[quote=bearishgurl]No, never “clumped.” Got two good friends in Bay Ho (92117) and KNOW the difference. One of their BY’s looks out over Sea World Tower. I am a person who shopped at Costco at the end of Rose Cyn when it was the Price Club, lol :=0 I KNOW the difference and KNOW the hoods up there. HOWEVER, the quality of construction varies wildly in 92117. Near sdr’s “fav corner” (lol) of Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Blvd, the residential construction is bad, just ba-a-a-ad, IMO. Another “bad construction” area is just west of I-805 and north of Clairemont Mesa Blvd.
Quality of construction IS worth something. Especially if one intends to buy an older home or occupy a newer home more than ten years. You can’t imagine how much shoddy grading, construction or plumbing can cost a homeowner over the long haul. Not to mention the cost and inconvenience of thin walls, zero or inadequate insulation, substandard electrical service, leaky windows and on and on.
I think buyers (esp FT buyers) get wrapped up in stucco boxes with “archways,” tile roofs, or a certain neighborhood “look” without realizing that what’s actually under the hood is horribly inferior to the ’50’s ranch. They’re hung up on the wrapping paper (which likely has been patched and painted over as well).
And don’t laugh at those small mid-century houses in Linda Vista. Most are built very, very well built :=][/quote]
OK, since you’re not referring to Bay Ho/Bay Park and were specifically talking about Mt. streets in Clairemont 92111 as the superior lots, then I’d have to disagree. The best of Mira Mesa are the ones with over .3 flat usable acre AND 90-330 degrees canyon views. Just briefly looking at houses on Mt. streets, I don’t think anything there have both of these features.
Quality construction is worth something, but floor plan also is worth something. Quality construct would be worthless if the floor plan is so horrible that you’d have to tear down all the walls and reconstruct it to modern standards. You’re making blanket statements about construction superiority for areas you’ve never been to? Just because they’re newer, they new be built like crap? I’m sure houses that are standing without major problem after 30-40 years were built pretty well.
Talking about thin walls and inadequate insulations, aren’t the older houses that tend to have thin walls and inadequate insulations? I’m pretty sure some really old houses don’t even have insulations. Talking about substandard electrical service, the new houses now have the house prewired for ethernet and have a 220 Volt main breaker vs older houses with 110 Volt and no ethernet. Which is substandard when the standard today is a computer or TV in every room and those devices need to talk to each other over ethernet? I would assume there’s a higher chance of old windows leaking than new ones. But you might know something I don’t.
