[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene][quote]I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I would consider even a standard SFR on a 5000 sf lot "low density". Since that's immensely less dense than even building 3-story apartment buildings, let alone downtown-type high-rises.

That said, I think that you misunderstood my statement.

We filled all land _here_in_San_Diego_ with low density housing. Out here in North County, there's an enormous amount of space zoned 1-2 acres & up per dwelling. Valley Center and Bonsall together take 43 square miles (27,520 acres = enough room for something like 200,000 SFRs at typical density). If all this land were vacant, we'd have enough land left over to accommodate future development for decades ahead. But it's not vacant, it's built out at 2 acres per dwelling, total population between the two is somewhere around 12,000, and there's massive red tape involved in rezoning even a single lot to high density.

And, since there's no buildable land left here, people create demand for exurbs.

Also, 4S Ranch and Ramona are NOT exurbs of San Diego. The two primary exurbs of San Diego are Temecula and Murrieta. To a lesser extent, further outlying cities such as Lake Elsinore and maybe even Hemet.[/quote]

Eugene, I understand the zoning restrictions in Valley Center and Bonsall (and even parts of Fallbrook). However, most of the SFR's in these areas are customs, not on tract. None of those areas suffer from "urban sprawl." Only a minority of Valley Center SFR's are even hooked up to a sewer! I never stated Ramona (even though it has several tracts within SDCE) was an "exurb." It DOES fit some of the criteria, but in actuality, Ramona is well-established and historically significant in its own right. 4S is not. 4S is ALL NEW(ER), ALL or NEARLY ALL on tract and entirely freeway dependent (except maybe into RB).

I don't believe "people" create a demand for exurbs. "People" would buy existing resale housing if there were no exurbs. There's always plenty of resale housing on the market. That's what "people" did when there were no exurbs. That's what "people" do in the state of Washington where urban sprawl has long been restricted (to preserve open space and natural resources).

Temecula, Murietta, Lake Elsinore and Hemet are NOT exurbs of San Diego County. They are a different market entirely. They are not located in San Diego County. If they are "exurbs," they would be exurbs of Riverside. Just because residents of these areas may choose to live there, yet commute to Diego County to work doesn't make these areas in any way connected with San Diego. They're not. They're in Riverside County (RIV) and RIV is a different animal entirely than SD County. There is no comparison between the two markets.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]…The trick are all the other variables when trying to determine the value of a single house and it’s current fair value and estimated future value. Sizes of houses have changed, some areas that were once far flung suburbs have grown up and have gained autonomy (ie. carlsbad/encinitas) so it get really hard to compare median priced 1970’s home purchase in encinitas, factor inflation since then and come to an estimated value for today. The water gets muddy, because the houses are bigger now, much bigger, and encinitas isn’t the same as it was 40 years ago…[/quote]

Good observation, TG. You mentioned “built-out” areas such as Manhattan in your post as being immune to how “mainstream” property values across the nation behave (correct me if I have this wrong.) I want to add other areas of the US to Manhattan and SF (and other very congested cities with much opportunity). They are some areas =< 5 miles from the CA coast and the (Pacific and Atlantic) coasts of other states and US resort areas such as isolated ski areas, etc. An area can be "built out" even if the average lot in it is 15K sf and it is zoned 3 units per AC max and apartment/condo units are no longer permitted on all affected parcel maps (ex: Bonita, CA). For instance, the average lot size in OB is about 6500 sf but it, along with many other coastal communities in SD County, is "built out." Mission Hills and Pt Loma are NOT coastal, but they are "built out," as are virtually ALL "metro" SD communities. The only way there would be land available for residential building in these communities would be to buy a lot where a previous owner has demolished a previous bldg or buy a "knockdown" bldg and demolish it yourself. If a desirable and convenient area is “built-out,” it is a finite commodity. Of course, “desirability” varies widely among the “built-out” communities within 5 miles of the bay or ocean in SD County but for the most part, I don’t see these areas being decimated, price wise. The amount of inventory in these areas which could be available and currently on the market has long been established. There is nothing location-wise to compete with these properties and never will be, except their neighboring available properties.

