Sausalito at Stonegate

[irvinehomeowner]

and i got one more garage space

Sunamah. 

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@NQ:

While I agree with you on how the builders maximize profits... I disagree with you on them being able to force things on people. While they are the only game in town, they can pretty much dictate whatever they want (which they have done for the last 3 years).

Not sure how familiar you are with the Irvine housing market but you can see how TIC shapes what the expectations are for new homes.

Notice how they market the California Court. Do you really think a focus group said "Yes, take away my driveway and my street and put me in a four home cluster with a shared paseo"?

There was a data analysis study done on the IHB and 3-car garages actually added a premium to home pricing. But TIC knows they can't maximize profits with that type of footprint, so how do they act like they are giving the buyer something when really they are not? The California Garage. Oh sure, you have that extra space in your garage, but you can't walk around your house, your home is so shallow that as soon as you step into the front door, you can almost touch the back door, and the garage is so narrow, good luck getting in and out of your SUVs.

TIC tries often and always to force things on the consumer. And yes, they aren't always successful. For example, in Stonegate and Laguna Altura, I believe the detached condos they had 3 plans (6 on each motorcourt, 3 on each side). The plan in the middle and was the poorest seller because of that location and I think because it didn't have a downstairs bedroom. So what they did was add a plan 3x (where they moved the front door from the side to the front because it was no longer on the end) and put that one in the middle.

Do you really think the Great Room was born out of market research and consumer desire? It already existed. But TIC focused on it to draw your attention away from the fact that you were losing house/lot size and vaulted ceilings. A 2500sft house in the 90s had such a large footprint, 3/4 of your square footage would be on the 1st floor... now it's half and half because it's basically a box.

If you've read some of the threads here where people went to TIC focus groups and they complained about certain features in TIC's floorplans, what do you think happened? They didn't change anything. I think TIC does market research only to see what they can force on consumers with the most profit. They don't actually care all that much about what they "want", but more about what they will "put up with" or "accept".

That's my point.

I do understand what you are saying, I just don't feel TIC has our best interests at heart, they just want to make it look that way.

 

[paperboyNC]

IHO,

I think the other posters are trying to make two points:

A) If you really want a home like that they are plenty of resales available.

B) It's not very energy /land efficient to have vaulted ceilings and large footprints for home. I rented a home for 2+ years prior to buying in Irvine that was 2,500 sq ft with a huge footprint and vaulted ceilings. It was really hard to keep the house the temperature I wanted (the upstairs was already way hotter than the downstairs) and the heating/air conditioning bill was ridiculous. Cities like more condensed housing because they don't have to build/maintain as many roads / pipes / wires etc. to get to the homes and they collect more property tax per acre. The shops also have more people living close by.

Conclusion: if you want a certain thing you can easily find it rather than constantly complain about the ones that aren't it. A lot of this push is coming from the cities to be more energy / land efficient. Not just from the builders.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

IHO,

I think the other posters are trying to make two points:

A) If you really want a home like that they are plenty of resales available.

Not really. More than before... but not "plenty"... at least in Irvine.

B) It's not very energy /land efficient to have vaulted ceilings and large footprints for home. I rented a home for 2+ years prior to buying in Irvine that was 2,500 sq ft with a huge footprint and vaulted ceilings. It was really hard to keep the house the temperature I wanted (the upstairs was already way hotter than the downstairs) and the heating/air conditioning bill was ridiculous. Cities like more condensed housing because they don't have to build/maintain as many roads / pipes / wires etc. to get to the homes and they collect more property tax per acre. The shops also have more people living close by.

I can agree with you on energy efficiency... but what does land efficiency have to do with consumer desire? Maybe a city wants to stuff as many people as they can into a square mile, but there are reasons why people choose to live in suburbs vs. big city... space.

I don't recall ever saying "I want the house with the smaller lot.... and the smaller footprint". Who does?

Conclusion: if you want a certain thing you can easily find it rather than constantly complain about the ones that aren't it.

What's wrong with complaining? If no one voices their opinions, no one learns. Let's just close down TI.

It's not about what I can find (and it's not "easily"). It's about letting those in charge know that they should provide more options. For all they know, homes with a formal dining and separate living (and 3-car garage) may sell for a premium that more than makes up for the land cost. Look how fast Lambert Ranch sold through and it's supposed to be in a less desirable area than Laguna Altura.

