Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
joec
ParticipantI certainly agree that the prime locations are all in older stock land (with their larger lots). I think for the folks who can afford those areas (mostly the coast for me), it’s a nice place to be at.
Back to my 30-something’s piggy’s way of thinking, I suppose my view of “land” is not what it used to be. In my younger days, I thought the same way as you do now valuing land and lot size over most things. Nowadays, my thinking is we bought a house to live in primarily. We live inside the house, we don’t spend that much time outside due to the reasons above…Also, not wanting to expand or make upgrades, if we needed more space or lot size, we’d probably just move. Path of least resistance as mentioned in another message earlier…Especially for folks who aren’t handy and have no interest in doing/learning that skill set. I’d be more at home fixing cars than home items.
Also, and maybe a big reason for my way of thinking is we probably will eventually move when we retire and when the kid is grown (maybe in 20-30 years)…Can’t predict the future, but that probably played a factor in our lot size decision.
I suppose similar to questions of do you really need a 3300 sqft home? Does someone really need a 10k-20k lot nowadays? Parks are everywhere within walking distance with bball courts, huge lawns, etc…
Times are certainly different now compared to just 20/30 years ago and 50 years ago as well. There were certainly less luxuries back then and I don’t think folks were as hard core when it came to kids, education, jobs, etc…A global economy is a race to the bottom in terms of cost for companies.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted about and discussed yet, but another reason for newer areas is updated construction within the area (San Bruno gas explosion). I also don’t like all those power lines that you see in a lot of the older developments…
Crews search ash-covered homes after blast kills 4:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_large_explosion“Experts say the nation’s 296,000 miles of onshore natural-gas lines routinely suffer breakdowns and failures.
More than 60 percent of the lines are 40 years old or older and almost half were installed in the 1950s and 1960s, according to a recent analysis by the Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Bellingham, Wash.
Most of the older pipelines lack anticorrosion coatings that are prevalent in the industry today, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the trust, which was set up following a 1999 explosion that killed three people in Bellingham.
“The industry always says that if you take care of pipelines, they’ll last forever,” Weimer said. “But what we see over and over again is companies are not doing that and corrosion and other factors are causing failures.”
ParticipantI certainly agree that the prime locations are all in older stock land (with their larger lots). I think for the folks who can afford those areas (mostly the coast for me), it’s a nice place to be at.
Back to my 30-something’s piggy’s way of thinking, I suppose my view of “land” is not what it used to be. In my younger days, I thought the same way as you do now valuing land and lot size over most things. Nowadays, my thinking is we bought a house to live in primarily. We live inside the house, we don’t spend that much time outside due to the reasons above…Also, not wanting to expand or make upgrades, if we needed more space or lot size, we’d probably just move. Path of least resistance as mentioned in another message earlier…Especially for folks who aren’t handy and have no interest in doing/learning that skill set. I’d be more at home fixing cars than home items.
Also, and maybe a big reason for my way of thinking is we probably will eventually move when we retire and when the kid is grown (maybe in 20-30 years)…Can’t predict the future, but that probably played a factor in our lot size decision.
I suppose similar to questions of do you really need a 3300 sqft home? Does someone really need a 10k-20k lot nowadays? Parks are everywhere within walking distance with bball courts, huge lawns, etc…
Times are certainly different now compared to just 20/30 years ago and 50 years ago as well. There were certainly less luxuries back then and I don’t think folks were as hard core when it came to kids, education, jobs, etc…A global economy is a race to the bottom in terms of cost for companies.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted about and discussed yet, but another reason for newer areas is updated construction within the area (San Bruno gas explosion). I also don’t like all those power lines that you see in a lot of the older developments…
Crews search ash-covered homes after blast kills 4:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_large_explosion“Experts say the nation’s 296,000 miles of onshore natural-gas lines routinely suffer breakdowns and failures.
More than 60 percent of the lines are 40 years old or older and almost half were installed in the 1950s and 1960s, according to a recent analysis by the Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Bellingham, Wash.
Most of the older pipelines lack anticorrosion coatings that are prevalent in the industry today, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the trust, which was set up following a 1999 explosion that killed three people in Bellingham.
