Value village vs neighborhood with charm.

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
bkshopr_IHB

bkshopr_IHB

New member
Value village will save a lot of money in amenity cost and the saving could be passed on to the consumers by either a cheaper price or a slightly bigger lots with driveways and may be a good size yard. House in an ugly box. No parkway, sidewalk adjacent to street curb, no neighborhood park, only one "cess" pool in the neighborhood. Cheap HOA dues for homeowners.



Charming village like Woodbury with a lot of pocket parks, recreational pools, theme neighborhood towers and arbors but smaller yards, no driveways, and higher HOA due.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1236152687]Deja vu!



Is there a choice B? Something in between?</blockquote>
Irvine City would not allow driveway depth between 8' and 18'. Planners can not take away just some driveway. It is either a driveway or no driveway. A driveway that is 12' for example is considered a code violation. Therefore, no choice B.



Interesting result so far. I am surprised by the numbers. Please vote everyone if you want your voice be heard because there will be trolls lurking?
 
Woodbury's claustrophobic spaces deducts from its charm, imho. I don't care about a 3-car garage, but would like more of a compromise between big ugly box and claustrophobic cottage charm.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1236156908]Heh... well I was thinking more like a house with a driveway and a little charm... I've recently taken a liking to charminess.</blockquote>


Have I converted you yet? I am liking garages.
 
I vote for this

- Garage w/ Driveway

- At least 5000 sq ft lot

- Neighborhood w/ charm



I don't see why you can't have all of them
 
[quote author="halfnote19" date=1236157717]I vote for this

- Garage w/ Driveway

- At least 5000 sq ft lot

- Neighborhood w/ charm



I don't see why you can't have all of them</blockquote>
You can... just not a new home in Irvine for cheap.



Parts of West Irvine are nice... as are parts in Westpark II, Northwood and Woodbridge... but they are all older.
 
[quote author="halfnote19" date=1236157717]I vote for this

- Garage w/ Driveway

- At least 5000 sq ft lot

- Neighborhood w/ charm



I don't see why you can't have all of them</blockquote>


Public amenities like pools and parks need land. Land is also for landscape and sidewalks. You can have your 5000sf lot but you have to pay a 6,000sf price for it. Another scenario is to pay for a 5,000 sf lot but lose your driveway area for amenities and neighborhood charm and your lot may be 4,300 sf instead. The common area cost are factored into the selling price of each home.
 
i voted for #2, but that is assuming that you have the garage behind the house, of course, and plenty of street parking in front of it due to the lack of driveways.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1236159722]i voted for #2, but that is assuming that you have the garage behind the house, of course, and plenty of street parking in front of it due to the lack of driveways.</blockquote>


Thank you for remembering the BK prototype. I did not want my idea to influence the poll.

I have been following the poll closely. It is dead even at each increment.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1236164490]Bk, I think you know that I can't vote in this one. I would never choose either.</blockquote>


This is why you love your neighborhood. You have everything. Charm, driveway, hidden garage, and yard. No HOA, Mello roos and only 8 minutes from Irvine 2 left turns leaving and 1 right turn returning home.
 
After seeing this poll TIC should re-examine the basic elements that made West Irvine successful and extremely profitable. Perhaps consumers want a much more down to earth ambiance in the neighborhood and less of the glitz that we witnessed over the years. Consumers want more inside the property instead of outside. Functions prevailed over aesthetic.



Why should Irvine spent so much in making the city beautiful when consumers really don't care. It would be so much easier to turn Irvine into an Inland Empire. Is it just the convenience, good schools, and safety that attracted the consumers? If Irvine were developed strictly inland empire standard since it became a city in 1968 then would it have eroded to Stanton's or Garden Grove's reputation?
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1236244367]After seeing this poll TIC should re-examine the basic elements that made West Irvine successful and extremely profitable. Perhaps consumers want a much more down to earth ambiance in the neighborhood and less of the glitz that we witnessed over the years. Consumers want more inside the property instead of outside. Functions prevailed over aesthetic.</blockquote>


BK....do you consider Oak Creek to be a value oriented village like West Irvine? Maybe a tick or two up the classy scale from West Irvine...but still no frills as compared to the Woodbury or Northpark glitz. That's another village we find *charming* in that basic needs sort of way. Don't hear Oak Creek mentioned much on IHB, I wonder why?
 
