Why do they keep building condo/apt buildings in Irvine?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
P

positivefour_IHB

New member
Is it me or is there going to just be way too many units in Irvine?? It seems like the supply far exceeds the demand in Irvine. I live in the IBC and there are still several complexes being built when there already seems like too many units. Just look at Jamboree alone and there are several complexes.



It seems insane that they keep building.
 
Not just you, I wonder who will move into these "Urban Living" complexes.



I see the one across from the Diamond Plaza being built...then you have the monstrosities on Jamboree west of the 405 freeway.



Then all along Jamboree you have these "Calypsos" and "Camden" places which I guess like are 20% filled.



This does not bode well for current condo owners.



I guess they keep building because it's better to have a box on a piece of land then nothing?
 
I heard bits and pieces of a city council meeting a couple weeks ago, and it sounds like they're going to build a bunch more apartments, including low income, near the spectrum.



<a href="http://www.irvinequickrecords.com/sirepub/cache/2/uojejhet1s14xey2nnjym255/799135501222009083502771.PDF">http://www.irvinequickrecords.com/sirepub/cache/2/uojejhet1s14xey2nnjym255/799135501222009083502771.PDF</a>
 
Irvine is under a mandate to add more low end "afffordable housing".



<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/local/me-irvine25">http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/local/me-irvine25</a>



Obviously others disagree that they should have to follow the rules as Irvine is "special".



<a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/housing-affordable-irvine-1894819-county-scag">http://www.ocregister.com/articles/housing-affordable-irvine-1894819-county-scag</a>
 
[quote author="ABC123" date=1232670808]I heard bits and pieces of a city council meeting a couple weeks ago, and it sounds like they're going to build a bunch more apartments, including low income, near the spectrum.



<a href="http://www.irvinequickrecords.com/sirepub/cache/2/uojejhet1s14xey2nnjym255/799135501222009083502771.PDF">http://www.irvinequickrecords.com/sirepub/cache/2/uojejhet1s14xey2nnjym255/799135501222009083502771.PDF</a></blockquote>


I think it's probable that a majority of the great park units will be built or leased with an affordable restriction when Lennar drops out of the deal and irvine faces more presure to fufill it's affordable housing requirements.



I walked those condos north of the Avalon Bay Condos on Jamboree and Main, i think it's called Main Street Village, probably one of the most poorly planned "luxury" apartment communities i've ever seen. Built by an insurance company and it definitely shows, raised panel cabinety dates the kitchens to the 80's and a community garden as an ammenity? That'll just become an eyesore with no benefit as there were no leed credits. They aren't going to be able to compete with Camden's over the top ammenity package nor with Avalon Bay's more prominent location.
 
There are many people commuting to Irvine for work every day, who'd love to live closer to work.



You'd find them bagging your groceries at Ralphs, stocking shelves at Costco, and teaching at your local elementary school.



If these additional apartments and condos are made "affordable" for people who actually <em>work in Irvine</em>, I'm all for it.



If they work in <em>other cities</em>, then I don't believe it's Irvine's responsibility to provide affordable housing to them.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1232671452]Irvine is under a mandate to add more low end "afffordable housing".



<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/local/me-irvine25">http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/local/me-irvine25</a>



Obviously others disagree that they should have to follow the rules as Irvine is "special".



<a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/housing-affordable-irvine-1894819-county-scag">http://www.ocregister.com/articles/housing-affordable-irvine-1894819-county-scag</a></blockquote>


Others disagree with what SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) has mandated for Irvine. From your second link:

<blockquote>This is inequitable and unachievable, and only adds unwanted fuel to the heated debate over affordable housing. The city has only 6 percent of the county's land area and 8 percent of its population, and yet SCAG demands that Irvine build the lion's share of the homes and apartments required to house the county's population between now and 2014.</blockquote>
 
[quote author="positivefour" date=1232662502]Is it me or is there going to just be way too many units in Irvine?? It seems like the supply far exceeds the demand in Irvine. I live in the IBC and there are still several complexes being built when there already seems like too many units. Just look at Jamboree alone and there are several complexes.



