CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia

[The-Shoveler]

The L.A. Chinese Destination is Arcadia and Pasadena area.
Ling Chow, president of the San Gabriel-based Chinese American Real Estate Professionals Assn., says brokers and agents welcome the mainland tours — anything to shake the doldrums of the market crash.
But Chow, who mostly serves mainland Chinese buyers, is more skeptical about any new wave of Chinese home buyers making a significant imprint. Unless they’re willing to spend more than $400,000, they’ll probably be disappointed in the available homes. Chinese are culturally inclined to buy new homes and prefer high-achieving school districts, demands that drive up prices.
Chow said Chinese buyers’ affinity for paying in cash will benefit them during the credit crunch. Many of her mainland clients have paid with cash, often for mansions and condos in Arcadia, where they can begin the immigration process or leave their college-age children to live alone.

[briansd1]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
Also the funny part is the rich in China try to live like us.[/quote]

The rich in China want to live like rich New Yorkers. They all maintain apartments in the city center with suburban houses. But that’s a minority.

Look at downtown Vancouver or Toronto and you see how the Chinese like it.

Whenever friends from overseas visit me, they all complain about how inconvenient and expensive it is to get around in America. America is generally isolating and unfriendly if you don’t have a car.

I disagree that Democrats don’t like the suburbs. They want development that is more appropriate to the land, blend in and take advantage of the natural landscape.

In the suburb, a Dwell house is a Democrat’s house. Or they want to preserve old Victorian, Crafstman or Federal houses.
http://www.dwell.com/slideshows/go-west-dod-westside-home-tour.html?slide=8&c=y&paused=true

A Toll Brothers house is a Republican’s house.
Something like this:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4419-Clearwater-Ln-Naperville-IL-60564/5372575_zpid/

In the city, Trump Tower, with shiny gold colored brass fitting would appeal to Republicans. A Democrat would prefer an apartment in a restored brownstone.

[briansd1]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]The L.A. Chinese Destination is Arcadia and Pasadena area.[/quote]

Yes, I agree.. but that’s the way the development is right now. Change the local building laws and the Chinese will build shops with apartments above. Check out the changes in Little Tokyo and Koreatown in LA, and Koreatown and Chinatown in NY.

Especially retired people would love to live right above a shopping plaza. They can go shopping and walk over to their friends’ apartments to play mahjong.

*

Back to the culture thing UCGal mentioned.

We, Americans, think that apartments are for poor people so apartment is a dirty word. I can’t remember all the times people corrected me and said “I don’t live in a apartment, I live in a condo” with a special inflection.

Well, the Queen of England lives in an apartment at Buckingham Palace.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]SD DOES have a “city life” but it is confined to dtn, Gaslamp, East Village, Hillcrest, Balboa Park and nearby surrounds.[/quote]
I wouldn’t say Hillcrest, Balboa Park, and nearby surrounds as “city life”. If you don’t have a car, you cant get to a lot of places those areas have to offer. Gaslamp, East Village, Downtown is what I consider “city life”. Those places, you can walk to clubs, walk to restaurants, walk to the mall, walk to various different services. The main key point about what make these areas a city life is they house a lot of people in a small area, which allow a lot of people to be w/in walking distance to these services.

[sdrealtor]

SD is defintely one giant suburb. Even downtown is sorely lacking in critical areas of life like supermarkets, medical care, parks, schools etc.

[scaredyclassic]

I pRedict that in the future people will want to be cooler.

[AK]

“[T]wo demographic groups will simultaneously desire living space in the urban cores of California.” This sounds like a rehash of the “everyone wants to live here” mantra. And even if it does happen, as certain urban areas get popular, people will be priced out of those areas and seek alternatives … and so on.

I’ve lived in large cities and dense suburban infill both here and abroad, and all I can say is … I like my stucco tract home in a far-flung suburb. I have easy access to public transportation, and an eclectic assortment of affordable ethnic restaurants within walking or easy driving distance. I’m less dependent on fragile, unreliable urban infrastructure that depends on an uninterrupted supply of invisible waves running through magic wires. I live in a community that provides diversified employment, not just jobs for overpaid turtlenecked hipsters. I can grow my own organic vegetables without fighting over cramped plots in community gardens built on old toxic waste dumps. And most of all, my neighbors are friendly, open, down-to-earth people who aren’t obsessed with their own exceptionalism. Even if some of them don’t have the benefit of a good education … maybe even *gasp* a humanities doctorate from a second-tier public university.

[ocrenter]

[quote=walterwhite]I pRedict that in the future people will want to be cooler.[/quote]

there goes Scaredy again…

[scaredyclassic]

I thought I was just summarizing the article.

[briansd1]

[quote=AK] I like my stucco tract home in a far-flung suburb. I have easy access to public transportation, and an eclectic assortment of affordable ethnic restaurants within walking or easy driving distance.
[/quote]

I really curious where that magical far-flung suburb is.

