[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.[/quote]I was comparing the entire counties, NOT just the cities of LA and SD.[/quote]
Your argument breaks down even worse when comparing county. LA County have a density of ~2100 people/sq-mile. While SD County have a density of ~680 people/sq-mile.[/quote]
AN, since we’re both looking at the same wiki pages, let’s dive for more data, shall we?
SD County has a land mass of 4207 square miles. It’s 2015 population (acc to the census) was 3,299,521, a 6.6% increase over its 2010 census count, which was 3,095,308.
LA County has a land mass of 4058 square miles. It’s 2015 population (acc to the census) was 10,170,292, a 3.6% increase over its 2010 census count, which was 9,818,605.
However, there is a HUGE difference in the two counties in the disbursement of their urban population centers. While LA County’s urban population centers take up half its land mass (50% or mostly southern half), SD County’s urban population centers take up just 1/6 of its land mass (~17% or western sixth). Excepting Castaic, Palmdale and Lancaster, the northern half of LA County is sparsely populated, rural and even rugged in places as is the farthest northwest portion (Camp Pendleton) and eastern 5/6 of SD County. In fully 3/4 of San Diego County’s land mass, it is extremely likely that utilities are not even available! I’ve driven thru almost ALL of SD County’s backcountry and taken some roads multiple times. I would classify the sixth of it which is closest to the Imperial County line as very rugged.
Realizing that there are scattered small (inconsequential for our numbers) rural populations in both counties, the reality is that SD County’s population is concentrated into just ~17% of its land mass (816 square miles or 4044 people per urbanized square mile) and LA County’s population is concentrated into ~50% of its land mass (2029 square miles or 5012 people per urbanized square mile). There is a marked difference in density between the west side of dtn LA and the east side, where high rise residential towers and massive blocks-long aging apt complexes (ex: Santa Monica and a few other cities) do not exist. This phenomenon (and scattered multifamily infill projects) causes the density to be much higher in pockets of the west side than the southeast and east sides. The southwest area cities (ex Long Beach, Lakewood, etc) have a lot of single family homes but those lot sizes tend to be 6K on average. On the southeast side, going towards Whitter and Hacienda Heights, they get a little larger and east of La Puente, even larger still. In the eastern SGV, it is not uncommon at all to find ~8500 sf lots (on avg) in entire subdivisions. This just doesn’t happen with any consistency in SD County. These are NOT “luxury home” tracts. They are hundreds of tracts of 50’s through ’80’s ranch homes from 1350 sf to 2000 sf in about 27 cities. These tracts do NOT have multifamily (apts/condos) mixed in with them as many established communities (or SFR tracts within CFD’s) in SD City/County do. These communities are very well planned and don’t “feel” crowded to be in. SD County doesn’t have this type of stock in anywhere near the numbers of LA County or level of SFR selection for Joe and Jane 6p worker-bee to choose from in any way, shape or form in any of its cities or unincorporated areas. A homebuyer in SD County is lucky if they find 1-2 active “affordable” SFR listings fitting the above description in any one zip code. In recent years, it has not been unusual to find none available in a particular zip code for months, especially with an asking price under $650K.
It would be interesting to see the difference in the percentages of population growth in the two counties for the 1990 and 2000 census. By 1990, CFD formation took hold with a vengeance in Riverside and SD Counties, and later and to a lesser extent, Orange and San Bernardino counties. I would surmise that LA County has grown in population far less than SD County has over that time period. IIRC, SD County had approximately 1.1 million people in 1986. The first CFD’s were formed in SD County that same year and the first tracts within them were sold in 1987 (Eastlake Shores 91913). In May thru August of 2017, those 30-year bonds will finally be paid off in five subdivisions (3 SFR and 2 multifamily). It seems like yesterday to me that the (man-made) lake was dug :=0
I haven’t been to all the “dense” areas on the Westside of LA in recent years, but in many ways, I think LA County’s leaders of decades past did a great job of planning. The decisions they made back then really contribute positively to the quality of life in its communities today.
*****
Remember that no CFD’s were formed in LA County (where the vast majority of upzoning since 1986 in SD County was approved).
I find it ridiculous that in 91915 (the latest annexation of the City of Chula Vista) the “SFR” density (actually PUDs with “zero-lot-lines”) were actually built 20 units to one acre in a handful of subdivisions. The “city streets” are so narrow in these tracts (with parked cars lined up solid on each side for block after block) that only one vehicle can pass at a time, with the oncoming vehicle slightly pulled over (depending on size of vehicles, of course). They are no wider than “easements” or narrow alleys in a more established neighborhood. It’s a travesty that people actually buy these crapshacks within spitting distance of each other, only to pay HOA dues to 2 or more assns and MR on 2-3 CFD’s. Of course, they could have purchased a SFR which was at least 200 sf larger, situated on a 6000 to 7500 sf lot and on a standard city street in an older area of the city or another city in the county with no HOA/MR.
So yeah, SD County homebuyers/renters DO have choices. Many of them chose to buy/rent a residence in a poorly-located, low-quality, high-density newer construction tract when they had other (better) options in their price range. And flyer is right … buyers’ housing choices are on them.
However, in LA County, I really do believe that location is absolutely everything wrt where one’s job is. All other home choices are secondary … unless one is retired. It once took me 5.5 hours to travel 51 miles from the far eastern portion of the county to a place located just west of LAX. One injury accident and another tractor trailer mishap . . . well, I don’t need to tell you the rest of the story . . . :=0