A lot of this push is coming from the cities to be more energy / land efficient. Not just from the builders.

I don't think Irvine cares about energy efficiency as much as they do about land. The more people you stuff in a space, the more energy/water/resources they are going to use... those two things contradict each other. I doubt TIC considers energy consumption at all when designing their homes, they may market it... but they are more concerned about land costs because that pulls from their bottom line, not if I run my AC all day.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@No Quarter:

Your diesel example is actually an interesting one because it's similar to what TIC does.

You and I know that diesel is probably just as clean, less expensive and mileage efficient as hybrids... yet hybrids are winning. Why? Because of marketing. Diesel had a bad reputation before of being pollution-heavy and most people don't that current diesel technology is much cleaner. When they see hybrid, they think "less gas, more electric, cleaner" and that's how Toyota got them.

Same thing with TIC. You keep saying that TIC is hardly the only game in town... yet you don't see the domino effect.

The last non-TIC neighborhood was Columbus Grove in the last 2000s (whose values are still currently below their TIC counterparts). Since around 2009, only TIC hoods have been the choice for new homes in Irvine. In SoCal, the hottest market for new homes has been Irvine... because of that, Irvine's home designs influence other markets. Now, I don't think it was TIC's designs that made Irvine sell so well (do you?) but for builders, they don't want to change a "proven" design because that's where most of the volume has been. So if you're building a new home, how do you build it?

To me, that doesn't say the "best" design is what is being built, just the one that everyone is getting used to.

So, like cars, people will choose hybrid not because they "prefer" it, but that's what the perception is.

My takeaway... hybrids is not what US prefers, it's what some automakers have successfully marketed as the preference and are not giving them another choice. What US prefers is energy efficient vehicles, and no one from the diesel crowd has made that effort to show them how efficient diesel is.

But we disagree on this and that's fine. We each have our viewpoint and I think TIC has much more influence on the market than you think. I'm not saying what I like is better for everyone, it's just better for me. What I am saying is I wish TIC would give us more options in new home development because as much as I would like to HGTV a house, sometimes people like to buy new.

 

[gaogi]

For example, I'm a big proponent of diesel technology. 

Diesels ftw!  Both of my cars are German diesels.  If you do a lot of highway driving, they're as efficient as hybrids and 100x more fun.

 

[paperboyNC]

I don't think Irvine cares about energy efficiency as much as they do about land. The more people you stuff in a space, the more energy/water/resources they are going to use... those two things contradict each other. I doubt TIC considers energy consumption at all when designing their homes, they may market it... but they are more concerned about land costs because that pulls from their bottom line, not if I run my AC all day.

Irvine requires new home builders to build homes that are more than more energy efficient than the state standards:
http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=20540

PDF 4-1 Compact/Mixed-Use Development: The California Energy Commission (CEC) considers
compact development forms beneficial for minimizing energy consumption that leads to
greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the CEC?s report on the connections between land use and
climate change identifies density as the project feature most predictive of the number of
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (?VMT?) by project occupants. Like the 2011
Approved Project, the 2012 Modified Project increases the density of development on the
Proposed Project Site. Doing so will tend to reduce VMT on a local and regional basis. For
the purpose of the analysis in this DSSEIR, it was assumed that there would be only a 25%
reduction in VMT, which is within the range observed in Southern California.

PDF 4-2 High Rate of Internal Trip Capture: With the inclusion of a mix of land uses including
office, commercial, industrial, and residential in the Proposed Project Site, the 2012 Modified
Project reduces trips outside the Proposed Project Site. This reduces trip length and
congestion on the local circulation system outside the Proposed Project Site.

PDF 4-3 Low-Flow Fixtures: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates low-flow water fixtures that
will meet the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code. Prior to
issuance of building permit, the Applicant or its successor shall submit evidence to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that toilets, urinals, sinks, showers,
and other water fixtures installed on-site meet the California Green Building Standards Code.

PDF 4-4 Landscaping and Irrigation Systems: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates automated,
high-efficiency landscaping irrigation systems on all master landscaped areas that reduce
water use, such as evapotranspiration ?smart? weather-based irrigation controllers, and
bubbler irrigation; low-angle, low-flow spray heads; moisture sensors; and use of a
California-friendly landscape palette. Prior to approval of landscape plans, the Applicant or
its successor shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City?s Director of Community
Development that such landscaping irrigation systems will be installed so as to make the
2012 Modified Project consistent with the intent of the California Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act of 2006 (?AB 1881?), including provisions to reduce the wasteful,
uneconomic, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of water.

