Better Location for Resale in Irvine

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I'd be surprised if anybody didn't believe a larger piece of land is worth more than a smaller piece of land.  That's not the issue though. 

Tell that to irvinecommuter.

If you have 2 homes priced exactly the same and in the same neighborhood, would you choose the small home with a larger backyard or a larger home with a smaller backyard. 

irvinecommuter answer:

But they can't be priced exactly the same. A large home will cost more or the larger lot will cost more depending which one is larger. And are they near a park where I don't have to clean a barbecue... oh wait... it's dirty and someone else is using it? Well... then I don't really use a barbecue.

My answer:

That's not a fair comparison because you are changing 2 variables and we don't know what the variance is on each variable. In my question to IC, I'm only changing one variable, yard size (or even the presence of a yard).

But same price... and the bigger house is a 4br vs the smaller house being a 3br... no-brainer to the bigger house (see... at least I'll answer this question... IC will still be dancing).

There are people (me included) who would rather have the bigger home with a smaller backyard.  These Irvine homes are already small and the space inside my home is valuable.  I use it 24 hours a day/365 days a year.  I can't say the same about my backyard. 

That's reasonable, but unlike IC, you admitted that a larger piece of land is worth more.

This initially came out of comparing PP to SG where at the time, PP homes with bigger back yards/lots were comparable to SG homes with smaller yards and which is why some of us preferred PP. But then IC said he didn't like yards and that PP was "too spread out" (which is still a weird reason not to want to live somewhere to me). And then he went into all these breakdance moves of how SG has more to offer to rationalize his yard comment. So some of us wanted to take away those things just to see what are his reasons for not wanting more yard citing things like privacy, more lot etc. and that's when he started poplocking with the whole "all things aren't equal" rhetoric.

Now let me get to irvinecommuter's response....

 

[Irvinecommuter]

But this is Irvine. We talk about buying property for the PRIMARY purpose of maximizing ROI. For that reason, you should buy a home with a yard if at a possible. You won't lose money period, unless you sell it in a recession. Buying in Irvine isn't exactly cheap. You can get so much more in the Inland Empire. But there is a perceived value that when you buy a home in Irvine, you're going to get all your money back and then more. Provided that of course, you have the bells and whistles that your future buyer wants.

It's the same reason why base model cars with no packages, no navigation, and no nothing are a hard sell. When it becomes a used car, it gets even harder to sell. It just becomes a rental car, fleet car, or loaner car. People want cars with all the bells and whistles in there. I'm not going to pay $20 grand for a CPO base 3 Series when I can pay $23 grand and get it fully loaded. Same car.

Nope...my primary purpose for buying a home is for my family to live in.  I picked Irvine because of the good schools, relative safety, easy access to commercial business, and access to minority business (esp. restaurants).  ROI is nice but I am not selling my house for at least another 20 years so I am sure I will be fine at that point. 

Also, I would think that to maximize ROI, you would want to maximize interior/enclosed living space.  So going back to the question of 150 square feet of enclosed space versus 300 square feet of yard, I would think that the enclosed space would provide much better ROI.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I'd be surprised if anybody didn't believe a larger piece of land is worth more than a smaller piece of land.  That's not the issue though. 

Tell that to irvinecommuter.

If you have 2 homes priced exactly the same and in the same neighborhood, would you choose the small home with a larger backyard or a larger home with a smaller backyard. 

As you stated, I literally wrote:  But they can't be priced exactly the same. A large home will cost more or the larger lot will cost more.

That's not a fair comparison because you are changing 2 variables and we don't know what the variance is on each variable. In my question to IC, I'm only changing one variable, yard size (or even the presence of a yard).

But same price... and the bigger house is a 4br vs the smaller house being a 3br... no-brainer to the bigger house (see... at least I'll answer this question... IC will still be dancing).

You can't just change one variable...because changing one variable automatically changes the price!  Again, would you rather have a bigger house with a smaller yard or a smaller house with the bigger yard...assuming the price is the same.

That's reasonable, but unlike IC, you admitted that a larger piece of land is worth more.

