It is time to look at the pros and cons of our summer. Just what exactly are the pluses and minuses that can be attributed to our city as we approach the middle of August? A big plus is the Zero One Festival that is occurring this week. On the harmony front, once again Music in the Park is drawing big crowds, but the enthusiastic revelers and music lovers are much less a source of business to the downtown bar and restaurant owners than the Downtown Association would like you to believe. Some think that they are barely registering on the Richter scale of monetary activity among the vast majority of the businesses downtown. And the opinion of the police is that the crowds are too massive and it is not a particularly engaging use of Chavez Plaza.
There has been much written about the San Jose Grand Prix. I will only add that its cause is noble. The Sports Authority and others did yeoman service in trying to make it vital for all the downtown merchants. The implementation was dutiful but not really successful, and the city activity was sketchy. One more thing is certain: it will remain the poster child for insider, clandestine government for many years.
In another quick note, the city subsidy for the new Morton’s Steakhouse continues the absurd city financing of the only businesses that will come downtown on their own: restaurants. Now, as your history tells you, there comes a point where you say: “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute.” Not seeing Thomas Jefferson among downtowners lately, we can say only: “millions for a book store but not one cent for another restaurant!” I wish they could get it straight. Reach out for the stores that won’t come and ignore the food franchises—labor peace or not, we do not need to encourage them with handouts.
Oh, and if you are going to help the landlords of the new temple of beef, Divco, at least make them move their offices back downtown from the tonier streets of Palo Alto where they are now. Not all is lost—I think they kept their high-priced mouthpiece lobbyists here. If they want our money, then they should live in our city. It is a modest proposal for near the ides of August.
Tom writes:
“And the opinion of the police is that the crowds are too massive and it is not a particularly engaging use of Chavez Plaza. “
I hope that this doesn’t mean the end of the concerts like some have indicated. If CC park is too small then move it to Discovery park which is a little bigger.
I don’t see much hope for a decent bookstore downtown these days with so many malls scattered around the valley. You get better book deals at Amazon anyway, so I always shop there. I’ve got too many books anyway, I’ve been downsizing the library.
Tom, Single Gal,
Couldn’t agree more.
Admittedly we do not spend a lot of time in the downtown area, but whenever we are down there for business, an AMT performance or once in a while for dinner, we’re left with impression that the City has put huge signs up on every street and freeway exit into town:
“Come-Spend–Leave”
“If you want to relax, meander, sightsee, and drop a few nickels… go to Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, Willow Glen, Los Altos, Palo Alto or out to your favorite mall.”
“Do not violate our Spending-per-visitor-hour Ordinance.”
L.A. Chung’s column in today’s Merc sizes up the Zero One situation perfectly. I am still trying to figure out if it costs anything, some of it is obviously free, but everything I’ve read doesn’t give this info. Only in the Merc today did I see a schedule of events that gave admission fees where applicable.
Zero One is striking me as a tech-art for tech-artists arrangement, where very little reaching out to the general public has been done. The Merc is championing it, but I still can’t get my arms around the whole event.
I could get in my car or hop on a trolley and head downtown right now and doubt I’d see any evidence of this major event even happening. Nights might be different, where light shows will provide evidence that SOMEthing is happening, but I get the feeling that they are expecting people to participate via their PC’s—at home, which seems to defeat the purpose.
Did I miss something where this was all laid out and a guide was published? Everything I’ve seen is disjointed and piecemeal, and my time is too valuable to go walking all over downtown trying to find out where the various ground Zeros are.
Tom: What is the SJDA’s rap re the effect of Music in the Park on downtown business? My take after attending virtually every Thursday event since inception is that very few of the music revelers visit downtown venues after the concert; and the ones that do are folks who live in San Jose and patronize them on other days too, rather than the out-of-towners.
This also hints at some posts on Jack’s part of the blog. Scott Knies insists there is no truth to the rumor that the SJPD wants Music in the Park gone next year. What are you hearing?
