First fiction I ever wrote (I was 12, maybe 13) was about a kid in Oakland falling for a SF girl, me having been a Brooklyn kid imagining my teen years hanging out in the Village (which eventually happened, and was exciting, but not exactly how I’d imagined).
I’ve never been in northern California, to this day, but I imagine the relationship between Oakland and SF to be roughly like that between Brooklyn and SF–unfashionable workingclass town across the bridge from the big, bustling glorious glamorous city of aspirations, etc. In which ways was I an idiot when I was 12? In which ways was I on the money? Assuming I wanted to write such a story, but not want to set it in the NYC area, is there a better parallel pair of cities that have such a relationship?
I don’t know that I’d make that claim about Oakland and SF. SF has its fair share of working class neighborhoods, (Protrero, Cow Hollow, Western Add, Bernal), and a couple neighborhoods that are as bad or worse than Oakland’s worst neighborhoods. (Hunter’s Point, Vis Vallet, The View). Conversely, Oakland has some neighborhoods that rival SF’s wealthiest (around Lake Merritt, up in the hills). And there’s far more glorious, glamorous cities in the Bay Area that are more exclusive than SF. (Ross, Mill Valley, Tiburon, Belvedere, Moraga, etc)
However, in the Bay Area, when referring to San Francisco, one need only say, “The City.” Much as if someone were to say, “I’m going to New York City,” Manhattan is usually assumed.
If one were visiting Brooklyn, he would most probably state Brooklyn specifically. Oakland has it even worse than that. If someone in San Francisco was visiting Oakland they’d most probably say, “I’m heading over to the East Bay.”
Oakland doesn’t even have it’s own name used half the time.
No way. San Jose might have an inferiority complex, but it is totally independent, and has the capital of Silicon Valley stuff going for it. People from far away commute into San Jose to work.
As for the OP, my father was from Manhattan, my mother was from Brooklyn, and I grew up in Queens - but I don’t get that same kind of feel for the Oakland/SF relationship. Oakland doesn’t have the same quirky reputation. The Bronx and Manhattan might be closer, actually.
I have spent only the tiniest bit of time in New York, but I grew up in the Bay Area and I don’t think that’s really equivalent. Oakland has its own thing going on. It’s not the same as the City, but it’s interesting and cool in its own way. And it’s not like it’s all blue collar - they’ve got some seriously pricey real estate up in the Oakland/Berkeley hills.
There’s definitely some small amount of bitterness over Oakland being overlooked (remember when the first new Bay Bridge design was proposed a few years back and Oakland went ballistic because their side of the bridge was uglier than the San Francisco side?), but the fact that they are, in fact, two separate cities - unlike Manhattan and Brooklyn - does make a pretty big difference.
One thing that makes the Bay Area different from most other metropolitan areas is how many different entities make it up. Like, the LA area is really just two counties (I’m throwing in Orange County here) and the Chicago area is totally dominated by the city of Chicago and Cook County. The Bay Area is made up of nine counties (ten if you count Santa Cruz, I guess), and has three fairly large cities. It’s kind of amazing anything ever gets done, really.
But you could substitute Brooklyn for Oakland in the above paragraph, and nothing would change. Brooklyn has it’s own thing going on, it’s interesting and cool in its own way, and it has some seriously pricey real estate.