PDF 4-5 Use of Reclaimed Water on All Master Landscaped Areas: Prior to approval of landscape
plans, the Applicant or its successor shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City?s
Director of Community Development and the Irvine Ranch Water District (?IRWD?) that the
landscape plans incorporate the use of reclaimed water in all master landscaped areas,
including master landscaped commercial, multifamily, common, roadways, and park areas.
Master landscapes shall also incorporate weather-based controllers and efficient irrigation
system designs to reduce overwatering, combined with the application of a Californiafriendly landscape palette.

PDF 4-6 Material Recovery: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates measures to reduce waste
generated by Proposed Project Site residents, occupants and visitors, and to encourage
recycling of solid wastes, utilizing the Orange County Integrated Waste Management
Department's material recovery facilities to recycle glass, plastic, cans, junk mail, paper,
cardboard, greenwaste (e.g., grass, weeds, leaves, branches, yard trimmings, and scrap wood),
and scrap metal. Future employees, residents, and customers would participate in these
programs. These measures include the requirement to include on-site recycling facilities at all
commercial, retail, industrial, and multi-family residential developments. In addition,
educational materials identifying available recycling programs shall be distributed to all land
uses, including single-family residential.

PDF 4-7 Energy Star Appliances: EnergyStar appliances (excluding refrigerators), such as
dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, air conditions, furnaces, and water heaters, shall
be offered or installed in all residential dwelling units.

PDF 4-8 Building Energy Efficiency: Residential dwellings and non-residential buildings will be
constructed so that they achieve 15 percent higher energy efficiency than the applicable
standards set forth in the 2008 California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24,
Part 6 of the California Building Code) or meet the standards in effect at the time of issuance
of building permit. The Energy Commission's 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are
25 percent more efficient than the 2008 standards for residential construction and 30 percent
more efficient for nonresidential construction. The 2013 Energy Efficiency Standards, which
take effect on January 1, 2014, offer builders more efficient windows, insulation, lighting,
ventilation systems and other options that would reduce energy consumption in homes and
businesses.

PDF 4-9 Carbon Sequestration: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates landscaping and a plant
palette that will foster carbon sequestration within the Proposed Project Site that is
comparable to the landscaping and plant palette that was already incorporated into the 2011
Approved Project.

PDF 4-10 Softscape Landscaped Areas: Consistent with sustainable practices and modern landscaping
standards and consistent with the landscaping used in the 2011 Approved Project, the 2012
Modified Project reduces softscape (e.g., plants/horticultural elements of landscape design)
landscaped areas by 28 percent as compared to the default assumption in CalEEMod.

 

[iacrenter]

I don't think Irvine cares about energy efficiency as much as they do about land. The more people you stuff in a space, the more energy/water/resources they are going to use... those two things contradict each other. I doubt TIC considers energy consumption at all when designing their homes, they may market it... but they are more concerned about land costs because that pulls from their bottom line, not if I run my AC all day.

Irvine requires new home builders to build homes that are more than more energy efficient than the state standards:
http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=20540

PDF 4-1 Compact/Mixed-Use Development: The California Energy Commission (CEC) considers
compact development forms beneficial for minimizing energy consumption that leads to
greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the CEC?s report on the connections between land use and
climate change identifies density as the project feature most predictive of the number of
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (?VMT?) by project occupants. Like the 2011
Approved Project, the 2012 Modified Project increases the density of development on the
Proposed Project Site. Doing so will tend to reduce VMT on a local and regional basis. For
the purpose of the analysis in this DSSEIR, it was assumed that there would be only a 25%
reduction in VMT, which is within the range observed in Southern California.

PDF 4-2 High Rate of Internal Trip Capture: With the inclusion of a mix of land uses including
office, commercial, industrial, and residential in the Proposed Project Site, the 2012 Modified
Project reduces trips outside the Proposed Project Site. This reduces trip length and
congestion on the local circulation system outside the Proposed Project Site.

PDF 4-3 Low-Flow Fixtures: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates low-flow water fixtures that
will meet the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code. Prior to
issuance of building permit, the Applicant or its successor shall submit evidence to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that toilets, urinals, sinks, showers,
and other water fixtures installed on-site meet the California Green Building Standards Code.