In the interior US, this isn’t so. Subdivisions the same age might be equal in value to a subdivision 60 miles away (ex. Houston, TX) if neither has access to neighborhood lakes or their own parkland, and each is equidistant to job centers. Here, there is no ocean, island, historical property, different topography or sufficiently “built-out” areas to suggest the values should be higher than other areas. The weather is basically the same for hundreds of miles around a subdivision there. In these interior areas, values hold steady and are more susceptible to the financial wherewithal of potential buyers. A typical buyer is not usually a relo, transplant or foreigner, as are many SD buyers, but a locally born individual/family from that county or an adjacent one. These areas’ value fluctuations, if any, are much easier to predict far into the future.

Not so in coastal CA. It is a different animal entirely. The properties are very diverse, the topography is diverse, the buyers are very diverse, the home styles and ages are diverse and the weather can be significantly different just 5 miles away. In trying to determine the “worth” of properties in this “coastal niche,” these properties shouldn’t compared to or confused with areas further inland which have multiple near-identical tracts, possible vacant land still available and many residents who may be entirely freeway-dependent. Scarcity of land/lots and convenience will always have a higher value, even if it is a vacant lot. Size of dwelling is secondary.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]…The trick are all the other variables when trying to determine the value of a single house and it’s current fair value and estimated future value. Sizes of houses have changed, some areas that were once far flung suburbs have grown up and have gained autonomy (ie. carlsbad/encinitas) so it get really hard to compare median priced 1970’s home purchase in encinitas, factor inflation since then and come to an estimated value for today. The water gets muddy, because the houses are bigger now, much bigger, and encinitas isn’t the same as it was 40 years ago…[/quote]

Good observation, TG. You mentioned “built-out” areas such as Manhattan in your post as being immune to how “mainstream” property values across the nation behave (correct me if I have this wrong.) I want to add other areas of the US to Manhattan and SF (and other very congested cities with much opportunity). They are some areas =< 5 miles from the CA coast and the (Pacific and Atlantic) coasts of other states and US resort areas such as isolated ski areas, etc. An area can be "built out" even if the average lot in it is 15K sf and it is zoned 3 units per AC max and apartment/condo units are no longer permitted on all affected parcel maps (ex: Bonita, CA). For instance, the average lot size in OB is about 6500 sf but it, along with many other coastal communities in SD County, is "built out." Mission Hills and Pt Loma are NOT coastal, but they are "built out," as are virtually ALL "metro" SD communities. The only way there would be land available for residential building in these communities would be to buy a lot where a previous owner has demolished a previous bldg or buy a "knockdown" bldg and demolish it yourself. If a desirable and convenient area is “built-out,” it is a finite commodity. Of course, “desirability” varies widely among the “built-out” communities within 5 miles of the bay or ocean in SD County but for the most part, I don’t see these areas being decimated, price wise. The amount of inventory in these areas which could be available and currently on the market has long been established. There is nothing location-wise to compete with these properties and never will be, except their neighboring available properties.

In the interior US, this isn’t so. Subdivisions the same age might be equal in value to a subdivision 60 miles away (ex. Houston, TX) if neither has access to neighborhood lakes or their own parkland, and each is equidistant to job centers. Here, there is no ocean, island, historical property, different topography or sufficiently “built-out” areas to suggest the values should be higher than other areas. The weather is basically the same for hundreds of miles around a subdivision there. In these interior areas, values hold steady and are more susceptible to the financial wherewithal of potential buyers. A typical buyer is not usually a relo, transplant or foreigner, as are many SD buyers, but a locally born individual/family from that county or an adjacent one. These areas’ value fluctuations, if any, are much easier to predict far into the future.

