Is the San Diego metro area built out? (Glendale, San Clemente: crime, homes)

[esmith143]

Plus it's not affordable housing, building 500- 1 million dollar homes in the middle of nowhere is not practical and doesn't do anything to solve our housing crisis. San Diego is slowly becoming like San Fransisco, where people are going to have to premium prices to live here.

This is illogical. People pay only as much as they are willing and as they can afford. It does not matter much if you build, don't build, build million dollar homes, build subsidized housing ... What matters is job market and climate. Though there is a real possibility to screw things up if you focus on subsidized housing too much.

One good example of open land is off the 52 going from Santee to Clairmont, there is so much land that could be built off the sides of the highway, that I wonder why hasn't the area been developed yet?

Open land to the north belongs to the military, and open land to the south is an open space preserve.

developers can't seem to build something "simple" and livable for people that all they care about is just having a roof over there head.

Here's an extreme example for you: New York. Plenty of "simple and livable" for people that only care about having a roof over there head (and maybe scoring some crack, and sticking up some 7-11's from time to time...), and rent control to boot... And the end result is that any professional with a family and a job in Manhattan, who just wants to have a simple house in a safe neighborhood with good schools, has to exclude much of the city proper (as well as a good chunk of NJ) from consideration. Imagine if your job was in Kearny Mesa and the nearest livable place where you could rent/buy a decent home was Fallbrook. How'd you like that? That's what happens when you focus too much on simple and livable and not enough on people who drive the economy.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by esmith143

Here's an extreme example for you: New York. Plenty of "simple and livable" for people that only care about having a roof over there head (and maybe scoring some crack, and sticking up some 7-11's from time to time...), and rent control to boot... And the end result is that any professional with a family and a job in Manhattan, who just wants to have a simple house in a safe neighborhood with good schools, has to exclude much of the city proper (as well as a good chunk of NJ) from consideration. Imagine if your job was in Kearny Mesa and the nearest livable place where you could rent/buy a decent home was Fallbrook. How'd you like that? That's what happens when you focus too much on simple and livable and not enough on people who drive the economy.

Definitely an extreme example but there is some truth to this. Los Angeles is the best example in my opinion. Unlike NYC with good public transit to a singular job center and relatively affordable suburban housing, LA has almost zero affordable family-friendly housing within 60 minutes of the central city, and has the same decentralized job centers as San Diego.

The idea that growth creates affordability is problematic. It seems to work for a while until some sort of point is reached where it impacts quality-of-life. Does more housing make a city more livable?

In my opinion San Diego (like Los Angeles) suffers most from a lack of apartment building and too much under-utilized commercial space. As a result, many people who cannot afford to maintain single-family houses are forced to live in a home they cannot keep up. Imagine what could be done for housing affordability by replacing decaying, vacant stripmalls in the central city with moderately priced, attractive, rental housing.

[esmith143]

Unlike NYC with good public transit to a singular job center and relatively affordable suburban housing, LA has almost zero affordable family-friendly housing within 60 minutes of the central city, and has the same decentralized job centers as San Diego.

That's not quite true. Burbank and La Crescenta are fairly family-friendly and affordable, and they are within 15 minutes from downtown LA. Within 15 minutes from the financial district in NYC, the choice is between ghettos and luxury condos starting at something like $500k for a studio.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by esmith143

That's not quite true. Burbank and La Crescenta are fairly family-friendly and affordable, and they are within 15 minutes from downtown LA. Within 15 minutes from the financial district in NYC, the choice is between ghettos and luxury condos starting at something like $500k for a studio.

Burbank is definitely an island of affordability... It's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison here as the cities are so different.... but there are many neighborhoods in Queens (Astoria, Forest Hills) which would be the NY analog to Burbank. 15 minutes in NYC is really the time it takes to walk to the subway and get on the train. Most people commute 40-60 minutes by train which is not considered excessive in that region.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by sdlife619

Also, San Diego still has a ton of land, I just wish something could be done to build more housing on some of the mountains and canyons we have here. I understand the instability concerns by building on them, but we should blow up some mountain tops (flatten them out) that are just taking up space that no one cares about.

A lot of people care to keep all that open space undeveloped. I really don't understand how anyone still has that mentality of bulldozing open space to cover them with cheap, stucco tract homes when it's been shown to be a bad model for development. Look at the concrete mess that LA and OC are compared to SD, people here do not want that. The rejection of two large housing projects in Escondido and Santee seem to indicate than San Diegan's do not want those types of developments anymore. Smart Growth and infill is where it's at, it's just too bad the county planners don't seem to realize that yet.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by sdlife619

but we should blow up some mountain tops (flatten them out) that are just taking up space that no one cares about.

You'd be surprised how many people care about that open space.

You should move to LA.

[vdy1985]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

You'd be surprised how many people care about that open space.

You should move to LA.

It isn't even all about the open space... It is more along the lines of what sav said. Why develop that area into more of the same cheap stucco tract home crap that will just add to traffic congestion. Smart growth is important. Not same old sprawl.

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Burbank is definitely an island of affordability... It's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison here as the cities are so different.... but there are many neighborhoods in Queens (Astoria, Forest Hills) which would be the NY analog to Burbank.

Not Astoria:

Search for Public Schools - School Detail for Ps 234

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by esmith143

Not Astoria:

Search for Public Schools - School Detail for Ps 234

Look at PS 122 in Ditmars

PS 234 is near the PJ's

Have you ever actually been to Queens? What do you know about these schools or nieghborhoods? NYC has open enrollment, magnets, charters, and lottery schools. Most people, if they can afford it, send their kids to private schools. I would never send a kid to NYPS

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Look at PS 122 in Ditmars

PS 234 is near the PJ's

Search for Public Schools - School Detail for Ps 122 Mamie Fay School

Slightly better.

Have you ever actually been to Queens? What do you know about these schools or nieghborhoods? NYC has open enrollment, magnets, charters, and lottery schools. Most people, if they can afford it, send their kids to private schools. I would never send a kid to NYPS

That is contradictory ... especially to say "I would never send a kid to NYPS" when we're talking about family friendly neighborhoods, it seems to me that a key feature of a family friendly neighborhood is to be able to send kids to a good public school - WITHOUT having to win a lottery and without having to pay $40,000/year or more for the private school (assuming two kids) ... that just proves to me once again that there are NO family friendly neighborhoods in NYC proper, and family-friendliness begins north of Yonkers and west of 444.