[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]Typical nativist tendencies from BG who doesn’t like change. In Florida people bitch, in Hawaii, even Vegas people want to “take back Vegas.” My friend’s mom bitches all the time about new comers ruining Toronto.

BG, the hills are chopped off because there better building technology than in the past. It’s either build up or sprawl out. People are coming. You like to say “it is what it is”.

Move out if you don’t like traffic. Let us become a big city.

BTW, Mira Mesa is so much better than in the past. Many more restaurants. There is an 85c bakery now. I don’t eat baked good but I have friends who like it. Mira Mesa will be much better with the future trolley.

Edit:
Haha, flu I posted before reading your post[/quote]Trolley? Does anyone have a projected new trolley route map to post??[/quote]I’ve posted about this several times in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Trolley. It will be built with the Stone Creek master plan (mix used, medium density development), which will increase MM population by about 15-20%. http://miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/Plangrp/Stone%20Creek/StoneCreekUpdate2016Jan.pdf

750k sq-ft of business space, 174k sq-ft of commercial space. I’m super stoked about this project. A LOT more jobs right here AND A LOT more retail space (i.e. restaurants and activities), not to mention more parks and trails. This project can’t start soon enough IMHO.

[an]

[quote=flu]I might need you to buy a few loaves of bread for me, and then I’ll pick it up at your place.[/quote]
No problem, just let me know.

[an]

[quote=flu]No they don’t serve dim sum. But I was hoping for a location in san diego.[/quote] That’s what I thought. and I’ve been hoping too. I was jokingly say, they should take over the now empty build where Fresh and Easy was. But Kohl’s location would be so much better. More parking, much bigger building.

[quote=flu]As far a dim sum, we could use more places. I mean Jasmine, Emerald, and Pearl are the only game in town, with the last two owned by the same dude.[/quote]FYI, China Max isn’t bad either. But I totally agree, we need a better one.

[an]

[quote=flu][quote=AN]The rumor is that a famous dim sum place will be moving into the old Kohl’s location. That would be awesome if it’s true, but we’ll just have to wait and see.[/quote]

Get out of here. Really? Ding Tai Fung? Please please please. It would save me a trip to Costa Mesa…

http://dintaifungusa.com/%5B/quote%5DI didn’t know Din Tai Fung serves dim sum. I don’t know which, I just heard it on the grape vine, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt. It was a neighbor who heard it from an Asian barber in MM mall. I will keep you posted. I would love Din Tai Fung to come in too, but I would gladly settle for less. I’ve been to South Coast trying to eat there but left when they told me the wait was 3 hrs. I finally was able to eat at their Arcadia location and loved it.

[quote=flu]Holy sheet. I was at 85c last saturday, and it was packed. The line was so bad, they ran out of bread. I’m like, ok I’m coming back on the weekdays…..[/quote]LoL, I can literally walk to 85c. Their sea salt green tea is good.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, I assume you’re happy with the massive upzoning of 92126 in recent years? It is now but a shell of its former self and unrecognizable as the original community of Mira Mesa … your hometown turf. Your neck of the woods is a prime example of City run amok in indiscriminately upzoning for the absolute tightest density that could possibly be squeezed in there.

And they succeeded :-0[/quote]
You assumed correctly. I’m loving it. Looking forward to much more once they start and complete Stone Creek. That would be awesome. Thank goodness the original community of Mira Mesa is going the way of the dodo bird. Now, if only we can accelerate the gentrification. Thank God with the capital G that the City run amok with up-zoning. Too bad they were to tepid with their “running amok-ness”.

[an]

[quote=flu]AN, I love the new revitalization that’s been going on in Mira Mesa. Out with the old, in with the new with younger professionals and newer retail places.

Have you been to the new 85C bakery? Before, we have to go to Balboa, but it’s now in a great location. The bakery is pretty well known and has roots from Taiwan. You know the economic climate and demographics changed when the Taiwanese think they can make food money in San Diego now versus in OC and LA only.

