Talk:Oakland Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Having driven on the 580 over the actual repair several times in the last few days, I will try to remove the warning about the blown out road. xntj

"THERE!" Okay, Mark. Enough of my complaining you suggest? Good advice. Revise the article to reflect broader realities about Oakland? Another good bit of advice. So, I did. I added a rather prolix description as to the contrasts and contradictions of the city, which really doesn't give a locale by locale travelogue, but rather the contexts by which one can appreciate such places within the city. The next step requires adding in addresses, phone numbers, and Web sites of these following Oakland institutions and or attractions:

Hillside areas (Skyline, Montclair, etc.): Chabot Space and Science Center (largest observatory opened to the public); Joaquin Miller Park; Westminster Park; Shepard Canyon Park, Chabot Parklands, Oakland Zoo; Montclair Village restaurants of note: Italian Colors and Canvas

Lake Merritt area: Grand lake-grand avenue shopping district restaurants; Mezze's, Spettro

Piedmont Avenue (Restaurant Row): Bay Wolf (foodie fave and venerated contemporary of Berkeley's Chez Panisse); JoJo's (intimate bistro wins rave reviews)

Downtown/Old Oakland: Washington Inn, Verbana's, The Gingerbread House

Rockridge: Oliveto's, A Côté, Le Citron, Grasshopper

Jack London Sq/Loft district: Soizic; Yoshi's (premier Jazz club in the Bay Area, as well)

Oakland Symphony, Oakland Ballet; African-American Museum; Franklin Roosevelt yacht.

Hmm...there's a lot "There"...

A. Mason

I, too, was disappointed by the disparging, condescending, and not a little bit racist undercurrents of the article about Oakland. The writer claims, "I don't like making the point that high black population = high crime," but then goes on to describe a city that is utterly inferior to San Francisco in charm and economically depressed in contrast to San Jose. And, oh, by the way, Oakland has a large Black population. Even the commentary concerning Oakland's affluent areas referred to the beautiful neighborhoods of upper Rockridge and Montclair as but a "tinderbox" ---which begs the question: is San Francisco then but a "faultline?" I found that racial biases tainted the article. I do not charge that the author is openly or consciously racist, by any means, but the glaring condescension, selectivity of references regarding the African-American community, and his/her appallingly biased comparisons of Oakland with San Francisco and San Jose indicate clear, if unacknowledged leanings on the part of the author, of which I believe at least some are rooted in some racially constructed concepts common in American society.

Let me present the evidence: No doubt Oakland has real problems, but the city's Black population is not all marginalized and poor (or party to the city's "staggering" murder rate), not by any means. For example, Wiki Travel readers would have appreciated learning about the late Robert Maynard, the African-American publisher and owner of the Oakland Tribune. During the 1980s and 1990s before his death to cancer, Maynard took a moribound journal and made it a pulitzer-prize winning newspaper, despite its financial struggles. The Oakland Tribune exists to this day as the major journal of record for the entire East Bay. And what of former Yale professor of literature and playright Ismeel Reed? The article's author mentions not a word. The actual case is that Oakland's African-American community has given much more to American culture than just "West Coast Rappers." Of this, the author says nothing.

Might I suggest the original author read very carefully "American Babylon: Race and the Stuggle for Post-War Oakland," or "Suburban Warriors: Origins of the New American Right," both of which give a detailed, social, economic, and historical analysis as to the origins of Oakland's urban problems (and for that matter, "booming" San Jose's "success"). Might this reader also suggest that the author also spend time in the Oakland retail neighborhoods of Piedmont Avenue, Rockridge, and Montclair Village. I suggest the original author visit such noted Oakland restaurants as the Bay Wolf, JoJo's, Le Citron, A Côté,and Canvas, all of which more than hold their own against their San Francisco and Berkeley counterparts; I propose said author take a walk through the residential neighborhoods of Rockridge, upper Rockridge, Montclair, upper Montclair, Oakmore, Redwood Heights, Skyline, Ridgemont, Crocker Highlands, and Haddon Hill. These areas boast gracious old homes, new and stunningly eccentric architectural experiments, many of which reach well over the million-dollar price tag. But what would capture the discerning observer's eye is that these affluent neighborhoods have a more ethnically diverse group of residents than one will find in these neighborhoods' counterparts in Piedmont or "charming" San Francisco and "booming" San Jose, for that matter. One can find considerable charm in the up and coming Laurel, Temescal, and Dimond, as well.

