Jump to content

Talk:Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contoversy over neighborhood borders

[edit]

I've reverted edits that attempt to redefine neighborhood boundaries. The lead and article articulates the boundaries of the actual historic distric itself (in contrast to the Gold Coast areas on the Lake's edge) as defined in the cultural heritage survey (CHS). However since this is an encyclopedia, from a geographic, land use, and zoning standpoint, it is entirely relevant to include the areas just outside of the boundaries of the CHS (i.e. the "Gold Coast" areas) in the context of the article on this neighborhood. Consider the connections between these not-exactly-disparate areas: there's a small neighborhood commercial district at 17th and Madison with 5 neighborhood-serving ground floor retail shop spaces (to include the only "sidewalk cafe" in the area, which is a significant place of social life in the neighborhood) which many Gold Coast residents patronize. Likewise, many residents on the interior streets in the neighborhood visit and use Snow Park and the park ring along the Lake's edge at the edge of the neighborhood at 19th and Alice. On the opposite end of the neighborhood, at 15th and Jackson, just outside the CHS boundary are more 1920's historic apartment buildings and a neighborhood grocery near 15th and Jackson, yet down on the ground one would be hard pressed to parse these blocks out into a different neighborhood as just beyond them lies, yet another neighborhood (and City Council district) the Civic Center District. Just beyond 20th street, lies Oakland's "financial district," yet down on the ground, if one stands at Madison and Lakeside (100% RESIDENTIAL), 19th and Jackson (the 2 story Alexandria Apartments, and also another purely RESIDENTIAL condo building) or even 19th and Alice, where the land use is predominantly residential (The Bechtel Building at 244 Lakeside, the Regillus, Lake Park senior apartments, and now the proposed 100% RESIDENTIAL "Emerald Views") with the exception of the Kaiser Engineering Building at 19th and Harrison, it would be a stretch to say one is standing in the Financial District there. If one purports that areas north of 17th are not in the Lakeside, then tell me where they are and in what article they should be included. We could get into a messy discussion about an entirely different article on the "Gold Coast" yet some would define this "Gold Coast" area into the interior streets of the neighborhood: Madison and even Jackson Street...where would it end?Critical Chris (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say, as correct as it may or may not be, is original research, and not verifiable by anyone who doesn't live in that neighborhood, and that does not abide by WP:Verifiability or WP:No original research. If you would like to write an article about the Lakeside Apartments Neighborhood, then that's what the article should be called, and then you can find another source to back up any alternate boundaries for that area. But because this article is called Lakeside Apartments District, and there exists a high-quality source that defines that district, then this article must use that definition. Furthermore, "known to many" and "[known] to some" are expressions that do not WP:Avoid weasel words. Furthermore, north, south, west, and east are not capitalized unless you are talking about The West or The East or The North or The South.
For all of these reasons, I am reverting your edit. Please do not continue reverting (to avoid the WP:Three-revert rule) unless you can provide a source to back up the boundaries you propose.
EAE (Holla!) 03:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CHS defines a portion of the neighborhood, but not all of it. The article, as written, articulates the difference between the CHS designation of the interior streets from Madison up to Harrison, and the greater neighborhood. Your reference to LANA is redundant. This is not a 3RR situation, as the article is constantly being reformed and improved. Perhaps the article should be renamed? Are you willing to write a whole separate article on the Gold Coast areas north of 17th. That may be appropriate here.Critical Chris (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead as it appears now is better than before, but it still needs SOURCES. No matter how it's phrased, when you claim that the Lakeside Apartments District includes or doesn't include some block(s), there needs to be a source for that. Until and unless another source is found, the only definition of the neighborhood we can use here is from the cultural heritage survey. EAE (Holla!) 02:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CHS is linked for referral. If you look at a map of the CHS, it makes so many cuts and turns, almost looking like a jigsaw puzzle piece, mid-block in many places mind you, that to describe it's exact boundaries in graphic detail right in the lead would be a bit wordy, in this editor's opinion. All of that being said, I'd be supportive of anyone's good edits that create a section dedicated to the LHD's exact boundaries in contrast to the greater neighborhood boundaries: the edge of the City Council district along 14th Street and the transition to the Civic Center district, the Lake forming another natural boundary which gives the "Gold Coast" it's namesake, and then the changes in heights/zoning as one get's closer to the Broadway spine, etc.04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You say that, and yet this edit had just the four streets, far less wordy than your version with cardinal directions, and you reverted it anyway. So I fail to see the grounds for your objection to wordiness. The district is defined in words in the CHS, not by a picture, and in words it's just four streets, same as your proposed version. By the way, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "linked for referral", but it is a WP:secondary source and is valid and legit. Furthermore, as to the edits you propose: please refer to WP:Verifiability, I think you are forgetting that policy. I am sure your opinion isn't even unanimous within your neighborhood, and again, nobody who's not from there can verify your claims. So none of these edits would be very constructive or would have a very long lifespan if they didn't include sources. EAE (Holla!) 07:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, though within four streets, the LHD cuts in and out, mid-block in several places, and the LHD actually is defined midway through the CHS documents, with a map outlining its boundaries. If you take a second look at that jigsaw piece of a map you will see it's boundaries are far more complex than four streets, and to describe all of the cuts and break points in the boundaries in accurate detail, I believe might be a bit wordy for a concise, useful lead here. By "linked" please excuse my word choice. What I mean the CHS PDF document is there on the LANA site for a researcher. Let me know if you need help finding it there. In regards to unanimity, LANA...arguably a NIMBY group that protested the planning of the mid-rise, affordable housing, T.O.D. Madison Lofts in 2004...and it's verbal description of the neighborhood boundaries isn't necessary considered any more authoritative than an aggressive developer that wants to throw up a phallic skyscraper at 15th and Jackson. I do agree with your sentiments on good sourcing. Do we have a decent lead at this point? Do you favor expansion of the lead? If so, what other sections of the article could be summarized in the lead also? Or do you concur that a separate section on the boundaries might be warranted? This may be the case as members of the Oakland Planning Commission/ZUC/LPAB have kicked around expanding the official boundaries in the most recent re-zoning workshops. I do think it would make a good addition to the article, having caused sufficient controversy here. Also, since I haven't mentioned it yet, thank you for your collaborative spirit and civility here sir.Critical Chris (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wiki aficionados and defenders: Please explain how the modifiers "serious," "heinous," "familial," and "random," found in this article adhere to wiki's stated goals of "objectivity" one would expect of an "encyclopedia," and I quote: 