“The industry always says that if you take care of pipelines, they’ll last forever,” Weimer said. “But what we see over and over again is companies are not doing that and corrosion and other factors are causing failures.”
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I have to agree with AN here. [/quote]I also agree with AN and UCGal. Commuting is not to and from downtown anymore.
But still, I believe that people would rather buy new than old. That’s why over time, the old neighborhoods are abandoned for the new cities and suburbs. Granted, redevelopment has stopped that to some extent since the late 1990s; but families with kids are still not moving back to the city.
We need to find ways to get families to move back to the city and abandon the suburban myth. It’s interesting to me that in Europe, families prefer to live in the urban core.
IMHO, it’s better to rebuild and renew the infrastructure we already have than sprawling out to new raw land.
Maybe $10 gas will do that.[/quote]
Having lived in SF before SD, I think cities tend to favor businesses rather than families to live there. At least SF was this way. More tax dollars. City life isn’t that great neither and unless you are into going out all the time or work there, city living just gets you more bums, dog shit allover the sidewalk (in SF at least), more noise, pollution, traffic, car alarms, ambulances practically daily/nightly, partiers going home at 2am on friday nights…Parking sucks too.
no thanks…
especially for folks with families…Also, the school situation is probably random/lottery (SF is this way I think) making parents with kids hesitant rather than going to private school if they don’t get their school pick. Most would rather just move to the burbs of del mar or anywhere in the PUSD.
I suppose for some of us, I don’t see the attraction of city living at all (having lived it myself).
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I have to agree with AN here. [/quote]I also agree with AN and UCGal. Commuting is not to and from downtown anymore.
But still, I believe that people would rather buy new than old. That’s why over time, the old neighborhoods are abandoned for the new cities and suburbs. Granted, redevelopment has stopped that to some extent since the late 1990s; but families with kids are still not moving back to the city.
We need to find ways to get families to move back to the city and abandon the suburban myth. It’s interesting to me that in Europe, families prefer to live in the urban core.
IMHO, it’s better to rebuild and renew the infrastructure we already have than sprawling out to new raw land.
Maybe $10 gas will do that.[/quote]
Having lived in SF before SD, I think cities tend to favor businesses rather than families to live there. At least SF was this way. More tax dollars. City life isn’t that great neither and unless you are into going out all the time or work there, city living just gets you more bums, dog shit allover the sidewalk (in SF at least), more noise, pollution, traffic, car alarms, ambulances practically daily/nightly, partiers going home at 2am on friday nights…Parking sucks too.
no thanks…
especially for folks with families…Also, the school situation is probably random/lottery (SF is this way I think) making parents with kids hesitant rather than going to private school if they don’t get their school pick. Most would rather just move to the burbs of del mar or anywhere in the PUSD.
I suppose for some of us, I don’t see the attraction of city living at all (having lived it myself).
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I have to agree with AN here. [/quote]I also agree with AN and UCGal. Commuting is not to and from downtown anymore.
But still, I believe that people would rather buy new than old. That’s why over time, the old neighborhoods are abandoned for the new cities and suburbs. Granted, redevelopment has stopped that to some extent since the late 1990s; but families with kids are still not moving back to the city.
We need to find ways to get families to move back to the city and abandon the suburban myth. It’s interesting to me that in Europe, families prefer to live in the urban core.
IMHO, it’s better to rebuild and renew the infrastructure we already have than sprawling out to new raw land.
Maybe $10 gas will do that.[/quote]
Having lived in SF before SD, I think cities tend to favor businesses rather than families to live there. At least SF was this way. More tax dollars. City life isn’t that great neither and unless you are into going out all the time or work there, city living just gets you more bums, dog shit allover the sidewalk (in SF at least), more noise, pollution, traffic, car alarms, ambulances practically daily/nightly, partiers going home at 2am on friday nights…Parking sucks too.
no thanks…
especially for folks with families…Also, the school situation is probably random/lottery (SF is this way I think) making parents with kids hesitant rather than going to private school if they don’t get their school pick. Most would rather just move to the burbs of del mar or anywhere in the PUSD.
