[bearishgurl]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]I still say we will have one large Mega City on the SoCal West Coast,
Sprawl from Fraser Park to TJ.
Of course the coast will always be at a premium .
The Burb’s are just in a slight slow down at the moment, we are still adding population in TV, and Valencia those are the only two I checked on.[/quote]

Nor-LA, I am curious as to where the newcomers to Valencia area and TV are coming from. And are they younger workers or retirees?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]I never had to dive it but I think San Jose is like 90 minutes form SF on a average day, I guess just a little wrose then TV to Downtown SD.[/quote]

I’ve only driven it in reverse (SJ to SF) a few times in the afternoon rush and it took 50-60 mins. SJ is a “city” in its own right with a greater population than that of Denver, CO. It is approx 51-52 miles from dtn SJ to dtn SF (SOMA/Union Square). Dtn Temecula to dtn SD is approx 73 miles and likely takes over one hr to drive during peak times.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu] . . . The issue is that in bay area is that unlike in san diego, the suburb is no longer affordable and there really is a shortage of housing…For example a 4/2.5 in sunnyvale rents for about $3k/month and the place is a dump and there’s no problem finding a tenant. Your theory would be supported if there was a mass vacancy in the burbs like sunnyvalue/mountainview/palo alto/and every place up the 101 corridor. And that isn’t the case, with the exception of east palo alto and parts of east bay…but that’s obvious because those parts have been coined “ghetto”, rightfully or wrong…

Signed,
Dumpy landlord.[/quote]

flu, from your post, it sounds like you would advocate spending $450K+ for that “dumpy” late ’40’s 3/1 in Millbrae on a postage-stamp lot with a 1.5 car garage, no?? Perhaps you could even score it for $385K for all cash and do a little “wknd fixup” to ready it for tenants! Do you think the rental numbers are looking good enough in SV to invest in SFR’s or duplexes there, due to a housing shortage? Are you an SV landlord at present? If so, how has your cash flow been??

Thanks for any help. I’m very interested in SM Co, and, to a lesser extent, SC Co for retirement and/or investment purposes. Not sure yet if I want to be part of the year mtns and part of the year city but will make that decision in the next two years :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]There’s a big difference between living in San Diego and in suburbs such as Gainesville, GA or Plano, TX.

Most American grew up not knowing what city living can be.

True, that is a certain grunge to living in the traditional big city and that’s what most people think of when they talk about inconveniences.

But there are opportunities to build new cities, like Downtown San Diego and Downtown LA, Seattle, etc…

There’s an urban higher-density movement out there, not necessarily the traditional city, but a move to higher density. The popularity of The Grove and Americana at Brand with apartments and condo nearby in LA attest to that. Mission Valley could grow into a city.

This is a very complex subject… but give people the options of comfortable city living and I bet the city will win out.

I also don’t agree that women prefer the city. My observation is that women often lead the way to nesting in the suburbs. Women are house buyers in the burbs. Maybe a Realtor can confirm or refute that.[/quote]

I agree that there are many families in the US who either have never been to a big city or were only in one for isolated incidences for a few hours at a time or for school field trips. I don’t agree that ALL Americans are raising their families near a metropolis. Many, many American families are raising children in rural areas surrounding small cities or even small towns.

I agree that there is a movement to higher density in cities. Just look what has been done to dtn SD just in the past decade! When I lived near (less than one mile from) dtn SD, almost no one lived “downtown.” Those that did lived in scattered Victorian-era houses in Little Italy or what is now known as “East Village.” I could count on one hand the actual residential houses located in the downtown business core and they were all zoned commercial (law offices, etc).

If the parking issues (garages/underground pkg) and noise levels (triple-paned windows) are addressed, city living can become much more “comfortable.” There are several grassy areas to walk dogs dtn and most condos/apts have a balcony. The older complexes with ground floor units have a ground-floor patio with an actual garden. In dtn SD, one does not have to walk home carrying groceries if they don’t wish to. Markets in MH are 3 mi away and have free pkg as does the Navy Commissary, just 2 miles away.

