Who is waiting for Orchard Hills?

[iacrenter]

i thought opensky sharing pic's of his reno and costs were helpful, im always curious to know what things costs so i know what to expect or what is a good deal.

And if you want to track down opensky all you have to do is go wait by the entrance to NP and wait for the only person to walk out or look for the EV with the northpark plates

Heh, that's not my plate; here's another one spotted:

I just think it's curious that NP imparts such an identity that folks are willing to customize their license plates and attach it accordingly. Hell, NP has its own logo and customized deck loungers with "NORTHPARK" on them.

Note to NP (and Dove Canyon, for that matter): It ain't Stanford, it's a f*cking subdivision.

You better read the NP HOA manual more carefully:

"What happens in NP, stays in NP!"  ;D

 

[notTHEoc]

a

 

[test]

Land where the value is high have smaller lots, land where the value is low have larger lots.

Location determines price ceiling. That is why crappiest of crappy homes in best locations can still fetch $1,000+ sq/ft and keep going up in value. So if SG is struggling at $1mil+ (i.e., Arcadia/Sausalito) and competing tracts at PP are selling well, makes you think either lot size matters a lot at those price points. Or PP location is better. Or a little of both.

I would say location determines price floor.  You won't find cheap homes in San Francisco but you will find much more expensive ones outside in the boonies like the mid west.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Land where the value is high have smaller lots, land where the value is low have larger lots.

Location determines price ceiling. That is why crappiest of crappy homes in best locations can still fetch $1,000+ sq/ft and keep going up in value. So if SG is struggling at $1mil+ (i.e., Arcadia/Sausalito) and competing tracts at PP are selling well, makes you think either lot size matters a lot at those price points. Or PP location is better. Or a little of both.

Between PP and SG, the location is close enough where it's not likely to matter much in pricing.  PP has much more choices above $1 million than SG and they do have bigger lots.  I still think the failings of Sausalito (and maybe Arcadia) has more to do with bad floor plan and pricing as well as bad timing. 

La Cresta has a slight location advantage over models in SG and PP but that's probably not why it is selling so well.  The floor plans for La Cresta are great IMO. 

 

[OpenSky]

;D

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I have a feeling that OH won't do a BR... c'mon... it's Unicorn Land.

 

[bones]

.

 

[bones]

.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Since Sausalito was the biggest, they were forced to price their homes at $1.2-1.3 million (which is bad mistake).  Notice that most the higher end PP homes started about $1 to 1.2 million.

You keep saying Sausalito was "priced too high" compared to PP homes but this is simply not true.  $1.0-1.2M does not get you 3,500 sf at PP (which is the Plan 1 square footage of sausalito).  The comp to Sausalito at PP is Hawthorne and Harmony.  Both of those start are $1.2M+.  Hawthorne is almost sold out.  Harmony is selling better than Sausalito.

in this subset of homes:
Lot size > walkable elem school
Lot size > blue ribbon elem school
Lot size > walkability to Woodbury TC
Lot size > more parks and amenities
Better floorplans (per you) > walkable elem shool
PP > SG

P.S. Same argument can be had at the Arcadia versus Sagewood/Rosemist price level too so basically anything over $1m, PP wins.  Period.

Phase 1 of Sausalito pricing:

Plan 1:  $1,397,900
Plan 1X: $1,469,900
Plan 2:  $1,433,900
Plan 2X: $1,584,900
Plan 3:  $1,528,900

Harmony Phase 1

Phase 1 Pricing
Plan 1: $1,335,527
Plan 2: $1,353,973 - $1,415,189
Plan 3: $1,462,841

Price then went down (phase 1 was super upgraded)

Price sheet as of Oct 10, 2013

Plan 1: 1,296,120
Plan 2: 1,415,189
Plan 3: 1,375,730 - 1,460,595

Harmony also not selling very well
http://www.talkirvine.com/index.php/topic,4278.30.html

Hawthorne:  Phase 1

Home site 4      Plan 1B  (2,488 sf)  $1,058,405    includes Folding door at Great room, French slider at Master Bedroom, Guest Suite in lieu of Bed #3, and Interior French doors at Den

