What is so bad about San Diego? (Pittsburg, Orland: real estate market, homes)

[Gentoo]

I was told that some of the central SD land is in flood planes and that some of the ground cannot support a residential structure in many areas. In certain areas, you'd have to lay a deep foundation because a standard slab will crack due to the soft ground sinking or moving.

Already been done. Missions Valley is a flood plane with soft sediment ground. There are a couple of medium height buildings there ( The silver looking on just past 805, actually there are two of them there but I forget what they are now. I think one os a Japanese bank). There are four shopping malls and plenty of condo complexes in this flood plane as well.

[Gentoo]

San Diego will become "Los Angelesized". Not only is there the land that is developer owned in the north and south counties that's been mentioned, but even areas that were thought to be undeveloped just a few years ago are seeing condo and upscale apartments being built as I type this. The new apartment complex across from Fashion Valley is a good example...Avalon I believe it's called. This was a steep scrubby hill. In about a year or so, they cut into the hill and flattened part of it then erected that complex. Also, that complex is a bit different looking than we're used to seeing in SD. It's not as spread out but is built more up. Perhaps the vertical shift that Drjoey mentioned is beginning to happen.

They also just recently flatten another hill in Mission Valley not far from Hazard Center that looks like another condo complex will go in. This is all during the recession. Just wait for the economic crisis to end and see what happens.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

I think instead of one developer developing 400 homes you will have 40 developers developing 10 homes. Scraping and adding on to the periphery of the existing master-planned subdivisions on all sides. The net effect will be the same - a sea of tract homes.

Possibly but I think the whole "economies of scale" aspect will limit that, a lot of developers might not even bother with SD b/c of the expense, approval process, and community opposition. And I just don't think SD will ever experiance high rates of growth like in the 80's to fuel that demand and hopefully people have learned their lesson from this past real estate bubble and collapse.

But you are right in that by virtue of geography and economy SD will never look like LA. However I think San Diego is already well on the way to being "LA-lite", with all the same problems (and many of the benefits), just on a smaller scale.

It will grow but SD is a lot different in LA in many ways. The metro area is one county as opposed to several large ones that encompass metro LA, that makes a big difference when it comes to planning development for housing and transportation. It is very disjointed and uncoordinated in LA. Our regional planning agency is much better organized and has more power than LA's. And I don't think LA has anything like the MSCP, which helps limit sprawl and protect the environment.

Most large sprawling metro's can be considered "LA Lite" though. Santa Clara and Silicon Valley is very similar to LA/OC in the way it looks and feels and the same with places like Sacramento, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.. Denver's front range has been predicted to be the next LA/SoCal style urban corridor with constant development. SD isn't alone in repeating some of the same mistakes as LA, most of the country with healthy growth has done that; Atlanta, Houston, Austin, etc..

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

There are large swaths of land all over inland north and south county that are developer-owned and just being sat on... there is more than enough land for another dozen 4S ranches. That whole area around Pacific Highlands ranch in Carmel Valley is a good example.

Even if there is room for another dozen Pacific Highlands Ranches in San Diego county, at 10k to 15k people per development, that would only accommodate 150k to 200k people. According to SANDAG, the county population is expected to grow by 1.3 million between now and 2050. Even if you discount that estimate by a third, that leaves at least 800k that will have to be housed in vertical developments. More and more, the entry level house in our county will be the condominium, either high-rise or duplex/fourplex. The single family home will be a move up property - Just like much of the New York City metro area.

As for the protected lands, neither hell and highwater, nor a global-warming induced ice age, will allow those lands to be developed.

I have seen the future and it is Mission Valley.

[Huckleberry3911948]

its not the heavenly weather. its not the pacific ocean. its the ocean of thousand dollar a month apts and ocean of min wage pte jobs no benefits.

[CD876]

Just wondering how many does sandag or whatever it calls itself estimates is leaving? Because unlike most other parts of the country San Diego can't employ the current population it has let alone several hundred thousand more.

I think the people who live here have no idea how bad things really are for SD long term.
The safest place to be looks to be on a ship and those people don't mak any money to speak of



so you see on city-data several highly paid people leaving and then a homeless guy brag about living here. Pathetc

[10,000Lakes]

OMG!! Ok so we had to go out to the Temecula area today!! Talk about traffic...man that area is so conjested...yuck...and hot too. No thank you! I know this not really San Diego but I never knew the traffic around there and the 15 was so bad....gross..

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by 10,000Lakes

OMG!! Ok so we had to go out to the Temecula area today!! Talk about traffic...man that area is so conjested...yuck...and hot too. No thank you! I know this not really San Diego but I never knew the traffic around there and the 15 was so bad....gross..

It's avoidance of that traffic that provides the house price foundation for areas closer in to the central city. Unlike Kansas City or Houston which can grow outwards - essentially unchecked for a 100+ miles - the I-15 corridor is San Diego's one and only expansion vector outside of the existing metropolitan area. That route has reached saturation from a transportation standpoint.

Just wondering how many does sandag or whatever it calls itself estimates is leaving? Because unlike most other parts of the country San Diego can't employ the current population it has let alone several hundred thousand more.

SANDAG's (San Diego Association of Governments) estimate is based primarily on natural growth of births over deaths and international immigration. Because of it's population is younger than average and has a larger than average Hispanic component, San Diego's population is more fertile than other parts of the United States. And because a high proportion of San Diego's population was originally from foreign countries, more foreigners than average will choose to move to San Diego to be near family, friends, and fellow countrymen. SANDAG's estimate does calculate a slight internal outmigration rate, but I don't recall exactly what the number was.

[CD876]

Sounds like this is jibberish for low income moving in and high income moving out.

[DrJoey]

Originally Posted by sav858

Why? It's pretty obvious that San Diego is very constrained when it comes to available land to build on. And just b/c you see empty land that is developable doesn't mean it can actually be developed.

Why?

The world is filled with cities that have much more difficult topographies that have developed cities 100xs older then SD. Why is SD so difficult to develop?

Originally Posted by sav858

That combined with a lack of available land. And SD isn't alone in being like that, the Bay Area is much worse when it comes to NIMBYism and blocking large developments.

What lack of land?

Originally Posted by sav858

Yes more infill development will occur b/c it will have to. No more large, master planned communities like 4s Ranch will can be built in SD for several reasons: the lack of land, adherence to the multiple species conservation program, community opposition, and market demand. There isn't enough land to build large master planned communities that are affordable to the majority of people, it is just too expensive to build those types of communities now.

None of those reasons point to SD being expensive due to lack of land to devleop. There is no such thing as large master planned communities affordable to the majority of people in any major metropolitan area.

http://www.builderadvisors.com/downl...DDT9-25-07.pdf
End of the line? | The San Diego Union-Tribune


Anyone who thinks SD will turn into LA-style sprawl must not follow development in SD or be aware of all the issues that will essentially prevent that from occuring. The day of 4S Ranch style developments is pretty much over in SD.

Fanita Ranch in Santee couldn't even get built, so just imagine how much harder it will be to get something like that built in the backyards of people with a lot more money and resources such as those in North County.

Fanita Ranch plans stumble - SignOnSanDiego.com[/quote]

What makes you think that SD won't eventually turn into what LA currently is?