To sum up the affluent and relatively diverse hillside neighborhoods of Oakland as merely an "affluent tinderbox" not only denies the graciousness and diversity of these areas, but also reveals the author's clear bias. Again, I dont see him or her referring to San Francisco's affluent areas as "the affluent faultline," or San Jose's as "affluent souless sprawl." Language has power, but it not only conveys impressions of a place, people, and event, it also invariably reveals something of the author as well.

What is extraordinary to this reader is that Oakland, for all of its real problems, including high crime and poverty, has undergone renewal, population growth, and skyrocketing housing prices, all of which indicate a real Renaissance, a reversal of the "White flight" of the 1950s through the 1970s. The city boasts a rising rate of interracial marriage as well, far ahead of the rest of the nation. That is Oakland's story as well as its "real" urban problems. By contrast, I would note forcefully that San Francisco relegates a large segment of its poor African-American community to the hinterland of Hunter's Point, and San Jose's and Silicon Valley's gleaming "high-tech campuses" mean little to the area's disaffected and disenfranchised Hispanic communities. "Do you know the way to San Jose," indeed. San Francisco and San Jose certainly have their share of "real" problems, but their larger dominant populations can literally afford either to isolate its "problem," on the one hand to the hinterland as San Francisco does, or ignore it altogether, as does San Jose. One suspects that Oakland, that proverbial "Other" of Bay Area cities, serves a useful purpose; it is the place upon which surrounding populations of supposedly "progressive" San Francisco (and Berkeley, for that matter) and "high-tech" San Jose can project their own fears, perceptions, and prejudices, without having to address any of their own issues––and similar problems.

Happily, the offending article has been edited, giving it more nuance and a great deal more accuracy. And I am glad that the edited article addresses the racial component, not only in regards to media and popular perceptions, but in the very article in question. Oakland deserves a more nuanced and factual account. So do Wiki travelers.

For the record, I'm "White," and I live in Manhattan, New York. However, I have lived and worked in both San Francisco and Oakland, California. The updated article about Oakland, California, reflects a more honest appraisal of the city, and certainly seems closer to the Oakland that I know, respect, and truth be told, have grown to love.

A.Mason

Hi A. I'm glad you've taken an interest in the Oakland article. Please Plunge forward and fix it. -- (WT-en) Mark 11:22, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)

I was taken aback by the extremely disparaging tone of this article. It needs some extensive rewriting, which I'll hopefully have time to contribute to in the near future. (WT-en) Aezram 13:55, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

I had a hard time describing Oakland's African-American culture. I don't like making the point that high black population -> high crime, but the plain fact is that there's a lot of poverty in Oakland, that race has something to do with that, and that there's consequent crime. I don't think it would be fair to travelers to gloss over this. I'd appreciate if someone could clean up my prose, though. -- (WT-en) Evan 15:14, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)

• Add The Mormon Temple in the "to see" section.
• Add Lake Merrit and the bird sanctuary here
• Add "The Crucible"
• Add the ferry service to the "Get In" section.

Standard formatting has been implemented, as well as some listing clean up, so I've deleted the style warnings. There is a TC Transit fee that currently states "$0," so if anyone knows the fee, pls add. Also, the article is in dire need of a nice intro pic.(WT-en) Zepppep 14:03, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

While most of the articles in Wiki travel are amusing and informative, this one seems to accentuate the downsides of Oakland. Other far more crime-ridden cities are written about glowingly with crime as a mere afterthought. Check various crime rankings such as by Morgan Quitno and you will see that Oakland is not among the top 20 crime-ridden cities nationwide whereas other California cities are. Articles about problem-plagued cities such as Baltimore do not have their urban ills as the dominant theme.

You do mention the bright spots of Oakland, albeit in apologetic fashion. Why not reduce the San Francisco biased commentary? Otherwise, you should warn readers about the skyrocketing murders in San Francisco (90 and counting this year). Perhaps, the opening line on San Jose should read "Despite the stagnant local economy and high unemployment rate since the tech bust, ..."