I suppose for some of us, I don’t see the attraction of city living at all (having lived it myself).
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I have to agree with AN here. [/quote]I also agree with AN and UCGal. Commuting is not to and from downtown anymore.
But still, I believe that people would rather buy new than old. That’s why over time, the old neighborhoods are abandoned for the new cities and suburbs. Granted, redevelopment has stopped that to some extent since the late 1990s; but families with kids are still not moving back to the city.
We need to find ways to get families to move back to the city and abandon the suburban myth. It’s interesting to me that in Europe, families prefer to live in the urban core.
IMHO, it’s better to rebuild and renew the infrastructure we already have than sprawling out to new raw land.
Maybe $10 gas will do that.[/quote]
Having lived in SF before SD, I think cities tend to favor businesses rather than families to live there. At least SF was this way. More tax dollars. City life isn’t that great neither and unless you are into going out all the time or work there, city living just gets you more bums, dog shit allover the sidewalk (in SF at least), more noise, pollution, traffic, car alarms, ambulances practically daily/nightly, partiers going home at 2am on friday nights…Parking sucks too.
no thanks…
especially for folks with families…Also, the school situation is probably random/lottery (SF is this way I think) making parents with kids hesitant rather than going to private school if they don’t get their school pick. Most would rather just move to the burbs of del mar or anywhere in the PUSD.
I suppose for some of us, I don’t see the attraction of city living at all (having lived it myself).
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I have to agree with AN here. [/quote]I also agree with AN and UCGal. Commuting is not to and from downtown anymore.
But still, I believe that people would rather buy new than old. That’s why over time, the old neighborhoods are abandoned for the new cities and suburbs. Granted, redevelopment has stopped that to some extent since the late 1990s; but families with kids are still not moving back to the city.
We need to find ways to get families to move back to the city and abandon the suburban myth. It’s interesting to me that in Europe, families prefer to live in the urban core.
IMHO, it’s better to rebuild and renew the infrastructure we already have than sprawling out to new raw land.
Maybe $10 gas will do that.[/quote]
Having lived in SF before SD, I think cities tend to favor businesses rather than families to live there. At least SF was this way. More tax dollars. City life isn’t that great neither and unless you are into going out all the time or work there, city living just gets you more bums, dog shit allover the sidewalk (in SF at least), more noise, pollution, traffic, car alarms, ambulances practically daily/nightly, partiers going home at 2am on friday nights…Parking sucks too.
no thanks…
especially for folks with families…Also, the school situation is probably random/lottery (SF is this way I think) making parents with kids hesitant rather than going to private school if they don’t get their school pick. Most would rather just move to the burbs of del mar or anywhere in the PUSD.
I suppose for some of us, I don’t see the attraction of city living at all (having lived it myself).
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.
But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."
HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.
Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”
As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]
Hi BG, just out of curiosity, what age bracket are you in? My wife and I in our late 30s with a young child. I’ll take a stab at why some piggs (namely me) can care less about the large lot. I grew up probably in a 15-20k lot in my parent’s house in the bay area. For us now, we really don’t care having that 10k+ lot (and we’re in a postage sized lot now) because:
1) Landscaping is expensive! The larger the lot, the more expensive to landscape it.
2) We are in door hermits. Sure, I grew up riding my bikes outside (pretty rarely in the backyard actually), rolling down the hill on a cardboard in our backyard, etc…but SD is pretty hot compared to the bay area actually and it’s foolish to sit outside a lot. Kids probably have a lot of other activities so that’s even less backyard/large lot time.
3) We’re busy! With a kid and barely enough time to get basic personal stuff done and work, chores, who has time to sit outside and enjoy the atmosphere?!?!? A lot of dual income, 1 high income folks would probably prefer to spend time indoors with their kids with the occasional park time rather than play in their backyard, big or small.
4) Lastly, being Asian and all the stereotypes that come with that, I think a lot of those zip codes are simply not on a lot of asian families list of cities to buy in. Lemon Grove, having lived in East county before is a pretty bad area having been there a few times.
