Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Mission Hills: Low End Trends
- This topic has 430 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
pemeliza.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM #683837April 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM #682672
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=pemeliza]”An awesome bay view is not awesome if it includes jumbo jets and thiousands of cars/trucks drivng by at 70+MPH.”
I agree sdr and this is precisely why I ended up buying in north Mission Hills rather than south. That view of the airport and freeway is a major turn off for me as well even though they I do enjoy the city views at night.
Having said that, I can see how that combination of features would appeal to a certain class of buyer.[/quote]
To be frank, pemeliza, I don’t consider this area above India St and also along Reynard Way as “Mission Hills.” I don’t even consider the area surrounding the Vons on the south side of Washington “Mission Hills.” I would refer to 2940 Columbia as being in “Middleton” and other low-end properties referred to on this thread situated south of Washington as “Hillcrest.”
I myself would prefer the REAL built ins and pocket doors made of redwood or cedar. While this property is a very good replica of Mission-style and appears to be a quality-built home, it is NOT the real thing.
This area doesn’t have near the walkability (some steep hills), ambiance and privacy of Mission Hills and never will. The bay view below Middleton is marred by warehouses, old military bldgs and a partial runway in the foreground. However, it is undeniably a good bay view and beyond, especially from about two streets higher than this property (Union St).
April 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM #682726Participant[quote=pemeliza]”An awesome bay view is not awesome if it includes jumbo jets and thiousands of cars/trucks drivng by at 70+MPH.”
I agree sdr and this is precisely why I ended up buying in north Mission Hills rather than south. That view of the airport and freeway is a major turn off for me as well even though they I do enjoy the city views at night.
Having said that, I can see how that combination of features would appeal to a certain class of buyer.[/quote]
To be frank, pemeliza, I don’t consider this area above India St and also along Reynard Way as “Mission Hills.” I don’t even consider the area surrounding the Vons on the south side of Washington “Mission Hills.” I would refer to 2940 Columbia as being in “Middleton” and other low-end properties referred to on this thread situated south of Washington as “Hillcrest.”
I myself would prefer the REAL built ins and pocket doors made of redwood or cedar. While this property is a very good replica of Mission-style and appears to be a quality-built home, it is NOT the real thing.
This area doesn’t have near the walkability (some steep hills), ambiance and privacy of Mission Hills and never will. The bay view below Middleton is marred by warehouses, old military bldgs and a partial runway in the foreground. However, it is undeniably a good bay view and beyond, especially from about two streets higher than this property (Union St).
April 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM #683349Participant[quote=pemeliza]”An awesome bay view is not awesome if it includes jumbo jets and thiousands of cars/trucks drivng by at 70+MPH.”
I agree sdr and this is precisely why I ended up buying in north Mission Hills rather than south. That view of the airport and freeway is a major turn off for me as well even though they I do enjoy the city views at night.
Having said that, I can see how that combination of features would appeal to a certain class of buyer.[/quote]
To be frank, pemeliza, I don’t consider this area above India St and also along Reynard Way as “Mission Hills.” I don’t even consider the area surrounding the Vons on the south side of Washington “Mission Hills.” I would refer to 2940 Columbia as being in “Middleton” and other low-end properties referred to on this thread situated south of Washington as “Hillcrest.”
I myself would prefer the REAL built ins and pocket doors made of redwood or cedar. While this property is a very good replica of Mission-style and appears to be a quality-built home, it is NOT the real thing.
This area doesn’t have near the walkability (some steep hills), ambiance and privacy of Mission Hills and never will. The bay view below Middleton is marred by warehouses, old military bldgs and a partial runway in the foreground. However, it is undeniably a good bay view and beyond, especially from about two streets higher than this property (Union St).
April 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM #683492Participant[quote=pemeliza]”An awesome bay view is not awesome if it includes jumbo jets and thiousands of cars/trucks drivng by at 70+MPH.”
I agree sdr and this is precisely why I ended up buying in north Mission Hills rather than south. That view of the airport and freeway is a major turn off for me as well even though they I do enjoy the city views at night.
Having said that, I can see how that combination of features would appeal to a certain class of buyer.[/quote]
To be frank, pemeliza, I don’t consider this area above India St and also along Reynard Way as “Mission Hills.” I don’t even consider the area surrounding the Vons on the south side of Washington “Mission Hills.” I would refer to 2940 Columbia as being in “Middleton” and other low-end properties referred to on this thread situated south of Washington as “Hillcrest.”
I myself would prefer the REAL built ins and pocket doors made of redwood or cedar. While this property is a very good replica of Mission-style and appears to be a quality-built home, it is NOT the real thing.
