Good thread starter, Essbee.

A place like SF DOES have new construction but it is scarce infill lot by lot. In some lesser-expensive areas (such as near SFSU), builders have purchased adjacent lots (probably not all at the same time) and built student-type apartments (at the time of apt building, the dorms on campus were 50-60 years old with small rooms and 1-2 shared bathrooms per floor). They have also renovated 50’s and 60’s era apt buildings.

The mass bulldozing and “imminent domain” will never happen in older, close in areas (unless a fwy is being build thru it). I don’t think there are any more fwys proposed for the urban areas of SD in the county’s plan.

Many parcels in older CA urban areas have Prop 13 protection on their tax bills and so as their owners die or move to assisted-living, their children will take title to them. It doesn’t matter if they want to live in mom/dad’s old home or not. A large fraction of these “heirs” will rent the property out indefinitely or rent or “sell” it to one of the heirs in order to maintain the Prop 13 tax protection (currently abt $380 to $1800 annual tax).

In order for a builder to “bulldoze” a large enough swath of land to build a subdivision in an existing urban area, he needs to buy up all the parcels within it. This would be too cost-prohibitive with buildings already on them. He would have to charge more than the market would bear for each parcel (due to the surrounding area) in a place like Clairemont (SD) in order to make it worth his while to build. In addition, he would have to build on the current 6000-10,000+ lot sizes already there which were subdivided in the 50’s so he couldn’t get enough units on the property to make building profitable today.

If the (infill) builder chose to file a new subdivision map to increase the density, he would have to notify every property owner within 300 feet of the parcels’ boundaries while the map was being considered by the City. In addition, he would have to send all these owners renderings of the models he was proposing to build. After viewing the proposed crackerboxes and sub-5000 sf lots, the notified existing owners (both residential and landlords) would have a field day with him down at the City and force him into a hearing, which he would LOSE.

Even if the builder came up with a palatable lot size and model that the neighbors would accept, it would cost him a minimum of $20K to subdivide EACH *new* parcel and another $20K for EACH *new* subdivision map, due to engineering, survey and City/County fees.

That is why you will only see an occasional infill *new* house here and there in older CA coastal areas. In fact, the vast majority of these *new* infill spec houses aren’t technically *new* but are built on most or all of the original foundation and utilizing at least the frame one of the original walls (usually the wall with utility meters attached).

Too many hurdles, not enough money and not being able to sell the infill subdivision for enough money to make it worth his while would cause a builder to nix this idea quickly.

[quote=Essbee]OK, interesting information.

So what WILL happen to Clairemont and similar “mid-century blah” neighborhoods? Will the homes really last 100+ years? Will they continue to deteriorate and become slums, or will people eventually buy the homes and “remodel” in the manner you suggest (ie saving one wall?

(We know a couple who did just that in Bird Rock.)

I’m trying to imagine this town in 2050 and beyond.[/quote]

Actually the “mid century” ranch is the currently one of the hottest and sought after architectural styles. A well-built “mid-century” ranch house with some or all of the original accoutrements of its era still intact is a relatively expensive home.

Yes, the homes will last and each subsequent owner will hopefully maintain and improve the properties one by one. Clairemont (SD) tracts are NOT of “mid-century” design. They were mostly built in the early 60’s but were originally built to be affordable for Convair and other SD defense workers and their families. Part of Clairemont has tract(s) which were not built with either attics or insulation and these tracts no doubt sold for less new. The average “Mtn Street” home sold new for $16K to $18K.

The NW corner of Clairemont (as you posted) with the more cheaply-built homes within it has many rentals now and will likely continue to be a rental area in the future.

There is no reason to believe that future owners will not keep the homes in Clairemont maintained. You can’t take away its location. It is what it is. Gas prices can still go up from here :-]

[quote=Essbee]I know about mid-century architecture; that is why I called Clairemont “mid-century blah”.

In other words, the homes were built in that 1950s/60s era, but they do NOT have the architectural features that would qualify them for the title “mid-century modern” and a frenzy of gentrification. Hence my own term, “mid-century blah.”[/quote]

Here are a couple of current listings representative of a REAL “mid-century ranch” (for regular people, lol) in San Diego and La Mesa.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120011660-3741_Liggett_Dr_San_Diego_CA_92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120000135-1279_Bangor_St_San_Diego_CA_92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120006359-4902_Crestland_Dr_La_Mesa_CA_91941

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120011608-4340_Woodland_Dr_La_Mesa_CA_91941

The fourth one has had some different stuff done to it but the bones are still there …

[quote=Essbee][quote=bearishgurl]A neighborhood just one mile from Mission Bay (SD) cannot possibly turn into a “slum.” It is likely you haven’t been to Detroit, New Orleans, the Blue Ridge Mtns or the rural midwest and southwest parts of the US. In those places you will find REAL “slums” and “sub-slums” (dwellings not even built on foundations).[/quote]

On the contrary, in addition to San Diego, I have lived in the midwest (11 yrs), two cities on the East Coast (4 yrs each), and in Los Angeles (3 yrs). I have traveled to almost every state (45 or 46 of them, I believe).

