Although I generally understand the history of the two places, I've still to understand the vast differences between the east bay and SF. I suppose SF has embraced the tourist economy and taken full advantage while oakland has struggled to keep corruption from its politics, but since WW2, it does not appear that much has happened in oakland other than a handful of non-profits trying to the turn the city around, while the executive directors are making just a boat load of money. Before I moved the bay area, I always thought that it was one of the most liberal cities in the country because of its philanthropy, but it reality the non profit sector is also a business, and people do take advantage. Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical, but I've got to say, I don't see things turning around anytime soon. The afluent population has the more say so, and they want to live green while the uneducated just care about living day to day, but are forced to take on more cost than they should. Just a grip I suppose. Anyone have any other thoughts.
Your post is very confusing but I think I get a sense of what your gripe is.
To be honest I dont think you are being cynical, but I think your attitude is naiive. Why pump money into a community that doesn't want to help itself? Do you think it would be better to fix it up and let yuppies take over crappy neighborhoods? Take a look at Jack London Square... it is built, there are some decent places being built around it, but no one goes there! I worked 3 blocks away and the place is ALWAYS empty. Do you think those apartments they are building are for the people who live in the neighbor hood already?
What does being liberal have to do with philanthropy? Do you really think there isn't something to be gained by being charitable. Biff and Muffy Blueblood who live in their Pac Heights mansions dont give a crap about being green unless someone else see's it.
What extra costs do "uneducated" people have to bare? If they aren't smart enough to not take on these extra costs, well I guess that sucks for them. Did you think that because the area is "liberal" that everyone was going to be a fun loving hippy socialist? maybe I'm being cynical...
Im pretty sure cryzko said Oakland... the city of, not the Beast or Walnut Creek dude.
What extra costs do "uneducated" people have to bare? If they aren't smart enough to not take on these extra costs, well I guess that sucks for them.
Hmm, it would take me too long to fully address this. Instead, I humbly redirect you to one of the best books on poverty I've ever read: The Working Poor : Invisible in America. (Or, pretty much any book about poverty in America will suffice.)
The short story is, life actually costs more money if you're poor than if you're middle-class or wealthy. One simple example: if you have to work two jobs to pay for rent and food, then you can't care for your children, so you have to pay for childcare. (This one simple fact is what forces many working poor into actually becoming indigent (ie, on welfare), simply because they literally can't watch their children and work at the same time.) Another easy one is that if you don't have a car, you have to ride a bus for a lot longer of time, and as we know, time is money (literally). It goes on and on. It costs much more to do your family's laundry at a laundromat than at home--but poor people can't afford their own washers and dryers. Oh, the list goes on.
vindingo, i just moved from oakland and it ain't detroit, nor would i call walnut creek a part of the east bay, because you know it's really nowhere near the water. dude
don't get me wrong cryzko i loved it there, but despite its 'hard' reputation i was just pointing out that cost wise it doesn't come close to what you are use to in detroit. my wife and i moved back to LA after living there for two years and we already want to go back. there isn't as much work as there is in LA, but the quality of life is off the chain up there.
so is oakland a good place to stay?..reasonable rent/etc... i mean shit, not like my expectations are high anyways..... just as long as i can work, go to a coffee house, and maybe get a tan...
depends what you consider reasonable, it is CA afterall. it also depends on where and what you would consider. since my wife was with me we stuck to good areas - north oakland closer to berkeley. we paid $2000 for a 2 bd, 1 ba place, it was about 950 sq ft. but if you don't have a woman you need to make feel safe you could definitely find more reasonable living. we got to LA a month ago and already we are making plans for our move back. you are so close to SF, close to wine country and marin if you want to get away, if you're into biking or hiking the hills are literally in your back yard, the air quality is good...shit the more i talk about it the more i want to move back now. i also know there are some great fabrication shops around, i'll have to dig deep but i know of one that may interest you if i can figure out who and where i'll post it here
a friend of mine was livin in a welfare motel flophouse in san francisco working on his novel. he met and married the daughter of one of the founders of oracle software and now lives in an 18,000 square foot crib in pacific heights. kudos !
mantaray : this is the sentance I responding to - "The afluent population has the more say so, and they want to live green while the uneducated just care about living day to day, but are forced to take on more cost than they should."
This is one sentance that talks about rich people being green and "uneducated" (yes that is correct, it does not say impovrished) only caring about living day to day. What thel hell do they have to do with one another? I guess it is your assumption that uneducated = poor. Why should these "uneducated" people NOT have to take on more cost? Is this not what our entire society based on, social Darwinism.
Your example of paying for childcare is my exact point. Why should I pay for them to live and take care of a child if they can not? Seems like a stupid idea to have a bunch of kids if you can't afford it. There might be a correlation between being uneducated and being poor, but being stupid is a whole different animal.