This area doesn’t have near the walkability (some steep hills), ambiance and privacy of Mission Hills and never will. The bay view below Middleton is marred by warehouses, old military bldgs and a partial runway in the foreground. However, it is undeniably a good bay view and beyond, especially from about two streets higher than this property (Union St).
April 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM #683847Participant[quote=pemeliza]”An awesome bay view is not awesome if it includes jumbo jets and thiousands of cars/trucks drivng by at 70+MPH.”
I agree sdr and this is precisely why I ended up buying in north Mission Hills rather than south. That view of the airport and freeway is a major turn off for me as well even though they I do enjoy the city views at night.
Having said that, I can see how that combination of features would appeal to a certain class of buyer.[/quote]
To be frank, pemeliza, I don’t consider this area above India St and also along Reynard Way as “Mission Hills.” I don’t even consider the area surrounding the Vons on the south side of Washington “Mission Hills.” I would refer to 2940 Columbia as being in “Middleton” and other low-end properties referred to on this thread situated south of Washington as “Hillcrest.”
I myself would prefer the REAL built ins and pocket doors made of redwood or cedar. While this property is a very good replica of Mission-style and appears to be a quality-built home, it is NOT the real thing.
This area doesn’t have near the walkability (some steep hills), ambiance and privacy of Mission Hills and never will. The bay view below Middleton is marred by warehouses, old military bldgs and a partial runway in the foreground. However, it is undeniably a good bay view and beyond, especially from about two streets higher than this property (Union St).
April 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM #682677Participant[quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.
CE[/quote]
CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??
My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.
You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.
You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=]
April 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM #682731Participant[quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.
CE[/quote]
CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??
My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.
You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.
You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=]
April 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM #683354Participant[quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.
CE[/quote]
CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??
My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.
You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.
You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=]
April 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM #683497Participant[quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.
CE[/quote]
CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??
My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.
You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.
You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=]
April 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM #683852Participant[quote=CDMA ENG] . . . Of course how someone wants to spend 750K on a house and still consider this area to be desirable is subjective and in the “eye of the beholder” but you are not “virtually out of it” noise wise.
CE[/quote]
CE, I am surmising from your post that it lists the reasons for why you are currently renting in UC. Do I have this correct??
My PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with being a pedestrian on the ground for a good many years is that the jet landing noise is significantly decreased north of Laurel street and is a fraction of the noise over the 2100 block as one approaches the Quince St footbridge.
You may refer to whichever “studies” you wish. It does not change the fact that many people love this area and that these (often large) pier and post homes framed and finished inside with CA redwood/cedar and red mahogany so prevalent in 92103 do not exist in UC.
You appear to be currently residing in the right area for you, IMHO ;=]
April 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM #682682blahblahblah
Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.
On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.
Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.
So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.
April 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM #682736Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.
On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.
Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.
So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.
April 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM #683359Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.
On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.
Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.
So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.
April 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM #683502Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
You’re kidding right? I know people several miles off the flight path in Point Loma who have installed ACs in their house because they use to keep their windows open all summer and could no longer bear the sound of aircraft anymore. I have known 2 couples that moved from Point Loma to somewhere else because of the noise. One couple moved to North Mission Beach and still installed AC in the house because of the aircraft noise. So why would NOT being directly under the flight path make that much difference?[/quote]Ahhh, looks like it’s time for an Aircraft Fundamentals 101 refresher. You always want to take off into the wind, and in San Diego that means taking off towards the ocean over 90% of the time. At take off the plane needs to produce a lot of power very quickly to gain as much altitude as possible. Altitude=Safety in the world of aviation because the higher you are, the more time and options you have to deal with any issues that may occur. Much of Point Loma is underneath this 90+% takeoff route and the jets will have their engines at high power until they are up a few thousand feet. This is why the aircraft are so loud in PL even when they are pretty high up, they are still climbing.
On landing the pilot has the opposite problem, he needs to reduce speed as much as possible while preserving his options in case of emergency. This means cutting the engine power way down. It is true that the jets directly overhead on the Lindbergh landing path are really, really loud, but if you just go a few blocks in either direction they are much less noticeable.
Of course there is that -10% of the time where the winds change here and takeoff/landing directions are reversed. In those cases, PL gets a break and enjoys the quiet idling engines as they glide in for a landing, and Mission Hills/Hillcrest/Banker’s Hill gets the full-on roar of the big turbines at takeoff.
So being in the flight path can mean different things at different times. Better to be in the landing path than the takeoff path IMO, especially here where the directions rarely reverse. That said, I would NEVER want to live right under the landing path, it is really, really loud.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.