We talked about the “big box” mentality yesterday. The Grand Prix is the perfect example of the Gonzo administration’s “big box” mentality. Place your entire hopes on one big shining event hoping to showcase San Jose as Camelot. Open the checkbook and write off $4M without quetsion.
Yet when San Jose’s professional soccer team with a 30 year heritage of representing the city on an increasingly large stage came calling for help…gee, I don’t think we can afford to help with your operating losses.
The soccer season lasts April through November. San Jose used to be in the sports news April through November. Now that team is gone, and San Jose gets one booming weekend a year with a 3rd rate car race.
I don’t see the logic.
Tom – Amen!
Downtown needs a good large eclectic bookstore, preferably an independent like Keplers. Put a good espresso bar next to it and you will lure and hold many more people downtown every week, smart people who read books.
The one thing downtown does NOT need is another overpriced chain restaurant.
Tom, the only way that the police would be truly happy with the Park is if it were completely empty; they share the same vision for the nightclubs.
I completely agree with you, however, about chain restaurants. We have enough.
Mark T #3: The Sunday Murky News devoted a good ten full pages to Zero One.
Now Divco West & Morton’s want a city/RDA subsidy to do seismic retrofitting on the old First Interstate Building which Morton’s plans to occupy. They all say they didn’t know that changing the building to a much higher continuous occupancy would trigger a seismic upgrade requirement. And these guys are supposedly in the property ownership/management business in California.
McCormick’s, PF Changs and others got subsidies. Now perhaps Mortons/Divco West. But not Eulipia or other long-existing businesses. Guess Steve B. should have hired a lobbyist.
Too many smart people who read books for hours over ONE latte in the store don’t generate revenue, Mal. They’ll also plug their laptops into your power source. Ask Jerry Grudzen, whose location was in the space more recently occupied by Blake’s. It was full of youngish folks who lingered all day and night over one cup of Joe while playing on their laptops or studying for exams. Just how many people will hop in their cars or the light rail to come to a downtown bookstore to sip a latte and preview books, or read an entire magazine, for free? They’ll go, if at all, to a nearby mall bookstore. Even then they may only preview the book, then go home an buy it cheaper @ Amazon. You need the density in walking distance to make your proposal work.
# 5
Good points.
#8 JMO Though book stores, public art and historic preservation are not the cure-all for the downtown’s woes, they help put the there in there.
John Michael – the Music in the Park is positive, but the
Downtown Assoc. has had a tin ear on the negatives of certain groups in the St.James Park events. They are negative and quite offensive to downtown residents and business owners. Our Downtown is fagile and we don’t need to acquire more negatives with problem people. The club scene is another and vexing subject, but simply put: a raucous late night and early morning is not what residents and businesses desire. Oh, and Steve B. of Eulipia is more principled than to hire a lobbyists – he believes that in our city, merit should prosper. Idealistic, isn’t it? TMcE
[[Did I miss something where this was all laid out and a guide was published?]]
Yes:
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/08.02.06/index.html
#9—yes, all those things help put the “there” there; but they have to make a profit or they go away. And if enough go away, no new ones come.
Yeah, Tom, I know Steve B. is more principled than to hire lobbyists; and, he probably is a better spokesman for his interests than they. However, he and many other downtown small businesses got screwed by the RDA and the city when they left them hanging out to dry during construction of light rail; then new national or regional chains get subsidies.
Yeah, Tom, Music in the Other Park has a different fan base. One positive—the drug sales diminish on those four Thursdays.
The two venues should never be linked, as the name does. It was a nice effort to take back St. James Park, but four days a year is a minor inconvenience to the lowlife denizens of that part of St. James Park.
But in these times, drug dealers, schizophrenics, dopers, the voluntarily homeless folk who virtually reside there all seem to have “rights” that the powers that be hold superior to the rights of the hardworking, taxpaying residents of the area. It’s shameless pandering to a flase “diversity”.
Gary, thanks for reminding me that the Metro is the obvious resource for Zero One info, and entertainment info in general. That 10-page section in Sunday’s Merc struck me as useless. Lately I’ve been in a sort of hibernation that hasn’t had me near a copy of the Metro and I guess it’s too late now to find last week’s issue. Guess I’ll just be sitting out Zero One and reading about its disappointing turn-out in the Merc soon enough.
