Orchard Hills - Capella by Taylor Morrison

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Perspective said:
All any prospective criminal need do, is wait slightly outside of the gated area and follow another car in. My common sense and logic tells me gates create a slight hassle for people intending to commit crimes, but not much else.

The problem is they create that same hassle every single day for homeowners. The benefit isn't worth the cost.

The real reason is prestige.

One other benefit of a gate is that there are security cameras capturing license plates of all entering and exiting cars.  This might help find any criminal that entered the neighborhood.  If I were a criminal, this wold definitely deter me from trying to steal packages or rob a house in a gated community. 
 
Laguna21 said:
Perspective said:
AW said:
For both, it will lessen the probability of crime happening from all the riff raffs outside the gate. 
It's like buying the club for your car in 20 years ago, if they want to steal it, they will, but there's some hassle, rather find an easier target. 

Perspective said:
What purpose do gates serve, other than to create a twice daily nuisance when exiting and entering, and a huge hassle for visitors? If you think gates add prestige, then every Irvine apartment complex is very upscale!

That's one argument, but are there any stats supporting this idea? Crime in high socio-economic demographic areas is low, regardless of gates. Is whatever additional security might be added, worth the hassle?

As to whether or not the presence of a gate adds to the property value, I highly doubt it. Gates can be a hassle, especially with visitors, and people sneak through all the time or tailgate others, so I don't think it helps security at all.

I recognize that gates offer both the perception of security and prestige. But that doesn't mean they don't offer another layer of deterrence.

The gates at OH will eventually be manned with guards. Each lane has video cameras in addition to the parking arms. It would be difficult to tailgate someone into the community.

Common sense would suggest criminals would pick easier targets in ungated areas. They already dropped a dead body off in the ungated Strada neighborhood.
 
Hmmm... So higher risk that Paris will be beat up by her Marine husband, and also higher risk that Perspective's house will be burglarized instead.


Risk of crime in gated communities

March 20, 2013

Gated communities are perceived to be safe havens in a world of risk and uncertainty, but new research from the United States challenges received opinion and suggests that, although opportunistic burglaries may be minimised, the risk of other crimes could be increased. The study, one of only a handful to investigate the crime statistics relating to these housing developments, reveals the unexpected reality behind the security gates.

Research published this month in the journal Justice Quarterly confirms that homes in gated communities are subjected to fewer burglaries than those in non-gated communities. However, there is evidence that these communities not only push crime to other, less secure, neighbourhoods, but also present an increased risk of other crimes, including "intimate partner violence."

Lynn Addington, associate professor in the Department of Justice, Law & Society at American University, Washington, and Callie Marie Rennison, associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado, Denver, conducted an extensive literature review and a detailed study of data from the US National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the US Census Bureau's American Housing Survey in the preparation of their paper, "Keeping the Barbarians outside the gate? Comparing burglary victimization in gated and non-gated communities."

The authors conclude that, in the United States: "? gated communities do lower the odds of experiencing a residential burglary even when controlling for housing unit factors such as tenure, income, and geographical location as well as individual characteristics such as age [and] race."

Acknowledging that worries about security and crime, as well as fear of crime, are consistently among the top reasons cited for living in a gated community, the authors are keen to emphasise that, statistically, burglary is a rare event. They also discuss the wide-ranging impacts of gated-community living. For instance, homes in gated communities are generally more expensive than their non-gated counterparts, but there are concerns regarding limitations of access for emergency personnel such as fire fighters, ambulances, and police. There is also a question of the costs incurred by wider society as a result of reduced participation in the overall community and local government, reduced diversity and the potential for crime to be displaced to other areas.

Crucially, the authors emphasise that people living in gated communities may be at greater risk of other crimes, such as intimate partner violence, bullying, or violent assault in or near the home, because the victim is "locked in" with the offender. In addition, gated communities may also be at greater risk from minor offences, such as vandalism committed by bored and over-controlled adolescents.

Their study also lays to rest the perception -- strengthened by reality TV shows in the United States such as "Real Housewives of Orange County" -- that such communities are exclusively for the rich. The American Housing Survey upon which the research is based has been collecting data specifically about gated communities since 2001. The definition of "gated communities" used by that survey is broad, ranging from expensive and exclusive residential developments and retirement complexes through to public housing "projects" and trailer parks.

Addington and Rennison stress that although upper- and middle-class households may actively choose to live in gated communities, many people on low incomes have fewer housing choices, with no option but to live "enclosed in public housing projects." But even "exclusive" developments are frequently of mixed tenure, with owner-occupiers and long- and short-term rentals all being common.

The authors are clear that their ground-breaking study is exploratory in nature, and there are limitations with the data they consulted. They therefore highly recommend that further research be conducted to address the role of gated communities on other crimes beyond burglary. Their study also emphasises the need to include considerations about the diversity of gated communities and their residents in future research projects and policy discussions.
 
It also differs from guard gated or not. You can't just follow a delivery van in that instance. 
Higher end communities also have cameras on non guard entrances as well.
 
