Oakland is probably better than SF (San Francisco, Montclair: school, store, retired)

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Why? Because you're uncomfortable in places without a lot of other black people? I mean I do get that. I've lived in Seoul which is 99.5% Asian, and they're not all warm and fuzzy towards foreigners either. Outside of work or explicitly going out with expats you sometimes just forgot you were white until some weird baeg-in started grinning like a fool when they saw you. That also might have had something to do with the conditioned reaction of ignoring people so you don't notice all the old Korean ladies giving you the stink-eye though. All kidding aside, as much as I did enjoy it, I'd never want to live there permanently. The Marina just annoys me because it's too Sugar-free Vanilla Soy Latte Extra Hot with an Extra Pump and make sure it's extra dry to go in my Range Rover's cup holder.

I don't care about the number of black people. In Oakland, in the same group you see an Asian person, a black person, and a latino having drinks together and hanging out. This doesn't happen that much in many places in SF. Considering my friends are pretty diverse, I like to be in a reas where other groups of diverse people are hanging out. The Marina isn't one of those. My opinion on the Marina is shared by one of my BFs who is Asian. We hate going there. My favorite areas to go out in SF are the Mission and the Haight were there is more likely to be diverse groups of people hanging out. I choose the same sorts of areas in Oakland. I have spent way too much of my life having people give me the stink-eye because I wasn't in a group of mostly black people.

[jade408]

One day some friends and I were out being tourists in SF. On this particular day it was me plus 1 black friend, one middle eastern friend, one asian friend and one white friend. Some tourists literally took a picture of us in awe. And then started quizzing us on how we knew each other. That was really weird.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This chart from the 2000 Census shows that the chances of the next person you meet on the street being different from you is greater in Oakland than in New York or Los Angeles, let alone SF.


The chances of the next person in Oakland being different from you is 79.1% vs 69.9% in SF. Both are impressive, but Oakland is moreso.

A) That's 12 years out of date.
B) It's not the point. Everyone knows Oakland is more diverse than San Francisco. What most people have a misconception about is that it's more integrated, which it is not. It may have well been in 2000, but isn't any more. Integration or race, which is the same as integration of socio-economic classes which I feel is more more important, is not diversity. A perfectly diverse city (25% white, black, Asian, and Hispanic) could be completely unintegrated if all the Asians lived in one corner, the whites in another, and so on. Oranges and Apples. If a place is 98% white (and you are white) your changes of seeing a non-white person are slim. That doesn't mean it isn't integrated. If the 2% of others are evenly spread throughout the city rather than clustered in certain neighborhoods, then it is integrated. Geographically anyway.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Malloric

A) That's 12 years out of date.

Yes and Oakland has probably increased its lead since then. Just saying, Oakland beats NY and LA let alone SF.

I understand your opinion, but if you dont mind, please tell us exactly which neighborhoods in San Francisco represent an advantage over Oakland when it comes to socio-economic integration?

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yeah, some outsiders have zero clue and yet talk so authoritatively(very strange). Im inclined to think that this mindset is just a reflection of their reality where everyone in the rich areas is almost exclusively white.

They dont have anything remotely close to resembling this:

Chabot Park Average Household Income: $123,738

Those pictures bring back memories...

Years ago, I rented a garage space at that home on Lowrey.

The people that owned it has tried for the better part of a year to sell it for $160k back around 1980...

Eventually, it did get sold and the new owner split off the upper corner lot and kept the original home...

My boss lived on Commonwealth... he was retired Navy guy and had a small office machine repair business...