You have achieved a good mix of fact and commentary in the vast majority of travel articles. Oakland is an unfortunate exception. Many people such as myself have lived in both San Francisco and Oakland, but choose to live in Oakland because of the superior weather, fantastic views and wonderful neighborhoods. I'm sure you have noticed that since 2001, real estate appreciation in Oakland has far outstripped that of San Francisco and San Jose.

Emphasize the attributes of Oakland in unapologetic fashion with crime discussed in the body of the article as done for every other city. If you were the victim of crime in Oakland, you have my sympathies. Please don't express this in the tone of your article.

Regards,

GC

If you dislike the way something is written, please plunge forward and edit it. Articles on this site are always a work-in-progress, and we very much want those who have additional information or differing points of view to add them. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:29, 4 Dec 2005 (EST)

I'll second that. I guess I was a bit terse with the earlier invitation to plunge forward, but believe me: I'm being sincere. I feel I just don't know nearly enough about Oakland to contribute even to the revision of the article. Please any of you who have problems with it, feel free to do a re-write. Thanks for your time. -- (WT-en) Mark 16:12, 4 Dec 2005 (EST)

Mark and Ryan,

Thanks for your openness. I have given the article a more upbeat tone and updated information throughout. My hope is that on summer days when fog has blanketed the otherwise lovely streets of San Francisco with an arctic chill, visitors may find opportunity to seek the warm and sunny confines of Oakland (I know I do) ...

GC

Cool! Thanks for doing the re-write.

Now... what I'd really like to see is some further coverage of some of the cool bars in Oakland as well as the neighborhoods. Eventually I'd like to see this article take the Project:Big city form. GC, would you like to take it on? -- (WT-en) Mark 14:58, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

Mark,

I'd be happy to update those areas and convert to the Big City form when needed.

GC

...needs to be cleaned up! The information ought to be organized and/or summarized. In-depth info of Oakland's history would be better placed in Oakland's Wikipedia article, which could be linked from this site if readers would like more information.

Should I try to begin this task?

(WT-en) Bloody rox 17:37, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

Plunge forward! I agree that this section is way too involved, and if you can summarize the information that's relevant for the typical traveler to better understand Oakland, that'd be great. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:11, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

The article is far far far to wordy - every large city is a "complex city of striking contrasts", infact many tourist boards use this as a marketting term (which is where I think this may have originated from) - this site is meant to enable travellers to get quick info and gain useful knowledge from entries, not encyclopedic knowledge!

This article would be great in another site, but is way to long for wikivoyage - it's just not fit-for-purpose

I have therefore made the bold step in chopping out most of the understand text - instead I suggest someone with more knowledge adds briefly to the neighbourhoods listings and expands here accordingly. Apologies - but compare this to other major cities and you will find it is far too long.

I also felt adding that it is recognised officially as the most ethnically diverse cities is far more informative using census data (pillaged from wikipedia!) - I certainly found it interesting that 150 languages are spoken and I felt that reflecting this in listing some if the annual events would empasise this.

Another suggestion would be perhaps a brief history section?

Also I suggest adding a section on the various annual events - as a visitor this information would interest me most, and certainly act as a draw.

Huge apologies again for any offense caused - I think it needed doing though

I have a small complaint: The Stay Safe section emphasizes that Flats should be avoided "at all times," yet the Fruitvale district is raved about earlier in the article. I don't think I have to emphasize to anyone that Fruitvale is smack dab in the middle of the flatlands, and is relatively safe during the day. I'm a small white teenager who lives in the area and has never had any problems. I'm not denying that there aren't any, but painting everywhere in the flats as some kind of No-Go zone is just ig'nant. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.135.106.68 (talk • contribs)

Please plunge forward and improve the article! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:11, 21 February 2010 (EST)

The Stay Safe section really sticks out, and smells of a lot of media hype about the city. I don't see that it really adds anything, and in fact detracts from the article tremendously, IMO. I've lived there for six years, and in the region for nearly 40. The city has some very rough spots, but what metropolis doesn't? It's a scare tactic. L. Challenger (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

