San Francisco vs San Jose (Oakland, Hayward: apartments, crime, house)

[headingwest236]

Moving to bay area from east coast, and I'm working in San Mateo so commute should be doable from either place. Questions:
#1 Quake Risk. San Andreas fault runs near both cities, but isn't San Francisco prone to liquefaction? The only quake I've experienced was a 5.8, and it honestly terrified me, so liquefaction definitively worries me, as well as the overall risk (looking into SOMA neighborhood in San Francisco).
#2 Overall differences in lifestyle. San Francisco is more of a big city with all of the landmarks while San Jose is more of a suburb with a small downtown, if I'm right.
#3 Recreation. Activities, indoors in outdoors to do in each city
#4 Safety. I'm coming from Baltimore, so I'm used to crime, but I still would like to live in a very safe area.
#5 Your personal opinion.

Before I was certain I wanted to move to San Jose, but now I think I might be happier in SF, but maybe San Jose is still the better place.

Thanks!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by headingwest236

Moving to bay area from east coast, and I'm working in San Mateo so commute should be doable from either place. Questions:
#1 Quake Risk. San Andreas fault runs near both cities, but isn't San Francisco prone to liquefaction? The only quake I've experienced was a 5.8, and it honestly terrified me, so liquefaction definitively worries me, as well as the overall risk (looking into SOMA neighborhood in San Francisco).
#2 Overall differences in lifestyle. San Francisco is more of a big city with all of the landmarks while San Jose is more of a suburb with a small downtown, if I'm right.
#3 Recreation. Activities, indoors in outdoors to do in each city
#4 Safety. I'm coming from Baltimore, so I'm used to crime, but I still would like to live in a very safe area.
#5 Your personal opinion.

Before I was certain I wanted to move to San Jose, but now I think I might be happier in SF, but maybe San Jose is still the better place.

Thanks!

1 San Jose and San Francisco are both very prone to sustain massive damage from an earthquake--you cant escape that in the Bay Area.

2. Lifestyle is a matter of opinion, your summation of SF and SJ are corrent as far as SF being a big city, urban environment whils SJ, having been developed later is more autodependent and has a smaller downtown core. It all depends of the lifestyle your looking for.

3. I call it a tie as far as outdoor recreation-both have loads of amenities.

4. San Jose has a much lower crime rate(is routinely rated one of the safest big cities) but regular street smarts should be just fine in SF.

5. My personal opinion is a cross between 2--namely Oakland. LOLjk.

You should visit each and see which is best for you.

[04kL4nD]

1. Nobody can predict earthquakes. You might be asleep, at work, driving, at the gym, out of town, or doing God knows what when the big one hits. There's nothing you can do about it, so this shouldn't really be a determining factor.
2. Pretty much
3. It depends on your interests. What do you enjoy doing for fun? Hiking? Photography? Staying inside playing video games? There's plenty to do in both cities and if you have a car, you can check out other parts of the Bay as well
4. SJ has way less crime overall than SF, but you need to mention which specific neighborhoods you're considering for us to be able to help you
5. Personally, I hate San Jose. It's not a terrible place to live by any means, but I would be bored out of my mind if I lived there. Too suburban and bland for my tastes, but that's because I like the city life- warts and all

[peninsular]

First, the commute from SJ would be quite a bit longer than from SF to San Mateo.
Second, if you are leaning towards what San Jose has to offer, you don't have to limit yourself. There are plenty of places on the Peninsula or in East Bay that are a better deal in many respects.

5. Living in San Jose only makes sense if you work there or somewhere close.

[mayorhaggar]

There is just no there there in San Jose, it's just really boring endless suburbia. If you really want a big suburban house with a picket fence then yeah it might work but prices there aren't cheap by any means. I'd definitely look at any of the towns up and down the Peninsula way before I looked at San Jose, they're suburban but they have a good bit of charm--in most towns in San Mateo County and in some Santa Clara County towns there's usually an old central downtown area dating from around the 1930's with a cluster of restaurants and shops and so on. San Jose kind of has some charm here and there but not enough for my liking considering how massive and sprawly and beige it is.

As for quakes they are just a part of life here and you either cope with it or you don't. The worst damage in a quake will usually happen in landfill areas, which are basically where soil was dumped into the Bay to create new land to build on. Areas like the Marina in SF, pretty much anywhere in the city of Alameda, and a lot of areas along the bay are like this, you can get maps showing where the biggest liquifaction danger is. The Hayward Fault has less of a chance of a major quake than the San Andreas, but it runs right under a very heavily populated area. The San Andreas also runs through or near a really heavily populated area all along San Mateo County. There's really no way to escape the danger of a quake unless you stay far, far away from quake faults, and even then you might get a freak quake somewhere like Chicago or NYC.

[FrenchKissed]

In San Francisco, you mostly have to worry about property alongside the bay- the Marina District, the Embarcadero, SOMA, the Eastern part of Portrero and Bayview/Hunter's point. The Ocean side is much lower risk of liquefaction, and most of the middle part is pretty solid bedrock (hence all the hills). There are a few parts in the middle where its more of a problem, like the Mission District, which used to to have rivers going through it that were built over. Here's a liquefaction risk map for reference Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility and here's a good site for finding information on earthquakes and the Bay Area ABAG Earthquake and Hazards Program

I'd pick San Francisco over San Jose any day, but that's just my preference. If you want more land, hotter summers, easier parking, lower crime rate, go with San Jose (if not San Mateo, which you didn't mention so I'll assume there's a reason for it). San Francisco has cooler summers, hotter nightlife, better architecture, more to do.

[jaypee]

San Mateo has a pretty nice, walkable, downtown scene as well. If I were working in San Mateo, I'd live either in San Mateo or SF -- definitely not San Jose.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

he Hayward Fault has less of a chance of a major quake than the San Andreas, but it runs right under a very heavily populated area.

Actually the Hayward Fault is overdue for a big quake. Probably more-so than the San Andreas.
USGS Release: The Hayward Fault: America’s Most Dangerous? (3/20/2008 1:00:00 PM)

[headingwest236]

Thanks for all of the replies.
I am open to living ins San Mateo. The only reason I'm wary of San Francisco is crime and liquefaction, as all the apartments that I can afford and like are in the SOMA area. I especially like SOMA Residences, which is in a liquefaction zone, and less than a block from 6th street, which I've heard is notorious for crime. Thanks!

[mayorhaggar]

Liquefaction risk map:

Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area

Originally Posted by jade408

Actually the Hayward Fault is overdue for a big quake. Probably more-so than the San Andreas.
USGS Release: The Hayward Fault: America’s Most Dangerous? (3/20/2008 1:00:00 PM)

What I meant is that, from what I've read, a Hayward fault quake would be at max somewhere around 7 or less on the scale, while the San Andreas could create one up to more like 8 or so. But certainly if a 6.8 quake hit right under downtown Berkeley it would cause a lot more damage than a 7.5 quake in the remote hills outside San Jose.