I spent the weekend in “The City” (you know, the other one, San Francisco), much to the surprise of my friends who call the “Foggy City” home. Some were ready to disown me because it has been about six months since I last made my way up 101 to spend some time there. I had to stop and think about why that was and all I could think of was: It’s a gigantic pain.
I guess that means I may be maturing? Well, maybe I shouldn’t go that far. Perhaps I am just getting lazier with age, but it just seems that the thought of driving up to San Francisco, spending 45 minutes looking for parking, staying out all night (definitely the fun part) and then sleeping on some friend’s couch or futon is looking less appealing than a night in Los Gatos or Santana Row and then going home to my own bed. The alternative is waking up with a crook in my neck and driving home tired and, most likely, impaired. (Not to mention that the ride home can feel like it takes four hours.) I can’t even count how many times I made that drive in my 20s, and now it takes me six months to recover from one weekend and make it back up there to do it again.
Another thing I noticed is that, yes, the single life in San Francisco is amazing. There are so many good-looking, fun, successful people, all having a great time. However, that romance only goes so far because I have never seen so many 30- and 40-somethings that really have no plans to settle down—EVER—and that is often what happens when you live in San Francisco. It is a phenomenon that has not yet been understood: the forever-single yuppie with no plans to marry. Why would you when, seemingly, something better is waiting in the next sidewalk café or bar?
Now, let’s be honest; getting married isn’t necessary, I know, but San Francisco city life tends to make it obsolete. The amazing thing is we all might have a better chance of finding someone in San Jose than in San Francisco. Though we complain that they are hiding on the bike trails or in their cubicles at work, or that there aren’t as many cool places to meet them, single gals like me just may be better off here because there isn’t as much to choose from and as much temptation for the men. I never thought that having a worse nightlife would help me out in some way. What a nice change it is to be pleasantly surprised.
So next time you go out and think, “Wow, this place sucks” or “I wish we had more to do” or “Where are all the cute men/women?”—just look at the bright side. If there aren’t that many good places to go or things to do, then all the good people will congregate at a select few places. And if there aren’t many suitable mates to choose from, then you, being suitable yourself, will look like the prize pig at the County Fair. (That is good, right?) I always say you have to put yourself in a position to be successful.
So if you are single, cheer up and take advantage of San Jose and all it doesn’t have to offer. You may be better off. And absolutely do not, for any reason, move up to San Francisco.
this is a post by someone who likes to live in the suburbs—which is ok. but san francisco has an enormous amount to offer besides the nightlife.
how about taking in a world class museum (or 4), walking along a massive stretch of beach (or 3), eating at a unique/charming/hole in the wall restaurant (hundreds), visiting vibrant neighborhoods (dozens), or any number of things that san jose and most suburbs don’t have.
san jose is a fine city—but it is suburban one.
san francisco is a city—with all the benefits (and warts) that cities have.
take the train…its more fun…
dc
Because San Jose has nearly 200k more people than San Francisco, does this technically make “The City” San Jose’s most beautiful suburb? I think so! Go SJ!!
Ahh, San Francisco, home of the Golden Gate! Nice that they use a geographic feature, such as a gap in the coastline, as a selling point.
Having lived and grown up in the shadow of ‘The City’ for my entire life, I’m always amazed at how fervently some try to promote it. Dirty streets and inadequate parking, expensive real estate and overtly opulent ‘destinations’; leaves me with little to long for.
I will agree that there are some spectacular views. Some of the best museums outside of the Smithsonian are located in SF also. However, since its growth and importance from the time of the gold rush, the truly wealthy always looked for better climates for their ‘retreats’. Atherton, The Redwoods (Redwood City), among others prospered.
San Jose was the first Civil settlement in California, and the original Capital of the State (not Monterey; that was the military capital). That’s a bit of history you can hang your hat on. You may have to look a bit harder, but we have more than enough firsts, and ‘greats’ to shine on our own.
Maybe they can sell off their bridge to the unsuspecting, but as for me, I’m proud of San Jose.
Aside from an occasional traveling show, which museum in San Francisco is world class. I can’t imagine what your talking about.
