San Jose currently most expensive metro in USA (San Francisco, Oakland: to live in, assessment)

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by otterprods

Actually, if you go way back to the 1800's, it could once accommodate a fairly large passenger ferry boat.

When I left the area circa 2008 there were some big plans to dredge the area, make it a navigable port again and convert it into a true waterfront for SJ? Whatever happened to those plans? (I stopped following them much after I moved)

The eco-fiends went ape-doo-doo about that.

[otterprods]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

The eco-fiends went ape-doo-doo about that.

Not a very succinct or unbiased explanation but I get the picture so thanks anyway.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by otterprods

Not a very succinct or unbiased explanation but I get the picture so thanks anyway.

The US Corps of Engineering put a kibosh to that. Something about preserving Bay bla bla bla, only SF and Oakland can have waterfronts, San Jose cannot bla bla bla

[Potion of Boredom]

I personally don't think that there is nothing to do in the city San Jose - it just that there should be a whole lot more to do there, considering its size and cost of living.

Look up San Jose on Trip Advisor and you will see that it has 64 attractions, about 150 total things to do. Then look up San Francisco on there; you will see that there are 318 attractions, with a total of over 1000 things to do. Gosh. San Francisco has over 6 times as many things to do as San Jose, yet its land area is only a third of the whole San Jose.
And it's not just San Francisco. I've looked up a lot of other cities that have a population of over 500,000 (e.g. Seattle, Boston, even Detroit) - they all have at least 3 times as much things to do as San Jose. Also, look at San Jose's top attractions and any other cities' top attractions and tell me which you find more exciting.

Also, San Jose is quite ugly. Almost as ugly as Las Vegas, except a tad less dry, but at least Las Vegas has the nightlife going for the city. Nothing special.

Beauty San Jose has to offer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...onValley_w.jpg
http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...con-valley.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ia_Skyline.jpg


There is a reason why not much people like to make wallpapers for San Jose. "san jose wallpaper" doesn't even appear on Google search suggestions, whereas on every other city it does. And when you do actually look it up, you get pictures of the San Jose Sharks.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by Potion of Boredom

I personally don't think that there is nothing to do in the city San Jose - it just that there should be a whole lot more to do there, considering its size and cost of living.

Look up San Jose on Trip Advisor and you will see that it has 64 attractions, about 150 total things to do. Then look up San Francisco on there; you will see that there are 318 attractions, with a total of over 1000 things to do. Gosh. San Francisco has over 6 times as many things to do as San Jose, yet its land area is only a third of the whole San Jose.
And it's not just San Francisco. I've looked up a lot of other cities that have a population of over 500,000 (e.g. Seattle, Boston, even Detroit) - they all have at least 3 times as much things to do as San Jose. Also, look at San Jose's top attractions and any other cities' top attractions and tell me which you find more exciting.

Also, San Jose is quite ugly. Almost as ugly as Las Vegas, except a tad less dry, but at least Las Vegas has the nightlife going for the city. Nothing special.

Beauty San Jose has to offer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...onValley_w.jpg
http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...con-valley.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ia_Skyline.jpg


There is a reason why not much people like to make wallpapers for San Jose. "san jose wallpaper" doesn't even appear on Google search suggestions, whereas on every other city it does. And when you do actually look it up, you get pictures of the San Jose Sharks.

I competely disagree that San Jose is ugly. There are actually MANY parts of the city that are very nice. Almaden Valley is probably one of the most naturally scenic suburban neighborhoods in CA in my opinion. The Rose Garden Area/Shasta-Hanchett neighborhoods along with Willow Glen and Naglee park are beautiful and have loads of charm. The East Foothills along with southern Evergreen are very nice as well. Even downtown has taken huge strides in bringing better architecture to the city center over the last few years. I've also always enjoyed looking at the mountains surrounding the valley.

So, your assessment is way off-base. Of course there are going to be unattractive parts of town in any large city. Both SF and Oakland have many of them.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by Potion of Boredom

I personally don't think that there is nothing to do in the city San Jose - it just doesn't have that much to do, considering its size and cost of living.

Look up San Jose on Trip Advisor and you will see that it has 64 attractions, about 150 total things to do. Then look up San Francisco on there; you will see that there are 318 attractions, with a total of over 1000 things to do. Gosh. San Francisco has about 6 times as many things to do as San Jose, yet its land area is only a third of the whole San Jose.

I look at the TripAdvisor thing too and I don't even know half of those sites I also see quite a bit of sites that are worthy of travelling to, yet is missing on TripAdvisor.

I don't see Communication Hill, Brigadoon Park, Fowler Park, Five Wounds Church, St. Francis Church, Church on the Hill, Lake Almaden, or The Alameda on that list.

I also don't see the Municipal Rose Garden (it's the larger and grandest of the two Rose Gardens in San Jose).

I also don't see the beautiful Buddhist temples of Duc Vien and Pao-Hua.

