Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He is 100% correct. YOU are clueless. Those other Santa Clara County cities were well established in population and infrastructure before San Jose began it's population explosion with annexation.
Suburban Sprawl worked it's was south along both sides of the Bay from San Francisco and Oakland until finally filling up the valley.
Those cities are not a by product of San Jose.
That's three SF people now desperate to discredit San Jose here, seemingly under the delusion that doing so will mean SF is the sun around which Silicon Valley orbits.
And you're all doing so on a forum in which matters concerning Silicon Valley are directed to a sub-forum titled "San Jose." Haha, go argue with the moderators, I guess.
Then you can argue with reddit, too, because everything from Sunnyvale to Morgan Hill gets dumped in r/SanJose. It seems many people are operating on beliefs quite different from yours.
You nailed it when you said "good AND bad". Mostly these days, it's the "bad" part. The fact that we let the media dictate our culture to us is just sad. Lowest common denominator GARBAGE like Honey Boo-Boo, Jersey Shore, and Duck Dynasty are now part of some American "cultural" matrix. Isn't it wonderful to live in the age of accelerated decline?
It's not all bad. It's certainly discouraging that more people know who Kim Kardashian is than Ban Ki-Moon, but there is a certain amount of romanticism to Vegas and the casino culture, including its portrayal in movies. I mean, who hasn't said "Vegas Baby" or attempted to count cards like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman before?
Vegas is more than just the strip (that's a battle Vegas natives will fight forever), but that street may be the most famous in the world. I'd argue you could show a picture of that street to nearly anyone and they'd know exactly where it was.
I mean, who hasn't said "Vegas Baby" or attempted to count cards like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman before?
Me, that's who. Ugh... "Vegas Baby". Always makes me cringe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosHogan
Vegas is more than just the strip (that's a battle Vegas natives will fight forever), but that street may be the most famous in the world. I'd argue you could show a picture of that street to nearly anyone and they'd know exactly where it was.
I was never arguing against the strip's fame or Vegas' international recognition factor. I was talking about it's sphere of cultural influence. Fame and culture are two different things. To me they are at least.
That's three SF people now desperate to discredit San Jose here, seemingly under the delusion that doing so will mean SF is the sun around which Silicon Valley orbits.
And you're all doing so on a forum in which matters concerning Silicon Valley are directed to a sub-forum titled "San Jose." Haha, go argue with the moderators, I guess.
Then you can argue with reddit, too, because everything from Sunnyvale to Morgan Hill gets dumped in r/SanJose. It seems many people are operating on beliefs quite different from yours.
Desperate?? No just common logic. Any non biased poster can see that. You are the biggest San Jose booster on this board so I know where you stand.
IMO, San Jose doesn't belong in this discussion. It's not the dominant city in its region.
Silicon Valley isnt where it is because of San Jose and its surrounding cities.. That is a fact! San Francisco/Oakland has as more to do with the emergence of Silicon Valley than San Jose. That is undeniable.
Last edited by Fastphilly; 11-26-2014 at 09:36 PM..
Desperate?? No just common logic. Any non biased poster can see that. You are the biggest San Jose booster on this board so I know where you stand.
IMO, San Jose doesn't belong in this discussion. It's not the dominant city in its region.
Silicon Valley isnt where it is because of San Jose and its surrounding cities.. That is a fact! San Francisco/Oakland has as more to do with the emergence of Silicon Valley than San Jose. That is undeniable.
Now you're including Oakland?! Haha, you've run out of ideas, certainly...
Desperate?? No just common logic. Any non biased poster can see that. You are the biggest San Jose booster on this board so I know where you stand.
IMO, San Jose doesn't belong in this discussion. It's not the dominant city in its region.
Silicon Valley isnt where it is because of San Jose and its surrounding cities.. That is a fact! San Francisco/Oakland has as more to do with the emergence of Silicon Valley than San Jose. That is undeniable.
San Jose and it's surrounding cities had as much to do with the Silicon Valley as SF and the rest of the Bay Area, in fact, San Jose had more to do with it because San Jose provided a steady supply of unskilled to semi-skilled labor in the early 70's through the 90's. Many of those families still live in San Jose. I have family and friends from San Jose that made careers and/or raised their families working for tech in the Silicon Valley as unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled labor for a generation...and they are all from San Jose.
Now you're including Oakland?! Haha, you've run out of ideas, certainly...