[quote author="CK" date=1236246088][quote author="bkshopr" date=1236244367]After seeing this poll TIC should re-examine the basic elements that made West Irvine successful and extremely profitable. Perhaps consumers want a much more down to earth ambiance in the neighborhood and less of the glitz that we witnessed over the years. Consumers want more inside the property instead of outside. Functions prevailed over aesthetic.</blockquote>


BK....do you consider Oak Creek to be a value oriented village like West Irvine? Maybe a tick or two up the classy scale from West Irvine...but still no frills as compared to the Woodbury or Northpark glitz. That's another village we find *charming* in that basic needs sort of way. Don't hear Oak Creek mentioned much on IHB, I wonder why?</blockquote>


Both Oakcreek and West Irvine were value villages. Very easy to design and execute. Both were highly profitable since so little went into the communities. There were no theme to the buildings. Non descriptive stucco boxes with shutter accents.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1236249457]does the IC make as much money selling the land to the value villiage as to the upscale one?</blockquote>


Homes in value village are big boxes that only cost just a fraction to build compared to fancy homes with similar size. Assuming the price difference is about 5%. TIC spent way more than that for neighborhood charm and amenities in fancy villages. The land residual may be less 5% for value village but there is very little $ investment that went into infrastructures. The profit is obviously higher for value villages.
 
I have not even activated my key fob for the amenities. And I hardly see any of the neighbors using the parks, pools, etc. I would like a neighborhood like Santiago Park in Santa Ana transplanted to Irvine.
 
The American dream of home ownership was possible after the recovery of the Depression when developers and builders found a way to mass produce homes on cookie cutter lots in the suburb.



During the early 40?s young families were able to purchase home with modest income. Prior to that time homes in older neighborhoods like Floral Park and Park Santiago were built one at a time. Homes were expensive and only the upper middle class could afford them. Similar surveys were produced such as ?Value Village vs, Charming neighborhood? during the 40?s and value village won by a huge landslide. Home shoppers were excited to finally owning a home and aesthetic were the least of their priority. Function was important.



Builders and developers responded very well in addressing the needs of the consumers. Consumers wanted large lot and small common area. Neighborhood amenities were minimized to reduce operation cost. Builders satisfied the consumers by building sprawling single story houses with access to a huge backyard. Garages were positioned at the front with driveway and even a 15? side yard adjacent to the garage for RV parking. The garage was the place where the neighborhood men socialized and hung out. They displayed their manhood by drill press, table saw, vice grip, and pin up poster on garage walls. It was cool to work under the hood of a car and motor oil being drained to the curb.



Everyone desired a 65x100? lot and that was universally planned to satisfy the buyers craving. Buyers also wished to work near by so industries and offices were planned near by. Large companies set their West coast headquarter in the neighborhoods. Some even wanted bigger lots so developers carved other 75??x110? lots. Big grocery markets and their distribution centers, Nabisco, Kraft, McDonnell Douglas, Johnson and Johnson, Sunkist, Dow Chemical Corporation, Disneyland, Knott produce, GE and many other companies provided jobs for all of the value communities.



Families owned cars and campers. Pools and recreational equipment were quickly installed in backyard of homes. Schools were built in these new suburbs. Education was far superior in the new suburb than the inner city schools. Shopping malls and retail centers quickly went up to meet the demand of the new population.



The American dream of owning a house on a big lot in a cost efficient value village was the lifestyle that echoed through out the rest of the country. It was a smashing success in OC and LA County near the OC boundary. Floral Park and Park Santiago were considered old fashioned and homes were dirt cheap in the resale. Homes values were less than the new homes built in these functional value villages.



No one cared about community charm because the good life is offered inside the private properties. Families were happy with their lives and kids were happy playing with the hose in the huge front yard and splashing in the backyard pools.



I have just described the value communities in Bellflower, Cypress, Lakewood, Hawaiian Garden, Garden Grove, Stanton, Buena Park, Anaheim, and Westminster.



Lots are big. Homes are sprawling around the huge rear yards. There are plenty of driveway and frontal garages. RV parking along the side of the garage is now filled with used mattresses and rusted box springs. Schools were once distinguished and now a place where gang member hang out. Prominent companies left 25 years ago and the structures once housed the prospering industries have been desolate ever since. Neighborhood retails like Westminster Mall, Anaheim Plaza, Buena Park Mall, Lakewood Center Mall, City Mall (reinvented as the Block) and countless other retails have not been able to reinvent themselves.



These communities were all value villages where buyers did not care for neighborhood charm as long their needs were met within the confine of their large properties. So what did go wrong? Their desires back then were no different from this polls ? Value Village vs Neighborhood Charm?. History is a gauge in predicting the future. Go visit any of the older value communities the lots are at least 5,000 sf and did the large lot save the communities from becoming despair? Did the garages and driveway and ample RV parking side yards prevent the original homeowners from leaving? Why did all the neighboring commerce failed? Why do the malls only have Sears and JC Penney as anchors?



Charm = neighborhood identity = pride + proudness = reason for not abandoning = desirability = Holds RE value = Commerce confidence = Asian buyers and their children raising the bars for local schools = others also want to buy because of its success but just want a value village = the problem why Garden Grove and Stanton once a dream communities with 6000sf lots have failed.



Be very careful of what you wish for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top