[quote=temeculaguy]20 story buildings there is a fantasy, splitting lots will just make it worse as 4-plexes pop up in backyards on the larger lots. I’m not faulting you brian, history and long term trends are not a young man’s game.
I’m with sdr on this one, an area’s mid to long term future depends on the original housing stock and the location, but the original housing stock is more important.
Here are some examples in San Diego. Kensington had nicer homes than the area between 40th and about 50th street. They were larger and better appointed than those between kensington and north park. Kensington homes were nice enough to refurbish and were not zoned for splitting and apartment mixes, thus it retained its appeal. A mile or two away it declined, because the original homes were crappier and the zoning looser.
Another example but of an entirely different theory is Rancho Sante Fe. It’s not ocean front, but strict zoning and large lots and nice original homes means it’s worth it to rebuild or refurbish. Same could be said of Mt. Helix and countless other areas where outdated but nice always beats outdated and crappy. Clairemont will have a more difficult time becoming hip and being redeveloped one house at a time as let’s say North Park or South park or mission hills, because those old houses by the park are worth saving, the post ww2 blah boxes in clairemont don’t have the same appeal. Changing the zoning will accelerate the decline, which is the opposite for an area like little italy, where density is a helper. Clairmeont’s best chance is to remain sfr’s, keep the zoning tight and in time it’s location may bail it out. What was once a suburb, may end up a rare sfr area that ends up so central once the county doubles in size. That’s it’s future, to hold fast to the zoning restrictions and allow the city to come to it. When this county is 4 or 5 million in size, if clairemont is still just sfr’s, it may become fertile ground for 3 wall knockdowns and redevelopment. It could be the next Costa Mesa. But it will take 20 years or so, but it very well may happen. The next level up, tierrasanta, mm, etc. are larger and won’t ever fall as hard, they will keep chugging along, while linda vista will never be cool, cause it never was and the density zoning cripples it.
To see similar examples ahead in the timeline you have to look to L.A., areas that split lots and mixed in apartments went to hell, while old suburbs that held firm on zoning saw revitalization once the city grew past them and they became central without actually moving. Zoning restrictions may bother some idealists, but there are so many examples of how it actually promotes redevelopment. Don’t attract developers, stand firm until you become their only option.[/quote]
Good post, TG, except I believe location almost always trumps housing stock. Clairemont (SD) has it going on, location wise.
I agree that the properties North Park/South Park (92104) are more architecturally pleasing than those in Clairemont and that the vast majority are worth saving. Unfortunately, the City upzoned several streets there (near the thoroughfares Univ & EC Blvd.) from ’84-’88 with the bulk of the multifamily permits there issued ’87-88. What later transpired (apts and later condo conversions sandwiched between SFRs) did NOT help neighborhood values. Instead it increased noise, traffic and litter. At that time, the City did NOT require a pkg space for every unit on a lot and more slant parking appeared on those sts wide enough to accommodate it.
As to LA County, there ARE some very good examples of close-in suburbs (Lakewood/Downey) and fairly close-in suburbs (Claremont, Pasadena) which gentrified nicely in place. Today all are very nice places to live with high quality (even “charming” out east) housing stock. These aren’t low-priced areas but completely worth the money due to their convenient locations. All are older than Clairemont (SD). One might even surmise that the bulk of Lakewood’s housing stock is “blah mid-century,” but might be shocked how large a 2000 sf home “lives in” there and its beautiful well-kept tree-lined streets with ALL SFRs command their price.
These cities are the poster children for what happens when their leadership is wise enough to keep zoning restrictions in place over a great many years.
If I worked anywhere in or near LA, I would buy a SFR to live in in one of those suburbs (as opposed to RIV Co.) Even at $200K+ more for a similar-size house, it is COMPLETELY worth it! If you study these markets over the millenium-boom years, these areas had little distress and thus lost little value, if any.
I’ll repeat my mantra that you pay for exactly what you get in this life.