Not so in coastal CA. It is a different animal entirely. The properties are very diverse, the topography is diverse, the buyers are very diverse, the home styles and ages are diverse and the weather can be significantly different just 5 miles away. In trying to determine the “worth” of properties in this “coastal niche,” these properties shouldn’t compared to or confused with areas further inland which have multiple near-identical tracts, possible vacant land still available and many residents who may be entirely freeway-dependent. Scarcity of land/lots and convenience will always have a higher value, even if it is a vacant lot. Size of dwelling is secondary.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]…The trick are all the other variables when trying to determine the value of a single house and it’s current fair value and estimated future value. Sizes of houses have changed, some areas that were once far flung suburbs have grown up and have gained autonomy (ie. carlsbad/encinitas) so it get really hard to compare median priced 1970’s home purchase in encinitas, factor inflation since then and come to an estimated value for today. The water gets muddy, because the houses are bigger now, much bigger, and encinitas isn’t the same as it was 40 years ago…[/quote]

Good observation, TG. You mentioned “built-out” areas such as Manhattan in your post as being immune to how “mainstream” property values across the nation behave (correct me if I have this wrong.) I want to add other areas of the US to Manhattan and SF (and other very congested cities with much opportunity). They are some areas =< 5 miles from the CA coast and the (Pacific and Atlantic) coasts of other states and US resort areas such as isolated ski areas, etc. An area can be "built out" even if the average lot in it is 15K sf and it is zoned 3 units per AC max and apartment/condo units are no longer permitted on all affected parcel maps (ex: Bonita, CA). For instance, the average lot size in OB is about 6500 sf but it, along with many other coastal communities in SD County, is "built out." Mission Hills and Pt Loma are NOT coastal, but they are "built out," as are virtually ALL "metro" SD communities. The only way there would be land available for residential building in these communities would be to buy a lot where a previous owner has demolished a previous bldg or buy a "knockdown" bldg and demolish it yourself. If a desirable and convenient area is “built-out,” it is a finite commodity. Of course, “desirability” varies widely among the “built-out” communities within 5 miles of the bay or ocean in SD County but for the most part, I don’t see these areas being decimated, price wise. The amount of inventory in these areas which could be available and currently on the market has long been established. There is nothing location-wise to compete with these properties and never will be, except their neighboring available properties.

In the interior US, this isn’t so. Subdivisions the same age might be equal in value to a subdivision 60 miles away (ex. Houston, TX) if neither has access to neighborhood lakes or their own parkland, and each is equidistant to job centers. Here, there is no ocean, island, historical property, different topography or sufficiently “built-out” areas to suggest the values should be higher than other areas. The weather is basically the same for hundreds of miles around a subdivision there. In these interior areas, values hold steady and are more susceptible to the financial wherewithal of potential buyers. A typical buyer is not usually a relo, transplant or foreigner, as are many SD buyers, but a locally born individual/family from that county or an adjacent one. These areas’ value fluctuations, if any, are much easier to predict far into the future.

Not so in coastal CA. It is a different animal entirely. The properties are very diverse, the topography is diverse, the buyers are very diverse, the home styles and ages are diverse and the weather can be significantly different just 5 miles away. In trying to determine the “worth” of properties in this “coastal niche,” these properties shouldn’t compared to or confused with areas further inland which have multiple near-identical tracts, possible vacant land still available and many residents who may be entirely freeway-dependent. Scarcity of land/lots and convenience will always have a higher value, even if it is a vacant lot. Size of dwelling is secondary.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]…The trick are all the other variables when trying to determine the value of a single house and it’s current fair value and estimated future value. Sizes of houses have changed, some areas that were once far flung suburbs have grown up and have gained autonomy (ie. carlsbad/encinitas) so it get really hard to compare median priced 1970’s home purchase in encinitas, factor inflation since then and come to an estimated value for today. The water gets muddy, because the houses are bigger now, much bigger, and encinitas isn’t the same as it was 40 years ago…[/quote]

