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.
Economic clout overall goes to San Jose and its metro.
Downtown pretty strongly goes to San Diego. Downtown San Jose and San Jose’s urban neighborhoods weren’t very interesting to me though it’s admittedly been three years or so since I last spent time there. This one is a huge gap.
Neither are particularly interesting shopping destinations, so I’m curious about what edges it for you.
Ethnic diversity edges towards San Jose. Diversity can also be socioeconomic diversity and cultural diversity with SD being less geared towards any particular industry.
Transportation in terms of ease of commute and sustainability factors strongly for a lot of people, and I personally put a lot of weight on this. These are both decent when it comes to US cities, but San Diego’s is much better than San Jose’s.
Both have a pretty good variety of dining options, though it seemed like San Diego had more surprises and it was easier to wander into something interesting rather than looking stuff up especially as San Diego had much better urban commercial districts with life to them so you can browse a bit. San Diego also has more dishes specific to its region.
Scenery really goes towards San Diego.
Things to do in general goes to San Diego. Other important factors are cost of living and quality of life. San Diego isn’t cheap by any means, but it seems better than San Jose. Overall, San Diego seems to be a nicer city for both visiting and living.
Why would it be? Most secondary cores don't get lots of visitors.
San Diego is very underrated as a city. Nice downtown with a great restaurant core. The city is denser than people think.
SJ is a glorified suburb of SF. It's cheaper to live in or stay in San Jose than San Francisco, and you can access "The City" any time since it's only about 45 minutes away. Some say San Diego is a glorified suburb of LA, but it's more of an independent city.
SJ is a glorified suburb of SF. It's cheaper to live in or stay in San Jose than San Francisco, and you can access "The City" any time since it's only about 45 minutes away.
Wut?
Median Sales Price by the National Association of Realtors, 2018 (annual):
- San Jose MSA: $1,340,000
- San Francisco/Oakland MSA: $987,500
Median Sales Price by the National Association of Realtors, Q2 2019:
- San Jose MSA: $1,330,000
- San Francisco/Oakland MSA: $1,050,000
Suburbs usually don't have their own MSAs, sports teams, aviation facilities, suburbs or satellite cities of their own, boutique shopping corridors, both intercity urban rail and inner city urban rail transit systems, a $300 billion USD economy, performing arts, urban park systems, downtowns (actual downtown), or were founded in 1777, incorporated in 1850, existed through the Spanish Era, Mexican Era, and American Era, and historically once served as the capital of of both the Bear Flag Republic and the state of California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAandATL
Some say San Diego is a glorified suburb of LA, but it's more of an independent city.
Again, wut?
What's "more of an independent city" supposed to mean? There's no "more" about it, San Diego is an independent city. A place either is or isn't something, there's no "more" about it.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-24-2019 at 08:16 AM..
Actually the attitude of most Americans is they would rather sit in their cars for hours in traffic than on public transportation with all the poor people who smell bad, so they don't want to pay taxes for something they are not going to use. At least that's how it is in Atlanta so I assume that the rest of America is the same since Atlanta is a very American city. Maybe it's different in "Japanifornia", lol.
Exactly. San Diego and San Jose are both largely auto dependent, like most other places.
Little known fact. The SF stat is technically incorrect. It is taken directly from car.org which includes Napa, Solano and Sonoma(and Santa Clara!)
If broken down by county, the city and peninsula are clearly more expensive.
Inner Bay Area Counties by Median Home Price, Aug 2019:
San Francisco $1,602,500
San Mateo $1,545,000
Marin $1,230,000
Santa Clara $1,190,000
Alameda $905,500
Contra Costa $672,750
I dont know why people here are so hifalutin about public transit. SD and SJ are both largely car dependent-to say that 'normal' people in either take public transit on a daily basis is factually incorrect.
This notion that the struggles of the poor define what it is to be 'normal' is ridiculous. Both SD and SJ are prosperous metro areas and normal people in both have discretionary income.
Exactly. San Diego and San Jose are both largely auto dependent, like most other places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
I dont know why people here are so hifalutin about public transit. SD and SJ are both largely car dependent-to say that 'normal' people in either take public transit on a daily basis is factually incorrect.
This notion that the struggles of the poor define what it is to be 'normal' is ridiculous. Both SD and SJ are prosperous metro areas and normal people in both have discretionary income.
LOL
When there's good mass transit, it's not just the poor who ride. It's actually not just the poor who ride even when there's mediocre mass transit. Mass transit is good for several things in that they enable far greater densities than what the equivalent traffic from auto dependency allows, and that density generally leads to more walkable and vibrant neighborhoods especially as surface parking lots get replaced. There's also the greater environmental benefits which is meaningful to some people. SD's land area is a lot larger so it encompasses a lot of fairly suburban areas, but there's definitely a more interesting urban core enabled by better mass transit in San Diego than there is in San Jose. SD's about to get a major expansion of its network to open in 2021 and it'll be to the UCSD which will be great. San Jose has big plans and some under construction, but it remains to be seen how they'll work out.
Besides, transit was specifically listed as one of the factors.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-24-2019 at 10:27 AM..
Little known fact. The SF stat is technically incorrect. It is taken directly from car.org which includes Napa, Solano and Sonoma(and Santa Clara!)
If broken down by county, the city and peninsula are clearly more expensive.