This initially came out of comparing PP to SG where at the time, PP homes with bigger back yards/lots were comparable to SG homes with smaller yards and which is why some of us preferred PP. But then IC said he didn't like yards and that PP was "too spread out" (which is still a weird reason not to want to live somewhere to me). And then he went into all these breakdance moves of how SG has more to offer to rationalize his yard comment. So some of us wanted to take away those things just to see what are his reasons for not wanting more yard citing things like privacy, more lot etc. and that's when he started poplocking with the whole "all things aren't equal" rhetoric.

When have I not said that large piece of land is worth more?  I said that SG offered more for me than PP because I did not put much VALUE into having a yard whereas I put a lot of VALUE in having a neighborhood school and access to parks.

Again...if you have two similar sized homes...the one with the larger lot will cost more.  The question is then whether you take that premium to buy the larger lot, buy the home with the smaller lot and save the premium, or you spend the premium to buy another property with a larger home, better location, and/or better amenities. 

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Irvinecommuter]

But this is Irvine. We talk about buying property for the PRIMARY purpose of maximizing ROI. For that reason, you should buy a home with a yard if at a possible. You won't lose money period, unless you sell it in a recession. Buying in Irvine isn't exactly cheap. You can get so much more in the Inland Empire. But there is a perceived value that when you buy a home in Irvine, you're going to get all your money back and then more. Provided that of course, you have the bells and whistles that your future buyer wants.

It's the same reason why base model cars with no packages, no navigation, and no nothing are a hard sell. When it becomes a used car, it gets even harder to sell. It just becomes a rental car, fleet car, or loaner car. People want cars with all the bells and whistles in there. I'm not going to pay $20 grand for a CPO base 3 Series when I can pay $23 grand and get it fully loaded. Same car.

Nope...my primary purpose for buying a home is for my family to live in.  I picked Irvine because of the good schools, relative safety, easy access to commercial business, and access to minority business (esp. restaurants).  ROI is nice but I am not selling my house for at least another 20 years so I am sure I will be fine at that point. 

Also, I would think that to maximize ROI, you would want to maximize interior/enclosed living space.  So going back to the question of 150 square feet of enclosed space versus 300 square feet of yard, I would think that the enclosed space would provide much better ROI.

If you are selling your home in 20 years, I would presume you don't want to sell it at a loss. Right?

For that reason, at the 20 year mark, you want to make sure that you have EVERYTHING in your arsenal to sell the home in the best possible way it can sell.

That means, you should have all the bells and whistles your home is capable of having.

Technology, features, and tastes changes over time. What's popular today isn't popular tomorrow. For that reason, you need to cover all your bases. Have more bedrooms, more yard, more garage space, a downstairs bed, etc.etc. You need to diversify your portfolio in a way to attract as much potential buyers at the 20 year mark.

Nobody wants to buy a iPhone 3 today. It has no desirability. But a iPhone 6S can still do 85% of what the iPhone 8 can do.

You think that I will be selling at a loss in 20 years by buying in SG rather than PP?  SG has a neighborhood school while PP does not...do you think that would provide extra value in 20 years?  Whether you sell at a loss has a lot more to do with location than the house itself. 

Real estate is not technology...in fact, it's the complete opposite of technology.  Land is unique where as technology is designed to be obsolete in a few years. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

But this is Irvine. We talk about buying property for the PRIMARY purpose of maximizing ROI. For that reason, you should buy a home with a yard if at a possible. You won't lose money period, unless you sell it in a recession. Buying in Irvine isn't exactly cheap. You can get so much more in the Inland Empire. But there is a perceived value that when you buy a home in Irvine, you're going to get all your money back and then more. Provided that of course, you have the bells and whistles that your future buyer wants.

It's the same reason why base model cars with no packages, no navigation, and no nothing are a hard sell. When it becomes a used car, it gets even harder to sell. It just becomes a rental car, fleet car, or loaner car. People want cars with all the bells and whistles in there. I'm not going to pay $20 grand for a CPO base 3 Series when I can pay $23 grand and get it fully loaded. Same car.

Nope...my primary purpose for buying a home is for my family to live in.  I picked Irvine because of the good schools, relative safety, easy access to commercial business, and access to minority business (esp. restaurants).  ROI is nice but I am not selling my house for at least another 20 years so I am sure I will be fine at that point. 

