It was in the spring of 1989 when San Jose’s population passed San Francisco. I remember it well because I was with San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos when it happened. We were in Beijing, Tiananmen Square to be exact, and the reporters were apoplectic while the Chinese were frenetic.
Think of it: the student uprising was happening and soon to be crushed; the young man standing in front of the tank would become an iconic moment. Simultaneously, the press was asking ad nauseam whether San Jose was a “greater city than San Francisco” with this new population statistic. The absurdity of this surface questioning is still palpable. It’s easy to remember such surrealistic happenings.
I tried to answer thoughtfully, acquitting myself on this crucial issue by pointing out that size was unimportant and that it was the quality of a city that counted. We should look to the feelings of its citizens and their energy, entrepreneurship, and confidence in the future. Then, see the parks, libraries, and neighborhood streets; after that, look at the economic base and the opportunities for youth. My answers were a colossal mistake. Not a single reporter cared or quoted a line of them. A one-liner by a career politician up north about our city not being able to “carry San Francisco’s jock” was the headline in the Chronicle, and the Mercury was not much better.
Two questions leap to mind, now as then: Why is population so important? And why do reporters gravitate to such factoids? Recently, the Economist magazine of London had a very negative article on San Jose. Essentially, it took the easy—and inaccurate—theme of the little engine that could not. San Jose was looked at as the perpetual bridesmaid. Last Sunday, the New York Times had an article that was the polar opposite and literally crowed about the many glories of San Jose, charting our rise from dot-com bust to bustling metropolis. The truth lies somewhere in between and I would encourage future reporters to reach for the abiding verities and avoid easy analogies and conclusions. As the wag once said, there are quick and certain commentaries to all issues of man—the problem is they are usually wrong.
San Francisco is a great city. San Jose is a good and powerful city. Both are unique; both worthy of emulation. I like very much the comment that no one can make you feel inferior unless you consent. San Jose never has and it certainly never should. You can look it up in the New York Times.
San Jose has a long way to go. When our councilmembers can ignore the crushing deficit that prohibits them from providing adequate city services, but they can find enough money to vote themselves a 20% pay raise. Do I smell smoke??
Oh, there are so many places to go with this.
To #1, to some degree, you’re right. Not so much in the character assasination of Hon Lien as a candidate, but to the larger issue of our city leadership. Where are the “superstar” politicians? The mayor or council members who step out and say “I’m going to do this and you can all come with me”, who engages the populace and the media and makes his every move a media event? We don’t have a Gavin Newsom. We don’t have a Ron Dellums. We don’t have a Tom Ammiano. We haven’t had that dynamic civic leader since the author of this very item, the dynamic Mr. McEnery.
And that feeds into the media perception that we’re a second-class citizen. We don’t have a leader engaging the media. The media creates and perpetuates the perception that we’re still a wanna-be-cowtown. The Chron and the Merc are right. So is The Economist. We’re the little train that could not. Until someone IN OFFICE leads the media charge in the other direction—boldly, charismatically—we will always be the annoying little brother, getting a pat on the head and a “there, there, run along”.
Who is going to step up and be that leader?
FYI – Red Square is in Moscow, Tiananmen Square is in Beijing.
You’re right # 3 but lets give the new members of the council and mayor a chance. I think the likes of Reed, Sam Licarrdo will serve the city well. It is a hard thing to have someone like Mayor McEnery he is truly a unique individual. He loved San Jose and it showed. He still does and is still working hard to make San Jose better. The problem is the people after him let it down. Hammer and Gonzales let it down. Hammer was OK but definitely not dynamic and really didn’t help rid San Jose lack luster image. Gonzales was just a disaster. I think Reed has tremendous possibilities. Lets see what happens. What is truly good is we haven’t heard a thing from Cindy and aren’t we lucky. Thank God everyone once in a while the voters get it right.
San Jose will never be a great city until it
– is honest with public about what San Jose really is and is not – starting with our dishonest and laughable slogan ” capital of silicon valley ”
and our bragging slogan ” 10th Largest city ” which leads to feeling inferior
Using a city’s slogan consistently, can become an important element of identification and public’s perception of a city
* Attributes: Do they express a city’s brand character, affinity, style, and personality?
