Better Location for Resale in Irvine
- Thread starter OC_relocation
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Okay:
1) Maricopa is not Arcadia.
2) 66 Rossmore was sold unfinished and empty.
3) 58 Hazelton is also not Arcadia because Arcadia didn't start selling until August 2013 and thus didn't start turn over homes until early 2014.
4) 74 Nassau is a Maricopa (2012) and has the same $/sq ft as 130 Cardinal (2014)
5) 25 Lyndhurst is another Maricopa (2011)
6) Yellow Daisy homes are Sagewood, not Rosemist. Interestingly enough, it seems like Rosemist is selling at a higher $/sq ft than Rosemist but I assume that has to do with sale price versus square footage skewing toward smaller homes. Mendocino is selling for about $480 to $500...Saratoga is selling at $490 to $510.
Redfin has Stonegate at $497/sq ft and PP at $471
https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/116032/CA/Irvine/Stonegate
https://www.redfin.com/city/9361/CA...outline,geo-address=Pavilion+Park +Irvine +CA
It is somewhat hard to compare Stonegate with PP because SG is still selling.
Are the tract names relevant? Besides, I labeled it Arcadia/Maricopa. It?s more of a PSF game for similar size homes with yard versus no yard. I used sage wood and rosemist in PP Bc those have larger yards and just found comparable sized SG homes in SG.
Also yellow daisy has both rosemist and sagewood homes with Port being the divider between tracts.
Does getting the tract names wrong nullify the conclusion?
I think the smaller stuff in SG sells better PSF than PP but the smaller stuff doesn?t have the yard size anyway. I do think yard size isn?t as applicable under a certain SF and price point.
Yes because Maricopa is from 2011/2012 while Arcadia is 2014 and on. 2-3 years is pretty important value wise.
Furthermore, as noted above, a 2012 Maricopa is selling the same as a 2014 Rosemist. The other part of the issue is that we have no idea what the relative upgrades from each of the home at the time they were sold.
Again...if we are going with $/sq. ft then Mendocino and Saratoga (both with no yards to speak off) should sell lower.
That's probably fair...if you have a 3200 square foot house...having a bigger yard adds to the curb appeal.
I disagree with the two year value change thing. A lot of tracts (in Stonegate and elsewhere) are built over 2-3 year span. Do the early phase homes get less in resale because they?re 2 years older? No.
I?m too lazy to do the SF comparison for Saratoga/Mendocino versus the comparable tracts in PP. It wouldn?t surprise me if they traded higher than PP because these are smaller homes and the yard factor is gone. Aren?t Saratoga homes on glorified alley ways??? Or am I mis-remembering?
For the record, I don?t understand the ?spread out? argument, but I understand the ?value? argument that IC is using. That?s why different types of homes, plans, lots exist.
3100 homes was originally planned for entire Stonegate but since there are some changes alone the way, the actual figure is slightly different (It should be within 100 to 200 homes though).
Note: the source is from this OCR article back in 2012 and I did double check that the 3100 number is for the entire SG including the home already build prior to 2010.
Excellent. Your google-fu is superb.
Another trivia question, does anyone know the total acreage each in this neighborhood, for the two planned village of Stonegate and Pavillion Park.
This include parks, pool, recreations and shops for the two? Pavillion Park feed into and is part of the Great Park scheme which include the sport park complex. The ice rink, planned golf course, water park and I am sure I missed a few big other ones.
From infrastructure built and planned. GP has scored over and over again.
Just from the map, the 1 purple area for PP looks like less than half the size of SG. And PP has just over 700 homes while SG has over 3000... so much less dense.
But we already know that somebody doesn't like their neighborhood too spread out with non-grid like streets.
All that stuff that you are talking about is past BP and near the freeway. So, if that is what you are focused on, BP would be the better place to be.
Also, who the heck knows why the stuff is going to actually build out. OC and Irvine/Five Points are now suing each other.
Bingo!!!. That?s is what I am after, the density and the numbers of homes built for the village given the total lands.
It would be like saying the reverse, I rather be poor than be rich. Who would want or say that.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
So for the OP?s original question, PP is best for resale despite irvinecommuter?s yardophobia.
Except if you?re BTB, than Eastwood is the best for resale because he lives there and nobody else does.