Also, I would think that to maximize ROI, you would want to maximize interior/enclosed living space.  So going back to the question of 150 square feet of enclosed space versus 300 square feet of yard, I would think that the enclosed space would provide much better ROI.

If you are selling your home in 20 years, I would presume you don't want to sell it at a loss. Right?

For that reason, at the 20 year mark, you want to make sure that you have EVERYTHING in your arsenal to sell the home in the best possible way it can sell.

That means, you should have all the bells and whistles your home is capable of having.

Technology, features, and tastes changes over time. What's popular today isn't popular tomorrow. For that reason, you need to cover all your bases. Have more bedrooms, more yard, more garage space, a downstairs bed, etc.etc. You need to diversify your portfolio in a way to attract as much potential buyers at the 20 year mark.

Nobody wants to buy a iPhone 3 today. It has no desirability. But a iPhone 6S can still do 85% of what the iPhone 8 can do.

You think that I will be selling at a loss in 20 years by buying in SG rather than PP?  SG has a neighborhood school while PP does not...do you think that would provide extra value in 20 years?  Whether you sell at a loss has a lot more to do with location than the house itself.  If I am selling my house at a loss in 20 years, it will have nothing to do with the fact that my yard is small.

Real estate is not technology...in fact, it's the complete opposite of technology.  Land is unique where as technology is designed to be obsolete in a few years.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

There you go again bringing up price, your personal value of a yard, landscaping costs, etc etc. Do us a favor and pretend it doesn't cost more... bigger or smaller yard?

And I do remember several cases in new home hoods where the same floorplan had a larger lot for the same price... those were the ones that always went first... so it's not impossible... even a 300sft lot size difference is noticeable when you only have a 3000sft lot in Irvine (and FYI, for many "detached" products in Irvine, there is no lot size).

Here... maybe this will make you feel better.

If someone asked me if there were two homes, same exact floorplan, but one had a 3CWG and the other had a 2CWG and the one with the 2CWG had a bigger yard (and a bigger lot), but they cost the same... which one would I buy?

Why would I not care about the price?  That's a top 3 consideration for buying a property.

But that's not the question. We are just talking yard here... you keep bringing price when the question has this part that says "price is the same"... so stop caring about it for this exercise. It won't kill you to be hypothetical (although you do it everywhere else).

I have never seen a situation where the same floorplan had a large lot and the price was the same.  There is always a lot premium. 

Not always. If the lot size is within 10%, usually they are close in price. And with the size of Irvine lots, 10% could mean a lot more yard if the house is exactly the same plan/size. I remember seeing new homes with the same plan and no real price difference between 5300 sft, 5500 sft, 5700 sft lots. Scale that down to 3200sft, 3500sft lots and that will probably be even more true.

And what would the answer to your question be?

This is where you'll be happy.

I would take the 3CWG on the smaller lot.  I value the 3CWG over the larger yard/lot... because it's like a bigger house so very similar to you favoring a larger house with small yard over a smaller house with larger yard.

So I get that you like more house... what I don't get is if you got the same house, why wouldn't you take the bigger yard too (if it DIDN'T COST MORE). We all know you would... you just don't want to admit it for some weird reason.

 

[eyephone]

I think this argument is blown out of proportion.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So I get that you like more house... what I don't get is if you got the same house, why wouldn't you take the bigger yard too (if it DIDN'T COST MORE). We all know you would... you just don't want to admit it for some weird reason.

Because unicorns don't exist?

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[irvinehomeowner]

TLDR;

Some of us: We like PP more because it has bigger lots and is not as dense.

irvinecommuter: I don't like PP because I don't like yards and it's too spread out.

Almost everyone else (except for paydawg): What?

irvinecommuter: Well, SG has an Elem and is closer to stuff I use.

Maybe you should have led with that.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

TLDR;

Some of us: We like PP more because it has bigger lots and is not as dense.

irvinecommuter: I don't like PP because I don't like yards and it's too spread out.

Almost everyone else (except for paydawg): What?

irvinecommuter: Well, SG has an Elem and is closer to stuff I use.

Maybe you should have led with that.

Actually, I said that yard have little value to me because of a whole host of reasons and I prioritize other things, which made SG more attractive to me than PP.