Good observation, TG. You mentioned “built-out” areas such as Manhattan in your post as being immune to how “mainstream” property values across the nation behave (correct me if I have this wrong.) I want to add other areas of the US to Manhattan and SF (and other very congested cities with much opportunity). They are some areas =< 5 miles from the CA coast and the (Pacific and Atlantic) coasts of other states and US resort areas such as isolated ski areas, etc. An area can be "built out" even if the average lot in it is 15K sf and it is zoned 3 units per AC max and apartment/condo units are no longer permitted on all affected parcel maps (ex: Bonita, CA). For instance, the average lot size in OB is about 6500 sf but it, along with many other coastal communities in SD County, is "built out." Mission Hills and Pt Loma are NOT coastal, but they are "built out," as are virtually ALL "metro" SD communities. The only way there would be land available for residential building in these communities would be to buy a lot where a previous owner has demolished a previous bldg or buy a "knockdown" bldg and demolish it yourself. If a desirable and convenient area is “built-out,” it is a finite commodity. Of course, “desirability” varies widely among the “built-out” communities within 5 miles of the bay or ocean in SD County but for the most part, I don’t see these areas being decimated, price wise. The amount of inventory in these areas which could be available and currently on the market has long been established. There is nothing location-wise to compete with these properties and never will be, except their neighboring available properties.

In the interior US, this isn’t so. Subdivisions the same age might be equal in value to a subdivision 60 miles away (ex. Houston, TX) if neither has access to neighborhood lakes or their own parkland, and each is equidistant to job centers. Here, there is no ocean, island, historical property, different topography or sufficiently “built-out” areas to suggest the values should be higher than other areas. The weather is basically the same for hundreds of miles around a subdivision there. In these interior areas, values hold steady and are more susceptible to the financial wherewithal of potential buyers. A typical buyer is not usually a relo, transplant or foreigner, as are many SD buyers, but a locally born individual/family from that county or an adjacent one. These areas’ value fluctuations, if any, are much easier to predict far into the future.

Not so in coastal CA. It is a different animal entirely. The properties are very diverse, the topography is diverse, the buyers are very diverse, the home styles and ages are diverse and the weather can be significantly different just 5 miles away. In trying to determine the “worth” of properties in this “coastal niche,” these properties shouldn’t compared to or confused with areas further inland which have multiple near-identical tracts, possible vacant land still available and many residents who may be entirely freeway-dependent. Scarcity of land/lots and convenience will always have a higher value, even if it is a vacant lot. Size of dwelling is secondary.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]…The trick are all the other variables when trying to determine the value of a single house and it’s current fair value and estimated future value. Sizes of houses have changed, some areas that were once far flung suburbs have grown up and have gained autonomy (ie. carlsbad/encinitas) so it get really hard to compare median priced 1970’s home purchase in encinitas, factor inflation since then and come to an estimated value for today. The water gets muddy, because the houses are bigger now, much bigger, and encinitas isn’t the same as it was 40 years ago…[/quote]

Good observation, TG. You mentioned “built-out” areas such as Manhattan in your post as being immune to how “mainstream” property values across the nation behave (correct me if I have this wrong.) I want to add other areas of the US to Manhattan and SF (and other very congested cities with much opportunity). They are some areas =< 5 miles from the CA coast and the (Pacific and Atlantic) coasts of other states and US resort areas such as isolated ski areas, etc. An area can be "built out" even if the average lot in it is 15K sf and it is zoned 3 units per AC max and apartment/condo units are no longer permitted on all affected parcel maps (ex: Bonita, CA). For instance, the average lot size in OB is about 6500 sf but it, along with many other coastal communities in SD County, is "built out." Mission Hills and Pt Loma are NOT coastal, but they are "built out," as are virtually ALL "metro" SD communities. The only way there would be land available for residential building in these communities would be to buy a lot where a previous owner has demolished a previous bldg or buy a "knockdown" bldg and demolish it yourself. If a desirable and convenient area is “built-out,” it is a finite commodity. Of course, “desirability” varies widely among the “built-out” communities within 5 miles of the bay or ocean in SD County but for the most part, I don’t see these areas being decimated, price wise. The amount of inventory in these areas which could be available and currently on the market has long been established. There is nothing location-wise to compete with these properties and never will be, except their neighboring available properties.

