Is San Jose a suburb of San Francisco

It lies close to SF, it only has one channel (11-ABC) but has a much bigger population that SF.

Not sure I understand the question, completely. Are you asking if San Jose is essentially a bedroom community for SF? If so, the answer is no. The penninsula to the South ( Millbrae, Burlingame, etc. ) and Marin to the North fill that need. Not to mention the East Bay. SJ was always just a bit far for that sort of function, at least on a large scale.

Nope, San Jose is a former cow town that exploded along with Silicon Valley and is now sort of the central city of the Valley and the South Bay. That it lacks the cultural cachet and independent indentity ( and some of the amenities and trappings that go along with that ) of SF is merely a function of its relative youth as a large city. Its a bit like a puppy with huge paws that hasn’t grown into them yet. But it is making progress - witness the movement towards acquiring major league sports franchises ( irregardless of whether you regard that as good or not, it is a sign of increasing maturity as a community ).

And by the way, it is only a little bigger than SF population wise ( And only recently reached that point - although I think the gap is still growing a bit ).

  • Tamerlane

my pet peeve: irregardless.

there is no such word. use “regardless”

Chas E.: So noted :wink: . Regardless, I think I got my point across :smiley: .

  • Tamerlane

I grew up in the SF Bay area and I agree.
San Jose was a completely separate entity until urban sprawl, from both directions,(north and south) eventually made the entire peninsula one big urban area.

SJ is a city in it’s own right. It’s not a community of SF.

SJ used to be pretty nice about 10 years back but now it’s a lot like it’s brother to the north.

The Census Bureau tosses San Jose in with San Francisco and Oakland into one Consoldiated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). In 1999, the estimated population of San Jose was 867,675 and San Francisco’s was 746,777.
The whole CMSA is about 6.8 million people, but it goes all the way east to places like Fairfield and as far south as Watsonville.

I do know that if you live in Berkeley, you usually can’t pick up San Jose TV stations with rabbit ears because the Berkeley Hills tend to hamper the reception. I found this quite annoying when I was in grad school as I couldn’t watch Athletics games on TV, which were primarily broadcast on the San Jose station back in the late 1980s.

More than the entire peninsula. It also shades into Milpitas and Fremont and on up the East Bay. I consistently refer to this place as “The Bay Area” unless I’m specifically talking about something that uniquely applies to one municipality for this very reason.

I’ll reiterate that San Jose was always a city in its own right, though I never lived here before it was merged into the current conglomerate. San Jose had its own suburbs, but tended to apply pressure to incorporate them into the city limits. If you look at a map, you’ll notice San Jose sprawls all over the place with tentacles reaching out in a lot of directions.

I don’t know what people who grew up in San Jose would think of this observation, but if I try to separate out the influence of the Silicon Valley, the place reminds me of Denver in a lot of ways.

Sorry, Chas.E, looks like we’re losing the battle on this one.

Usage Experts Change Their Minds

When I visited Hawaii I could barely remember where anything is because the cities have hawaiian names. In california, there are a lot of spanish names, I suppose SJ & SF are.

Another thing to note. There are about 10 small cities between SF and SJ. Daly City, San Bruno, Burlingame, San Mateo, Hillsborough, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, etc.

Daly City might be erroneously considered as a suburb or SF because it’s the first city outside of SF, but SJ is it’s own city, and much bigger than SF areawise.

The whole thing from Sausalito (sp?) to Gilroy can be considered “the Bay Area” and most people consider SF “the city”. The area of Sunnyvale, Cupertino is probably considered “the Valley”, and SJ is just San Jose. Property values in SJ is lower than that of the Valley.

Sounds right. But you all will be glad to hear that each of those cities (SF, Oakland, SJ) are also endowed with their very own Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) designation, along with the Santa Cruz-Watsonville, Santa Rosa and Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa areas.

Huh, I would say that SJ is in the Valley. I mean, it’s the Santa Clara Valley, and San Jose is in Santa Clara County, so there you go.

