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.
I've lived in the Bay Area all my life but only been in San Jose since the beginning of 2009. I like seeing Mt. Hamilton when I'm coming home, but the feeling of crowdedness is starting to wear on me. Getting anywhere is a monumental pain, and though I don't live on a major road, there's still constant, and disrespectfully noisy, traffic at all hours. I might like it more if my bedroom wasn't on the corner facing the street, but still, it wasn't even this noisy when I was living on Jefferson Ave in Redwood City, which is one of the busiest thoroughfares in that city.
It's probably because you live on the East Side, which has a lot more traffic than other parts of SJ. The population density on the East Side is a lot higher because of more people living in each house. That area was designed to be suburban, but it's become an urban area by default. The quality of life is degraded because it wasn't designed to be so urban.
Who can give me two or three reasons to live in San Jose?
Proximity to work is the main reason I live here. Also, slightly cheaper rent (for a SFH in a decent school district) versus other options between here and, say, Mountain View.
Downsides, in my opinion, are that it is a boring, ugly city with hot summer weather and (of course) ludicrously overpriced housing. If I didn't work in the tech sector, I can't imagine wanting to live here.
Upsides are mostly about proximity to other things: one hour to San Francisco or Santa Cruz, and easy access to a wonderful variety of state and county parks for hiking etc.
Proximity to work is the main reason I live here. Also, slightly cheaper rent (for a SFH in a decent school district) versus other options between here and, say, Mountain View.
Downsides, in my opinion, are that it is a boring, ugly city with hot summer weather and (of course) ludicrously overpriced housing. If I didn't work in the tech sector, I can't imagine wanting to live here.
Upsides are mostly about proximity to other things: one hour to San Francisco or Santa Cruz, and easy access to a wonderful variety of state and county parks for hiking etc.
While there are ugly parts of SJ, I have to mostly disagree with this post.
There are chunks of bland, unattractive suburban development throughout the city along with some ugly industrial areas. This doesn't represent most of the city though.
Try driving through the Naglee Park neighborhood West of William Street Park near SJSU, or drive through the Palm Haven neighborhood off Bird Ave. just South of I-280 in Willow Glen. Or, head West onto University Ave. off The Alameda in the Rose Garden area. Another nice drive is just heading South through Almaden Valley with Mt. Umunhum dominating the background. Head East up Alum Rock Ave. into the foothills, or even up Mt. Hamilton Rd. Try the drive from Calaveras Rd. in Milpitas to Sierra Rd. in North SJ, and you'll be in the country within a couple minutes and finish with a breathtaking view of the Santa Clara Valley. These are just some examples. There are some very nice places to live throughout SJ. Unfortunately some of these areas are just too expensive for many people.
As far as hot summer weather...I mean, seriously? Average temps in the upper 70's to low 80's with low humidity is hardly hot. Summer is supposed to be warm. The only time temps even reach into the 90's and even rarer up to 100+ are during short heat wave periods.
Downsides, in my opinion, are that it is a boring, ugly city with hot summer weather and (of course) ludicrously overpriced housing. If I didn't work in the tech sector, I can't imagine wanting to live here.
Upsides are mostly about proximity to other things: one hour to San Francisco or Santa Cruz, and easy access to a wonderful variety of state and county parks for hiking etc.
Hey, wait a minute
I think you're being unfair here.
--Ludicrously overpriced housing?---YES
--Boring?---For a city its size, yes...although there's certainly enough to do.
--Ugly? -- I think this one is unfair. I'll grant you, the tract housing is bland, even boring. But I think it's harsh to call the city ugly. Go to any city of around 1,000,000 people and in most cases you'll see urban blight that's much worse than what we have here.
There are plently of pleasant, tree lined streets here that help to soften the blandness of the housing stock (with the glaring exception of the concrete nightmare known as City Hall).
The natural surroundings (e.g. mountains) are also pleasant and attractive--not as beautiful as San Francisco, but nice nonetheless.
Hot Summers? You must be either joking or ridiculously spoiled. Summertime highs in the low to mid 80s or warmer is NORMAL Summer weather just about everwhere in the US, even in many northern parts of the US. Not to mention most nights dip into the upper 50s and the humidity is moderate to low.