I will agree with you that it (the bay area) is a great place to live.
You can still find cheap and colorful areas in SF. As I am sure it is true with Detroit, in Oakland you can stay away from ghetto areas and you will be fine. Lake Merritt is another nice area. I would imagine it would be easier to find work in a fab shop or furniture shop in the east bay/Oakland. If you wanted an architecture office, there are tons in SF.
poor often does equal uneducated. it's an endless loop -- if you grow up poor, you don't have the opportunities available to you to become better educated -- and if you grow up uneducated, you will not be able to break out of poverty. in fact in many ways education truly is the dividing line, and that's why so many social programs aim to eradicate the blocks that exist that halt the ability of the poor to become educated. (hunger, child-care, early childhood education (for 0-3 years old) which is proven to break cycles of uneducation, poverty, and even violence later in life)...
The sad fact is that poor people exist, and they cause other problems in society, if you want to look at it in a socially utilitarian way -- think of it like "having poor / uneducated people around ends up fucking shit up for me." so if you want a good life according to your utilitarian guidelines, then you have to pay some money to help get poor people educated and keep them from fucking your shit up.
I'm not really sure what your problem with being green has to do with all this... just trying to point out some basic tenets of civics, and the way civilization has worked since its dawn. As a social darwinist, you can't afford NOT to help the poor and the uneducated, because in the end they will drag you, and civilization, down. (Remember your history lessons of the dark ages? That is exactly why they happened.)
So, this is what your taxes go to prevent. Does this make sense?
mantaray- I am not arguing with your logic... only the wording of the original post.
In my post where I said "what the hell do they have to do with on another" I ment rich people being green & in the same sentance "uneducated" people living day to day. The same goes for being liberal and philanthropy. Im not arguing the relevance of each individual topic as it pretains to the area, only their relation to one another in the original post.
On a side note: my gripe with being "green" is that it is so diluted and shallow in this area that it discusts me. Some douchebag gave me shit for spraying an adhesive outside earlier today saying that I was killing mother earth! Later I looked at the can and it said "emits no ozone depleting VOCs" go figure... It gets old when it is shoved down your throat.
while I do understand your point, my argument is that there needs to be at least a tiny bit of self acountablity and self reliance on the part of these "uneducated" people... I spent my middle school and highschool years in Newark, NJ then went on to school in New Orleans. I have seen way too many poor people milk the system and not use it to get out. The problem with your solution of "then you have to pay some money to help get poor people educated and keep them from fucking your shit up"... is that we already do pay for it. How much more $$ do you think it would take?
I thought the dark ages happend because the western roman empire fell?
I spent my middle school and highschool years in Newark, NJ then went on to school in New Orleans.
Ahh, this explains a lot. My s.o. is from New Orleans and I know what you are talking about.
It's true that abuse will always exist, but that doesn't negate our need to try. I don't know how much more money it would take, I don't think it's necessarily about more money, just a shift in money allocation and priorities. It's pretty scary whenever you see those "where do our taxpayer dollars go?" bar graphs and the line for defense (even before the Iraq War) was like the Sears Tower with the line for education like a parking lot attendant's shack next to it.
Also, having lived in California extensively myself, I completely and totally commiserate with you on the extremism of idiotic fake-green reactionary types--and they are crawling all over SF and East Bay, that's for damn sure.
I think the original poster's point was just to point out the inequality in ability of people to actually implement green priorities -- on the one hand, we have people with so much money and so little sense that they implement green strategies just for the show of it, and on the other, people who could really benefit from green strategies don't have the capital to put them into action.
Oakland is awesome. Particularly around Lake Merrit, Grand Ave and Lakeshore. But theres other great established or upcoming neighborhoods like Piedmont ave, Temescal, Rockridge, parts of north Oakland, even Fruitvale is getting better. Just stay out of deep east and deep west oakland, and you're set.
I'd take Oakland over Detroit any day.
As for whether or not Walnut Creek is part of the east bay, I didnt read the entire discussion, but I think we can all agree that east of the caldecott tunnel is a completely different world from west of it. Lets call berkeley/oakland the "inner east bay" and lafayette/walnut creek the "outer east bay." The inner east bay is where you live if youre young and want to have fun. Outer east bay is where you go to hole yourself up in your gigantic house and slowly grow old.
The inner east bay is where you live if youre young and want to have fun. Outer east bay is where you go to hole yourself up in your gigantic house and slowly grow old.
yea, because, you know, if you stay a hipster in the city you won't grow old...ha, ha.
