Debating Between San Francisco, Oakland, and Maybe Alameda (Berkeley, Marina: apartments, for rent)

[fred89]

So, I'll be coming to San Francisco to start a new job ($83k Salary) and I'm having a lot of trouble deciding where to live. I am open to room-mates, but I've budgeted $2,100 for rent+utilities, which should cover me for a small studio in San Francisco, $1000 for fun/Food, and ideally, ~$1000 for Savings (when considering my after tax monthly income).

In terms of San Francisco, I'm mainly interested in the Mission.

I really like the idea of living in the city and feel like it would be an awesome experience, but the lower rents, less hills, and extra sun in Oakland sounds awesome as well. The 20-40 minute commute doesn't seem too horrible either from Oakland to where I work in the financial district.

So, my question is, how much will I be missing out by not living in San Francisco? I like to go out, I want to meet up with friends easily, and I will be working right in San Francisco. Would it be worth it to have a lower savings for a year or two to experience living in the city, or should I just head right to Oakland? The extra $1000 or so extra savings every month would be nice too (and I'd likely have a bigger place).

So what are people's experiences between San Francisco and Oakland? Also, keep in mind i'm 23, which I'm sure plays a bit of a factor in location preferences.

I'm also interested in any thoughts people have on Alameda. I haven't heard many people talking about it.

P.S. If anyone is looking for a room-mate starting in June, let me know and maybe we can talk more.

EDIT: I should also mention that I plan on biking/using public transit and will not be getting a car.

[Ruth4Truth]

You won't miss out on much, living in the EastBay. For the rent you've budgeted, you might be able to score a 2-br. in Oakland or Berkeley. Or a 1-br. w/money to spare. You can always take BART to the city on weekends, or for evening entertainment. You don't need a car.

Alameda gets recommended fairly often on this board, too. But Oakland, Berkeley and Albany/El Cerrito are more practical for commuting to SF for work, because there are BART stations there.

[jade408]

Do you have a existing network of friends? It could potentially be easier to build a circle in sf. Especially if you have roomies.

[fred89]

Originally Posted by jade408

Do you have a existing network of friends? It could potentially be easier to build a circle in sf. Especially if you have roomies.

I don't, and was thinking it may be easier to make friends if I lived right in San Francisco. I'm all for spending more money initially if it means I'll be happier and be able to find new friends easier.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by fred89

So, I'll be coming to San Francisco to start a new job ($83k Salary) and I'm having a lot of trouble deciding where to live. I am open to room-mates, but I've budgeted $2,100 for rent+utilities, which should cover me for a small studio in San Francisco, $1000 for fun/Food, and ideally, ~$1000 for Savings (when considering my after tax monthly income).

In terms of San Francisco, I'm mainly interested in the Mission.

I really like the idea of living in the city and feel like it would be an awesome experience, but the lower rents, less hills, and extra sun in Oakland sounds awesome as well. The 20-40 minute commute doesn't seem too horrible either from Oakland to where I work in the financial district.

So, my question is, how much will I be missing out by not living in San Francisco? I like to go out, I want to meet up with friends easily, and I will be working right in San Francisco. Would it be worth it to have a lower savings for a year or two to experience living in the city, or should I just head right to Oakland? The extra $1000 or so extra savings every month would be nice too (and I'd likely have a bigger place).

So what are people's experiences between San Francisco and Oakland? Also, keep in mind i'm 23, which I'm sure plays a bit of a factor in location preferences.

I'm also interested in any thoughts people have on Alameda. I haven't heard many people talking about it.

P.S. If anyone is looking for a room-mate starting in June, let me know and maybe we can talk more.

EDIT: I should also mention that I plan on biking/using public transit and will not be getting a car.

There is a huge difference between living in Oakland and San Francisco. The culture is very different and the places you will hang out will be completely different. Oakland isn't like a suburb of San Francisco, it is its own city. Many people think, well I want to live in San Francisco, but the rent is cheaper across the Bay, so I'll just move there and take BART to SF. This sounds like it makes sense, but it in reality, if you want to live in San Francisco, live in San Francisco. If you want to live in Oakland, live in Oakland. I know this sounds a bit "Duhhhh" but it's hard to explain. All you have to do is ask locals around San Francisco, I want to live here, but I could get a nicer place in Oakland, will I still have the same experience living in Oakland, but hanging out in San Francisco and I'm sure they will say no. You won't necessarily be like a tourist when you are in San Francisco, but you definitely won't experience the same as locals do.

mod cut I suggest you asking actual locals next time you are in town. There is a huge rivalry between the two cities and people.

[jade408]

mod cut
Yes, there are some "cultural" differences. There are some groups that are only in SF, and some that are nearly only in Oakland.

There are some things to note. SF has more "nightlife." The Bay Area is not a night club area. More about the bars. There are obviously more in SF. But there is nightlife in Oakland as well. SF is denser, so people are more packed in, so you are more likely to make those incidental connections that you might in Oakland.