5) We like NEW! Maybe the old generation has time to “fix up” the house, but like point 3 above, who has time to do a “home project?” I’d rather spend my time doing things I enjoy than fixing things around the house that’s constantly breaking in a 20 year old house…
Give me my postage stamp sized lot brand spanking new, highly energy efficient home anyday over a 20k lot 20 year fixer…
If we don’t run the AC/heat much, our power bills are in the 60-70 dollars now compared to 40-50 in a 1000 sqft apartment.
Heat seems very expensive (3 months) and we turn it on since the baby refuses to use a blanket. 🙁
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.
But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."
HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.
Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”
As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]
Hi BG, just out of curiosity, what age bracket are you in? My wife and I in our late 30s with a young child. I’ll take a stab at why some piggs (namely me) can care less about the large lot. I grew up probably in a 15-20k lot in my parent’s house in the bay area. For us now, we really don’t care having that 10k+ lot (and we’re in a postage sized lot now) because:
1) Landscaping is expensive! The larger the lot, the more expensive to landscape it.
2) We are in door hermits. Sure, I grew up riding my bikes outside (pretty rarely in the backyard actually), rolling down the hill on a cardboard in our backyard, etc…but SD is pretty hot compared to the bay area actually and it’s foolish to sit outside a lot. Kids probably have a lot of other activities so that’s even less backyard/large lot time.
3) We’re busy! With a kid and barely enough time to get basic personal stuff done and work, chores, who has time to sit outside and enjoy the atmosphere?!?!? A lot of dual income, 1 high income folks would probably prefer to spend time indoors with their kids with the occasional park time rather than play in their backyard, big or small.
4) Lastly, being Asian and all the stereotypes that come with that, I think a lot of those zip codes are simply not on a lot of asian families list of cities to buy in. Lemon Grove, having lived in East county before is a pretty bad area having been there a few times.
5) We like NEW! Maybe the old generation has time to “fix up” the house, but like point 3 above, who has time to do a “home project?” I’d rather spend my time doing things I enjoy than fixing things around the house that’s constantly breaking in a 20 year old house…
Give me my postage stamp sized lot brand spanking new, highly energy efficient home anyday over a 20k lot 20 year fixer…
If we don’t run the AC/heat much, our power bills are in the 60-70 dollars now compared to 40-50 in a 1000 sqft apartment.
Heat seems very expensive (3 months) and we turn it on since the baby refuses to use a blanket. 🙁
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.
But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."
HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.
Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”
As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]
Hi BG, just out of curiosity, what age bracket are you in? My wife and I in our late 30s with a young child. I’ll take a stab at why some piggs (namely me) can care less about the large lot. I grew up probably in a 15-20k lot in my parent’s house in the bay area. For us now, we really don’t care having that 10k+ lot (and we’re in a postage sized lot now) because:
1) Landscaping is expensive! The larger the lot, the more expensive to landscape it.
2) We are in door hermits. Sure, I grew up riding my bikes outside (pretty rarely in the backyard actually), rolling down the hill on a cardboard in our backyard, etc…but SD is pretty hot compared to the bay area actually and it’s foolish to sit outside a lot. Kids probably have a lot of other activities so that’s even less backyard/large lot time.
3) We’re busy! With a kid and barely enough time to get basic personal stuff done and work, chores, who has time to sit outside and enjoy the atmosphere?!?!? A lot of dual income, 1 high income folks would probably prefer to spend time indoors with their kids with the occasional park time rather than play in their backyard, big or small.
4) Lastly, being Asian and all the stereotypes that come with that, I think a lot of those zip codes are simply not on a lot of asian families list of cities to buy in. Lemon Grove, having lived in East county before is a pretty bad area having been there a few times.
5) We like NEW! Maybe the old generation has time to “fix up” the house, but like point 3 above, who has time to do a “home project?” I’d rather spend my time doing things I enjoy than fixing things around the house that’s constantly breaking in a 20 year old house…
Give me my postage stamp sized lot brand spanking new, highly energy efficient home anyday over a 20k lot 20 year fixer…
If we don’t run the AC/heat much, our power bills are in the 60-70 dollars now compared to 40-50 in a 1000 sqft apartment.