What is important is the international access that San Francisco International Airport provides for the region. In the business world, any industry that has a large portfolio in global business requires a region that has adequate global connectivity. These tech companies would not have located in the Bay Area if not for the international traffic/connectivity that San Francisco/Oakland Metro region has generated since before the jet age when the Santa Clara Valley was still predominantly agriculture and low in population.
If you think the allure of San Jose Intl. airport air service was sufficient to lure a global industry your wrong. It was cheap land in large parcels that was reasonably close to a established major international city with an airport that could get you overseas with direct flights. Pure and simple
So yes the presence of Silicon Valley has much to do with the San Francisco/Oakland Metro area.
You seem to be the one that hasn't come up with a good reason to dispute this.
Let's see if BMW would remain in Charlotte if it wasn't for the direct flights to Germany.
Chiquita Brands International was headquartered in Cincinnati, OH for many years and as soon as US Airways de-hubbed the city Chiquita relocated to Charlotte. The airport is the infrastructure that drives present and future economic expansion.
San Jose and it's surrounding cities had as much to do with the Silicon Valley as SF and the rest of the Bay Area, in fact, San Jose had more to do with it because San Jose provided a steady supply of unskilled to semi-skilled labor in the early 70's through the 90's. Many of those families still live in San Jose. I have family and friends from San Jose that made careers and/or raised their families working for tech in the Silicon Valley as unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled labor for a generation...and they are all from San Jose.
Those families/workers you speak of were transplants. During the early stages of Silicon Valley there was a large influx of people from the San Francisco metro area that relocated to the San Jose region because of cheap property. Look at the substantial reduction in population that San Francisco and Oakland was seeing in the 60's, 70's and 80's while the population was increasing in the South Bay. Suburban sprawl was accelerated during that time when many families wanted to leave the inner cities for larger suburban homes. What we seen in the South Bay during that time is the same thing we seen in the Livermore Valley/Pittsburg/Anitoch/ Tracy in the 90's and 2000's.
Those families/workers you speak of were transplants. During the early stages of Silicon Valley there was a large influx of people from the San Francisco metro area that relocated to the San Jose region because of cheap property. Look at the substantial reduction in population that San Francisco and Oakland was seeing in the 60's, 70's and 80's while the population was increasing in the South Bay. Suburban sprawl was accelerated during that time when many families wanted to leave the inner cities for larger suburban homes. What we seen in the South Bay during that time is the same thing we seen in the Livermore Valley/Pittsburg/Anitoch/ Tracy in the 90's and 2000's.
Your argument is weak in that regard.
No my argument is not weak.
Some of my relatives had already lived in San Jose just as the first boom hit in the early 70's, sure, other relatives came from other parts of the bay area, Monterey, and Sacramento, but they settled in San Jose and have been there ever since. San Jose is their home, has been for over 30 years, and the value of their homes, their lifestyle, and livelihood, is all a direct result of Silicon Valley's economic prosperity.
It's a weak argument to try and separate San Jose from the culture, lifestyle, and prosperity of Silicon Valley. Besides, some of the most historic culture in the Santa Clara Valley is in San Jose.
It would be like trying to say Daly City has nothing to do with SF, or Manhattan Beach as the nothing to do with Los Angeles.
Some of my relatives had already lived in San Jose just as the first boom hit in the early 70's, sure, other relatives came from other parts of the bay area, Monterey, and Sacramento, but they settled in San Jose and have been there ever since. San Jose is their home, has been for over 30 years, and the value of their homes, their lifestyle, and livelihood, is all a direct result of Silicon Valley's economic prosperity.
It's a weak argument to try and separate San Jose from the culture, lifestyle, and prosperity of Silicon Valley. Besides, some of the most historic culture in the Santa Clara Valley is in San Jose.
It would be like trying to say Daly City has nothing to do with SF, or Manhattan Beach as the nothing to do with Los Angeles.
Except you are wrong, because San Jose did not give rise to Palo Alto or Mountain View or Sunnyvale or Menlo Park or Redwood City or Santa Clara. They all boomed at the same time as sprawl headed south, San Jose just annexed the most land and played a offensive land annexation game which granted it the largest city proper population. There is no denying that. All the communities along the peninsula down to San Jose existed in much the same way San Jose existed. Fastphilly knows what he is talking about. Circumstantial evidence doesn't change this fact. If San Jose never existed I'll be the South Bay would be filled with sprawl the same way it is now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