As Peter said above: plunge forward and improve the article! What is accomplished by complaining about something you could easily edit? You have more knowledge about what you know to be wrong with the article than anyone else reading this is likely to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know I had that much freedom here! I am used to documenting, discussing and then moving on with an edit - therefore, I will simply remove that section. L. Challenger (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but eliminating the section is quite excessive. "Stay safe" is a standard subsection, and Oakland does have some safety issues. I will reinstate the section and make some general remarks as a placeholder. Let's discuss what is fair to put in the section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the general remarks that are there look pretty fair, and they're accurate. The underlying issue for me is the concept of a "safe city" - it's been my experience that there's always parts of a city that are not all that safe, no matter where the city is. It really ticked me off to see that thing in its original state, probably influencing my decision to zap it more than it should. The reality of it is, there are parts of town that are dominantly residential and poor, making them unwise destinations for random tourists. I am planning to take the time and make sure these neighborhoods in particular are flagged as such - if you head there, mind your manners, and keep your wits about you, that sort of thing. L. Challenger (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll look for your edits. Let's be honest, though: A city like New York or even nearby cities like SF and Berkeley are less generally dicey than Oakland, aren't they? And I say that as someone who's stayed in West Oakland several times and never (yet, anyway!) been involved in any incident, and I've taken 10-to-15-minute walks back from the West Oakland BART stop quite a number of times after midnight. But I also know someone who was held up at gunpoint after parking on a side street near that station, and from what I understand (though you'd be in a position to correct any out-of-date knowledge on my part), crime seems to be a somewhat intractable problem to date in Oakland. I'd never discourage anyone from visiting or staying in Oakland and kind of look forward to whenever the next time is that I'll do it, but I don't think we want to whitewash the crime problem, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

West Oakland's one of the rougher spots - but Fruitvale's a lot worse, despite the city in its infinite wisdom deciding to stick a very trendy little structure slap in the middle of it. There are places all over International that are *very* ghetto - block to block, street to street, it really varies. I'm not remotely saying that crime doesn't happen or that it should be whitewashed, by any means. I am saying that it's not one big citywide charlie foxtrot. Heh. L. Challenger (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I haven't hung out in Fruitvale, but we agree on your general point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we add more pictures to this article as this being a large city yet it has very few pictures —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ralphzztop (talk • contribs)

Please plunge forward! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

How can a travel article about Oakland completely neglect one of the city's biggest attractions? (except as a reference for locating a few other places)173.161.21.11 06:06, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Pleae go ahead and write about it.--(WT-en) burmesedays 10:47, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Actually, I went ahead and added it up top, including the city's own info page on it, and how to get there. L. Challenger (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I moved this from the Oakland article because per xl, there should be no external links section of any guide, but some of these links might be useful. I move the Oakland Public Library listing to "Do," but I think they should also have a listing in "Contact," because you can use their computer terminals. I'd love it if a knowledgeable person would insert that information into the "Contact" section. What do we do with Oakland Wiki? Should we link it somewhere in the article?

Oakland is home to numerous Oakland-centric online resource that can give you a feel for what is currently happening in the city. (This list is non-exhaustive--please contribute!)

• Our Oakland: This blog is an active repository of upcoming public events.
• Oakland Tribune: A major newspaper based in Oakland.
  • The newspaper includes a weekly local history column researched and written by Annalee Allen.
• Oakland Wiki: Oakland has it's own hyperlocal wiki that residents contribute to. Topics include local history and neighborhood highlights.
• Oakland North: This hyperlocal newspaper is based out of North Oakland, and is contributed to by students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
• Oakland Public Library: The Oakland Public Library hosts numerous public events that make use of their facilities and vast resources.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Upon looking at the neighborhoods listed for Eat, I am cringing, especially at the description of Fruitvale, which looks like something from a travel agency. The reality is, Fruitvale, West Oakland and arguably East Oakland are places that are not merely not for tourists, but are among the roughest parts of town. There are also neighborhoods simply not listed there, like Lake Merritt, not just Grand Lake, which is one part of it, and also Lakeshore which is nearby. Jack London is another space that deserves mention in a couple of places. I plan on adding these places one by one, descriptions and such, of course, but I thought it also merited discussion, especially dealing with the issue I opened with. L. Challenger (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please go ahead and change the description of Fruitvale if you feel it's not accurate. I think it's fine to list places to eat in rough neighborhoods, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am considering adding an image for Legendary Palace - it's an edifice that really represents Oakland Chinatown, and has even been used to that end by Wikipedia, for example. I am also mindful of the policies on adding images to WV articles, and would appreciate a second opinion before I do this. L. Challenger (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, indeed. It's an iconic image. If you're concerned about it being a business image, you can identify something like this: "an iconic building in Chinatown." But I don't think mentioning the name of the restaurant is a problem at all in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