"serious and heinous acts of familial and random violence."

I neither live in Oakland nor do I have a vested stake of any sort in the neighborhood in question. But I recognize the blatantly biased language, as even a reasonably alert fourteen-year-old junior high school student in Logic and Rhetoric 101 would, of this passage among others. Let me point out that as New Yorker, the "serious," "heinous," "familial," and "random" violence could describe any of the crimes committed throughout the boroughs here, or in any city in the West. But Wiki articles on New York City (and many other urban centers) do not feature such loaded modifiers.

Let me also point out that the offending (and offensive) passages present not a scintilla of evidence that "families" committed the crimes reported, or that the violence was indeed "random," as if robbery and club altercations are "random" only in Oakland, and not in any other American city.

Please explain the bias, and the failure of wiki aficionados to address it. Is it because you view Oakland as a "black" city, and therefore inherently, how shall we say, given to "serious," heinous," familial," and random bloodshed, mayhem, and anarchy? How about this: the SERIOUS bias of the writers and editors on this and other articles on Oakland reveal their HEINOUS race and class biases, an expression of the FAMILIAL sense of race-class identity under siege, a perception strongly reinforced by the RANDOM attempts at verisimilitude, nuance,context,reality, and anything else bespeaking of truth, that the writers and editors of this drivel have foisted upon the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.106.2 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Neighborhood" (dangerous) vs. "Area"

[edit]

After rereading the article link, I don't see anything mentioned about the _neighborhood_ being dangerous; the columnist/writer uses the word "area" instead, while the article title alone, doesn't blanket the entire neighborhood. Although the word "area" is somewhat vague, I see that he later mentions 14th St, which only acts as a boundary of the neighborhood on the northeast side. His examples of "dangerous" are not very clear: a car break-in (no mention of a hold-up or threat); homeless needing help (what kind?); "unsupervised young folks walk around with nothing to do but walk around and in some cases start trouble"...of what sort?? He makes no mention of the name northeast/southwest streets other than Lakeside, and only the area between Lake Chalet and 14th.