Just because ours are worse, doesn’t make SF museums world class.
The old adage “it’s a nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there” fits perfectly in regards to San Francisco. It is nice in many regards, but it’s colder, foggier and attracts a world’s worth of hipster douchebags (but natives I love). It’s not like I’m going to museums every day. And the “beach” is usually about as appealing as the shores of the Bering Sea. I have many friends who chose to move there after college, falling in love with the idea of living on a postcard. If they like it, more power to them. It’s just not my thing. I don’t care if I can see Coit Tower from my house, even if it has been in a thousand movies. I manage just fine down here in the place nobody’s ever heard of.
#1: Is most of San Jose really any more suburban than Sunset, Parkside, Richmond, etc? Is there any nightlife west of Twin Peaks? Each city has its lively core and its dead shell.
Add all the good things about SJ and all the good things about SF together. The sum will not equal the greatness of Detroit. Detroit is the greatest city in the world. Detroit has it all, – culture, entertainment, four seasons, people, diversity, energy, warmth, friendliness and a positive can-do attitude. 88% of Detroit residents can afford the median priced home. The median price of a Detroit home is 128,000 dollars.
So while you phonies, fakes and frauds deal with crime, homelessness, poverty, corruption, laziness, arrogance, unaffordable housing, unemployment, obesity, earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, war, famine, melanoma and littering, I will be living large in beautiful Detroit.
Go Pistons, Go Red Wings, Go Tigers!!!
#3 – Amen! I never use “South Bay” for that reason. Let’s call San Francisco “Northern Silicon Valley”
Let’s also not forget that SF county and city are one. If we counted San Jose’s immediate neighbors, we would be twice as populous on paper.
#2 david is correct. You should really try Caltrain the next time you visit the City, esp if you’re going to end up crashing at a friend’s house and don’t have to worry about getting back in the wee hours of the morning. You can eliminage the hung over return drive and just sleep. Of course, the evening Caltrain service and the SF terminal can be drawbacks, but maybe one day MUNI will get it’s streetcar network working properly.
#7 – We’re dealing with obesity here, and Detroit isn’t?
Funny, webMD shows Detroit as the third fattest city in America as of 2005, down from #1 in 2004. You’re living large alright!
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050105/americas-fittest-fattest-cities
And as for affording a house – well, that’s if you have a job:
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on May 2, 2007….
“The divisions with the highest unemployment rates were Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Mich., 7.6 percent…” [and another locale in Massachusetts].
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.nr0.htm
Devon, I don’t doubt that the median price of a home in Detroit is $128K. That speaks volumes about the city you claim is the greatest in the world. If that were true, the median price would be more like $1.28M. Continuing with this measurement, the median price in SJ is around $750K. It may not be the greatest city in the world, but it offers a much more desirable and non-hostile natural enviroment that leaves Detroit in the dust.
To borrow from a previous blog, there aren’t any Detroit residents leaning on shovels during their overly long winters. Only about four more months before you’ll be needing to dust yours off.
San Jose continues to be embarrassed about its own history. We love to remember the past by putting up a plaque where something historic used to be. We’ll never be SF because SF is proud of who are they are and who they were. Until San Jose can appreciate its past as well as its future we will always live in the shadow of the “The City”.
#7: Here was some stats on your glorious city.
Detroit Population
1980: 1,203,339
1990: 1,027,974
2000: 951,270
2003 estimate: 879,575
Percent change, 1990–2000: -7.4%
U.S. rank in 1980: 6th
U.S. rank in 1990: 7th
U.S. rank in 2000: 14th
That might explain the low housing costs.
#12: San Francisco has more history. It’s been a big city for much longer. San Jose is an old town but a relatively new city. Down the road, there will be much more to cherish. Until then, we’ll just look bitter and spiteful like Oakland.
Single Gal provides yet one more reason to put a stop to the current BART to San Jose fiasco. If BART is built it needs to be on the West side of the Bay between San Jose and Frisco, our little sister city.
