Did I miss the nice parts of Ventura? (2014, versus)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Arfrom

Unless Ventura has somehow gone through a massive demolition program, supplanting the homes I knew growing up with "stucco boxes," I'd say you're off base.

Um...no...instead Ventura has more than doubled in population since 1961 and unless the new population is all homeless new homes had to be built for them. I'm not denying that Ventura has a Historic core, but most of Ventura was built after the 1960's and hence most of Ventura is track homes and strip malls.

But a number of odd commercial buildings and homes have been destroyed over the years...as well.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by OpenSky

There are quite a few things you fail to understand. You seem to compensate for this gap with faux-confidence and constantly make an even bigger fool of yourself. At least it's entertaining.

Yep, I'm sure there are quite a few things I don't understand, but some things I don't understand because they are conceptually unsound..

Still have no idea what you mean by "authentic" and I don't click on undisclosed links. But if you want to think your gritty little suburb is "authentic" while surrounding communities aren't....alright. I really don't care, the only thing I can about Ventura is whether I can make $$ off the people there and here a concrete (and realistic) profile of the city is key.

[Arfrom]

Originally Posted by user_id

most of Ventura is track homes and strip malls

I think this is the crux of your pretty wild leaps of illogic. To say there has been new construction since 1960 is one thing; to say, ergo, "most of Ventura is track homes and strip malls," is another. You're entitled to your own opinion, as the saying goes, just not your own facts. You continue to ignore the points I've raised, and OpenSky has raised several times.

You're just flatly, painfully wrong.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Arfrom

I think this is the crux of your pretty wild leaps of illogic. To say there has been new construction since 1960 is one thing; to say, ergo, "most of Ventura is track homes and strip malls," is another.

Wild leaps of illogic? My reasoning is perfectly sound. The point isn't that there has been some new construction since 1960, but rather that most of Ventura was built after 1960. Ventura's population has more than doubled since 1960. Now, given that residential construction after 1960 was almost entirely track homes in working-class/middle-class communities it follows that the majority of homes in Ventura are track homes. This doesn't even account for all the older homes that have been destroyed over the years. Even the older homes are not "designer", c'mon, Ventura is not a wealthy city.

Originally Posted by Arfrom

You continue to ignore the points I've raised, and OpenSky has raised several times.

Ignore? No....instead I disregarded your comments because they don't even address my claims. I never suggested that Ventura is all track homes, instead I said that the majority of home are track homes. Yet, you are trying to refute me by mentioning some neighborhoods that don't have track homes?! I don't get it... Furthermore, you left the city decades ago, yet the city has grown by around 40k since 1980. The majority of the newer construction I'm talking about was built after you left.

[HSP1161]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yep, I'm sure there are quite a few things I don't understand, but some things I don't understand because they are conceptually unsound..

Still have no idea what you mean by "authentic" and I don't click on undisclosed links. But if you want to think your gritty little suburb is "authentic" while surrounding communities aren't....alright. I really don't care, the only thing I can about Ventura is whether I can make $$ off the people there and here a concrete (and realistic) profile of the city is key.

It's very difficult to draw broad conclusions on the City, especially as it relates to the character of the neighborhoods. It's a 200+ year old town with highly distinctive parts, and getting perspective on it by looking at charts and tables is interesting, but the conclusions you are drawing ignore key nuances, especially in developing a city profile.

You live in an area that sprouted up comparatively overnight. Most of Camarillo did, as well. This isn't a value judgement, it's just a fact. So when you say the "vast majority" of Ventura consists of "tract stucco box houses" it reflects on a massive amount of ignorance on your part for the aforementioned communities, each of which has a few thousand homes no two of which are alike. That's different from east Ventura and the newer developments and far beyond the 25% you gleaned from chart-reading.

We'd be very happy if your venture remains outside City limits. Besides, as you said previously, the rent is too damn high. Especially for a "gritty little suburb" like Ventura.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by OpenSky

It's very difficult to draw broad conclusions on the City, especially as it relates to the character of the neighborhoods.

I'm making one claim and one claim only, namely, that the majority of homes in Ventura are tract homes.

Also, Ventura is hardly a 200 year old city, hardly anybody lived in Ventura before the 1900's.

Originally Posted by OpenSky

You live in an area that sprouted up comparatively overnight.

Oh geez...Ventura is a new suburban community built on top of a small historic core. That is the only difference between it and cities within the Conejo Valley. Both regions saw the vast majority of their development after 1950 and as a result have similar characteristics, namely post WW2 suburbs.

