How Oakland Reeled in a Behemoth and Became Attractive to Global Capital Overnig

[I-10east]

Jax isn't 'riding on anyone's coattails', I don't buy that at all. For one thing, Jax is oldest major city in FL. Most cities like Charlotte, Miami, Austin etc have HUGE suburbs (and even cities like Ft Lauderdale, St Petersburg etc) to really bolster their metro population unlike Jax.

[I-10east]

Jax is only trailing MIA and ORL (major cities) growthwise in the state BTW, before everyone act like we are the next thing to Casper, WY....

[Adam White]

^^^Huh?  "Preferred me when I was all about Atlanta"?  I actually have one post/thread to my name about Oakland and don't know much about it.  But it's been in the news a lot and I just happened to have coffee with a buddy doing some stuff there this morning (and like I said, we met to discuss Burning Man frankly and Oakland/real estate simply came up).  I wouldn't call myself a homer for a place I don't even live in, have never even mentioned in breath on this forum until this week, and outwardly state that I don't know much about but clearly it's a city worth looking into to see what it is they're doing over there given all that is now happening.

If there is any city that is a red-headed stepchild, it is Oakland.  It's constantly in the national news like Ferguson is in the national news, and it scares companies and people almost like no other.  It sat out the 2003-2007 boom.  It sat out the Dot Com boom.  It had all the same things then that it has now, but only now (and there is a brand new mayor less than 12 months in office I should point out) is it seeing all of this new investment and revitalization.  You think it's just riding coat tails?  Sure, it has a higher chance of benefiting from a Bay Area boom than some city not in the Bay Area, but it hasn't really previously.  Why now?

I get your point about Nationsbank, but keep in mind the whole corporate office almost relocated to Chicago for neutrality, but it did end up going to Charlotte.  If you know anything about Charlotte, then you know leadership in that city has consistently been quite strong and people have made appropriate decisions to get that city to where it is today.  What have they done that Jax hasn't?  What is Oakland doing now that it hasn't before and what is it doing that Jax isn't?  Nothing wrong with asking these questions or pointing things out to get Oakland on the radar of readers of this forum that like to monitor other cities/development.

Simms, as I said before, I think Jax could do a lot more. And we're likely in agreement that the leadership (or lack of it) is one of the things that really retards Jacksonville's growth and limits its potential. But I guess my point is that being a lower-rent bedroom community of a large, prosperous city gives a place a leg up that somewhere like Jax just doesn't have. Sure, SF isn't really that important internationally, but it's easily in the top 10 most important cities in the USA (probably in the top 5). And the bay area is big economy that draws people from all over (and has the attendant high cost of living, etc).

So I was just saying that while it's great that Oakland found a way to lure Uber, etc, it's not as simple as saying, "If Oakland can do it, surely Jacksonville can". Had the article been about Charlotte or Richmond or Kansas City or someplace like that, I'd be a bit less sceptical. That's all.

[simms3]

Agree to disagree on many points you raise.

1) SF is very important internationally and both the size of its economy, its demographic makeup, and the number of international visitors it receives are all very indicative of that.  It's probably 3rd wheel behind NYC and LA if you look at its demographic makeup, size, size of economy, international visitation, etc.  But then you'll take me saying all of this as a gesture to making your point for you, which is not the case, because Oakland is analogous to Jacksonville's northside, which could easily be "forgotten" as a place of investment in a gold rush cycle if certain things aren't in place or something hasn't happened to spur some gold up that way.

2) The analogy to Oakland seeing this rebirth in Jacksonville is if Jacksonville on the whole were firing on all cylinders, yet the Northside continued to be an area seeing little to no new investment, crime problems of a national notoriety, and fits and starts that always seemed to take the community nowhere, or maybe even a step backward, while all around the Northside is economic boon.  Oakland is equivalent to the Northside finally joining the team.  Chicago's southside is another example.  You could visit Chicago today and see cranes downtown, a clean downtown, the appearance of a wealthy, thriving global metropolis all around you and not realize that as the core/northside see massive economic benefit, the whole of the southside is just sitting there rotting while people are blasting each because they are desperate.

