plunging birthrate

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]

If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:

The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.

~~~~~

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose that would be an accurate statement. I was mostly referring to the fertility rate decrease of modern industrialized countries due to behavioral changes that come along with going from an agricultural environment to urban. Which has nothing to do with biological ability and is the main driver of the shift.

[quote]
And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .[/quote]

Actually, I don’t know why I did that. Shouldn’t have.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose that would be an accurate statement. I was mostly referring to the fertility rate decrease of modern industrialized countries due to behavioral changes that come along with going from an agricultural environment to urban. Which has nothing to do with biological ability and is the main driver of the shift.

[quote]
And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .[/quote]

Actually, I don’t know why I did that. Shouldn’t have.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose that would be an accurate statement. I was mostly referring to the fertility rate decrease of modern industrialized countries due to behavioral changes that come along with going from an agricultural environment to urban. Which has nothing to do with biological ability and is the main driver of the shift.

[quote]
And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .[/quote]

Actually, I don’t know why I did that. Shouldn’t have.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose that would be an accurate statement. I was mostly referring to the fertility rate decrease of modern industrialized countries due to behavioral changes that come along with going from an agricultural environment to urban. Which has nothing to do with biological ability and is the main driver of the shift.

[quote]
And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .[/quote]

Actually, I don’t know why I did that. Shouldn’t have.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose that would be an accurate statement. I was mostly referring to the fertility rate decrease of modern industrialized countries due to behavioral changes that come along with going from an agricultural environment to urban. Which has nothing to do with biological ability and is the main driver of the shift.

[quote]
And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .[/quote]

Actually, I don’t know why I did that. Shouldn’t have.

[Eugene]

[quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.

[Eugene]

[quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.

[Eugene]

[quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.

[Eugene]

[quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.

[Eugene]

[quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[Author]

Posts