C'mon...if someone wants to live in a real historic city than they find them can throughout the east, south and mid-west.

Originally Posted by OpenSky

We'd be very happy if your venture remains outside City limits. Besides, as you said previously, the rent is too damn high. Especially for a "gritty little suburb" like Ventura.

Ironically, if I did decide to operate in Ventura you'd undoubtedly be putting money in my pocket and no doubt using it as an example of Ventura hipness over the Conejo Valley.

In terms of the grittiness, that is precisely the point. I'm looking for just such an area, but the rents have to make sense in relation to the potential business the location would generate. At first sight the rents seem too high, but I've yet to call around. I just got the idea over the weekend while I was sitting around on main street for a couple of hours watching people. With some napkin calculations it would seem like it could work...if the rents were low enough.

[HSP1161]

So Ventura is gritty not hip, yet you are targeting Ventura for your business because it would add hipness and people there would patronize it.

Two posts back Ventura was a suburban stucco box strip mall paradise just like every place else.

Everybody following along?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by OpenSky

So Ventura is gritty not hip, yet you are targeting Ventura for your business because it would add hipness and people there would patronize it.

You may want to reread what I actually stated, I never suggested Ventura was "hip" nor do I have any desire to add "hipness" to Ventura.

Originally Posted by OpenSky

Two posts back Ventura was a suburban stucco box strip mall paradise just like every place else.

Right and that is still my position, well, not exactly. My position is that Ventura, in terms of track homes and strip malls, is only different from areas like the Conejo Valley in a matter of a small degree. Bashing surrounding communities for being unauthentic, etc, is sort of like bashing someone 4' 8" for being short when you are 4' 11"...

The only area of Ventura that interests me is the DownTown area, the other areas provide nothing that can't be found in any other city in the area. And my interest has nothing to do with the handful of nice historic buildings in the area, instead the sort of foot traffic the area gets from both locals and visitors. If my primary goal was a nice historic area Ventura wouldn't even be on my list.

[Arfrom]

User_Id, you speak in vagaries, and overblown statements such as:

Originally Posted by User_Id

I'm not backtracking on anything, the vast majority of homes built in and after the 1960's were track homes covered in stucco. The majority of ventura was built after 1960, not before. But homes built before 1960 were largely homogeneous as well, the notion that these homes are some how unique is largely due to the fact that many of them have been destroyed over the years.

"Vast" majority; "largely homogenous." I simply provided one neighborhood, which you could, if you were interested in truth, see for yourself via a simple google earth; and specified, this is but one neighborhood of many, many others. In a word, you're not making your case. In my neighborhood, there wasn't a single home that looked like another. And that still obtains today. And before you attempt further sophistry by calling my example "anecdotal" (ignoring the "vast largelyiness" of it all, curiously absent), once again, mine, and surrounding neighborhoods, is but one of many. Your argument simply doesn't fly.

Now, I've provided concrete examples. Do you happen to have any, you know, proof, for your repeated attempt, slathered in vagary, that "the vast majority" of Ventura is a stucco, strip mall hell, with "largely homogenous" pre-1960 housing?

Originally Posted by User_Id

You may want to reread what I actually stated, I never suggested Ventura was "hip" nor do I have any desire to add "hipness" to Ventura.

You may want to simply read, once will do. OpenSky wasn't saying you called Ventura "hip." He merely mirrored your statement back to you.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Arfrom

Now, I've provided concrete examples. Do you happen to have any, you know, proof, for your repeated attempt, slathered in vagary, that "the vast majority" of Ventura is a stucco, strip mall hell, with "largely homogenous" pre-1960 housing

Right you've provided an example, which means you either don't understand what I'm saying or you don't understand logic. To say it once more, my claim is that the majority of homes in Ventura are tract homes, hence pointing out some neighborhoods that don't contain track homes says absolutely nothing about my claim, which is a claim about the distribution of homes.

There is nothing vague about the argument I'm making here, its rather simple, most of the homes in Ventura were buildt after 1960 and post 1960 housing was almost exclusively tract homes. Therefore, most homes in Ventura must be track homes. But a quick search for homes for sale in Ventura will also demonstrate that the majority are track homes. In fact, around 80% of listed homes are track homes.

Why would I look at Ventura via Google earth when I can see if with my own eyes? Remember, you're the one that doesn't live in the area and hasn't been here in decades.