What's remarkable about Oakland is that it is literally a hole in the Bay Area...it's not a "side" as the northside Jax/southside Chicago are.  There are prosperous areas all around much of Oakland (Walnut Creek, the Oakland Hills, Berkeley, Tri-Cities), and people/companies just go around it to get to other parts of the Bay Area.

As has been the case in previous cycles, Oakland has so many things wrong with it that it could just very well sit out every cycle and continue to be a very well known red-headed stepchild.  How many positive things do you ever hear about Oakland?  Probably none.  Literally every news story deals with some issue, often crime related, going on there.  There was the whole debacle with the port this year, along with violent riots seemingly every week, and the debacle with the Occupy movement at the port a few years ago.  Highest homicide rate in the country at times.  It's a place muttered more alongside Detroit than its neighboring city of San Francisco.  The Oakland Raiders may leave for LA.  The Oakland A's aren't happy and have tried to go to San Jose if not for a geographic non-compete there with the Giants.  The Oakland Warriors are leaving, for San Francisco.  Like, seriously?

There are enough qualities to Oakland that hold it back, perpetually, over the years, from actually benefiting by simply "being" in the Bay Area.

Why would I post an article on Charlotte?  I believe I probably have before, as have countless other active members of this forum looking to produce what I just produced for Oakland.  If you're in Jacksonville/the South, you're already familiar with Charlotte.  How many people ever hear about Oakland?  I live across a small body of water from the place and even I don't venture over there very much or pay much attention, or know precisely what's going on.  But I can say without a doubt, in the last 6 months the place has been at the forefront of the business news cycle over here and all of a sudden for the first time in so many years of its history, it has so many positive things going for it.  One big change I keep mentioning is its new mayor, Libby Schaaf.  Is it coincidental all of this is happening now after a changing of the guard?

Another news story is the retailing of the city.  We're talking about a city anchoring a sub-region of 2.6 million people with very very little retail.  In fact, the least retail per capita of any major population center in this country, I believe (going off of memory).  Now retail is coming back, yet it's not like demographics have changed that drastically in only a few short years.  What's going on there?  Why the sudden investment?

So while you want to lump Oakland as basically part of San Francisco, I can say without a doubt you really don't know the dynamic and you are misspeaking from a misguided perspective.  The analogy people want to use is that Oakland is San Francisco's Brooklyn.  I think it's certainly moving that direction, but it still isn't DoBro (Downtown Brooklyn), DUMBO, Fort Green, Williamsburg, Prospect Park, etc yet...it's probably where Brooklyn was 15-20 years ago.  So what did Brooklyn do to become a powerhouse alongside Manhattan?  It didn't just "be" and ride Manhattan...because for a while overflow from Manhattan went to Westchester, CT, or even NJ, but not to Brooklyn.


I'm simply opining that when we talk about cities doing something right, turning corners, whatever, that we consider looking at Oakland alongside Charlotte, Austin, Orlando, Nashville, Savannah, Charleston, etc etc.  I will continue to disagree from a far more informed and localized perspective that Oakland is simply riding San Francisco's coat tails.  Do I know everything going on?  No.  I'm trying to find out, myself!

So I do find it to be a cheap shot coming from [like I said before] an ill-informed perspective that Oakland doesn't count as an example because it has San Francisco to rely on as an overflow to a huge regional economy.  It's a city worth researching and paying attention to if you're into this sort of thing.

I rest my case, continue to say whatever you're going to say...

[Adam White]

Sure thing. It's certainly in the top 20-30 cities internationally, in terms of importance or influence (by most lists I've seen). What that means is somewhat relative, I suppose.