Home site 33    Plan 1C  (2,488 sf)  $1,066,885    includes Folding door @ Great Room, French slider@ Master Bedroom, Guest Suite in lieu of Bedroom #3, Interior French doors @ Den

Home site 34    Plan 2B  (3,105 sf) (no longer available - ALREADY RESERVED) $1,166,475  includes Fixed French doors @ Dining Room, French slider @ Master Bedroom, Multi slider at Great Room, High Heat Kitchen

Home site 3      Plan 3A (3,486 sf)  $1,232,840    includes Exterior French doors at Bedroom 4, Fixed French    doors at dining, Fixed French doors at nook, Folding door at great room, French slider at master bedroom, and Interior French doors at Den 

Most recent pricing:

last 5 homes available at Hawthorne (excluding models):
Lot1: 1,167,880 (plan 2)
Lot2: 1,169,880 (plan 2)
Lot20: 1,245,525 (plan 2)
Lot28: 1,214,880 (last cul de sac Plan 2)
Lot43: 1,262,880 (last Plan 3 available)

I don't even how you can make the comparison pricewise.

Arcadia is down is last four unsold...and it's at $1.2-$1.3M
http://www.tripointehomes.com/quick-move-in-homes-20.cfm

Arcadia also suffered from the same push up in prices from Mendocino.  It had to start at $1.1-1.2 M because Mendocino was at $900K-$1 M. 

Sagewood started at Mid $900K to $1.05M

Rosemist was at around $1.05M.

So I have no idea how you can make the comparison between the prices in PP vs SG and conclude that the only difference is lot size.

La Cresta has been a great success despite having small lot size:

Phase 1 Pricing
Plan 1: $1,358,000 - $1,399,830
Plan 2: $1,424,500 - $1,437,200
Plan 3: $1,513,800 - $1,524,300

Marigold and Mulberry have also sold well despite being on small lots.

So yes, homes at PP over $1M are a better value than those in SG because those in SG are way overpriced.  Homes comparable to Sausalito in PP costs about $100-150K less, have better floor plans, and have a bigger lot...gee I wonder why Sausalito is not selling.

Add on the fact that OH is coming soon, people who can afford mid-$1 million homes are in no rush to buy at SG or PP. 

 

[bones]

.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

You forgot MR difference.

True.  Sausalito has a lower mello roos

Hawthorne:

Approximate HOA Dues: $138 - 193 per month
Approximate Tax rate: 1.1%
Approximate Mello Roos (aka Community Facilities District tax): ranges from $5,902 - $8,352 (based on the square footage of the home) and subject to a 2% increase each year

Sausalito

CFD - $5,085 per year, subject to an increase by 2% /yr

 

[Irvinecommuter]

You forgot MR difference. Narrows the gap. But if SG is so great. Shouldn't ppl have to overpay to live there?

Really...that's the argument now? 

1)  People are overpaying to live at SG.  My house has gone up by $80K in a year and is completely overpriced now.  Saratoga is still selling well. 

2)  No one is saying that SG is Newport Beach or Malibu.  But it's also not the landfill wasteland that PP supporters seem to make it out to be.    SG has attractive features like a good school, good location, and good layout of community.  PP has large lot sizes and a variety of homes. 

Going back to the argument regarding lot size....again, it's a benefit that people look for but for others, it's not that big of a deal.  If the lot size is a deal breaker for you, SG and CV are not for you.   

edit:  Notice that despite selling well, the homes in PP have not gone up in price very much.  (Hawthorne has gone up about $30K since the opening).  That's actually means that the builders properly priced the homes to begin with.  But it also means that they know that they can't move the price very much. 

 

[bones]

.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

You forgot MR difference.

