5 ms·

Indeed. I wonder why there isn't more visible startup activity in SJ. Is it purely cultural/historical, where it emerged in SF and that remains the main region

Indeed. I wonder why there isn't more visible startup activity in SJ. Is it purely cultural/historical, where it emerged in SF and that remains the main regional attractor? Or are there other political/zoning reasons that make SF more attractive? I believe SF is giving some rich companies discounts to keep them around and reap (I assume) local taxes?

foobarian 7y ago
Can you give some comparison baselines to an uninformed East coaster? I thought SJ is part of the Bay Area and part of the skyrocketing housing cost crisis. Is that not true? If not what is an East coast analogy - e.g. Boston is to NYC what SF is to SJ? I knew a number of people who moved to the SV area, got FAANG type jobs way down in the Valley, and yet still chose to live in SF enduring hellish commutes. I never could quite understand why.
- JimboOmega 7y ago
  It's something very roughly and geographically like if SF is DC, then SJ is Baltimore. You could theoretically commute between them, but it's quite impractical. SJ is part of the Bay Area and absolutely has skyrocketing costs; it usually tops the lists of cities with the fastest growing housing prices. When I got a job in Redwood City (in between the two), I thought about moving there from SF, but found the costs to be about the same to live there versus SF. So I stayed in SF; it's definitely the anchor of culture of the Bay Area. For everything outside of work it's a much better place to be (for me, a single queer person, especially). I since got a job in SF and have no intention to move or work south again. In fact, the general trend has been for companies to move towards SF away from the peninsula, but mostly because it's where workers want to be. It's much more easier to get by without a car in the city than in the peninsula, it has much better clubs/nightlife, etc. For a young person, the city (meaning SF) is often much more appealing, though of course different people have different preferences.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Communting SJ-SF is, unfortunately, doable and done. It's an hour drive off-peak on 280, or about the same time (though crowded and being pinned dead on a rail timetable) by CalTrain express. Off-peak rail runs 90 minutes, and you've still got terminal-to-endpoint to deal with, which is problematic in both SF (improved with the Transbay Terminal), and SJ (residential regions sprawl for miles from the principle train stations).
    - JimboOmega 7y ago
      It is also done to commute from Baltimore to DC; for me it's just way too much. Redwood City was my limit and I really hated it, even with my motorcycle. I know there's a Google Bus from very near to me all the way to Sunnyvale, but I considered that still unacceptable. Of course, late at night I once did SF-SJ in 45 minutes. Having tried every solution at all times of day (e.g., biking to the caltrain, carpooling, etc) the "big bike" always wins; truly off peak the car is just as fast, in theory (and, hey, safer and more comfortable... but less fun). But, let's be honest all the solutions are stressful and sucky. You can trade time for stress to a certain extent, but you're spending a lot of both no matter what.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Oh, absolutely on "stressful and sucky". But far from theoretical. I'd not recommend it.
  - foobarian 7y ago
    Interesting. So if SJ does not seem to have the NIMBY cohort putting on the brakes for development, and has plenty of high-rises and other housing, and the prices are still sky-high - does that indicate that maybe more housing in SF is not going to help things as much as people usually think at first?
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      Of course. Density begets density. Housing is just like highways, add more, and demand will catch up. NYC is way more dense than the Bay Area. It’s not exactly a cheap place to live.
- xvedejas 7y ago
  I think the issue might be that plenty of people live in SJ relative to the amount of housing available, and so it's expensive just like SF, but it's far less developed / more sprawling, so there's less slack in the system for office space for small companies and fewer apartments for young workers.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > yet still chose to live in SF enduring hellish commutes. I never could quite understand why. I grew up in the South Bay. I can answer that question. The South Bay is eye bleedingly BORING by design. It's an absolutely terrible place for a teenager or young adult. Most of the fun stuff in the city is illegal in the south bay.
