San Jose currently most expensive metro in USA (San Diego, San Francisco: sale, real estate)

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by otterprods

Possibly, but reminders of how super-beautiful the SC Mtns are probably only hold water for people who have little else to compare it to.

I don't understand...one can think they're beautiful but also find other places beautiful too. I've been to the top of countless peaks in the west (Shasta, many in the Trinity Alps, many in the Sierra Nevadas, Oregon/WA cascades and some in CO), and I've seen some impressive scenery in the US, such as Denali and the Kenai peninsula in Alaska; but I still find the Santa Cruz mountains, and many of the coastal range mountains in CA, to be very scenic and pretty.

I appreciate that there is such a great area of wilderness and mountains so close to the metro. Great for those hiking adventures where you don't want to go far...and when you want to get away, the other mountains of the west are always there waiting for you.

This is the same as how I find many of the mountains in the east to be very scenic, too. Sure they're not as tall as the mountains in CO, but there is a different kind of beauty in them. The leaves that change colors, the hidden towns in their valleys. And I've been to the top of enough of them to know that many of them are just as difficult as many in the west, especially mountains in the west where the base of the mountains are at like 10,000 feet anyway...elevation gain is often very similar.

Anyway, kind of a silly criticism. If you're one to enjoy mountains, I don't see why you'd knock any range.

[Potion of Boredom]

Originally Posted by Local123

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I assume it's an insult insinuating that I've never been out of the San Jose which is ridiculous. I'm 40 years old and have traveled enough to have a valid opinion. It's like trying to reason with my 9 year old.

Likely the reason you think SJ is so great is because you've never lived in an actual fun place. Many other cities also have even greater mountains, you should know, such as Denver or Seattle. You may think that SJ has already so much to offer, but that is sadly not the case when you compare it to other cities of similar size.

[Potion of Boredom]

Originally Posted by otterprods

Possibly, but reminders of how super-beautiful the SC Mtns are probably only hold water for people who have little else to compare it to.

XD but this is actually kind of true.

[otterprods]

Originally Posted by Local123

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I assume it's an insult insinuating that I've never been out of the San Jose which is ridiculous. I'm 40 years old and have traveled enough to have a valid opinion. It's like trying to reason with my 9 year old.

No insult intended, and I never said or implied that your opinion was invalid or unwelcome. But neither should mine be. I like the SC Mountains just fine as coastal urban ranges go, but they hardly served as an undeniable daily reminder of how grand Bay Area living was all the years I was there struggling to get by in a run down old apt.

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I don't understand...one can think they're beautiful but also find other places beautiful too. I've been to the top of countless peaks in the west (Shasta, many in the Trinity Alps, many in the Sierra Nevadas, Oregon/WA cascades and some in CO), and I've seen some impressive scenery in the US, such as Denali and the Kenai peninsula in Alaska; but I still find the Santa Cruz mountains, and many of the coastal range mountains in CA, to be very scenic and pretty. I appreciate that there is such a great area of wilderness and mountains so close to the metro. Great for those hiking adventures where you don't want to go far...and when you want to get away, the other mountains of the west are always there waiting for you. This is the same as how I find many of the mountains in the east to be very scenic, too. Sure they're not as tall as the mountains in CO, but there is a different kind of beauty in them. The leaves that change colors, the hidden towns in their valleys. And I've been to the top of enough of them to know that many of them are just as difficult as many in the west, especially mountains in the west where the base of the mountains are at like 10,000 feet anyway...elevation gain is often very similar. Anyway, kind of a silly criticism. If you're one to enjoy mountains, I don't see why you'd knock any range.

OK fair enough… I'm not meaning to knock anything. I just don't count the coastal hills among the things I actually miss about the Bay Area. For me, the SC "mountains" provided little more a decent backdrop over some congested freeways, a barrier between me and the beach, and some really overcrowded hiking trails… That's just my $.02 though… take it or leave it.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by otterprods

OK fair enough… I'm not meaning to knock anything. I just don't count the coastal hills among the things I actually miss about the Bay Area. For me, the SC "mountains" provided little more a decent backdrop over some congested freeways, a barrier between me and the beach, and some really overcrowded hiking trails… That's just my $.02 though… take it or leave it.

Sure, you're welcome to your opinion, and I don't think it's the best thing about the Bay Area, either (although I personally love the juxtaposition of nature to city that basically very, very few places have, especially major metropolitan areas that offer as much as SF/SJ/Oak do).

And not to judge, but it comes off like you didn't really explore them much. The mountains are decently vast and there are plenty of places where there's no one around. And it's funny to hear geological features that are over 3,000 feet "hills"...would you call Mt Lincoln in Colorado a hill? It has similar prominence to the highest Santa Cruz mountains. Probably not, I imagine.

[otterprods]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

And not to judge, but it comes off like you didn't really explore them much. The mountains are decently vast and there are plenty of places where there's no one around. And it's funny to hear geological features that are over 3,000 feet "hills"...would you call Mt Lincoln in Colorado a hill? It has similar prominence to the highest Santa Cruz mountains. Probably not, I imagine.

A decade plus of hiking, camping and mtn biking around the Bay Area. Yes, I've explored them and also made some significant contributions to the accuracy of this website. So if it's credentials you seek, there they are… but my opinion is still yours to take or leave.

As for the definition of 'Hill' I think any decent dictionary should clear that up. But we can also call them mountains, c 0 cks, heaps, mounds, piles, or stacks if you prefer, as those are all synonyms of the same word. We in CO often refer to our ski slopes, peak hikes and even glacial slopes as 'hills' because that's not a threatening word to us.

[Local123]

Originally Posted by otterprods

No insult intended, and I never said or implied that your opinion was invalid or unwelcome. But neither should mine be. I like the SC Mountains just fine as coastal urban ranges go, but they hardly served as an undeniable daily reminder of how grand Bay Area living was all the years I was there struggling to get by in a run down old apt.


OK fair enough… I'm not meaning to knock anything. I just don't count the coastal hills among the things I actually miss about the Bay Area. For me, the SC "mountains" provided little more a decent backdrop over some congested freeways, a barrier between me and the beach, and some really overcrowded hiking trails… That's just my $.02 though… take it or leave it.

It was just a sentiment that I associate with my moms reminder to always appreciate the beauty around me. Not some absolute proof that the SC mtns are the best ever in the whole world.

As far as Colorado goes I have friends from HS who moved there and while they like it they do talk a lot about missing SJ.

[Local123]

And yes the same people are always saying the same negative stuff about SJ. A lot of it is because it's so expensive to live here and a lot of people can't afford it. And there are a lot if reasons it's expensive...don't hate!

[Local123]

There are also a lot of incredibly wealthy people who do not *have* to live here they choose to live here. Tech settled here because people wanted to work here and do business here so that they could live here. It didn't settle in the middle of Arkansas for a reason.

[neutrino78x]

The San Jose Blog: Saturday Stats: Santa Clara County is One of the 10 Best in California

In the link above, Santa Clara county #3 best place to live, San Francisco ranks #10.