Thoughts on why Orange County is heavenly

[majoun]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Anyone who wants some space and a yard for the kids.

Those are not necessities. Plenty of families raise kids in apartments and it's just fine.

[nowincal11]

Originally Posted by Charles

Kind of.

In fact, examine the downtowns of the expensive beach communities in Southern California: Hermosa Beach, Redondo, Manhattan (and I'll venture to say San Clemente ????? though I haven't been there in 40 years). They aren't layed out any differently than Reseda or Inglewood except instead of Joe's Barber Shop or Manny's Auto Body you have some little overpriced boutique or a surf shop. Parking problems, narrow streets, lack of parks, tiny garages. Great for DINKS but not really practical for a five or six person family - and that's who lives there - DINKS, not families.

The little homes and apartments which serve as the residences for 98% of the people are actually kind of dumpy looking with power lines strung down from 1930s era power poles and other antiquated infrastructure. Take fairly inexpensive construction with nothing spectacular about the community except one thing - it's near the beach - and a $250K home becomes a $2500K home.

Great post! Though I do find parking to be less of a challenge in the Valley and the streets are for the most part wider than the beachside.

A lot of the buildings beachside are not nice on the outside either. I do find that the South Bay beaches are more "what up surfer dude" than Santa Monica and Marina Del Rey. THe latter two seem to have a much more business oriented populace.

OC culture is one unto itself. LA culture is not so much different. I've stated it in other posts. OC is really 3 different cultures; really wealthy (and pretend wealthy) housewives in the southern area, Hispanic culture (Santa Ana, Buena Park), and then suburbia (Fullerton, Costa Mesa, etc.). Insert Beverly Hills rather than Coto and other the former being more urban, not much difference in attitude; "the scene," materialism, same attitude.

LA pretty much beats anywhere else for nightlife, but if you compare LA County to OC rather than just LA city (including Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Burbank, Bev Hills), then largely they are similar. Some wealthy, some less wealthy, lots of nighlife in many places, not so much in others.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by majoun

Those are not necessities. Plenty of families raise kids in apartments and it's just fine.

Plenty of families live in shacks made out of discarded doors with dirt floors and no running water too.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Plenty of families live in shacks made out of discarded doors with dirt floors and no running water too.

Not even comparable. We're not talking about the outskirts of Casablanca or Mexico City here. We're talking about some much nicer than average neighborhoods in SoCal.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by majoun

So, who lived there before they got so expensive? More families would live there if they could afford it.

Having more stuff within walking distance is better for kids. The zoning in planned communities discourages walkability, said planned communities usually have next to no public transportation, and the entire structure of those communities encourages kids to leech off parents. Also, whoever said you can't raise kids in apartments?



You seem to think "old" means "dumpy"

I don't see what the big deal with "walkability" is. I don't want to live in a "walkability" area. So what if things are spread out. Walkability often (always?) means more dense, crowded - who wants more density?
If gas goes to $10/gallon then people might deep down care to walk to places. But until then walkability means lots of people, noise, density, urban stress.

Does anybody actually "want" to use public transportation OR are they "stuck" using public transportation? Does anybody actually "want" to spend time walking to a bus or train stop and wait and sit in a public bus or train and be limited to where and when that bus or train travels? Or, would they rather walk out of their house into their garage into their own car, leave when they want to, crank the tunes they want to hear, spontaneously make detours and run errands?

I don't think old means dumpy but what you can buy for $1.5M six blocks from the beach

319 23RD Pl, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 | MLS# S11043950

and it's $1.5M front yard view of all concrete and asphalt alley and my favorite power poles

319 23RD Pl Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 - Google Maps


doesn't look much different than 1955 Reseda.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Charles

I don't see what the big deal with "walkability" is. I don't want to live in a "walkability" area. So what if things are spread out. Walkability often (always?) means more dense, crowded - who wants more density?

It's more convenient, for one thing.
And it makes it easier when one doesn't have a car, or one's car is in the shop.