HAC, back in the Janet Hayes era, the city was all over the idea of making the Guadalupe River into a San Antonio type of scene. I recall a number of reports of city officials traveling to San Antonio for research. What we ended up with nearly 40 years later is a flood control project that’s trying to be a park and is devoid of any human activity and does nothing to contribute tax revenue; it is, no pun intended, just a big drain.
I know someone who was recently transfered to San Antonio for work. Apparently the river walk there isn’t what it used to be and is the last place anyone would go for good Mexican food or whatever. In fact, I hear there’s no such thing as good Mexican food in San Antonio. Who knew?
Every important city in the world has some kind of waterfront or waterway. We could have showcased the Guadalupe by turning it into a river walk, or as has been suggested on this blog before, forming a lake downtown (it’s way too late now) and giving the city center something on the order of Oakland’s Lake Merritt, which is an oasis in an otherwise hostile environment.
This town is paying the price for years of leadership with a lack of vision or conviction, except for Tom’s.
The one thing I hate more than people who make fun of the way I tell Chuck what to think and what to say, and when to put on another red and white and blue when the scrambled egg stains get to noticeable, is this MAYOR WATCH.
Nobody better read it, or I will do to them what I did to Gill Cable
Vixtor the Man
Tom-
I’m really curious about what went on during the RDA’s early planning for downtown. Why didn’t the City or RDA ever consider using the Guadalupe River as an amenity like San Antonio’s Riverwalk District? From what I’ve read San Antonio’s waterway was a lot more polluted and had much more problems than the Guadalupe and its now referred to as the Venice of the Southwest because of its river front restaurants, stores, and promenade. Additionally, could we have used some of the flood control funding for this or was it being constrained by the feds?
(rant mode on)
#5 – That soccer team with a 30-year heritage of reprsenting the city you speak so fondly of didn’t just want help with operating expenses. They wanted a brand new stadium, to the tune of $100M or so, built by the city but all revenue controlled by the owners (AEG), plus guarantee of coverage of operating expenses in the interim time. During all that, they were going out of their way to piss off their then-current landlords (the university) and to denigrate the then-current facility they were playing in (Spartan Stadium). And they finally threw out the “we’ll move the team” card. San Jose (and at the very end SVSE) took a look at the situation, and said ‘go ahead.’ It was the right decision then, and it’s the right decision now.
And so now the renamed Houston Dynamo are averaging 11K attendance per game, and over the last two months hasn’t had a crowd over 15K, playing in a (partially refurbished) college football stadium. The ownership is asking for a “public-private” partnership for a brand-new soccer-specific stadium for the Dynamo, or they may have to move. Sound familiar?
I see people yapping on here about $4M for the SJGP. How many people on here would be screaming and moaning about subsidies and giveaways to AEG had the city agreed to build the dear-departed Major League Soccer Team a brand new stadium?
Pick one and go with it, folks…
(Sigh…end rant)
Today’s editorial in the Merc provides me with the validation I was looking for re: Zero One. Appears I’m not alone in thinking this is largely an insider event. Also Scott Herhold’s column today captures another aspect. How do we know where those green ears are located? Is it like a treasure hunt with no map? I thought the comment at the end of his column by the Canadians, who knew SJ was #10 but have come away with the feeling that this is a small town, spoke volumes.