I don't mean to make it sound like a big deal. It isn't for me. I've lived in gated (guarded and not guarded) for the last fifteen years in Irvine. On balance, I don't think the nuisance it causes is worth the benefit. It's certainly no dealbreaker when house shopping. I just find it odd when people get so excited about gates.
 
Same for my household, gates will only slow me down. 
The high safety perception still is coveted among home buyers, as there is a high emotional factor to it.
In Irvine, it'll probably just lessen the chance of smaller crimes and that dang flyers we get everyday.
 
Gated neighborhoods typically have nicer, larger and better kept homes.  Thus the idea of buying in a gated neighborhood is basically just buying into a nicer neighborhood. 
 
Perspective said:
I don't mean to make it sound like a big deal. It isn't for me. I've lived in gated (guarded and not guarded) for the last fifteen years in Irvine. On balance, I don't think the nuisance it causes is worth the benefit. It's certainly no dealbreaker when house shopping. I just find it odd when people get so excited about gates.

It is a big deal for many high end buyers I know. Friends that bought in OH, Turtle Ridge, parts of Newport and parts of LA were looking specifically for homes behind prestigious gates. Partly for the perception of safety but mostly for the notion of exclusivity. You cannot compare a punch pad auto gate at an apartment building to a scenic drive up to a fancy guard house with a suited guard welcoming you at the gates of the community like you see at Turtle Ridge. And historical data I'm sure supports the fact that homes behind these types of gates hold better value. It certainly holds true in parts of LA where I grew up.
 
Paris said:
Perspective said:
I don't mean to make it sound like a big deal. It isn't for me. I've lived in gated (guarded and not guarded) for the last fifteen years in Irvine. On balance, I don't think the nuisance it causes is worth the benefit. It's certainly no dealbreaker when house shopping. I just find it odd when people get so excited about gates.

And historical data I'm sure supports the fact that homes behind these types of gates hold better value.

Hmm. Homes behind gates tend to be larger much nicer homes. They're expensive because they're large very nice homes, not because they're behind gates, however beautiful the gates are.

e.g. If we compare two similar ~4,000 sq ft homes today, one in Orchard Hills Village I, and the other in Beacon Park, and if the prices today are very similar, will the price of the Orchard Hills home grow faster than the Beacon Park house over the next decade solely because of the gates?
 
Perspective said:
Paris said:
Perspective said:
I don't mean to make it sound like a big deal. It isn't for me. I've lived in gated (guarded and not guarded) for the last fifteen years in Irvine. On balance, I don't think the nuisance it causes is worth the benefit. It's certainly no dealbreaker when house shopping. I just find it odd when people get so excited about gates.

And historical data I'm sure supports the fact that homes behind these types of gates hold better value.

Hmm. Homes behind gates tend to be larger much nicer homes. They're expensive because they're large very nice homes, not because they're behind gates, however beautiful the gates are.

e.g. If we compare two similar ~4,000 sq ft homes today, one in Orchard Hills Village I, and the other in Beacon Park, and if the prices today are very similar, will the price of the Orchard Hills home grow faster than the Beacon Park house over the next decade solely because of the gates?

That is a great question! I wish we could get Global Decision to come back and redo their analysis of Irvine's market from 2010-2015. I don't think they specifically used gated/non gated in their model. I'm also curious to see the impact of accelerated FCB purchases over the last  5 years.

Back in 2011, Larry teamed up with Global Decision to apply data analytics to Irvine's homes sales. Some of the findings:

Turtle Rock, Turte Ridge, and Quail Hill commanded the highest neighborhood premium controlling for other factors (I think they excluded Shady)

Adding a bedroom adds a net zero value

Adding a bathroom adds 4% value

Having a 3 car garage adds 5.3% value

Each year a property ages equates to -0.6% loss

Adding 10% more square footage adds 3.7% value

Links:http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/20...ne-housing-market-by-global-decision-and-ihb/
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/20...-village-premiums-by-global-decision-and-ihb/
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/20...ine-home-features-by-global-decision-and-ihb/


 
Irvine Fanatic said:
Gated residential sounds better. Everyone has diff preferences.

It does sound good and looks exclusive and nice, and it's perfectly fine to have this preference. Just don't ignore the nuisance it causes you daily and visitors. And don't try to sell me on additional safety. Irvine is one of the "safest" places on earth. If your probability every year is < 1% of being a victim of a crime within your neighborhood, do the gates decrease this by a significant appreciable amount?
 
Perspective said:
Irvine Fanatic said:
Gated residential sounds better. Everyone has diff preferences.

It does sound good and looks exclusive and nice, and it's perfectly fine to have this preference. Just don't ignore the nuisance it causes you daily and visitors. And don't try to sell me on additional safety. Irvine is one of the "safest" places on earth. If your probability every year is < 1% of being a victim of a crime within your neighborhood, do the gates decrease this by a significant appreciable amount?

You probably have tons of good data on gated vs. non gated and the impact of crime and what not. Gated community just sounds exclusive that's all. Kind of a bragging aspect to friends and family, nothing more in my eyes. Kinda like designer jeans and regular run of the mill jeans.
 