* Message: Do they tell a story in a clever, fun, and memorable way?
* Differentiation: Are they unique and original?
* Ambassadorship: Do they inspire you to visit there, live there, or learn more?
Top 50 City Slogans and Nicknames
http://www.taglineguru.com/citymottosmonikers.html
San Jose needs to know that its recognition by outsiders as a “world-class” city does not come overnight. It might be the “Capitol of Silicon Valley” but recognition is never instant like email or text messages. No major city I have known has been instantly recognized as a world class city. I’m open to correction if such a major city exists.
Having a city council approve pay raises for themselves despite a backlog of service needs like libraries, park maintenance, road repair, and swimming pools doesn’t help. It validates stories found in The Economist (which I plan on going back to reading) on how “small” San Jose truly is compared to its “big” bro up north. Not that our well-known brother has its own issues with city council members. But when our leaders fail to recognize the difference between wants and needs, everyone loses.
As I have said often here, the sooner more of San Jose’s residents start taking responsibility for their ciity, the sooner it can get on the path of being a “world-class” city.
Words define ourselves and our city
San Jose will always feel inferior, if we use words like capital or 10th largest to describe ourselves to others
What does this comparison always come down to? “Culture,” which usually just means “nightlife” in the eyes of most people. San Jose has warmer weather and more sunshine. That’s a great start right there. Now if only we weren’t putting all our hopes into one little section of the city we call Downtown. We tried to make it alive at night, but some clubs came in and scared all the prudes away. It never occured to some people that there should be room for everyone without having to step over everyone else. Until we start thinking bigger and stop trying to make Santana Row Part II, we’re going to be small-time. Move the clubs down Monterey Road. Expand outward. Bring back neon signs. Make distinct districts that will attract specific people without trying to get everyone all at once. There’s a great movement forward with the condo towers being built downtown. That will have people downtown all the time without having to drive there to visit. Continue the movement. A city’s core should not be a day trip. It should be a lifestyle.
#4 Thanks for the correction. I missed it!
RIP, I think it can be safely stated that the answer to your closing question is definitely NOT Chuck Reed. We’re going to be on that same uphill train ride for at least another four years with such pathetically dull and uninspired leadership perpetuating this town’s D-list ranking. Only until we get new charismatic blood like Liccardo or Oliverio in the mayor’s chair leading the mainly mindless members of the council will we have any shot at respect.
The setup says it all. In 1989, a billion people lost a chance at democracy. At the same time, two cities squabbled about who was better.
18 years later, we’re still talking about whether SJ or SF is more of a real city. The billion people living in a dictatorship are important only because they are a new market.
We need to get our priorities straight.
#7 – Overnight is one thing, but we’ve been working on this for more than 20 years. Aren’t we “there” yet?
RIP: there or not, we’re certainly much closer. Not everything is black and white. We’ve made considerable progress. Take what we have along with what we need to fix.
Being the 10th largest city is a quantitative measure, not a qualitative one. It’s funny, at almost every other place, people strive to leave the big city for the suburbs. We had the suburbs and chucked it to the lowest bidder.
Corruption and incompetence cost us dearly. At the height of the “Dot Com” largess, we could have invested in the future, entered into partnerships for power and water, built a virtual city hall of the future* (instead of a crystal hood ornament), repaved our streets and improved our parks, etc. No, the people of San Jose were asleep at the wheel, and they let Mayor Corruptus spend the public trust to build his resume and enrich his supporters.
I remain optimistic,
Pete Campbell
* Idea for virtual city hall, with council offices in the districts was Joe Rodriguez’s .
RIP, I don’t think “there” is even on the itinerary yet and won’t be until after Reed is voted out (let’s hope it’s not termed out), at the very earliest.
“Does Size Matter”—probably when it comes to basketball—it may be the unique advantage. But when it comes to cities, maybe not.
