New York Times: Oakland-Brooklyn by the Bay (neighborhood, shop)

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I know you're bored/trolling, but I honestly thought you were smart enough to know the difference between a city like Oakland- one that has an international airport, one of the largest shipping ports in the country, two professional sports teams, an fifty different neighborhoods- and a city like Tracy. I guess I was wrong. Oh well, it certainly explains your narrow/limited views on so many things.

Oakland became an international airport because they offer flights to like two cities in mexico. Its not a real international airport like ohare in chicaga, which offers flights to paris, london, etc.

Half of the ports that are larger than oakland are not in real cities. Do you think savannah is a city???

And suburbs and towns have sports teams too. Do you not pay attention to sports in this country? Is santa clara and arlington texas what you consider to be a city?

Nevermind that oaklands sports teams literally play in the most suburban part of the flats.

I don't see what oaklands neighborhoods has to do with anything. Most of them are suburban. With arterial roads, strip malls, and single family homes.

[04kL4nD]

Wow. You are really reaching here.

1. Oakland actually flies to Guadalajara, Mexico City, Stockholm, Olso, and the Azores in Portugal.

2. The port of Oakland is the 5th biggest in the county, behind Long Beach, LA, Newark, and Savannah. Maybe YOU don't consider those cities 'real', but other people certainly do. Savannah would be a small city, while LBC and Newark would be considered medium cities, and LA would be considered a large city. At least if you're going on widely accepted definitions of cities, based on population...

3. Oakland has sports franchises that are actually named after the CITY of Oakland. Last I checked, it was the San Francisco 49ers (who just moved to Santa Clara) and the Texas Rangers (who play in Arlington Texas). That whole argument is dumb anyway since lots of teams don't actually play in the city of their namesake.

4. I don't know many towns that have 50 different neighborhoods. In fact, I can't think of a single one. Mostly because towns are pretty small and don't have 400,000 people in them. LOL

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Wow. You are really reaching here.

1. Oakland actually flies to Guadalajara, Mexico City, Stockholm, Olso, and the Azores in Portugal.

2. The port of Oakland is the 5th biggest in the county, behind Long Beach, LA, Newark, and Savannah. Maybe YOU don't consider those cities 'real', but other people certainly do. Savannah would be a small city, while LBC and Newark would be considered medium cities, and LA would be considered a large city. At least if you're going on widely accepted definitions of cities, based on population...

3. Oakland has sports franchises that are actually named after the CITY of Oakland. Last I checked, it was the San Francisco 49ers (who just moved to Santa Clara) and the Texas Rangers (who play in Arlington Texas). That whole argument is dumb anyway since lots of teams don't actually play in the city of their namesake.

4. I don't know many towns that have 50 different neighborhoods. In fact, I can't think of a single one. Mostly because towns are pretty small and don't have 400,000 people in them. LOL

I'm not reaching at all. Cities have sky scrapers, their own public transit authorites, and large economies. None of which are found in oakland. It really doesn't matter to me if you think you are in a city.

Being from north carolina, you probably haven't spent much time in a real city.

Anyone who has actually been to brooklyn knows it is part of a real city, while oakland simply does not pass muster.

I know the sport arguement is dumb, but hey you brought it up.

[hittheroadjack]

Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF

The only similarities are the influx of hipsters. Other than that NO.

Brooklyn, NY, has a very large Afro-American neighborhood, with a recent sports facility built there by Beyonce and her spouse. I understand Oakland also has a very- large Afro- American community.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

I'm not reaching at all. Cities have sky scrapers, their own public transit authorites, and large economies. None of which are found in oakland. It really doesn't matter to me if you think you are in a city.

Being from north carolina, you probably haven't spent much time in a real city.

Anyone who has actually been to brooklyn knows it is part of a real city, while oakland simply does not pass muster.

I know the sport arguement is dumb, but hey you brought it up.

AC Transit and BART are HQ-ed in Oakland. These are some pretty arbitrary definitions you have for the definition of a city. Most is population. Sometimes density is also a consideration. Oakland has enough of both to qualify as a city. Not all cities are exactly the same in form or function.

[hittheroadjack]

Originally Posted by 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

I beg your pardon, you stated, "It's a New York paper for New Yorkers......" The New York Times, is read around the world.....

[hittheroadjack]

Originally Posted by scrantiX

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

Brooklyn is one of the five NYC boroughs that make NYC, and it has over 2,538,705 people. Myriad of writers, scientists, and entertainers, have been born there. I will not call it a "suburb of Manhattan."

If it were to secede from NYC, Brooklyn can very- well stand on its own.....

[hittheroadjack]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Yeah but Alameda is generally nice EVERYWHERE. Can't really say the same thing about Staten Island or Vallejo. I'm sticking with my short sighted, superficial, and somewhat offensive comparison, thanks.

Staten Island, NY, household income near $71,000, per capita income $31,000, population over 400,000 people. The nicest and safest of all NYC boroughs.......

Alameda household income $67,000, per capita income $37,000, population 40,000 people.

[04kL4nD]

Sure, but both places (Vallejo and SI) have a lot of negative stereotypes surrounding them (mostly undeserved) and are seen as less desirable than other parts of their metros.

"Nice" is relative. Staten Island is decidedly looked down upon by LOTS of people.

[jade408]

I went to NYC this weekend, for the first time in about 2 years, and we spend loads of time in Brooklyn (intentionally, to visit distant family there). Last time I went, I stopped in Williamsburg, and it felt like Temscal a little bit. Like the Temescal Alley version and not the more diverse version.

This time my trip to Williamsburg was like going to SOMA. It was horrible. There was so much construction and new development. Nothing like Oakland at all. And the Williamsburg Blue Bottle? I felt like I was in the new Mission, on Valencia Street. Bleech!

On the other hand Brooklyn Heights felt a lot more like Oakland (minus the diversity + the personalities) and Bed-Sty felt like Grand Lake circa 1999.

So I am so over the Brooklyn comparisons.

Oh and Jet Blue really loves this Oakland Style video, it was on repeat on the plane.

But I am totally jealous on how much new stuff has gone up in NYC in just a couple years, new bike lanes, like a million new apartments and stuff all over Brooklyn and Manhattan. I even noticed things that weren't there in my last visit!