PDF 4-4 Landscaping and Irrigation Systems: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates automated,
high-efficiency landscaping irrigation systems on all master landscaped areas that reduce
water use, such as evapotranspiration ?smart? weather-based irrigation controllers, and
bubbler irrigation; low-angle, low-flow spray heads; moisture sensors; and use of a
California-friendly landscape palette. Prior to approval of landscape plans, the Applicant or
its successor shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City?s Director of Community
Development that such landscaping irrigation systems will be installed so as to make the
2012 Modified Project consistent with the intent of the California Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act of 2006 (?AB 1881?), including provisions to reduce the wasteful,
uneconomic, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of water.

PDF 4-5 Use of Reclaimed Water on All Master Landscaped Areas: Prior to approval of landscape
plans, the Applicant or its successor shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City?s
Director of Community Development and the Irvine Ranch Water District (?IRWD?) that the
landscape plans incorporate the use of reclaimed water in all master landscaped areas,
including master landscaped commercial, multifamily, common, roadways, and park areas.
Master landscapes shall also incorporate weather-based controllers and efficient irrigation
system designs to reduce overwatering, combined with the application of a Californiafriendly landscape palette.

PDF 4-6 Material Recovery: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates measures to reduce waste
generated by Proposed Project Site residents, occupants and visitors, and to encourage
recycling of solid wastes, utilizing the Orange County Integrated Waste Management
Department's material recovery facilities to recycle glass, plastic, cans, junk mail, paper,
cardboard, greenwaste (e.g., grass, weeds, leaves, branches, yard trimmings, and scrap wood),
and scrap metal. Future employees, residents, and customers would participate in these
programs. These measures include the requirement to include on-site recycling facilities at all
commercial, retail, industrial, and multi-family residential developments. In addition,
educational materials identifying available recycling programs shall be distributed to all land
uses, including single-family residential.

PDF 4-7 Energy Star Appliances: EnergyStar appliances (excluding refrigerators), such as
dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, air conditions, furnaces, and water heaters, shall
be offered or installed in all residential dwelling units.

PDF 4-8 Building Energy Efficiency: Residential dwellings and non-residential buildings will be
constructed so that they achieve 15 percent higher energy efficiency than the applicable
standards set forth in the 2008 California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24,
Part 6 of the California Building Code) or meet the standards in effect at the time of issuance
of building permit. The Energy Commission's 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are
25 percent more efficient than the 2008 standards for residential construction and 30 percent
more efficient for nonresidential construction. The 2013 Energy Efficiency Standards, which
take effect on January 1, 2014, offer builders more efficient windows, insulation, lighting,
ventilation systems and other options that would reduce energy consumption in homes and
businesses.

PDF 4-9 Carbon Sequestration: The 2012 Modified Project incorporates landscaping and a plant
palette that will foster carbon sequestration within the Proposed Project Site that is
comparable to the landscaping and plant palette that was already incorporated into the 2011
Approved Project.

PDF 4-10 Softscape Landscaped Areas: Consistent with sustainable practices and modern landscaping
standards and consistent with the landscaping used in the 2011 Approved Project, the 2012
Modified Project reduces softscape (e.g., plants/horticultural elements of landscape design)
landscaped areas by 28 percent as compared to the default assumption in CalEEMod.

If the city is serious about the environment, they could stop building new residential villages...oops I forgot that would cost them potential tax dollars, what was I thinking.

[/sarcasm]

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@paperboy:

Again, more concerned about land efficiency than energy. If they really were worried about such things, they would just not build anymore, leave the land as open space or better yet, return back to farming so it can give back.

Why aren't solar panels standard?

You can't mix energy efficiency with land density maximization, while they can be related, increasing density taxes resources, so they obviously have to try to conserve them. But it's not a savings, it's net zero.  Are you really going to tell me that TIC is building their projects with more density to "save" energy? They're not being energy efficient just to save energy, they're doing it so they can fulfill the requirements in order to put more units on a parcel of land.

If they are so concerned about VMT, why doesn't Laguna Altura have a closer shopping center? Why did they remove parks and green paseos from the original plan which would have increased neighborhood walkability?

 

[iacrenter]

LA is plenty walkable.  I see people of all ages walking to the pool and parks every day.  Maybe if someone is handicapped or had some sort of physical ailment it would not be walkable... but it is self contained and I would imagine that many people who bought there like that feature.  When i lived in Turtle Ridge, I didn't see that there were an overwhelming number of parks above and beyond what is found in LA (if you look at the number of parks to the number of people).