In my opinion—what San Jose lacks is a VISION —something all citizens and cultures could get behind and support. Something that would excite everybody and as a result would be a driving factor in steering the city in that direction. Here’s the big “IF” and that is: “IF” we have inspired officials who could develop or embrace a VISION for San Jose, they should be/become the cheerleaders in bringing the VISION to fruition.
We already have the size—now we just need the VISION and the people to cheer it on.
Concerned Citizen
The whole point of “aren’t we there yet?” is that we have been spending 20 years and billions upon billions of redevelopment dollars on downtown…and there’s no “there” on the itinerary?
That’s why you get the SNI. That’s why you get neighborhood groups screaming “Downtown is a failure! No more money for Downtown!”
And there’s no charismatic leader in the Crystal Gonzo Palace to point the ship in the right direction. Just a care-taker mayor throwing his hands in the air, shrugging his shoulders saying “whatever”.
Come on guys – San Francisco is a great city!! I always felt that people living in San Jose have the best of all worlds – we can pop into the city anytime we want and don’t have to spend a fortune getting there or put up with the hassle of living there.
#17 – Unfortunately, VISION takes more than 8 years to complete. VISION gets termed out before the job is done.
#18 “And there’s no ‘there’ in the internary” after spending billions and billions of dollars (really, billions and billions?). Cmon people! Didn’t any of you bother to read the NY Times article? Our downtown is not that bad! Could it be better? You bet! But the article by The Economist is by no means the entire story. Mr. McEnery is right…the truth is somewhere between both stories. Critical mass (with the coming condo high-rises) and density should help in the long run. My bet is that our downtown will only get better with time and a little more VISION (you’re right #17).
San Jose will never be a great city, not because of size, but because of mentality and prejudice.
Question, for any of you SJI shills.
Why is it that when names like McEnery, Mulcahy, Cortese, Citti, Sobrato, Zanotto are spoken, the adjectives are “dedication, loyalty, honesty, integrity, reliance, patience, persistence?
Yet, when names like Gonzales, Gregory, Guerra, Arreola, Kali-Rai are spoken, only one adjective is used, “crook”.
Why is that? Will any of you answer this question in a truthful way?
Could it be small-mindedness? Is it that the old San Jose families cannot tolerate new direction, thinking outside the box, change of course?
I’m waiting for an answer, you shills.
I must disagree with you, Mark T #11. At this stage of our civic life, after Gonzogate, we need a calm, orderly return to fiscal responsibility in order to increase civic prided. The last thing we need now is Gavin Light or Brother Willie Light. We can’t afford the basics until we get rid of all the feel-good, warm & fuzzy frills.
Right now, I’d rather have one of those corporate raider types who comes in and cuts fat off the bone. We have a lot of fat, but crumbling roads, inadequate public saftey personnel, public servants who think we are their servants, failing schools with teachers and staff who refuse to be held accountable, parks that are weed patches, and on and on and on.
Please, leave the charisma at the door and find us a cost cutter with practical skills.
We can get the vision guy AFTER we have the basics taken care of.
This whole discussion of whether or not SJC is a “better” city because of its size relative to SFO is a puzzling one.
I’ve stated before elsewhere that, because of the relative proximity of the two cities, and the relative wealth of the area in general, that people who desire the more “urban” experience typically self-select to SFO, while those who wish a more family or, pardon the word, suburban lifestyle will gravitate toward SJC. The census figures are bearing that out, what with families with children leaving SFO for elsewhere in the Bay Area.
One could almost state that SJC and SFO are two sides of the same coin.
Consider another state – Texas. It’s generally held as common knowledge that the two “biggest” cities in Texas are Houston and Dallas, right? Nope.
The second biggest city in Texas is San Antonio, which has just recently passed Dallas by a 2004 estimate. It isn’t because San Antonio has had any kind of colossal building boom, so much as Dallas is relatively landlocked by its outer ring of suburbs, while San Antonio still has room and unincorporated areas in Bexar County in which to grow further.
Yet, when people think of Texas cities, they will always name Houston or Dallas and maybe even Fort Worth before San Antonio comes up.
Does any of this seem familiar?
