Why Are All My Friends Moving to Oakland? | Hacker News Reader

Why Are All My Friends Moving to Oakland?

thebolditalic.com

52 pointswyclif90 comments

My wife and I moved to Oakland in October.

The reasons we moved were basically:

- We wanted more interior space. Our SF loft was awesome, but was one giant room, and we wanted to be able to have guests and give them (and us) some privacy.

- We wanted outdoor space. And not public outdoor space. We wanted space for us. To plant a garden. To bbq. To entertain. To sit in the sun.

- Our rent was increased from $2200 -> $2400 -> $2650 and we bought a house with a mortgage payment of $2072.

Those are the big ones. We both absolutely love SF, but we couldn't find a place to rent for a reasonable price with 2 bedrooms and an outdoor space that wasn't perpetually fogged in for what we pay now. We are both very happy that we made the move.

There are drawbacks like using the car a lot more and having a longer and more expensive commute, but overall it's been great for us.

If you are working in SF casual carpool is a great option for Oaklanders and is free.

http://www.ridenow.org/carpool/

Yup, great if it works for you and is convenient.

My wife and I have folding bikes that we use to bike to BART (closer than any casual carpool pickup).

When we lived in SF my wife walked to work and I took a bus. So our daily commute cost was $4. Now we both bart both directions and it's roughly $14 a day. $300 more expensive than before, but still less than our monthly rent was when you add it to our mortgage.

Yes, but not by much - and you're not considering your travel time. Multiply that lost time by your hourly wage and see how its adds up.

If you're on salary or your boss won't pay you for hours past 8 hours, then that equation does not work.

It only matters if the time lost could have actually resulted in you being paid that amount of money. Unpaid time is still unpaid time regardless of where you spend it. Not all potentially free time results in being paid.

So you value your time away from work at $0/hour? Personally, I value my free time at a higher amount than my salary divided by hours worked.

What I value, and what I get paid, are two different things. No matter how theoretical you want to get, at the end of the day you have in your hand what you actually have in your hand.

Same thing happens all over the Western world. The problem isn't that the cycle repeats itself elsewhere, the problem is that most of the time it doesn't.

If the "refugees" from the Big City aren't followed by people that bring real money (and thus all the "horrors" of gentrification), at best the new location stops developing, at worst the whole thing collapses under the influx of newcomers without having the money to handle the increased pressure on the social and economic infrastructure that was in relatively fragile state to begin with.

It may be a great adventure for young people that are very mobile, but I wouldn't start buying property in Oakland just yet...

The plan B gentrification destinations don't collapse, they just stay in a state of half-gentrification forever. Oakland, Jersey City, Northeast Minneapolis, etc. They have been the next hot place to live for the past 20 years.

It's not exactly generous of me, but as a midwesterner, I find this kind of thing morosely comical. While I understand that everyone has their own issues and there's no good reason to discount them out of hand, it's hard not to raise my eyebrows a bit at some of the 'problems' Californians advertise.

We call our version of that White People Problems, but I suppose that might be considered offensive in other places now...

The PC wording is "First World Problems".

Haha, thanks; I knew there was something more appropriate there. One reason I love living where I do, though, is that almost no one gives a rat's ass about political correctness... even the minorities. :)

I bet you that's not true. Where do you live?

The only reason I'm not going to answer this is that it'd start a pedantic debate that's not worth having. Suffice to say that I have friends who are first-generation immigrants from South Korea, Ghana, Japan, Mexico, and Italy, and none of them are as reactionary about racial slurs as your average white American.

Don't bet about things you don't understand. You and I could live next door to each other and have totally different experiences; many of my neighbors are Somali and they'd certainly have mixed interpretations.

Basically... it's not as simple as either of us has made it out to be, but it helps no one to turn it into a debate that can't end well.

Suffice to say that I have friends who are first-generation immigrants from South Korea, Ghana, Japan, Mexico, and Italy, and none of them are as reactionary about racial slurs as your average white American.

Reacting differently to racial slurs is quite different from not giving "a rat's ass about political correctness".

Exactly. So how do you know how minorities feel about political correctness? Are you basing this on what you've been told? How large is your sample size? How do you correct for people (your first generation immigrant friends) telling you precisely what you want to hear?

You should take your own advice and not pretend to know how every member of a diverse group may react to your choice of words.

I don't pretend to know such a thing. I cite the sample group I have and if you can't figure that out it's your own failure.

Minneapolis is one of the most PC places on the planet.

That would have been my assessment as well. However, given the ridiculous reactions to my posts here, I have to reconsider that assumption.

It is honestly a bit offensive to any white person who grew up with serious problems, of which there are many.

