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.
I've lived in the East Bay for 31 years, and lived or worked in Oakland for 23 of them. At present, I live in Berkeley and work in Oakland.
So DG is quoting citywide statistics in a city that's 56 square miles, actually larger in area than San Francisco. It's bad if you live in East or West Oakland. Yes. If you don't live in one of those areas, or really the bad parts of those areas, and you're not involved in gang or drug activity it's simply not that dangerous. People who live in the other 3/4 or 4/5 of Oakland are not at greater risk than people who live in San Francisco.
On superficial comparison, Oakland looks like Newark, N.J, which my sister in law lives adjacent to. They're both the second city of their metropolitan area, though Newark is about 1/20 the population of New York, and Oakland about 1/2 of San Francisco. They're both the key ports for their metropolitan areas, both have major airports. Both have substantial African-American populations, though Newark's is proportionately double Oakland's--52% vs. 27%
But Oakland has almost half again as many people as Newark--roughly 391,000 vs. 277,000. And those extra 100,000 people create types of areas that don't exist in Newark. Newark has no equivalent of the Oakland Hills. Oakland has a lot more people of all income levels living downtown than Newark. There's no real equivalent of the bohemian neighborhoods of North Oakland in Newark--those are in adjacent and nearby cities. So Oakland is a much more sociologically/ urbanistically diverse place than Newark.
I don't have a particularly clear sense of Jersey City. The waterfront office building area of Jersey City seems more like Emeryville than Oakland.
The only place I've been to that seemed really like Oakland to me is Long Beach, California.
I've lived in the East Bay for 31 years, and lived or worked in Oakland for 23 of them. At present, I live in Berkeley and work in Oakland.
So DG is quoting citywide statistics in a city that's 56 square miles, actually larger in area than San Francisco. It's bad if you live in East or West Oakland. Yes. If you don't live in one of those areas, or really the bad parts of those areas, and you're not involved in gang or drug activity it's simply not that dangerous. People who live in the other 3/4 or 4/5 of Oakland are not at greater risk than people who live in San Francisco.
On superficial comparison, Oakland looks like Newark, N.J, which my sister in law lives adjacent to. They're both the second city of their metropolitan area, though Newark is about 1/20 the population of New York, and Oakland about 1/2 of San Francisco. They're both the key ports for their metropolitan areas, both have major airports. Both have substantial African-American populations, though Newark's is proportionately double Oakland's--52% vs. 27%
But Oakland has almost half again as many people as Newark--roughly 391,000 vs. 277,000. And those extra 100,000 people create types of areas that don't exist in Newark. Newark has no equivalent of the Oakland Hills. Oakland has a lot more people of all income levels living downtown than Newark. There's no real equivalent of the bohemian neighborhoods of North Oakland in Newark--those are in adjacent and nearby cities. So Oakland is a much more sociologically/ urbanistically diverse place than Newark.
I don't have a particularly clear sense of Jersey City. The waterfront office building area of Jersey City seems more like Emeryville than Oakland.
The only place I've been to that seemed really like Oakland to me is Long Beach, California.
Again, it totally depends on where you live. Parts of East/West Oakland are fine
So DG is quoting citywide statistics in a city that's 56 square miles, actually larger in area than San Francisco. It's bad if you live in East or West Oakland. Yes. If you don't live in one of those areas, or really the bad parts of those areas, and you're not involved in gang or drug activity it's simply not that dangerous. People who live in the other 3/4 or 4/5 of Oakland are not at greater risk than people who live in San Francisco.
I don't have a particularly clear sense of Jersey City. The waterfront office building area of Jersey City seems more like Emeryville than Oakland.
The only place I've been to that seemed really like Oakland to me is Long Beach, California.
I agree. I've lived in Berkeley for just over a year right next to Oakland and, thus far, I've not dealt with any crime. I think that's specifically because I'm in the nice areas of those cities most of the time.
I'm getting ready to move back to the city and, while I'll be in a pretty low key area, I'm more concerned about crime there than here. That's because I used to live in San Francisco and when I was there my car would get broken into pretty much on a yearly basis. It didn't matter if I took everything out of the car or not. My apartment also got broken into once. I've lived in NYC and didn't have any issues with crime there. I also lived in Jersey City for a bit and didn't have problems with crime there either. The worst thing about living there was I was next to a pretty popular bar, so things could get loud late at night if the partiers were having too good of a time.
As for Jersey City, it's modernizing and gentrifying. I really do think it's where the smart people move once they realize that having a NYC zip code is overrated. If I had to move back, I'd definitely consider moving back to Jersey City first. It was easier getting into Manhattan from Jersey City than it is from most spots in Brooklyn and definitely quicker than from Upper Manhattan (Inwood or Washington Heights) or the Bronx. (This is all before Hurricane Sandy.)
The waterfront is nice and I was near downtown. I think things get a bit more sketchy the further in you go towards Journal Square station. My firm cut off was my neighborhood to be honest. My station was Grove and it was just great. In the summer there are open air concerts. There is a Duane Reade drugstore right there. There are a few restaurants. You can hop on a bus and be at the Pathmark supermarket really fast or you can just walk. And you're two stops from lower Manhattan. I could get into the city wickedly fast most of the time. I'm not sure how things are there now after Hurricane Sandy as I know Sandy took out the Hoboken station for awhile. Yep, just checked the PATH website and, unfortunately, due to repairs the system isn't 24/7 now. That's sad but they'll be back up and running to full capacity soon, I hope.
I've been to Newark and the part of Jersey City that I'm familiar with is nothing like Newark. Thank goodness.