San Jose is still coming off of eight years of civic and fiscal utter mismanagement, of a scale that is still being plumbed. Even getting back to “level” takes time. Having a workman like approach to matters is probably a good thing for the body politic – after all, the most recent “superstar” didn’t pan out too well for us.
It’s probably better for San Jose to be a little less glamorous and a little more concentrated on the details of the here and now. Let the SFO-niks have the glory for a while. It’ll all eventually end up here anyway.
“the reporters were apoplectic while the Chinese were frenetic”.
Tom, your post was great but would you please use simple English? It took me ten minutes to find my dictionary!
San Jose will never have the respect of others, until we and our leaders start to respect ourselves. In the past few weeks, there has been two articles in the Mercury about two cities and two National Register historic buildings. There could not have been a greater contrast to two the stories. We could all argue over which is more historic, IBM # 25 or the HP Garage. The fact of the matter is, the experts scored IBM # 25 higher in more areas. But that does not matter, they both are very important historic buildings. San Jose voted to demolish its historic resource, Palo Alto celebrates its historic building.
Hard to shake the “inferior” label when, as the 10th largest city in the nation, we have someone like Hon Lien in a run off for a city council seat.
[url=“http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=LivingInSanJose
“]Watch for yourself just how bad she is.[/url]
We need leadership on our city council, leaders who understand what actions they can take that will help San Jose move out of the shadow of San Francisco. Lien doesn’t understand the basics, let alone how to lead on issues that effect San Jose.
Electing someone who has no clue about redevelopment, can’t understand what balance between renters and homeowners is, and consistently rambles incoherently when asked simple questions, is not going to help our city shake that inferiority complex.
Good to have George back spouting off and once again showing his ignorance about preservation. There is no point in repeating the factual arguments that have already been made by numerous people on this blog. But, in summary, there would be no law suits if the city followed the law. Perhaps George should vent his tirades at an ignorant and arrogant city council that repeatedly refuses to follow the law. I would hate to think that George actually thinks the council is above the law and can do whatever they want.
San Francisco and San Jose each represent two different types of cities. Comparing them on the basis of population is completely pointless.
The fact is, if San Francisco was not locked into a very small 47 square mile plot of land, it would have significantly more people than 170 sq mile San Jose. If Oakland was also not locked into a slightly more than 50 square mile plot of land it would very likely have more people than San Jose.
As it is, San Francisco has a higher daytime population (due to commuters) than San Jose, and that’s not even counting the millions of tourists who visit the city every year. So most of the time there are more people in San Francisco than San Jose, even if they’re not “residents”.
Brooklyn and Queens each have a million more people than Manhattan. Jacksonville has twice as many people as Miami. Nashville has slightly more people than Atlanta. Indianapolis has 200,00 more people than Boston. Whether a city is “major” or not has little to nothing to do with population of the city proper.
San Jose is a great city, and it’s only going to get better with time. But it is not on the level of San Francisco (or Boston or Miami for that matter), and more people living in city limits is not going to change that.
Cities become great when there are unique aspects and sites in the city that people from elsewhere know about, care about, and want to see.
San Jose is essentially no different from 100 other post-WWII cities built in the suburban-style, except that it has more people. There are no grand monuments There was no large urban-core to build from, and as such, the city really has nothing “different” to offer. Most people from the East Coast, that are not familiar with California geography, probably think San Jose is somewhere near LA.
In spite of what others are saying here, having an incredibly corrupt mayor or crazy scandal might actually be a GOOD thing longterm – at least for name recognition.
Elder, give it up, you’re not going to change the mind of the ignorant. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. People who have no use for historic preservation should move to Vegas where nothing lasts more than a few decades, if that, and where there’s no such concept as historical significance.
Boris sized it up right. SJ was an agricultural town with population of about 80,000 when the post-war suburb rush began, and had a downtown to match. No matter how hopping it used to be downtown in the pre-Valley Fair days, it was and still is a very small geographic area in the scheme of things. Our downtown will never have the size and scope usually associated with a city with a population of 1,000,000.
