It’s not all gloom and doom. “Silly” Valley values booming

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]AN, here’s something we can agree on. That “bunch of lumber” can be plywood, “engineered wood,” or Brazilian hardwood and teak but you wouldn’t want to install the latter unless the property location and lot made it worth doing so. I’ve posted your phrase (above), “Everything else can be changed/customized” in all its variations countless times on this board but it doesn’t seem to have any effect on getting some Piggs to understand that “value” is all about location and nothing more, even if just a vacant lot.[/quote]
Not everyone do upgrades specifically for resale purposes. Some people do upgrades to enhance their living comfort and allow them to enjoy the materials/design. Just because it’s a tract house doesn’t mean one can’t put in high end upgrades, especially if it’s their forever home. Also, certain location appeal for to one and less for other. So, just because it’s less appealing to you doesn’t mean the owner of such house wouldn’t want to upgrade to their liking.[/quote]

Very true, AN. Many owner/builders of custom homes don’t even think about resale. They are building their “dream home,” or some variation of it.

The reason Mr. CAR and I would like to build our own house is so that we can get a layout and style that are specific to our tastes. We plan on being wheeled out on gurneys from our next house, so resale value is not an issue.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[SmellsFeeshy]

[quote=ctr70]A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.
[/quote]

I agree that the general population in the Bay Area vs. San Diego does seem to be more educated/intelligent/cultural as a whole than down here. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that uneducated people simply can’t afford to live up there.

However, I don’t think comparing the suburbs of SD to the city of SF itself is a fair comparison. I may be wrong since I’ve never lived in Silicon Valley myself but from what I’ve seen cities in the South Bay around San Jose are basically the same “suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless” areas as the suburbs down here.

[SmellsFeeshy]

[quote=ctr70]A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.
[/quote]

I agree that the general population in the Bay Area vs. San Diego does seem to be more educated/intelligent/cultural as a whole than down here. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that uneducated people simply can’t afford to live up there.

However, I don’t think comparing the suburbs of SD to the city of SF itself is a fair comparison. I may be wrong since I’ve never lived in Silicon Valley myself but from what I’ve seen cities in the South Bay around San Jose are basically the same “suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless” areas as the suburbs down here.

[SmellsFeeshy]

[quote=ctr70]A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.
[/quote]

I agree that the general population in the Bay Area vs. San Diego does seem to be more educated/intelligent/cultural as a whole than down here. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that uneducated people simply can’t afford to live up there.

However, I don’t think comparing the suburbs of SD to the city of SF itself is a fair comparison. I may be wrong since I’ve never lived in Silicon Valley myself but from what I’ve seen cities in the South Bay around San Jose are basically the same “suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless” areas as the suburbs down here.

[SmellsFeeshy]

[quote=ctr70]A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.
[/quote]

I agree that the general population in the Bay Area vs. San Diego does seem to be more educated/intelligent/cultural as a whole than down here. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that uneducated people simply can’t afford to live up there.

However, I don’t think comparing the suburbs of SD to the city of SF itself is a fair comparison. I may be wrong since I’ve never lived in Silicon Valley myself but from what I’ve seen cities in the South Bay around San Jose are basically the same “suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless” areas as the suburbs down here.

[SmellsFeeshy]

[quote=ctr70]A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.
[/quote]

I agree that the general population in the Bay Area vs. San Diego does seem to be more educated/intelligent/cultural as a whole than down here. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that uneducated people simply can’t afford to live up there.

However, I don’t think comparing the suburbs of SD to the city of SF itself is a fair comparison. I may be wrong since I’ve never lived in Silicon Valley myself but from what I’ve seen cities in the South Bay around San Jose are basically the same “suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless” areas as the suburbs down here.

[SmellsFeeshy]

Also out of curiosity for people like flu and ctr70 that moved down to SD from the Bay Area, what made you want to move?

[SmellsFeeshy]

Also out of curiosity for people like flu and ctr70 that moved down to SD from the Bay Area, what made you want to move?

[SmellsFeeshy]

Also out of curiosity for people like flu and ctr70 that moved down to SD from the Bay Area, what made you want to move?

[SmellsFeeshy]

Also out of curiosity for people like flu and ctr70 that moved down to SD from the Bay Area, what made you want to move?

[Author]

Posts