  - beamatronic 7y ago
    It’s illegal in San Francisco too, just more widely tolerated.
- twblalock 7y ago
  San Francisco (and Oakland) are the only real dense urban areas. The rest of the Bay Area is a suburb. San Jose is mostly houses and shopping centers. Most of the young people I know who work in tech want to live in or near San Francisco -- it has nightlife, restaurants, cultural events, etc. This is especially the case for people who are not from the Bay Area originally. When they start looking into buying property or having children a lot of them leave San Francisco and move closer to the suburbs.
- stephencanon 7y ago
  Oakland is the Bronx. SF is Queens. There is no Manhattan or Brooklyn. San Jose is central New Jersey. (This comparison is unfair to both Queens and the Bronx, mind you.)
- laurencerowe 7y ago
  San Francisco is the best you can do if you want a walkable lifestyle on the evenings/weekends and work in Silicon Valley. (Oakland/Berkeley are more interesting and more affordable but/because the commute is unendurable.) The SF to SV commute is mostly against the flow, so getting to Page Mill Road takes about the same time from Mountain View (next suburb over) as from southern parts of SF.
revicon 7y ago
Probably because noone wants to live in San Jose
- tzs 7y ago
  Someone seems to want to live there. Population of San Jose: 1.0 million. Population of San Francisco: 880k.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    eh. San Jose is a sprawling amalgamation of a dozen towns that encloses 2 airports. SF is a fraction of the size.
    - muzz 7y ago
      Are you counting the small one on Tully Road, in addition to SJC?
mtviewdave 7y ago
>...it emerged in SF... It didn't emerge in SF. Quite the contrary, virtually all tech startups for most of the Bay Area's history were no farther north than Menlo Park, and often much farther south (Netflix was founded in Scotts Valley). That's why YC was headquartered in Mountain View until recently. SF only became a startup hub within the last decade, IMHO in response to the desire of Millenials to live in urban environments.
bsder 7y ago
> I wonder why there isn't more visible startup activity in SJ. Because VCs are mostly investing in software startups with twentysomething who are stupid enough to believe the hype. Those who believe hype want to live in the "cool" area, and that's San Francisco or Berkeley--not San Jose. Those people building real businesses don't care, and probably aren't even located in the valley anymore.
twblalock 7y ago
The term "Silicon Valley" originally referred to the Santa Clara Valley, which is where San Jose is. Most of the original Bay Area tech companies are there -- Intel, AMD, Apple, Cisco, etc., also newer large companies like Netflix and Google. The startup scene in SF is more recent.
jjav 7y ago
Startup activity did in fact not emerge in SF. Silicon Valley was traditionally the Santa Clara valley area (roughly, San Jose/Los Gatos to Palo Alto/Menlo Park). There were no tech jobs in SF (outliers aside, of course), it was a hippy city an hour north of Silicon Valley. It it only during the present decade that startup activity has appeared in force in SF, away from Silicon Valley. Due largely (I believe) to the tax breaks SF created in 2011 to encourage that.
- beamatronic 7y ago
  South of Market was cheap, starting in the early 1990s. Startups back then liked cheap.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    The center of Silicon Valley oscillates between SF and SJ on a roughly 10-year cycle, corresponding to major technology generations (and loosely, to bubble/build cycles). It was around Redwood City in the early 1970s (Ampex, Oracle), moved to Palo Alto and Cupertino for the PC/workstation era in the late 70s (Sun, Cisco, Apple, Seagate) down as far as San Jose and even Scotts Valley during the 80s (Adobe, Memorex, Borland), started moving north to Mountain View in the early 90s (SGI, Netscape), moved back to SF for the dot-com boom, moved back south to Palo Alto and Mountain View in the late 90s (Yahoo, Paypal, Google, Facebook, YCombinator), then moved back to SF starting in 2006 and significantly accelerating in 2011 (Reddit, AirBnB, Stripe, Twitter, Zynga, Medium, etc.) It's still in SF, though it remains to be seen where the next technology generation will take hold or if it'll even be in the Bay Area.
    - rficcaglia 7y ago
      I see a lot of building in downtown RWC and San Carlos. Maybe won’t be the center, but definitely a significant uptick.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      You're comparing Medium to Adobe. Wow.

