Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oakland is indeed a separate city. They're about 8 miles and a bridge apart.
That being said, Oakland is known by far as the higher crime city, mostly the huge swatches of area encompassed by the local term "East Oakland", and "West Oakland". IMO, and from personal experience, nothing in S.F compares to these areas in Oakland for overall lack of safety and violent crime except the possibility of some areas in the Tenderloin, and Bayview/HP. I've walked through the Tenderloin, even next to 245 Leavenworth which used to be the home of a notorious drug dealing Cambodian gang, and with the exception of a few angry stares, nothing happened to me (I'm an old jewish man btw).
I've visited friends in West Oakland, and felt like I was in danger the entire time. Just a seedy looking hood, lots of drug dealers on the corners (who are probably armed). I just think making a mistake in West Oakland could be more costly than any of the "scary" parts of S.F. Just my personal feeling from my own experiences. One of the biggest parks in West Oakland is named after a drug dealer who was gunned down. Consider that thought for a moment.
Oakland is probably going to surpass 100 homicides for 2012 (Note: Oakland is already at 85), and violent crime is already 7% HIGHER than in 2011, and we still have a few months left in 2012. Oakland will in effect have twice the murders of S.F and it's less than HALF the size of S.F. The police department is mired in controversy, and is so inept that the federal government took over the Oakland PD this year.
That's a common misconception that's perpetuated to an extent by local SF media along with the idea that Oakland criminals are responsible for the crime around the Bay Area... the reality is that the vast majority of SF's crime is perpetrated by San Franciscans.
Back on topic though, as I said San Francisco has a lot of public housing for a city it's size; you wouldn't know a lot of them exist without purposefully going to them though. Looking at where they're located it's easy to see why.... very few of SF's projects are integrated into the urban fabric. In fact, I could probably list all of the ones that are:
Westside Courts (Lower Pac Heights)
Bernal Dwellings (Mission)
Valencia Gardens (Mission)
North Beach Place (Fisherman's Wharf)
Holly Courts (Bernal Heights)
Ping Yuen (Chinatown)
Robert B. Pitts (Western Addition)
200 Randolph (Lakeview)
You know what's amazing? Is that when I was searching for hostels to stay in SF, the three most talked about ones where in Fisherman's Wharf, the Civic Center area and downtown SF, all areas you say are 'hood'.
Quote:
The rest are either somewhat segregated (see Hayes Valley/Sunnydale/Alemany/Potrero Hill) or entirely segregated (see Hunters Point) from the rest of San Francisco.
^ In SFHA that's thegood news. SFHA is easily one of the absolute worst housing authorities in the country both in terms of safety and apathy. It's downright disgusting that a city as wealthy as San Francisco that spends much of its time bragging about it's progressiveness allows many of it's poorest residents to live in conditions you literally do not see in the Housing Authorities of just about any other major American city, including across the Bay Bridge. The only other major city I can think of with equally garbage public housing is Miami.
Um, this might sound like a stupid question, but are there any other people besides BLACK that live in your projects?
I ask this because all of NYC's projects are "mixed" - it's evenly hispanic and black. If there are other races, I couldn't tell you, but I know for a fact that they're not all just one race of people. Stuyvesant Houses in downtown Manhattan has always had a huge mix of white tenants and probably still do. It's the only I know of due to its location near the heart of the city.
It appears that SF projects are all black by the video I just watched. This bothers me. The "brotherly love" and all "inclusive" image I had of the city is fading fast after reading your posts. I can't believe SF will take care of the homeless/druggie areas of TL and Mission, but ignore other places.
You can only hold the disenfranchised back but so long until they rise up against you and then the powers that be will sit up on their ivory towers asking themselves why? Yeah, I'm talking to govenor brown.
Another thing it that a lot of people really don't understand the severity of what is occuring around them. When I first moved to the city all I really noticed in the Tenderloin and the rough parts of the Mission was junkies hanging out and some homeless people. The more I payed attention (and, more importantly, the more I got to know people who had spent decades there) the more I began to understand. I learned how violent a lot of the pimps can be toward women (it's terrifying), and how viscious the lowest-level sex industry is. I learned how frequently people, both male and female, are raped over drug related disputes in these areas. I learned about the gangs and the beef, and found that when I really opened my eyes the situation was really serious on the streets of San Francisco.
Great post (even the parts I trimmed). I think it's important to be reminded that even if it's safe for white people, the Tenderloin is full of violence and suffering. I have seen some charities working with the city to try to eliminate human trafficking and prostitution, which is apparently significant business here. Sadly, it seems like the most common sentiment is that the Tenderloin needs to be "cleaned up" without any regard to the fact that we're talking about human beings living miserable lives.
The bolded is a great example of what Thugocracy was talking about when he said the demography of a neighborhood plays a lot into the perception of danger. The reality is that people who look like you ("old white men") get victimized much, much more often in the Tenderloin than they do in West Oakland. In fact, violent crime in West Oakland affect one specific group of people - black men - even more disproportionately than it does in the Tenderloin... crimes of opportunity are far more prevalent in the TL. And yet you seem to think you were in more danger in West Oakland... hmm.
Well, it's better to be safe than sorry. How is he supposed to know that those thugs won't kill him just because he's white? Who knew that black ghetto thugs feared whites in this way after all this time?