SF has more history and they also have more historic buildings. We like to demolish ours and replace them with cookie cutter buildings that look like everyplace else. There will be no “down the road” for us because by then we won’t have any historic buildings left. Our City Council already has another historic building designated for demolition (IBM 25) and they can’t wait to find more. But just wait until you see the cool plaque that be erected in its place.
Devon,
And if you don’t believe #10 about that “safest big city” stuff, next time you’re out this way be sure to attend of our many illegal immigration rallies where you’ll be sure to hear one of our many “compassionate” politicians proclaim “You are safe” in their very best span-glish.
It’s practically become a cliche around here – in fact “You are safe” might just put San Jose on the cultural map kinda like Rice-a-Roni did for Frisco.
As for the rest of this “we’re better” thread, SF, Detroit, Oakland, etc. who really cares? What’s worth caring about is keeping Milpitas in our rearview mirror.
I move to remove posts #12 & #15 and replace them with plaques.
Single Gal, read the Sunday travel section of New York Times. San Jose has a real lively downtown core which means it’s “The City” of the Bay Area, not SF! San Jose is #1 single spot for single women because of all those men here. That’s according to Oprah Winfry. Quit idolizing San Francisco and get it right
Devon, are you crazy?! Do you need to get your head examined? I was just there 5 months ago in downtown Detroit, and it’s nothing like downtown SJ or SF, although Detroit has made some improvements to downtown with a baseball and football stadiums and gambling. Woodward st. has a looong, loong way to go. However, I do like Martius Park with borders and that high tech company(Computeware) that recently moved its headquarters there, but downtown San Jose smokes downtown Detroit. Downtown Detroit is still sleepy with maybe pockets of activities, especially in Greektown. C’on, that place is still run-down. Maybe 15 it’ll be like San Jo. By the way, the pop in Detroit is 892,000 and San Jose’s is 974,000. Nice try, Devon.
It is laughable that folks still argue about who is better and bigger between SF and SJ. It takes more than population to make a great city. SJ has the population but little else that goes along with being a great city. SF has always been and will always be “the city”. There is nothing wrong with that. As long as the villagers of San Jose keep huffing and puffing that we are better than SF and bigger than Detroit. etc. you simply make the argument for others that SJ will never be “the city”. You can throw around all the cute little slogans you want, you stomp your feet and tell people we’re almost 1 million strong, you can say we might have a baseball team that lives 25 miles from here (if the A’s actually move to Fremont), and you can say are mayor has more indictments than your mayor, etc. etc. and it still won’t make SJ a world class city. Until we are comfortable with what we are, a decent place to live and close to a lot of great locations, we will never grow up. Great cities don’t have to keep telling people they are a great city.
Here is the aforementioned NYT article. Obviously, it could have elaborated a ton more, but it still paints a nice picture.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/travel/20next.html
Hugh cannot let BlandBung’s obvious troll stand. Besides making the worst kind of generalities about the million or so folks in San Jose, s/he assumes that everybody, if they could afford it, would move north. This is patently untrue because many people who work in Santa Clara County would rather not spend half their non-work time commuting. There’s a reason that real estate in SCC is so expensive.
But speaking as a former resident of a real city, I can say “been there, done that.” And my former city could swallow 10 San Franciscos. But I’d rather live in a 3-bedroom condo near downtown SJ than a studio co-op on 30th Street. After 17 years of the latter, it was time to move on.
#10 – What is worse, being physically obese in Detroit, or financially obese in Los Gatos?
#10 – Unemployment can be a good thing. It provides opportunity, a chance to re-invent yourself, to take stock of yourself.
#11 – I view home prices like golf scores, the lower, the better. In the last year I’ve shaved two strokes off my golf game and my home value has fallen 15k, both numbers are headed in the right direction.
#11 – Have you ever shoveled snow? It provides a wonderful workout for the legs, arms, heart and lungs. Just remember to bend at the knees.
#13 – 400,000 people have left Detroit in the last 30 years, not to get away from Detroit, but to fanout across other regions of America, to help other Americans. Think of them as missionaries, mentors and ambassadors, to spread the “Spirit of Detroit”. Some of the top silicon valley companies (Google, Cisco, Intel, Oracle, Apple and Adobe) all implement some variation of the “Detroit Business Model”.
