Shiller: The Suburbs are not coming back!

[The-Shoveler]

Funny, I was just on the phone with a colleague, said he was coming down to TV to look for future retirement home and spend some time at Pechanga.

Pechanga has to be the biggest draw for newbees comig to TV.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Funny, I was just on the phone with a colleague, said he was coming down to TV to look for future retirement home and spend some time at Pechanga.

Pechanga has to be the biggest draw for newbees comig to TV.[/quote]

I’m curious as to where your “colleague” lives now.

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler]Funny, I was just on the phone with a colleague, said he was coming down to TV to look for future retirement home and spend some time at Pechanga.

Pechanga has to be the biggest draw for newbees comig to TV.[/quote]

I’m curious as to where your “colleague” lives now.[/quote]

Simi Valley (in L.A. well actually in Ventura County, but really L.A.)
Nice enough place but fairly expensive for what you get 25-30 miles from the coast.
Cost 600K to get some that cost around 300 in TV. Actually hotter than TV a lot of the time in the summer there.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]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.[/quote]
No, I wouldn’t be shocked. My wife grew up in Fresno and her entire extended family live there for over 20 years. So, I’m sure I know as much if not more about the San Joaquin Valley than you do. So, you might think you know about a place by driving through it, I know the place because I have family members who grew up there and are still living there. I go visit them several times a year. So yes, I’ve seen it as it changes over the last 10+ years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]You would have to see it to believe it. It’s a dirty shame – CA’s darkest secret that never should have happened.[/quote]
No, I wouldn’t be shocked. My wife grew up in Fresno and her entire extended family live there for over 20 years. So, I’m sure I know as much if not more about the San Joaquin Valley than you do. So, you might think you know about a place by driving through it, I know the place because I have family members who grew up there and are still living there. I go visit them several times a year. So yes, I’ve seen it as it changes over the last 10+ years.[/quote]

I don’t just “drive through,” AN. I have good friends in Merced, Modesto and Lodi and have taken nearly ALL the state hwys ALL over the state traversing from the coast inland and vice versa. The inland sprawl (west of the Sierras) is almost EVERYWHERE there is a road with unprotected open space!

So what do you think of the outgrowth of Fresno and surrounds, AN? Does it appear “sustainable” to you? Has any of your spouse’s relatives commented on how the (surrounding) distressed properties affect their own values and/or on the displacement of all the families who have lost their homes?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]You would have to see it to believe it. It’s a dirty shame – CA’s darkest secret that never should have happened.[/quote]No, I wouldn’t be shocked. My wife grew up in Fresno and her entire extended family live there for over 20 years. So, I’m sure I know as much if not more about the San Joaquin Valley than you do. So, you might think you know about a place by driving through it, I know the place because I have family members who grew up there and are still living there. I go visit them several times a year. So yes, I’ve seen it as it changes over the last 10+ years.[/quote]

I don’t just “drive through,” AN. I have good friends in Merced, Modesto and Lodi and have taken nearly ALL the state hwys ALL over the state traversing from the coast inland and vice versa. The inland sprawl (west of the Sierras) is almost EVERYWHERE there is a road thru unprotected open space!

So what do you think of the outgrowth of Fresno and surrounds, AN? Does it appear “sustainable” to you? Has any of your spouse’s relatives commented on how the (surrounding) distressed properties affect their own values and/or on the displacement of all the families who have lost their homes?

[scaredyclassic]

Whatever gas is a gallon u can pay half if u commute w someone. People can adapt to $10 gas

[Anonymous]

Anyone who knows the history of CA knows that there have been many spurts of overextended growth followed by pullbacks. But the long-term trend has always been expansion.

Temecula was once called Rancho California. A real estate developer (Kaiser) bought and named the land years ago, assuming the expansion of LA and San Diego would soon reach the area. He was off by a few decades, but was eventually right.

There are a few areas in CA that never recovered from a local boom/bust cycle, such as Salton Sea and California City, but these are generally isolated areas that a single developer tried to make work – not an outgrowth from an existing urban area (suburb, exurb, whatever you want to call it.)

The cities will continue to grow outward. The pace of growth may change over the years, but the trend never will.

[briansd1]

[quote=pri_dk]The cities will continue to grow outward. The pace of growth may change over the years, but the trend never will.[/quote]

Outward or upward are the only way to grow. Take your pick.

Yes, the history of California is all about the car and sprawl. I think that that the suburban house with attached garage and sliding glass patio door in communities connected to freeways, and the strip malls were all invented in California (if not, they were improved and mass marketed and mass produced here here).