The term first-world problems is much more acceptable.

While I understand your point, it shouldn't be. It's a pretty obvious references to well-off white people, which is the stigma we get (and certainly one of the reasons I paid for almost all of my education despite being a national merit scholar finalist).

My intention was certainly not to offend. My ex-fiancee came from a very poor white area in the midwest, and I also have friends from similar backgrounds in the south... the problem with "acceptable" terms is that they limit your discourse. If you grew up somewhere with serious problems, you should be concentrating on solving the problems, not changing the way people talk about them so others will think about it less.

But what you're talking about are clearly socio-economic problems. Calling them "white people problems" is just wrong even if it wasn't offensive. Which it is.

Then please accept my unqualified apology for offending you (and whoever else is offended by this term). Clearly we have different perspectives, and as I said, my intention was not to offend.

However, separately, please also consider that intention should be considered when deciding whether something is "offensive." Taking offense to an offensive comment is appropriate, but deciding whether it was actually made in such a manner is something relevant (whether you consider it so or not) that people too often skip.

I didn't say I'm offended, just that what you said is offensive.

Then I'd have to say you might as well be wrong. Unless you are offended, or you have someone next to you saying "hey, that guy's a jerk, and this is why," your opinion of what other people should be offended about really isn't relevant.

People who overreact will always be offended. If you're not one of those people, stop acting on their behalf. All you're doing is intimidating people with the prospect of other people being oversensitive.

I don't really understand your point.

Why, WHY call what you're talking about "white people problems?" You're 1) wrong and 2) insensitive that many people find race-based classifications offensive.

Have you spent much time here in the bay area? A huge, huge chunk of the people experiencing these "white people problems" are of asian descent.

Anyway, I'm not one for online debates. Go ahead and have the last word, but I think you could be a little more artful next time and communicate yourself without the noise of racial labels.

No, I have spent absolutely no time in the bay area. Have you spent any time outside of it?

If you're so completely against online debate, stop wasting your time on people like me and find a point to make. If you want to be offended, find a better reason, and then actually do something about it.

What kind of problems do people in the midwest have? Midwest problems sound legit.

The morning surf commute is killer. Also, they probably fear Monsanto more than most of us do.

Wow, +1 for grabbing Monsanto before I even posted. ;)

Kind of depends on who you ask. Many of my friends in college came from farming families, which Monsanto and similar companies have largely eradicated. Those that remain are and have been in serious trouble or unrecoverable debt (which is how farmers spend most of their lives, interestingly). So in the rural midwest, the problems are far bigger.

Aside from that, in the cities... there are homeless here, and there are poor here, and there's unemployment here. It's pretty much the same as anywhere else; it's just smaller, which for some of us is nice. The cities still have the same stuff, they're just not as big, and urban sprawl isn't quite as bad as it is in some other places.

Or maybe you were making a joke and I missed it. Simple northern folk, we are... ;)

This seems like "My friends say the're moving to Oakland because they are confused and think The Mission = San Francisco"

Frankly move somewhere down south like San Mateo. Some parts of Oakland are dangerous and home invasions are quite common unless the community has hired private guards.

Not only that, but the police don't give a rat's ass about anything but their own contract negotiations.

I wouldn't care for living in San Mateo myself (I just evacuated the Bay Area for Brooklyn) but I can confirm that there's some really good quality, affordable food to be had there, both downtown and in a little cluster near El Camino and 25th or thereabouts.

Little Shanghai may not be the best Shanghaiese-style Chinese restaurant in the bay area, but there pretty darned good, and will serve you lunch for like $5...

San Mateo is nearly as expensive as SF, boring for anyone under 40, and impossible to navigate without a car. (Some of us would rather walk 20 minutes than drive 20 minutes.) I strongly considered moving there, but I couldn't find anywhere worth living near San Mateo downtown for the price that I could find somewhere in SF, and my job provides a bus from SF anyways.

I think it comes down to suburban living versus urban living. There are people who prefer each.

If you're going to move to the East Bay, why Oakland in particular? What about Berkeley, for example? Or some of the other little towns around here?

Of course, I'm a student right now and pretty biased, but I'd prefer living in a college town no matter what. Also a good reason to move to Palo Alto, but that's obviously appealing to a very different crowd than those considering Oakland.

Oakland is much cheaper. Berkeley is as expensive as SF. What do you mean by some of the other little towns? There aren't any "other little towns." Alameda?

Walnut Creek, etc. There are a half dozen or more. Debate semantics fine but it's clearly what he meant IMO.

I wasn't debating semantics, I was just wondering what he meant.