#16 – I like Milpitas. Also, I like Daly City and Colma on the peninsula. Richmond, Vallejo and San Pablo seem to be charming communities too.
#18 – I’ve had my head examined, the doctor looked inside and found nothing.
No, 22, SJ is not the burbs because it’s less than SF in some regards. Its the burbs because most residents flee dowtown to their homes after work, with little desire to return to what passes for a downtown here.
I say that not as an insult, but as a fact. The streets of “downtown” are deserted many nights and all day Sat. & Sun. Most restaurants “downtown” don’t even open for lunch Sat. or Sun. FRankly I prefer the burbs to the City. And no, Bung #26, I don’t watch American Idol. In fact, I don’t even have a TV at home.
Being The City, or even A city, is not a goal to which we should aspire, as far as most folks who live in San Jose care about.
#26 Please add “raise a family, moved so that kids could attend better school, etc” to your list.
“The population of children living in the city has dropped by more than 33 percent since 1960, and today there are just 112,000 young people under the age of 18 living in San Francisco, Newsom said.”
San Francisco – a city that knows family values
Hugh Jardonn (funny name-made my 6 year old laugh)-thanks for proving my point that lack of affordability, not desirability, dictated your move to “da burbs”. I just hope you were able to transfer your MENSA membership during the move.
If the politicans in the 60 and 70’s had left San Jose alone it would be a hugh Los Gatos beautiful and vibrant. Take a look at some of the old photos and then if you see any of those old politicans ask them what happened. Why they distroyed a beautiful city. Maybe someone ought ot write about them and what they did to the city.
#26: Stereotypes go both ways. You’re either a mechanical yuppie (a la American Psycho), an image-obsessed urban slut (Sex and the City), or the “weird” (“sophisticated” in your mind) kid from your little town in Iowa that wanted to see the world so you moved west and decided to confine yourself to a 7×7 square and now you think you have it all mastered. Whichever you are, you think your address will help define you, since you have trouble doing that on your own. You flaunt the fact that you live in San Francisco and look down on people way down south in Daly City. You’ve probably lived there a couple months and decided that you take issue when people say “Frisco” because you heard your fellow middle-class caucasian transplant say that such term is a major faux pas. You hate Los Angeles, even though it’s full of the same people who think moving to California will somehow make them significant in the “scene,” whether that be movies or pretend garage rock. You don’t like sports at all but don’t want the 49ers to move, just because San Francisco is San Francisco. You listen to “indie” rock which is so independent that MTV pushes it on you 24/7 until you drop several hundred on a Coachella ticket to cram yourself in with thousands of other like-minded “unique” people just to see Modest Mouse. The self-importance is much more disgusting than some bland suburbanites in monstrous stucco temples.
Of course, that’s not everyone in San Francisco (or even most), but it’s a large chunk of the population. Hell, many of them are my friends. They also watch American Idol, much to your dismay.
#21: San Jose is “the burbs” simply because it’s less than San Francisco in some regards? Is San Francisco resting at the lowest tier on the “What Qualifies As A City” Scale? Why must there always be the comparisons? San Francisco can be San Francisco. Just let San Jose progress at its own pace. We’ll see what happens. It’s foolish to say that a city which has grown exponentially in our lifetimes is just going to stop and remain stagnant for the sake of your argument.
Let me see if I have this straight:
the facts that San Hoser has no night-life
and that San Francisco—the devil incarnate!—is
chock-full of “good-looking, fun, successful people,
all having a great time” is supposed to
be a _positive_ thing about San Jose!??!!!?
Get me the hell out of here!
An hour or two on Caltrain every day sounds like a _great_ deal
if the alternative is this sort of “single gal” “maturity”.
Even if the guy I hook up with ends up being an
unemployed bike messenger who needs to come out as gay,
I’ll me miles ahead of the golf slacks lumpen
style-free, conversation-free, no-life-outside-boring-work
scene that’s all the action I get down here.