#16, It is so funny you bring that up because we were just talking about that at dinner tonight. And speaking of dinner, let me tell you guys about a really neat resaurant on the SW corner (3 doors to the south on third) of 3rd and San Carlos, accross from McDonalds, called Hally K Ono. The food is excellent, everthing is made fresh, the people who own it are really nice. I have been there several times but tonight, I just noticed a wheelchair lift. The steps are fairly steep b/c it’s an old house. I asked them if the city made them put that in and they said yes. They also told me that they had to do a seismc (sp) retro-fit on the house. The wheelchair lift thing costs around $15,000.00, Lord only knows what the retro-fit cost. I asked them if the city or RDA helped them out at all and they said no. Now this business has been struggling since it opened about a year and a half ago. It has a nice front patio and several rooms inside. The food is eclectic, from fish to steaks, really good salads and ribs, homemade garlic fries and several sauces that are made there to dip them in. I know i’m rambling, but this is important. First – please go to this small business and support it, you’ll be glad you did. Second – Why can’t we do something for this small business? A perfect example of what we were talking about. It makes me mad and yes, I will say something to someone at city hall, I just don’t know who. I want it to matter when I say it.
And now we’re getting a recommendation from staff for a 25% increase in garbage rates.
There are still a few of last weeks Metros with the Zero One coverage @ the rack on the south east corner of San Fernando and Market. There is also an information booth in the Circle of Palms outside the museum.
Have fun!
#16 and #19
Many, along with me, feel the same as you and dream that the Guadalupe could be more like San Antonio. We do have some special problems here, including fish and planes. We could not fish in the riverpark for a variety of reasons. Mercury and protected salmon in the are just two reasons. Building a lake also creates problems for these returning salmon, if it is attached to the river. In the past 30 years they tore down hundreds of homes, including my grandparents old house, for safety reasons, because they were located in the flight path of the airport. The airport and the city’s policy of not allowing structures within 100ft. of the raparian coridor are two other reasons why restaurants are not located on the banks.
Safety and nature preservation are two very important issues, and the council is like the water in the Guadalupe, they follow the path of least resistance. I’m sure if we had a mayor and council that had any vision we could overcome these obstacles, along with others, and create a park that would make all of San Jose proud. Incuding its fish and planes. At this point, I think the best thing we as citizens can do is join “The Friends of the Guadalupe Riverpark and Gardens” and vote for some new city leadership.
#12 JMO
Historic preservation and public art help bring people downtown, so they will spend money, helping the businesses make a profit and stay in business.
#24: It hasn’t happened yet. What brings people downtown at night are the clubs.
#24 I’m at the office downtown today. I went out for lunch. Very few restaurants are even open, since they are acutely aware that downtown is a ghost town over the weekend—except for next weekend when we have the Jazz Festival. There’s a scant few people downtown, and I’ll guarantee you that not a single one of them is here because of historic preservation or public art.
Your passion is not my passion. It is the passion of the few, like track and field or soccer in America, both of which do well in Europe, but not here.
Ask a thousand people if they visit a place for historic preservation of old buildings or the public art. If you get 10 positive responses, I’d be stunned. C’mon, that Markovitz (sp???) building was an eyesore, and Quetlzcoatl and the gold nude in the Gold Building are monumental jokes.
#26
Have you ever been to the Statue of Liberty, Coit Tower or The Space Needle? No one ever goes to see that public art. And how about the wasted money spent on preserving the historic Alamo, Cannery Row, Ferry Building, Boston’s State House and Smithsonian Buildings. No tourists ever go to see those buildings! I’m with you JMO, what we need in San Jose is to demolish the historic courthouse in St. James park and replace it with a stadium for tractor pulls.
JMO
You need to get out more if Quetlzcoatl and the Fox Markovitz are your best examples of public art and historic preservation in San Jose. Just think of how nice it would be to have the old Victorian City Hall. It could have served as a great historical museum in Chavez Park. Instead we have Quetzy. As for public art, we lost the Light Tower on Market and Santa Clara back in 1915, because we didn’t take care of it. Now there was a real work of public art, that was ahead of its time. It was built 125 years before Zero One. I also read that Eiffel came to San Jose before he built his tower in Paris. We need to learn from our past mistakes and not repeat them in the future. We need to think big and be willing to invest a dollar to get five in return.
#26, JMO
I suggest you read “The Ecomics of Historic Preservation” by Donovan D. Rypkema, published by Nation Trust for Historic Preservation. It may not make a preservationist out of you but it surely will educate you on the issue. If you are not willing to invest the $25, I’m sure the nice people at PAC might lend you a copy from their research library.