From "Understand": "According to the 1997 Census, Oakland is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the United States..." What 1997 Census? Censuses are only decennial in the US: 2000, 2010, 2020, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

That is pretty dubious. I will look into the 2000 and 2010 census numbers to see if this is actually true or just a big bucket of hogwash :) L. Challenger (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. And thanks for making this a great article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The 2010 Census' numbers are pretty easy to find - and I don't know about it being the most diverse city or anything that abstract, but the mixture is a very wide one, according to their numbers. And! Thanks - I wanna do my best to make this page look enticing and be actually helpful to anyone that wants to visit! :-D

(From the 2010 census and American FactFinder at http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_DP/DPDP1/1600000US0653000 )

RACE

Total population 390,724 100.0

One Race 368,847 94.4

White 134,925 34.5

Black or African American 109,471 28.0

American Indian and Alaska Native 3,040 0.8

Asian 65,811 16.8

Asian Indian 2,114 0.5

Chinese 34,083 8.7

Filipino 6,070 1.6

Japanese 2,031 0.5

Korean 2,446 0.6

Vietnamese 8,766 2.2

Other Asian [1] 10,301 2.6

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2,222 0.6

Native Hawaiian 168 0.0

Guamanian or Chamorro 142 0.0

Samoan 238 0.1

Other Pacific Islander [2] 1,674 0.4

Some Other Race 53,378 13.7

Two or More Races 21,877 5.6

White; American Indian and Alaska Native [3] 1,598 0.4

White; Asian [3] 4,574 1.2

White; Black or African American [3] 3,750 1.0

White; Some Other Race [3] 3,690 0.9

L. Challenger (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am planning to Plunge Forward with this section - I know this city's got better sights than just an old railway station and an early 20th century yacht. The Mormon Temple is among the sights that needs to be added. I am also not sure that Sixteenth Street Station is even accessible to the public any longer, will have to check. L. Challenger (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've been doing a fantastic job with this article! I look forward to the new content you'll put in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much! Doing my best - got a 19th century mansion and an aerial view from behind the Mormon Temple there now, and I've still got a thing or three to add there. L. Challenger (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been helping out too :) Thanks Challenger. I'm doing mainly food/booze, and will be adding an Uptown section for the food/booze sections. SarahStierch (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

To be perfectly frank about it, the section for Get In is a mess - repetition, services in the wrong sections, not much organization going on there. My first thought is to collate the mess - air services are easy, since there's the one big airport, train service for Amtrak and BART, then AC Transit and shuttle services and the like under By bus, and so on. I plan on plunging forward, of course, but I thought it important and helpful to actually keep running notes on the creative process I have for the article, and to welcome feedback. L. Challenger (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, cleaned it up quite a bit today... It was bugging me. L. Challenger (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I know I'm the chatterbox of the moment - so I will ask - do we want to keep Oakland as a Guide - or do we want to really climb the hill, break things up, build them up, do neighborhoods, map, the whole nine yards? I don't think it will be easy, there's a lot of data and discussion that will need to happen. And I really want feedback on this idea. L. Challenger (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a great question. While not all neighborhoods need a guide, there are benefits of really building it out, just a few thoughts:

• We can build out neighborhoods we know that really shine, and make it also a functional guide for those of us who live here - Piedmont Ave (my hood!), Downtown, Uptown, the Hills, North Oakland/Rockridge, Temescal, JLS, etc, these are areas that we really could build on if we wanted to and really make great functional guides.
• A map would be really great, including common transportation routes perhaps