If gas goes to $10/gallon then people might deep down care to walk to places.

It is more likely than not that gas will go to that level.

But until then walkability means lots of people, noise, density, urban stress.

Nothing wrong with people and noise ; fewer people on the street means more safety compared to dark and lonely streets.

Does anybody actually "want" to use public transportation OR are they "stuck" using public transportation?

In many places it's far more convenient to use public transportation than to drive. You wouldn't last long in San Francisco with your attitude. Not to mention the roads in California have gotten quite dangerous. Having a car is a great thing, but being a slave to a car is not a great thing. (Unless one is lucky and affluent enough to have more than one vehicle). Having more choices is better.

Does anybody actually "want" to spend time walking to a bus or train stop and wait and sit in a public bus or train and be limited to where and when that bus or train travels?

Yes, there are people who willingly use public transportation, and there would be more if it was extensive enough to go more places.

Or, would they rather walk out of their house into their garage into their own car, leave when they want to, crank the tunes they want to hear, spontaneously make detours and run errands?

And be constantly stuck in traffic, and be at risk of having someone plow into your car, or be ticketed by hidden cameras and overzealous cops which would eat up one's whole paycheck. Driving in urban/suburban California used to be very enjoyable, it no longer is. It's not the '70s or '80s anymore, not even the '90s.

I don't think old means dumpy but what you can buy for $1.5M six blocks from the beach

319 23RD Pl, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 | MLS# S11043950

and it's $1.5M front yard view of all concrete and asphalt alley and my favorite power poles

319 23RD Pl Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 - Google Maps


doesn't look much different than 1955 Reseda.

It doesn't look different but it is different. Location is everything. Not to mention that the Manhattan/Hermosa schools are far superior to LAUSD which includes Reseda, and Manhattan Beach doesn't have Reseda's level of crime.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by majoun

In many places it's far more convenient to use public transportation than to drive. You wouldn't last long in San Francisco with your attitude.

If "many" places means about 2% of places, then yes it is.

What percentage of Americans use public transportation five times a week? What percentage of commuters outside of NYC, BOS, CHI, DC, SF, and a few other dense metros use it five times a week?

I wouldn't want to live in those types of places. Too dense, crowded, noisy, street people, riff raff, pan handlers, drunks, drug addicts, mentally ill, etc. Icky.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Charles

If "many" places means about 2% of places, then yes it is.

The 2 percent of places that happen to be the most expensive places in the US and which there is obviously a great demand for.

Since there is obviously money to be made from this sort of urban planning, one wonders why it is not more common. From what I read the banking industry, even before it crashed, has long been biased against density, mixed zoning, etc. and prefers R-1 zoning and big lots.

I wouldn't want to live in those types of places.

Give it a try sometime.

Too dense, crowded, noisy, street people, riff raff, pan handlers, drunks, drug addicts, mentally ill, etc. Icky.

There are drug addicts and mentally ill people in your super-planned communities, too. Kids in planned communities that aren't walkable are likely to become drug addicts out of boredom.

And "riff raff" means people who can't afford places like the older beach cities., suffice to say most of us are "riff raff"

[EscapeCalifornia]

I live in a semi-walkable area. Please explain to me how its great having to listen to drunks walking home from the bar while yelling 10' outside my window at 1am. Between that and a-holes who think going full throttle on a 2 lane 30mph street is acceptable, honking horns at all hours, car alarms, ghetto birds, etc, its just great here.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I live in a semi-walkable area. Please explain to me how its great having to listen to drunks walking home from the bar while yelling 10' outside my window at 1am. Between that and a-holes who think going full throttle on a 2 lane 30mph street is acceptable, honking horns at all hours, car alarms, ghetto birds, etc, its just great here.

I'm used to it To the point that it would be hard going back to my last place of residence in SoCal, in Culver City , which now seems way too quiet. (Although it was rather walkable.) And OC's planned communities are even farther removed from that sort of thing than Culver City is....