True.  Sausalito has a lower mello roos

Hawthorne:

Approximate HOA Dues: $138 - 193 per month
Approximate Tax rate: 1.1%
Approximate Mello Roos (aka Community Facilities District tax): ranges from $5,902 - $8,352 (based on the square footage of the home) and subject to a 2% increase each year

Sausalito

CFD - $5,085 per year, subject to an increase by 2% /yr

Ok so let's say sausalito and Arcadia are slightly overpriced. But like u said all things aren't equal, SG has all these amenities (school, wallability, parks, pools, closer to things) that pp doesn't have so SG should be priced higher. But buyers don't value those things enough to choose those "pros" over lot size and a slightly cheaper price. Let's leave floorplans out of it bc that's really personal and I've heard ppl say pp floorplans suck and SG is better and vice Versa.

Slightly?  10-15% is not slightly...it's a big deal.  You also run into a problem when you start trying to sell in the mid $1 millions.  Neither PP nor SG are selling well in the mid-$1 million range...neither community are enough to justify such a price, especially with OH coming in.  $1 to 1.2 million is probably the high for both community.

Again, no one is saying that lot size is not a benefit.  As, IHO said...all other things equal...a house with a larger lot size is worth more than one that is not.  The question becomes when things are not equal, what do you value? 

For example,  one of thing that would kinda of annoy me about living in PP right now if I had an elementary school kid is that I have to drop him/her off at Canyon View in morning and then drive back toward the freeway.  It is not a deal breaker but something I would consider when I am buying a house.  Ditto with the playground area. Of course, if you have no small kids, neither one of those things bother you at all.

Conversely, I don't care for a yard.  I am not generally not home during the weekdays and on weekends we go out for most of the day.  On days that my daughter wants to play outside, I walk her to the park that's about 5 minutes away.  We don't really BBQ or sit out on a patio.  I don't have a pet.  On the flipside, I have pay to landscape the thing, upkeep it, and otherwise deal with it. 

An extreme example for me is BR.  The higher end homes in BR are great IMO (Toll Brothers are really one of the best builders).  But there is so much open space to landscape.  The model homes all look great but all I could think about is how much it would cost to get all that space landscaped and maintained.  A yard is great but if you don't properly landscape or maintain it, it looks terrible.

Now, if I had a bigger backyard, I would have more distance from my neighbors and it is going to be more desirable if I ever sell.  But for my living comfort, I don't really care to have a yard. 

 

[jerometl]

Let's look at it from the point of view of TIC.  They control the market and its all about their bottomline.

Assuming they have 150,000 sq ft of land to build on.  They can either build 50 homes on 3,000 sq ft lot or 30 homes at 5000 sq ft lot for the exact same sq ft of house.  Assuming it cost them $500K to build one house.

If say the market is willing to pay $1M for that house on a 3000 sq ft lot, then TIC gross profit (excluding land) would be $25M ($500K * 50).  To get to the same $ profit, they would have to sell that same house for $1.33M if they put in on 5000 sq ft land ($833K profit per house * 30 = $25M).

Do you think the market will pay 33% premium for the sq ft living space on a 5000 sq ft vs a 3000 sq ft ? Probably not. that's why I think TIC would rather do it on smaller lot to maximize their profit.  Thus, as long as the market is willing to pay $1M for the 3000 sq ft lot and not $1.33M for the 5000 sq ft lot, TIC will continue to build more of the 3000 sq ft lot.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Let's look at it from the point of view of TIC.  They control the market and its all about their bottomline.

Assuming they have 150,000 sq ft of land to build on.  They can either build 50 homes on 3,000 sq ft lot or 30 homes at 5000 sq ft lot for the exact same sq ft of house.  Assuming it cost them $500K to build one house.

If say the market is willing to pay $1M for that house on a 3000 sq ft lot, then TIC gross profit (excluding land) would be $25M ($500K * 50).  To get to the same $ profit, they would have to sell that same house for $1.33M if they put in on 5000 sq ft land ($833K profit per house * 30 = $25M).

Do you think the market will pay 33% premium for the sq ft living space on a 5000 sq ft vs a 3000 sq ft ? Probably not. that's why I think TIC would rather do it on smaller lot to maximize their profit.  Thus, as long as the market is willing to pay $1M for the 3000 sq ft lot and not $1.33M for the 5000 sq ft lot, TIC will continue to build more of the 3000 sq ft lot.

I agree with this but TIC is also smart to create communities with schools and parks that help people look past the small lot sizes. 