What else are you thinking about? SarahStierch (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually you hit the exact points I was thinking of - making neighborhood pages and building them into at least guides. I cannot fault your choice of neighborhoods, either - Though the main page lists Fruitvale, East Oakland and West Oakland, I really don't remotely think of any of them as being very tourist-friendly at all. And the other big thing on my mind is a map - one that does show the prospective visitor just where all the neighborhoods are. Ultimately, I want the city of Oakland to have the very best Wikivoyage page we can possibly manage. L. Challenger (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

For dividing up cities, we require a more planned approach than on, say, Wikipedia--we'll need a comprehensive districts breakdown. Districts often amalgamate various neighborhoods (see Chicago#Districts or Kyoto#Districts for good examples). The scheme must leave no gaps and contain no overlap. A principal goal in the division is to wind up with districts that support good articles (see Chicago/Loop or Chicago/Southwest Side for good examples of complete, star district guides). Oakland is pretty small, relatively speaking, so I think it would be OK to leave it as is (other star guides that we chose to not split up include Hiroshima and Ann Arbor), but certainly wouldn't want to discourage you if you are ready to really build up the content. It's best to aim for less districts rather than more, but it's not necessary to force things. Anyway, I don't know a thing about the city, but would be quite happy to help with a map once boundaries are defined. --Peter ^Talk 01:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the articles you supplied, comparing them - it begs the question - is there enough in each of these districts to merit a complete guide? Downtown, Rockridge, Piedmont Ave (My neck of the woods too), and so on - there are a lot of shops and pleasant atmosphere, but a District article is practically an entire city guide unto itself. Sure, if we combined Rockridge, Piedmont Ave, Temescal and Rockridge into one big North Oakland district, sure, we could do it. But, the more I look at this, I think something more like was done with Ann Arbor, each of these neighborhoods being illustrated as destinations rather than entire articles. It certainly would not take too much to reorganize Eat by price range, certainly. And thank you, Peter and Sarah, very much indeed - glad I am not the only oen chattering on about this city. L. Challenger (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am going to change the way the data on the page is organized, without removing anything - starting with Eat, then See and Do. I have gathered all of the existing restaurant listings (Including checking their information and URLs and such whenever possible; glad I did, caught a closed restaurant and removed it) and organized them by price. I am going to use the information about the neighborhoods under a completely new section - Neighborhoods, similar to the one San Francisco has, since it seems very appropriate, as Oakland is very much the same way, though not nearly so populous. If I got the pricerange wrong for any restaurant, I apologize in advance - there are a LOT of them, and I did my best, but I'm no more immune to mistakes than anyone else. L. Challenger (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Next, I want to tackle the Buy section, separating by type of store - wanting to emphasize music stores since there are a lot of them, but the trouble is, my experience of music stores in Oakland is very limited - I admit, when I look for music, I am either in Berkeley, San Francisco or poking around Amazon.com. Also - for the Neighborhoods - I am not sure how to add East or West Oakland there, or if I should, since tourist attractions there are pretty limited, and South Oakland is dominantly residential. As always, I welcome feedback and suggestions. L. Challenger (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

