408]

I lived in Dublin in my 20s for about 4 years. I had some friends from college around living in Dublin, San Ramon, Danville. BORING! I didn't make many new friends during that period. Needless to all of us moved to Oakland or Berkeley. (At different times) After a while it was such a pain to meet up with people in SF or Oakland. The only good thing was that we were closer to our South Bay friends.

I'd reccomend living in Oakland or SF. Nicer apartments in Oakland than SF. (Dublin/San Ramon/Pleasanton has more newer apartments if that is a must have) The luxury buildings are around 1500 for a one bedroom in Oakland. I would skip living in the Tri-Valley if you don't have a built in set of friends. Even then, it is really family-oriented and suburbia.

[bazooze28]

Originally Posted by gotigers123

I was in the exact same position as you a couple of years ago. I refused to live in Pleasanton and got an apartment in the city (Mission/Bernal area). I both drove and took BART. Driving is MUCH easier and more convenient. I could get from my apartment to Pleasanton in 40 minutes most mornings. The afternoon commute was a bit worse, but still well under an hour. The BART commute is nice because you can sleep/relax the entire time, but the real problem is getting from the Pleasanton BART station to your office.

I'd recommend renting a place in the city near 101 (SOMA, Potrero, Mission, Bernal) and finding a rental with parking included. This will be tough to do on your $1500 budget but it is possible. Another alternative would be to live in Oakland and drive from there. Easier commute and you'd still get to enjoy city life.

Hmmm, very interesting. Do you think you made the right decision? Was it worth it living so far away? Also, was it easy for you to meet new people and make friends in the city?

[sliverbox]

Pleasanton is sort of a nice town in my opinion. Its very different from SF in that it is a more middle class and less hoity-toity. Unbeknown to most who live in the immediate Bay Area, its got a pretty nice old-fashioned downtown. The surroundings are mostly sprawly and utterly suburban though. Commuting to and from there to SF would be a nightmare. You'd be spending all of your time on the train or in a car. If I had the opportunity to live near work- I'd do it in a split-second. I drive 40 miles each way now and let me tell you- that sucks.

[gotigers123]

Originally Posted by bazooze28

Hmmm, very interesting. Do you think you made the right decision? Was it worth it living so far away? Also, was it easy for you to meet new people and make friends in the city?

I feel the decision was right for me. I'm a city person so I simply couldn't stand the thought of living in Pleasanton. Pleasanton is a great city if you like the burbs though.

Perhaps your best bet would be to split the difference and live in Oakland. Check out the area just north of Lake Merritt.

[NorCal Dude]

Bazooz as a heads up just look at it like this . Walnut Creek is like naperville, suburban, shopping, semi-lively down town. But at the end of the day still a burb.

Pleasanton is like a barrington. Quiet, safe, sterile, sleepy.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by clongirl

As someone that has lived in both...I'd say neither. Pick a place that's in between like Walnut Creek. It's close enough to more exciting things via BART on the weekends, more affordable than San Francisco, and not as boring and suburban/family oriented as Pleasanton.

Walnut Creek is the hub of the East Bay and although it's somewhat suburban - it's still very close to Berkeley/SF and even has a pretty decent night life scene on it's own. The commute to/from San Francisco from Pleasanton is just way too far to do every day, imo.

Walnut creeek is families. Go with SF but be near BART in Pleasanton for work or you will be hiking it in the heatwave summers. Many artsy folks lived Oakland rockridge and trained it over. Walnut creek you need a car and crappy commute and older people.

[Banana80]

Hey, I went to U of I and I worked in Pleasanton for some time. I actually live in Pleasanton now, and work in Walnut Creek.

FYI - do NOT consider Walnut Creek for a place to live if you want to commute via BART to Pleasanton. There is no straight shot because they are on two separate BART lines - you would have to commute 30 minutes west to Oakland, switch trains to go 30 minutes NorthEast to Walnut Creek. I drive Pleasanton-Walnut Creek everyday - takes about 30 minutes to get there via car.

If you want some semblence of a city life, I would not move to Walnut Creek or Pleasanton. Yes, there are definitely young people your age there, and there are bars, etc. to hang out in, but it's basically all townies. Pleasanton to Walnut Creek is all subrban yuppies, suburban families, and townies. The young college and fresh out of college people will mostly be townies who grew up along that section of the 680 corridor (highway that runs North-South). I call this area the "bubble." I have some friends out here who have lived along the corridor for the majority of their lives. It's better than say, still living in the same Chicago suburb you grew up in, but it's still weird because there is a large contingency of people who haven't and will never move out of this enclave. I mention this only bc these people generally hang out with the same people they have known since they were 1o years old - making it difficult for a newcomer to make new friends.

It is also physically a bubble because you have to cross either hill ranges (dublin grade, sunol grade) or a tunnel (caldecott) to get to this part of the 680 corridor. Some weeks I don't venture far enough west and its like i forget i live in the BAY area because it's land locked. When i cross over and see the bay/ocean it is a nice shock.

SF will probably be too expensive for you - move to Oakland. i lived there for awhile when I first moved out here. I consider moving back sometimes, bc Pleasanton can get a little TOO pleasant, if you know what I mean. BOOOOORRRINNNGGG.

*Edited for clarity