Rancho Cucamonga vs. Temecula (Los Angeles, San Diego: custom home, safe neighborhoods, to buy)

[zenifying]

My husband and I are thinking of relocating somewhere inland to buy our first home. We're currently in S. Pasadena and are both self-employed, so no real need to consider commute.

Our housing budget is currently about 350,000 or below, but if we wait another year or two the 400,000's would be doable. No kids, but planning on it in the near future.

Just trying to think out the differences between the two a bit.

Thoughts?

[HSP1161]

Why inland? Cost? I'd live in the Ventura area and live 5 minutes from the beach for about the same money and forgo the giant stucco box.

[zenifying]

We've considered everything from East to West US and sometimes leaving the country all together. I'm in a licensed profession so staying in CA makes life easier. I've certainly have thrown Ventura in the mix on occasion.

Right now I have professional contacts in IE that I don't in Ventura. Plus a quick glance at the schools in Ventura seems to indicate it's hit or miss (much like most of LA).

We've been entertaining the idea of Upland/Rancho Cuc. for a year or more and just discovered Temecula so I'm just looking to gain some perspective for now.

[SoCal794]

Those two areas of the IE are both really nice! Both have nice, clean, safe neighborhoods and good schools. Both will also have large, newer housing in your price range. You will be able to get a larger house for your money in Temecula however.

As far as differences go, Rancho Cucamonga is in the heart of the IE and also more central to activities in LA and OC, if you are interested in that. Temecula seems more isolated from the rest of the IE and LA Metro, but is much more beautiful with the hills IMO. Weather is same in both, people are similar in both.

Both of these areas are basically very similar in every aspect, so it just depends on what location you want.

Also you may want to look into Corona, once again a similar area to the other two.

[Danalysd]

Please do define what a 30k millionaire is, as I am unfamiliar with this terminology.

I do find it funny how you are talking about Temecula and R.C are cheap cities in the middle of the desert with An abundance of attitude Most of you post so far have had an abundance of attitude...and you JUST joined this site..... just saying

[bouncethelight]

Personally I'd pick Temecula over Rancho Cucamonga. Temecula has the wineries and beautiful custom homes in the foothills surrounding the valley - and it's closer to San Diego! Yes, there's a mall and all the chain stores and restaurants you could ever ask for - but there are also some really beautiful places in Temecula.

Rancho Cucamonga "feels" more like a suburb of Los Angeles to me.

[CarawayDJ]

I'd sum up Temecula like this. It's one of the best family towns for the money in CA. It has great value. It has very good schools, it's very safe, has most all of the typical retail establishments you need, a ton of activities for young children....AND HOME PRICES ARE STILL LOW. If I had $1 mil to spend on a home, I would not live in Temecula. If I had $350K to spend on a home (and was thinking family town), I'd absolutely live in Temecula. That said, there are a lot of wealthy people who do decide to live in Temecula. It surprises me how many nice hillside homes you see.

Temecula is not like most of Riverside County. It is well south of the smog express blowing inland from LA. It's a pretty area with lots of hills and an ever growing number of wineries. It's also a tad cooler than many other IE towns, but don't confuse what I just said with saying it's not hot. It averages about 30 days a year of 100+ temps.

[Nanseev]

Totally agree with above post. If I had $1 million to spend, I wouldn't choose Temecula (but I wouldn't choose RC either). If I had $350 to spend, I'd absolutely chose Temecula over RC. The only way I'd choose RC over Temecula is if I really wanted a close proximity to LA. I think Temecula has better offerings for a family lifestyle. Also, I do think it's important to point out that when driving in RC, you can see smog...it's definitely not that way in Temecula.

I feel like Temecula is more like a town-ish city, where RC is more like a small city. Although they are both cities, for me, Temecula has more of a town-feel.

[MountainBiking]

If you like every single building to look the same (you know, pop-out towers at the ends of the buildings; stone veener on all the columns/pilasters; crown moulding looking EIFS system around every top of commercial wall, cookie cutter homes galore, chain restaurants and stores everywhere you look, big box retailers, an anti small business/mom and pop culture, too much crazy sameness like Orange County than Rancho CACAmonga is for you.

[Dub D]

Originally Posted by Nanseev

Totally agree with above post. If I had $1 million to spend, I wouldn't choose Temecula (but I wouldn't choose RC either). If I had $350 to spend, I'd absolutely chose Temecula over RC. The only way I'd choose RC over Temecula is if I really wanted a close proximity to LA. I think Temecula has better offerings for a family lifestyle. Also, I do think it's important to point out that when driving in RC, you can see smog...it's definitely not that way in Temecula.

I feel like Temecula is more like a town-ish city, where RC is more like a small city. Although they are both cities, for me, Temecula has more of a town-feel.

I don't get how that is important in any form or fashion. In fact, that is a completely meaningless statement which pretty much defaults your entire post.

I know S. Pasadena pretty well and it's gonna be different for sure. Rancho is definitely OC / LA centric whereas Temecula is San Diego centric. Either way, as you can figure the commutes are awful to each hub. I have no clue what the prices in the San Antonio Heights area of Upland (Probably more than 400k) are but that's very close to the S. Pasadena / San Marino feel in the IE.

Rancho has more stuff to do if you like the S. Pasadena lifestyle. Victoria Gardens is loosely based off Downtown Brea and Old Town Pasadena's. Rancho is one of the "cookie cutter" cities to have really created its own identity.

If you like the outdoors, Temecula is a better fit but Rancho does have outdoor stuff to do but most don't know it.

If you still have friends and whatnot in South Pasadena, definitely pick Rancho. It'll only be a 60-70 minute drive on the weekends. Hell, I just drove from Rialto to Pasadena off Madre today at 9am and it took just over an hour. Temecula to South Pasadena will take forever.

Look into Eastvale, seems like alot of people looking for what you want are digging this newly formed city...formerly apart of the northern part of Corona. Speaking of Corona, don't pick S. Corona...driving around there sucks and the HOA/mello roos is very high.