That has nothing to do with the quality of SJ's downtown, though. The best urban neighborhoods worldwide don't have particularly tall buildings. Even in Manhattan, the best, most vibrant neighborhoods tend to be midrise.

SJ has a weak downtown because's it's essentially a giant postwar Sunbelt suburb, and the SV corporate behemoths are located elsewhere. If Facebook, Apple and Google were downtown, yeah, things would be more vibrant.

The difference is that San Jose grew up independent of SF. It's an independent city, with it's own character. It isn't like some random white flight sprawlburb of Detroit.

San Jose is also really freakin far from SF. It was never a bedroom suburb for people working in SF. Of course suburban sprawl eventually engulfed the whole distance between the cities.

So what? Cities are not static. It might have sprung up because of nearby SF and served as an exurb for decades but it is evolving into something different and a city in its own right. The east coast has had centuries of development where as the west coast is relatively new with a few sporadic exceptions like San Francisco.

Wrightville (later Hull, later still, Gatineau) was founded years before Bytown (later, Ottawa). Regardless, Ottawa is clearly the centre of this region, hence why it prefaces Gatineau in the CMA sweepstakes. Things change for sure.

I believe New Westminster was also founded before Vancouver.

Maybe Boston wouldn't exist if it weren't for decisions made in London (England). :)

Yes, Stanford is there because of San Francisco. But San Jose is not a direct result of San Francisco sprawl, which is the point that was attempting to be made.

Regarding the Baltimore/Washington analogy... It makes more sense if you consider Baltimore to be the analogy of San Francisco, and Washington the analogy of San Jose.

Stanford definitely isn't there because of SF.

SJ, while sprawly and not traditionally citylike, was historically unrelated to SF. It's 50 miles away, and was its own city, when the stretch between the two cities was farmland. Obviously now they're part of the same region.

It most definitely is there because of San Francisco. The purpose was to create a west coast Ivy League, and it was purposely built within proximity to what was at the time the largest city on the west coast.

In antes case, just compare the size of Downtown San Francisco and Downtown San Jose. It’s like comparing Downtown Detroit with Pontiac, Southfield or Troy

We are just talking about San Jose here because it has an unusual large city proper, as it’s not even the centre of Silicon Valley, itself a multinodal area.

The major reason it's there because that's where Leland Stanford owned land. Why he owned land there is likely because it was close to San Francisco (his other residence), but I don't really know (maybe someone does...). Maybe if he didn't own land proximate to San Francisco he would have purchased land. Who knows (anyway it was his wife who started Stanford). He also had a residence in Sacramento though (since he was governor for a while).

Anyway that's all mostly irrelevant to why Stanford became so important to Silicon Valley. I suspect if Stanford were in the middle of nowhere rather than close to San Francisco, it may not have become as important an academic center. Also, I don't know to what extent many of us are wrongly attributing Silicon's Valley growth to just Stanford. It's a nice story that helps my CV but there are other drivers too (e.g. NASA Ames).

No offense but you're not in the US and yet you're arguing Americans about their own cities. Plus you're still hung up with downtowns and densities which doesn't define cities and urban areas.

It’s OBVIOUS Stanford is where it is because there were a big and wealth city northwards, otherwise it could be on California-Oregon border instead in the middle of nowhere.

JManc, that’s ad hominem. No need to resort to that. My opinion has nothing to do with my current location as there are forumers who actually lived in both SF and SJ spouses the same opinion.

That's the reason that the university sits in its current physical location. But Stanford was created as a west coast analogy to Princeton, which necessitated that it be located in proximity to a major population center: San Francisco. Stanford's medical school also began in San Francisco.

I don't think that's particularly obvious.

When Stanford was founded, there was no big/wealthy city anywhere in the Western U.S. And it isn't like you need a nearby big city to have an elite university.

Cornell's Ithaca campus is in the middle of nowhere. The nearest cities of note are NYC and Toronto, both about 4 hours away. Duke, Dartmouth, Amherst and many other elite universities were established in relatively isolated settings.

Leland Stanford lived in Sacramento and San Francisco, so yeah, Stanford was established where it was based on him; it wouldn't be on the Oregon border. But I don't think it's accurate to say that Stanford was established based on a relationship with SF.

Seems like a spire height vs roof height discussion...Anyway, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA definitely seems like an offshoot of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA. If they can throw Newark into the NYC metro, I don't see why they should not through Riverside in LA's metro.

well, for starters, riverside already is in LA's CSA.

but beyond that, the comparison to newark and NYC is more than a little off.


as the crow flies:

downtown newark to lower manhattan: 8.5 miles

downtown riverside to downtown LA: 50 miles


that's kind of a big difference from a functional & psychological standpoint.

Agreed on all points. The Stanfords moved from Sacramento to a mansion on San Francisco's Nob Hill; when their son died young, they founded Stanford in his memory on land they purchased south of SF; the land was called (and sometimes still is) "the farm," which they also used as a weekend home; and the role Stanford played in creating today's Silicon Valley was important, but there were other critical players, without which the area wouldn't be what it is today.

*delete*

And Newark isn't just physically close, it's very connected. The PATH subway and the busiest commuter rail stretch in the Americas connects Newark to Manhattan. The airport is the closest of the major airports to Manhattan. The skyline is very visible from waterfront Brooklyn and Staten Island.

A "Riverside" of NY would be somewhere like New Haven or Trenton. A "Newark" of LA would be somewhere like Pasadena or Inglewood.