What is living in Oakland really like? (Alameda, Montclair: crime, hotel)

[jade408]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I agree with this post. There are parts of Oakland where it's perfectly fine. There are large areas of Oakland where I wouldn't step outside of my car. The hills, generally good. The flats, not as good. It just depends on your budget, and what you are willing to pay if you want to live in the nicer areas.

Based on population density maps, the majority of Oakland residents live in the flats, and not in the hills.

There are areas that aren't really the "hills" or the "flats" that are very popular. Like around the Lake, Trestle Glen, Dimond, Laurel, Piedmont Ave, Temescal, most of Rockridge (aka the areas immediately surrounding College). Unless people have a really loose definition of hills.

The easiest way to describe it, places above or around 580 (and east of 24) are pretty much universally good. Most of North Oakland is decent to good -- basically anything east of 24, north of Downtown is fine. West of 24 to about San Pablo and to the Berkeley border can range, but generally is OK. West of San Pablo (west Oakland) varies block by block.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by jade408

There are areas that aren't really the "hills" or the "flats" that are very popular. Like around the Lake, Trestle Glen, Dimond, Laurel, Piedmont Ave, Temescal, most of Rockridge (aka the areas immediately surrounding College). Unless people have a really loose definition of hills.

The easiest way to describe it, places above or around 580 (and east of 24) are pretty much universally good. Most of North Oakland is decent to good -- basically anything east of 24, north of Downtown is fine. West of 24 to about San Pablo and to the Berkeley border can range, but generally is OK. West of San Pablo (west Oakland) varies block by block.

I know there are okay areas in the flats, that's why I said generally good/not-so-good, but I was more trying to point out that all the entire thread saying "Oakland is okay" is somewhat misleading. I'm glad an actual resident who didn't live in Montclair, Rockridge, or nicer areas of Oakland actually commented, because the truth is Oakland is one of the most dangerous cities in the country statistcally for a reason.

West Oakland is horribly dangerous in some parts, Coliseum, Seminary area are shady, and East Oakland near Macarthur/106 is also very dangerous.

I would do my due diligence if I were going to move to any non-hill areas of Oakland before planting down.

[CF510]

Originally Posted by chinamen

I stay aware of my surroundings at all times because I do not know if anyone is going to come up behind me.

You're supposed to do that everywhere you go because that can happen anywhere you go, not just Oakland.

[CF510]

Originally Posted by jade408

There are areas that aren't really the "hills" or the "flats" that are very popular. Like around the Lake, Trestle Glen, Dimond, Laurel, Piedmont Ave, Temescal, most of Rockridge (aka the areas immediately surrounding College). Unless people have a really loose definition of hills.

The easiest way to describe it, places above or around 580 (and east of 24) are pretty much universally good. Most of North Oakland is decent to good -- basically anything east of 24, north of Downtown is fine. West of 24 to about San Pablo and to the Berkeley border can range, but generally is OK. West of San Pablo (west Oakland) varies block by block.

I agree, West Oakland varies and is ok besides the area around the sewage plant.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I know there are okay areas in the flats, that's why I said generally good/not-so-good, but I was more trying to point out that all the entire thread saying "Oakland is okay" is somewhat misleading. I'm glad an actual resident who didn't live in Montclair, Rockridge, or nicer areas of Oakland actually commented, because the truth is Oakland is one of the most dangerous cities in the country statistcally for a reason.

West Oakland is horribly dangerous in some parts, Coliseum, Seminary area are shady, and East Oakland near Macarthur/106 is also very dangerous.

I would do my due diligence if I were going to move to any non-hill areas of Oakland before planting down.

That entirely depends on which direction you're going from 106th & MacArthur. The Durant Manor neighborhood to the SE of 106th and MacArthur is a stable working class neighborhood that is not very dangerous at all, though it does have quite a bit of QOL crime (break-ins, vandalism, etc). Right above 106th & MacArthur is Toler Heights which is a middle class neighborhood that doesn't experience much violent crime either, but the part of the neighborhood that is next to Foothill Square experiences more crime because the center itself attracts that element. The only part of the area around the intersection that can be accurately described as fairly dangerous is to the SW (the Las Palmas and Iveywood neighborhoods) but they're far from the worst in the area... that would be the 90's, arguably the worst section of Oakland.

^That's the kind of insight you will not glean from merely "passing through" or seeing an area through a windshield. If you haven't actually stood on the corners you're mentioning then you shouldn't be trying to give any definitive advice about them.

[5thgenSF]

Originally Posted by CF510

You're supposed to do that everywhere you go because that can happen anywhere you go, not just Oakland.

i haven't done that anywhere i've lived. didn't need to whatsoever. never lived in oakland though.