#26 JMO…You are right, the downtown is a ghost town during the day. No visitors, no historic preservation, few great works of public art.. That is my point. Others have asked you to name 5 great cities that do not have a strong historic preservation policy. You have never responded, why? I’m not sure how much you travel, but if you do, I’m sure you have seen all the tourists in Paris, London, Rome, Boston, Seattle and Victoria just to name a few. They are not there just for the nightclubs. John, I challenge you to name 2 cities that regret preserving their historic resources. If you can I will match you 20 to 1 with cities that regret having destroyed theirs. The problem with San Jose is, too many of its leaders have shared your lack of respect for our heritage in the past . Look where that has gotten us today. We live in a city that changes its logo every ten years, can’t agree on how to spell its name, pretends to be the capitol of Silicon Valley and destroys anything that might set it apart from any other city. How can we expect anyone to appreciate S.J., if we don’t respect it ourselves? Historic preservation is not my passion, no more than your disrespect for it is yours. I am a businessman and a past urban planner. My support for historic preservation is based on sound business and planning principles. My desire is to see San Jose be the best it can be. Historic preservation, public art, a great riverpark, special events, botique hotels and shops along with citizens and city leaders that share a vision are just a few of the things we need to make this city great. Your opinion on historic preservation seems to be based on emotion. Would you please back up your point of view about the lack of return on investment with regards to historic preservation and tourism, with some published studies. If you continue to rant about preservation without backing it up with independent data you will be no better than that guy who calls everybody Reedites. I’m sure you don’t want that!
#28: I don’t have a disrespect for historic preservation. What I have is different priorities—like superior police and fire protection, roads without potholes, schools that educate, hospitals well-staffed, well-maintained infrastructure.
I believe in the Sempervirens Fund, which solicits private donations, then buys up land privately to preserve it for future generations.
When our local and state governments cannot deliver the basics, they have to cut back somewhere. So, to those of you who believe passionately in preserving old and sometimes ugly buildings, I say you should follow the Sempervirens model—raise private money and buy the buildings and fix them up.
When we get back to budget surpluses again, after all the basics are taken care of, then we can assist you with government money.
JohnMichael O’Connor writes:
“So, to those of you who believe passionately in preserving old and sometimes ugly buildings, I say you should follow the Sempervirens model—raise private money and buy the buildings and fix them up.”
That’s my point, that not all old buildings deserve preservation just because their old. it’s good that the train station on Cahill street got fixed up, for example, but we shoudn’t cry “historic preservation” every time a building is slated for demolition. Of course, if the only reason to demolish a building is to build a parking lot then we might want to preserve the building.
Is there a web site that has photos of buildings that were demolish that folks think should have been preserved?
#31 JMO
I am sick of your kind expecting me to pay for your special interests. I have payed for private education, why sould I have to pay for others public education, just because you and you kind think it’s your passion? As for me paying for your streets to be fixed, why should I pay so you can pollute my air with your gas guzzeler?
I walk and ride a mountain bike. If you want streets and schools so much, why don’t you go out and pay for them yourself, like the Sempervirens? Take a long look in the mirror.
JMO
Why is it that you didn’t resond to #27 with any statistics? Can you site some great cities that do not have a stong historic preservation policy? How about some cities that regret preserving their heritage? Give us some facts. As for wanting to see an example of preservationists putting their money where their mouth is, all you have to do is look out your office window at River Street. I suggest you rid yourself of your emotional feelings about HP and take up #30’s recommendation to read The Economics of Historic Preservation.
#32 Hugh
You make a good point. Old buildings should not have to be saved just because they are old. That is why the city, state and feds have set up strict criterions that must be met before they qualify as a landmark. Old buildings are destroyed on a regular basis in San Jose and historic preservationist don’t say a word. PAC SJ has a policy that they don’t get involved unless a building meets the city’s strict criterions’. It is even tougher to meet state and federal requirements. There are many benifits to preserving historic buildings, jobs, tourism, giving a city a sence of pride, place and continuity. It is what sets one city apart from an other . Owners of these buildings get to use the state historic building code and many times get discounts on property taxes.These restored buildings also save natural resources and put less demand on our landfills.