I fail to see how this article's content alone can give the neighborhood a dangerous reputation. If there are any other sources that cover most or all of the neighborhood as dangerous, feel welcome to share. Even the spillage of the Oscar Grant protests wouldn't convince many who visit, live, or walk the neighborhood somewhat to very regularly. Pardon my sounding biased, but this seems like just another example of SFGate wanting "watch-out-in-Oakland" type of writing, in Oakland-resident columns (think of another twice-a-week columnist for them as an example). Ending digression--the violent crime incidents mentioned in that particular section of the article are very serious--I won't argue that. However, they seem spread out enough, that I feel they don't lead to a dangerous reputation--IMO anyway. dlikuski (talk) 12:10 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Zennie was clearly in op-ed mode, and this article could do a better job of clarifying that in proper context. Perhaps we could agree on that. The Lakeside, excuse me, I should probably use the more verbose "downtown-lake merritt neighbohood," has different reputations of crime and safety to different people. I'm sure there are some property owners out there, who foolishly bought in at the height of the bubblicious market, and wishfully consider it to be a "Leave-it-to-Beaver-land" where cops come to rescue cats out of trees. This is perfectly rational; their property would then be in a safer "location, location, location" when it comes time to $ell or lea$e. But should we believe them any more than the "watch out in Oakland" crowd? Given the history of violence in this neighborhood, at least what is reported in the news media, some might consider the "Oakland is dangerous" crowd a bit closer to the truth. Consider that these news reports might be the best we have to painting a picture of crime in the neighborhood. Yet there are so many variables. Consider that the lakeside is one of the most dense residential neighborhoods in Alameda County and the State. A comprehensive social science examination of how safe things are would have to balance even accurate data on reported street robberies against the hundreds of thousands of pedestrian trips that occur on the sidewalks of the neighborhood. Absent a comprehensive doctoral level study of these factors, at the end of the day, the best we can do here is to work within narrow constraints of WP:NOR and rules on WP:RS to write a captivating and informative encyclopedia article, that, at best, might be a starting point for further research in this area. CriticalChris 23:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it would be best if we omit the first sentence of the section, since we seem to agree that the SFGate-article does not properly contain supportive, convincing detail. Fair? Or, any other solutions? The rest of what I wrote in that previous entry was more reflective on my opinion; how that particular media source seemingly wants its columnists to write...whether it is jealousy towards Oakland, or being biased. Once again, just the way I sense it.dlikuski (talk) 12:37 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the article lacks "supportive, convincing detail." I said this encylopedia article here could do a better job of placing the column in proper op/ed context. This encyclopedia article could be edited to reflect that context. If you're opining that the Chron's editorial board pressures their staff writers and contributors, you might want to ask "Vsmoothe" herself if that's the case, since SFgate is now hosting a local blog/column of sorts for her also, in addition to Zennie. The Chron ostensibly reports the news of the day; what makes you feel that the Chron's reporting of all the murders and nation-leading violence that occurs here constitutes jealously or bias in your opinion? If anything, I would argue there are many serious street crimes that occur here in Oakland (robberies and aggravated assaults that would make front page news or daily briefs in smaller cities' news media) that are underreported or not printed whatsoever, simply due to murders and shootings here that overshadow those "less serious" street crimes. I'll give you an example, just last week, a restaurant owner and his friend were followed home by a group of men and violently robbed of their night's till at 15th and Madison. Please advise if you can find any news media source on this incident, as it would make a good additon to this article. CriticalChris 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My confusion: I read your first sentence in your first response with the op-ed (etc) and interpreted it that way. Admitting, I wasn't thinking clearly or carefully. In any case, I went on a tangent with the media-bias talk, so will drop that. I am still open to any solutions that we can come up with in regards of my original inquiry, focusing back on that. If it really is a "dangerous" neighborhood, I hope that there is a findable source that can back that up for the neighborhood as a whole. dlikuski (talk) 11:37 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lakeside_Apartments_District,_Oakland,_California&oldid=1208081161"