Maybe you should get out more? All my friends who work in SF (admittedly, fewer than 10) live in Oakland. So maybe you don't hear about it too much - or didn't - but maybe that's just you and the circles you run in. I'm no expert on Oakland (and apparently according to you, neither are you), but I don't think it matters one way or another for the purposes of this discussion. I don't think your analogy is quite accurate - Oakland would only be like the northside if downtown Jax was booming and one of the major cities in the US/world in a region that is one of the more important economies in the country and includes silicon valley. But Jax has a ghost town for a downtown and is relatively isolated - it's basically a one man show in NE Florida. It can and should do more, but that's quite a stretch from saying that Oakland is having a renaissance and managed to lure Uber so Jax should be able to do it to.

I think your comments about Brooklyn show you really aren't getting my point. But I can only try to make it so many times. I'm not saying Oakland (or Brooklyn) hasn't had to do things to change its fortunes. I'm saying the conditions in which it made those changes were materially different, so the dividends from those changes were greater. I could give examples based on where I live, but that would just bore everybody on this forum. But it's not unique to Oakland or Brooklyn.

Oakland is not literally a hole, by the way.

http://fortune.com/2014/10/17/oakland-business-growth/

In 2011, Richard Stump and his business partner Michelle Mihvec started looking for a larger space for Fathom, their fledgling 3-D printing business. The company, which was founded in 2008, had been operating out of Mihvec's garage in San Ramon, Calif. at the time.

They looked at San Francisco and Silicon Valley, but considering the space the pair needed for their large printing equipment, Fathom was priced out of both markets.

In addition to space, top on their wish list was "low cost" and "access to creatives," Stump says.

He and Mihvec finally settled on Oakland, Calif.

Fathom now occupies 10,000 square feet of a former brass foundry built in 1901 located in Oakland's Jack London square, a few blocks from Oakland Inner Harbor. "It has tall wood ceilings; it looks amazing—the old architecture with the modernized equipment," Stump says.

He's just as happy with his company's new city. "For us, specifically, it offered a lower cost for our facility and offered access to creatives. It's a nice location: not far from Sacramento, close to San Francisco," he says. "Oakland in general is really an up-and-coming area. Just in the last two years, we've noticed new restaurants and nightlife. But a lot of it comes back to economics and being affordable."

The characteristics of Oakland that drew Stump to the city seem to be aiding other small businesses as well. With $5.6 million in revenue in 2013 and a five-year growth rate of 1785.62%, Fathom landed at No. 2 on this year's Inner City 100, a ranking of the fastest-growing inner city companies in the U.S. from the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. It's joined on the list by six other Oakland businesses: Revolution Foods, a school lunch provider; Oaklandish, which designs and sells civic pride apparel; Arcsine, an architectural firm that serves hospitality, commercial, and residential clients across the country; organic food company Premier Organics; Blaisdell's Business Products, which supplies companies with office products and furniture; and Veronica Foods Company, which sells olive oil, balsamic vinegar, and other gourmet food items. With seven winners on this year's Inner City 100, Oakland was second only to Chicago, which had 13.

Chicago has been the Midwest's dominant city for quite some time. But for Oakland, the number of small businesses with stellar growth is indicative of a larger trend in a city that's always stood in San Francisco's shadow. Oakland, it seems, is finally having its own modern moment.

"There is a chip-on-your-shoulder feeling in Oakland, as if it's the second city," says Chris Rhomberg, a professor of sociology at Fordham University and author of the 2004 book No There There: Race, Class and Political Community in Oakland. "I think that it's finally coming around."

Why, exactly, is this happening now? Certainly, the factors that drew Stump and Fathom to the city play a big part.

"Oakland has always been relatively less developed or behind San Francisco, but its advantage is that it's still in the Bay Area and has a relatively affluent consumer market and an educated workforce," which is attractive to business owners, says Rhomberg. The median household income in Oakland was $51,683 from 2008 to 2012, according to the U.S. Census, just below the national median of 53,043. Unemployment there was 9.4% in August, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, down from a post-recession high of 17.6% in July 2010 but still above pre-recession lows that neared 6% and September's national average of 5.9%. The city's location makes it accessible by car, ferry, bike, and public transport. "Being able to commute to Oakland is a real advantage to employers in need of a workforce," Rhomberg says. Plus, it's now serving as a catch basin for spillover from San Francisco, where a tech boom is fueling sky-high rents.