Your comment was worded in a way I found a little more abrasive and harsh when I replied to it. I think your edit here better expresses your curiosity.

Emeryville, El Cerrito, Albany, Kensington.

Oddly enough the weather in Oakland is slightly better than Berkeley because of the fog-break that SF provides.

I live in Oakland downtown, in a firehouse commune with a bunch of other physical technology entrepreneurs/researchers.

It is great. Machine shop is in the garage; walking Lake Merritt (the closest thing to a diverse, integrated utopia I know of in California...) and jack london square is lovely, easy access to the bart. The area around Lake Merritt and the Lake Merritt bart (where we are) is safe. Art murmur is a ton of fun, and the restaurants are great (Tamarindo, Trappist, Boca Nova, Chop Bar, Arizimendi, Cana are favorites).

Here's an idea. Allow people to build more buildings in San Francisco.

Here's another idea. California is not the be-all end-all of technology or employment, and spreading the love around -- to places that already have good tech scenes but are largely ignored by the media -- will not only get the seeker a higher quality of living for the money, but might also eventually result in the US west coast mellowing out rather than hogging all the pretense.

yup, what not start more companies and keep them in Oakland area

That sounds like a great idea -- more lives lost when the Big One hits!

Because the big one will not affect the rest of California?

I'll see you down in Arizona Bay, I guess. Though the Bay Area does have the recent earthquake track record that Southern California doesn't.

The brute fact of the matter is that it's the height of human folly that people are moving into this area: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/

Downtown Vancouver disagrees with you:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=downtown%...

One-word Summary: Rent

Yes, I love the punchline at the end. You don't leave Manhattan and you don't leave SF if you have good rent control.

I thought the major problem with SF isn't lack of rent control but the inability to build up. Don't they have a lot of laws preventing larger/taller apartment complexes? Get more renters into an area and the rent should control and stabilize itself better.

I'm not too informed about this so please correct me if I'm wrong.

That is part of the problem. But largely it's just because it's a desirable place to live. Manhattan has plenty of residential skyscrapers and that hasn't made rent go down.

Oakland's not that bad. It gets a bad rap, but most of the crime is highly localized to a few precincts...just like in every other metropolis in the world, SF and NY included.

Which precincts/neighborhoods would you say one should stay away from? Where are the safest places to rent?

It's been a while since I lived there myself, but the areas next to Lake Merrit and Jack London Square are very nice and generally quite safe. My brother used to live in Lake Merrit until last year and loved it.

Here's a horribly generalized, bound to insult many people, but still relatively accurate stereotype: there are 4 good neighborhoods in oakland, 3 of which are affordable. The oakland hills are very nice and very expensive. The three affordable neighborhoods are around jack london square, around lake merritt, and around college ave near the berkeley-oakland border.

Rockridge is safe, but more expensive than the rest of Oakland. I was paying 1700 for a one bedroom in a duplex. I recently moved to Adams Point and it's nice, I actually feel safer walking around here because there's always people around, and it's much livelier compared to Rockridge, and we were able to get a larger one bedroom for about $500 cheaper.

Yeah, but the commute to your south bay technology job is even more insayne.

The commute to your downtown SF technology job, however, is sometimes shorter than it is for some of your coworkers who live in the city :)

I wonder if we'll see an influx of startups to the Oakland area?

We chose to locate the Bay Area office of our NY-based product design/dev studio Cainkade in Oakland for a variety of reasons.

1. Value. As a bootstrapped services business I couldn't fathom paying 2-5x more to have 2-5x less space in SF.

2. Commute. Bay Area principles are happily living in the east bay and sought reasonable commutes.

3. Location as differentiation. I had a theory that the thousands of people on the BART platforms each morning might be interested in a shorter commute. As we've started hiring, this theory has been proven out. There's a large pool of professional, mature tech workers out there who would love to shorten their commute. Location for us has been an asset, helping us stand out from other companies.

There are lots of empty storefronts and spaces here. For those that are complaining about Oakland's gentrification, I would say it is still very, very early.

Some other experiences from working/running a business here.

Like -

- Going to a cafe and seeing diverse group of people. Not everyone in there pitching or wearing company issued hoodie. Although at times it seems that everyone is wearing a Kaiser badge. - Our gorgeous, large space. - Stag's Lunchette has insane sandwiches. - Less homeless, feces, drug paraphernalia. - 15 min. to downtown SF from our office. Quicker for me to get downtown from here than it was living in Noe Valley years ago.

Miss -

- More friends and work-friends in SF. No sidewalk serendipity here. - Peninsula/Valley access. With traffic it can be even more of a nightmare to get to Palo Alto- San Mateo area.