If a neighborhood doesn't have many tourist attractions, it's OK to just describe it as a residential district that has limited tourist attractions. West Oakland, though, does have some nice old houses, so that could be mentioned. In terms of your question about "Buy," I think it's quite alright that you don't know absolutely everything about your city! You can always create the subsections and leave more detail work for someone else to do later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I have things about how they look the best organized for Buy and Eat and Drink, though a couple of areas are ones I don't have a lot of experience with - I know there are a lot of teahouses and coffeeshops in Oakland, but I've only been to a specific few. Also - for Buy, I have a section for Art and Gifts - this is a category that's completely outside of my experience, but I thought would be good to have. Next, I come to Sleep. The list of hotels there is a short one, and I'll do my best to arrange it and add the handful that I know of firsthand, but the section looks like it may wind up a modest one by comparison. And once more into See - I would love more attractions listed there, and I have some vague ideas about how to reorganize it, but I am of a mind that it needs to be a bit longer than it is before that. L. Challenger (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am planning on reorganizing the Understand section, as well as Get In and Get Around - I think I may integrate the Neighborhoods section with Understand, and expand it so we really get a look at the city, and a nice broad one. I am thinking about just dropping the Art and Gifts section of Buy... since I haven't got a clue what would even go in there. Heh. Also going to really go into just how much the arts are a part of Oakland's culture, be they performing or graphic or otherwise, nightclubs, theaters, Djs, music, history - I think all should mesh nicely. And as always! Feedback feedback feedback! :-) L. Challenger (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note that MOCHA is going to be moving later this year (2013) so that the address will need to be corrected once the move is completed. L. Challenger (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Updated the address - the move began back on May 18 L. Challenger (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This used to be an absolutely huge event associated with Fruitvale - allegedly the largest in northern California, but it's fallen on hard financial times and has been canceled every year since 2011. I hope hope HOPE that it does return, since a listing about cultural diversity in Oakland IMHO is incomplete without it, to say the least. L. Challenger (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, apparently, we now have this gigantic pile of information added by a new editor, concerning crime and criminal statistics in Oakland, all from one source, all just sort of splattered over the Stay Safe section. I am very dubious about its inclusion. L. Challenger (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reverted it - it's not the first time I've seen someone try to splash that sort of stuff on Oakland's page, either. L. Challenger (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It previously said "No one will dispute that Zachary's has the best ...". This is flatly false: I am an example of such a person. I toned down the language to something that may be accurate; I'd recommend someone with more word savvy tweeking it.

I changed the listing for Zachary's, made it considerably less ad-like. L. Challenger (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am considering re-grouping the restaurants by neighborhood - since there really are a LOT of listings there, and filling out stuff that is in different neighborhoods would not be very difficult. L. Challenger (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead, but keep the price categories clear, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh definitely - Going to be organizing them by location, and also by budget level. L. Challenger (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think I am going to combine the listings for Grand Lake and Lakeshore - they're side by side neighborhoods L. Challenger (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

"The city was rated by Rand McNally as having the best weather in the country." has a prominent place in the introduction. To an non-American such as myself it means nothing. To an American, does it still make any sense? (This appears to be a technology company). Even if the weather is awesome to someone, I'm sure it isn't objectively the best. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I might just go ahead and remove - going once... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Who or what is Rand McNally? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not sure. In any case I think it got in there as a joke, so I'll remove. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am doing some modifications to this section, planning to expand to include a little about the freeways that are in-town (done), as well as car and ride sharing services alike. It will take some time, since it requires a little bit of inquiry and research, and making sure all of the info's up to date. L. Challenger (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Implemented. L. Challenger (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I-580 and I-880 are the main interstates in the area, with I-880 close to the San Francisco Bay and I-580 a little farther inland. Is that information in the article now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've done some work, but really needs to happen is a significant shortening of the Understand section. I'll get to work on that at some point when I can. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Next. I am going to add a bit concerning bike sharing. Ford in particular has several stations throughout the city - I'm not 100% sure where to add it, but it may be it's own header, something like By Bike, and a note concerning the various tracked bike shops as well, since they're already listed. L. Challenger (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea to me—it looks like it can go in Oakland#By bicycle. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added. There's really not much for choices for bike sharing in Oakland just yet, but what I know of and could find out, I shared - GoBike's really REALLY limited in what you can do with their bikes, that said. L. Challenger (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am considering adding a note concerning traffic information available to the public for Oakland, though the range of it extends far beyond the city - 511 and the associated website and services through it. It can be a single header under Get Around or just a sentence or two added to the lead for that section. Not sure yet. L. Challenger (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Should this article be districtified? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The suggestion's come up a few times - the trouble is, if you do it like say San Francisco, you risk ending up with a bunch of small articles with minimal information. There are some that are definitely well-rounded enough for a full district article, like Lakeshore/Grand Lake and Uptown and West Oakland - but places like Adams Point and Piedmont Ave are smaller by comparison, though each has their own identity. I found it a tough call the first time the idea was mentioned, all the way back in 2013. L. Challenger (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

