Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Rancho Mission Road area
- This topic has 49 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM #745929June 16, 2012 at 10:37 PM #745930
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=spdrun]Do more people necessarily want to live closer to the core? This is San Diego, not Manhattan or Capitol Hill/DC. Given unlimited money, I’d probably take La Jolla or PB over the immediate downtown area/Little Italy.[/quote]
spdrun, in decades past, downtown workers DID want to live close to downtown (even those who had families). However, I’m not sure very many of today’s families with school-age children want to live in SD’s urban core. The vast majority of young parents on this board seem to have issues with the schools although there is really nothing wrong with 80% of SD’s schools located in the urban core, IMO. Excluding military bases, what has happened over the years in SD County is that dtn SD, Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, Mira Mesa, Scripps Ranch and later, what is now known as the “Golden Triangle” WERE the “work centers” of 25+ years ago (in that order by amt of workers employed in them). Now that most of the aerospace and defense contractors have left, SD has “high-tech” and “biotech” centers which employ the most workers. The majority of these job centers are located in the Golden Triangle, Sorrento Mesa, Sorrento Valley and surrounds. Tract housing and condos sprung up around these work centers, attracting nearby workers and their families. Of course, these companies draw workers from the entire county but the workers who don’t live nearby have to commute daily on crowded freeways in and out of these work centers.
LJ, although fairly close to the *new* work centers, is too expensive for the vast majority of these workers. PB is a little less expensive than LJ but most of these workers are young and do not care for the older housing stock (either in PB OR LJ). In CA coastal counties, the older stock in the best locations typically has substantially larger lots than newer tract-housing does. Schools aside, the younger cohort of Gen X and Gen Y typically do not want to spend time or money on extensive landscape and staunchly refuse to raise their children in a 1400-2200 sf house when they can get a 3000+ sf house in the far-flung lizard-infested stix for the same price or less. They would rather spend their time commuting and have their air conditioner regularly serviced.
To each his own :=0
June 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM #745933briansd1
GuestI have no doubt Civita will be a successful development that will hold value well.
I say let the market decide. New developments near the urban core sell well. People don’t wan’t far flung as much as they want new, clean and comfortable at a reasonable price.
BG sounds like a selfish old person who wants no new building near the urban core. But then she laments that people are moving to far flung areas. Those 2 positions are not realistically compatible.
Progress is about embracing change and newcomers. Your San Diego of 30 years ago is not what people want. It was never yours to begin with.
June 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM #745934
CoronitaParticipant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Do more people necessarily want to live closer to the core? This is San Diego, not Manhattan or Capitol Hill/DC. Given unlimited money, I’d probably take La Jolla or PB over the immediate downtown area/Little Italy.[/quote]
San Diego works differently from say NYC or SF…
SD downtown is much more dead than the burbs I think.
Assuming infinite amount of money, downtown never crossed my mind personally. Folks wanting “city life” probably shouldn’t live in San Diego.You should also note a LOT of downtown development was recent, overpriced, underwater, and with huge hoa fees.[/quote]
I don’t think dtn SD is dead. I was just down there today (a weekend) and it was hopping. There are a lot of tourists down there and the Gaslamp/Horton Plaza was busy. However, SD’s “city life” doesn’t compare to SF and I’m sure it doesn’t compare to NYC (never been there).
Agree about overbuilding of condos which were/are underwater but I think this area is slowly recovering as some of the complexes originally built to sell are being converted to rentals. The HOAs there DO tend to have high dues because many are full-service with 24-hr staff and amenities such as gyms. However, the sound levels when opening windows or standing on a balcony are very high there, day and night, especially those complexes directly over the nightlife at the Gaslamp, within earshot of Petco Park and the ones up on Bankers Hill (with noise from airport landings and I-5).[/quote]
Sure. If you say so chief.
June 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM #745937Participant[quote=briansd1]I have no doubt Civita will be a successful development that will hold value well.
I say let the market decide. New developments near the urban core sell well. People don’t wan’t far flung as much as they want new, clean and comfortable at a reasonable price.
BG sounds like a selfish old person who wants no new building near the urban core. But then she laments that people are moving to far flung areas. Those 2 positions are not realistically compatible.
Progress is about embracing change and newcomers. Your San Diego of 30 years ago is not what people want. It was never yours to begin with.[/quote]
WOW, brian! Where did this vitriol come from? And how did you come to this conclusion??
I actually like all the mid-century-wannabe condo bldgs in East Village! HOWEVER, the units in them have not been selling well in recent years. Along with several other languishing projects, I passed by the “Strata” today and it looks like its mgmt is STILL trying to rent these units after initially converting them to rentals nearly three years ago. Perhaps Pigg UR can tell us if more buyers have been showing interest of late in some of these *new* buildings. I think these new condos and apt bldgs, along with the redevelopment of the Gaslamp District, expansion of the SD Convention Center, completion of Petco Park, etc., has significantly improved SD’s dtn for the better. These projects replaced old, dilapidated SFR’s and comm’l buildings where the homeless slept under the eaves and lived on every corner with all their worldly possessions. Not to mention it eliminated scores of “porta-pottis” set out for the homeless on vacant lots near 14th and Market Sts (just NE of where the homeless were able to obtain sack breakfasts and lunches from charities for years – sometimes straight out of the backs of vehicles). The difference in dtn SD due to the rampant development of recent years is night and day!
I believe dtn SD got overbuilt and then underwater due to builders having excess liquidity and initial buyers being able to buy with “funny money.” But this is one area that WILL eventually “catch up to itself,” IMO.
I am completely against urban sprawl for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which it has had the unintended consequence of completely decimating the finances of so many CA cities and counties.