Except if you?re BTB, than Eastwood is the best for resale because he lives there and nobody else does.
Irvinecommuter
New member
bones said:
Okay:
1) Maricopa is not Arcadia.
2) 66 Rossmore was sold unfinished and empty.
3) 58 Hazelton is also not Arcadia because Arcadia didn't start selling until August 2013 and thus didn't start turn over homes until early 2014.
4) 74 Nassau is a Maricopa (2012) and has the same $/sq ft as 130 Cardinal (2014)
5) 25 Lyndhurst is another Maricopa (2011)
6) Yellow Daisy homes are Sagewood, not Rosemist. Interestingly enough, it seems like Rosemist is selling at a higher $/sq ft than Rosemist but I assume that has to do with sale price versus square footage skewing toward smaller homes. Mendocino is selling for about $480 to $500...Saratoga is selling at $490 to $510.
Irvinecommuter
New member
irvinehomeowner said:So for the OP?s original question, PP is best for resale despite irvinecommuter?s yardophobia.
Except if you?re BTB, than Eastwood is the best for resale because he lives there and nobody else does.
Redfin has Stonegate at $497/sq ft and PP at $471
https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/116032/CA/Irvine/Stonegate
https://www.redfin.com/city/9361/CA...outline,geo-address=Pavilion+Park +Irvine +CA
It is somewhat hard to compare Stonegate with PP because SG is still selling.
Irvinecommuter said:
Are the tract names relevant? Besides, I labeled it Arcadia/Maricopa. It?s more of a PSF game for similar size homes with yard versus no yard. I used sage wood and rosemist in PP Bc those have larger yards and just found comparable sized SG homes in SG.
Also yellow daisy has both rosemist and sagewood homes with Port being the divider between tracts.
Does getting the tract names wrong nullify the conclusion?
Irvinecommuter said:irvinehomeowner said:So for the OP?s original question, PP is best for resale despite irvinecommuter?s yardophobia.
Except if you?re BTB, than Eastwood is the best for resale because he lives there and nobody else does.
Redfin has Stonegate at $497/sq ft and PP at $471
https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/116032/CA/Irvine/Stonegate
https://www.redfin.com/city/9361/CA...outline,geo-address=Pavilion+Park +Irvine +CA
It is somewhat hard to compare Stonegate with PP because SG is still selling.
I think the smaller stuff in SG sells better PSF than PP but the smaller stuff doesn?t have the yard size anyway. I do think yard size isn?t as applicable under a certain SF and price point.
Irvinecommuter
New member
bones said:
Yes because Maricopa is from 2011/2012 while Arcadia is 2014 and on. 2-3 years is pretty important value wise.
Furthermore, as noted above, a 2012 Maricopa is selling the same as a 2014 Rosemist. The other part of the issue is that we have no idea what the relative upgrades from each of the home at the time they were sold.
Again...if we are going with $/sq. ft then Mendocino and Saratoga (both with no yards to speak off) should sell lower.
Irvinecommuter
New member
bones said:Irvinecommuter said:irvinehomeowner said:So for the OP?s original question, PP is best for resale despite irvinecommuter?s yardophobia.
Except if you?re BTB, than Eastwood is the best for resale because he lives there and nobody else does.
Redfin has Stonegate at $497/sq ft and PP at $471
https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/116032/CA/Irvine/Stonegate
https://www.redfin.com/city/9361/CA...outline,geo-address=Pavilion+Park +Irvine +CA
It is somewhat hard to compare Stonegate with PP because SG is still selling.
I think the smaller stuff in SG sells better PSF than PP but the smaller stuff doesn?t have the yard size anyway. I do think yard size isn?t as applicable under a certain SF and price point.
That's probably fair...if you have a 3200 square foot house...having a bigger yard adds to the curb appeal.
Irvinecommuter said:
I disagree with the two year value change thing. A lot of tracts (in Stonegate and elsewhere) are built over 2-3 year span. Do the early phase homes get less in resale because they?re 2 years older? No.
I?m too lazy to do the SF comparison for Saratoga/Mendocino versus the comparable tracts in PP. It wouldn?t surprise me if they traded higher than PP because these are smaller homes and the yard factor is gone. Aren?t Saratoga homes on glorified alley ways??? Or am I mis-remembering?
paydawg
Active member
irvinehomeowner said: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.