You have a great idea about a website that has pictures of “Lost Gems”. If you have lived here a long time I’m sure you will remember many of them. The old City Hall in the plaza, the Hall of Records on ST. James and First, the U.A. Theater, the Vandome Hotel on North First, several 1700’s adobe stuctures from the pueblo, destroyed in the 50’s and 60’s, and dozens of beautiful schools that had to be destroyed for safety reasons in the 70’s. We now have the technology to retrofit them. History San Jose’s bookstore is filled with books containing pitures of these and other great destroyed buildings. I’m sure many other bloggers here can remember other great buildings we demolished in the name of progress. Last year both Cindy Chavez and Chuck Reed voted to destroy a building that met the city’s landmark criterions. The landmark was destroyed to build a parking garage. They made no attempt to work with preservationists to come up with a viable solution. The courts found the councils vote in violation of The California Environmental Act. By not following the preservationist advice it resulted in wasting over three million of our tax dollars.
35….
Years ago there was a building downtown that looked like an old Egyptian ruin. Anybody else remember more about it? I know it was not part of the Rosecrution Order. I think it was a doctor’s office or an artist studio.
#31 JMO
It is a vicious circle. You say we can’t afford historic preservation because the city has no money. The city would have more revenue if they could attract more tourists, conventions, corporate headquarters and anchor retailers in the downtown. San Jose loses out to its competitors, like Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Diego, Sacramento, Monterey and San Francisco. All of these cities have strong policies that respect and build on their architectural heritage. They give visitors a feeling of continuity and tradition. Visitors, corporations and residents all want to be a part of a community enriched by heritage and culture. Big cities, in many ways, are like colleges. A diverse group of people come from all over the world and form a community. If the university is able to make its student body feel part of its rich traditions and culture, like Notre Dame, Yale or Harvard, they are able to attract and keep the cream of the crop. Students will stay loyal to and speak well of the institution long after they have left. They will also be more likely to give back to that community in the future. On the other hand we have San Jose State U. They have demolished almost all that gave it a feeling of tradition and, until recently, haven’t even taken advantage of its rich past. Few alumni feel connected to the school or support its programs. SJSU is last on the list for many of the top students when they are looking to attend college because there is no feeling of “there”, there. The same goes for the City of San Jose. Economic times are tough for San Jose right now, the cause is due to a vatrety of issues. If there is no money right now for the City to put towards historic restorations, the least they could do, is prevent the demolition of our important historic resources. They need to send developers a clear message: if you want to be part of San Jose, you need to show us some respect. IBM building #25 and Lowes is a good place to start.
#37: Puhleeeze—the difference between the cities you mention and San Jose is not merely a difference in historic preservation policy.
I’ve asked more than once here what’s so great about #25? Is it the architecture, or merely what happened there?That Markovitz (sp?) ya’ll hued and cried about was butt ugly.
What it boils down to in the end is different strokes for different folks/different priorities. Yours and mine are not the same, but at least we can be respectful to each other, unlike other bloggers like RC.
good luck in your quest. But if you put as much energy into seeking private $$ as the PAC does in litigation, you might not need the city’s help for a while until the economy turns. That’ll be tough when policies of RDA & City just gave a big Kohls to Campbell, and we lose the sales tax.
#38
Markovitz Building…A building can be “butt ugly” to some and, still be historic. The Eiffel Tower was “tres laide” to many Parisians.
IBM Building #25…It is most important for its overall campus design.-a design that reflects a mid-century California public school rather than a turn of the century industrial work site. It was a radical departure from anything done before regarding the way workers were housed and how those environs affected their creativity. IBM #25 played an important role in shaping the way Silicon Valley designed their industrial complexes. The Silicon Valley then led the way in designing buildings for hi- tech companies throughout the nation and the world.