Ugh! I’m out of here!
SG – regarding the singles scene in SFO, the pickings are made all that more interesting and/or challenging by the fact that you frequently have to first determine which “team” that particular single is playing for.
NTTAWWT.
Nam,
I am not sure which is more unsettling, your Wolfowitzian predications or your rage filled tirade…although I do appreciate the time you put into crafting your tome-must be a slow day at the nail salon.
I really wish I knew what you were referring to. I read your post with my head half-cocked like the RCA dog peering into a gramophone (early iPod) . I am a 43 year old married man with kids in private schools- and we all love living in San Francisco.
BB: You’re 43 and not above this pettiness? Please be more constructive than “MY CITY IZ MULTIKULTERAL N UR CITY IZ DUM.” This blog is not about knocking San Francisco or hyping San Francisco because, obviously, it’s not even about San Francisco. That place is merely a reference point. If you have so much pride in your city, at least appreciate that people are using it as a benchmark. Don’t come here to pick a fight and then criticize people that take issue by turning the tables on you. That does nothing but make you and other San Franciscans look arrogant, and that’s not a huge selling point. Ninety percent of us don’t want to live amongst pompous jerks, despite what you may think.
#34 – Blandbung – if San Francisco is such an outwardly superior place to live and raise children, then why aren’t your kids in public schools?
Or do your conversations with your neighbors primarily revolve around the pros and cons of SI versus Archbishop Riordan?
I would encourage you to consider the prior thread by Pierluigi Oliveri regarding the status of parks in San Jose, and then ask yourself whether or not the maintenance and upkeep of parks in SFO are any better (here’s a hint, they aren’t). Or if the crime level in SFO is lower than in SJC (another hint, it isn’t).
Even Mayor Goodhair is acknowledging that people with children are voting with their feet.
It’s up to you to live where you please, but you will also live the consequences of that choice. Just keep that in mind when you wonder why your kids are clustered in Justin Hermann Plaza with 6 earrings on their body, none of which are in their ears.
Having lived in either SF or SJ nearly my entire life this whole argument of which one is “better” seems so ridiculous to generalize to all people.
It completely depends on the type of lifestyle you want and the things that make you happy. Do you want your kids to have easier access to a soccer field and baseball diamond or a number of galleries? That’s a different answer for everyone.
Personally, I hate driving and the traffic gridlock of the suburbs so the City works better for me as I like to walk everywhere. But that doesn’t mean I don’t miss BBQ’ing in the backyard immensely this time of year or shooting hoops outside on nice summer evenings.
Fun topic but why does it have to be one way or the other? I love SF – I was born & raised there & might move back one day. Single Gal just needs friends with better sofas or maybe a guest room. :o)
I also love SJ. We have a great history here as well. That’s my thing & by the way, my hero is James Lick, an early SJ resident and key originator of the Valley of the Heart’s Delight – not in coining the phrase but rather by planting the first commercial orchards and then promoting them. Any of you ever visit Lick’s Mill? Yes, it’s been commercially preserved!
…and don’t knock some of San Jose’s new construction. I love the “new” downtown area. I don’t know how many of you were here in the sixties but it’s a major improvement. You might think SF is all about preservation of historic landmarks but that’s far from true. That city is continually reinventing itself – that’s what keeps it alive.
So celebrate what you love about each town and enjoy the best of both. I spent yesterday in SF and today in SJ and tomorrow night, I’ll be in Murphys. . . . and it’s all good!
Nam #13—sorry, but SJ is still not a city; it;s the burbs. It’ll still be the ‘burbs long after I’m dead.
Many parts of SF are a toilet, and will be long after I’m dead.
I lived in SF for 14 years or so, and would have trouble living there again..except maybe South Beach.
But there are lots more fun places there than here; and as for restaurants, sleepy Palo Alto has at least five times the good restaurants we have. But alas, even that drive is daunting after a few glasses of wine.
SF certainly has more and finer museums than SJ. Our “museum of art” is more like a “museum of craft, with occasional art”. Butg a visit ends up a weekend thing, since theatre, museums, etc. are followed by dinner with wine, so, driving home is verboten. It’s hard to get there for less than a grand any more.