For the record, I don?t understand the ?spread out? argument, but I understand the ?value? argument that IC is using. That?s why different types of homes, plans, lots exist.
Compressed-Village said:
3100 homes was originally planned for entire Stonegate but since there are some changes alone the way, the actual figure is slightly different (It should be within 100 to 200 homes though).
Note: the source is from this OCR article back in 2012 and I did double check that the 3100 number is for the entire SG including the home already build prior to 2010.
irvinebullhousing
Well-known member
lnc said:Compressed-Village said:
3100 homes was originally planned for entire Stonegate but since there are some changes alone the way, the actual figure is slightly different (It should be within 100 to 200 homes though).
Note: the source is from this OCR article back in 2012 and I did double check that the 3100 number is for the entire SG including the home already build prior to 2010.
Excellent. Your google-fu is superb.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
Jimho, none of those have had yards. One had something close but it was small and photographed very carefully.
That is imho, the basics of new modern development in irvine, really 90%+ of the product does not have yard and the issue really is whether the space is big enough and flat enough to even have some furniture where you can slide a chair back without worrying about the wall.
That is imho, the basics of new modern development in irvine, really 90%+ of the product does not have yard and the issue really is whether the space is big enough and flat enough to even have some furniture where you can slide a chair back without worrying about the wall.
irvinebullhousing
Well-known member
Compressed-Village said:lnc said:Compressed-Village said:
3100 homes was originally planned for entire Stonegate but since there are some changes alone the way, the actual figure is slightly different (It should be within 100 to 200 homes though).
Note: the source is from this OCR article back in 2012 and I did double check that the 3100 number is for the entire SG including the home already build prior to 2010.
Excellent. Your google-fu is superb.
Another trivia question, does anyone know the total acreage each in this neighborhood, for the two planned village of Stonegate and Pavillion Park.
This include parks, pool, recreations and shops for the two? Pavillion Park feed into and is part of the Great Park scheme which include the sport park complex. The ice rink, planned golf course, water park and I am sure I missed a few big other ones.
From infrastructure built and planned. GP has scored over and over again.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
So I'm going to move away from the yard/lot/spread argument:
1. If you work in the Spectrum, PP is a better location than SG.
2. If you work south or east of SG, traffic is bad.
3. The elevations are more varied in PP than SG.
4. The middle school and high school is closer than SG
The pro for SG, you can still buy new there... if you like $1.5+m homes with only 4br and 2-car garage.
1. If you work in the Spectrum, PP is a better location than SG.
2. If you work south or east of SG, traffic is bad.
3. The elevations are more varied in PP than SG.
4. The middle school and high school is closer than SG
The pro for SG, you can still buy new there... if you like $1.5+m homes with only 4br and 2-car garage.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Compressed-Village said:
Just from the map, the 1 purple area for PP looks like less than half the size of SG. And PP has just over 700 homes while SG has over 3000... so much less dense.
But we already know that somebody doesn't like their neighborhood too spread out with non-grid like streets.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Compressed-Village said:
All that stuff that you are talking about is past BP and near the freeway. So, if that is what you are focused on, BP would be the better place to be.
Also, who the heck knows why the stuff is going to actually build out. OC and Irvine/Five Points are now suing each other.
Liar Loan
Well-known member
Last night when I pulled into the driveway, I got out of the car and heard my kids screaming and laughing in the backyard. It was the first day of daylight savings, so they were outside playing, taking advantage of the sunlight. I decided to sneak up on them by going through our side gate and my 1 1/2 year old yells out "Da da!!" as soon as she sees me come through. She is swinging on the swingset, along with two of my older kids. They are having a blast. We turn the music on and have a little dance party and then I decided to eat my dinner outside because it was so nice out.
Value: Priceless
Value: Priceless
irvinebullhousing
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:Compressed-Village said:
Just from the map, the 1 purple area for PP looks like less than half the size of SG. And PP has just over 700 homes while SG has over 3000... so much less dense.
But we already know that somebody doesn't like their neighborhood too spread out with non-grid like streets.
Bingo!!!. That?s is what I am after, the density and the numbers of homes built for the village given the total lands.
It would be like saying the reverse, I rather be poor than be rich. Who would want or say that.