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@GH:

You are right. However, it's the people who decide the market. If they CAN'T sell 3000sft lot homes at $1m, they will either lower the price, or increase the lot size... but they won't do it as long as people are willing to compromise or convince themselves that they don't need a yard (ahem).

It's okay, based on what's been happening the past few years, I doubt that will change (although the value of flex garage space did prompt TIC to try the California Garage experiment) ... but I will continue to complain about it and try to put the word out that having your neighbor being able to pass you a jar of shrimp paste without having to leave their home is NOT a benefit.

As long as other builders like 5 Points can see the true value in lot size, at least there will be an alternative when it comes to new builds. But that's the problem, TIC doesn't let other developers in very often.

The newest non-TIC developments are West Irvine and Columbus Grove... everything else is dominated by TIC so they can basically do whatever they want because consumers like certain people here are willing to make those compromises (or convince themselves that it's not really a compromise).

Like I said, pay a premium for crap they think they don't need.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

@GH:

You are right. However, it's the people who decide the market. If they CAN'T sell 3000sft lot homes at $1m, they will either lower the price, or increase the lot size... but they won't do it as long as people are willing to compromise or convince themselves that they don't need a yard (ahem).

It's okay, based on what's been happening the past few years, I doubt that will change (although the value of flex garage space did prompt TIC to try the California Garage experiment) ... but I will continue to complain about it and try to put the word out that having your neighbor being able to pass you a jar of shrimp paste without having to leave their home is NOT a benefit.

As long as other builders like 5 Points can see the true value in lot size, at least there will be an alternative when it comes to new builds. But that's the problem, TIC doesn't let other developers in very often.

The newest non-TIC developments are West Irvine and Columbus Grove... everything else is dominated by TIC so they can basically do whatever they want because consumers like certain people here are willing to make those compromises (or convince themselves that it's not really a compromise).

Like I said, pay a premium for crap they think they don't need.

If you are going to call me out...at least do it directly. 

At no point has anyone made this argument:

but I will continue to complain about it and try to put the word out that having your neighbor being able to pass you a jar of shrimp paste without having to leave their home is NOT a benefit.

Again...you keep harping on the "yard is key" argument and yet buyers don't agree with you.  The fact that builders can sell homes with 3000 ft lots in TIC planned communities with great success shows that many buyers don't see that as a major detriment.  In Irvine, schools and location trump many other things.    Let's see how well PP sells if it ever gets zoned out of IUSD. 

I will make this argument one more time: you may love a yard and think it is super important but a lot of people don't think its super important.  It's shocking I know but not everyone share the same interests and priorities as you.

As long as other builders like 5 Points can see the true value in lot size, at least there will be an alternative when it comes to new builds. But that's the problem, TIC doesn't let other developers in very often.

TIC has done a much better job of developing its community than 5 points has.  The whole issue with the high school would never arise with TIC.

Many of the same builders that were involved in Woodbury, SG, PS, and CV are the same ones as those in PP.  TIC basically "sells" the land to the builder and they are the ones to decide on the size of the lot and what to place on them. 

There is nothing precluding Shea from putting Sausalito in a bigger lot but as GH pointed out, it makes not financial sense for them to do it.  Even if they sell slowly, Shea basically makes double profit for each house it sells by putting them on smaller lots. 

 

[jerometl]

As long as other builders like 5 Points can see the true value in lot size, at least there will be an alternative when it comes to new builds. But that's the problem, TIC doesn't let other developers in very often.

I could be wrong, but I think Pavillion Park is just a test market for 5P to see how much buyers are willing to pay for extra lot size.  And once they do they all their analysis and calculation and figure out they are better off profit wise with smaller lot size and the demand are there, I'm afraid they will follow TIC in doing smaller lot size.

If you are really after lot size, in every development, there will always be a few that would have a bigger lot size (we were able to get a >5000 sq ft lot on a development that has a 3000-4000 sq ft normal lot size with very little premium in the price -- the shape of the lot though is little odd but we can make it work). 

 

[bones]

[quote author=GH link=topic=11541.msg226030#msg226030 date.