San Jose is actually larger than San Francisco? (university, racist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
@mysticaltyger: Actually soccer is experiencing a a major popularity explosion nationally. The MLS recently expanded, European and South American players are coming here, stadiums are selling out, and advertisers are targeting soccer fans. If anything you could say people here in the USA are more interested in European leagues then our own! Of the two "minor" sports of the 5 major leagues: MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS - one could argue that soccer is stronger then hockey. The NFL and NBA recently had labor disputes, MLB is struggling to bring back fans in the "post-steroid" era - while MLS simply puts their product on the field and counts it reciepts. To say that one cares about soccer nationally is an uninformed statement. The current Earthquakes may be an expansion team - but their name is the same as the original S.J. Earthquakes who were very successful 10 yrs ago. Soccer is the future of sports in USA and San Jose is on the cutting edge of it like it is on technology.
@mysticaltyger: Actually soccer is experiencing a a major popularity explosion nationally. The MLS recently expanded, European and South American players are coming here, stadiums are selling out, and advertisers are targeting soccer fans. If anything you could say people here in the USA are more interested in European leagues then our own! Of the two "minor" sports of the 5 major leagues: MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS - one could argue that soccer is stronger then hockey. The NFL and NBA recently had labor disputes, MLB is struggling to bring back fans in the "post-steroid" era - while MLS simply puts their product on the field and counts it reciepts. To say that one cares about soccer nationally is an uninformed statement. The current Earthquakes may be an expansion team - but their name is the same as the original S.J. Earthquakes who were very successful 10 yrs ago. Soccer is the future of sports in USA and San Jose is on the cutting edge of it like it is on technology.
Ok, it must be that I just don't care. Do they put soccer games on mainstream TV channles like they do with baseball, football, & basketball? That would be the real indicator, IMO.
This is just me, but I could care less about some stupid baseball team. As a taxpayer, I sure as heck don't want to subsidize a new stadium.
A new stadium doesn't have to be subsidized by the taxpayers. AT&T Park ( home of the Giants ) in San Francisco was financed privately without a dime of the taxpayer's dollar. The voters of San Francisco rejected paying for a new stadium so they went out and got private money. I have been to a lot of ball parks around the country and AT&T Park is one of the best, if not the best one I have been to. Even though my wife and I are baseball fans, I do NOT think that the taxpayers should have to pay for it.
By the way, I think you meant to say "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less".
Ok, it must be that I just don't care. Do they put soccer games on mainstream TV channles like they do with baseball, football, & basketball? That would be the real indicator, IMO.
A new stadium doesn't have to be subsidized by the taxpayers. AT&T Park ( home of the Giants ) in San Francisco was financed privately without a dime of the taxpayer's dollar. The voters of San Francisco rejected paying for a new stadium so they went out and got private money. I have been to a lot of ball parks around the country and AT&T Park is one of the best, if not the best one I have been to. Even though my wife and I are baseball fans, I do NOT think that the taxpayers should have to pay for it.".
If I don't have to subsidize it, it's fine by me.
".[/quote]By the way, I think you meant to say "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less".[/quote]
Thank you for pointing this out. I looked this up. "I couldn't care less" is the original idiom. But "I could care less", even though incorrect, is so commonly used, it is now considered by the Oxford English Dictionary to be an American colloquialism, and thus, also acceptable. But I have to say, I think the original is better. I'll remember now that I've looked it up. Here's an interesting discussion on the two expressions:
So as I was viewing more California cities, I came across San Jose. So far from what I've seen ( and very little) I actually like the city. I was almost in surprise and thought of Portland, Oregon.
How has San Fransico manage to overshadow San Jose? San Jose population is larger, growing, and the city is actually known to be safer. I'm confused, looking at maps I thought San Jose may have had a population of 350-500,000...
Opinion of San Jose?
Compare and contrast San Jose and San Fransico.
This is a really vacuous question.
SF and SJ have totally different histories and geographies.
SF grew up overnight during and after the gold rush. It received an immediate infusion of gold rush income, and the nouveau riche (sp????) wanted to enjoy their affluence and the opportunity for social ascent that it offered. Thus, SF quickly aspired to be the "Paris of the West Coast" and attracted performing artists from around the world. SF also hosted a world's fair nearly immediatley after the 1906 earthquake to establish itself as a cultural center. SF has long been a diverse city and has attracted outcasts, as well. During the gold rush era, Mexicans, Chinese, Australians and of course Europeans and European Americans all flooded into SF, to the gold fields, and then back into SF. SF allegedly was where the US military would deposit its gay servicepeople upon finding that they were gay. Thus, you SF has long been a city with much wealth and diversity. Add to this the fact that SF is only about 8x8 miles and has a unique climate and you see how precious real estate is there.
SF's uniqueness has caused it to be a destination for the best and brightest and it certainly is that now. A lot of Silicon Valley employees live in SF and commute to the SV. SF is still a cultural attraction and has been all through the SV's history.
SJ has not had such an illustrious history as SF. SJ was first a Spanish mission, like SF, but that's more what constitued its beginning. It was captured by Thomas Fallon and then it attracted American settlers, followed by Japanese settlers in the early 20th century, Mexican immigrants throughout its history and especialy after WW2, and southeast Asian immigrants following the Vietnam War.
SJ grew slowly, first after CA attained statehood in 1848, then more after the Civil War, then more after WW1, and then it sprawled really fast after WW2. Thus, unlike SF, SJ has only a small amount of Victorian housing stock and likely much of it has been lost to the white flight and ghettification of its original street grid/Victorian housing stock which led to that stock being replaced by low-income apartment buildings. Thus, no postcardesque "painted ladies" for SJ. SJ has a better-but-limited amount of Craftsman and other early 20th century housing stock but unfortunately most of SJ is constituted by post-WW2 low-quality "plywood" suburban housing.
What differentiates SJ from SF the most is the poeple. With the exception of a few neighborhoods, SJ is mostly populated by poor third world immigrants from Latin America and Southeast and South Asia. Those people are primitive and are accustomed to living with multitple famiiles per a single family home. Their presence has reduced SJ to what many people call a "ghetto" or a slum. Alas, as a SJ native, I have to agree.
SF and SJ are on different trajectories. SF is and will be unique and beautiful city and as such a magnet for the best and brightest, even if only as a place to live while they work in the SV. SJ is now overwelmingly a home of primitive immigrants and it will always be the low-income side of the SV- the east side of the SV whereas cities to its west will likely always be more white-collar and middle-class+ in character.
What differentiates SJ from SF the most is the poeple. With the exception of a few neighborhoods, SJ is mostly populated by poor third world immigrants from Latin America and Southeast and South Asia. Those people are primitive and are accustomed to living with multitple famiiles per a single family home. Their presence has reduced SJ to what many people call a "ghetto" or a slum. Alas, as a SJ native, I have to agree.
SF and SJ are on different trajectories. SF is and will be unique and beautiful city and as such a magnet for the best and brightest, even if only as a place to live while they work in the SV. SJ is now overwelmingly a home of primitive immigrants and it will always be the low-income side of the SV- the east side of the SV whereas cities to its west will likely always be more white-collar and middle-class+ in character.
This is incredibly racist. And the part about San Jose being the low-income side of SV is false. Even if it was true, that's like calling it the smallest giant.
Ok, it must be that I just don't care. Do they put soccer games on mainstream TV channles like they do with baseball, football, & basketball? That would be the real indicator, IMO.
No, they do not.
Wow, you both just blew right by the post in which I linked to an article about MLS on NBC starting next year.
And it has been on ABC/ESPN plenty before that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