Unfair? Jeez, all I did was express my opinion, and the criticism was actually pretty mild. After all, I do choose to continue to live in San Jose, despite the issues I raised. So let me respond in a bit more detail:
Quote:
--Ludicrously overpriced housing?---YES
I think we can all agree on that one! Though to be fair, it's not any more overpriced than the rest of Silicon Valley, and it's certainly more reasonable than, for example, Mountain View or Palo Alto.
Quote:
--Boring?---For a city its size, yes...although there's certainly enough to do.
Yes, I meant for a city its size. Just about any other city of a million people in America has a lot more going on, even though most of them don't have the same advantages working in their favor: relatively desirable geographical location, one of the best job markets in the US, etc.
Sure, it's certainly not as boring as I imagine a small rural town would be, but when a shopping mall ("Santana Row") is touted as one of the major attractions/activities in a city of a million people, that's just kinda sad in my opinion.
Quote:
--Ugly? -- I think this one is unfair. I'll grant you, the tract housing is bland, even boring. But I think it's harsh to call the city ugly. Go to any city of around 1,000,000 people and in most cases you'll see urban blight that's much worse than what we have here.
I have to stand by this one. Yes, there are exceptions such as the neighborhoods the other respondent mentioned (Rose Garden, Naglee Park, parts of Willow Glen), but they are just small pockets within a sea of exceptionally mediocre housing stock. And I include my own neighborhood in Almaden Valley, which is ostensibly one of the "nicer" ones.
I've traveled all around the country to many cities, and in no other place have I encountered supposedly "upscale" neighborhoods with such mediocre housing stock. The house I live in would sell for about $900k, based on comparable recent sales, but in just about any other city it would be considered just a basic blue-collar worker's house.
And don't get me started on San Jose's propensity to build ugly brick walls around its developments, and then paint them a sickly yellow/beige color.
I recognize that the problems listed above aren't unique to San Jose - indeed, much of Silicon Valley has ugly housing even by the standards of American suburbia.
Quote:
There are plently of pleasant, tree lined streets here that help to soften the blandness of the housing stock (with the glaring exception of the concrete nightmare known as City Hall).
Yes, trees can help but they can't make the buildings themselves look nicer. Compare the average street in San Jose with the average street in, say, Portland or Seattle and there's just no contest. Those cities have trees AND an attractive housing stock and as a result they're quite beautiful. (Too bad they don't have the job market to go with it!)
Quote:
The natural surroundings (e.g. mountains) are also pleasant and attractive--not as beautiful as San Francisco, but nice nonetheless.
Yes, I agree with this and list it high among the positives of living in San Jose. The natural environment surrounding the city is outstanding in my opinion.
Quote:
Hot Summers? You must be either joking or ridiculously spoiled. Summertime highs in the low to mid 80s or warmer is NORMAL Summer weather just about everwhere in the US, even in many northern parts of the US. Not to mention most nights dip into the upper 50s and the humidity is moderate to low.
Well, everyone has their preference regarding weather. I personally prefer a cooler climate and enjoyed living on the foggy side of San Francisco, and by comparison I find San Jose pretty freakin' hot in the summers.
Fortunately it's not too hard to escape the summer heat (if one is so inclined) by heading to SF, or Santa Cruz, or up into the redwood forest in the Santa Cruz mountains. I would probably die if I had to move to Florida for some reason.
If Santana Row was a shopping mall, it would not have been built right across from Valley Fair. I don't like the place and neither do many others, but it acts as a lot more than a mall, for sure.
As for your assessment of architecture, it's obvious that you confine yourself to the suburban fringe. That's fine, but don't pretend your sample represents the whole. Yeah, I know those bland neighborhoods and broad roadways exist, and that's why I moved away from them. Central San Jose (expanding way beyond downtown) is nothing like that.
Unfair? Jeez, all I did was express my opinion, and the criticism was actually pretty mild..
I think it was the "ugly" and "hot" criticisms that didn't sit well with me...esp. the "hot" one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbunniii
I think we can all agree on that one! Though to be fair, it's not any more overpriced than the rest of Silicon Valley, and it's certainly more reasonable than, for example, Mountain View or Palo Alto..