“Museum of craft?” – that one’s totally wide of the mark.
We have nothing less than an absolute jewel of an art museum that consistently puts up truly engaging shows.
It seems that everyone except for #21 have never lived in San Francisco yet feel compelled to comment on its shortcomings. The reality is- given the financial means to do so-90% of you would choose to live in San Francisco. The other 10% enjoy NASCAR. Alas, you spend your weeks shackled to your unfulfilling desk jobs with other inane people and return home after a mind-numbing commute down the Capitol Expressway to a cramped apartment in a crappy complex. Conversations with neighbors (if you even know them) revolve around property values, the Sharks or American Idol. So you go to the gym in hopes of improving your outward appearance while your inner world remains unfulfilled. Pretty sad stuff, but I have lived in San Jose and I will tell you that life is exponentially much better now living in San Francisco. I encourage someone who has lived in SF and then been forced to move to San Jose (outsourced job, divorce, Meghan’s Law relo) to comment.
The DeYoung is a decent building (not in anyway spectacular) with a pitiful permanent collection. The old natural history museum had it’s charm but was hardly world-class. It was provincial and cute like most of “built” San Francisco. The new natural history museum isn’t finished so I won’t comment yet.
Hardly world class.
Let’s also not forget that San Francisco covers only 47 square miles and is 4 times as densely populated as San Jose. And that it has a higher daytime population due to commuters (not including tourists), while San Jose is the biggest city in the United States to actually lose population during the day when people go to work.
Sorry, just had to point this out for the person who mentioned that San Jose would be even bigger than San Francisco if it had a consolidated city / county government with Santa Clara County. As true as that point may be, San Francisco covers less land area than any city of more than 500,000 people in the United States (and the county is by far the smallest county in California – 1/28th the size of Santa Clara Co – and one of the smallest in the US). This is the only reason that San Francisco has fewer residents than San Jose.
Note that this is absolutely meaningless in determining which city is “better”. Different strokes for different folks as they say. I just don’t like to see stupid arguments bandied about, even on the comment section of a blog post. Having more people does not make San Jose the central city of the Bay Area, just as having a million more people than Manhattan does not make Brooklyn the central borough of New York City. San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley (who, even added together do not equal the land area of San Jose alone) make up the urban core of the region, and that’s just how it is.
Also, “world class museums” in San Francisco include the DeYoung and the Academy of Sciences (the 3rd largest natural history museum in the United States). If you’ve never been to these museums, you should check them out, though you should wait on the Academy’s new home to be completed in 2008.
I guess I have to agree with many of you that San Francisco is world class because of how they present what they have to offer. There are some shortcomings, as I see it, but they make up for it in many ways. San Jose has ground to build upon, but nobody seems to be doing the building. San Jose seems content with just being any city.
It’s easy to be iconoclastic but what would you suggest in place of the City’s not world-class museums? OK – the new De Young is ugly and their permanent collection is dated but they do arrange excellent guest exhibitions. I too await the Academy of Sciences—always my favorite. Then there’s the Asian Art Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, the Palace of the Legion of Honor, the Exploratorium, Zeum, the Maritime Museum and the Musee Mechanique. The latter is great fun for us old-timers who recall Playland and Sutro’s Baths (See http://www.historysmith.com/Adolph.html).
San Jose offers the SJ Museum of Art, the Tech Museum (one of my first computers, the CDC 160A, is there), the Rosicrucian Museum, the Children’s Discovery Museum as well as the San Jose History Museum.
. . . and what’s this “built” and provincial business? San Francisco compares most favorably to Boston and New York. If SF (and by inference SJ) is so lacking, we await your suggestions.
#41 – I don’t see it as contentment at all. Rather, I see it as discontent from the small communities that make up the city toward anything that makes the city as a whole great. We’re still caught up in the parts (neighborhoods) being greater than the whole (city). Until we can find a galvanizing force (a leader or an issue) that will overcome the neighborhood infighting, we will never be a “great” city.
