The future of San Diego?

[briansd1]

Developers will not buy lots to rebuild new houses one by one under existing zoning. Does not make financial sense.

Eminent domain requires lots of taxpayer money when there is not enough of it. Redevelopment agencies are being phased out.

Want to attract developers to neighborhoods like Clairemont? Upzone the lots to 20-story buildings. Allow buyers to easily combine and split parcels and build to the lot lines.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdrealtor] Places like MM and PQ will generally fare much better because the house are of more acceptable sizes.[/quote]

I agree. People have different expectations now so they will go where they can find the amenities they expect (large houses, more bathrooms, taller ceilings, central air, etc..)

In the end I think that it’s all about the quality and comfort of the house for the money, and within acceptable commuting distance.

I believe that if brand new 2000sf to 3000sf condos/apartments were priced competitively with SFRs, people would live in the city.

[temeculaguy]

20 story buildings there is a fantasy, splitting lots will just make it worse as 4-plexes pop up in backyards on the larger lots. I’m not faulting you brian, history and long term trends are not a young man’s game.

I’m with sdr on this one, an area’s mid to long term future depends on the original housing stock and the location, but the original housing stock is more important.

Here are some examples in San Diego. Kensington had nicer homes than the area between 40th and about 50th street. They were larger and better appointed than those between kensington and north park. Kensington homes were nice enough to refurbish and were not zoned for splitting and apartment mixes, thus it retained its appeal. A mile or two away it declined, because the original homes were crappier and the zoning looser.

Another example but of an entirely different theory is Rancho Sante Fe. It’s not ocean front, but strict zoning and large lots and nice original homes means it’s worth it to rebuild or refurbish. Same could be said of Mt. Helix and countless other areas where outdated but nice always beats outdated and crappy. Clairemont will have a more difficult time becoming hip and being redeveloped one house at a time as let’s say North Park or South park or mission hills, because those old houses by the park are worth saving, the post ww2 blah boxes in clairemont don’t have the same appeal. Changing the zoning will accelerate the decline, which is the opposite for an area like little italy, where density is a helper. Clairmeont’s best chance is to remain sfr’s, keep the zoning tight and in time it’s location may bail it out. What was once a suburb, may end up a rare sfr area that ends up so central once the county doubles in size. That’s it’s future, to hold fast to the zoning restrictions and allow the city to come to it. When this county is 4 or 5 million in size, if clairemont is still just sfr’s, it may become fertile ground for 3 wall knockdowns and redevelopment. It could be the next Costa Mesa. But it will take 20 years or so, but it very well may happen. The next level up, tierrasanta, mm, etc. are larger and won’t ever fall as hard, they will keep chugging along, while linda vista will never be cool, cause it never was and the density zoning cripples it.

To see similar examples ahead in the timeline you have to look to L.A., areas that split lots and mixed in apartments went to hell, while old suburbs that held firm on zoning saw revitalization once the city grew past them and they became central without actually moving. Zoning restrictions may bother some idealists, but there are so many examples of how it actually promotes redevelopment. Don’t attract developers, stand firm until you become their only option.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]20 story buildings there is a fantasy, splitting lots will just make it worse as 4-plexes pop up in backyards on the larger lots. I’m not faulting you brian, history and long term trends are not a young man’s game.

I’m with sdr on this one, an area’s mid to long term future depends on the original housing stock and the location, but the original housing stock is more important.

Here are some examples in San Diego. Kensington had nicer homes than the area between 40th and about 50th street. They were larger and better appointed than those between kensington and north park. Kensington homes were nice enough to refurbish and were not zoned for splitting and apartment mixes, thus it retained its appeal. A mile or two away it declined, because the original homes were crappier and the zoning looser.

Another example but of an entirely different theory is Rancho Sante Fe. It’s not ocean front, but strict zoning and large lots and nice original homes means it’s worth it to rebuild or refurbish. Same could be said of Mt. Helix and countless other areas where outdated but nice always beats outdated and crappy. Clairemont will have a more difficult time becoming hip and being redeveloped one house at a time as let’s say North Park or South park or mission hills, because those old houses by the park are worth saving, the post ww2 blah boxes in clairemont don’t have the same appeal. Changing the zoning will accelerate the decline, which is the opposite for an area like little italy, where density is a helper. Clairmeont’s best chance is to remain sfr’s, keep the zoning tight and in time it’s location may bail it out. What was once a suburb, may end up a rare sfr area that ends up so central once the county doubles in size. That’s it’s future, to hold fast to the zoning restrictions and allow the city to come to it. When this county is 4 or 5 million in size, if clairemont is still just sfr’s, it may become fertile ground for 3 wall knockdowns and redevelopment. It could be the next Costa Mesa. But it will take 20 years or so, but it very well may happen. The next level up, tierrasanta, mm, etc. are larger and won’t ever fall as hard, they will keep chugging along, while linda vista will never be cool, cause it never was and the density zoning cripples it.