Hands down, housing prices are ridiculous in coastal CA and adjacent areas. There's really no debate on that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbunniii
Yes, I meant for a city its size. Just about any other city of a million people in America has a lot more going on, even though most of them don't have the same advantages working in their favor: relatively desirable geographical location, one of the best job markets in the US, etc.
Sure, it's certainly not as boring as I imagine a small rural town would be, but when a shopping mall ("Santana Row") is touted as one of the major attractions/activities in a city of a million people, that's just kinda sad in my opinion..
Ok, well "for a city its size" is an important qualifier. I think we mostly agree on this point. I agree with you on Santana Row. It has a fake, Disneyland-esque feel to it. And the parking and traffic in the area are a real hassle. I live just a few miles away, but I only go there a few times a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbunniii
I have to stand by this one. Yes, there are exceptions such as the neighborhoods the other respondent mentioned (Rose Garden, Naglee Park, parts of Willow Glen), but they are just small pockets within a sea of exceptionally mediocre housing stock. And I include my own neighborhood in Almaden Valley, which is ostensibly one of the "nicer" ones.
I've traveled all around the country to many cities, and in no other place have I encountered supposedly "upscale" neighborhoods with such mediocre housing stock. The house I live in would sell for about $900k, based on comparable recent sales, but in just about any other city it would be considered just a basic blue-collar worker's house.
And don't get me started on San Jose's propensity to build ugly brick walls around its developments, and then paint them a sickly yellow/beige color.
I recognize that the problems listed above aren't unique to San Jose - indeed, much of Silicon Valley has ugly housing even by the standards of American suburbia.
Yes, trees can help but they can't make the buildings themselves look nicer. Compare the average street in San Jose with the average street in, say, Portland or Seattle and there's just no contest. Those cities have trees AND an attractive housing stock and as a result they're quite beautiful. (Too bad they don't have the job market to go with it!)
Yes, I agree with this and list it high among the positives of living in San Jose. The natural environment surrounding the city is outstanding in my opinion..
I guess my point is, the attractiveness of a city is about more than just the housing stock. I do agree, that the housing stock in SJ/Silicon Valley is embarrassingly bland. But on the plus side, San Jose is relatively blight free compared to other large cities. Just to give a local example...it is not full of blatant eyesores like a good chunk of Oakland is. I grew up in Philadelphia, and while that area's housing stock is a lot more attractive, large chunks of the city of Philadelphia are abandoned and boarded up homes or homes in severe disrepair. You don't see much of that in SJ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbunniii
Well, everyone has their preference regarding weather. I personally prefer a cooler climate and enjoyed living on the foggy side of San Francisco, and by comparison I find San Jose pretty freakin' hot in the summers.
Fortunately it's not too hard to escape the summer heat (if one is so inclined) by heading to SF, or Santa Cruz, or up into the redwood forest in the Santa Cruz mountains. I would probably die if I had to move to Florida for some reason.
Ok, well I think you're just going to have to admit you're spoiled on this one.
As for your assessment of architecture, it's obvious that you confine yourself to the suburban fringe. That's fine, but don't pretend your sample represents the whole. Yeah, I know those bland neighborhoods and broad roadways exist, and that's why I moved away from them. Central San Jose (expanding way beyond downtown) is nothing like that.
But he does have a point....there are large swathes of middle class areas of SJ that have boring/bland/ugly housing stock. The areas with nice housing stock are relatively few and are very expensive.
I personally disagree with his point that Almaden Valley's housing stock is ugly. I find it to be much nicer and more stylish than the rest of the area's housing stock (although it is ridiculously expensive). Of course, I guess if your standards are low enough, anything looks good.
I think the whole "city of its size" thing really gets in people's way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
But he does have a point....there are large swathes of middle class areas of SJ that have boring/bland/ugly housing stock. The areas with nice housing stock are relatively few and are very expensive.
I personally disagree with his point that Almaden Valley's housing stock is ugly. I find it to be much nicer and more stylish than the rest of the area's housing stock (although it is ridiculously expensive). Of course, I guess if your standards are low enough, anything looks good.
I know these swaths well. Unfortunately, while they exist in so many American cities, they are not as present in the one up the road to which we always get compared.
As for the older tracts homes being ugly, it depends on the area. Over decades, the homes and yards develop uniqueness even though they may all share a floorplan. It's totally unlike the mcmansions of today.
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.