And I also don't see James Lick Observatory, which is pretty much THE most iconic landmark (and the most difficult to get to) of San Jose

Personally, I wouldn't use TripAdvisor for non-tourist cities like San Jose. You really would have to ask a knowledgeable local about where to go. Emphasis on "knowledgeable" locals. San Jose is so large and so new that most of its locals only know of their immediate neighborhoods and nothing else. I'm fond of saying that 90% of San Jose locals don't know 90% of their city, and it's unfortunately rather true

Also, this city isn't good at marketing itself For example, San Jose is the city with the largest Vietnamese-American population outside of Vietnam (And before someone from SoCal wants to dispute it, note I said "city", not "county"). What this entails is a rich cultural scene (midnight Lunar New Years temple runs, Catholic and Buddhist festivals, variety shows, Buddhist temples, etc) along with a very large, diverse, and quality Vietnamese food scene--easily the top 2 in the world outside of Vietnam (the other being OC). The food scene goes WAY BEYOND the stereotypical "pho". Vancouver played up their Chinese food scene quite a bit, and rightly so. Yet San Jose never bother to market its Vietnamese food scene.

[bobby_guz_man]

I've looked up a lot of other cities that have a population of over 500,000 (e.g. Seattle, Boston, even Detroit) - they all have at least 3 times as much things to do as San Jose. Also, look at San Jose's top attractions and any other cities' top attractions and tell me which you find more exciting.

One last thing to keep in mind, all the cities you mentioned predates San Jose's urbanization by at least 5 decades. In the case of Boston, it predates even San Jose's founding years (1870's) by close to a century. These cities have been centers of their respective regions for close to a CENTURY, if not more.

So even though San Jose is very large, you have to keep in mind that is is VERY YOUNG in terms of urbanization. In the 1950, San Jose had 50,000 people. That's how young it was. San Francisco had 600,000 by 1950, and Los Angeles already is closing on 1.5 MILLION by 1950.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

Also, this city isn't good at marketing itself For example, San Jose is the city with the largest Vietnamese-American population outside of Vietnam (And before someone from SoCal wants to dispute it, note I said "city", not "county"). What this entails is a rich cultural scene (midnight Lunar New Years temple runs, Catholic and Buddhist festivals, variety shows, Buddhist temples, etc) along with a very large, diverse, and quality Vietnamese food scene--easily the top 2 in the world outside of Vietnam (the other being OC). The food scene goes WAY BEYOND the stereotypical "pho". Vancouver played up their Chinese food scene quite a bit, and rightly so. Yet San Jose never bother to market its Vietnamese food scene.

So true. I was talking to one of my friends in SoCal earlier this year, and one of her friends was around. When I was explaining that San Jose was the city in the US with the most Vietnamese people -- (one of the few majorities not claimed by LA) her friend said ‘no it’s not, Orange County is!” (She also tried to tell me that Houston had a greater Vietnamese population than San Jose. Although, to be fair, they have a sizable population too.)

One of my Vietnamese friends says that the Vietnamese food here is better than what he had in Vietnam. He says the quality of ingredients, especially meat, is much better.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by Potion of Boredom

Also, San Jose is quite ugly. Almost as ugly as Las Vegas, except a tad less dry, but at least Las Vegas has the nightlife going for the city. Nothing special.

Beauty San Jose has to offer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...onValley_w.jpg
http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...con-valley.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ia_Skyline.jpg


There is a reason why not much people like to make wallpapers for San Jose. "san jose wallpaper" doesn't even appear on Google search suggestions, whereas on every other city it does. And when you do actually look it up, you get pictures of the San Jose Sharks.

The skyline of San Jose is short and stumpy, but it is far from ugly. Many changes have been made to Downtown and the skyline will look adequate in a few years. The albatross is still the airport though, and nothing can change that fact. Our beauties do not lie in the skyline, it lies in the hills, the plains, and the entirety of the city.

Like I said, San Jose is not a tourist city. People here just wants to work, live, and play without the tourists getting in the way. All of our museums and attractions are for the locals, NOT for the tourists. Our economy, and the rest of the South Bay, is based on high-wage STEM jobs instead of low-wage hospitality/tourism, and for many of us, that is a point of pride.

There are many beautiful corners in San Jose. And as far as we are concerned, it makes no lick if outsiders think of our city as ugly, as long as we secretly know it is not.

And for what it's worth, no matter how hard San Jose is played up as "ugly" by outsiders, the outsiders just keep on moving here! What the heck?

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by Radical347

So true. I was talking to one of my friends in SoCal earlier this year, and one of her friends was around. When I was explaining that San Jose was the city in the US with the most Vietnamese people -- (one of the few majorities not claimed by LA) her friend said ‘no it’s not, Orange County is!” (She also tried to tell me that Houston had a greater Vietnamese population than San Jose. Although, to be fair, they have a sizable population too.)

Houston has 1/4 of San Jose's Vietnamese population. It's not even close.

One of my Vietnamese friends says that the Vietnamese food here is better than what he had in Vietnam. He says the quality of ingredients, especially meat, is much better.

That, I don't know If you're into authenticity, nothing could beat the original place from where it came.