To see similar examples ahead in the timeline you have to look to L.A., areas that split lots and mixed in apartments went to hell, while old suburbs that held firm on zoning saw revitalization once the city grew past them and they became central without actually moving. Zoning restrictions may bother some idealists, but there are so many examples of how it actually promotes redevelopment. Don’t attract developers, stand firm until you become their only option.[/quote]

Good post, TG, except I believe location almost always trumps housing stock. Clairemont (SD) has it going on, location wise.

I agree that the properties North Park/South Park (92104) are more architecturally pleasing than those in Clairemont and that the vast majority are worth saving. Unfortunately, the City upzoned several streets there (near the thoroughfares Univ & EC Blvd.) from ’84-’88 with the bulk of the multifamily permits there issued ’87-88. What later transpired (apts and later condo conversions sandwiched between SFRs) did NOT help neighborhood values. Instead it increased noise, traffic and litter. At that time, the City did NOT require a pkg space for every unit on a lot and more slant parking appeared on those sts wide enough to accommodate it.

As to LA County, there ARE some very good examples of close-in suburbs (Lakewood/Downey) and fairly close-in suburbs (Claremont, Pasadena) which gentrified nicely in place. Today all are very nice places to live with high quality (even “charming” out east) housing stock. These aren’t low-priced areas but completely worth the money due to their convenient locations. All are older than Clairemont (SD). One might even surmise that the bulk of Lakewood’s housing stock is “blah mid-century,” but might be shocked how large a 2000 sf home “lives in” there and its beautiful well-kept tree-lined streets with ALL SFRs command their price.

These cities are the poster children for what happens when their leadership is wise enough to keep zoning restrictions in place over a great many years.

If I worked anywhere in or near LA, I would buy a SFR to live in in one of those suburbs (as opposed to RIV Co.) Even at $200K+ more for a similar-size house, it is COMPLETELY worth it! If you study these markets over the millenium-boom years, these areas had little distress and thus lost little value, if any.

I’ll repeat my mantra that you pay for exactly what you get in this life.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=KSMountain]

For example, USC was in a very nice neighborhood when it was founded. Mount St. Mary’s, just North, at that time was a haven of Vanderbilt’s, Carnegie’s, etc. There were the Rose Gardens. Some of those old homes remain and they are AMAZING.
[/quote]

Schools? The only constant I can see is that any non-unique neighborhood where quality of schools declines does not remain desirable in the long term!

[an]

Talking about the future of different areas, what do you guys/gals think will happen to Mira Mesa when they start & finish the Stone Creek master planned community w/in Mira Mesa? The project contains (5481 units) multi-family, office, retail, light industrial, and business park uses. This is what it’ll look like: http://www.ktua.com/live/project.php?sector_id=2&id=178
More info about the project: http://www.miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/Stone%20Creek%20Subcommittee%2020061023.pdf

This, along with the current 1800 apartment unit being built behind Best Buy in MM will greatly increase the density of this area. What would happen to SFR in the area in term of value over time?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Talking about the future of different areas, what do you guys/gals think will happen to Mira Mesa when they start & finish the Stone Creek master planned community w/in Mira Mesa? The project contains (5481 units) multi-family, office, retail, light industrial, and business park uses. This is what it’ll look like: http://www.ktua.com/live/project.php?sector_id=2&id=178
More info about the project: http://www.miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/Stone%20Creek%20Subcommittee%2020061023.pdf

This, along with the current 1800 apartment unit being built behind Best Buy in MM will greatly increase the density of this area. What would happen to SFR in the area in term of value over time?[/quote]

AN, I haven’t looked at the map really close but it seems to me that houses situated off whichever streets are more backed up with traffic due to this new project would be worth less in the future – simply because of more local traffic and it being harder to get in/out of the area onto a thoroughfare. Also, perhaps a few local schools will be MUCH more crowded after buildout until new schools are actually up and running to serve the residents of this project.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, I haven’t looked at the map really close but it seems to me that houses situated off whichever streets are more backed up with traffic due to this new project would be worth less in the future – simply because of more local traffic and it being harder to get in/out of the area onto a thoroughfare. Also, perhaps a few local schools will be MUCH more crowded after buildout until new schools are actually up and running to serve the residents of this project.[/quote]
Camino Ruiz is that main street. Most of the housing off that street near the new development are apartments. So its value shouldn’t matter to most the current residences. I was referring to SFR in MM as a whole. Will increase density help or hurt the area?