San Francisco & East Bay
Although I generally understand the history of the two places, I've still to understand the vast differences between the east bay and SF. I suppose SF has embraced the tourist economy and taken full advantage while oakland has struggled to keep corruption from its politics, but since WW2, it does not appear that much has happened in oakland other than a handful of non-profits trying to the turn the city around, while the executive directors are making just a boat load of money. Before I moved the bay area, I always thought that it was one of the most liberal cities in the country because of its philanthropy, but it reality the non profit sector is also a business, and people do take advantage. Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical, but I've got to say, I don't see things turning around anytime soon. The afluent population has the more say so, and they want to live green while the uneducated just care about living day to day, but are forced to take on more cost than they should. Just a grip I suppose. Anyone have any other thoughts.
Michael
i have a friend in oakland right now (hes from detroit) and told me that oakland is the west coast detroit but with a bit more activity.
curious if the cost of living is the same as in rent/etc compared to detroit.
comparable to detroit...not even close, hell parts of the east bay are more expensive than SF
Your post is very confusing but I think I get a sense of what your gripe is.
To be honest I dont think you are being cynical, but I think your attitude is naiive. Why pump money into a community that doesn't want to help itself? Do you think it would be better to fix it up and let yuppies take over crappy neighborhoods? Take a look at Jack London Square... it is built, there are some decent places being built around it, but no one goes there! I worked 3 blocks away and the place is ALWAYS empty. Do you think those apartments they are building are for the people who live in the neighbor hood already?
What does being liberal have to do with philanthropy? Do you really think there isn't something to be gained by being charitable. Biff and Muffy Blueblood who live in their Pac Heights mansions dont give a crap about being green unless someone else see's it.
What extra costs do "uneducated" people have to bare? If they aren't smart enough to not take on these extra costs, well I guess that sucks for them. Did you think that because the area is "liberal" that everyone was going to be a fun loving hippy socialist? maybe I'm being cynical...
Im pretty sure cryzko said Oakland... the city of, not the Beast or Walnut Creek dude.
Hmm, it would take me too long to fully address this. Instead, I humbly redirect you to one of the best books on poverty I've ever read: The Working Poor : Invisible in America. (Or, pretty much any book about poverty in America will suffice.)
The short story is, life actually costs more money if you're poor than if you're middle-class or wealthy. One simple example: if you have to work two jobs to pay for rent and food, then you can't care for your children, so you have to pay for childcare. (This one simple fact is what forces many working poor into actually becoming indigent (ie, on welfare), simply because they literally can't watch their children and work at the same time.) Another easy one is that if you don't have a car, you have to ride a bus for a lot longer of time, and as we know, time is money (literally). It goes on and on. It costs much more to do your family's laundry at a laundromat than at home--but poor people can't afford their own washers and dryers. Oh, the list goes on.
vindingo, i just moved from oakland and it ain't detroit, nor would i call walnut creek a part of the east bay, because you know it's really nowhere near the water. dude
never been to oakland..... was looking into it for work/close to s.f./etc.... so if it does/doesnt then i'm fine.....
don't get me wrong cryzko i loved it there, but despite its 'hard' reputation i was just pointing out that cost wise it doesn't come close to what you are use to in detroit. my wife and i moved back to LA after living there for two years and we already want to go back. there isn't as much work as there is in LA, but the quality of life is off the chain up there.
so is oakland a good place to stay?..reasonable rent/etc... i mean shit, not like my expectations are high anyways..... just as long as i can work, go to a coffee house, and maybe get a tan...
depends what you consider reasonable, it is CA afterall. it also depends on where and what you would consider. since my wife was with me we stuck to good areas - north oakland closer to berkeley. we paid $2000 for a 2 bd, 1 ba place, it was about 950 sq ft. but if you don't have a woman you need to make feel safe you could definitely find more reasonable living. we got to LA a month ago and already we are making plans for our move back. you are so close to SF, close to wine country and marin if you want to get away, if you're into biking or hiking the hills are literally in your back yard, the air quality is good...shit the more i talk about it the more i want to move back now. i also know there are some great fabrication shops around, i'll have to dig deep but i know of one that may interest you if i can figure out who and where i'll post it here
a friend of mine was livin in a welfare motel flophouse in san francisco working on his novel. he met and married the daughter of one of the founders of oracle software and now lives in an 18,000 square foot crib in pacific heights. kudos !
i was dating the daughter of the guy that owns most of the beauty supply stores in detroit.... think about it....
mantaray : this is the sentance I responding to - "The afluent population has the more say so, and they want to live green while the uneducated just care about living day to day, but are forced to take on more cost than they should."
This is one sentance that talks about rich people being green and "uneducated" (yes that is correct, it does not say impovrished) only caring about living day to day. What thel hell do they have to do with one another? I guess it is your assumption that uneducated = poor. Why should these "uneducated" people NOT have to take on more cost? Is this not what our entire society based on, social Darwinism.
Your example of paying for childcare is my exact point. Why should I pay for them to live and take care of a child if they can not? Seems like a stupid idea to have a bunch of kids if you can't afford it. There might be a correlation between being uneducated and being poor, but being stupid is a whole different animal.