This article makes my point better than I could. It goes on to say that Oakland's success isn't only due to its location, transport options and relative lower operating costs - it says Oakland is doing stuff to encourage its growth. Which is what I'm saying - that changes Oakland makes get better returns because of its location, etc. It's a combination of factors.

I'm certainly not saying Jax can't learn from Oakland's successes. But it's also true that people often mistakenly think that what works in one city is guaranteed to work in another. So who knows. What I do know is that Oakland and Jax are very different cities with their own unique challenges and selling points.

[simms3]

I think we're talking past each other at this point, as I have not necessarily denied that being adjacent to or in a booming region doesn't help.  But Oakland has been left in the dust many a Bay Area boom, and still has inherent issues in some areas (crime for instance) that make Jacksonville's woes in those areas look like a cake walk.  So to see all this investment and interest now, there's got to be something more there than just being there, where it is.  You almost sound like you're arguing with me here, that you're trying to say there aren't valid comparisons or lessons learned for Jax because there are no analogies, that it's stupid to discuss Oakland because it's basically San Francisco, and that I need a lesson from you, who live in Jacksonville FL (while I practically live next to Oakland) on what's really happening there.  It's a bit pompous, right?

I think you also are mistaking the absolute level of what I'm saying translates to Jacksonville.  I'm trying to put Oakland on people's radar.  No different than putting 10 routine cities like Charlotte or Orlando (or even Miami, on today's cover) on people's "Learning From" radar.  Oakland's actually a better example than a lot of these cities.  It has more to overcome despite being near San Francisco.  And just because I said I don't have that much familiarity with it...take that with relativity.  I friggin live 10 miles from Oakland, and I'm very involved in the real estate industry and by default as a result all the local economies.  I don't need to take lessons or be shared some anecdotal story that I may have already read somewhere else, let alone a story that sounds like at least a dozen of other stories that I've heard directly in person.

I get the point you're trying to make.  And to say Oakland is not a hole in the region is also showing how you don't know this region.  Oakland has magnitudes higher crime, much higher unemployment, generally much higher vacancy, a huge percentage lower median income and educational attainment levels, and other disparaging traits that jurisdictions on literally *every* side of it don't share or vastly improve on (SF to the west, Berkeley to the north, Walnut Creek and Tri-Cities to east, Hayward/Fremont to south).  It is a hole.  For larger cities, it has the worst demographics on many fronts in the Bay Area, and it is right smack dab in the middle.  That's not to say in this city of 400K that there are little areas like JLS, Uptown, Grand Lake, Lake Merritt, and Rockridge (all of these neighborhoods basically DT heading north towards Berkeley) that have positively amazing demographics on paper for justifying investment.  But that's leaving out a good 75% of the city that is still amazingly depressed.

[Adam White]

I think we're talking past each other at this point, as I have not necessarily denied that being adjacent to or in a booming region doesn't help.  But Oakland has been left in the dust many a Bay Area boom, and still has inherent issues in some areas (crime for instance) that make Jacksonville's woes in those areas look like a cake walk.  So to see all this investment and interest now, there's got to be something more there than just being there, where it is.  You almost sound like you're arguing with me here, that you're trying to say there aren't valid comparisons or lessons learned for Jax because there are no analogies, that it's stupid to discuss Oakland because it's basically San Francisco, and that I need a lesson from you, who live in Jacksonville FL (while I practically live next to Oakland) on what's really happening there.  It's a bit pompous, right?

