StoneGate vs Eastwood

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
OCLuvr said:
I would listen to one of highest selling realtor?Martin in this case?
Click to expand...

In terms of resale and desirability, Eastwood > Stonegate.  Eastwood trades at a premium to Stonegate because it's a small village, less homes, no apartments, and it has newer homes.
 
One thing for SG is it got surrounded by 4 major streets, Portola, Irvine Blvd, Jeffery and Sand Canyon. Kind of make it easier to get to anywhere you want in town.  EW just has access to two major streets. Also EW has 2 less swimming pools. So functionality wise SG is better.

But what kills SG is the apartments and low income housing, and homes are older.
 
Thanks guys for proving me right. I?ve been saying EW is the best bet in terms of ROI and along with the top 10 agent in Irvine, many of you praised EW right here in this thread. I?m so thrilled everyone finally has guts to say that without a fear of being called out and also accused of being YF. YF would be so proud. 8)

 
Anyone that says EW is bad due to the mobile home park isn?t being reasonable. It?s like saying SG is bad because it?s closer to the landfill.  Both dumb logic.  Both EW and SG are good.

There was a issue with the school district trying to move SG away from Northwood High but the residents sued the school district to stay and succeeded.

EW having less points of access (2 streets instead of 4) is better since there isn?t a lot of thru traffic. You have no reason to go inside EW unless you live there so less traffic. Also having Eastwood Path, Hicks Canyon Trail, Jeffery OS Trail surround the neighborhood is awesome. Even better if you have kids who go to Eastwood Elementry.  You can hit 4 different playgrounds (including school playground) with your kids in one walk up Parkwood (street). Location with young kids is perfect.

I?m can?t say anything bad of Stonegate since I don?t live there. Can only speak for EW.
 
TestingIrvine said:
Anyone that says EW is bad due to the mobile home park isn?t being reasonable. It?s like saying SG is bad because it?s closer to the landfill.  Both dumb logic.  Both EW and SG are good.

There was a issue with the school district trying to move SG away from Northwood High but the residents sued the school district to stay and succeeded.

EW having less points of access (2 streets instead of 4) is better since there isn?t a lot of thru traffic. You have no reason to go inside EW unless you live there so less traffic. Also having Eastwood Path, Hicks Canyon Trail, Jeffery OS Trail surround the neighborhood is awesome. Even better if you have kids who go to Eastwood Elementry.  You can hit 4 different playgrounds (including school playground) with your kids in one walk up Parkwood (street). Location with young kids is perfect.

I?m can?t say anything bad of Stonegate since I don?t live there. Can only speak for EW.
Click to expand...

Both EW and SG are good buys. I know people who own and live in both villages and they all really like it. The only downside would be fires. I know they had to evacuate last year because of the fire, but that was for all other surrounding areas. There was no structural damages or anything like that. The whole Irvine or OC smelled pretty bad for couple of days. So there are pros and cons everywhere, but for new villages in Irvine, EW is the best buy IMHO.

I think SG is on the same par with EW. Comparing SG and EW is like comparing Beacon Park and Cadence Park in GP. They're right next to each other, but one is just couple years newer. Seems like people prefer EW more though so there is that answer to the original poster. I would personally buy the one with a better lot regardless of EW or SG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top