Oakland as a tourist destination (Los Angeles, Sacramento: hotels, houses, neighborhood)

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

Oakland has everything going for it other than the crime issue. Fix that and the city sells itself. I agree with whoever above who said the city should concentrate on attracting residents as opposed to tourists. It's never going to be a tourist destination 10 minutes across the bay from SF. Which is fine. The city should welcome more residents to support more restaurants, bars, businesses and other attractions that would then attract tourists.

While I generally agree with your assertions, Oakland could be a minor tourist destination. Brooklyn pales in comparison to Manhattan in tourism, but a lot of younger visitors, myself included, skip the city in favor of the borough when we visit New York. I already know a number of east coasters who've visited Oakland specifically because of the write-ups in the Times and Globe. It'll never be a destination for the fanny-pack crowd, but if it promotes itself a bit better in a few ways, it could do some good business from the more sophisticated set seeking the new restaurant/bar/arts scene.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

While I generally agree with your assertions, Oakland could be a minor tourist destination. Brooklyn pales in comparison to Manhattan in tourism, but a lot of younger visitors, myself included, skip the city in favor of the borough when we visit New York. I already know a number of east coasters who've visited Oakland specifically because of the write-ups in the Times and Globe. It'll never be a destination for the fanny-pack crowd, but if it promotes itself a bit better in a few ways, it could do some good business from the more sophisticated set seeking the new restaurant/bar/arts scene.

Exactly, no one here is saying or expecting Oakland to be the next San Francisco or Gold Angeles. The OP made this very clear.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

The Warriors are co-owned by guys who live in Atherton, and Seattle respectively, and have no interest, ties, or connections to staying in Oakland. They're not staying.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

Exactly, no one here is saying or expecting Oakland to be the next San Francisco or Gold Angeles. The OP made this very clear.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

While I generally agree with your assertions, Oakland could be a minor tourist destination. Brooklyn pales in comparison to Manhattan in tourism, but a lot of younger visitors, myself included, skip the city in favor of the borough when we visit New York. I already know a number of east coasters who've visited Oakland specifically because of the write-ups in the Times and Globe. It'll never be a destination for the fanny-pack crowd, but if it promotes itself a bit better in a few ways, it could do some good business from the more sophisticated set seeking the new restaurant/bar/arts scene.

This is what I was thinking pretty much. It could be similar to how Brooklyn and Manhattan interact as far as tourism. I spent a little time in Brooklyn when I visited NYC before and next time I go I hope to spend more time there. I really want to see that NYC Transit Museum they have but haven't had time the last two trips I've made there.

[VictorSS]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

One of the few realistic views posted in this thread. Oakland will NEVER ever compete with Los Angeles or S.F, or other world destinations like that. But it can become a better city for local visitors by simply fixing the crime issue.

Why do you insist on comparing Oakland with every city? First camden and Detroit, now La and Sf? It's like comparing Long Beach with LA. Nobody does that. Next thing you're going to tell us is you canoe down the LA river to avoid traffic.

[DocGoldstein]

S.F is the closest major city to Oakland, and has better attractions across the board.

[beb0p]

From my experience, tourists are drawn to shopping, scenic, food, crowds, and people-watching and they want all these things at once. They want to walk around in open space, browse shops, maybe mingle and flirt, and then sit down for a meal before walking about again and take lots of pictures. A place for them to hang out. Tourists are cheap by nature (except when it comes to food and shopping) and they don't want to waste time, so any standalone place (like a zoo in the middle of nowhere) where they have to travel some distance plus pay admission fees, they naturally resist unless it's something that really draw their attention.

I found myself and a few out of towner in Oakland a short while ago. We had lunch and walked around Grand Lake. They really like the experience but found the shopping a bit limited. I took them to Lake Merritt and they loved how beautiful it is and took lots of pictures but probably end up spending no more than 30 mins there. Then we went to JLS and they thought it was kind of lame (I guess not enough hoopla). And then I was out of options. How about the zoo? Nah, we have zoos back home. How about the science museum? Nah, it's for kids. And so on...

I guess the problem is that Oakland doesn't really have a place that make people go, "Wow, let's go there!" People plan their vacation around the Broadwalk in Santa Cruz (don't ask me why, I thought that place is lame), people from outside of Sac would go hang out in Old Sac, Visitors must go to Melrose Ave, etc. I think tourists generally just want to hang out in a crowded place filled with entertainment. Oakland's places are too spread out, I think, and it's too small and compacted to draw the large crowd.

Now, with that said, I'd love for Oakland to be a tourist destination. And if I've missed some places that my guests would have liked (shopping + crowds + food + big), let me know. I'll take future guests there. And even if such a place doesn't exist now, doesn't mean it can't exist in the future. Say, I'd love for Oakland to have an area filled with sports bar/restaurant close to the stadiums (think Chicago).

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

While I generally agree with your assertions, Oakland could be a minor tourist destination. Brooklyn pales in comparison to Manhattan in tourism, but a lot of younger visitors, myself included, skip the city in favor of the borough when we visit New York. I already know a number of east coasters who've visited Oakland specifically because of the write-ups in the Times and Globe. It'll never be a destination for the fanny-pack crowd, but if it promotes itself a bit better in a few ways, it could do some good business from the more sophisticated set seeking the new restaurant/bar/arts scene.

Yes and we need a resident population base to support the kinds of institutions and neighborhoods that get written up in those publications. We're on the way there and need to keep going down that path to become a minor tourist destination along the lines of Brooklyn.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

A few great attractions in Oakland:

Gondola Servizio
Crucible
Cathedral of Christ the Light
USS Potomac
Chabot Space and Science Center
Claremont Hotel and Spa
Oakland Mormon Temple
Dunsmuir-Hellsman Historic Estate
Jack London's Cabin
Preservation Park

Oakland Museum of California
Morcom Rose Garden
Mountain View Cemetery
Lake Temescal


I am on my phone, please forgive the typos.