Unless you live right next to the strip mall, I wonder how walkable the neighborhood is. Most people can’t even walk accross the street from Walmart to Target.

[quote=AK]
And most of all, my neighbors are friendly, open, down-to-earth people who aren’t obsessed with their own exceptionalism. [/quote]

Not obsessed with exceptionalism? *Gasp* That’s unamerican.

Come on! We are the best; we know it; and we want to hear it repeated every single day. May God bless America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112804139.html?hpid=talkbox1

[briansd1]

BG, you should reconsider your opposition to building new and upzoning.

If you own an old house on a good sized lot in convenient central location, think what upzoning could do for you.

When you retire, you don’t want the house. You kids don’t want it. If the neighborhood were upzoned, your property would be worth more.

In the mean time, you can continue to live in the house for as long as you like.

Cities change. If great stone mansions in Manhattan could be razed to make way for skyscrapper, why do we need to preserve mid-century wood houses.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AK] … I’ve lived in large cities and dense suburban infill both here and abroad, and all I can say is … I like my stucco tract home in a far-flung suburb … I can grow my own organic vegetables without fighting over cramped plots in community gardens built on old toxic waste dumps …[/quote]

AK, the vast majority of community gardens in SD are NOT built on “toxic waste dumps.” Many have served their neighborhoods for more than 40 years.

See: http://sandiegoroots.org/comm_gardens.html

However, SD County new home developments in “far flung suburbia” HAVE been built on or adjacent to not only former landfills but toxic waste sites, as well.

… Since the seven landfills —- in Bonsall, Valley Center, Poway, San Marcos, Oceanside and Carlsbad —- closed more than a decade ago, an airport, parks, schools and homes have been built on or near the sites…

A toxic mix

The landfills, built between the late 1940s and 1970s, preceded environmental rules that govern waste disposal today, and served as catch-all basins for a mix of routine trash and toxic chemicals.

“The hazardous-waste checks didn’t start until the 1990s,” said Michele Stress, a unit manager for the county Department of Public Works, which monitors and maintains the seven sites…

See: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e6f8dde5-da4c-54fc-b8ee-fe358795ea8c.html

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/san-marcos/article_d7aa1db1-9f1b-5498-ba82-8ed1867d62c0.html

and: http://peopleinvestigatingtoxicsites.blogspot.com/2010/07/homes-or-adjacent-to-closed-dumps.html

http://peopleinvestigatingtoxicsites.blogspot.com/2010/07/del-sur-green-community-on-wwii-bombing.html

http://www.10newsblogs.com/pdf/blackmountain1.pdf

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Agreed, brian. MM, where AN resides is an example of city/suburban life. For many years, MM AND SR were the “last bastions” in the northern part of the City with MM built up as tracts on small urban lots. For that reason, MM life is a combination of city and suburban existence.[/quote]
WRT MM, according SANDAG: http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/zip92126fcst.pdf, there will be 45% more housing unit (almost 11k housing unit) going up in MM in the next 40 years. So, MM will be much more dense in the future. MM population is estimated to increased by 49% or ~35.7k people. Even with the future density, MM is still a suburb.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]BG, you should reconsider your opposition to building new and upzoning.

If you own an old house on a good sized lot in convenient central location, think what upzoning could do for you.

When you retire, you don’t want the house. You kids don’t want it. If the neighborhood were upzoned, your property would be worth more.

In the mean time, you can continue to live in the house for as long as you like.

Cities change. If great stone mansions in Manhattan could be razed to make way for skyscrapper, why do we need to preserve mid-century wood houses.[/quote]

You are correct that I don’t want it when I retire and my kids don’t want it. However, my area will not allow any more apartments. There are several small apt complexes and two large senior complexes in my area but the rest of my immediate area is zoned for SFRs only (a few have companion units).

A handful of owners in my area have gutted and built new (complete remodels).

I believe the opposition is too strong here for upzoning. Longtime families are entrenched voters and community activists who will never give up their quaint “Leave it to Beaver” quality of life for more density. And they’ve got a LOT of time on their hands to protest and gather signatures.

If I can’t sell it in a few years for the price I what for it, I will just place tenants in it on a one-year lease and wait for a better day :=]

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl] I believe the opposition is too strong here for upzoning. Longtime families are entrenched voters and community activists who will never give up their quaint “Leave it to Beaver” quality of life for more density. And they’ve got a LOT of time on their hands to protest and gather signatures.

[/quote]

I agree with you… But those homeowners are financially misguided in my views. It takes decades for neighborhoods to change.

Upzoning would ensure the property is worth more when the structure is old and in need of major repairs.

In the mean time, the owners can live in the house for as long as they want. When they are ready to go, they can cash out.

[Author]

Posts