In the interior US, this isn’t so. Subdivisions the same age might be equal in value to a subdivision 60 miles away (ex. Houston, TX) if neither has access to neighborhood lakes or their own parkland, and each is equidistant to job centers. Here, there is no ocean, island, historical property, different topography or sufficiently “built-out” areas to suggest the values should be higher than other areas. The weather is basically the same for hundreds of miles around a subdivision there. In these interior areas, values hold steady and are more susceptible to the financial wherewithal of potential buyers. A typical buyer is not usually a relo, transplant or foreigner, as are many SD buyers, but a locally born individual/family from that county or an adjacent one. These areas’ value fluctuations, if any, are much easier to predict far into the future.

Not so in coastal CA. It is a different animal entirely. The properties are very diverse, the topography is diverse, the buyers are very diverse, the home styles and ages are diverse and the weather can be significantly different just 5 miles away. In trying to determine the “worth” of properties in this “coastal niche,” these properties shouldn’t compared to or confused with areas further inland which have multiple near-identical tracts, possible vacant land still available and many residents who may be entirely freeway-dependent. Scarcity of land/lots and convenience will always have a higher value, even if it is a vacant lot. Size of dwelling is secondary.

[bearishgurl]

AN, it’s late and I will call it a DAY (for me, anyway). 4S is NOT part of RB. 4S is NOT part of a City. It is a far-flung “exurb” recently developed in the last 8-10 years. It is comprised of nearly ALL tracts. There was next to NOTHING there before 2000. The 90’s Thomas Guides I have here with their empty pages bear this out.

The eastern/northeastern part of Poway could be considered an “exurb” due to distance from fwys. It is an “exurb” but not a tract-laden exurb. Many custom homes exist in this area. It is VERY expensive in this state to build a custom home from the ground up. Persons who go thru this time and trouble DO NOT build them on substandard lots. It wouldn’t be worth the time, money and trouble to do so. Fallbrook and Bonsall are also exurbs. These areas are more well-established with many custom-built homes as well as smaller tracts which may or may not be built in the last ten years. They are “exurbs” due to distance from job centers but are not comprised of huge tracts, as 4S and Otay Ranch are.

An “exurb” is a far-flung area (established or not established) which is situated far from job centers, whose residents are largely freeway dependent. It often does not have all the retail and other services locally within it which its residents need. In addition, it is served very minimally, if at all, by public transportation.

Hope this clears your confusion.

[bearishgurl]

AN, it’s late and I will call it a DAY (for me, anyway). 4S is NOT part of RB. 4S is NOT part of a City. It is a far-flung “exurb” recently developed in the last 8-10 years. It is comprised of nearly ALL tracts. There was next to NOTHING there before 2000. The 90’s Thomas Guides I have here with their empty pages bear this out.

The eastern/northeastern part of Poway could be considered an “exurb” due to distance from fwys. It is an “exurb” but not a tract-laden exurb. Many custom homes exist in this area. It is VERY expensive in this state to build a custom home from the ground up. Persons who go thru this time and trouble DO NOT build them on substandard lots. It wouldn’t be worth the time, money and trouble to do so. Fallbrook and Bonsall are also exurbs. These areas are more well-established with many custom-built homes as well as smaller tracts which may or may not be built in the last ten years. They are “exurbs” due to distance from job centers but are not comprised of huge tracts, as 4S and Otay Ranch are.

An “exurb” is a far-flung area (established or not established) which is situated far from job centers, whose residents are largely freeway dependent. It often does not have all the retail and other services locally within it which its residents need. In addition, it is served very minimally, if at all, by public transportation.

Hope this clears your confusion.

[bearishgurl]

AN, it’s late and I will call it a DAY (for me, anyway). 4S is NOT part of RB. 4S is NOT part of a City. It is a far-flung “exurb” recently developed in the last 8-10 years. It is comprised of nearly ALL tracts. There was next to NOTHING there before 2000. The 90’s Thomas Guides I have here with their empty pages bear this out.

The eastern/northeastern part of Poway could be considered an “exurb” due to distance from fwys. It is an “exurb” but not a tract-laden exurb. Many custom homes exist in this area. It is VERY expensive in this state to build a custom home from the ground up. Persons who go thru this time and trouble DO NOT build them on substandard lots. It wouldn’t be worth the time, money and trouble to do so. Fallbrook and Bonsall are also exurbs. These areas are more well-established with many custom-built homes as well as smaller tracts which may or may not be built in the last ten years. They are “exurbs” due to distance from job centers but are not comprised of huge tracts, as 4S and Otay Ranch are.