March06 - touching the water?
I will agree with you that it (the bay area) is a great place to live.
You can still find cheap and colorful areas in SF. As I am sure it is true with Detroit, in Oakland you can stay away from ghetto areas and you will be fine. Lake Merritt is another nice area. I would imagine it would be easier to find work in a fab shop or furniture shop in the east bay/Oakland. If you wanted an architecture office, there are tons in SF.
thanks for linking a map showing its nowhere near the water
MArch - Walnut Creek is definitely part of the East Bay, water or no water.
oh my goodness, vindingo, you are scary.
poor often does equal uneducated. it's an endless loop -- if you grow up poor, you don't have the opportunities available to you to become better educated -- and if you grow up uneducated, you will not be able to break out of poverty. in fact in many ways education truly is the dividing line, and that's why so many social programs aim to eradicate the blocks that exist that halt the ability of the poor to become educated. (hunger, child-care, early childhood education (for 0-3 years old) which is proven to break cycles of uneducation, poverty, and even violence later in life)...
The sad fact is that poor people exist, and they cause other problems in society, if you want to look at it in a socially utilitarian way -- think of it like "having poor / uneducated people around ends up fucking shit up for me." so if you want a good life according to your utilitarian guidelines, then you have to pay some money to help get poor people educated and keep them from fucking your shit up.
I'm not really sure what your problem with being green has to do with all this... just trying to point out some basic tenets of civics, and the way civilization has worked since its dawn. As a social darwinist, you can't afford NOT to help the poor and the uneducated, because in the end they will drag you, and civilization, down. (Remember your history lessons of the dark ages? That is exactly why they happened.)
So, this is what your taxes go to prevent. Does this make sense?
"thanks for linking a map showing its nowhere near the water"
read the first 3 sentances of the article
mantaray- I am not arguing with your logic... only the wording of the original post.
In my post where I said "what the hell do they have to do with on another" I ment rich people being green & in the same sentance "uneducated" people living day to day. The same goes for being liberal and philanthropy. Im not arguing the relevance of each individual topic as it pretains to the area, only their relation to one another in the original post.
On a side note: my gripe with being "green" is that it is so diluted and shallow in this area that it discusts me. Some douchebag gave me shit for spraying an adhesive outside earlier today saying that I was killing mother earth! Later I looked at the can and it said "emits no ozone depleting VOCs" go figure... It gets old when it is shoved down your throat.
while I do understand your point, my argument is that there needs to be at least a tiny bit of self acountablity and self reliance on the part of these "uneducated" people... I spent my middle school and highschool years in Newark, NJ then went on to school in New Orleans. I have seen way too many poor people milk the system and not use it to get out. The problem with your solution of "then you have to pay some money to help get poor people educated and keep them from fucking your shit up"... is that we already do pay for it. How much more $$ do you think it would take?
I thought the dark ages happend because the western roman empire fell?
Ahh, this explains a lot. My s.o. is from New Orleans and I know what you are talking about.
It's true that abuse will always exist, but that doesn't negate our need to try. I don't know how much more money it would take, I don't think it's necessarily about more money, just a shift in money allocation and priorities. It's pretty scary whenever you see those "where do our taxpayer dollars go?" bar graphs and the line for defense (even before the Iraq War) was like the Sears Tower with the line for education like a parking lot attendant's shack next to it.
Also, having lived in California extensively myself, I completely and totally commiserate with you on the extremism of idiotic fake-green reactionary types--and they are crawling all over SF and East Bay, that's for damn sure.
I think the original poster's point was just to point out the inequality in ability of people to actually implement green priorities -- on the one hand, we have people with so much money and so little sense that they implement green strategies just for the show of it, and on the other, people who could really benefit from green strategies don't have the capital to put them into action.
Anyway, sounds like we're on the same page.
Oakland is awesome. Particularly around Lake Merrit, Grand Ave and Lakeshore. But theres other great established or upcoming neighborhoods like Piedmont ave, Temescal, Rockridge, parts of north Oakland, even Fruitvale is getting better. Just stay out of deep east and deep west oakland, and you're set.
I'd take Oakland over Detroit any day.
As for whether or not Walnut Creek is part of the east bay, I didnt read the entire discussion, but I think we can all agree that east of the caldecott tunnel is a completely different world from west of it. Lets call berkeley/oakland the "inner east bay" and lafayette/walnut creek the "outer east bay." The inner east bay is where you live if youre young and want to have fun. Outer east bay is where you go to hole yourself up in your gigantic house and slowly grow old.
yea, because, you know, if you stay a hipster in the city you won't grow old...ha, ha.
Aside from "there's no there there", there's always Oaklandish...
Love shopping in pier39 and find something interesting every once in a while, like bath salts perhaps.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.