NQ,

Have you seen the original community design? Are you telling me that you prefer the current design over what was originally planned? Both are walkable but IMHO having a central paseo that connects both sides of the community would have been much nicer. Instead TIC dropped more Cortona homes in the middle of the community. Instead of a beautiful park/club house greeting you as you drive through the main gates, you got a large stone wall.

 

[test]

Where is a place that's less walkable than LA?  Where can you walk to from LA?  Shopping?  Restaurants? Schools?  Parks where you can meet people outside the community? Transportation?

 

[irvinehomeshopper]

To be fair with the comments not every village should get its own retail center. Retailers will only lease spaces with critical population mass near by. Laguna Altura currently does not have enough population to justify retail strip mall. Building a vacant mall is bad for the image.

 

[test]

Where is a place that's less walkable than LA?  Where can you walk to from LA?  Shopping?  Restaurants? Schools?  Parks where you can meet people outside the community? Transportation?

I would counter that question with one of my own: What is the percentage of people who prefer to walk a mile to shop, take their kid to school or go to eat and then walk back?  I never saw anyone walking to the UCI shopping center from Turtle Ridge or Turtle Rock when I lived in Turtle Ridge.  Similarly, I would bet high volumes of folks are not walking to Woodbury Town Center from Portola Springs, Lambert Ranch or most of Stonegate. Does everyone believe a high percentage of people will walk from the Great Park to Woodbury town center?  Or that many folks from Cypress Village will walk to the CV shopping center?

People who buy in those neighborhoods are buying because they want to be near shopping, but not on top of it.  They don't want the traffic, safety issues and problems that come with high volumes of visitors continuously crossing through their neighborhood.

If you are talking about the high density parts of Boston, Chicago, NYC, SF, or Washington DC, I could see people walking to amenities.  However, as IHO said earlier, people who move to the suburbs (e.g., Irvine) have their reasons. 

When i lived in SF and DC, people did walk to amenities - but that was because those amenities existed in close proximity to their specific location (meaning typically at the end of their block, not 10 or 15 blocks). You would never convince someone to walk 10 city blocks with you to do something.  That's what cabs, trains and cars are for.

No one prefers to walk a mile, hence it's not walkable.

 

[ps99472]

Where is a place that's less walkable than LA?  Where can you walk to from LA?  Shopping?  Restaurants? Schools?  Parks where you can meet people outside the community? Transportation?

I would counter that question with one of my own: What is the percentage of people who prefer to walk a mile to shop, take their kid to school or go to eat and then walk back?  I never saw anyone walking to the UCI shopping center from Turtle Ridge or Turtle Rock when I lived in Turtle Ridge.  Similarly, I would bet high volumes of folks are not walking to Woodbury Town Center from Portola Springs, Lambert Ranch or most of Stonegate. Does everyone believe a high percentage of people will walk from the Great Park to Woodbury town center?  Or that many folks from Cypress Village will walk to the CV shopping center?

People who buy in those neighborhoods are buying because they want to be near shopping, but not on top of it.  They don't want the traffic, safety issues and problems that come with high volumes of visitors continuously crossing through their neighborhood.

If you are talking about the high density parts of Boston, Chicago, NYC, SF, or Washington DC, I could see people walking to amenities.  However, as IHO said earlier, people who move to the suburbs (e.g., Irvine) have their reasons. 

When i lived in SF and DC, people did walk to amenities - but that was because those amenities existed in close proximity to their specific location (meaning typically at the end of their block, not 10 or 15 blocks). You would never convince someone to walk 10 city blocks with you to do something.  That's what cabs, trains and cars are for.

I don't remember the last time I CROSSED Culver....on foot.. in fact I don't believe I EVER crossed Culver (or Jeffrey or Jamboree) on foot.. Yes I do not exercise

But as I lived my last 17 years off and on in Irvine.. never WALKED to a location to eat, shop, nor do business...When I lived in LA and SF, I frequently walked to my neighborhood convenience/liquor store and take out restaurant.. When I lived briefly in SD... never walked around...So I would have to agree with NQ here.. NOBODY walks in Irvine.. less you're breathing in smog while working out, old,  too young to drive, or the location your going to is right in front of your house (and how many homes are like that in Irvine?) and also risk getting run over by Darth Vader on the way to Ranch 99?