#38 JMO
Let me first point out that PAC has never had to spend a dime of their own money on making sure the State and City follow their own laws. That is because they don’t file frivolous lawsuits and have never lost a case in court. They however have had to spend a lot of their time, and have lost some valuable historic resources. In the past, PAC has been forced to be a reactive organization, because the public has not been included in the early stages of the development process. After losing in court several times, the city is slowly changing its ways, and so are some of the players. Developers, the city and preservationist are finding that it is better for all, if they work together from the start.
Recently PAC has hired a knew Exec.Director, who has very impressive credentials. As long as our city leaders follow the law, I think you will see PAC spending a lot more time with public and private partnering and hopefully a lot less time in litigation. You may have also noticed that recently a lot more of the preservationists are talking about the economics of historic preservation and how it is good for buisness. If preservationists want to work with developers, they must be able to speak their language. PAC’S new President is a well respected local businessman, Joe Mellehan. Joe says that he didn’t get involved with PAC because he likes old stuff, he got involved because it is good for the business of San Jose. Presently, the only thing preservationists are asking from city hall, is they follow the spirit of state law (CEQA)
and stop destroying our valuable historic assets. That shouldn’t cost the city a dime today, and in the longrun deliver an outstanding return on investment.
#38
As for the Markovitz and Fox Building being butt ugly, that is your subjective opinion. The fact is, it qualified to be a city landmark under the city’s own criterions. The state requires there be an extra layer of review before an historic resource is hastily demolished. The city did not follow the law.
IBM Building#25… It qualifies as a city, state and national landmark for a variety of reasons. Please see past posts on what criterions are used. It is this areas earliest and finest architectural example of mid-century campus design used for business. It is also given value for what was invented there. To learn more about this building and others, go to http://www.preservation.org . You can read back issues of Continuity, or you can join PAC SJ, by calling 998-8105. Good luck.
#41—Touche re Eiffel Tower, and thanks for the 4-1-1 re #25. It changes my view of the issue.
#42—Thanks for having an open mind.
Respectfully
The most open minded and informative bloggers are surely here on sji – congratulations. TMcE
Regarding #16 and #19 and a riverfront park on the Guadaloupe River:
Doesn’t anyone remember that San Jose was once a seaport on San Francisco Bay?
40 years ago I used to tow my boat to Alviso. People built boats there then, and I would use the old launch ramp to fish or just gunkhole in the South Bay. Some years later, a marina was built with nice new launch ramps and ample parking. This was not maintained, however, and what had been a lively small harbor decayed, becoming silted and unusable to this day.
Why does San Jose seemingly ignore San Francisco Bay to it’s north? People identify Oakland and San Francisco with the bay and ocean. There is some romance to that that adds to the image of both cities. But where is San Jose?
The orchards are long gone, yet San Jose could easily become a modest seaport again, attractive to tourists and residents alike, and still reserve vast areas for tidal marshes. Am I the only one that envisions this?
Carl Hanks
#45 and others, I hope you enjoy this account of the area over 150 years ago.
Oct.19,1841…..Lt. Charles Wilkes, commander of the United States Exploring Expedition, and spy, entered the Golden Gate.
Wilkes and a Lt. Hudson boarded a small boat that was powered by a stong breeze to the south. Their destination was the Embaracadero (wharf) de Santa Clara. They sailed through the twisting channels and entered the Guadalupe River at what is now known as Alviso. As darkness fell, thousands of nesting birds flew as the Americans passed. By midnight, they decided to get out of the boat and head for a distant adobe. As they walked along the ox-cart rutted road, they were attacked by a pack of dogs. They threw bones at the dogs, as they ran for the adobe. Wilkes pounded on the door of the home of Don Luis Maria Peralta. Peralta shared his home and food with the explorers. The next day they rode off for the mission, on horses Peralta had given them.
This account paints a picture of what Alviso, the Guadalupe River and Californios were like over 160 years ago. The navigable port & river, the wildlife and way of life are long gone. Our government spying and our rutts in the road continue. It is up to us to control what will or will not be here for generations to come.
Old San Jose