[5thgenSF]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

That entirely depends on which direction you're going from 106th & MacArthur. The Durant Manor neighborhood to the SE of 106th and MacArthur is a stable working class neighborhood that is not very dangerous at all, though it does have quite a bit of QOL crime (break-ins, vandalism, etc). Right above 106th & MacArthur is Toler Heights which is a middle class neighborhood that doesn't experience much violent crime either, but the part of the neighborhood that is next to Foothill Square experiences more crime because the center itself attracts that element. The only part of the area around the intersection that can be accurately described as fairly dangerous is to the SW (the Las Palmas and Iveywood neighborhoods) but they're far from the worst in the area... that would be the 90's, arguably the worst section of Oakland.

^That's the kind of insight you will not glean from merely "passing through" or seeing an area through a windshield. If you haven't actually stood on the corners you're mentioning then you shouldn't be trying to give any definitive advice about them.

i have a question. i have only been in oakland a few times. and heading north on the freeway, the area where you turn (left) to go to alameda seemed to have a really bad part of oakland on the right. i turned right once by mistake and ended up in a bad area. is this area just called "west oakland"?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by ashlandbus

My experience has been a mixed bag so far. I love the city for all it has to offer. There are great places to eat, there is plenty to do, and it is really close to some great locales (the beach, SF, wine country, the sierras)... not to mention, there are some great hiking and biking oppotunities in the 1000's of acres of parks in its backyard. I have lived here for a little over a year, starting off in the hills. Whereas I loved the views, I hated being so disconnected from the rest of the city. In addition, it is a very well to do and older neighborhood, so there was a level of pretentiousness I encountered. I wasn't necessarilly looking for it, but it seemed like I couldnt escape it. Whether it was the stare from the neighbors, or the blatent ignoring of the mommies when I would say hello. Only 2 neighbors introduced themselves the entire time I lived there... people tend to go from car to house, so you don't see them too often... there arent even any sidewalks!!! But, I have recently moved to the Dimond district in the lower hills/E. Oakland. So far, I absolutely love it. Really close to some great parts of the city, close to downtoen, and still have the feeling of living in the forest, with amazing trees and vegetation and a creek! I have met at least 7-8 households so far, and it has only been a week! The only complaint I have is when/if you are in the market for purchasing a house, Oakland tacks on so many fees and regulations. the city transfer tax/fee is the highest in the state! It is very prohibitive to attracting "potential" buyers... and by potential, I mean people who are indifferent to Oakland and are open to many areas and not solely focused on Oakland. but, you will see that people are, in general, really interesting, friendly and diverse... something I think that makes Oakland stand out as a true gem in the bay area.

I like this post. +1

Also, many areas considered 'hood' are actually decent imo, too bad the criminals are able to run amok in so many parts of town that I actually wouldnt mind living in.

[PorkRinds4Bubba]

Originally Posted by 5thgenSF

i have a question. i have only been in oakland a few times. and heading north on the freeway, the area where you turn (left) to go to alameda seemed to have a really bad part of oakland on the right. i turned right once by mistake and ended up in a bad area. is this area just called "west oakland"?

Hmmm, that was probably around High Street/42nd Ave and 880 where you got turned around. Thats not really considered "West Oakland", if Im not mistaken the Fruitvale BART is a couple blocks from there...its no Taj Majal, but every city has some of that goin on. All-in-all I think most people have preconceptions about Oakland, and some, in their minds, sort of romanticize or demonize it because of the city's problems. Havent lived there in several years, but I still love it with all its faults. Anyone's really got to spend some time there before judging it like anything else.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by 5thgenSF

i have a question. i have only been in oakland a few times. and heading north on the freeway, the area where you turn (left) to go to alameda seemed to have a really bad part of oakland on the right. i turned right once by mistake and ended up in a bad area. is this area just called "west oakland"?

I'm assuming you're talking about the Fruitvale BART area (which is East Oakland) and not the Webster tunnel entrance to Alameda in Downtown. The area I think you were in is Jingletown (JT), which again one can't really get a good feel for by passing through. Much of the southern half of the neighborhood (below 880) is home to East Oakland's largest artist community and an increasing number of people who commute to the City via BART. This pocket of artists lives next to and within the "old" JT, which is to say the longtime working class latino and black populations along with some remaining working class Portuguese families from when the neighborhood was predominantly Portuguese. JT used to be well-known as one of the main Norteño neighborhoods in Oakland... that history is still very evident in JT - particularly in the northern half (above 880) - but a lot of it has been all but pushed out entirely. As the neighborhood has continued to shift towards people from SF capitalizing on the convenient proximity to BART and relatively cheap rent, there's been some tension between the "old" and "new" JT. Curiously the artists are in-between the two... the ones who've been there for decades typically don't find the prospect of gentrification appealing but on the other hand many of the new arrivals are bringing not only more money to the area but also a renewed interest in the artist community. The explosive success of First Fridays has also increased interest in JT.

Labels like "good" and "bad" are somewhat inadequate when talking about neighborhoods... in the end, what we're really talking about is a community of people. Each community is different from the next... Seminary (neighborhood with a bad reputation) can be good or bad in ways that Jingletown is or isn't and the same is true when you compare any neighborhood to another.