foobarian 7y ago

Can you give some comparison baselines to an uninformed East coaster? I thought SJ is part of the Bay Area and part of the skyrocketing housing cost crisis. Is that not true? If not what is an East coast analogy - e.g. Boston is to NYC what SF is to SJ? I knew a number of people who moved to the SV area, got FAANG type jobs way down in the Valley, and yet still chose to live in SF enduring hellish commutes. I never could quite understand why.

JimboOmega 7y ago
It's something very roughly and geographically like if SF is DC, then SJ is Baltimore. You could theoretically commute between them, but it's quite impractical. SJ is part of the Bay Area and absolutely has skyrocketing costs; it usually tops the lists of cities with the fastest growing housing prices. When I got a job in Redwood City (in between the two), I thought about moving there from SF, but found the costs to be about the same to live there versus SF. So I stayed in SF; it's definitely the anchor of culture of the Bay Area. For everything outside of work it's a much better place to be (for me, a single queer person, especially). I since got a job in SF and have no intention to move or work south again. In fact, the general trend has been for companies to move towards SF away from the peninsula, but mostly because it's where workers want to be. It's much more easier to get by without a car in the city than in the peninsula, it has much better clubs/nightlife, etc. For a young person, the city (meaning SF) is often much more appealing, though of course different people have different preferences.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Communting SJ-SF is, unfortunately, doable and done. It's an hour drive off-peak on 280, or about the same time (though crowded and being pinned dead on a rail timetable) by CalTrain express. Off-peak rail runs 90 minutes, and you've still got terminal-to-endpoint to deal with, which is problematic in both SF (improved with the Transbay Terminal), and SJ (residential regions sprawl for miles from the principle train stations).
  - JimboOmega 7y ago
    It is also done to commute from Baltimore to DC; for me it's just way too much. Redwood City was my limit and I really hated it, even with my motorcycle. I know there's a Google Bus from very near to me all the way to Sunnyvale, but I considered that still unacceptable. Of course, late at night I once did SF-SJ in 45 minutes. Having tried every solution at all times of day (e.g., biking to the caltrain, carpooling, etc) the "big bike" always wins; truly off peak the car is just as fast, in theory (and, hey, safer and more comfortable... but less fun). But, let's be honest all the solutions are stressful and sucky. You can trade time for stress to a certain extent, but you're spending a lot of both no matter what.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Oh, absolutely on "stressful and sucky". But far from theoretical. I'd not recommend it.
- foobarian 7y ago
  Interesting. So if SJ does not seem to have the NIMBY cohort putting on the brakes for development, and has plenty of high-rises and other housing, and the prices are still sky-high - does that indicate that maybe more housing in SF is not going to help things as much as people usually think at first?
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Of course. Density begets density. Housing is just like highways, add more, and demand will catch up. NYC is way more dense than the Bay Area. It’s not exactly a cheap place to live.
xvedejas 7y ago
I think the issue might be that plenty of people live in SJ relative to the amount of housing available, and so it's expensive just like SF, but it's far less developed / more sprawling, so there's less slack in the system for office space for small companies and fewer apartments for young workers.
Gibbon1 7y ago
> yet still chose to live in SF enduring hellish commutes. I never could quite understand why. I grew up in the South Bay. I can answer that question. The South Bay is eye bleedingly BORING by design. It's an absolutely terrible place for a teenager or young adult. Most of the fun stuff in the city is illegal in the south bay.
- beamatronic 7y ago
  It’s illegal in San Francisco too, just more widely tolerated.
twblalock 7y ago
San Francisco (and Oakland) are the only real dense urban areas. The rest of the Bay Area is a suburb. San Jose is mostly houses and shopping centers. Most of the young people I know who work in tech want to live in or near San Francisco -- it has nightlife, restaurants, cultural events, etc. This is especially the case for people who are not from the Bay Area originally. When they start looking into buying property or having children a lot of them leave San Francisco and move closer to the suburbs.
stephencanon 7y ago
Oakland is the Bronx. SF is Queens. There is no Manhattan or Brooklyn. San Jose is central New Jersey. (This comparison is unfair to both Queens and the Bronx, mind you.)
laurencerowe 7y ago
San Francisco is the best you can do if you want a walkable lifestyle on the evenings/weekends and work in Silicon Valley. (Oakland/Berkeley are more interesting and more affordable but/because the commute is unendurable.) The SF to SV commute is mostly against the flow, so getting to Page Mill Road takes about the same time from Mountain View (next suburb over) as from southern parts of SF.