 

[iacrenter]

Now that you know where i bought, where did you buy that is significantly more walkable and significantly less dense that what the LA neighborhood ended up becoming?  And did you prefer your current home's situation over what was originally planned for that development?

This is my village and I have never seen the original community plan. If you find it, please post it since I'd be very interested in seeing it.http://irvinehomes.ocregister.com/2009/08/21/get-to-know-irvines-northpark-neighborhood/6229/

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I have seen those.  I wasn't losing any sleep over it before we bought, since those decisions likely affected our decision to buy in this neighborhood.  Had the builder decided to go forward with the design everyone here is so hung up on, it would have been significantly more expensive to buy a home, since there would have been far fewer of them.  And the infrastructure costs and HoA would have also been higher since there would be fewer homes to spread them across.

Not sure if it was going to be all that more expensive. There is only so much the Irvine market will bear for detached condos and SFRs in the 3000sft range. TIC owns the land, it's all profit.

This is exactly why TIC sold the parcel across from Lake Forest to Toll Brothers. 

Is this a fact? Do you know someone at TIC?

I have never met anyone who lives in this neighborhood complain that they cannot use any of the parks.

Maybe because you live on the side nearest to the main park/pool. I'm sure there are some Sienna owners who would like the original plan where there was a nicer park closer to them. Anecdotes are awesome, but I'm sure there are some residents who dislike the layout. And those who really disliked it, bought somewhere else. 

In fact, I would argue that the parks are under-utilized from anytime i have ever seen them.  Even the pool is not as busy as you would think serving 600 homes.

I'm thinking this may be a chicken/egg thing. People who like those amenities didn't buy there because of the inaccessibility. So you get residents who don't use the facilities because they don't really care for them.

Look, I understand this is your 'hood and you will hold some bias and that's perfectly okay (encouraged in fact). But can you objectively say, cost of your home aside, that the current plan is better than the original plan? Who doesn't want a paseo that goes through the entire space... or 3 larger parks?

One other thing that bothered me about Laguna Altura... what is your Mello Roos compared to the other villages? I ask because if it's the same or higher, you're getting ripped off. LA has less infrastructure to publicly fund, no school, less outer public roads, less traffic lights etc. You're MRs are basically paying for the egresses to the 133 and Lake Forest. A bit unfair if you ask me.

That's why I thought it was appropriate that Lambert Ranch not have Mello Roos, no real public infrastructure involved in that 'hood either other than the entrances off of Portola.

And don't get me wrong, I could live in Laguna Altura because I like the 405 area of Irvine. If Cortona was a bit cheaper, I may have bit the bullet. I'm temped by San Ream-me... er... Remo, but it's hard to give up a driveway with only a 2-car garage. I actually noticed some of the detached condos have driveways... wish that whole area was like that.

 

[test]

Goodbye to Formal Dining Rooms

Formal living rooms have been on the decline for years, but now it looks like formal dining rooms are also falling out of favor. A compartmented dining room, which often links to the kitchen via a butler?s pantry, or small hallway, is now commonly regarded as an isolated space that?s too disconnected from the more dynamic areas of the home. An increasing number of California house plans are featuring large great rooms ? big, casual, social arenas where dining, lounge, and kitchen are joined. The extra square footage dedicated to great rooms means goodbye to the formal dining room of yesteryear.
http://blog.sheahomes.com/living/home-design-and-house-plan-trends-in-southern-california/

 

[irvinehomeowner]

To be fair with the comments not every village should get its own retail center. Retailers will only lease spaces with critical population mass near by. Laguna Altura currently does not have enough population to justify retail strip mall. Building a vacant mall is bad for the image.

Tell that to the Orchard Hills shopping center.

A strip mall on the other side of the 133 (that is zoned for business) should have been built. It would service both Quail Hill and LA.

 

[ps99472]

To be fair with the comments not every village should get its own retail center. Retailers will only lease spaces with critical population mass near by. Laguna Altura currently does not have enough population to justify retail strip mall. Building a vacant mall is bad for the image.

Tell that to the Orchard Hills shopping center.

A strip mall on the other side of the 133 (that is zoned for business) should have been built. It would service both Quail Hill and LA.

Hey we got Chicos....where else can you find that....and the McRib traffic alone will keep the center open...

 

[irvinerealtor]

Suzanne researched this, and I must concur that NOBODY WALKS IN L.A.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3CF7xwoglU[/youtube]

-IR2