This is why historic preservation is so important here. There was so little significant architecture in the first place and so many of the architectural treasures were pushed over to pave the way for a blanket of blandness from one side of the valley to the other, that we need to save the few jewels we have left. I expect that out of principle, people like Mr. Green and Mr. O’Connor will not set foot in the California Theater. After all, that theater could have been torn down and replaced with a boxy modern building that added a new Subway or Taco Bell to the downtown scene, and wouldn’t downtown have been better off if that had happened? And don’t play the Dave Packard card on this one. The city put a good chunk of money into the restoration of the California. Yes, GG and JMO, YOUR money. Deal with it. I doubt the NY Times article would have paid special attention to a fast food joint as opposed to an architectural, and now cultural gem like the California.
I’m ambivilent on Bldg. 25 but let’s for the sake of example compare old buildings to old cars. Right now, your average car from the 80’s or 90’s is pretty much considered un-collectible. Give it 10 or 20 more years and that will change. Cars from the 50’s, on the other hand, even basket cases needing total restoration, likely cost more today than they did new. But in the 60’s and 70’s with a few key exceptions, you couldn’t give a 50’s car away. Such is the case with Bldg. 25. The level of appreciation for mid-century architecture is still fairly low around here so you’re not going to see a lot of support for saving Bldg 25. And architecturally Bldg. 25 isn’t anything real special. Aesthetically it might be, but it’s a borderline case and I can’t say it’s been worth years of litigation to try and save it. I also think if Lowe’s wanted to, they could make the site work with the building still there, but they simply aren’t willing to think outside the box, no pun intended. It’s not surprising that the council voted not to save Bldg. 25. That’s how things are done around here and always have been. And that’s why there’s no there here, and we’re on track to keep it that way. Nice work, councils past and present.
Bottom line is that some of us feel that a sense of place includes a sense of history, and others don’t. The ones who don’t have been winning out for decades, and this town’s character, it’s “there,” has been assasinated in the process.
#31 Mark T – you nailed it. Great post. Thank you.
RESPECT, #26, is one of the reasons SJ is Smallsville—another “historical preservationist” that has terrified and bankrupted the city for years w/ lawsuits they are proud of, another special interest along with the unions and government hobbyists at San Jose State poli sci. The Garage was the site where two guys helped make a new world, and their company heirs preserved a site that is unarguably historic. No lawsuit. HP paid for it all—NOT the taxpayers. IBM Bldg 25 was full of guys with white shirts and black ties, the exact opposite of HP. AND, IBM says the bldg is crapola. Tear it down. Who cares what the “experts” say about significance.
Vision IS what SJ lacks, and needs. Tom had a bit of it, the only bit in years. SJSU has it with its residential towers village that has done more for downtown than the billions wasted by visionless “Unredevelopment”. Ken Podgorsek, the “Strong ??? Neighborhoods Guy, says SJSU is a “bad neighbor”, building a tall residential complex in HIS ‘hood. That’s his visionless vision, a BIG influence weighing on the City Council. SJ as suburb is OK with Ken. Chuck can calm the whole thing down and make it steady, though he’s so subtle and non confrontational that it will take a while to get the train back on the tracks. Pierluigi will think of a quicker way, not afraid of confrontation. Big problem is the vision of the unions for SJ—a big pile of tax $$$ for their personal benefit, and don’t get the f——in the way. Endless, dis connected make-work projects, like the “hood ornament” (great metaphor!). George Green
As the former Executive Director of PACSJ, I can safely say that the City had a clear choice over the IBM Building. Where they have preserved historic buildings, like the Jose Theatre and California Theatre, those buildings have prospered with new uses. Where they have tried, illegally, to demolish historic buildings, they have had to spend millions on defending illegal decisions. PACSJ has always tried hard to stop them from doing illegal things, because the consequences for the city finances (among other things) are bad if they do.