revicon 7y ago

Probably because noone wants to live in San Jose

tzs 7y ago
Someone seems to want to live there. Population of San Jose: 1.0 million. Population of San Francisco: 880k.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  eh. San Jose is a sprawling amalgamation of a dozen towns that encloses 2 airports. SF is a fraction of the size.
  - muzz 7y ago
    Are you counting the small one on Tully Road, in addition to SJC?

mtviewdave 7y ago

>...it emerged in SF... It didn't emerge in SF. Quite the contrary, virtually all tech startups for most of the Bay Area's history were no farther north than Menlo Park, and often much farther south (Netflix was founded in Scotts Valley). That's why YC was headquartered in Mountain View until recently. SF only became a startup hub within the last decade, IMHO in response to the desire of Millenials to live in urban environments.

bsder 7y ago

> I wonder why there isn't more visible startup activity in SJ. Because VCs are mostly investing in software startups with twentysomething who are stupid enough to believe the hype. Those who believe hype want to live in the "cool" area, and that's San Francisco or Berkeley--not San Jose. Those people building real businesses don't care, and probably aren't even located in the valley anymore.

twblalock 7y ago

The term "Silicon Valley" originally referred to the Santa Clara Valley, which is where San Jose is. Most of the original Bay Area tech companies are there -- Intel, AMD, Apple, Cisco, etc., also newer large companies like Netflix and Google. The startup scene in SF is more recent.

jjav 7y ago

Startup activity did in fact not emerge in SF. Silicon Valley was traditionally the Santa Clara valley area (roughly, San Jose/Los Gatos to Palo Alto/Menlo Park). There were no tech jobs in SF (outliers aside, of course), it was a hippy city an hour north of Silicon Valley. It it only during the present decade that startup activity has appeared in force in SF, away from Silicon Valley. Due largely (I believe) to the tax breaks SF created in 2011 to encourage that.

beamatronic 7y ago
South of Market was cheap, starting in the early 1990s. Startups back then liked cheap.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  The center of Silicon Valley oscillates between SF and SJ on a roughly 10-year cycle, corresponding to major technology generations (and loosely, to bubble/build cycles). It was around Redwood City in the early 1970s (Ampex, Oracle), moved to Palo Alto and Cupertino for the PC/workstation era in the late 70s (Sun, Cisco, Apple, Seagate) down as far as San Jose and even Scotts Valley during the 80s (Adobe, Memorex, Borland), started moving north to Mountain View in the early 90s (SGI, Netscape), moved back to SF for the dot-com boom, moved back south to Palo Alto and Mountain View in the late 90s (Yahoo, Paypal, Google, Facebook, YCombinator), then moved back to SF starting in 2006 and significantly accelerating in 2011 (Reddit, AirBnB, Stripe, Twitter, Zynga, Medium, etc.) It's still in SF, though it remains to be seen where the next technology generation will take hold or if it'll even be in the Bay Area.
  - rficcaglia 7y ago
    I see a lot of building in downtown RWC and San Carlos. Maybe won’t be the center, but definitely a significant uptick.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    You're comparing Medium to Adobe. Wow.