Nevertheless, I do see some urbanization.
Take the wilshire area of LA.
And now Hollywood:

For those living in LA, if you live in Corona, or San Bernardino, or even Irvine, you’re definitely uncool.

In SD, North Park is the new up and coming area. I could see mid-rises and high-rises there.

I’d like to see more medium high rises like the few in UTC to accomodate the growing population of immigrants and young people who are already used to living in flats.

UTC itself could be the bottom part of a cluster of high rises. I like it that they are planning 300 condos, but I think they should add several thousands over the years.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/07/westfield-utc-kicks-1-billion-renovation-project/?page=1#article

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl] It’s already built out.
[/quote]

I would grant you that much of the County is already built out. The damage (sprawl) has already been done and cannot be reversed.

We have a metro area that stretches from the border to Camp Pendleton and Temecula, and from the ocean to Alpine. That’s huge sprawl for population of 3.1 million. My point, is that the “smart growth” that we tried did not stop sprawl but encouraged it.

Developers could not redo Pacific Beach, or Clairemont. So they buldozed virgin land go create places like 4S and San Elijo Hills, and East Chula Vista.

The easiest to build land will be built first. But new technology is allowing building on hilly terrain. Those hills will eventually be be flatten out to facilitate building.

There are still huge tracts to be built such as in Santee. The area along Mission Gorge in Grantville will be developed, all the way to the edge of Mission Trails park.

The remaining avocado groves in El Cajon will come down. That is only on hold because of the recession.

The Inland Empire will continue to grow and people will continue to move there in search of affordable houses.

Redevelopment agencies are winding down, so sprawl will continue.

The only way to stop sprawl is to upzone all lots in the city and allow organic (some would call it haphazard) redevelopment. IMO organic growth creates fun, interesting cities. We do need some local government planning, but micro managing (such as requiring setbacks in downtown buildings) increases costs for everyone and results in stale, boring places.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]So what do you think of the outgrowth of Fresno and surrounds, AN? Does it appear “sustainable” to you? Has any of your spouse’s relatives commented on how the (surrounding) distressed properties affect their own values and/or on the displacement of all the families who have lost their homes?[/quote]
I have no problem with it and neither does my family members. They actually loved it, since they get to buy new big houses. Yes, seem perfectly sustainable to me. There’s vast amount of empty land there, flat and perfectly build-able. I think it’s a waste that it’s sitting there, unused. No, they don’t comment on the surrounding distress. If you ask them, of course they’ll say they’re not happy that they “lost” value in their house. But they all bought houses well within their means, so they’re going on with their lives. They have no plan in moving, so the paper lost will be a paper gain, but it doesn’t really matter to most (if not all) of them, since they have no plan on moving for a very very long time. Those who have the cash are loving the current distressed market. They can pick up rental property at $70k and rent it out for $1k/month. They’re building a nice little portfolio for themselves. Those “displaced” family end up renting in the same area, so they’re only displaced if you consider it as not owning. But they still have a similar roof over their head. They’re just renting that roof instead of owning it.

[Anonymous]

Stressing over urban sprawl is a perfect example of a “first world problem.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] It’s already built out.[/quote]I would grant you that much of the County is already built out. The damage (sprawl) has already been done and cannot be reversed.[/quote]

True.

[quote=briansd1]We have a metro area that stretches from the border to Camp Pendleton and Temecula, and from the ocean to Alpine. That’s huge sprawl for population of 3.1 million. My point, is that the “smart growth” that we tried did not stop sprawl but encouraged it.[/quote]

“We” (meaning our local leaders representing you and me) never tried to stop sprawl. Instead, they embraced it (to get their chunk of the bond monies from new CFD creation to build police/fire stns and libraries in order to “expand themselves”).

[quote=briansd1]Developers could not redo Pacific Beach, or Clairemont. So they buldozed virgin land go create places like 4S and San Elijo Hills, and East Chula Vista.

The easiest to build land will be built first. But new technology is allowing building on hilly terrain. Those hills will eventually be be flatten out to facilitate building.[/quote]

This was already tried 30-35 years ago in Spring Valley … with disastrous results. Remember, not only are these hills covered with 1/2 ton+ boulders, they are MADE from rocks and boulders and very deciduous soil. The same applies to those hills in Santee, Esco and eastern Fallbrook.