With couple and/or parent buyers, I ALSO believe it is the women (wives) who are the driving force in cajoling their spouses to eventually agree to purchase in the far-flung suburbs. If not for this overpowering influence, the men (husbands) would live almost anywhere where they enjoyed their lives.

I’ve seen numerous strollers dtn and just don’t see the problems that others do with it. But I’ve never been one to spend my time in this manner … that is, I’ve only owned a $20 umbrella stroller in the past that got used maybe 2-3 times :=}

This IS a “complex subject” and the city/country preference varies widely by culture and region of the country.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]There is one fundamental reason why I would never live in the city.

Parking…

Love my sibling dearly.. But out of all the years I lived in the Bay Area, and wanted to see my sibling in SF, I hated the fact that she shared a garage with someone else street parking around is frickin retarded. No way I would be able to lug around cars in the city. Stupid things like having to park on the side walk and roll the car a few feet after the 4 hr limit expired, or parking on the driving and leaving a note for others to call you in case they needed to get out.[/quote]

flu, I agree that valet parking at hotels in SF has gotten ridiculously expensive of late. Where does your sister live? The areas of my kids in Portrero and Richmond have slant pkg on some of the sts on at least one side. I’ve always been able to find pkg, except for one weeknight where I came in after 11:00. At that time, I was able to find pkg just around the corner. I’ve noticed a lot of condos/flats have 2-car garages, as well.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]Old people Just hanging around courthouses is a very strange and underreorted phenomenon. Much weirder than the mall walkers.[/quote]

Speak for yourself, scaredy … ;=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy] . . . The other element of a downtown residence is that it is close to work, retired baby boomers (who will be 70 in 2016-2018) are not going to pay 3x the price per square foot to be close to a job they retired from, that’s just stupid. Plus the stores and restaurants are more expensive. It’s noisy, crowded and busy, the exact opposite of what old people like. 70 year old people don’t hang out in gas lamp bars, dine in stylish cafe’s and shop the hip stores. They play golf, travel in motor homes, hang out with other old people and try to live as nicely as they can afford. $800 hoa’s of downtown condos are not real popular with the fixed income crowd. So places like Phoenix, Oregon, Idaho, Palm Springs or even Rancho Bernardo are more appealing to retirees. It has what they want. . . [/quote]

TG, I tend to agree with your statement here as it applies to baby boomers. But I don’t agree that those locales you mentioned in your last sentence is where they’re necessarily headed. Perhaps those areas are where the current longtime retirees have settled but I don’t see the majority of baby boomers still in the pipeline retiring to those places. Many current longtime retirees have defined-benefit pensions and have only owned 1-2 homes their entire lives, often in modest neighborhoods for which they originally paid $4K to $17K. Thus, they lived their lives conservatively and were risk-averse. Most were unsophisticated “investors” if they invested at all. Their (female) spouses often have never worked and have no SS benefits in their own right. For the most part, their incomes are fixed in the $850 – $3500 mo (latter are dbl dippers) range. They often bought their RV’s when gas was much cheaper than it is today. These RV’s are not resalable except for salvage value (even if in good condition) because there are way too many of these unused and available. The market has been down for them for years due to gas prices (most only get 5-8 mpg).

I recently returned from a 4600-mile road trip. On it, we toured nearly the entire state of Colorado. Everywhere we stopped and stayed, the traveling “boomer set” was out en masse. Most were searching for retirement-home deals in expensive mtn resort areas. Some were locals leaving to view and possibly pick up rental properties (to obtain a retirement income stream) in hard-hit states such as NV, AZ and FL. NONE were traveling in RV’s. The preferred mode of travel was actually either a Jeep or motorcycle. Many couples were traveling together on Honda Interstates or other touring bikes with luggage. Others were traveling in luxury cars and SUVs. The method of preferred lodging was staying all in the same chain or Best Western for points redeemable for free rooms, as we were. This is cheaper than RV gas or a timeshare and many of these properties are 3 star and up. Most stated they did or would be staying with relatives at some point in their travels.

