San Francisco, Oakland Among America's Most Unequal Big Cities (Los Angeles: apartments, rent)

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

That sounds great, it really does. Would you happen to have any statistics showing that middle class families, and the "under 40" demographic are moving into the city in significant numbers? (not just the people you observe here or there)

My nephew will be 30 this year, grew up in Livermore, and is a computer geek for Kaiser. When he married 4 years ago they bought a Loft in Oakland to be closer to work. He loves it there.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

You're going to need to back up your experiences with statistics, Jade. Otherwise, we can only go on data from the BLS stats which obviously means you're just imagining things

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

That sounds great, it really does. Would you happen to have any statistics showing that middle class families, and the "under 40" demographic are moving into the city in significant numbers? (not just the people you observe here or there)

Real estate construction trends favoring "smart growth" -- New research shows smart growth is more than a concept - On The Block
More on walkable trends: Walkable, Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Rate Highest, Survey Finds | Bay Area Real Estate Market Blog | Pacific Union

Oakland real estate boom: Oakland's real estate market heats up, becomes attractive to many | abc7news.com
Oakland real estate trends: Oakland real estate soars: Another bubble? « Oakland Local

Atlantic Cities is noting the SF exodus to Oakland: The San Francisco Exodus - Gabriel Metcalf - The Atlantic Cities

This article talks about school flight as kids get older: Top students fleeing Oakland public schools - SFGate
Related: gentrification and Oakland schools, which illustrates the trends of parents staying in the district to help improve things: How Gentrification Is Reshaping Oakland's Schools - Sophie Quinton - The Atlantic Cities

Population growth in downtown Oakland: Census: Not quite '10K,' but Bay Area sees population spurt in some downtown areas - San Jose Mercury News

And many many anecdotal notes about moving to Oakland:
AT on... Moving to Oakland | Apartment Therapy

And you do need to map the trends in Oakland with other overall trends, like increases in biking, decreases in vehicle miles travelled, increases in ridership on BART and AC transit.

A huge confluence of factors is fueling Oakland's boom. A bunch of trends are just collecting in Oakland. But I am probably just hallucinating.

[ExeterMedia]

Hmm. I looked at every article you posted and didn't see anything talking about middle class migration to Oakland. In fact one of the articles was talking about overall population growth in various areas in the Bay area including Emeryville, downtown Concord, SOMA, and Missionbay in SF, which unfortunately is not exactly what we need.

Let me know when you do find those numbers for Oakland. I'd definitely be interested in looking at them.

Regards

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

HockeyMac18?

I'm not sure why I have to address this again. If you actually ready my posts, you would see I said this:

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Disappearance of middle-class jobs, an increase in (very) wealthy people, increase in real estate prices. The middle class has been priced out and left for places that are more affordable and/or where they can get work.

There is also a massive trend to want to live in urban centers of metros (particularly with younger people), driving demand higher (and therefore rental/real estate prices upward).

This is happening in SF and Oakland. It's actually pretty simple.

That doesn't mean that all areas of both cities have gentrified, though. In both SF and Oakland there are large areas filled with poor(er) people that have less options for mobility. As each city gains more wealth, and more people from the middle leave, the income gap rises.

I've already gone over this with you. Notice the bolded and underlined part. In both cities, they have either been priced out or moved somewhere else to find middle-class employment.

But I'll explain again.

The places in both SF and Oakland that are generally more affordable to middle class earners are not the types of areas that are in high demand to many middle class earners. People that generally fall into that category (middle class) that aren't finding what they want in Oakland are either leaving the Bay Area all together (and going to other places of the country with a lower COL), or are going to places further out in the Bay Area for cheaper housing. Oakland seems to have a larger area of its city like this than SF does, but they both have it.

The areas of both towns where middle class earners have traditionally wanted to live have become very expensive (more so in SF's case, but still true in Oakland's case). This is unfortunate, but it is happening. And as more and more people choose to live in urban areas (very popular with younger people), these areas will become more and more expensive. I usually view Oakland as being just a bit behind SF in terms of property values. If real estate continues on its current trajectory, there won't be many areas left that are affordable (even the "bad" areas of SF and Oakland). Oakland is pretty much always cheaper than SF, but it's still very expensive (especially if what you're looking for is a typical "middle class home").