Inner Bay Area Counties by Median Home Price, Aug 2019:
San Francisco $1,602,500
San Mateo $1,545,000
Marin $1,230,000
Santa Clara $1,190,000
Alameda $905,500
Contra Costa $672,750
Thanks for updating the information and further breaking them down by median home price by county. If I'm not mistaken then among the 1 million + populated metropolitan areas in the world, both San Jose and San Francisco/Oakland are in the Top 3 globally for median home price. Which effectively make them some of the most expensive places for real-estate on the planet. Flanked together with that city Hong Kong on the South China Sea on that list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
That said, SJ is definitely not SFs suburb but it might be Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale's suburb lol #shade
I view San Jose as a smaller but more dense, brainy, and ethnically diverse version of Phoenix with a much more cutting edge industry. You know how in Greater Phoenix people always say Scottsdale or Tempe offer the regions best shopping district, best urban fabric and downtown, and the best nightlife in the region? Despite Phoenix being the unquestioned lead city of its metropolitan region, its level of decentralization opens the door for Scottsdale and Tempe to enter the discussion on such matters. I often think of San Jose as a parallel of that same thing except change Scottsdale and Tempe's names to Palo Alto and Mountain View, and change Phoenix's name to San Jose. Although San Jose itself probably still has the better shopping options over its suburbs and satellites.
The San Francisco Bay Area, to me personally, along with Southeast Florida, Greater New York, and Urban Honolulu are the most unique metropolitan areas in the United States. All for different reasons of course. In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, in particular, you can live in a traditional urban city with legacy infrastructure (San Francisco and the peninsula), you can live in the alternative (East Bay) which is equal to the urban composition of a Pittsburgh or Portland, you can live in a prototypical Sunbelt city (San Jose and environs), or you can live in a more natural setting flanked with small towns like the North Bay. It may be the only metropolitan region in America to have all four in one place like that, giving people close to an unparalleled list of options for the typology of city they want to live in. That's not to say that everyone will gravitate towards the San Francisco Bay Area but the options that exist make it hard to justify saying "it's not my type of place based on built environment" when every typology of city in America is concentrated in one metropolitan region like that.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-24-2019 at 10:35 AM..
SJ is a glorified suburb of SF. It's cheaper to live in or stay in San Jose than San Francisco, and you can access "The City" any time since it's only about 45 minutes away. Some say San Diego is a glorified suburb of LA, but it's more of an independent city.
Barely. And some of its mind numbingly dull suburbs like Cupertino, Sunnyvale, etc..are just as expensive as San Francisco. It's probably the most overpriced place on earth for what you get.
The San Francisco Bay Area, to me personally, along with Southeast Florida, Greater New York, and Urban Honolulu are the most unique metropolitan areas in the United States. All for different reasons of course. In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, in particular, you can live in a traditional urban city with legacy infrastructure (San Francisco and the peninsula), you can live in the alternative (East Bay) which is equal to the urban composition of a Pittsburgh or Portland, you can live in a prototypical Sunbelt city (San Jose and environs), or you can live in a more natural setting flanked with small towns like the North Bay. It may be the only metropolitan region in America to have all four in one place like that, giving people close to an unparalleled list of options for the typology of city they want to live in. That's not to say that everyone will gravitate towards the San Francisco Bay Area but the options that exist make it hard to justify saying "it's not my type of place based on built environment" when every typology of city in America is concentrated in one metropolitan region like that.
I mean, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I strongly disagree.
In LA, you can live the urban hipster beach life in Santa Monica/Venice/Marina del Rey. The suburban beach life in the South Bay. The secluded small-town beach life of coastal OC. You can live in deep mountainous canyons in the Santa Monica Mountains. You can live an urban lifestyle in DTLA. You can live the quintessential suburban family life in the SFV, SCV, and SGV. You can live in large suburbs that act as their own urban hubs like Pasadena. You can literally live on an island in the Pacific Ocean (Catalina). You can live in tract home McMansion-land in South OC. You can live in regular tract home mecca of the IE, or go far enough into the IE and you can live in an actual desert.
In NYC, you have one of the most densely populated islands in the world (Manhattan). Brooklyn provides the comparatively quieter rowhome neighborhood life. Queens provides a mix of rowhome neighborhood, soulless high rise neighborhoods, and downright suburban lifestyle. Staten Island is sorta small-town-ish suburbia wherein everyone's business is known amongst Staten Islanders. You can live in Hudson County and get the closest second-best option to Manhattan/Brooklyn style urban living. NJ/LI/Westchester include your classic suburbia and inner-ring suburbs. Westchester and NJ provide some small-town mountainous living. NJ and LI provide a beach lifestyle within easy public transit commuting to one of the largest job markets in the world.
I think both of those are more unique than the Bay Area, or at least tied. Idk what it is with people thinking the Bay is so darn unique. SJ is boring overpriced suburbia (SFV for LA/LI and deeper NJ for NYC; though both have for more culture than SJ). SF is an overrated, overpriced, boring, subpar and minuscule version of NYC (DTLA is urbanizing rapidly and is becoming a solid west coast alternative). San Mateo is just like any other suburbs with hills (Santa Monica Mountains, Orange County for LA/NJ and Westchester for NYC). Living in the East Bay is just like living in the nearby large area with its own sphere of influence (IE for LA/NJ for NYC). Living in Marin is like small-town uppity living in the hills near the large city (Santa Monica Mountains, Calabasas, La Canada, South OC for LA/Bergen County, Morris County, Westchester, Connecticut for NYC).
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.