I certainly didn't. Where I come from we always saw white people as "weak" and scared of everything, so if they did happen to be in a neighborhood they weren't supposed to be they just might get beat up. Even though this was along time ago, I still see it happening even now. For example, "hipsters" have yet to take themselves to the south bronx to "live" and experience true "grittiness". Why? Because the Bronx ain't ready for that type of "change" yet.
The post from Thugocracy was very eye opening, because I can't see black ghetto Chicagoans being afraid to mess with whites either, but I also figured the reason why you don't hear of any crimes against them is because most whites know NOT to venture into certain areas to get shafted.
I heard that it's gentrifying. The closer you are to Downtown SF, the better it's becoming.
True. S.F is gentrifying (have you seen the prices of 2 bedroom apartments in parts of the tenderloin?!).
I think S.F as a whole is gentrifying faster than Oakland across the Bay, if gentrification is even happening in West or East Oakland (I don't see it personally). That's why I think the Oakland "scary" parts are far more dangerous than S.F scary parts.
In the tenderloin in S.F, I might get my iPod snatched. In West Oakland, I might get shot for lingering in the wrong area for a second too long. That's the difference IMO.
You know what's amazing? Is that when I was searching for hostels to stay in SF, the three most talked about ones where in Fisherman's Wharf, the Civic Center area and downtown SF, all areas you say are 'hood'.
Um, this might sound like a stupid question, but are there any other people besides BLACK that live in your projects?
I ask this because all of NYC's projects are "mixed" - it's evenly hispanic and black. If there are other races, I couldn't tell you, but I know for a fact that they're not all just one race of people. Stuyvesant Houses in downtown Manhattan has always had a huge mix of white tenants and probably still do. It's the only I know of due to its location near the heart of the city.
It appears that SF projects are all black by the video I just watched. This bothers me. The "brotherly love" and all "inclusive" image I had of the city is fading fast after reading your posts. I can't believe SF will take care of the homeless/druggie areas of TL and Mission, but ignore other places.
You can only hold the disenfranchised back but so long until they rise up against you and then the powers that be will sit up on their ivory towers asking themselves why? Yeah, I'm talking to govenor brown.
Around half of SF's total black population lives in public housing throughout the city. However, there is also a very large pacific islander population (also very marginalized as a group in SF) and increasing latino and asian populations in the projects, most notably in Sunnydale and Double Rock (Alice Griffith). The Ping Yuens are almost entirely Chinese.
Generally speaking though, the majority population of any given project in San Francisco is black. Often there's a very marked difference between the population of the projects and of the surrounding neighborhoods they're in; you actually touched on this in the early part of your post. Take Fisherman's Wharf for example... it's not hood by any stretch, but the projects in it are. Same with Lower Pacific Heights/Westside Courts, Potrero Hill/Potrero Terrace, etc. The projects are basically a neighborhood within a neighborhood... the residents of the projects generally speaking have nothing to do with the residents of the larger neighborhood and don't frequent the same shared community spaces. It's a very separated existence.
Well, it's better to be safe than sorry. How is he supposed to know that those thugs won't kill him just because he's white? Who knew that black ghetto thugs feared whites in this way after all this time?
I certainly didn't. Where I come from we always saw white people as "weak" and scared of everything, so if they did happen to be in a neighborhood they weren't supposed to be they just might get beat up. Even though this was along time ago, I still see it happening even now. For example, "hipsters" have yet to take themselves to the south bronx to "live" and experience true "grittiness". Why? Because the Bronx ain't ready for that type of "change" yet.
The post from Thugocracy was very eye opening, because I can't see black ghetto Chicagoans being afraid to mess with whites either, but I also figured the reason why you don't hear of any crimes against them is because most whites know NOT to venture into certain areas to get shafted.
Neither Thugocracy nor I said anything about whites not being targets because they're feared... I'd suggest reading his post again. I was making the point that white men and whites in general are victimized more often in the Tenderloin than they are in West Oakland and yet he's more scared of West Oakland despite that the crime that's most prevalent in West Oakland (turf violence) has zero to do with people like himself. I guess something I said earlier applies in this case...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
It's the same reason why younger whites are suddenly moving in droves to the hood... the reputation might scare off their parents but the kids understand the numbers game. Their names are never on the bullets.
Well, it's better to be safe than sorry. How is he supposed to know that those thugs won't kill him just because he's white? Who knew that black ghetto thugs feared whites in this way after all this time?
I certainly didn't. Where I come from we always saw white people as "weak" and scared of everything, so if they did happen to be in a neighborhood they weren't supposed to be they just might get beat up. Even though this was along time ago, I still see it happening even now. For example, "hipsters" have yet to take themselves to the south bronx to "live" and experience true "grittiness". Why? Because the Bronx ain't ready for that type of "change" yet.
The post from Thugocracy was very eye opening, because I can't see black ghetto Chicagoans being afraid to mess with whites either, but I also figured the reason why you don't hear of any crimes against them is because most whites know NOT to venture into certain areas to get shafted.
There is no way to prove that white people are more likely to get victimized in the tenderloin than in West Oakland. That's something someone just made up and has no basis in reality. It sounds silly.
I'm still waiting to know which park in West Oakland is named after a drug dealer...
He's probably referencing "Little Bobby Hutton Park" (DeFremery Park). Now, why he would reference Bobby Hutton Park is beyond me... Bobby Hutton was not a drug dealer and the reason why he was commemorated in West Oakland is obvious to anyone with a passing understanding of the history of police brutality in the area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