I think you also are mistaking the absolute level of what I'm saying translates to Jacksonville.  I'm trying to put Oakland on people's radar.  No different than putting 10 routine cities like Charlotte or Orlando (or even Miami, on today's cover) on people's "Learning From" radar.  Oakland's actually a better example than a lot of these cities.  It has more to overcome despite being near San Francisco.  And just because I said I don't have that much familiarity with it...take that with relativity.  I friggin live 10 miles from Oakland, and I'm very involved in the real estate industry and by default as a result all the local economies.  I don't need to take lessons or be shared some anecdotal story that I may have already read somewhere else, let alone a story that sounds like at least a dozen of other stories that I've heard directly in person.

I get the point you're trying to make.  And to say Oakland is not a hole in the region is also showing how you don't know this region.  Oakland has magnitudes higher crime, much higher unemployment, generally much higher vacancy, a huge percentage lower median income and educational attainment levels, and other disparaging traits that jurisdictions on literally *every* side of it don't share or vastly improve on (SF to the west, Berkeley to the north, Walnut Creek and Tri-Cities to east, Hayward/Fremont to south).  It is a hole.  For larger cities, it has the worst demographics on many fronts in the Bay Area, and it is right smack dab in the middle.  That's not to say in this city of 400K that there are little areas like JLS, Uptown, Grand Lake, Lake Merritt, and Rockridge (all of these neighborhoods basically DT heading north towards Berkeley) that have positively amazing demographics on paper for justifying investment.  But that's leaving out a good 75% of the city that is still amazingly depressed.

I thought you weren't going to answer me anymore. But here's all I have to say:

1) No, I was saying Oakland is not *literally* a hole. You are using the word "literally" when you mean "figuratively".

2) I don't live in Jacksonville and haven't since January 2007. I think you were in Atlanta or somewhere else at that time. But I think it's cute how you consider San Francisco to be such a big deal.

[Tacachale]

I think Adam makes very sensible points here. Oakland had to do a lot to improve, but it also has substantially more to work with. It (and the rest of the Bay Area) are less a separate community than one of the historically "rough" parts of a wider regional community that's starting to turn around.

[simms3]

And?  So when we mention what other cities are doing and if there are any takeaways for Jax, Oakland should be excluded from that list because it's basically San Francisco for all intents and purposes?  Makes no sense.

My original premise still is the same: if Oakland can turn around and see economic development in its downtown, given its challenges, many of which are similar to the challenges Jacksonville faces, some on even wider scales, then so, too, can Jacksonville.  What is Oakland doing?

That is my whole OP in 2 sentences.  Yet, I'm facing argument there.  What is there to argue?  Why argue it?  Why try to argue that Oakland is not a good example for Jax, why try to debate the point of a thread just throwing some things up on the board about a town rarely mentioned.

I'll remember this next time Jacksonville does a learning from in Brooklyn or Fort Lauderdale or Saint Paul or Saint Petersburg, FL, or Tacoma, WA or wherever.  Nothing to take away.  No point in comparing.  Any positive things happening are all because...New York City, Miami, Minneapolis, Tampa, Seattle, etc.

[Adam White]

And?  So when we mention what other cities are doing and if there are any takeaways for Jax, Oakland should be excluded from that list because it's basically San Francisco for all intents and purposes?  Makes no sense.

My original premise still is the same: if Oakland can turn around and see economic development in its downtown, given its challenges, many of which are similar to the challenges Jacksonville faces, some on even wider scales, then so, too, can Jacksonville.  What is Oakland doing?

That is my whole OP in 2 sentences.  Yet, I'm facing argument there.  What is there to argue?  Why argue it?  Why try to argue that Oakland is not a good example for Jax, why try to debate the point of a thread just throwing some things up on the board about a town rarely mentioned.

I'll remember this next time Jacksonville does a learning from in Brooklyn or Fort Lauderdale or Saint Paul or Saint Petersburg, FL, or Tacoma, WA or wherever.  Nothing to take away.  No point in comparing.  Any positive things happening are all because...New York City, Miami, Minneapolis, Tampa, Seattle, etc.