Heat seems very expensive (3 months) and we turn it on since the baby refuses to use a blanket. 🙁
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.
But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."
HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.
Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”
As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]
Hi BG, just out of curiosity, what age bracket are you in? My wife and I in our late 30s with a young child. I’ll take a stab at why some piggs (namely me) can care less about the large lot. I grew up probably in a 15-20k lot in my parent’s house in the bay area. For us now, we really don’t care having that 10k+ lot (and we’re in a postage sized lot now) because:
1) Landscaping is expensive! The larger the lot, the more expensive to landscape it.
2) We are in door hermits. Sure, I grew up riding my bikes outside (pretty rarely in the backyard actually), rolling down the hill on a cardboard in our backyard, etc…but SD is pretty hot compared to the bay area actually and it’s foolish to sit outside a lot. Kids probably have a lot of other activities so that’s even less backyard/large lot time.
3) We’re busy! With a kid and barely enough time to get basic personal stuff done and work, chores, who has time to sit outside and enjoy the atmosphere?!?!? A lot of dual income, 1 high income folks would probably prefer to spend time indoors with their kids with the occasional park time rather than play in their backyard, big or small.
4) Lastly, being Asian and all the stereotypes that come with that, I think a lot of those zip codes are simply not on a lot of asian families list of cities to buy in. Lemon Grove, having lived in East county before is a pretty bad area having been there a few times.
5) We like NEW! Maybe the old generation has time to “fix up” the house, but like point 3 above, who has time to do a “home project?” I’d rather spend my time doing things I enjoy than fixing things around the house that’s constantly breaking in a 20 year old house…
Give me my postage stamp sized lot brand spanking new, highly energy efficient home anyday over a 20k lot 20 year fixer…
If we don’t run the AC/heat much, our power bills are in the 60-70 dollars now compared to 40-50 in a 1000 sqft apartment.
Heat seems very expensive (3 months) and we turn it on since the baby refuses to use a blanket. 🙁
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I agree with you that most young families today think they need more space. They often have 3+ vehicles and way more “stuff” than families in previous generations had.
But I don’t see families today buying the bigger lots. They currently seem to be shunning the bigger lots and purchasing the substandard =<5000 sf lot or the PUD on a zero lot line. At least that is what is happening in South County. If I had a dime for every Pigg here who has inquired about CV (92130), I would also say this is happening in other parts of the county as well. The "quintessential 3-vehicle young family" just seems content to leave one vehicle on the street and park their other two in their short driveway hanging out into (or beyond) the sidewalk. Their garage is used for storage of "stuff."
HOWEVER, I don't agree with you that families HAVE to choose the 'burbs or far-flung "urban sprawl" in order to obtain a large lot. There are many 10,000-20,000+ SF lots in urban San Diego (<20 mi. from dtn) in nearly every zip code: 92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106, 92107, 92109 (few), 92111 (few), 92113, 92114, 92115, 92116 (few), 92117 (few), 92118 (Cor), 92119, 92120, 92122, 92139, 92154 (few) and 92037. In addition, NC 91950 (4-8 mi. away) has many large lots 1 AC+. Chula Vista 10-13 miles away (91910 and 91911) have many large lots (91910 up to 4 AC). Bonita 91902 (12-16 mi) has many 1/2 AC+ lots and a few 1-4 AC lots. La Mesa 91941 (13-16 mi.) has many 1/2 AC+ lots. Lemon Grove 91945 (10-12 mi.) has many 12,000 – 20,000+ lots.
Going 20-25 miles out from dtn SD (“suburbia”) opens up a few more “large lot” possibilities to the east and northeast.
There seems to be a HUGE misconception out there as many of these areas now seem to be so “undesirable” to a lot of young families that they never even bothered to explore them when they were house-hunting. In my day, these areas were HIGHLY DESIRABLE (yes, even 92113 and 92114 to dtn. workers). Hence, the current “urban defectors” now have 20-40 year bonds (and in the majority of cases, HOA dues) to pay for the entire length of their homeownership because of their choices to buy properties towards, into or beyond the “urban sprawl.” And have no lot with which to park their vehicles and “stuff” on for all the extra fees and taxes they are paying.