Let's not forget that you are the one who decide to call me shill for TIC.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

So I get that you like more house... what I don't get is if you got the same house, why wouldn't you take the bigger yard too (if it DIDN'T COST MORE). We all know you would... you just don't want to admit it for some weird reason.

Because unicorns don't exist?

They do... just not in your preferred location.

Put it this way... I would not spend $1.5m+ in Stonegate for a big house with no living room, a 2-car garage, and with a tiny yard when I can spend $1.5m+ in Northwood or Woodbridge with medium house, a yard and a 3CWG.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So I get that you like more house... what I don't get is if you got the same house, why wouldn't you take the bigger yard too (if it DIDN'T COST MORE). We all know you would... you just don't want to admit it for some weird reason.

Because unicorns don't exist?

They do... just not in your preferred location.

Put it this way... I would not spend $1.5m+ in Stonegate for a big house with no living room, a 2-car garage, and with a tiny yard when I can spend $1.5m+ in Northwood or Woodbridge with medium house, a yard and a 3CWG.

Location is an important thing...which would make the unicorn not existent.  I mean you can get a huge house in Texas for 1.5 million and like 10 acre lot.

 

[Mety]

I might be wrong, but between the same two houses that are the same prices, I think Irvinecommuter will choose the one with a smaller yard because he will think it will cost less for him to maintain. Am I right, IC?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

TLDR;

Some of us: We like PP more because it has bigger lots and is not as dense.

irvinecommuter: I don't like PP because I don't like yards and it's too spread out.

Almost everyone else (except for paydawg): What?

irvinecommuter: Well, SG has an Elem and is closer to stuff I use.

Maybe you should have led with that.

Actually, I said that yard have little value to me because of a whole host of reasons and I prioritize other things, which made SG more attractive to me than PP.

No, you didn't qualify what *you* prioritize until later.

Here is your post:
>>

Original question was about re-sale. If you prioritize actually living there, I'd pick PP easily.

I actually don't like PP that much.  I'm not a yard person and everything is way too spread out for me.  Streets are also ultra confusing. 

>>

It wasn't until everyone reacted to it that you put on your rationalizing shoes.

Let's not forget that you are the one who decide to call me shill for TIC.

Again... incorrect.

I said you are "fodder".

A shill is someone who pushes someone's agenda, fodder is someone who is subject to it.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I might be wrong, but between the same two houses that are the same prices, I think Irvinecommuter will choose the one with a smaller yard because he will think it will cost less for him to maintain. Am I right, IC?

Not necessarily but the issue is that such a scenario does not exist.  A larger lot pretty much means higher costs.  Question is whether one wishes to the pay the lot premium. 

My point regarding maintenance costs is that the existence of such a cost reduces the value of a yard to me, not that a larger lot has no value.

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I might be wrong, but between the same two houses that are the same prices, I think Irvinecommuter will choose the one with a smaller yard because he will think it will cost less for him to maintain. Am I right, IC?

Not necessarily but the issue is that such a scenario does not exist.  A larger lot pretty much means higher costs.  Question is whether one wishes to the pay the lot premium. 

My point regarding maintenance costs is that the existence of such a cost reduces the value of a yard to me, not that a larger lot has no value.

But.... I just said it. There isn't any maintenance cost!!!!  The yard automatically waters itself. It's like an extra $5 bucks a month. The garden shears cost me $20 bucks and I only need to go out there like 5 times a year for 20 minutes. If you don't plant hedge trees, then you avoid it all together. You can have concrete or paver yard. It has no maintenance whatsoever!

No....there is a maintenance cost.  In your case, it could be small but in other cases it can be big.  A gardener is going to charge more for a bigger yard versus a smaller one versus not needing a gardener at all if you have no yard. 

Put it another way, part of the drawbacks of owing a home is maintenance costs.  If you rented a house or live in an apartment, you don't have to worry about maintenance.  Should it be determinative of whether you rent or buy a house?  Of course not, but it is a consideration to be had.  Also a consideration in deciding whether to buy new, relatively new, or old homes.

My point is not that the maintenance cost is so incredibly taxing that I think a yard has no value.  The question is relative value to me as compared to other priorities.