My usual suggestion to my Oakland bound artist friends is to move to Los Angeles.

Who gives half a shit about Oakland? This is not Hacker News— it's Bay Area Real Estate News.

I've lived in Oakland since 2001. It's great. It's gritty. It's awesome and seeing huge growth in downtown. BUT! It is now the #3 most expensive city for rent in the US. I know, crazy right? But rent went up 11% last year alone. Oakland won't be the cheaper alternative for long. Indeed, most of my SF friends who moved to the Beast (East Bay is pig latin for Beast) recently are actually moving to Alameda Island.

Still, Oakland is the only city in the Americas with a dedicated, open to the public Videogame museum! http://www.themade.org

Should move to Portland.

The dream of the 90s is still alive in Portland.

Most of this is why I moved to Portland OR from Boston.

Edit: Granted this involved a move back to Boston re-cementing my opinions.

(Some silly additions) Because: 1. San Francisco charges for street parking on Sunday's now :( 2. If you work downtown/fin dist, commute is better on the BART than taking MUNI 3. If you're Warrior's / Raider's fan living in SF and hating on the Giants/49ers fans. 4. There is no Walmart in SF but there one in Oakland

I see red about that Sunday parking thing. It caught me unawares since I already try to avoid SF in general. But that's just ridiculous.

It's stupid a city that size needs a budget the size of Chicago's and still need yet more $$$

The tax situation for startups in Oakland is pretty similar to the incentives that SF created in mid-market. Office space is cheaper and more plentiful. There are less resources available like other startups, but they are only a 20 minute Bart ride away.

Aren't Oakland schools horrible? You guys care about your kids education right?

A lot of people on HN don't have kids :)

Really?

Are you being facetious? Obviously private schools are an option. Along with just not having kids, or moving when the oldest closes in on the big 05.

We live in Hayes Valley right now and public schools in SF aren't all that better than those in Oakland. When we have kids, we'll optimize for that.

I did not mean to. I didn't see much if any consideration about schools in the article and maybe jumped the gun assuming the schools selection is better in SF. Although not as flashy, the peninsula is a great compromise.

based on housing prices in the bay area, it might be better to use a private school instead of moving to a good school district.

Is it really? I always though the main financial difference between going for (1) a good school district or a (2) private school is the residual value of the investment. At the end of the 15 or so period, you have built equity in a property for the latter, but not the former. Now if the private school is cheap enough you might end up with the equity in your pocket. There are other considerations of course, such has the safety of your neighborhood, neighbor's kids, etc.

private high school in the bay area is about $15k/kid/year.

cupertino has one of the better school districts. sunnyvale is right next door to cupertino and is not renowned for their school district like cupertino is.

the median price for a house in cupertino is $1.3M. the median price of a house in sunnyvale is $660K. Both towns have a roughly similar YoY growth [1]

if you assume 30 year fixed mortgage at 3.6% with 10% down for both (assuming good credit and no property tax or pmi, to keep things simple) the mortgage for the median cupertino home is $5,319.35, and the mortgage for the median sunnyvale home is $2,696.50 [2]. That difference is roughly enough to send two kids to private school.

Obviously, that is just a back of the envelope calculation and doesn't compare the price for similarly sized houses, or adjust for taxes, crime, and a bunch of other things.

As for equity, yeah, it's there but unless you plan to downsize, it's not doing that much for you. Having seen the real estate bubble and subsequent crash in Sacramento during the 2000's, I think treating your primary residence as an investment is extremely foolish.

[1]: http://www.zillow.com/compare/cupertino-ca-vs-sunnyvale-ca/ [2]: http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/

When there's a snazzy infographic like blog post about moving to Oakland to escape the gentrification of San Francisco, you've just jumped from the fire to the frying pan.

East Bay pride! You couldn't pay me enough to live in the city.

because they do not want to pay 10 cents for a bag every time they go shopping?

Oakland has a bag fee now. That's a reason to move to the Peninsula.

(I live in San Francisco but the most convenient supermarket for me is the Safeway in Daly City. I keep wanting to hoard bags from them.)

Mountain View will start having a bag fee on earth day (april) too, and plastic bags will be banned outright. I think the entire bay area will start having a bag fee soon enough, since the community flyer that I read it in said it was county or multi-county initiative.

Same with San Mateo now, and I think Foster City.

That is true in oakland too. Or actually, maybe it's berkeley. it's tough to know living on the border!

It's for all of Alameda county.

What a trivial reason that would be to move.

Wow, James. Is your sarcasm detector misaligned or something?

But you can save 3 bucks a year!

Speaking of the Bay Area, I don't give a shit about the Bay Area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com