There is no equivalent to the Marina in Oakland. You also don't really meet many people like me in SF (which is why I live in Oakland. People like me = young black professionals). After spending my college years hanging out in SF, I realized it really wasn't my scene. Not diverse enough in my book. (And I don't mean diversity where you see some different ethnic groups in the same place. I am looking for diversity where different ethnic groups are sitting at the same table.) SF doesn't have enough of either for me, in the types of places I like to go. If you are a young professional, the SF crowd is mostly white and asian. And if you veer off into the wrong place, you'll encounter the really annoying people I prefer not to deal with, as I left them behind in high school.

There are areas that are roughly equivalent to the Mission (lots of young people and nightlife): Uptown, Grand Lake, Temescal. I'd concentrate my Oakland search to there.

But the hardest thing, in my opinion, is building a circle of friends, if you don't already have any nearby. I recommend, anyone, who is moving from out of area, with no existing network, to get roomies. Instand friends. Unless you are one of those people who just makes friends anywhere. There are way more roomie shares in SF than Oakland. And you are more likely to find people your age (which I am assuming is in your 20s).

But Oakland is a great place to live. But it helps to have friends already. The commute to fidi is easy. There are lots of areas where "younger" people congregate, and you can find cheaper apartments.

I would definitely rule out Alameda. Pleasant place, but it is family oriented. Not good for young singles. Albany and El Cerrito are also pleasant. And more suburban. You may find roomie shares with grad students from Cal. And obviously that is a different scene. So not really ideal in my book for a newcomer.

Back when I was in my 20s and did the math, I decided it was a better move to live in Oakland vs SF. I didn't like the options I could afford at the time, and I hate having roomies. If I went back to my 20s? I might have tried to live in NYC.

In the past 10 years, nightlife has increased a lot in Oakland. A few years ago, I'd go out in SF almost every week. Nowadays, I mostly go out in Oakland.

You didn't mention if you had a car or not. Also another consideration....

[mayorhaggar]

SF and Oakland are definitely different. SF is more intense in good ways and bad ways. More crowded, more walkable, better public transit, dirtier, smellier, there's more going on, there's more restaurants, etc. And more expensive, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it--to the current high prices aren't worth paying, 5 years ago it was way cheaper and more worth it in my opinion.

Oakland is definitely quieter but IMO that is a good thing, after being in SF for 7 years the noise and general grime was just too much, and Oakland was a nice change of pace. If you want nightlife then SF is the place to be, but IMO the nightlife there isn't that great compared with other cities where it's cheaper and more fun. If you just want to be able to walk down the street and go to a good local bar, Oakland and Berkeley have plenty of them.

Basically it's up to you and whether you want to pay like 30 to 50% more to live in a small place in SF. I can post some more later.

[fred89]

Originally Posted by jade408

You didn't mention if you had a car or not. Also another consideration....

I actually mention it right at the end of my post that I don't plan on getting a car. Anyway, thanks for the great response! I have to get to bed now, so I'll read through some of these a bit more carefully tomorrow.

Thanks a lot everyone! I really appreciate the opinions.

[bmw335xi]

My post isn't putting down Oakland, I'm simply saying, they are two different cities and if someone fell in love with San Francisco, choosing to live in Oakland will be disappointing because of the physical and cultural differences. Some people I'm sure would prefer to live in Oakland. I just want people to know they are different and you should choose the city you see yourself enjoying life. I personally think San Francisco is better when you are young and if you don't have a car. There are many more opportunities to meet new people. I think if you start wanting to settle down and can't afford a $750k home, than there are parts of Oakland that would be better than SF. Alameda is good for people that have children and want somewhere safe and quiet, and cheaper than the Peninsula.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

My post isn't putting down Oakland, I'm simply saying, they are two different cities and if someone fell in love with San Francisco, choosing to live in Oakland will be disappointing because of the physical and cultural differences. Some people I'm sure would prefer to live in Oakland. I just want people to know they are different and you should choose the city you see yourself enjoying life. I personally think San Francisco is better when you are young and if you don't have a car. There are many more opportunities to meet new people. I think if you start wanting to settle down and can't afford a $750k home, than there are parts of Oakland that would be better than SF. Alameda is good for people that have children and want somewhere safe and quiet, and cheaper than the Peninsula.

ORLY?

Oakland is a great place to live, and believe it or not, there are people who actually prefer it to SF because it has better weather, it's less crowded/hectic, it's easier to own a car, it's more centrally located to other parts of the Bay Area, it has its own vibe, etc.

We get it. You don't like Oakland.mod cut

With that said OP, SF is a GREAT city! It's even better if you can afford it and enjoy all that it has to offer. Visit both places and see for yourself- I can guarantee you'll find a neighborhood that fits