Detroit is probably somewhat comparable to Baltimore, which has MANY blocks of abandoned and boarded-up row houses, including areas within walking distance to world-class attractions and hospitals (Aquarium, Inner Harbor, Johns Hopkins).

I agree that SD’s core will not reach the levels of poverty seen in some of these cities (and Tijuana), but I am concerned they may well decline to much worse conditions than seen at present. (ie as these homes reach the 100 year mark in the 2050-2070 era, without proper maintenance).

How can this be mitigated? How can urban planners, government, etc help this not happen, but still preserve people’s property rights, etc? Does anyone think that the re-zoning process should be amended? Or is considering that too unfair to the current owners / heirs in these geographically desirable locations?[/quote]

Having only been “on the road” in less than 20 states, you have traveled more than I have Essbee! I HAVE been to Baltimore a handful of times and been to the aquarium and Camden Yard but didn’t see the neighborhood you are mentioning here. HOWEVER, I was walking and NOT driving.

I don’t see ANYTHING changing in regard to zoning in CA coastal cities unless the Prop 58 progeny of Prop 13 (inheritance provision) is repealed or Prop 13 is repealed in its entirety. It would have to be put to a public vote and capture 2/3 of the vote and I don’t see this happening unless it is piecemeal gutted (meaning the Prop 58 portion is put before the voters first). There are too many heirs that stand to lose this perk and would vote against it. As for the pre-April ’78 original beneficiaries of Prop 13 tax treatment who still own these properties today, they will eventually all pass on. The problem lies with Prop 58 which has the effect of enabling Prop 13 protection to live on through eternity with properties which are kept within the immediate family.

Prop 13 was enacted specifically to keep senior citizens from being taxed out of living in their own homes as the late seventies was a time when assessed values in coastal CA counties were skyrocketing! The later-enacted Prop 58 added the pass-thru provision of Prop 13. Unintended consequences or not, it had the effect of shielding HUGE numbers of very valuable properties deeded to children, either before or after death of the original owner(s), from reassessment. A good portion of these “heirs” are NOT senior citizens (over the age of 65) themselves and thus many are able-bodied workers who, in theory, should be charged property tax equal to 1% of current assessed value (plus applic fees/bonds) as you and I are.

In any case, even if both sections WERE eventually repealed, the current owners ALREADY PROTECTED under the sections would not be affected. They just wouldn’t be able to pass on the perk to their children.

I don’t see massive upzoning (such as that proposed by briansd1) EVER being approved by cities in CA coastal counties. The land is too valuable and private property rights will always prevail.

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=Essbee]Sorry for replying to my own thread.

Tear-down type “remodeling” on a lot is also very expensive, and the people who can afford it are going to choose La Jolla (Mitt Romney!), Bird Rock, etc. and other coastal locations.

I guess my conclusion is that areas like Clairemont, Linda Vista, Allied Gardens, San Carlos, etc will slowly deteriorate with time. The next wave would be 70s/80s constructions like Tierrasanta, Mira Mesa, RPQ, etc.

New owners may do some remodeling (likely aesthetically unpleasing additions) and the adult children who inherit such properties from their parents will likely just keep letting their properties deteriorate. (There are houses in my old ‘hood which are 50-60 yrs old and are just crying for new roofs or paint, but it doesn’t look like there is any will or money to ever do it).

I guess the answer will come depending on whether potential new owners with a bit of money to remodel will be willing to move into such neighborhoods with these types of eyesores in their midst (not to mention the marginal schools). I imagine there is some sort of tipping point. Really interesting to think about it all.[/quote]

Unfortunately you may be correct for areas like Claremont, Linda vista, allied gardens etc. having grown up on the east coast and well traveled among the established cities in the US places like those slowly decay. Eventually you end up with what is known as white flight. The city of Philadelphia is a perfect example with a population that went from 70% white (mostly upper middle and middle class) to around 40% (Pretty much lower class in working class neighborhoods like kensington or wealthy in high end enclaves like chestnut hill). Nearly All the high and middle end wage earners have fled for the safety of the suburbs. The city faced with declining tax revenues enacted steep wage taxes which not only drove out residents but also businesses. The future is unlikely to be bright (dont worry if you live there as im thinking 50 to 100 yrs from now) for places like that if history repeats itself but hey maybe it’s different here.

Places like MM and PQ will generally fare much better because the house are of more acceptable sizes.[/quote]

I have a couple of issues with this statement. Firstly, SD was never segregated in the first place. So it is not necessarily “white flight” that is taking place in the urban core. If anything, more “whites” (whatever that means today) are moving INTO the urban core. And the areas buyers are flocking to in SD County (north county zips?) are not necessarily predominately “white” or “Caucasian” either. So hey, you ARE onto something. It IS different here … certainly different than the east coast.

Secondly, the average MM house has no more square footage that the average Clairemont or Allied Gardens house. I agree that PQ houses ARE generally bigger as the majority of them have two-stories there. In “Linda Vista,” the houses are generally smaller than Clairemont or Allied Gardens. This does NOT include 92111 Mt Streets (which are technically “Clairemont”).