If a soon-to-be-retiree today has a choice, why would they move from SD to the triple-digit heat to an inferior place like Yuma (for more than a week to launch their boat)? They can actually live in a more desirable place (city, semi-rural or rural) because they don’t need the square footage anymore. Often, the “suburban” property they owned and resided in pre-retirement WAS located in a coastal “choice area” but was too large with a larger labor-intensive lot. Once they sell out and dump these responsibilities, the world is their oyster. With prices way down even in resort areas such as South Lake Tahoe, boomers have many housing choices. And this generation is not afraid of termites and rehab work, either. They can even retire in a fixer in an area they have always coveted, such as in a crumbling Pacifica (SM Co) mid-century modern built high over a lot backed by miles of protected wildlife habitat with a “peek” whitewater view of the craggy coastline below. I personally know two over-55 boomers who recently bought older homes with flat acreage in East County (SD) in order to eventually have a small farm and become self-sufficient. One lot has a producing citrus orchard. Both are still working but will retire in 3-8 years. Different strokes for different folks.

I agree that the city retirees will likely be ones who have lived there all of their lives and that the majority of boomers will not want to pay exorbitant HOA fees, nor would care about a doorman, valet and other amenities when they are “retired.”

Most boomers are also in better health than their predecessors and will not be limited to RV Parks at Lake Mead for “retirement locales” like the WW-II and “Greatest Generation” set was. They will not be spreading out card tables on artificial grass and playing Bridge with their mobile home park neighbors, lol. Today’s boomers actually have smartphones, wireless notebook computers and still have their finger in the pot – as a “consultant.”

Even though many boomers’ retirement accts have taking a few beatings from the stock market (and also rallied a few times) in recent years, they’re still likely worth more than what they and their employers’ invested in it. I don’t think the (over 50 at the time) boomer crowd were the major consumers of NINJA loans, HELOCs, and serial cash-out refi. Although I can’t find any data on this yet, I think the vast majority of the participants in these schemes were Gen X or very tail-end boomers (born >= 1960). What I’m trying to say here is that boomers often have sleeping assets such as high-equity or free-and-clear propertie(s), retirement accts they have been feeding for decades, defined benefit plans, partnership and other passive income, inheritances, etc. The reason they’re shell-shocked and some of the 60+ crowd is delaying retirement a few years is because they’re not quite ready to “downsize their lifestyle” to retire (still trying to pay off vehicles and mortgages). Even though it may not be in defined benefit pensions, today’s boomers have more net worth than the seniors of yesteryear.

Don’t confuse previous generations of “old people” with the “old people” coming of age today. They are apples and oranges. I for one, endeavor to keep myself as fit as possible and NOT be dependent on prescription drugs of any kind for the long term. Instead, I am educating myself on homeopathic remedies. And I am one of many. Just go to any gym in SD County and the majority working out there regularly will be early-mid boomers 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] brian, I gotta hand it to you for your “visionary” acumen. Have you ever thought of going into the “urban planning” field? :=][/quote]

I’m a fan of architecture and urban planning. I like to observe how people live.

BTW, apartment living used to be bad relative to SFRs. But that’s an old notion. New contruction technolgies allow for bay windows and airy living spaces. Consider the low-income towers downtown. They are better than the old condo buildings.[/quote]

I too, am a fan of architecture and urban planning.

