San Jose VS. Houston

[Texasboy123]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

How many durf threads will you bump just to cry?

That was only my second one and my last one. Sorry if you thought I was crying....

[Brewzerr68]

Originally Posted by sbarn

No matter what the US Census says, the fact is that San Jose is part of a larger urban (a.k.a. "metropolitan") area called the Bay Area, which also includes San Francisco and Oakland. Contrary to the belief of some on CD, there is not a wall or barren wasteland that separates San Jose from the rest of the Bay Area, in fact San Francisco and San Jose are hugely dependent on one another. San Jose gets its news broadcasts from San Francisco networks, its shares public transportation networks (BART, CalTrain), and so on and so forth. The NY Times even has a section on the greater Bay Area.

And since Houston is the dominant city in its metropolitan area (whereas San Jose is not), it will beat San Jose in most categories including international airport, sports team, cultural amenities, etc. Most people in San Jose head to San Francisco for these reasons (hence, it being part of an interconnected urban region).

I'm fine with comparing city propers, in which case Houston would probably win because as I said it is the dominant city in its region, but ignoring the fact that its part of the Bay Area is ridiculous and disingenuous.

Sorry, haven't read through this entire thread so forgive me if I overlooked something or am just repeating what others have already said. This is from the first page and just caught my attention.

I pretty much agree with this, but one thing that has always confused me about the Bay Area conglomeration is that why is the city with the second highest population (San Francisco: 805,235 per 2010 census figures) considered the "hub" of the area, when the actual largest city in the Bay Area (San Jose: 958,789 per 2010 census figures) is viewed as secondary? I mean, I'm well aware of SF's global status and higher profile, but the fact remains that San Jose would be the actual hub of the area when you're counting heads.

That said, I don't see how comparing San Jose to Houston is "unfair". If the comparison was San Francisco to Houston nobody would be saying this, and SF would most likely win hands-down. Yet it's the smaller city in the bay area.

Just my 2 pennies. I won't compare Houston to San Jose simply because I haven't even been to San Jose since I was 2 years old.

[Brewzerr68]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Sacramento is both bigger than San Jose and actual its own metro area.

These are official 2010 U.S. census totals:

Sacramento: 489,488
San Jose: 958,789

The U.S. census bureau defines the San Jose MSA as separate from San Francisco/Oakland, but you live close enough to the bay area to know better. San Jose's suburbs are just as joined up with San Francisco's as Dallas is with Ft. Worth. There is no real open, undeveloped land between the 2 MSA's. Most people refer to San Jose and San Francisco as being part of the same "Bay Area" metro.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Brewzerr68

These are official 2010 U.S. census totals:

Sacramento: 489,488
San Jose: 958,789

The U.S. census bureau defines the San Jose MSA as separate from San Francisco/Oakland, but you live close enough to the bay area to know better. San Jose's suburbs are just as joined up with San Francisco's as Dallas is with Ft. Worth. There is no real open, undeveloped land between the 2 MSA's. Most people refer to San Jose and San Francisco as being part of the same "Bay Area" metro.

Isn't the separation between the SF-Oakland MSA and San Jose MSA a business park and creek? Something about not having enough density, so this part of the Bay is the dividing line.

[Brewzerr68]

Originally Posted by Trae713

Isn't the separation between the SF-Oakland MSA and San Jose MSA a business park and creek? Something about not having enough density, so this part of the Bay is the dividing line.

I'm not sure, but that makes sense. I've flown over it recently, and it looked like one continuous mass of development to me from the air.

[jman650]

Originally Posted by Brewzerr68

Sorry, haven't read through this entire thread so forgive me if I overlooked something or am just repeating what others have already said. This is from the first page and just caught my attention.

I pretty much agree with this, but one thing that has always confused me about the Bay Area conglomeration is that why is the city with the second highest population (San Francisco: 805,235 per 2010 census figures) considered the "hub" of the area, when the actual largest city in the Bay Area (San Jose: 958,789 per 2010 census figures) is viewed as secondary? I mean, I'm well aware of SF's global status and higher profile, but the fact remains that San Jose would be the actual hub of the area when you're counting heads.

Really its b/c from 1850 to about 1990 or 1991 SF WAS the largest city here and SJ was the smaller of the two. SJ continued to annex areas near it while the population of the area grew, so it developed over time into a larger area in both land and population. But for the majority of both their history as incorporated cities, SF was the big dog and in many ways still is. But SJ's rise to prominence has only made the Bay Area that much better in many ways. I hope to see more of the same for Oakland in the near future as well.

In addition, SF has the Bay named after it and consequently the whole area surrounding it, so that adds to this perception. And the City of SF contains several other things within it's city limits, like various embassies, the CA State Supreme Court, etc. There are many reasons why SF itself remains the face-city of the Bay Area, despite accounting for only about 10% of the Bay's population.

Originally Posted by Brewzerr68

These are official 2010 U.S. census totals:

Sacramento: 489,488
San Jose: 958,789

The U.S. census bureau defines the San Jose MSA as separate from San Francisco/Oakland, but you live close enough to the bay area to know better. San Jose's suburbs are just as joined up with San Francisco's as Dallas is with Ft. Worth. There is no real open, undeveloped land between the 2 MSA's. Most people refer to San Jose and San Francisco as being part of the same "Bay Area" metro.

Exactly! +1

[Gateway Region]

The economy in San Jose is based off the tech industry and this field is slowly dying out. Tech jobs are slowly being outsourced to India, China, Korea and other various nations throughout Asia. San Jose doesn't seem to have a bright future to me.

Now, Houston is quite different. The economy is taking off and the city as a whole has a bright economic future and is going in the right direction with about 25 fortune 500 companies within the metro. Personally, I would choose Houston to live over San Jose for these reasons.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Brewzerr68

but the fact remains that San Jose would be the actual hub of the area when you're counting heads.

It's not correct to call either the lone "hub" as the two cities are about an hour apart unless there's no traffic. SF doesn't revolve around SJ any more than the opposite is true, but they are still joined by towns in between.