Don’t even think about selling your MM home. I think we’ll see it as a fast appreciating area over the next decade, faster other areas. Can’t beat the location.[/quote]Oh, I know 85C well. We were in line at the Irvine location way back in the day and was super excited when they build one in MM. We’ve gone there many times already and will be regular patron. The rumor is that a famous dim sum place will be moving into the old Kohl’s location. That would be awesome if it’s true, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.[/quote]I was comparing the entire counties, NOT just the cities of LA and SD.[/quote]
Your argument breaks down even worse when comparing county. LA County have a density of ~2100 people/sq-mile. While SD County have a density of ~680 people/sq-mile.[/quote]

AN, since we’re both looking at the same wiki pages, let’s dive for more data, shall we?

SD County has a land mass of 4207 square miles. It’s 2015 population (acc to the census) was 3,299,521, a 6.6% increase over its 2010 census count, which was 3,095,308.

LA County has a land mass of 4058 square miles. It’s 2015 population (acc to the census) was 10,170,292, a 3.6% increase over its 2010 census count, which was 9,818,605.

However, there is a HUGE difference in the two counties in the disbursement of their urban population centers. While LA County’s urban population centers take up half its land mass (50% or mostly southern half), SD County’s urban population centers take up just 1/6 of its land mass (~17% or western sixth). Excepting Castaic, Palmdale and Lancaster, the northern half of LA County is sparsely populated, rural and even rugged in places as is the farthest northwest portion (Camp Pendleton) and eastern 5/6 of SD County. In fully 3/4 of San Diego County’s land mass, it is extremely likely that utilities are not even available! I’ve driven thru almost ALL of SD County’s backcountry and taken some roads multiple times. I would classify the sixth of it which is closest to the Imperial County line as very rugged.

http://www.zipmap.net/California/Los_Angeles_County.htm

http://www.zipmap.net/California/San_Diego_County.htm

Realizing that there are scattered small (inconsequential for our numbers) rural populations in both counties, the reality is that SD County’s population is concentrated into just ~17% of its land mass (816 square miles or 4044 people per urbanized square mile) and LA County’s population is concentrated into ~50% of its land mass (2029 square miles or 5012 people per urbanized square mile). There is a marked difference in density between the west side of dtn LA and the east side, where high rise residential towers and massive blocks-long aging apt complexes (ex: Santa Monica and a few other cities) do not exist. This phenomenon (and scattered multifamily infill projects) causes the density to be much higher in pockets of the west side than the southeast and east sides. The southwest area cities (ex Long Beach, Lakewood, etc) have a lot of single family homes but those lot sizes tend to be 6K on average. On the southeast side, going towards Whitter and Hacienda Heights, they get a little larger and east of La Puente, even larger still. In the eastern SGV, it is not uncommon at all to find ~8500 sf lots (on avg) in entire subdivisions. This just doesn’t happen with any consistency in SD County. These are NOT “luxury home” tracts. They are hundreds of tracts of 50’s through ’80’s ranch homes from 1350 sf to 2000 sf in about 27 cities. These tracts do NOT have multifamily (apts/condos) mixed in with them as many established communities (or SFR tracts within CFD’s) in SD City/County do. These communities are very well planned and don’t “feel” crowded to be in. SD County doesn’t have this type of stock in anywhere near the numbers of LA County or level of SFR selection for Joe and Jane 6p worker-bee to choose from in any way, shape or form in any of its cities or unincorporated areas. A homebuyer in SD County is lucky if they find 1-2 active “affordable” SFR listings fitting the above description in any one zip code. In recent years, it has not been unusual to find none available in a particular zip code for months, especially with an asking price under $650K.

It would be interesting to see the difference in the percentages of population growth in the two counties for the 1990 and 2000 census. By 1990, CFD formation took hold with a vengeance in Riverside and SD Counties, and later and to a lesser extent, Orange and San Bernardino counties. I would surmise that LA County has grown in population far less than SD County has over that time period. IIRC, SD County had approximately 1.1 million people in 1986. The first CFD’s were formed in SD County that same year and the first tracts within them were sold in 1987 (Eastlake Shores 91913). In May thru August of 2017, those 30-year bonds will finally be paid off in five subdivisions (3 SFR and 2 multifamily). It seems like yesterday to me that the (man-made) lake was dug :=0

I haven’t been to all the “dense” areas on the Westside of LA in recent years, but in many ways, I think LA County’s leaders of decades past did a great job of planning. The decisions they made back then really contribute positively to the quality of life in its communities today.

