The future of San Diego?

[Coronita]

[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]

I don’t know but I’m sure the Kinderhouse Montessori school over on of Flanders will be excited.

[Coronita]

[quote=Orca]What do you think the long term future holds for “high tier” tract neighborhoods like Carmel Valley?[/quote]

Probably trickle trickle trickle down a bit here and there, short of no economic collapse with the local companies.

[an]

[quote=flu]I don’t know but I’m sure the Kinderhouse Montessori school over on of Flanders will be excited.[/quote]
Kinderhouse is trying to get approval to have kids up to 3rd grade. Currently, they’re only allowed to have kids under 6. If they get this approved, it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ll try to expand later to be preK-6th grade like other elementary Montessori.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]I don’t know but I’m sure the Kinderhouse Montessori school over on of Flanders will be excited.[/quote]
Kinderhouse is trying to get approval to have kids up to 3rd grade. Currently, they’re only allowed to have kids under 6. If they get this approved, it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ll try to expand later to be preK-6th grade like other elementary Montessori.[/quote]

I know. they’ve been trying for some time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=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.[/quote]

For a “half bath,” is easy (and cheap) to take a little space out of the closet (or garage) on the other side and put a shower stall in … making it a “3/4 bath.” Most houses only need one bathtub. Any more is a waste as the vast majority of people take showers.

This is a no brainer. Location wins all selling contests.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ltsdd][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.[/quote]

Agree, ltsdd. I want to add that defective polybutylene plumbing was used by builders primarily between 1979 and 1984 (when some MM tracts were built), hence those plumbing retrofits you are discussing here. Clairemont is too old to be facing this problem.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Orca]What do you think the long term future holds for “high tier” tract neighborhoods like Carmel Valley?[/quote]

As long as the school scores there hold up (and buyers are still willing to pay for school scores), then its values will remain stable. Otherwise, besides close proximity to tech jobs, there are no endearing qualities over the tracts there than anywhere else with the same age/size of houses.

[bearishgurl]

[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]

I understand the meaning of this term but don’t you think it can be fixed? It’s not like Clairemont’s location and lot sizes are inferior to most of the County. In fact, these factors there are superior to most of the County.

Everything except for location and lot size can be fixed.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]I understand the meaning of this term but don’t you think it can be fixed? It’s not like Clairemont’s location and lot sizes are inferior to most of the County. In fact, these factors there are superior to most of the County.

Everything except for location and lot size can be fixed.[/quote]
It can be fixed, but at what cost? It’s not always cheap to make addition and make it look like it was built that way. I hate tacky additions.

Location is not just back the geographical location. It’s also about the relative location. If you’re surrounded by run down 1000 sq-ft bungalow, your brand new remodeled 3000 sq-ft would look completely out of place. BTW, lot size can be fixed as well, it’s just more expensive to do it. Buy the house next to you and tear it down. Lot size fixed.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]I understand the meaning of this term but don’t you think it can be fixed? It’s not like Clairemont’s location and lot sizes are inferior to most of the County. In fact, these factors there are superior to most of the County.

Everything except for location and lot size can be fixed.[/quote]
It can be fixed, but at what cost? It’s not always cheap to make addition and make it look like it was built that way. I hate tacky additions.

Location is not just back the geographical location. It’s also about the relative location. If you’re surrounded by run down 1000 sq-ft bungalow, your brand new remodeled 3000 sq-ft would look completely out of place. BTW, lot size can be fixed as well, it’s just more expensive to do it. Buy the house next to you and tear it down. Lot size fixed.[/quote]

A 3000 sf house is not the typical remodel for Clairemont. It’s more like enlarging the FR and MBR suite into the backyard. At what cost would a homeowner in Clairemont buy the house next to him/her and tear it down? And why would they do that when their property would then be worth nearly double that of the neighbors’ homes??

The avg home in Clairemont is NOT 1100 sf (you might be mixing it up with Linda Vista which is same zip code) :=] The avg home (orig) size there is 1500-1600 sf, has 3-4 br and 1.5 ba, a 2 car gar and a 6800 sf lot and is approx 47 yrs old.

The avg (orig) home in Linda Vista has about 1100-1150 sf, 2-3 br, 1 bath and 1 – 1.5 car gar and a 5000 sf lot and is approx 55 yrs old.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]A 3000 sf house is not the typical remodel for Clairemont. It’s more like enlarging the FR and MBR suite into the backyard. At what cost would a homeowner in Clairemont buy the house next to him/her and tear it down? And why would they do that when their property would then be worth nearly double of the neighbors’ homes??

The avg home in Clairemont is NOT 1100 sf (you might be mixing it up with Linda Vista which is same zip code) :=] The avg home (orig) size there is 1500-1600 sf, has 3-4 br and 1.5 ba, a 2 car gar. and a 6800 sf lot and is approx 47 yrs old.

The avg (orig) home in Linda Vista has about 1100-1150 sf, 2-3 br, 1 bath and 1 – 1.5 car gar and is approx 55 yrs old.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. The average house size today is ~2500 sq-ft. The median house size is ~2100 sq-ft. So, even 1500-1600 sq-ft is well below the median. It was the median size when it was built, but it’s no longer. The main point though is the functionally obsolete layout. Depending on the original layout, it might be cheaper to tear it down and rebuild with a more modern layout.

BTW, where did you get those average home size data from?

You said lot size can’t be fixed. I just gave you one instance where you can fix lot size if the location is what you want. I did say it wouldn’t be cheap to fix lot size, didn’t I? But it’s not impossible to do.

[Author]

Posts