New York Times: Oakland-Brooklyn by the Bay (San Jose, Tracy: neighborhoods, commute)

[GalacticDragonfly]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

if we're talking two tunnels and a bridge, then so could Walnut Creek...




First of all, SF is nowhere near NYC in terms of global importance. It's got a long way to go. Secondly, the Oakland comparison to Brooklyn is pretty superficial and kinda dumb. You're comparing a PART of an entire mega city, to a medium sized city all the way across the country. Enjoy the comparison if you want, but I think it's pretty played out and inaccurate.

We will see as the tech sector grows larger across the world and rivals the traditional finance sector. Of course the comparison is superficial. But why now pull out the megacity card? Not implying that you have used this argument before but if the fact that we're comparing 'a part' of a city to 'a city' bothers you, then you should be all for comparisons of SF and all of NYC without including the rest of the Bay Area, which of course most Bay citizens are against since the parallels--such as geography in relative to Manhattan and it's obvious Bay parallel--and the cultures are inter-connected similar to NY boroughs.

Let's not play ignorance as to why people compare 'a city' like Oakland to 'a borough' like Brooklyn, it's almost self-explanatory.

[04kL4nD]

ahem:

But again, for the zillionth time, Oakland and Brooklyn only share superficial similarities, mainly ones that don't matter much in my eyes. When you're in Brooklyn, it's STILL NYC. When you're in Oakland, well, you're in Oakland. Not SF, not Berkeley, not Brooklyn.

[GalacticDragonfly]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

ahem:

Alright, I guess, if that's how you view comparisons of metro regions.

[david_p]

it's a new york paper for new yorkers. They said new "brooklyn" because they can relate to the article because of the gentrification also I didnt bother reading article

[scrantiX]

That's laughable, Oakland is a city and Brooklyn is a big suburb of Manhattan

[Natural510]

Oakland has been Brooklyn for a long time:

http://www.i-italy.org/files/56image...fornia1912.jpg
http://www.topozone.com/map_get.asp?...82897.52835709
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mk30/8418237101/?rb=1

[NorCal Dude]

Brooklyn is nearly as dense as San Francisco. Oakland is roughly as dense as LA. Brooklyn is almost as populated as Chicago. Oakland is a town, the town- to be more accurate. It's mostly a large SF suburb.

[04kL4nD]

No, Oakland is a medium sized city. It's got around 400,000 people (close to Sacramento), so it's way too big to be a 'town'. For reference see the town of Danville, CA. It's also way too urban to be considered a town. "The Town" is just some nickname people came up with.

[sav858]

Brooklyn is twice as dense as SF FYI.

Density wise Oakland is more comparable to Staten Island, as is Alameda for that matter lol.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

No, Oakland is a medium sized city. It's got around 400,000 people (close to Sacramento), so it's way too big to be a 'town'. For reference see the town of Danville, CA. It's also way too urban to be considered a town. "The Town" is just some nickname people came up with.

Um, no. Oakland has always been the town, always will be. This is not some new era hyphy term. And sf will always be the city.

Chicaga, is a medium sized city, philly is a medium sized city. Sf is a small city. Oakland is a large town, a commuter town at that. There is nothing city about oakland. Or sac or san jose for that matter.