Perspective said:
Paris said:
Perspective said:
I don't mean to make it sound like a big deal. It isn't for me. I've lived in gated (guarded and not guarded) for the last fifteen years in Irvine. On balance, I don't think the nuisance it causes is worth the benefit. It's certainly no dealbreaker when house shopping. I just find it odd when people get so excited about gates.

And historical data I'm sure supports the fact that homes behind these types of gates hold better value.

Hmm. Homes behind gates tend to be larger much nicer homes. They're expensive because they're large very nice homes, not because they're behind gates, however beautiful the gates are.

e.g. If we compare two similar ~4,000 sq ft homes today, one in Orchard Hills Village I, and the other in Beacon Park, and if the prices today are very similar, will the price of the Orchard Hills home grow faster than the Beacon Park house over the next decade solely because of the gates?

I would definitely bet my money on the OH home over a similar square footage home in beacon park or stonegate anyday. Gated communities are also marketed differently than non-gated communities. Our home in guard gated Northpark definitely held better value than the same square footage home had that house been in non-gated Northpark square located just across the street. I too question the safety value but it's the "perception" that sells and the "perception" to high end buyers that guard gate = prestige = more expensive homes that will be a better investment. At the end of the day that perception is all that matters for driving up sales in a community and edging the comps up.

I guess this debate will need to be continued in about 10 years from now when there is actual data available. And in the end it really wouldn't matter because everyone has different perceptions in the home buying process that are important to them. You only need that one buyer who is willing to pay the price you desire to sell at. Until then as long as you are happy with your choice of home based on what is important to you, that's all that matters.
 
I would bet my money that they go up (or down) the same percentage from where they are today. OH is more expensive and goes up more but no more percentage wise than other Irvine homes or even Tustin Legacy/Baker Ranch.
 
Ready2Downsize said:
I would bet my money that they go up (or down) the same percentage from where they are today. OH is more expensive and goes up more but no more percentage wise than other Irvine homes or even Tustin Legacy/Baker Ranch.

La Vita plan 4 3900 sqft increased in value from $1.7 to $2.8 over just 1 year. I doubt we saw that same % appreciation of a 4000sqft residence in PP or Stonegate. I guess time will only tell - we should have one of our enthusiastic TI members keep some actual data on hand and present in 5-10 years
 
When I bought the house I lived in prior to this it increased in value (based on what the builders were selling it at from the time I bought it till the phase 6 months later 33% for much worse lots.

Over the longer period though the same house increased in price about the same percent from the time I bought it to the time I sold it (all places valued started with the value at the time I bought my last house which was 17.5 years ago) till the time I sold it a couple months ago, about the same percent!

Only one was in Irvine, only one other was gated, one was a townhome, one was in an area that went downhill after I bought it.

Not only that the same could be said for the house my two sisters own, (one in Laguna Niguel, one in Foothill Ranch) and my moms house which is more than 50 years old in an area that WAS one of the nicest areas of the county when she bought it (no longer).

So............ why is it Capella hasn't done what happened in that one La Vita example? Bad sign for Capella I would say if houses really can be THAT different in such a small area. Not much chance Capella is going to catch up to that one LaVita example which is a short time frame. If it could, I'm sure the builder would have raised prices instead of having standing inventory.

Over the LONGER time frame, I bet I am pretty much on the money. Houses in general will mirror inflation, maybe slightly more or less than that and I am pretty sure that has been shown in  LONG term statistics, not just my back of the envelope valuations of houses that span over 50 years in multiple cities, price ranges, home size and style. Start out with higher prices, end up with higher prices but about the same percent increase. I'm keeping my money on the same bet, may even double down.



 
I'm not comparing capella to la vita. Just making a point that despite square footage certain neighborhoods within a small area do vary in appreciation rates over a period of time. And that is because there are certain aspects of that neighborhood whether it be floor plan, view, gated or hillside that commands that higher appreciation amongst future buyers. Your argument is that the percentage increase of all homes is about the same based on your personal history. But you cannot compare the % appreciation rate between similar size homes in Santa Monica vs just a few blocks out of this area, or rancho Palos verdes where I grew up to a few blocks down the hill into San Pedro. Or EVEN within the city of PV between a house towards the top of the hill vs the middle part of the hill. And I'm sure someone would beg to differ who bought in upper east side Manhattan vs just a few miles down the street. Location is everything.

At the end of the day I personally believe that a primary residence is more of a liability than truly an asset. I like to invest in assets that produce cash flow, not wait to bank on variability in appreciation based on the real estate market. I love living in OH, I love my Capella home. We live below our means and as long as we enjoy living in our home everyday I could care less about the variability of the capella market over the next few years. It only matters to me the dayI sell it. But overall we bought here because Irvine, gated, hillside, views, good schools were all important aspects that I felt will be worth something in some distant future.
 
I view a primary, and vacation, residence as a consumable with a savings feature. You only buy one you can afford, and you trick it out however you like. You can "afford" it, if your front-end DTI is much closer to 20% than 30%, and the downpayment is less than half your net worth. I expect to be able to sell it in the distant future for at least what I've put into it, and if I'm lucky, it'll appreciate a point or two above inflation.

Capella will be fine. Prices just got a little frothy, but they're back down to comparable levels.
 
Back
Top