There IS no argument as to whether IBM Building 25 is historic. It’s not about PACSJ pretending that the disk drive was really invented there when it was in fact invented at 99 Notre Dame. It’s historic because it’s an exceptional example of mid-century modern architecture by a famous architect. The whole disk drive thing is basically a distraction thrown up by people who don’t want the building saved. IBM, Lowe’s, the City, the courts and PACSJ all agree that the building is historic. That debate’s over. The question is whether, GIVEN that it’s historic, and GIVEN that feasible alternatives to demolition exist, the City can still legally approve its demolition. CEQA says that they can’t. If they give it a final approval, the City will land itself again in a heap of legal trouble, and I hope that PACSJ sues their illegal but*s off. For the third time.
Yesterday the Mercury printed an article about San Jose having to pay $3,800,000 in a lawsuit to Lew Wolff and Michael Mulcahy. Yet we did not hear a word of protest from Mr Green or Mr O’Connor about the wasted money, lack of properly paved roads or evil lawsuits. Rome is burning and JMO and Boy George are crying about ugly historic buildings preservationists want to save.
My hope/faith in Chuck is rapidly waning. His votes on garbage increases and for more $$ to consultants to belabor the obvious re the MHP are beyond bloody belief. Can I get my contribution to his campaign back?
R E S P E C T #26: You wanna get some? Raise some $$ and buy # 25. Otherwise, put a sock in it. I prefer well-paved roads and well-maintained parks (even though I never use the parks).
#29 & #33
San Jose’s mayor and council did not listen to the people and lost $36million in the courts to the county, lost $8 million on the Tropicana, $3 million on the Fox Markovitz. and $12million on the Montgomery Hotel. I don’t know where you two geniuses went to school, but that adds up to $67million where I come from. The Council says that Lowes will add $500,000 each year to our tax base. At that rate it will take 134 years to pay back the money the city has wasted by not following the law. If you want roads paved, you better make sure we stop breaking the law.
JMO and G.G.
The city has lost twice on this issue in the courts. Unlike the first two trips to court, the preservationists now have an even stronger case. The Planning Commission’s and Planning Department’s findings now support the preservationists. The historic experts at the City, State and Federal level all have found IBM 25 to be worthy of saving. Two Judges have also ruled the same. What are your qualifications in historic preservation or urban planning? Other than hating our historic resources, what do you bring to the table?
33 – It doesn’t bother you that the Council continually violates the law??
It is clear that you don’t get it. The preservationists are not asking the City to spend a dime on IBM#25. The past several months, PAC SJ has been trying to give $35,000 to the City for an historic survey. They have not been able to because the RDA has lost the paper work. The City will lose the grant if they do not take it by September. If you want any respect, put your money where your mouth is, or keep it shut. Why don’t you raise some funding for your streets, like PAC did for their historic preservation.
As per Lowes’ numbers, over the past three years, San Jose has debatably lost $1.5 million in sales tax revenue. This is due to the Lowes- IBM25 lawsuit. It now looks as though it will be tied up in the courts for at least an other 3 years. Assuming that Lowes wins at the end of six years, the city will have lost $3 million and wasted six years. If the council approved an other project on the site, from the start, that was half the size and contributed half the sales tax, we would have $1.5 million in our coffers at the end of six years. At the end of 11 years, the half sized project will have contributed $2.5 million. Lowes will have contributed $2.5 million. This is assuming that Lowes wins in the courts! If not, in three years, we will be right back where we are today, with no project and no tax base. The planning department and commission have learned from their past mistakes. Now it is the time for the Mayor and Council to drop out of the George Bush School of “Stay the Course”. The City of San Jose can not afford an other failure.
Alex,
You hit the nail on the head. It must be great living in Boston, where city leaders know the value of their historic resources. We miss you in San Jose.
Best of luck,
Jim Zetterquist
Last week I read that the City settled a law suit with Lew Wolff and is giving him $3,800,000 on his hotel. A few days later, I saw on the news, San Jose is signing a contract with Wolff to build a stadium on City property (old FMC site). By law, the City has to put it to a public vote before they can spend money on a stadium. We all know that the Mayor and Council tried to get around the law by trying to rezone the IBM site to residential. Now what is up with this?