Well when we look at crime, it's all about the numbers IMO. Anecdotal stories, and experience do have some relevance, but not as much as overall stats.
Per capita, Oakland has the worst violent crime rate in California. As a whole, you are more likely to be a victim in Oakland than Los Angeles, or SF. Yes if you are a drug dealer, the percentage sky rockets, but that's true of any city, as we both agreed.
So everything else equal, Oakland is more dangerous for people than other cities with lower violent crime rates. That's my point.
Knowing the violent crime rate reveals nothing of a person's crime risk. Thus, you simply can not say or prove one city is more dangerous than another.
One of the ways city crime rankings and statistics can be misleading is because pure geographic happenstance can significantly affect a city's violent crime rate. Violent crime is concentrated in urban central cities. Some central cities are geographically small because they don't include as many outlying areas and suburban communities within their city limits. For example:
Oakland makes up 2.27% of its metro area and holds 9% of its metro population, whereas Los Angeles makes up 9.8% of its metro area and holds 31% of its metro population. Thus, Los Angeles includes more outlying areas. (or most importantly, their population)
Now lets break it down:
2010
Oakland
- violent crime rate per 1,000: 16.06
- population: 390,000 San Leandro
- violent crime rate per 1,000: 4.08
- population: 85,000 Alameda
- violent crime rate per 1,000: 2.34
- population: 74,000
If Oakland made up 3.24% of its metro area and held 12.6% of its metro population, it's city limits would include what is San Leandro and Alameda.
So, the new Oakland city limits would technically have more violent crime, but a greater population to dilute it. So, Oakland's new violent crime rate would be 12.35 violent crimes per 1,000 or 1,235 violent crime per 100,000.
This means for the 2011 Most Dangerous Cities Rankings, #6 Oakland would drop to #17.
Or by dividing its total violent crime by 6 sets of 100,000, it will place #20
What's important here is that it's violent crime rate and ranking can decrease by something, arbitrary boundaries, that has nothing to do with individual crime risk.
Last edited by Stephen1110; 12-15-2012 at 05:40 PM..
Knowing the violent crime rate reveals nothing of a person's crime risk. Thus, you simply can not say or prove one city is more dangerous than another.
One of the ways city crime rankings and statistics can be misleading is because pure geographic happenstance can significantly affect a city's violent crime rate. Violent crime is concentrated in urban central cities. Some central cities are geographically small because they don't include as many outlying areas and suburban communities within their city limits. For example:
Oakland makes up 2.27% of its metro area and holds 9% of its metro population, whereas Los Angeles makes up 9.8% of its metro area and holds 31% of its metro population. Thus, Los Angeles includes more outlying areas. (or most importantly, their population)
Now lets break it down:
2010
Oakland
- violent crime rate per 1,000: 16.06
- population: 390,000 San Leandro
- violent crime rate per 1,000: 4.08
- population: 85,000 Alameda
- violent crime rate per 1,000: 2.34
- population: 74,000
If Oakland made up 3.24% of its metro area and held 12.6% of its metro population, it's city limits would include what is San Leandro and Alameda.
So, the new Oakland city limits would technically have more violent crime, but a greater population to dilute it. So, Oakland's new violent crime rate would be 12.35 violent crimes per 1,000 or 1,235 violent crime per 100,000.
This means for the 2011 Most Dangerous Cities Rankings, #6 Oakland would drop to #17.
Or by dividing its total violent crime by 6 sets of 100,000, it will place #20
What's important here is that it's violent crime rate and ranking can decrease by something, arbitrary boundaries, that has nothing to do with individual crime risk.
This is a good point. It's also true of average population density, another metric that varies tremendously within a city.
I've lived in the East Bay for 31 years, and lived or worked in Oakland for 23 of them. At present, I live in Berkeley and work in Oakland.
So DG is quoting citywide statistics in a city that's 56 square miles, actually larger in area than San Francisco. It's bad if you live in East or West Oakland. Yes. If you don't live in one of those areas, or really the bad parts of those areas, and you're not involved in gang or drug activity it's simply not that dangerous. People who live in the other 3/4 or 4/5 of Oakland are not at greater risk than people who live in San Francisco.
On superficial comparison, Oakland looks like Newark, N.J, which my sister in law lives adjacent to. They're both the second city of their metropolitan area, though Newark is about 1/20 the population of New York, and Oakland about 1/2 of San Francisco. They're both the key ports for their metropolitan areas, both have major airports. Both have substantial African-American populations, though Newark's is proportionately double Oakland's--52% vs. 27%
But Oakland has almost half again as many people as Newark--roughly 391,000 vs. 277,000. And those extra 100,000 people create types of areas that don't exist in Newark. Newark has no equivalent of the Oakland Hills. Oakland has a lot more people of all income levels living downtown than Newark. There's no real equivalent of the bohemian neighborhoods of North Oakland in Newark--those are in adjacent and nearby cities. So Oakland is a much more sociologically/ urbanistically diverse place than Newark.
I don't have a particularly clear sense of Jersey City. The waterfront office building area of Jersey City seems more like Emeryville than Oakland.
The only place I've been to that seemed really like Oakland to me is Long Beach, California.
Newark is pretty small , and dense , however there are a few suburban middle class areas like Forest Hills and Weequahic....these remain very nice and people in these neighborhoods pride themselves on home appearances...
Oakland and Newark are quite similar in population and demographics (minus Asians). They both have good and bad areas. They both have bad reputations. They both have high unemployment rates. They both have crime rates above the national average.
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.
