- This topic has 50 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM #740682March 28, 2012 at 12:16 PM #740683
The-Shoveler
ParticipantWhile I can see the exurbs taking longer to recover, over the long term in SoCal we are forecast to keep growing population at a fair clip. I think the exurbs will look a lot less exurbesh in 20 years.
SoCal is not quite Detroit either. The two are different, I think Shiller was painting with a wide brush.
March 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM #740685bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdduuuude] . . . Maybe distant bedroom-only communities.[/quote]
Yes.
March 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM #740686sdrealtor
ParticipantI just love when these so called experts try to put everything into a nice neat little box as if the world actually works that way.
March 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM #740687Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]While I can see the exurbs taking longer to recover, over the long term in SoCal we are forecast to keep growing population at a fair clip. I think the exurbs will look a lot less exurbesh in 20 years.
SoCal is not quite Detroit either. The two are different, I think Shiller was painting with a wide brush.[/quote]
Re: the bolded stmt, this will only happen if a plethora of well-paying jobs move to the four CA “exurban-poor” areas as shown on the CNN/Money map.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/23/news/economy/poverty_suburbs/index.htm?iid=HP_Highlight
Blue or white collar … doesn’t matter … the jobs need to pay a living wage and have benefits. For the most part, the families moving to these communities by necessity don’t have a gasoline budget of $400+ month for one vehicle.
I don’t think “retirees” are necessarily attracted to these exurban areas, unless they are originally from there (and I DO know some that are). Most “retirees” or “near-retirees” in CA that would consider moving for retirement already own a longtime home in a more desirable area of CA so would have no incentive to relocate in a “Cali-armpit” in the absence of family there.
March 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM #740688Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I just love when these so called experts try to put everything into a nice neat little box as if the world actually works that way.[/quote]
Do any “realtors” around here have anything of value to add to this thread??
March 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM #740689briansd1
Guest[quote=ocrenter]I’m still not convinced.
As long as there’s land and as long as we do not see Asian style population density, i just don’t see the end of suburbs.
Personally I do think overall it is better for the earth to be in a crowded city environment. Better for ones health too as there will be more reliance on walking. But I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon.
Especially with the way SD is structured and the way people are telecommuting.
[/quote]I agree ocrenter.
I would add that the car culture is still very much part of American life.San Diego is different, built on a north south axis with downtown, not at the center of the region, but off to the side.
Generally speaking, I think that demographics shifts will actually help “glamour” cities such as San Diego. But suburbs of non glamour cities will be hurt. Educated people want to live in or near cities with excitement and culture.
Suburbs of Cities such as Macon, GA or Wichita, KS, Fort Wayne, IN, will be hurt. But Plano, TX, Irvine, Lake Forest, Temecula will be fine because they are close to large metropolitan areas.
March 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM #740697UCGal
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler]While I can see the exurbs taking longer to recover, over the long term in SoCal we are forecast to keep growing population at a fair clip. I think the exurbs will look a lot less exurbesh in 20 years.
SoCal is not quite Detroit either. The two are different, I think Shiller was painting with a wide brush.[/quote]
Re: the bolded stmt, this will only happen if a plethora of well-paying jobs move to the four CA “exurban-poor” areas as shown on the CNN/Money map.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/23/news/economy/poverty_suburbs/index.htm?iid=HP_Highlight
Blue or white collar … doesn’t matter … the jobs need to pay a living wage and have benefits. For the most part, the families moving to these communities by necessity don’t have a gasoline budget of $400+ month for one vehicle.
I don’t think “retirees” are necessarily attracted to these exurban areas, unless they are originally from there (and I DO know some that are). Most “retirees” or “near-retirees” in CA that would consider moving for retirement already own a longtime home in a more desirable area of CA so would have no incentive to relocate in a “Cali-armpit” in the absence of family there.[/quote]
I remember when Poway was considered a distant burb. Heck – when I first moved to UC (as a kid in the early 60’s) it was a distant burb.
I also know retirees who raised their kids in San Diego, kids still live in San Diego, but sold and bought in Murrieta. Wanted a newer home, lower maintenance, quiter, less urban lifestyle.
Lots of exceptions to every rule.
March 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM #740698an
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, if you go to the bottom of the second article, its information is derived from this piece:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/23/news/economy/poverty_suburbs/index.htm?iid=HP_Highlight
Click on the link above and look at CA. You will notice it is referring to exurbs and *new* “suburbs” which sprung from longtime farmland.
It’s not referring to communities such as Mira Mesa, which is actually “urban” (or “1st-tier suburban”). YOU and your “Gen-Y friends” are close to major job centers. The (CA) communities the CNN article is referring to sprung up in the last decade out of well-known agricultural areas.
These are CA’s future ghost towns, IMHO.
A property costing $400K in MM would cost only $150K – $200K in the outskirts of Stockton (for a comparable property). This is where the “poor” from both in-state and out-of-state are flocking to. They can’t fit a family of five into a 1 br condo in MM for $1200 month.[/quote]
According to Wikipedia, Fresno, Modesto, Bakersfield and Stockton are not suburb. They’re all small cities. Areas like Mira Mesa, Clairemont Mesa, Carmel Valley, etc. are suburbs. So, your definition of urban is not what average people would considered as urban.FYI, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. did not “sprung up” in the last decade. They’ve been there for many many years. I can bet you Fresno is not going to be a ghost town.
March 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM #740702Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=ocrenter]I’m still not convinced.
As long as there’s land and as long as we do not see Asian style population density, i just don’t see the end of suburbs.
Personally I do think overall it is better for the earth to be in a crowded city environment. Better for ones health too as there will be more reliance on walking. But I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon.