Bay windows and “airy living” also abound in old SF “Victorian-era” apartment living . . . almost “too airy.” Depending on how high the building is situated, the near daily wind there can get really ugly. I’ve learned to brace myself when walking across a steep street. Still . . . most apartments (“flats”) in SF are bigger and more well-appointed than many SFRs … not to mention their often “extraordinary” views and locations!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] I believe the opposition is too strong here for upzoning. Longtime families are entrenched voters and community activists who will never give up their quaint “Leave it to Beaver” quality of life for more density. And they’ve got a LOT of time on their hands to protest and gather signatures.[/quote]

I agree with you… But those homeowners are financially misguided in my views. It takes decades for neighborhoods to change…[/quote]

My neighbors will never “change.” Most are planning on leaving their properties to their kids who are currently renting or own a smaller house nearby and DO want them 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
WRT MM, according SANDAG: http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/zip92126fcst.pdf, there will be 45% more housing unit (almost 11k housing unit) going up in MM in the next 40 years. So, MM will be much more dense in the future. MM population is estimated to increased by 49% or ~35.7k people. Even with the future density, MM is still a suburb.[/quote]

I think that Mira Mesa is a great opportunity for better housing and density in San Diego.

Mira Mesa is conveniently located near UCSD, and employment centers and has a vibrant Asian community.

Mira Mesa mall could be a shopping center/tranportation hub/central plaza with shopping, a cineplex and few high-rises towers like they have at Costa Verde. A trolley could connect MM to UCSD and the UTC area.

The old 1970s areas could be upzoned for mid-rise condo buildings.

Maybe an Indian tribe could annex some land and build a casino/hotel.[/quote]

brian, I gotta hand it to you for your “visionary” acumen. Have you ever thought of going into the “urban planning” field? :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]BG, you should reconsider your opposition to building new and upzoning.

If you own an old house on a good sized lot in convenient central location, think what upzoning could do for you.

When you retire, you don’t want the house. You kids don’t want it. If the neighborhood were upzoned, your property would be worth more.

In the mean time, you can continue to live in the house for as long as you like.

Cities change. If great stone mansions in Manhattan could be razed to make way for skyscrapper, why do we need to preserve mid-century wood houses.[/quote]

You are correct that I don’t want it when I retire and my kids don’t want it. However, my area will not allow any more apartments. There are several small apt complexes and two large senior complexes in my area but the rest of my immediate area is zoned for SFRs only (a few have companion units).

A handful of owners in my area have gutted and built new (complete remodels).

I believe the opposition is too strong here for upzoning. Longtime families are entrenched voters and community activists who will never give up their quaint “Leave it to Beaver” quality of life for more density. And they’ve got a LOT of time on their hands to protest and gather signatures.

If I can’t sell it in a few years for the price I what for it, I will just place tenants in it on a one-year lease and wait for a better day :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AK] … I’ve lived in large cities and dense suburban infill both here and abroad, and all I can say is … I like my stucco tract home in a far-flung suburb … I can grow my own organic vegetables without fighting over cramped plots in community gardens built on old toxic waste dumps …[/quote]

AK, the vast majority of community gardens in SD are NOT built on “toxic waste dumps.” Many have served their neighborhoods for more than 40 years.

See: http://sandiegoroots.org/comm_gardens.html

However, SD County new home developments in “far flung suburbia” HAVE been built on or adjacent to not only former landfills but toxic waste sites, as well.

… Since the seven landfills —- in Bonsall, Valley Center, Poway, San Marcos, Oceanside and Carlsbad —- closed more than a decade ago, an airport, parks, schools and homes have been built on or near the sites…

A toxic mix

The landfills, built between the late 1940s and 1970s, preceded environmental rules that govern waste disposal today, and served as catch-all basins for a mix of routine trash and toxic chemicals.