The “urban renewal” that has taken place in dtn SD is NOT “urban sprawl,” nor is “Civita” in MV. Whether or not any buildings existed on those sites prior to what is there now, they are considered infill. The two are completely different animals.
June 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM #745948GuestBG, density comes with traffic and if there is traffic we have to find ways to manage it.
Who cares is there is overbuilding? All the better for buyers and renters. Its much better than under building.
You can’t have your large mid-century large lot ranch houses without urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is part of california history.
June 17, 2012 at 9:08 AM #745950spdrun
ParticipantIn CA coastal counties, the older stock in the best locations typically has substantially larger lots than newer tract-housing does. Schools aside, the younger cohort of Gen X and Gen Y typically do not want to spend time or money on extensive landscape and staunchly refuse to raise their children in a 1400-2200 sf house when they can get a 3000+ sf house in the far-flung lizard-infested stix for the same price or less.
I read it, understand it, but still don’t “get” it:
PB seems to have a lot of cute older houses on small lots. Typically used as rentals, but I wouldn’t feel beneath living in one myself, and I’m in my early 30s. Are my tastes warped by being from the the East Coast, where age of housing doesn’t matter so much as quality? (Avg build date of homes in my immediate family is something like 1920).
June 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM #745952ParticipantWho cares is there is overbuilding? All the better for buyers and renters. Its much better than under building.
Since this has turned into a philosophical discussion… 😀
Really depends WHAT is being built. Cheap garbazhe that will fall apart within 5 years and need expensive repairs/raise maintenance to nightmare levels, or good quality housing. The former suits nobody; not buyers, not the environment, not builders who get mired in litigation.
Also, if buyers buy, then the market gets glutted with cheap new-build homes, you end up with a situation much like that in Phoenix. Yeah, prices have recovered a bit there, but they’re still down 40-50% over the peak years.
June 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM #745953SD Realtor
ParticipantI owned an investment condo in Mission Valley. We purchased it in 03 or 04, not a great time to buy, and sold in 07. It did not cash flow well but we made a nice profit with regards to the appreciation.
As far as tenant quality, we had strong demand for very well qualified tenants. We ended up getting an engineer who eventually purchased from us.
June 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM #745954sdrealtor
ParticipantNo Civita is bad! I have heard rumors of their plans for plumbing. Even worse they are planning to encase the plumbing in 2×4 studs and drywall. Some may consider these walls but I know better. I saw this happen in MM twenty nine years ago.
June 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM #745956CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]
Who cares is there is overbuilding? All the better for buyers and renters. Its much better than under building.
Since this has turned into a philosophical discussion… 😀
[/quote]
They always do these days.
Even when things are what they are, inevitably there is always someone of the most bizarre opinions for/against something from arguably LETDLITA, maybe not necessarily from experience. Some of us, have decided when we are serious about RE investing we take it offline and PM people back and forth.I haven’t looked in Mission Valley as an investment option. And I don’t like making shit up when I don’t know. So sarcasm aside, I have no comment specifically on MV. Sorry.
My suggestion for you is find out where the big/high paying employers are, and plan accordingly. That I do know, but folks will some folks will probably want to argue about that, just for argument sake too.
June 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM #745957CoronitaParticipant[quote=SD Realtor]I owned an investment condo in Mission Valley. We purchased it in 03 or 04, not a great time to buy, and sold in 07. It did not cash flow well but we made a nice profit with regards to the appreciation.
As far as tenant quality, we had strong demand for very well qualified tenants. We ended up getting an engineer who eventually purchased from us.[/quote]
SDR how the heck did you pull his off? Wow 04 was near peak… Props to you.
June 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM #745958ocrenter
Participant[quote=flu]Definitely NOT carmel valley because it won’t cash flow.
Not to mention, the schools suck, the quality of housing there sucks, it’s filled with migrant camps.Definitely NOT mira mesa…. It’s a dump there, and you have really sketchy renters, a lot of bums, and high unemployment with people who can’t pay bills there…The future looks bleak there, because while there are some employers out there, they might go under and they might relocate out of the area. Take one employer, called Qualcomm. They might end up relocating to Mexico, or they might go out of business if people stop using smart phones… and when that happens, Mira Mesa is Dead with a capital D. In fact, Mira Mesa would end up like Detroit. You don’t want to invest in an area like Detroit, do you? That’s right. So don’t even look there. Don’t bid on property there. It’s definitely not a good place to look…
I think some folks mentioned Chula Vista are good places and some think Santee are good places. You might want to ask some of the leading experts in that area.[/quote]
migrant camps? do you mean the type of migrants from India, China, Korea, and Taiwan? and the camps, you meant those shanty town built by Pardee?
definitely a lot less migrants in Santee, true red white and blue blooded Americans live there.
June 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM #745959Participant[quote=flu][quote=SD Realtor]I owned an investment condo in Mission Valley. We purchased it in 03 or 04, not a great time to buy, and sold in 07. It did not cash flow well but we made a nice profit with regards to the appreciation.
As far as tenant quality, we had strong demand for very well qualified tenants. We ended up getting an engineer who eventually purchased from us.[/quote]
SDR how the heck did you pull his off? Wow 04 was near peak… Props to you.[/quote]
I believe it. we bought a condo in 2004 as well. sold in 2005 for a nice six figure profit. our buyer ended up selling in 2008 for the same price. the comparable at the bottom ended up $100k lower than our purchase price in ’04.
June 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM #745960Participantmigrant camps? do you mean the type of migrants from India, China, Korea, and Taiwan? and the camps, you meant those shanty town built by Pardee?
definitely a lot less migrants in Santee, true red white and blue blooded Americans live there.
I think that you don’t get sarcasm even when it pops you one on the jaw.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.