4 ms·

San Jose is very much a suburbia-type city, very spread out, downtown is rather small and you need a car 90% of the time, whereas SF is much denser. I assume t

• timeon 2y ago
  > suburbia-type city Isn't this oxymoron? Isn't city the `urbia`?
  • curiousthought 2y ago
    Not all urbia's are equally urbie. Imagine New York vs Dallas for example. I think it is fair to say that some cities are more spread out and low density, making them feel like a suburban sprawl.
  • TulliusCicero 2y ago
    No. Many, perhaps most US major cities have suburban type zoning all over the place.
  • janalsncm 2y ago
    Zoned for single-family housing or 1-2 story apartments mostly. There may be sidewalks (stroads) but almost everyone drives due to pedestrian accessibility issues. Think “city, but instead of walking, you drive”.
  • bigstrat2003 2y ago
    No, cities are not only the super dense large cities. Smaller cities exist too, and are comparable to the suburbs of large cities in their feel.
    • fragmede 2y ago
      No, those are called towns, because they're not actually cities if they don't have the density to support city-grade amenities.
      • jen20 2y ago
        Given that the OP was from the UK, a "city" is a town with a cathedral. Nothing more, nothing less.
        • Biganon 2y ago
          That's a myth. https://youtu.be/Whqs8v1svyo https://youtu.be/Whqs8v1svyo
          • ralferoo 2y ago
            I don't have time to watch your youtube, however it's not really a myth, just no longer true. There was definitely a long period of time when it was kind of true. I say kind of because it's specifically a diocesan cathedral. While it's hard to make definitive statements about when a lot of cities originally became cities, it was first formalised in the 16th century, and at that time all the cities were cathedral towns (or more accurately, they were diocesan cathedrals meaning that churches in other towns in that diocese were administered by that cathedral), and significantly in many cases these cities were smaller than other towns in the diocese. The important part was that these particular towns with cathedrals that had always been called cities for as long as anyone remembered were recognised as cities by the Crown, and other towns were not allowed that status. Later on, Henry VIII created new dioceses and granted those towns (and they also all happened to have cathedrals) city status as well. So, at that time at least, there was a strong precedent that city status and being a diocesan cathedral town were linked, and in fact people were told that cities were cities because of this, even though technically towns became cities only by Royal decree and dioceses were only created by separate Royal decree, but historically both were done at the same time. This understanding was only really challenged in the early 19th century, when some more towns with cathedrals became new dioceses and their local governments assumed they were now cities and renamed themselves as such. Clearly, the Crown wasn't too worried about this as it took nearly two decades for this to be noticed (and only happened in the context of a Royal visit to one of the cities), at which point there was an act of parliament specifically to confer city status on these new large towns that were already calling themselves cities, again reinforcing the people's understanding that towns with diocesan cathedrals should be called cities. The interesting stuff happened at the end of the 19th century, when some of the other new diocesan towns that were quite small decided the also wanted the prestige of being a city, but were told they were too small to justify it and rightly complained that other cities were even smaller, but they weren't going to be downgraded to towns because they had always been called cities as long as anyone knew. And then Birmingham, the third largest town/city in the country petitioned to be a city on the basis of its important, and was recognised, at which point the link between city and cathedral was broken down. After that, a few more large towns also successfully petitioned for city status based on size or historical importance. It can be said that the link between city status and cathedrals was firmly broken in 1974, when all existing cities lost their city status, and towns had to apply for city status along with justifications. This was re-granted to all the existing cities (actually, I've got a vague recollection that at least one didn't bother and lost its city status), and at the same time city boundaries were redefined to include the metropolitan areas that would previously have been considered towns or villages in their own right. So, in one sense the assertion that towns with cathedrals are cities isn't quite true, and is definitely wrong now, but about hundreds of years this was actually the case. Arguably, correlation doesn't imply causation, but the Crown seemingly made an effort for a long time to ensure that the correlation held to ensure the set of cities was exactly identical to the set of diocesan cathedral towns. So, it's also not a myth.
• kevingadd 2y ago
  The drug use and homelessness are still pretty visible in downtown San Jose, or were when I lived there 2 years ago. Your personal tolerance level for it may be different from mine - I just treat it as a reality of city life, but my sister complained about it any time she visited because it made her feel actively unsafe.