[quote=briansd1]There are still huge tracts to be built such as in Santee. The area along Mission Gorge in Grantville will be developed, all the way to the edge of Mission Trails park.[/quote]

I don’t know Santee’s plans but Grantville (SD) is zoned comm’l, light industrial and has a few moderate/low-income apt complexes. Are you suggesting the city will throw out all this (needed) biz and rezone for massive residential building? Do you know what you’re asking here?

[quote=briansd1]The remaining avocado groves in El Cajon will come down. That is only on hold because of the recession.[/quote]

These small “groves” you speak of are on the other side of Sycuan Casino (County/Jamul) and NOT in EC. There are also a few in LM (east side of Mt. Helix). Each “grove” parcel has a SFR sitting on it. This is NOT the type of land that is for “agricultural use only.” It is, first and foremost, residential. Most of the small farms, ranches and corrals (with SFR’s) in 92019 are owned by persons with Prop 13 protection and several have already been passed down with same. These families are NOT going to go for upzoning of their “area,” EVER. You can’t wait until they die because their offspring will take title to the land.

[quote=briansd1]The Inland Empire will continue to grow and people will continue to move there in search of affordable houses.[/quote]

This may be true if the insatiable greed of city/county leaders in SB and RIV counties for more bond $$ for themselves remains unabated.

[quote=briansd1]Redevelopment agencies are winding down, so sprawl will continue.[/quote]

Actually, brian, the reverse is true. If you, as a developer, wish to redevelop infill lots with aging bldgs currently sitting on them, the world is your oyster (within the current zoning ordinances, of course)!

[quote=briansd1]The only way to stop sprawl is to upzone all lots in the city and allow organic (some would call it haphazard) redevelopment. IMO organic growth creates fun, interesting cities. We do need some local government planning, but micro managing (such as requiring setbacks in downtown buildings) increases costs for everyone and results in stale, boring places.[/quote]

SF is “fun” and “interesting.” There hasn’t been big swaths of open land to build on there (except sporadic infill lots) in the last 80 years. Do you think it actually “grew” organically (haphazardly) or with watchful, regulated supervision?

******

brian, I don’t think you know the what would have to happen for your “dream utopia” to be built in SoCal (which seems to be turning it in a massive Asian city). It appears you want to (1) repeal longtime state legislation; (2) change (relax) city/county ordinances; and (3) “upzone” wholesale entire swaths of desirable land in CA coastal counties.

Ain’t gonna happen.

brian, do you understand that your youngest NIMBY opposition to all your dreams is now a “younger” Gen-X??

You won’t live long enough to even see your least-ambitious “urban planning” dreams come to the fore …. at least not here.

Why don’t you move to North Dakota? TPTB there are currently considering allowing the permitting of MASSIVE tracts of both SFRs and rental units. Maybe you can help them with your “progressive ideas!”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk]Stressing over urban sprawl is a perfect example of a “first world problem.”[/quote]

You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Which are YOU, pri_dk?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]So what do you think of the outgrowth of Fresno and surrounds, AN? Does it appear “sustainable” to you? Has any of your spouse’s relatives commented on how the (surrounding) distressed properties affect their own values and/or on the displacement of all the families who have lost their homes?[/quote]
I have no problem with it and neither does my family members. They actually loved it, since they get to buy new big houses. Yes, seem perfectly sustainable to me. There’s vast amount of empty land there, flat and perfectly build-able. I think it’s a waste that it’s sitting there, unused. No, they don’t comment on the surrounding distress. If you ask them, of course they’ll say they’re not happy that they “lost” value in their house. But they all bought houses well within their means, so they’re going on with their lives. They have no plan in moving, so the paper lost will be a paper gain, but it doesn’t really matter to most (if not all) of them, since they have no plan on moving for a very very long time. Those who have the cash are loving the current distressed market. They can pick up rental property at $70k and rent it out for $1k/month. They’re building a nice little portfolio for themselves. Those “displaced” family end up renting in the same area, so they’re only displaced if you consider it as not owning. But they still have a similar roof over their head. They’re just renting that roof instead of owning it.[/quote]

It seems that members of your spouse’s family sold or left their longtime “city” houses and moved out into the sprawl when newer development became available. Therefore, they must have gotten caught up in millenium-boom buying (since that’s when the majority of these tracts were built) and are underwater now.

You’re right, AN. If you can’t beat them, join them. I guess being able to buy cheap rental houses now lessens the sting of an unwise purchase on one’s residence years ago :=]

For your spouse’s relatives’ sake, I hope all the “shadow inventory” around Fresno is able to be absorbed in the coming years (gets transferred to stronger hands).

[Author]

Posts