Especially with the way SD is structured and the way people are telecommuting.
[/quote]I agree ocrenter.
I would add that the car culture is still very much part of American life.San Diego is different, built on a north south axis with downtown, not at the center of the region, but off to the side.
Generally speaking, I think that demographics shifts will actually help “glamour” cities such as San Diego. But suburbs of non glamour cities will be hurt. Educated people want to live in or near cities with excitement and culture.
Suburbs of Cities such as Macon, GA or Wichita, KS, Fort Wayne, IN, will be hurt. But Plano, TX, Irvine, Lake Forest, Temecula will be fine because they are close to large metropolitan areas.[/quote]
Agree with you Brian and ocr. That is why so called experts like Shiller with their blanket statements sell newspapers but dont reflect reality.
March 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM #740706Participant[quote=AN]…FYI, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. did not “sprung up” in the last decade. They’ve been there for many many years. I can bet you Fresno is not going to be a ghost town.[/quote]
Of course they didn’t, AN. And I will admit that there were enough jobs in those small cities to employ their original (year 2000) populations. But you should SEE what’s built around them now! You would be SHOCKED!!
It’s evident to me here that there are not a lot of Piggs that are as well-road-traveled as I am. I can safely say I’ve traveled nearly all hwys, large and small in this entire state, some multiple times and some dozens of times.
CA is slowly losing its prized agricultural “foodbasket” to “Big Development.” This vast area is THE prime provider of food and commodities to nearly the entire country, ESP for food that cannot be grown elsewhere.
The San Joaquin Valley wasn’t meant to turn into a mcmansion megalopolis. The population and job centers to support this type of housing never existed there. It’s absolutely horrific driving through these recently-built far-flung tracts in inland counties which were and are extremely hard-hit by distressed properties primarily resulting from sub-prime lending of recent years.
You would have to see it to believe it. It’s a dirty shame – CA’s darkest secret that never should have happened.
March 28, 2012 at 2:48 PM #740709GuestBG, there’s that suburban sprawl and exurban sprawl because it’s so hard to build and increase density in already built-out areas.
I’m telling you, if SD doesn’t want new houses, Temecula, Fallbrook, Escondido, El Cajon, will. Remember those developer fees you talked about before?
Those avocado groves, orange groves or whatever will be mowed over until they are no more.
March 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM #740711Participant[quote=UCGal]I remember when Poway was considered a distant burb. Heck – when I first moved to UC (as a kid in the early 60’s) it was a distant burb.
I also know retirees who raised their kids in San Diego, kids still live in San Diego, but sold and bought in Murrieta. Wanted a newer home, lower maintenance, quiter, less urban lifestyle.
Lots of exceptions to every rule.[/quote]
Yes, UCGal, I too, remember when “Poway” was several miles inland from the *new* I-15. It was considered “far-flung” and Poway road was sandbagged for the longest time :=]
If you have noticed, I haven’t put TV on the future “ghost-town map” yet (and neither has CNN/Money), lol ….
TV seems to have a lot going for it now in its own right, seems somewhat self-contained and has some light industry and a large casino. And it’s not that far of a drive to Riverside or Corona from there.
Not sure though, about the percentage of TV’s population who actually commute more than 50 mi one-way to work. Not sure if there are *enough* nearby good jobs to serve that area, ESP for those who live in the more outlying areas of Hemet and Moreno Valley. If these outlying areas are populated by retirees (like Palm Sprs, Indio & Sun City), then close proximity to work doesn’t really matter.
There are many “quiet, less-urban” places in CA to retire which are much better-located than TV. Persons nearing retirement who are financially secure won’t generally move from a “70 deg avg” area to “90 deg avg” area unless they need or want to be near other family members. In the absence of that reason, what’s the point?
March 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM #740712GuestMore Americans are living alone than before.
If you live alone, better live in the city than out in the burbs where you need to drive everywhere.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june12/goingsolo_03-27.html
March 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM #740714Participant[quote=briansd1]BG, there’s that suburban sprawl and exurban sprawl because it’s so hard to build and increase density in already built-out areas.
I’m telling you, if SD doesn’t want new houses, Temecula, Fallbrook, Escondido, El Cajon, will. Remember those developer fees you talked about before?
Those avocado groves, orange groves or whatever will be mowed over until they are no more.[/quote]
NOT!
brian, I can’t speak for Fallbrook (except that it is in the General (2020?) Plan for SD County and I can’t speak for Temecula. Esco MAY have land left in 92026, however most of that area is very rocky and hilly, some is on a Type-A flood plain and what IS developed is mostly HOA-encumbered SFR tracts (i.e. Lawrence Welk/Mtn Meadow exits). Much of Esco is County and semi-rural. I don’t see that changing.
All El Cajon’s hilltops are already developed that can be developed. A huge portion of its flat land within the county’s general plan (92019) is zoned 1 unit per AC (sorry, NOT going to CHANGE)! The rest was built with HOA-encumbered tracts (i.e. Cottonwood/RSD) 20-25 years ago. 92020 has been zoned SFR, multi-family and comm’l for more than 50 years. The City has allowed in more low-income units here than any other zip code in the county! 92021 has been zoned mostly SFR and comm’l/light industrial for nearly 50 years.
It’s already built out.
Now, if you have a yen for “redevelopment,” I urge you to find yourself one or more “infill lots” in EC, put your Big Developer Hat on, chain your main draftsperson to your arm and head on up to Ruffin Rd and/or City Hall.
http://www.ci.el-cajon.ca.us/dept/comm/planning.html
And GOOD LUCK, brian …
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.