Whats the deal with East Palo Alto? (San Francisco, Oakland: real estate, apartments)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

That trailer park is probably worth more than half of Portland.

It would probably cost that much to make it desirable.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

It would probably cost that much to make it desirable.

It's right next to Palo Alto, it's already valuable and desirable.

[Chuck5000]

I think you should also look at the more down-price neighborhoods of San Jose if you're thinking long-term appreciation. I think you'd get more for your money than EPA, but not sure. Check with a realtor.

People think "EPA is next to PA....it's can't miss!" But I think that in the end, EPA is just physically not that nice, will never have its own downtown, and it's going to take a very long time for a critical mass of SFH owners to take it upscale, cleaner streets, better schools/parental involvement, etc. Lots of people are not selling, so turnover is not that high...I think. Confirm with a realtor.

That said, I'd consider new construction there if I could pay for private schools. Main thing is on the peninsula/Santa Clara county right now, the quality of structure and condition you are getting for less than $1m is truly wretched.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

That trailer park is probably worth more than half of Portland.

That doesn't make it nice. It just means it's overpriced.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

I think you should also look at the more down-price neighborhoods of San Jose if you're thinking long-term appreciation. I think you'd get more for your money than EPA, but not sure. Check with a realtor.

People think "EPA is next to PA....it's can't miss!" But I think that in the end, EPA is just physically not that nice, will never have its own downtown, and it's going to take a very long time for a critical mass of SFH owners to take it upscale, cleaner streets, better schools/parental involvement, etc. Lots of people are not selling, so turnover is not that high...I think. Confirm with a realtor.

That said, I'd consider new construction there if I could pay for private schools. Main thing is on the peninsula/Santa Clara county right now, the quality of structure and condition you are getting for less than $1m is truly wretched.

People are still paying those prices

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Protagonista

Just got back from driving around EPA. I agree there is no downtown and it is definitely blue collar, but there is construction going on.

I'm looking to buy a place. But I am not in any rush.
I work at UCSF and Stanford right now but need to narrow it down to one place for full benefits.

Comparing commute times to SF it seems the East Bay is gentrifying faster than South Bay although commute time is the same, and Bart breaks down more frequently than Caltrain.

I realize East Bay is more developed, but crime is worse, schools are worse and 880 is arguably worse than 101.


I'm surprised it's not gentrifying faster with Apple also building not to far away. I'm wondering if the
"bad parts" of SV are going to take off and if I should buy in at a cheap $750-800,00

I guess it's the draw of the SF cache' which I guess includes East Bay that slows it down.

It sounds like you're using the term "East Bay" as a euphemism for Oakland. Berkeley schools are considered to be good, the crime isn't bad, though that depends on the neighborhood. Same for El Cerrito and Albany, not to mention Orinda, Lafayette and Walnut Creek, where the schools are very good and there's little crime. Fremont is pretty good all around, too. If you mean "Oakland", say "Oakland". Don't paint the whole East Bay with one brush. Berkeley was created in large part as a ready-made gentrified community; it was intended to be a suburb of SF, for lawyers and other professionals who worked in SF, and obviously as the seat of a major university--a community for university faculty. The difference is that Berkeley also had a large working-class sector, where the Peninsula communities had a bit less of that, and more of the wealth extremes, proportionately, than the Berkeley and Oakland hills.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

It sounds like you're using the term "East Bay" as a euphemism for Oakland. Berkeley schools are considered to be good, the crime isn't bad, though that depends on the neighborhood. Same for El Cerrito and Albany, not to mention Orinda, Lafayette and Walnut Creek, where the schools are very good and there's little crime. Fremont is pretty good all around, too. If you mean "Oakland", say "Oakland". Don't paint the whole East Bay with one brush. Berkeley was created in large part as a ready-made gentrified community; it was intended to be a suburb of SF, for lawyers and other professionals who worked in SF, and obviously as the seat of a major university--a community for university faculty. The difference is that Berkeley also had a large working-class sector, where the Peninsula communities had a bit less of that, and more of the wealth extremes, proportionately, than the Berkeley and Oakland hills.

This is bull crap. Belmont, San Carlos, redwood city, San Mateo, etc were all middle class at one point. Rich people don't live in 1200 square foot ranchers.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

This is bull crap. Belmont, San Carlos, redwood city, San Mateo, etc were all middle class at one point. Rich people don't live in 1200 square foot ranchers.

"Working class" and "middle class" are two different things. And sure, there were those neighborhoods, but there was also Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, etc. There was a bit more of that over there than in the East Bay, or rather--than in the inner E Bay. But, whatever. If you want to tell the OP the Peninsula and Berkeley/El Cerrito were equal as to gentrification, that's fine with me.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

"Working class" and "middle class" are two different things. And sure, there were those neighborhoods, but there was also Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, etc. There was a bit more of that over there than in the East Bay, or rather--than in the inner E Bay. But, whatever. If you want to tell the OP the Peninsula and Berkeley/El Cerrito were equal as to gentrification, that's fine with me.

I've seen small 900 square footers in Santa Clara, that's definitely working class although including Santa Clara county as part of the "peninsula" can be debated

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

I've seen small 900 square footers in Santa Clara, that's definitely working class although including Santa Clara county as part of the "peninsula" can be debated

Yes, true on both counts. Much of it should probably be excluded, as south Bay and beyond (south south Bay, or whatever). Also, now we're running into a problem with comparing a limited area in the East Bay (Berkeley, or Berkeley/El Cerrito area) with the entire Peninsula. My only point was that the OP labeled the entire East Bay as "gentrifying" when it seems that she meant Oakland. Because I think we can all agree that Lamorinda has always been gentrified, and Berkeley, though to a lesser extent, had a strong element of that, as well, and some of the non-gentry areas of Berkeley have, for better or for worse, gentrified, though I think not as much as the Peninsula. Perhaps this comparison discussion would be more appropriate for its own thread.

Anyway, my point was that the OP either isn't well familiar with the East Bay, or s/he's painting the whole region with an Oakland brush, which is grossly inaccurate.