*****

Remember that no CFD’s were formed in LA County (where the vast majority of upzoning since 1986 in SD County was approved).

I find it ridiculous that in 91915 (the latest annexation of the City of Chula Vista) the “SFR” density (actually PUDs with “zero-lot-lines”) were actually built 20 units to one acre in a handful of subdivisions. The “city streets” are so narrow in these tracts (with parked cars lined up solid on each side for block after block) that only one vehicle can pass at a time, with the oncoming vehicle slightly pulled over (depending on size of vehicles, of course). They are no wider than “easements” or narrow alleys in a more established neighborhood. It’s a travesty that people actually buy these crapshacks within spitting distance of each other, only to pay HOA dues to 2 or more assns and MR on 2-3 CFD’s. Of course, they could have purchased a SFR which was at least 200 sf larger, situated on a 6000 to 7500 sf lot and on a standard city street in an older area of the city or another city in the county with no HOA/MR.

So yeah, SD County homebuyers/renters DO have choices. Many of them chose to buy/rent a residence in a poorly-located, low-quality, high-density newer construction tract when they had other (better) options in their price range. And flyer is right … buyers’ housing choices are on them.

However, in LA County, I really do believe that location is absolutely everything wrt where one’s job is. All other home choices are secondary … unless one is retired. It once took me 5.5 hours to travel 51 miles from the far eastern portion of the county to a place located just west of LAX. One injury accident and another tractor trailer mishap . . . well, I don’t need to tell you the rest of the story . . . :=0[/quote]
Stop rambling. What is your point exactly? I thought you were saying that LA doesn’t chop down hilltops and build crappy shacks like SD? Now, you’re saying LA sprawled much worse than SD and chopped down more hilltops and build more crappy shacks. So, which is it?

I’m so glad SD has learned from LA and not to repeat that cluster f*ck. SD county is pretty much built out. Last I’ve heard, there won’t be any major master planned community like 4S Ranch/Del Sur popping up. There will be in fill and smaller development, but most of SD county will be kept as open space. Which is MUCH MUCH better than the cluster f*ck that we call LA.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.[/quote]I was comparing the entire counties, NOT just the cities of LA and SD.[/quote]
Your argument breaks down even worse when comparing county. LA County have a density of ~2100 people/sq-mile. While SD County have a density of ~680 people/sq-mile.

[an]

BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Why is it that the citizens and leaders of Bay Area counties (as well as the County of Los Angeles) don’t seem to have a problem saying, “enough is enough?” These jurisdictions don’t feel a need to cut off the top of every . single . hilltop only to throw up hundreds or thousands more crapshacks. Ask yourselves why SD County leaders and its citizens feel we should continually do this.[/quote]What are you talking about? LA have 2X the population density as we do. Which mean they already “chopped off all the hilltop” as you like to put it, many years ago. Then found out that’s not enough, so they build even more. SD is mostly built out, which mean any future development will be infill. No more major hills being chopped off.

As for crapshacks… LoL, I won’t even go there.

[an]

Another great reason to stock up even more the next time there’s a crash.

[an]

But the question is, does it really affect the electricity production when it’s dusty. My 4 years data say no as well.

[an]

I’m not as confident jumping in negative 3x ETF like DXD or SDOW just yet. But I did sell all of my bullish 3X ETF position waiting for the right opportunity. I might just wait it out and buy back into the bull side when the tide is right instead of trying to catch both the ups and downs. It’s very possible that the market might run side way for a few days to a week and continue running up again.

[an]

In my area, rent didn’t drop during the last crash, so I’m not sure it would ever drop. Unless we see a major mass migration out of the region.

[an]

LJ Renter, totally agree with that story.

[Author]

Posts