I think the question we should ask is why is the population in San Jose larger then San Francisco? Why are so many people flocking to San Jose rather then San Francisco…
People are “flocking” to San Jose because San Jose is adding to housing inventory at a much higher pace than San Francisco. Also, because more than half of San Francisco’s buildings are inhabited by renters, the housing that is available to buy has been pushed to much higher prices, because there is so much less of it. There is no lack of people wanting to move to San Francisco…
I wasn’t implying that San Jose isn’t a nice place to live. But, I don’t think it has become a more “desirable” city than San Francisco.
Dude, oOoh well.. I was hoping it was because San Jose was a nice place to live..
“I think the question we should ask is why is the population in San Jose larger then San Francisco? Why are so many people flocking to San Jose rather then San Francisco…”
Is that really a necessary question? As I pointed out on another thread, San Francisco covers 1/4th the land area of San Jose and San Francisco county covers 1/28th the land area of Santa Clara county. If San Francisco were to expand it’s borders to equal San Jose’s, the population of San Francisco would far exceed that of San Jose.
It is a simple matter of space and available housing. One place has it, the other place doesn’t. Why do you think twice as many people live in Jacksonville as live in Miami? Is it because Jacksonville covers around 500 square miles and Miami covers around 35? Nah, that’s probably not it. Must be something else.
JMO,
You flip-flop more than John Kerry. Last year you first stated that you did not think IBM #25 was worth saving. The after information about the importance of IBM #25 was presented, you said that you changed your mind. I was much impressed to your open mind and willingness to learn. Now you say that it is not worth saving. You have also cited the Sempervirons as a role model about purchasing private property and making it available to the public. You may have read that they just purchased the HP camp grounds for $4 mil and plan to sell it to the state for $6mil. If you respect them then you should really respect PAC SJ. They are gifting San Jose $35,000 to do a historic inventory, they will not make a dime on the deal.
#22—Gregory thinking outside the box, or outside the law? The only thing he was thinking about was who to shake down for food, $$, or wine.
We know what head Gonzo thought with. And he certainly was not thinking OUTSIDE the box.
48—you misquote me. I was initially against saving the building. When I read some PACers post that it was the place where the flyinh head disk drive was invented, I believe I said that I would be open to changing my mind if the building truly has some significnace. Then I learned that the PACer was wrong—the disk drive was invented downtown San Jose, not in building 25. So, tho I had an open mind, it became clear that some people were distorting the historical significance of the building. Recently I saw a photo of it; so I now know it has no architectural significance—it’s just an old, ugly, and now abandoned building.
$35k is nice. When you get to the tens of millions Sempervirens raises, I’ll be impressed.
I don’t have near the knowledge on the subject as you PACers; but I do recognize ugly when I see it
Once again you are not stating the facts. It was pointed out to you that the building was the first of the campus style buildings. A big departure from the “factory” design of most buildings of the era. It was the first industrial building to recognize that the environment in which you work can effect your creativity. Are you now saying that you can tell by looking at a photo you can determine if it has architectural significance?
JMO
The city, state and federal experts have determined that the IBM #25 building is historic. There has also been two court rulings that support that status. Would you please state your background in historic preservation, architecture, local history,or urban planning so we can determine if you know what you are talking about. You seem to be a well educated man, but do you know the first thing about historic buildings?
JMO
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
JMO:
You suggest that PAC folks were misrepresenting. I think it’s you who misunderstood.
We said that the “flying head disk drive” was invented there (among a whole lot of other more important points relating to its architectural significance). As far as we can tell, it was. The “disk drive” was invented, as we all know, at 99 Notre Dame.
Only with the development of the flying head element of the technology did it become possible for companies to use computers to perform real-time transactions. This is certainly less important than the development of the disk drive overall, but it’s a significant step nonetheless.
So don’t feel like PAC misled you. I always tried hard to be as accurate as possible.
JMO,
It is important to remember that saving a building because it is an important historic resource, is not the same as saving a building because it won a beauty contest. Tastes and styles change over time. Architecture from each decade reflects the styles and values of the time. This is what makes old cities eclectic and more desirable than modern planned communities. It is important to remember that the Effiel Tower was thought to be ugly by most Parisians when it was built. Today it is one of its greatest tourists attractions.