These are two restaurants that are currently on hiatus until their new location is built - Brown Sugar Kitchen from West Oakland and Bocanova from Jack London Square - I'll be keeping an eye open for news, since they're supposed to move in sometime in coming months. L. Challenger (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

As of this writing, there has been no update whatsoever on Bocanova - the new location for Brown Sugar Kitchen has been under construction for over a year. L. Challenger (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bocanova seems to have folded permanently. BSK's new location looks nearly finished. L. Challenger (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

As of this writing, BSK folded back in 2022, Bocanova's open for business. L. Challenger (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Listing for Piedmont, CA is going to wind up redirected here, to Oakland - there simply isn't enough there for it to merit its own page. L. Challenger (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Come the 2019 season, the Warriors are moving to Chase Arena in San Francisco - the move will mean moving their listing from here to there, of course. L. Challenger (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

With the planned departure of the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas, that will mean an element transplant as it was with the Warriors - but the Recreation/Film section's going to need to be reorganized, since the Raiders have a standalone section and pic. It also doesn't help matters that the team (as of this writing) is in legal limbo for the 2019 season. L. Challenger (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

A recent report says that the Raiders are going to spend the 2019 season in San Francisco? I am going to wait for confirmation before moving things around - the situation with Oakland, the Raiders and the NFL is downright bizarre. L. Challenger (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like the best thing to do, currently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

San Francisco is a no-go. The most recent talks have been between a joint movement from Tucson, AZ and Birmingham, AL. The bizarre continues. L. Challenger (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it's possible that they won't find a place at all in the end? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, it really wouldn't surprise me at all. L. Challenger (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see. Probably, then, it just makes sense to wait until some sort of decision is made (or, at least, something happens). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, as of yesterday afternoon - there is a deal on the table between Oakland and the Raiders for 2019, with the option to continue into 2020 if the new stadium isn't finished this year. It looks like the lunacy's nearing its end at last. L. Challenger (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The City of Oakland used to maintain pages with information concerning many of the parks and parks with event spaces, particularly Redwood Regional and Morcom Rose Garden, but the information appears to have been removed and the domains associated with that particular service simplified and centralized. I will dig into what I can find, to see if any or all information can be updated, or if it's all just going to get deleted. L. Challenger (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the case of Redwood Regional Park, I think the East Bay Regional Parks District should have a website for them. Yes, try the Redwood Regional Park page on the EBRPD website. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Updated - thanks for the assist! L. Challenger (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure; any EBRPD park has a website under the East Bay Parks web domain. See also the full list of their parks and links to information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thus far, I've avoided the inclusion of any of Oakland's various and often-amazing religious institutions with the exception of the Mormon Temple - specifically because to list them all would add an entire new list and category for its own sake. I had the Temple listed originally because it was just as much a public park as a place of worship. It also commands one of the most breathtaking views in the entire East Bay, along the lines of the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, for similar reasons, and the photograph available from there on Wikimedia seemed too pretty to avoid. L. Challenger (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The current intro is written in terms that Americans may understand, but others will not. "Visitors to the city notice that Oakland reflects its diversity" -- can't we just say that Oakland is historically more black and noticeably poorer than SF? Jpatokal (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

When I was in Oakland early this year, I was confused what that meant (though I was only there for a few hours). Feel free to go ahead and change the wording. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Diversity" is not a code word for "Black" (or "poor") here – per census results, Oakland is genuinely racially diverse. And according to one analysis it is among the most culturally diverse cities in the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That said, Oakland is a famous city for Black history, which probably merits mention in the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

San Francisco is also quite diverse, but the difference is that SF is 5% black (and 34% Asian), while Oakland is 23.8% (43.9% as recently as 1990) and 16.1% respectively. So when comparing the two, what stands out is Oakland's black population & heritage. Jpatokal (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oakland also has a larger Hispanic/Latino population (28.8%) compared to San Francisco (15.6%). 166.107.163.31 01:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to many reliable news sources, Oakland is losing yet another professional sports team to Las Vegas. Their lease is apparently up at the end of 2024 - and current projections have them actually playing in LV by 2028, so it's something to be mindful of, in the long term. L. Challenger (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply