San Francisco: where to move if working in Pleasant Hill?
July 2, 2010 9:28 AM Subscribe
San Francisco: help a young, single guy relocate to the Bay Area who wants San Francisco lifestyle, but works in Pleasant Hill...
I am in a corporate IT rotational program (four, six-month rotations) and will be moving to the Bay Area for my second rotation. I am moving from Virginia (long drive, i know!) and probably will need to rent sight-unseen.
About me:
22 years old straight male
Athletic, outdoorsy
Loves going to restaurants/eating/drinking
Don't typically stay out late on weeknights (maybe 11pm)
Would like to be able to walk around my neighborhood
Have a car, will drive to work
Rent less than 2.5k
My office is Pleasant Hill but I'd like to live ina a more urban setting. These are the areas I'm considering:
San Francisco
Walnut Creek
Berkeley
I'm thinking of trying to live in San Francisco proper (close the highway) to get the full experience--am I crazy? I am only going to be in the area for six months and would like to be engaged with community around me. Google maps suggests the drive from downtown SF to Pleasant Hill is 55 minutes with traffic. Could anyone offer any insight into the accuracy of this estimate?
What would be the best neighborhoods close to the highway (280?)? I'm thinking Russian Hill, SoMa, Nob Hill, Mission, and Downtown.
A family friend suggest Walnut Creek as a 'hip' place to live, but what areas are lively and walkable? I want to avoid living in the suburbs.
Berkeley appealed to me because of the 'Gourmet Ghetto' neighborhood--is it really that great? Is it walkable?
If I live outside San Francisco, my concern is that I will never visit the city. I'd be more than willing to live with a roommate to help show me around and to split the cost of rent. How accessible is SF from the East Bay? I mean, do people actually go into SF on weeknights to eat, drink, and hangout?
Since I am only going to be in the Bay Area from August through February, should I take the weather into account when deciding on where to live? Doesn't SF get really foggy/cold in the summer?
Honestly, any advice would be much appreciated. I've looked through other SF threads, but am particularly interested if the commute from SF->PH is ridiculous and if it's necessary to live in SF to get the full San Francisco experience?
I appreciate all the feedback!
I am in a corporate IT rotational program (four, six-month rotations) and will be moving to the Bay Area for my second rotation. I am moving from Virginia (long drive, i know!) and probably will need to rent sight-unseen.
About me:
22 years old straight male
Athletic, outdoorsy
Loves going to restaurants/eating/drinking
Don't typically stay out late on weeknights (maybe 11pm)
Would like to be able to walk around my neighborhood
Have a car, will drive to work
Rent less than 2.5k
My office is Pleasant Hill but I'd like to live ina a more urban setting. These are the areas I'm considering:
San Francisco
Walnut Creek
Berkeley
I'm thinking of trying to live in San Francisco proper (close the highway) to get the full experience--am I crazy? I am only going to be in the area for six months and would like to be engaged with community around me. Google maps suggests the drive from downtown SF to Pleasant Hill is 55 minutes with traffic. Could anyone offer any insight into the accuracy of this estimate?
What would be the best neighborhoods close to the highway (280?)? I'm thinking Russian Hill, SoMa, Nob Hill, Mission, and Downtown.
A family friend suggest Walnut Creek as a 'hip' place to live, but what areas are lively and walkable? I want to avoid living in the suburbs.
Berkeley appealed to me because of the 'Gourmet Ghetto' neighborhood--is it really that great? Is it walkable?
If I live outside San Francisco, my concern is that I will never visit the city. I'd be more than willing to live with a roommate to help show me around and to split the cost of rent. How accessible is SF from the East Bay? I mean, do people actually go into SF on weeknights to eat, drink, and hangout?
Since I am only going to be in the Bay Area from August through February, should I take the weather into account when deciding on where to live? Doesn't SF get really foggy/cold in the summer?
Honestly, any advice would be much appreciated. I've looked through other SF threads, but am particularly interested if the commute from SF->PH is ridiculous and if it's necessary to live in SF to get the full San Francisco experience?
I appreciate all the feedback!
SF-PH is doable, but... pretty terrible. Walnut Creek does not have what you want, at all. I would definitely say you want to look at Oakland or Berkeley. The Gourmet Ghetto really is that great, and walkable. It's not really Urban though. I would actually suggest you look at Oakland, uptown or the area North of Lake Merritt. You'll have roughly a 20-30 minute commute, depending on when you leave. The drive through the Caldecott tunnel is unusual in that it's actually worse in the non-commute direction (because the non-commute direction only gets 2 lanes, whereas the commute direction gets 4). If you live near enough to BART, the city is incredibly close (~15 minutes) and easy to get to, and the area has both the urban and the walkable. I regularly go into SF on weeknights to eat, drink, and hangout from Oakland. The only downside is that BART stops relatively early, but it's actually a good excuse to get home at a reasonable hour.
SF's weather is pretty consistent year-round. It's never warm. Pleasant Hill is ickily hot.
posted by brainmouse at 9:39 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
SF's weather is pretty consistent year-round. It's never warm. Pleasant Hill is ickily hot.
posted by brainmouse at 9:39 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Honestly, any advice would be much appreciated. I've looked through other SF threads, but am particularly interested if the commute from SF->PH is ridiculous and if it's necessary to live in SF to get the full San Francisco experience?
A friend of mine lives in San Francisco and commutes to Vallejo every morning. About an hour to hour and a half, depending on traffic. So, yes, people do it. Why do they do it? That feeds into your next question...
Yes, its necessary to live in San Francisco to get the full SF experience. On weeknights is when it is best experienced, when the out-of-towners are out-of-town. You, as a San Franciscan, can walk around your neighborhood or walk/bus nearby. If you live outside of San Francisco, not matter how good your intentions, you'll just end up staying home in Berkeley or wherever.
Walnut Creek is the suburb that you fear. Hip? No way.
BTW, I lived in San Francisco for 15 years, up until 2008.
posted by vacapinta at 9:42 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
A friend of mine lives in San Francisco and commutes to Vallejo every morning. About an hour to hour and a half, depending on traffic. So, yes, people do it. Why do they do it? That feeds into your next question...
Yes, its necessary to live in San Francisco to get the full SF experience. On weeknights is when it is best experienced, when the out-of-towners are out-of-town. You, as a San Franciscan, can walk around your neighborhood or walk/bus nearby. If you live outside of San Francisco, not matter how good your intentions, you'll just end up staying home in Berkeley or wherever.
Walnut Creek is the suburb that you fear. Hip? No way.
BTW, I lived in San Francisco for 15 years, up until 2008.
posted by vacapinta at 9:42 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Walnut Creek really isn't all that much more urban that Pleasant Hill. Walnut Creek *is* the suburbs. It is not hip. It's perfectly pleasant and I spend a lot of time out there but it's not hip. Pleasant Hill has a BART stop so depending on where your office is, it would be easy to BART to work from SF. if you want the Sf experience, you have to live in SF!
For car travel to the East Bay from SF, you need to be on 80. 280 and 101 both feed into 80. Russian Hill/Nob Hill are not as readily accessible to the freeway as SOMA, the Mission, and Downtown.
Yes, Sf is cold and foggy in the summer (like right now!) but it's not always like that. Also, the best weather for SF is September/October. There are definitely lots of warm days in July/August but it is not unusual for it to be at last 10 if not 20 degrees warmer in Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 9:44 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
For car travel to the East Bay from SF, you need to be on 80. 280 and 101 both feed into 80. Russian Hill/Nob Hill are not as readily accessible to the freeway as SOMA, the Mission, and Downtown.
Yes, Sf is cold and foggy in the summer (like right now!) but it's not always like that. Also, the best weather for SF is September/October. There are definitely lots of warm days in July/August but it is not unusual for it to be at last 10 if not 20 degrees warmer in Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 9:44 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
1. Walnut Creek is the epitome of unhip.
2. Please consider taking bart to pleasant hill. It's 35-40 minutes from downtown sf to pleasant hill. bart is a timely, clean, relatively affordable system, and way less stressful than driving. Also, if what you really want is an urban experience, just live car-free (unless the urban experience you're looking for involves constantly reparking your car to avoid street cleaning tickets.)
3. If the commute from SF to pleasant hill seems too long, you might consider living in downtown oakland or in the rockridge neighborhood. rockridge-->pleasant hill is only 20 minutes by bart (and about the same to sf), and its a great walkable/bikeable neighborhood with lots of shops, cafes, etc.
posted by juliapangolin at 9:55 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
2. Please consider taking bart to pleasant hill. It's 35-40 minutes from downtown sf to pleasant hill. bart is a timely, clean, relatively affordable system, and way less stressful than driving. Also, if what you really want is an urban experience, just live car-free (unless the urban experience you're looking for involves constantly reparking your car to avoid street cleaning tickets.)
3. If the commute from SF to pleasant hill seems too long, you might consider living in downtown oakland or in the rockridge neighborhood. rockridge-->pleasant hill is only 20 minutes by bart (and about the same to sf), and its a great walkable/bikeable neighborhood with lots of shops, cafes, etc.
posted by juliapangolin at 9:55 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks for all the feedback so far. I was also thinking WC seemed to be exactly what I DON'T want--thanks for confirming.
@ambrosia, AWESOME suggestion about leaving my car in PH for the commute between my office and BART. I never would have thought of this. In fact, I was frustrated that my office wasn't closer to BART because then BART would have been an option--now it is!
@vacapinta, this "Yes, its necessary to live in San Francisco to get the full SF experience. On weeknights is when it is best experienced, when the out-of-towners are out-of-town. You, as a San Franciscan, can walk around your neighborhood or walk/bus nearby. If you live outside of San Francisco, not matter how good your intentions, you'll just end up staying home in Berkeley or wherever." pretty much sums up WHY i want to live in SF...
posted by jdlugo at 9:58 AM on July 2, 2010
@ambrosia, AWESOME suggestion about leaving my car in PH for the commute between my office and BART. I never would have thought of this. In fact, I was frustrated that my office wasn't closer to BART because then BART would have been an option--now it is!
@vacapinta, this "Yes, its necessary to live in San Francisco to get the full SF experience. On weeknights is when it is best experienced, when the out-of-towners are out-of-town. You, as a San Franciscan, can walk around your neighborhood or walk/bus nearby. If you live outside of San Francisco, not matter how good your intentions, you'll just end up staying home in Berkeley or wherever." pretty much sums up WHY i want to live in SF...
posted by jdlugo at 9:58 AM on July 2, 2010
There are lots of options in SoMa for 0-2BR for under $2500. Go to padmapper and plug in 94105, use the filters to adjust your preferences, and check all the listings around 1st/Bryant.
posted by rhizome at 10:50 AM on July 2, 2010
posted by rhizome at 10:50 AM on July 2, 2010
Hi there fellow East Bay-er!
Pleasant Hill does have a BART stop - actually, it's in an unincorporated area of Walnut Creek, oh the irony! It's perfectly reasonable to "reverse commute."
A great place to live - at least when I lived there - is the Temescal (aka "Lower Rockridge") area in Oakland. It's near two BART stations (and the reverse commute is easy-peasy compared to the commute on BART from PH to Oakland and SF), walkable, neighborhood-y, and affordable. The boundaries are roughly 40th Street, 51st Street, Telegraph and College Avenues.
The actual Rockridge neighborhood is lovely, walkable, has tons of shops, restaurants etc. but is majorly spendy. If you can afford it, that's another neighborhood to consider.
If you want to live in SF, I've always been fond of the Mission and still miss living there, grit, crime and all! There are two BART stations, loads of great places to eat and things to do. You may (will?) have to rent with roommates to afford it - I don't know if that's an option for you.
Walnut Creek? No. Not hip. Nice, low crime, wonderful downtown with a surprisingly vibrant social life - but not hip at all. And outside of downtown, not at all walkable and you absolutely must have a car.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 11:09 AM on July 2, 2010
Pleasant Hill does have a BART stop - actually, it's in an unincorporated area of Walnut Creek, oh the irony! It's perfectly reasonable to "reverse commute."
A great place to live - at least when I lived there - is the Temescal (aka "Lower Rockridge") area in Oakland. It's near two BART stations (and the reverse commute is easy-peasy compared to the commute on BART from PH to Oakland and SF), walkable, neighborhood-y, and affordable. The boundaries are roughly 40th Street, 51st Street, Telegraph and College Avenues.
The actual Rockridge neighborhood is lovely, walkable, has tons of shops, restaurants etc. but is majorly spendy. If you can afford it, that's another neighborhood to consider.
If you want to live in SF, I've always been fond of the Mission and still miss living there, grit, crime and all! There are two BART stations, loads of great places to eat and things to do. You may (will?) have to rent with roommates to afford it - I don't know if that's an option for you.
Walnut Creek? No. Not hip. Nice, low crime, wonderful downtown with a surprisingly vibrant social life - but not hip at all. And outside of downtown, not at all walkable and you absolutely must have a car.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 11:09 AM on July 2, 2010
Given your commute, I'd look at the Berkeley/Oakland junction, and skip SOMA - it's not SF as you know it, so you'd still have to 'commute' to the fun parts of the city. May as well live somewhere fun and cheaper, as well as closer, and you can still BART into SF on a whim.
posted by kcm at 11:22 AM on July 2, 2010
posted by kcm at 11:22 AM on July 2, 2010
Response by poster: @kcm, if I wanted the SF experience, where should I live if not SOMA? thanks!
posted by jdlugo at 11:57 AM on July 2, 2010
posted by jdlugo at 11:57 AM on July 2, 2010
Two good neighborhoods within walking distance of BART are Duboce Triangle and the lower Castro around 16th St, Church and Market.
posted by conrad53 at 12:20 PM on July 2, 2010
posted by conrad53 at 12:20 PM on July 2, 2010
Walnut Creek? [...] outside of downtown, not at all walkable
I dunno; I walk it pretty much every morning. It's suburbia, it pretty much exactly fits the "would like to be able to walk in my neighborhood" requirement. (There's a few roads I won't walk because they're high-traffic with no sidewalks, but mostly OK.)
WC also fits the "outdoorsy" thing -- good trails and wonderful city open space -- although Berkeley also has great regional parks.
There are new condo developments downtown that are clearly trying for hip; dunno how well they achieve it. But it's certainly not the SF experience.
Concord might hit the "urban" part better? Varies from striving-for-hip to gritty; although I often find it borderline grim. It is, however, where the good tacos are.
But I would think if you want to experience San Francisco you need to live closer to it -- the trek from Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill to SF is just a little too far to do on a whim.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:48 PM on July 2, 2010
I dunno; I walk it pretty much every morning. It's suburbia, it pretty much exactly fits the "would like to be able to walk in my neighborhood" requirement. (There's a few roads I won't walk because they're high-traffic with no sidewalks, but mostly OK.)
WC also fits the "outdoorsy" thing -- good trails and wonderful city open space -- although Berkeley also has great regional parks.
There are new condo developments downtown that are clearly trying for hip; dunno how well they achieve it. But it's certainly not the SF experience.
Concord might hit the "urban" part better? Varies from striving-for-hip to gritty; although I often find it borderline grim. It is, however, where the good tacos are.
But I would think if you want to experience San Francisco you need to live closer to it -- the trek from Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill to SF is just a little too far to do on a whim.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:48 PM on July 2, 2010
If you like to judge your micro-neighborhoods on data more than intuition, you want Crimespotting. Check out Google Street View, too; you'll be able to tell a lot from the size and shape of the streets, even if they look mostly empty of people.
My take on SOMA:
North of 4th = Yerba Buena / Rincon Hill / South Beach / Mission Bay. It has its merits for availability of short-term housing and proximity to the Bay Bridge and freeways and BART, but this is probably not the SF you are expecting. Moderately expensive and cookie-cutter. A bit of nightlife around 2nd & Howard, but not the hippest part of town. From the eastern part, you can take the KT / N Muni light rail past midnight on weeknights.
4th to 8th = gritty warehouse areas, some panhandlers depending on the block, mostly quiet and a little creepy. Some very scattered nightlife.
8th to 12th = freeway underpasses, bizarre intersections, big box stores on 9th and 10th. You'll feel like you're in the suburbs if you shop at Costco and Bed Bath & Beyond around here. Some decent restaurants and nightlife along 11th, but I still wouldn't call this a walkable neighborhood.
posted by tantivy at 1:38 PM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
My take on SOMA:
North of 4th = Yerba Buena / Rincon Hill / South Beach / Mission Bay. It has its merits for availability of short-term housing and proximity to the Bay Bridge and freeways and BART, but this is probably not the SF you are expecting. Moderately expensive and cookie-cutter. A bit of nightlife around 2nd & Howard, but not the hippest part of town. From the eastern part, you can take the KT / N Muni light rail past midnight on weeknights.
4th to 8th = gritty warehouse areas, some panhandlers depending on the block, mostly quiet and a little creepy. Some very scattered nightlife.
8th to 12th = freeway underpasses, bizarre intersections, big box stores on 9th and 10th. You'll feel like you're in the suburbs if you shop at Costco and Bed Bath & Beyond around here. Some decent restaurants and nightlife along 11th, but I still wouldn't call this a walkable neighborhood.
posted by tantivy at 1:38 PM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you really want to live in SF, you should live in SF, especially if you care about nightlife, but not SOMA.
The commute from SF won't be too bad, since you're reverse commuting, and it'll be even easier if you can leave your car someplace in Pleasant Hill to go between BART and work, since you can just sleep/read/whatever instead of drive.
The Mission would definitely give you the SF experience, particularly with respect to burritos - you just have to be a little careful about where you live.
Berkeley is your best bet outside of the SF if you want some place you'll enjoy walking/eating/drinking, but in that case you'd want to commute by car.
posted by radicarian at 2:14 PM on July 2, 2010
The commute from SF won't be too bad, since you're reverse commuting, and it'll be even easier if you can leave your car someplace in Pleasant Hill to go between BART and work, since you can just sleep/read/whatever instead of drive.
The Mission would definitely give you the SF experience, particularly with respect to burritos - you just have to be a little careful about where you live.
Berkeley is your best bet outside of the SF if you want some place you'll enjoy walking/eating/drinking, but in that case you'd want to commute by car.
posted by radicarian at 2:14 PM on July 2, 2010
N-thing that if you want the SF Experience, you need to live in SF. Lots of people have great experiences living in the Bay Area, but folks who live on the other side of the bridge/tube do not get the same SF experience as someone who lives in The City. I have a different experience in Oakland than my friends who live there -- it should be obvious that the reverse would also be true.
where should I live if not SOMA?
Live in a part of the city that your great-grandparents would recognize as being San Francisco. To balance your karma, read this too.
SOMA is a relatively new neighborhood (even by SF standards). It hasn't had the time to develop much of its own character yet, and it doesn't have a lot of the things that make some of the older neighborhoods charming and unique. You won't find the third-generation small merchants that litter North Beach and the Castro. You won't find row after row of charming victorian, like you see in Noe Valley. Instead, you'll find lots of high-tech offices, the $10 lunch spots that have sprung up around them, and something bordering on monoculture of people who want to live in high-rise housing "close to work", but haven't yet realized that SF is only a 49 square mile city. SOMA's great for what it is, but it's not especially charming as a residential area.
Look closer to the center of the city. Mission, Hayes Valley, Noe, Haight, Castro, North Beach, Western Addition, Twin Peaks, etc. etc.
posted by toxic at 2:49 PM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
where should I live if not SOMA?
Live in a part of the city that your great-grandparents would recognize as being San Francisco. To balance your karma, read this too.
SOMA is a relatively new neighborhood (even by SF standards). It hasn't had the time to develop much of its own character yet, and it doesn't have a lot of the things that make some of the older neighborhoods charming and unique. You won't find the third-generation small merchants that litter North Beach and the Castro. You won't find row after row of charming victorian, like you see in Noe Valley. Instead, you'll find lots of high-tech offices, the $10 lunch spots that have sprung up around them, and something bordering on monoculture of people who want to live in high-rise housing "close to work", but haven't yet realized that SF is only a 49 square mile city. SOMA's great for what it is, but it's not especially charming as a residential area.
Look closer to the center of the city. Mission, Hayes Valley, Noe, Haight, Castro, North Beach, Western Addition, Twin Peaks, etc. etc.
posted by toxic at 2:49 PM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Hey, I'm the guy who always hops into these threads and says this, but check out North Oakland. You can live in Temescal, have everything within walking distance that you'd get in most of the most interesting neighborhoods in SF, have a much shorter commute, and pay a lot less. There are also a wide variety of other, less well-known, similarly-interesting neighborhoods around Temescal, but everyone loves Temescal the best so I call it out. From North Oakland you're only 20-30 minutes away from SF / the Mission, so going out to party there nights is very reasonable.
posted by doteatop at 3:13 PM on July 2, 2010
posted by doteatop at 3:13 PM on July 2, 2010
I agree with some points from toxic's first link, but cycling in SF isn't perfect! Granted I am not super athletic, but in my calculus of "How fast will I get there on a bike?" and "How fast will I get there on Muni?" and "How gross will I be there if I bike?" I take transit 95% of the time.
posted by tantivy at 3:52 PM on July 2, 2010
posted by tantivy at 3:52 PM on July 2, 2010
I agree with the Duboce Triangle suggestion. I'd live there even if it wasn't for BART accessibility. The entire Castro/Duboce/Dolores corridor is my favorite in the city.
posted by kcm at 9:20 AM on July 3, 2010
posted by kcm at 9:20 AM on July 3, 2010
Response by poster: Thank you again for all the links and opinions! I really appreciate it!
posted by jdlugo at 11:23 AM on July 3, 2010
posted by jdlugo at 11:23 AM on July 3, 2010
Coming to this late, but thought I'd put in my two cents.
Just talking about my own experience here, but I commuted every day from the East Bay to SF for years. Then I commuted every day from even further out in the East Bay to Berkeley for more years. There is nothing remotely comparable to SF anywhere else in the Bay Area. Places advertise themselves as such and are totally wrong. You need to live in SF to have the SF experience.
Concord is borderline grim (to use We had a deal, Kyle's words) in certain areas and not in others. Walnut Creek is the same way. So is Oakland. It all depends on where in the city you are, the time of day, how close to the freeways you are, and a number of other variables. I wouldn't feel safe walking around either Concord or Walnut Creek late at night. Walnut Creek is about as far from hip as hip can be. There are a few good restaurants and there's a small shopping/nightlifey district downtown in the Main Street area, but it's not hip. That's why everybody in Walnut Creek goes to SF for nightlife.
Berkeley is a fine place to live if you can afford it and if you can put up with its eccentricities, of which there are an infinite number. In terms of neighborhoods in Berkeley, I lived in Elmwood (an area of Berkeley just north of Highway 24 and North Oakland along College Avenue) for several months. It's a bustling little neighborhood with decent restaurants and other amenities, although the awnings roll up pretty early there, as they do in most of the East Bay, and it ain't hip either. Here are some reviews of Elmwood restaurants, though some of these places have probably gone away (lots of small business turnover there). The Gourmet Ghetto is great as far as restaurants and other amenities go, but good luck finding any housing there that's not overpriced.
I mean, do people actually go into SF on weeknights to eat, drink, and hangout?
Yes, all the time, because there's not much to do in the East Bay outside of Oakland. But be aware that the only real public transit from the East Bay to SF, BART, is not open all night long. If you're visiting you have to time whatever you're doing to coincide with the schedule for the last BART train, which can be a total pain. If you're driving, that's not an issue.
Google maps suggests the drive from downtown SF to Pleasant Hill is 55 minutes with traffic. Could anyone offer any insight into the accuracy of this estimate?
That depends on the time of day and whether you are driving or taking BART. It can be longer than 55 minutes during rush hour on a bad day. When BART breaks down for some reason or there is an accident or other slight bottleneck on the Bay Bridge, it can be much longer. And rush hour can be anytime from 3:30 to 7:00 if it's a bad day.
If you're only going to be in the area for 6 months I would consider living in SF and commuting to and from work. If you believe that you'll never visit SF if you live in the East Bay, you're probably right. It takes a lot of energy and oomph to do that commute, especially on a weeknight.
posted by blucevalo at 9:19 AM on July 9, 2010
Just talking about my own experience here, but I commuted every day from the East Bay to SF for years. Then I commuted every day from even further out in the East Bay to Berkeley for more years. There is nothing remotely comparable to SF anywhere else in the Bay Area. Places advertise themselves as such and are totally wrong. You need to live in SF to have the SF experience.
Concord is borderline grim (to use We had a deal, Kyle's words) in certain areas and not in others. Walnut Creek is the same way. So is Oakland. It all depends on where in the city you are, the time of day, how close to the freeways you are, and a number of other variables. I wouldn't feel safe walking around either Concord or Walnut Creek late at night. Walnut Creek is about as far from hip as hip can be. There are a few good restaurants and there's a small shopping/nightlifey district downtown in the Main Street area, but it's not hip. That's why everybody in Walnut Creek goes to SF for nightlife.
Berkeley is a fine place to live if you can afford it and if you can put up with its eccentricities, of which there are an infinite number. In terms of neighborhoods in Berkeley, I lived in Elmwood (an area of Berkeley just north of Highway 24 and North Oakland along College Avenue) for several months. It's a bustling little neighborhood with decent restaurants and other amenities, although the awnings roll up pretty early there, as they do in most of the East Bay, and it ain't hip either. Here are some reviews of Elmwood restaurants, though some of these places have probably gone away (lots of small business turnover there). The Gourmet Ghetto is great as far as restaurants and other amenities go, but good luck finding any housing there that's not overpriced.
I mean, do people actually go into SF on weeknights to eat, drink, and hangout?
Yes, all the time, because there's not much to do in the East Bay outside of Oakland. But be aware that the only real public transit from the East Bay to SF, BART, is not open all night long. If you're visiting you have to time whatever you're doing to coincide with the schedule for the last BART train, which can be a total pain. If you're driving, that's not an issue.
Google maps suggests the drive from downtown SF to Pleasant Hill is 55 minutes with traffic. Could anyone offer any insight into the accuracy of this estimate?
That depends on the time of day and whether you are driving or taking BART. It can be longer than 55 minutes during rush hour on a bad day. When BART breaks down for some reason or there is an accident or other slight bottleneck on the Bay Bridge, it can be much longer. And rush hour can be anytime from 3:30 to 7:00 if it's a bad day.
If you're only going to be in the area for 6 months I would consider living in SF and commuting to and from work. If you believe that you'll never visit SF if you live in the East Bay, you're probably right. It takes a lot of energy and oomph to do that commute, especially on a weeknight.
posted by blucevalo at 9:19 AM on July 9, 2010
I wouldn't feel safe walking around either Concord or Walnut Creek late at night.
Seriously? Walnut Creek?? The only reason I wouldn't feel safe walking around WC is that NO ONE walks there, whether it's day or night. But for god's sake, it's not because of crime. They just like their cars.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 8:10 PM on July 9, 2010
Seriously? Walnut Creek?? The only reason I wouldn't feel safe walking around WC is that NO ONE walks there, whether it's day or night. But for god's sake, it's not because of crime. They just like their cars.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 8:10 PM on July 9, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
The Gourmet Ghetto in Berkeley is indeed walkable. BART is reasonably close and from there access to the city is easy peasy, and yes people from the East Bay go into the city all the time. Berkeley is much closer to urban than Walnut Creek. If this were a permanent relocation, I'd suggest Berkeley.
If you are really wanting to live in San Francisco proper, however, I'd suggest finding a place in SF that is close to BART and finding parking for your car somewhere between Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill. Use BART for the bulk of your commute and then hop in your car to get to your office. That saves you parking hassles in the city and driving hassles on the commute.
Since this is not a permanent thing but a temporary situation I'd say figure out where you really want to live, and then you can make it work for six months.
posted by ambrosia at 9:38 AM on July 2, 2010 [1 favorite]