Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Bay Park Future?
- This topic has 70 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
jpinpb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 4, 2009 at 8:19 AM #410532June 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM #411142
sdduuuude
ParticipantWhat I don’t like about bay park is the fact that very few houses have a useable back yard.
I love the area and the views and the location, but the houses on the hill with a view all have decks, not yards, in the back with no room for a front yard either.
If you get down into the flatter part, you get a yard, but no view, and the neighborhood starts to degrade a bit as well. The ‘hood by Bay Park elementary is pretty good. That may offer the best in terms of nice neighborhood and a useable lot.
Some of the canyon properties there (I’m thinking by February street, if I recall) are really nice, though likely pricey. We have toured some of these homes as part of the Clairemont Garden Tour. On had a full acre and a view. It was awesome.
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
I think I would prefer UC to Bay Park, but I’m not hooked on an ocean view. I think prices may be comparable between the two, with the trade-off being views versus space.
June 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM #410677sdduuuude
ParticipantWhat I don’t like about bay park is the fact that very few houses have a useable back yard.
I love the area and the views and the location, but the houses on the hill with a view all have decks, not yards, in the back with no room for a front yard either.
If you get down into the flatter part, you get a yard, but no view, and the neighborhood starts to degrade a bit as well. The ‘hood by Bay Park elementary is pretty good. That may offer the best in terms of nice neighborhood and a useable lot.
Some of the canyon properties there (I’m thinking by February street, if I recall) are really nice, though likely pricey. We have toured some of these homes as part of the Clairemont Garden Tour. On had a full acre and a view. It was awesome.
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
I think I would prefer UC to Bay Park, but I’m not hooked on an ocean view. I think prices may be comparable between the two, with the trade-off being views versus space.
June 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM #410989sdduuuude
ParticipantWhat I don’t like about bay park is the fact that very few houses have a useable back yard.
I love the area and the views and the location, but the houses on the hill with a view all have decks, not yards, in the back with no room for a front yard either.
If you get down into the flatter part, you get a yard, but no view, and the neighborhood starts to degrade a bit as well. The ‘hood by Bay Park elementary is pretty good. That may offer the best in terms of nice neighborhood and a useable lot.
Some of the canyon properties there (I’m thinking by February street, if I recall) are really nice, though likely pricey. We have toured some of these homes as part of the Clairemont Garden Tour. On had a full acre and a view. It was awesome.
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
I think I would prefer UC to Bay Park, but I’m not hooked on an ocean view. I think prices may be comparable between the two, with the trade-off being views versus space.
June 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM #410925sdduuuude
ParticipantWhat I don’t like about bay park is the fact that very few houses have a useable back yard.
I love the area and the views and the location, but the houses on the hill with a view all have decks, not yards, in the back with no room for a front yard either.
If you get down into the flatter part, you get a yard, but no view, and the neighborhood starts to degrade a bit as well. The ‘hood by Bay Park elementary is pretty good. That may offer the best in terms of nice neighborhood and a useable lot.
Some of the canyon properties there (I’m thinking by February street, if I recall) are really nice, though likely pricey. We have toured some of these homes as part of the Clairemont Garden Tour. On had a full acre and a view. It was awesome.
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
I think I would prefer UC to Bay Park, but I’m not hooked on an ocean view. I think prices may be comparable between the two, with the trade-off being views versus space.
June 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM #410438sdduuuude
ParticipantWhat I don’t like about bay park is the fact that very few houses have a useable back yard.
I love the area and the views and the location, but the houses on the hill with a view all have decks, not yards, in the back with no room for a front yard either.
If you get down into the flatter part, you get a yard, but no view, and the neighborhood starts to degrade a bit as well. The ‘hood by Bay Park elementary is pretty good. That may offer the best in terms of nice neighborhood and a useable lot.
Some of the canyon properties there (I’m thinking by February street, if I recall) are really nice, though likely pricey. We have toured some of these homes as part of the Clairemont Garden Tour. On had a full acre and a view. It was awesome.
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
I think I would prefer UC to Bay Park, but I’m not hooked on an ocean view. I think prices may be comparable between the two, with the trade-off being views versus space.
June 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM #410568(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
[/quote]Actually he suggested that 2017 would be the start of the next appreciation leg, not the peak.
June 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM #411272(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
[/quote]Actually he suggested that 2017 would be the start of the next appreciation leg, not the peak.
June 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM #411118(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
[/quote]Actually he suggested that 2017 would be the start of the next appreciation leg, not the peak.
June 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM #411055(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
[/quote]Actually he suggested that 2017 would be the start of the next appreciation leg, not the peak.
June 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM #410807(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
4plexowner, as usual, gives an interesting perspective about the 2017 peak which sounds reasonable to me.
[/quote]Actually he suggested that 2017 would be the start of the next appreciation leg, not the peak.
June 4, 2009 at 6:23 PM #4106634plexowner
Participanthere’s the math
peak in 2006/7
typical time from peak to trough in SoCal is 6 or 7 years
2006/7 plus 6 or 7 takes us to 2012 to 2014 for the next trough
then we scrape along the bottom for 2 or 3 years so we are looking at 2014 to 2017 when the next appreciation cycle starts (not peaks)
~
it isn’t relevant to this thread but I don’t understand how people can think we have reached a bottom in 2009 only 2 or 3 years after the peak
and that’s without going into the magnitude of the cycle that peaked in 2006/7 – it might be reasonable to expect a larger (longer?) than normal down cycle after the bursting of the largest real estate bubble the planet has ever seen
June 4, 2009 at 6:23 PM #4109034plexowner
Participanthere’s the math
peak in 2006/7
typical time from peak to trough in SoCal is 6 or 7 years
2006/7 plus 6 or 7 takes us to 2012 to 2014 for the next trough
then we scrape along the bottom for 2 or 3 years so we are looking at 2014 to 2017 when the next appreciation cycle starts (not peaks)
~
it isn’t relevant to this thread but I don’t understand how people can think we have reached a bottom in 2009 only 2 or 3 years after the peak
and that’s without going into the magnitude of the cycle that peaked in 2006/7 – it might be reasonable to expect a larger (longer?) than normal down cycle after the bursting of the largest real estate bubble the planet has ever seen
June 4, 2009 at 6:23 PM #4113664plexowner
Participanthere’s the math
peak in 2006/7
typical time from peak to trough in SoCal is 6 or 7 years
2006/7 plus 6 or 7 takes us to 2012 to 2014 for the next trough
then we scrape along the bottom for 2 or 3 years so we are looking at 2014 to 2017 when the next appreciation cycle starts (not peaks)
~
it isn’t relevant to this thread but I don’t understand how people can think we have reached a bottom in 2009 only 2 or 3 years after the peak
and that’s without going into the magnitude of the cycle that peaked in 2006/7 – it might be reasonable to expect a larger (longer?) than normal down cycle after the bursting of the largest real estate bubble the planet has ever seen
June 4, 2009 at 6:23 PM #4111494plexowner
Participanthere’s the math
peak in 2006/7
typical time from peak to trough in SoCal is 6 or 7 years
2006/7 plus 6 or 7 takes us to 2012 to 2014 for the next trough
then we scrape along the bottom for 2 or 3 years so we are looking at 2014 to 2017 when the next appreciation cycle starts (not peaks)
~
it isn’t relevant to this thread but I don’t understand how people can think we have reached a bottom in 2009 only 2 or 3 years after the peak
and that’s without going into the magnitude of the cycle that peaked in 2006/7 – it might be reasonable to expect a larger (longer?) than normal down cycle after the bursting of the largest real estate bubble the planet has ever seen
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.