Come down off your cross for a second and be reasonable. No one ever said any of that. All I said is that it's not as simple as "Guys, if Oakland of all places can do it, so can downtown Jacksonville" which was your original statement. It's not that Jacksonville can't learn from Oakland's experiences, it's just that it's not as simple as your original post seems to imply that it is and that there are things that might help "Oakland of all places" (and give it a leg up) that dowtown Jacksonville doesn't have.

[I-10east]

I think Jax could do it, too - if it were located in the SF Bay area. That gives Oakland a bit of a leg up. I'm not saying Jax couldn't do better - I honestly think it could - but this isn't a very fair comparison.

I agree with this statement. It's ludicrous to think that Oakland being in that Bay area megapolis (with San Fran and San Jose, both larger cities) doesn't give them a huge boost, and it isn't the epitome of 'riding on other city's coattails'. Oakland also has one of the busiest ports in the country, which is basically 'No Cals port' Just like Savannah is 'GA's port'.

Despite this little urban renaissance in Oakland, let's not kid ourselves and pretend that everything as all rosy in Oakland; With its very high crime and gang problems. It's also one of the most inferiority complex cities, because of it's proximity to the far ritzier San Fran. How many times do you see the San Fran skyline, Alcatraz, Lombard Street etc during Oakland sports events? Virtually all of the time, with nothing showcasing Oakland; That's basically a microcosm of a much bigger picture.

[thelakelander]

Oakland's situation reminds me a lot of St. Petersburg's.  For decades, St. Pete had a huge inferiority complex, when it came to being compared with the slightly larger Tampa, on the other side of the bay. Tampa was (and still is) clearly the Bay Area's business center and St. Pete was viewed as a sleeply place where old folks came to die.

In a way, one could argue that Jax has an inferiority complex itself. The region of comparison is just larger. For decades, we've made downtown and urban core mistakes, partially based on bad perspectives of trying to be more than just a gas stop and bathroom break for tourist heading to Central and South Florida. It still bubbles up today when you here crazy proposals and sentiment believing that a priority must be luring suburbanites to a place they clearly have no interest in.

In the case of St. Pete, the last two decades there has been a strong targeted effort on enhancing quality-of-life. While its still not the business center Tampa is, its core is certainly more vibrant and bicycle friendly. Today, its image isn't as bad as it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Regarding Oakland, I'll admit that I didn't spend much time there this summer, but I did notice some things that could be applicable to places/issues in Jax. One was the redevelopment of Jack London Square. Knowing Sleiman's proposed layout for the Landing, while walking through Jack London Square, you could get a feel for what Sleiman wants to do. 


Jack London Square

Also, in recent years, an automated people mover system was built between Oakland's airport terminal and the Coliseum BART station. In the event JTA decides to keep the Skyway was an APM but modify its operation, the Oakland APM is another example out there to evaluate.

[thelakelander]

The Eastmont Town Center in East Oakland, also appeared to be an example of what to do with a failed mall in a demographically challenged area like Gateway. Abandoned by JCPenney and Mervyn's in the early 1990s, Eastmont was converted into a government/social services/retail center.



http://mall-hall-of-fame.blogspot.com/search/label/San%20Francisco%20Bay%20Area%20Centers?updated-max=2007-05-06T13:36:00-05:00&max-results=20&start=100&by-date=false

[Adam White]

The Eastmont Town Center in East Oakland, also appeared to be an example of what to do with a failed mall in a demographically challenged area like Gateway. Abandoned by JCPenney and Mervyn's in the early 1990s, Eastmont was converted into a government/social services/retail center.



http://mall-hall-of-fame.blogspot.com/search/label/San%20Francisco%20Bay%20Area%20Centers?updated-max=2007-05-06T13:36:00-05:00&max-results=20&start=100&by-date=false

That's pretty cool. It's nice to see old malls being rehabilitated.

[Ocklawaha]

Jax is only trailing MIA and ORL (major cities) growthwise in the state BTW, before everyone act like we are the next thing to Casper, WY....

Um? I was thinking more like Hooker, OK...