Hacker News Reader

Comment by santaclaus | Hacker News Reader

I have friends who have lived in a San Francisco (and Berkeley!) for years who are too sketched out to visit Oakland, weirdly.

View on HN

I'll admit that, based on what I heard before moving there, I felt the same thing. Joke's on me though, Lake Merrit's worst day is nicer than SOMA's best.

Mid-market near the big tech offices feels way more sketchy than anywhere in Oakland west of the lake.

I don't really feel safe in either mid market (tenderloin) or patches of Oakland, and I live here

It might "feel" sketchier but Oakland's crime rate in some of its nicest areas is on par without SFs rougher areas. Oakland is awesome but the per capita crime (even in areas like Lake Merritt) is not nice.

How does either compare with insane like south Chicago or st. Louis, or insane the other way like Seattle?

I worked in Oakland and had friends their. The vibe is much lighter than Saint Louis (where I’m from also) or Chicago. It’s more laid back but more crazy than SF (which is already a crazy city). All of Oakland has an artist vibe, the magic that has flowed of SF exist there for a short time. Lake Merrit, Jack London, Piedmont areas are pretty nice and a must visit, but definitely avoid East Oakland, Colesium BART area

Not sure in what world Lake Merritt is nicer than Soma even on an average day.

Sketchiness? Yeah, Soma has homeless people and some unpleasant crowds on 6th St and spread throughout; but it doesn't even come close to the sketchiness of pretty much anywhere in Oakland. I've had guns pulled on me on the outskirts Rockridge and that's supposed to be the nicest part of Oakland… don't really see that as likely to happen in Soma.

What then, weather? Soma has the sunniest weather in SF, but still remains temperate year round. When everyone across the bay is melting in 95 degree heat in summer, Soma stays a nice and cool windy but sunny 75.

Same thing happens in New York with the Bronx and New Jersey. I think there's a psychological stopping power to water that makes Palo Alto and San Francisco seem closer than Oakland (or the Upper West Side feel closer to Flatiron than New Jersey).

Bridge traffic + BART congestion means that it's easier for me as a resident of San Francisco to visit Palo Alto than Oakland.

Maybe not how it should be, but certainly how it is; with a new Bay crossing slated for 2040 at the earliest it'll be like that for a while.

At what time of day? Currently Google maps shows a 20 minute drive from SOMA to downtown Oakland vs 40 minutes to PA. If you're trying to use public transit obviously the difference will be even greater.

Commute time, because that's what (work!) we're discussing. I don't know what BART train you guys ride, but my coworkers in the East Bay would often try to leave the office before 4:30 or after 6, or ride the train the wrong way for a few stops, because the tunnel is so crowded at rush hour. The bridge is awful for commutes, of course.

And some people apparently think "second Bay crossing" refers exclusively to a road, which is not what I meant

If you really are concerned about the crush, just walk back to Powell and you get yourself at worst a nice aisle or wall spot, the mistake is trying to get on at Embarcadero. Also, in general it's nothing compared to the human density London Tube commuters have to face even with 4-5 times the number of trains.

Comparing to Palo Alto where you either have to take Caltrain and take what feels like a double digit risk of a multi-hour delay, or else a hour plus drive, compared to the 15 minutes it takes to get from FiDi to downtown Oakland is just ridiculous on its face. I've lived in both Oakland and Palo Alto, and anyone complaining about SF <-> Oakland commute has no sense of Bay Area commute perspective.

AC Transit and the SF Ferry are the best ways to cross the bay.

What do you mean by BART congestion? I've been commuting for over 5 years during rush hour, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to wait for the next train due to overcrowding.

BART is more congested than it used to be, at least at Embarcadero. It's not uncommon to have to wait multiple trains if you want to get on going to Walnut Creek or Dublin/Pleasanton. It's still the most convenient way across the bay, though. The ferries are nice (and reasonably fast) but their schedules have to work for you.

Maybe I shouldn't tell you this, but just ride backwards to civic center and you will get a seat.

Sorry to tell you, but the general rule that adding road capacity doesn't reduce congestion (due to induced demand) will be true of any future Bay crossings.

Induced demand only goes so far, y'know. The rule is not that consistent.

Sorry, this is totally not true. It's harder to DRIVE to the East Bay than to arbitrary points south (not Palo Alto), but public transit is generally much better to the East Bay. And most of the driving congestion is simply getting onto the bridge, which I admit is non-trivial (especially with Giants day games thrown into the mix), but once you're on the bridge it's markedly better than 101 and roughly the same as 280. 280 is still a prettier drive, though!

It's easier to drive to Palo Alto than take any form of transport to the East Bay. And I live near Parkmerced, which may skew the numbers.

I mean, you live in possibly the most inconvenient part of the city. It literally can't get more inconvenient and inaccessible than Parkmerced. I lived there for a month and had to move because it was just so dreadful.

It’s inconvenient but the highway is right there. No car would make it hell

You essentially live in Daly City.

And I have coworkers that never go above 90th Street in Manhattan (let alone go to Brooklyn, Queens, or the Bronx).

That's just stupid. Why?

There are a dwindling number of people who hold their nose at interactions with the bridge and tunnel crowd.

You don't need to go over a bridge or through a tunnel to upper Manhattan from lower Manhattan

Too fancy for interaction with commoners?

Because they were raised in upper middle class suburbs and are scared of being in working class neighborhoods.

Sure, but also they have no reason to go. They have everything they need. I don't go to random suburbs in my city for no reason.

Fair enough!

90th!? I don't go above 23rd, pretty sure 90th is like the Canadian border.*

* Kidding, but there are people like this.

aside from central park and a few museums there's little to do above 23rd ;)

No Brooklyn, gotten too bourgeois?

Love Oakland and I lived in SF for decades.

I work in Oakland and can attest to seeing my share of thugs (color blind here), more so than S.V. and S.F.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com