Increase density will always mean more traffic. However, they’re doing the traffic study right now and they’re expanding Carroll Canyon Rd. to be a 3rd east/west feeder road (along with MM Blvd. and Miramar Rd.). So, I’m not too concern about traffic. In the medium/long term, they’re also talking about adding light rail near Carroll Canyon Rd that would connect to UTC and on down to Downtown.

WRT to schools, they’re building another elementary school in MM. I’m not sure what they’ll do about Middle and HS though. I’m sure they can expand them. The schools would be old enough by the time this development gets built out, that it’s probably time to rebuild anyways (since there are quite a few bungalows).

[briansd1]

TG, and BG, the technology to build new buildings today is not the same as 30 years ago.

For example the Egyptian in Hillcrest and 1Mission in Mission are example of how the city increase density to lessen sprawl. Those buildings could easily be double the height.

I support what Antonio Villaraigosa calls “elegant density.” The redevelopment of Hollywood, up in LA is a good plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/hollywood-high-rise-plan_n_1192552.html
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/capitol-records-tower-redevelopment-plan-188417
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/25/local/la-me-1225-lopez-hollywoodplan-20111225

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Essbee]With the houses being of marginal quality in the first place and not designed to last 100+ years[/quote]

Lots of interesting thoughts here. I’m no sociologist so I’m not sure what will happen to Clairemont but I do know the houses are build to last 100 yrs.

I have personally ripped out ceiling joists and wall studs with my very own sawzall and those members are made of fir – not hemlock like most of today’s lumber. Hard as hell to cut through. Plus, they are only growing stronger with age – wood does that. Given San Diego’s mild climate, I don’t see any structural issues there. I think they are very well built and that is first-hand knowledge.

Pretty much every house will need a new sewer line soon and maybe the in-slab copper pipes replaced, but with fir framing on concrete slabs on stable ground, I think they’ll be in good shape if you just keep replacing the roof, heater, maybe some siding and other things that decay over time in any house.

Also going for it are the larger lot sizes compared to newer construction. The houses themselves are pretty small, but the big lots suggest TG’s theory may be pretty good. Small houses on big lots mean young people can afford them and grow the house as their family grows without incurring the cost/pain of selling/buying/moving repeatedly. That’s what we did.

[sdrealtor]

Like I said CM will be fine for many decades to come but eventually too many 1100 sq ft homes with master baths that have direct garage access and homes with 1.5 baths will come to roost. As a current homeowner I wouldn’t worry about it though. It’s way far off.

[ltsddd]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=Essbee]With the houses being of marginal quality in the first place and not designed to last 100+ years[/quote]

Lots of interesting thoughts here. I’m no sociologist so I’m not sure what will happen to Clairemont but I do know the houses are build to last 100 yrs.

I have personally ripped out ceiling joists and wall studs with my very own sawzall and those members are made of fir – not hemlock like most of today’s lumber. Hard as hell to cut through. Plus, they are only growing stronger with age – wood does that. Given San Diego’s mild climate, I don’t see any structural issues there. I think they are very well built and that is first-hand knowledge.[/quote]

sdduuuude,
Completely agree with you. The SFRs in Clairemont may be smallish and all that but one thing for sure is that they were solidly built. Though, I do agree with the OP that there are homes along both Clairemont Mesa Blvd and Clairemont Drive (those with 1-car garages and practically no driveway) may be better served by tearing them down and rebuild. I have never heard of anyone who ever had any problems with the plumbing system in that in area. Mira Mesa, on the other hand, with most homes built after 1970 and yet I have run across numerous homes that had gone through retrofitting of the pipes (going from street to the house). Architecturally, it’s nothing to write home about but the built quality is there.

As for its future, I think it will be fine, it’s a middle-class community with a lot of long-timers. It may not have the manicured yards like other newer communities but it does not mean that the folks living there are neglecting their biggest piece of asset either.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW I don’t think it has anything to do with quality of construction or plumbing (whic can easily be repaired). It’s about functional obsolescence

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]FWIW I don’t think it has anything to do with quality of construction or plumbing (whic can easily be repaired). It’s about functional obsolescence[/quote]
Agree, it’s cheaper to repipe your entire house vs trying to change the layout of a house. Depending on the original layout, it might be cheaper just to tear it down and rebuild.

[Anonymous]

What do you think the long term future holds for “high tier” tract neighborhoods like Carmel Valley?

[Author]

Posts