To that extent, our little neighbor to the north is a great role model. They have strong neighborhoods, but no neighborhood is greater than the city as a whole. They get it. When will we?
SF compares favorably to NY? Huh? Boston? sure not that Boston is all that special.
The deYoung and the Palace of the Legion of Honor would make up a rather undistinguished corner of the Met. Like I said earlier there is the occasional traveling show but they are few and far between and there hasn’t been an outstanding one since the new deYoung opened. The international Arts and Crafts exhibit was OK.
Zeum? by almost all accounts and that includes my kids, it stinks. Hey. SJ’s Children’s discovery museum is far better as both architecture and attraction (and it ain’t world class).
I volunteered for Frank O when he was still running the Exploratorium and I still think it is a better idea than reality. It may however have had a long-distance influence on the Monterey Bay Aquarium which is world-class. Still the concrete faux-classical copy of the plaster faux-classical copy does have its charm, if only they can clean up the slimy pond. The site however like all of SF is spectacular. The SFMOMA is a boring shopping-mall wanna-be with a lousy permanent collection. The deYoung is spectacular by comparison.
But, I’m with you on the the Musee Mechanique. Still it was much better at the old Cliff House. Fisherman’s wharf is well honky-tonk tourist trap anywhere.
Wanna discuss the “built” environment. Name a single world-class building in SF. I said “building” so the the GG bridge doesn’t count. I can’t think of one.
And another thing, name 3 contemporary buildings by 3 “name” architects in SJ. The first two are easy. Can you name the 3rd?
Boston – Yeah, it’s special. New York’s a treat and Washington, well, it has the Smithsonian. As for the Met, if we had their budget, consider what we could do.
I agree that the Musee Mechanique was far better at the Cliff House but then, I liked the old Cliff House better as well. Still, all my memories are there. Fisherman’s Wharf was better when it belonged to the fishermen. The smell is gone and that’s a bad thing.
I don’t like skyscrapers so world class buildings? The Hallidie Building (1st glass facade) on Post, the Flood Building, City of Paris, those give me the warm fuzzies. I love to sip a Jack Daniels at the Top of the Mark with my wife and pick at sand dabs at the Taddich Grill, both landmarks with significance. I’ll bet you thought I’d point out the Transamerica Pyramid – nope! World-class? Not in terms of size and concrete. Skyscrapers don’t make a city. Criuse the Bay and look at the City’s skyline and shoreline. Unmistakable.
“Name” architects? I only know the ones who built the PPIE – best ever world’s fair. Willis Polk & Bernard Maybeck – those were architects with vision. Beaux Arts & Craftsman homes. The PoFA is wonderful – not intended to last more than a year, going on a hundred with lotsa patchwork. What’s a little green water? Yes, spectacular IS the word.
Hey, don’t forget our world-class mayors, characters every one. San Jose is working on that angle as well. :o)
Jim,
The great irony is that the building that San Jose will most likely be known for is a homeless shelter.
Two ideas,
1) We need to simply stop comparing San Jose to San Francisco, simply stop. It’s kinda like a family, when you are constantly being compared to a successful, but distant cousin. San Fran is 45 minutes away, yet a million miles away in spirit and ways of life.
2) W should push to change the name of Santa Clara County to San Jose County. Just like San Francisco County and LA County. Lets do that and watch the paradigm shift.
I usually say “I hate San Francisco” just out of contempt for people that put down San Jose.
The reality is, is that San Francisco is a great city. There is no doubt about it, however San Jose is more suitable for me and my lifestyle and my personality and that’s why I choose to live here.
WG Dad – You’re unfortunately right – until we get a handle on the homeless situation AND health care, edifices won’t matter.
As for Weezy & girlfromthenet – the two citys are bookends. Different but holding up everything in the middle. As for one city/county? There are drawbacks.
Hey, new book out – Gables and Fables: a Portrait of San Francisco’s Pacific Heights. Read it this weekend. It’s a wonderful view of some great homes and structures. My friend Kit Haskell illustrated it. Find it on Amazon, Barnes & Nobles or better, at your local independent bookstore. Well worth the read.