[Malloric]

See, when you say advantage... there's really no such thing. It's not inherently an advantage that someplace is more diverse than another. Richmond (neighborhood) is certainly more socioeconomically diverse than Rockridge or Sea Cliff. That's not an advantage. A transitional neighborhood like Shafter isn't "better" or more "advantageous" than Rockridge. It's different. I think most people would say that Rockridge is the better neighborhood. There's probably a few who are just straight-up racists who think its better because they have less chance of having a non-white neighbor, but I suspect most are concerned with the other factors. Most people have a tendency to view diversity as a bad thing and, if they have the means, isolate themselves from the marginal segments of society. Thus you get the extreme difference in Oakland Hills and the poor neighborhoods near the Bay. Sure, some of those Oakland Hills neighborhoods are ethnically diverse, but they're socioeconomically quite homogeneous. It's not like that doesn't occur everywhere. It certainly occurs in San Francisco as well, but the pockets of wealth and poverty are smaller and there are more transitional neighborhoods than in Oakland. Personally, I'd rather live in a neighborhood that's more balanced. That has some people in the trades, some students, some immigrants who aren't completely integrated in American culture... and not just a neighborhood that's predominantly high-level, well-compensated, well-educated, people who live a privileged lifestyle isolated from life the other 80-90% live. That's not really a race issue, it's a class issue.

Oh, and by the way, New York City? It's one of the absolute least racially integrated cities in the America. It's very diverse, yes, but very segregated.

[NYCtoSF]

Originally Posted by jade408

One day some friends and I were out being tourists in SF. On this particular day it was me plus 1 black friend, one middle eastern friend, one asian friend and one white friend. Some tourists literally took a picture of us in awe. And then started quizzing us on how we knew each other. That was really weird.

They thought you were a delegation from the U.N., give them a break

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Thus you get the extreme difference in Oakland Hills and the poor neighborhoods near the Bay. Sure, some of those Oakland Hills neighborhoods are ethnically diverse, but they're socioeconomically quite homogeneous. It's not like that doesn't occur everywhere. It certainly occurs in San Francisco as well, but the pockets of wealth and poverty are smaller and there are more transitional neighborhoods than in Oakland. Personally, I'd rather live in a neighborhood that's more balanced. That has some people in the trades, some students, some immigrants who aren't completely integrated in American culture... and not just a neighborhood that's predominantly high-level, well-compensated, well-educated, people who live a privileged lifestyle isolated from life the other 80-90% live. That's not really a race issue, it's a class issue.

There aren't just "poor" and "rich" areas in Oakland. I live in one that's basically in the middle. In my building we have everyone from a manager at CVS to students, to tech workers to to teachers to retired people to nurses to accountants. All in the same building, and lots of different ethnicities.

Pretty diverse socioeconomically. If I travel 5 blocks in either direction, the income and class level can shift a bit but it is fairly mixed.

Most people categorize Oakland as ritzy or poor, but there is a big middle class and people of different classed interact in the commercial areas. There aren't that many areas that are transitioning, as they have been solidly middle and have continued to be middle class. I wouldn't call SF a pancea of socioeconomic diversity.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Malloric

See, when you say advantage... there's really no such thing.

Okay, so what neighborhood(s) in SF cause you to believe that San Francisco is more socio-economically integrated than Oakland?

It shouldnt take 4 requests to get an answer.

Furthermore, it doesnt seem like you have much knowledge of Oakland beyond some parts of North Oakland.

Sure, some of those Oakland Hills neighborhoods are ethnically diverse, but they're socioeconomically quite homogeneous. It's not like that doesn't occur everywhere.

No, its not like that everywhere. Most rich areas in the United States are predominantly White.

[NYCtoSF]

Originally Posted by jade408

There aren't just "poor" and "rich" areas in Oakland. I live in one that's basically in the middle. In my building we have everyone from a manager at CVS to students, to tech workers to to teachers to retired people to nurses to accountants. All in the same building, and lots of different ethnicities.

Pretty diverse socioeconomically. If I travel 5 blocks in either direction, the income and class level can shift a bit but it is fairly mixed.

Most people categorize Oakland as ritzy or poor, but there is a big middle class and people of different classed interact in the commercial areas. There aren't that many areas that are transitioning, as they have been solidly middle and have continued to be middle class. I wouldn't call SF a pancea of socioeconomic diversity.

jade, I'm in SF right now, have some free time tomorrow -- any suggestions for places in Oakland I should visit?