As more people in the middle are priced out of the areas that they want to live in Oakland and SF, the more that leave the area. What you're left with is more people at the top that can afford it, and the poor(er) people that don't have as much mobility to leave. As this trend continues, the inequality gap will widen in both SF and Oakland (and many other desirable urban cities in the country today).

18Montclair also addressed this point well:

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Very easy. Oakland's middle class neighborhoods are becoming too expensive compared to much larger, nicer homes they can buy in places like Brentwood or Mountain House for much cheaper.

Should middle class families be FORCED to live in 2-bd bungalows with a tiny yard if they don't want to even if they can have 4 bds and a pool in far flung suburbia? Oakland is too densely populated and lots are too small to have homes that big.

It's really simple. And it's unfortunate. Hopefully it's something that can be addressed somehow, although I have no idea how it can truly be "fixed" since we live in a capitalistic society.

What is your theory? You seem to have something else in mind, but really aren't saying it. I'd like to hear what you think.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

My nephew will be 30 this year, grew up in Livermore, and is a computer geek for Kaiser. When he married 4 years ago they bought a Loft in Oakland to be closer to work. He loves it there.

That's great. I hope they are enjoying life together.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

The places in both SF and Oakland that are generally more affordable to middle class earners are not the types of areas that are in high demand to many middle class earners. People that generally fall into that catagory and aren't finding what they want in Oakland are either leaving the Bay Area all together (and going to other places of the country with a lower COL) are going to places further out in the Bay Area for cheaper housing. Oakland seems to have a larger area of its city like this than SF does, but they both have it.

I can accept that this is partially true, but I'm not sure it's the whole story with Oakland. At 41% "affordability for Oakland and 14% for SF, they really aren't comparable. One is definitely much more affordable for the demographic we're discussing than the other one. So I'm sure there is something missing from your equation here.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

That sounds great, it really does. Would you happen to have any statistics showing that middle class families, and the "under 40" demographic are moving into the city in significant numbers? (not just the people you observe here or there)

That's very easy.

From the US Census Bureau:

Ages 25-39 moved from another County
within California 2012
Los Angeles, CA 15,063
Oakland, CA 6,157

Ages 40-49 Moved from another County
With California in 2012
Los Angeles, CA 3,164
Oakland, CA 1,455

Ages 25-39 moved from Another state, 2012
Los Angeles, CA 19,332
Oakland, CA 3,108

Individuals Earning $75,000+ that
moved from another CA County, 2012
Los Angeles, CA 3,173......9.9% of all income earning newcomers from other CA Counties
Oakland, CA 1,626.........13.4% of all income earning newcomers from other CA Counties

Individuals Earning $75,000+ that
moved from another State, 2012
Los Angeles, CA 5,412...14.3% of all income earning newcomers from out-of-state
Oakland, CA 850.........15.7% of all income earning newcomers from out-of-state

Anyone else notice that even though Los Angeles has 10 times as many people as Oakland, the growth from migration from within CA and from other states proportionally favors Oakland by quite a margin?

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

I can accept that this is partially true, but I'm not sure it's the whole story with Oakland. At 41% "affordability for Oakland and 14% for SF, they really aren't comparable. One is definitely much more affordable for the demographic we're discussing than the other one. So I'm sure there is something missing from your equation here.

Genuine interest, I'm not trying to start anything. I would like to hear your thoughts on what is missing.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Genuine interest, I'm not trying to start anything. I would like to hear your thoughts on what is missing.

Of course, I think you put some thought into your response and I respect that.

Here you said:

The places in both SF and Oakland that are generally more affordable to middle class earners are not the types of areas that are in high demand to many middle class earners. People that generally fall into that category (middle class) that aren't finding what they want in Oakland are either leaving the Bay Area all together (and going to other places of the country with a lower COL), or are going to places further out in the Bay Area for cheaper housing. Oakland seems to have a larger area of its city like this than SF does, but they both have it.

I think what you're sort of dancing around is really defining what "generally more affordable" means. But yes, the term we're looking for is desirability, and as I posted earlier, if that's what you mean by the above bolded statement, then we actually agree on why there is a difference.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

That's very easy.

Individuals Earning $75,000+ that
Oakland, CA 1,626

Individuals Earning $75,000+ that
moved from another State, 2012
Oakland, CA 850

These numbers are promising.

Now if we can find the number for the same demographic leaving Oakland, we might have something to work with.