“The hazardous-waste checks didn’t start until the 1990s,” said Michele Stress, a unit manager for the county Department of Public Works, which monitors and maintains the seven sites…

See: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e6f8dde5-da4c-54fc-b8ee-fe358795ea8c.html

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/san-marcos/article_d7aa1db1-9f1b-5498-ba82-8ed1867d62c0.html

and: http://peopleinvestigatingtoxicsites.blogspot.com/2010/07/homes-or-adjacent-to-closed-dumps.html

http://peopleinvestigatingtoxicsites.blogspot.com/2010/07/del-sur-green-community-on-wwii-bombing.html

http://www.10newsblogs.com/pdf/blackmountain1.pdf

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] While single or married w/ no kids, we want to live in the city, but once you have kids, most will tell you they’ll give up their city life for a yard and suburban schools.[/quote]

The thing is that America doesn’t have city life. Except for New York, and a few other places, it’s a blur of city and suburban life.

I mean, is living in Mission Valley really living in the city? Not in my opinion.

In the rest of the world, the demarcation between city and suburb is much greater.[/quote]

Agreed, brian. MM, where AN resides is an example of city/suburban life. For many years, MM AND SR were the “last bastions” in the northern part of the City with MM built up as tracts on small urban lots. For that reason, MM life is a combination of city and suburban existence.

Mission Valley is a dense multifamily/com’l area built-up on a “Type A” floodplain with tons of shored-up landfill using “glass breakwater” and other techniques which we all “hope” doesn’t fail in the event of a BIG FLOOD of the SD River :={

MV is NOT really “urban” at all in the true sense of the word, is not very walkable, has no real “culture” and very little “character,” lol.

SD DOES have a “city life” but it is confined to dtn, Gaslamp, East Village, Hillcrest, Balboa Park and nearby surrounds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]hmm, I think it will get old once one is past 30.
But it is kind of fits a democratic profile I think.
Not all understand, but in generally Democrats kind of view Suburbs as huge mistake.
Everyone should rent a downtown condo and ride a bike to work type of thing.
Maybe why Housing generally does better under republicans but then again I am generalizing here.[/quote]

Nor-LA, for the record, I am a Democrat-turned-independent. And I DO/DID favor close-in suburbs in SD, that is: (Dtn) SD to int’l border, SD to El Cajon, SD to UCSD, SD to MM, SD to San Carlos, etc … but when is enough enough? Even former small (uninc) “coastal hamlets” in NCC have now morphed into coastal/inland megalopolises.

I believe that if the sprawl to every lizard-inhabited corner of SD County had not taken place, new incoming residents would have just taken up the existing available housing (or not relocated to SD if they didn’t like the housing choices). In addition, I feel our local governments would have been better off today due to having to provide much LESS services for a smaller population, even though collecting less taxes. If we had had slow or no-growth initiatives in place in the past, the quality of life would have been far better for every existing resident in SD. Now, nearly all of SD County’s cities are experiencing layoffs caused by rampant hiring during the artificially propped-up “Millenium Boom.” These municipal layoffs that are occurring now come at a time when the county population is 3X what it was 30 years ago and the need for public services are far greater.

The voters in the State of Washington (as well as their Legislature) apparently were far less shortsighted than we/ours turned out to be in this regard and valued their quality of life more than we did.

Back to reality … even though situated within the county of SD (a VERY large county), I don’t consider places such as Alpine, Ramona and (SD) North County as being parts of SD. I consider them to be self-contained areas in their own right. That’s why it’s never made sense to me that people choose to live in them while attempting to commute to SD’s urban core every day to work.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Nancy_s soothsayer]Places that shouldn’t have earthquakes are having them. Snyder, Texas, is having swarms of quakes. LOL! Then recently, Pres. Obama read an apocalyptic part of the bible as part of his speech: something about the mountains falling into the oceans, earth crumbling, kingdoms tottering, earth melting, etc. (Yikes!) So, what is he trying to say? I am not going to find hidden messages there, but on Sept. 14th or 15th, I hope there is no large solar flare, because I hope to close on a house I’m buying before the weekend (to avoid CME dose of proton/neutron radation, or something like that). LOL![/quote]

Hey Nancy, weren’t you the one that purchased a large condo in the Tesla area last year? Or do I have you mixed up with someone else?

[Author]

Posts