For a big city, why is San Jose so boring? (San Diego: sales, real estate)

[sacreole]

As others have pointed out on this thread, San Jose has experienced rapid population growth in a relatively short period of time. It has become the third largest city in California after Los Angeles and San Diego. Therefore, it has yet to "mature" into a major urban center. San Francisco is a port city and an historic gateway that developed in a geographically constrained area. It will take time for development and culture in San Jose to develop its own urban character and vibe. Once the population influx has time to settle, you'll probably start to see San Jose become more interesting and engaging.

[bentobox34]

Disclaimer: I don't agree that San Jose is "boring," but I understand where this question is coming from.

Originally Posted by Conrad Gray

This is as much a historical question as it is an urban cultural one. How did SJ come to be so big, yet so boring compared to other major cities? Its population dwarfs San Francisco's.

Because size isn't everything. You have to look at when the city got big. I think this graph explains a lot:



To put it simply, cities that became "big cities" prior to 1950 tend to be the cities that are considered "not boring." In 1950, San Francisco and Oakland where just slightly smaller in population than they are today, and San Jose was about 1/10th its current size. Almost all of San Jose's "big-ness" is the result of "boring" post-1950 development.

Are there any other major cities (population-wise) in the U.S. that are comparably boring with San Jose?

Yes. Other cities that became "major" after 1950, such as Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa, Dallas, etc.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

It's an extreme form of Edge City. In this case, the Edge City has more population than either of the twin center cities of the megalopolis (although it does not have more population than the twin cities combined).

[Conrad Gray]

Which are the twin cities of the Bay?

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Because it started out as just another "there's no there, there" place around the Bay, then suddenly, fairly recently, boomed into a big city that's pretty much a one-industry town. Suburban housing mushroomed overnight to meet demand, so there's not much historical architecture in residential areas. No character. Kinda like Fremont.

I suppose if you think Edwardian, Victorian, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival are all devoid of character, but personally I really like the residential areas near Midtown and Downtown, Naglee Park, and Shasta/Hanchett Park have plenty of character in my book. I don't recall anything like that in Fremont tbh.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

I suppose if you think Edwardian, Victorian, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival are all devoid of character, but personally I really like the residential areas near Midtown and Downtown, Naglee Park, and Shasta/Hanchett Park have plenty of character in my book. I don't recall anything like that in Fremont tbh.

I think she just meant that the city as a whole doesn't have a ton of historical architecture. It definitely can be found in the areas you mentioned, which also happen to be some of my favorite parts of SJ along with Rose Garden and Willow Glen.

In fairness to Fremont, the Niles district is full of old town charm. It's like taking a step back in time.

[jsinsj_99]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

Because it is "new", and does not have (yet) enough dense downtown mixed use areas, and because it has had to compete with San Francisco and now Oakland. Similarly, there are almost no really vibrant areas within 50 miles of NYC - a place like that sucks in the entertainment density. I think this is starting to change, though.

I would bet big that in 20 or even 10 years, San Jose looks a lot more socially vibrant with much more entertainment. Big players are placing bets now. Apple, for example, will be building big in the city. There is a lot of mixed use dense development planned in the downtown areas, like North SJ, Diridon area, etc. There will be more development in the Santana Row area as welll - the row might feel like a "real" city neighborhood in time.

Agree, San Jose is still a fairly new city and is only now starting to generate that "big city feel" and a sense of identity, IMO. This is in contrast to SF which suddenly sprang up "overnight" during the 1850's.

I will say, downtown has made big improvements and come a long way since the 90's when I used to hang out there as a teen (the midtown areas as well, for that matter) and I am excited for the future of the area.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by Conrad Gray

A San Diego friend once described his city as "Mickey Mouse", and I think that adjective can apply to SJ.

I was going to say--San Diego fits the bill, at about 1.3x the size and 1.3x-1.5x as interesting (for residents) as SJ.

[simboticus]

It's no SF, and never will be, but I don't think it's boring. Certainly has become a lot better. There are a lot of bars and restaurants downtown that people don't seem to be aware of. What are you looking for and not finding?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

I suppose if you think Edwardian, Victorian, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival are all devoid of character, but personally I really like the residential areas near Midtown and Downtown, Naglee Park, and Shasta/Hanchett Park have plenty of character in my book. I don't recall anything like that in Fremont tbh.

OK, you convinced me. So what's your explanation for why SJ is so boring?