An “exurb” is a far-flung area (established or not established) which is situated far from job centers, whose residents are largely freeway dependent. It often does not have all the retail and other services locally within it which its residents need. In addition, it is served very minimally, if at all, by public transportation.

Hope this clears your confusion.

[bearishgurl]

AN, it’s late and I will call it a DAY (for me, anyway). 4S is NOT part of RB. 4S is NOT part of a City. It is a far-flung “exurb” recently developed in the last 8-10 years. It is comprised of nearly ALL tracts. There was next to NOTHING there before 2000. The 90’s Thomas Guides I have here with their empty pages bear this out.

The eastern/northeastern part of Poway could be considered an “exurb” due to distance from fwys. It is an “exurb” but not a tract-laden exurb. Many custom homes exist in this area. It is VERY expensive in this state to build a custom home from the ground up. Persons who go thru this time and trouble DO NOT build them on substandard lots. It wouldn’t be worth the time, money and trouble to do so. Fallbrook and Bonsall are also exurbs. These areas are more well-established with many custom-built homes as well as smaller tracts which may or may not be built in the last ten years. They are “exurbs” due to distance from job centers but are not comprised of huge tracts, as 4S and Otay Ranch are.

An “exurb” is a far-flung area (established or not established) which is situated far from job centers, whose residents are largely freeway dependent. It often does not have all the retail and other services locally within it which its residents need. In addition, it is served very minimally, if at all, by public transportation.

Hope this clears your confusion.

[bearishgurl]

AN, it’s late and I will call it a DAY (for me, anyway). 4S is NOT part of RB. 4S is NOT part of a City. It is a far-flung “exurb” recently developed in the last 8-10 years. It is comprised of nearly ALL tracts. There was next to NOTHING there before 2000. The 90’s Thomas Guides I have here with their empty pages bear this out.

The eastern/northeastern part of Poway could be considered an “exurb” due to distance from fwys. It is an “exurb” but not a tract-laden exurb. Many custom homes exist in this area. It is VERY expensive in this state to build a custom home from the ground up. Persons who go thru this time and trouble DO NOT build them on substandard lots. It wouldn’t be worth the time, money and trouble to do so. Fallbrook and Bonsall are also exurbs. These areas are more well-established with many custom-built homes as well as smaller tracts which may or may not be built in the last ten years. They are “exurbs” due to distance from job centers but are not comprised of huge tracts, as 4S and Otay Ranch are.

An “exurb” is a far-flung area (established or not established) which is situated far from job centers, whose residents are largely freeway dependent. It often does not have all the retail and other services locally within it which its residents need. In addition, it is served very minimally, if at all, by public transportation.

Hope this clears your confusion.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]AN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”

RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.[/quote]
If only far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs”, then please tell me which part of that area of Poway have houses with <5000 sq-ft lot as the majority?

BTW, let just be clear, you're saying that 4S Ranch is not exurb.[/quote]

4S is an "exurb." Its entire zip code was developed in the last 8 years or so. There was little to no development at all there. It was developed from nothing ... the same as Otay Ranch. No part of these communities are well-established.

The uninc area of Poway that is an "exurb" doesn't have too many tracts. The ones that are there are small tracts. This area is comprised of mostly customs. Persons who build custom homes do not waste their money building on minuscule lots.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]AN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”

RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.[/quote]
If only far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs”, then please tell me which part of that area of Poway have houses with <5000 sq-ft lot as the majority?

BTW, let just be clear, you're saying that 4S Ranch is not exurb.[/quote]

4S is an "exurb." Its entire zip code was developed in the last 8 years or so. There was little to no development at all there. It was developed from nothing ... the same as Otay Ranch. No part of these communities are well-established.

The uninc area of Poway that is an "exurb" doesn't have too many tracts. The ones that are there are small tracts. This area is comprised of mostly customs. Persons who build custom homes do not waste their money building on minuscule lots.

[Author]

Posts