CalBears96 said:
Davidlee199 said:
It?s all about future resale value. I am sure a Sierra home will have a higher resale value 10 years from now as it?s a true SFR.
Look at what a 3 car garage home vs a 2 car garage home sold for earlier this year:
24 Vienne, Irvine, CA 92606 - 1.55M, 3car garage
16 San Garin, Irvine, CA 92606 - 1.365, 2 car garage with Hugh back yard
10 Benavente, Irvine, CA 92606 $1.255M, 2 car garage with a pool.
it's a no brainer to go for a Sierra home, not Highland or Bluff, if they are priced about the same.
While it's true that Sierra has higher resale value than Highland (let's take Bluffs out of the equation since it's not even in the same class), if you're going to live there for 10 years, would you go for Sierra with inferior floorplans and quality? 10 years is a long time to live in a home that you don't love.
I'm not sure about the difference in quality. I agree part of that perception might come from the number and level of options. Cal Pac options are kept very basic, but you can get mostly what you want aside from some greater limitations, in my opinion, on backsplash/shower tiles. In addition, the exterior stucco, brick, and masonry work (running on the vertical exterior walls) appear to be rock solid on close-up inspection of Irvine Pacific houses. In contrast, a knock on Cal Pac is they use a weaker stucco finish coat (the most exterior layer) that is easily broken apart when, for example, large and heavy Amazon packages are left leaning against it.
As for the floor plans, I am absolutely resolute when I suggest that Cal Pac floor plans are, in general, superior across the board--superior to Irvine Pacific and Toll Brothers when looking at 1800 to 2500 sq ft. Even though Cal Pac has never had a floor plan in the 2500 sq ft range prior to Sierra, I can say that their Montara Plan 3 (except for the Shea-like super short 2nd floor hallway), Celeste Plan 4 and 4x, and Talise Plan 3 and 4 are all superior or mostly superior to anything Irvine Pacific or Toll Brothers has done in the 2500 sq ft range. And so I was, after my initial disappointment with the orientation of the Sierra Plan 3 kitchen island (which I later felt was ok if not ideal), not surprised to conclude that Sierra, whose floor plans are all in or close to the 2500 sq ft range, was mostly superior to Irvine Pacific. Let me be specific. The Bluffs Plan 2 is a conventional and mostly unflawed floor plan, except the dining room to great room intersection is not a true L shape. The negativity is mostly muted because the dining area is large enough, but the somewhat blended nature of the dining area and great room lacks a psychological separation AND creates a sense that the great room is far away yet not in a distinctly separate room/location. A simple way to put it all together is that there seems to be a large amount of "no man's land" in the area between the dining and great rooms. You might say that the Sierra Plan 3 has a similar flaw, but notice that its great room is pushed to the right of the kitchen rather than vertically outward from the kitchen. And it's true that the Sierra Plan 3 also fails to complete a bonafide L shape because it doesn't push the dining room farther out (as Shea typically does), but it still suffers less of a "dead" space effect in-between.
The Bluffs Plan 2 takes a page out of the Cal Pac and Toll Brother play book with its 20-ft 2nd floor overlook from the loft into the great room. However, why would Irvine Pacific use a ceiling that slopes downward as you move away from the loft? It creates a claustrophobic feel. God knows you must have thought to yourself about the overlook ceiling, right? Cal Pac and Toll Brothers use a conventional level ceiling line to extend the horizontal-vertical space. There is no positive reason to slope that ceiling downward, because it's not like it's a 25-ft ceiling and a super long great room.
But would I be happy with the Bluffs Plan 2? Yes, absolutely! It has everything you want/need, along with a nice long entryway before you get to the dining and great rooms. The Sierra Plans 2 and 3 have horizontal "squatted" entryways, which is a space-saver technique (read: compromise). And even though the Plan 1 has a more conventional vertical entryway, it's got the staircase right next to the front door, a no-no in my psychology book.