The Bay Area, as I understand it (and my 10th grade History teacher informed us), is made up of nine counties. In a clockwise direction: San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo. Although some of the extremities of these counties are awfully far from the Bay itself. But it is larger than Major Feelgud stated. I mean, Sausalito is the first town north of the Golden Gate. So, San Rafael isn’t part of the Bay Area? I don’t think so. I live in south Sonoma County, and I would definitely say that I live in the Bay Area. If you can commute to San Francisco, you live in the Bay Area.

ir•re•gard•less Pronunciation: (ir"i-gärd’lis), [key]
—adv. Nonstandard.
regardless.

re•gard•less Pronunciation: (ri-gärd’lis), [key]
—adj.

  1. having or showing no regard; heedless; unmindful (often fol. by of).
  2. regardless of, in spite of; without regard for: They’ll do it regardless of the cost.

—adv.
without concern as to advice, warning, hardship, etc.; anyway: I must make the decision regardless.
*

Looks like the dictionary people have caved, and it is a word. :rolleyes:

Webster has a better say on it:
Main Entry:ir£re£gard£less
Pronunciation:ir-i-grd-ls
Function:adverb
Etymology:probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date:circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that there is no such word. There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Interesting how the board interprets a cut & paste from Websters dictionary…sigh

I guess that means that Sacramento and the foothills to the east of it are now part of the Bay Area. :slight_smile:

Amazing what hyperinflation of property values will drive people to do.

The Primary Metro Areas are esentially meaningless. Both Aurora, and Joliet are primary metro areas but Clearly they are suburbs of Chicago.

Same for Racine, Wisconson. It is part of the Combined Milwaukee Metro Area.

Does San Jose have it’s own TV? I can only see Channel 11(ABC) of the three networks.

Is SJ similar to Washington Baltimore. Clearly they are only 40 miles apart. People commute, use all each others airports, watch each others TV. Both Baltimore and Washington have their own network affiliates.

BTW SJ estimated population in 1999 was 909,000 while SF was 756,000

This is only true in the most recent sense, if you assume that anything now connected to Chicago without significant intervening open space is a suburb of Chicago. When I used to visit there in the '70s, Aurora and especially Joliet were seperate cities. Indeed, even today there would be a serious debate whether you can include Joliet as a suburb; there is a lot of open, undeveloped space between Joliet and Orland Park, Bolingbrook, etc.

San Jose is not a suburb of San Francisco because it isn’t a community filled primarily with people who have fled the inner city of San Francisco in search of better living conditions on the perimeter of the city. Using this sort of definition, Cupertino would be a San Jose suburb; Pacifica is a San Francisco suburb, and Carmichael is a Sacramento suburb. But this easy definition begins to loose value when trying to untangle an area as complex as the San Francisco Bay area, into which some would include Santa Rosa, Vacaville, Tracy and Monterrey/Salinas. An even worse example of urban mixing exists in the Los Angeles area, where contiguous urbanization exists all the way from Ventura to Banning, and from Santa Clarita Valley to San Clemente. What communities are suburbs of Los Angeles, and which ones of Santa Ana? Is Riverside a city in its own right, or does it act now as a bedroom community for LA/Orange County? Why does ANYONE live in Pomona? (oops, wrong issue :wink: )

San Jose is a city that, with its own suburbs, merged with the suburban complexes of San Francisco and Oakland. It all equates to the following: too damn many people living in too small an area. And for anyone outside of California who sits feeling superior about the issue, I might note an article in USA Today recently about how the whole area from Birmingham, Alabama to Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina can be thought of as one big city. YIKES!

Cupertino as San Jose “suburb”: in one sense, yes, in another, no. The whole idea of “suburb” breaks down for the Peninsula. If you take “suburb” to mean a bedroom community, places like Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Mateo, etc, represent something else. A large part of the population is working in one of those places, and commuting TO it, from a variety of places within the Bay Area. As mergers and relocations have caused corporate offices to play hopscotch up and down the Peninsula, people have been unable to rationally live near their work, even if they DID stay with the same employer and COULD afford housing. I’m not sure WHAT to call the Peninsula municipalities. In a lot of ways, the Peninsula is an entity in it’s own right.