Perhaps young families today feel some of the communities heretofore mentioned are too “cost prohibitive” to buy into for the living space they think they need. Piggs, you gotta ask yourselves, “Why is this so?”
As I’ve stated before, a “square-footage” problem can always be fixed but a (tiny) lot (purchased out in BFE) cannot :={[/quote]
Hi BG, just out of curiosity, what age bracket are you in? My wife and I in our late 30s with a young child. I’ll take a stab at why some piggs (namely me) can care less about the large lot. I grew up probably in a 15-20k lot in my parent’s house in the bay area. For us now, we really don’t care having that 10k+ lot (and we’re in a postage sized lot now) because:
1) Landscaping is expensive! The larger the lot, the more expensive to landscape it.
2) We are in door hermits. Sure, I grew up riding my bikes outside (pretty rarely in the backyard actually), rolling down the hill on a cardboard in our backyard, etc…but SD is pretty hot compared to the bay area actually and it’s foolish to sit outside a lot. Kids probably have a lot of other activities so that’s even less backyard/large lot time.
3) We’re busy! With a kid and barely enough time to get basic personal stuff done and work, chores, who has time to sit outside and enjoy the atmosphere?!?!? A lot of dual income, 1 high income folks would probably prefer to spend time indoors with their kids with the occasional park time rather than play in their backyard, big or small.
4) Lastly, being Asian and all the stereotypes that come with that, I think a lot of those zip codes are simply not on a lot of asian families list of cities to buy in. Lemon Grove, having lived in East county before is a pretty bad area having been there a few times.
5) We like NEW! Maybe the old generation has time to “fix up” the house, but like point 3 above, who has time to do a “home project?” I’d rather spend my time doing things I enjoy than fixing things around the house that’s constantly breaking in a 20 year old house…
Give me my postage stamp sized lot brand spanking new, highly energy efficient home anyday over a 20k lot 20 year fixer…
If we don’t run the AC/heat much, our power bills are in the 60-70 dollars now compared to 40-50 in a 1000 sqft apartment.
Heat seems very expensive (3 months) and we turn it on since the baby refuses to use a blanket. 🙁
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Wouldn’t you agree, Brian, that part of this “globalized” philosophy you espouse would be the recognition that not everyone wants to live the same way?
[/quote]Yes I agree.
I never said that people should not be able to live in the suburbs.
I said that people with urban lots should be able to build denser housing without local government zoning and neighbors having veto power.
If you want to live in an old house, that’s your choice. But if I want to tear down my old house and build a new one, I should be able to do so.
Once a city is built-out, building up is he only way to accommodate growth without sprawling out.[/quote]
The problem with not allowing input from anyone is that this increases traffic, noise, water/power usage, possibly crime, etc…Also, you may “think” just because you want to build up won’t affect others since it’s not on their property line, but as some of the points above, that’s really untrue.
In a way, I suppose HOA’s and master planned communities have their place. You don’t like the HOA terms, don’t move/live there. Living in an HOA place now, I actually made a comment earlier this week to my wife that I (amazingly) actually prefer it.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Wouldn’t you agree, Brian, that part of this “globalized” philosophy you espouse would be the recognition that not everyone wants to live the same way?
[/quote]Yes I agree.
I never said that people should not be able to live in the suburbs.
I said that people with urban lots should be able to build denser housing without local government zoning and neighbors having veto power.
If you want to live in an old house, that’s your choice. But if I want to tear down my old house and build a new one, I should be able to do so.
Once a city is built-out, building up is he only way to accommodate growth without sprawling out.[/quote]
The problem with not allowing input from anyone is that this increases traffic, noise, water/power usage, possibly crime, etc…Also, you may “think” just because you want to build up won’t affect others since it’s not on their property line, but as some of the points above, that’s really untrue.
In a way, I suppose HOA’s and master planned communities have their place. You don’t like the HOA terms, don’t move/live there. Living in an HOA place now, I actually made a comment earlier this week to my wife that I (amazingly) actually prefer it.
-
AuthorPosts