It seems insane that they keep building.</blockquote>


If the apartments are built by IAC (like in Orchard Hills, Stonegate, Woodbury, Spectrum), then my guess is that they probably know what they are doing. But in regards to all the stuff being built on Jamboree, I'm with you. Plus, if those units actually get filled, imagine how much worse traffic around there would be..
 
[quote author="zovall" date=1232675858][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1232671452]Irvine is under a mandate to add more low end "afffordable housing".



<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/local/me-irvine25">http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/local/me-irvine25</a>



Obviously others disagree that they should have to follow the rules as Irvine is "special".



<a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/housing-affordable-irvine-1894819-county-scag">http://www.ocregister.com/articles/housing-affordable-irvine-1894819-county-scag</a></blockquote>


Others disagree with what SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) has mandated for Irvine. From your second link:

<blockquote>This is inequitable and unachievable, and only adds unwanted fuel to the heated debate over affordable housing. The city has only 6 percent of the county's land area and 8 percent of its population, and yet SCAG demands that Irvine build the lion's share of the homes and apartments required to house the county's population between now and 2014.</blockquote></blockquote>


It is the contention of SCAG that Irvine knew full well what the requirements to meet the mandates were, ignored them and built other properties, and are now pleading poverty because the burden is unfair. The SCAG contends that it doesn't matter because Irvine ignored the guidelines that were issued over a decade ago. The two parties disagree and are unable to come to a solution, hince the lawsuit.



I am no expert on the topic, but that was my understanding of the disagreement, and in fairness to both sides, I put cites up from both sides.
 
[quote author="momopi" date=1232675121]There are many people commuting to Irvine for work every day, who'd love to live closer to work.



You'd find them bagging your groceries at Ralphs, stocking shelves at Costco, and teaching at your local elementary school.



If these additional apartments and condos are made "affordable" for people who actually <em>work in Irvine</em>, I'm all for it.



If they work in <em>other cities</em>, then I don't believe it's Irvine's responsibility to provide affordable housing to them.</blockquote>


That's a very interesting point. I like the freedom to live and work wherever one choses, but also believe in reinvesting in the community one lives. It'd also be a great way to reduce traffic to neighboring cities if more people worked in the cities in which they lived.
 
If the apartments are built by IAC (like in Orchard Hills, Stonegate, Woodbury, Spectrum), then my guess is that they probably know what they are doing. But in regards to all the stuff being built on Jamboree, I'm with you. Plus, if those units actually get filled, imagine how much worse traffic around there would be..</blockquote>


Agreed, the stuff on jamboree is a travesty with bare minimum for traffic ingress/egree and parking. While we all hate the village at specturm, it is certainly an attractively design community that appeals to the majority demographic, hence the community being fully leased.
 
Part of the few minutes of the council meeting that I watched, Christina Shea was praising the Village and its layout. I believe she said something to the effect that when she first saw the complex from the outside it looked ugly but was impressed with how it was designed once she saw the arrangement of the apartments and stores like Starbucks and Juice it Up.
 
[quote author="ABC123" date=1232682564]Part of the few minutes of the council meeting that I watched, Christina Shea was praising the Village and its layout. I believe she said something to the effect that when she first saw the complex from the outside it looked ugly but was impressed with how it was designed once she saw the arrangement of the apartments and stores like Starbucks and Juice it Up.</blockquote>


Mixed use is the opiate of the planning department.



I think that's the best looking 4 story apartment project in most of southern california and it actually has architectural lighting. I remember processing a project through city hall and they pointed to Camden's main and jamboree project as the ideal elevation and in line with their contemporary/modern architectural vision for the IBC. I didn't know that vision included alumnium siding.
 
[quote author="tkaratz" date=1232689659][quote author="ABC123" date=1232682564]Part of the few minutes of the council meeting that I watched, Christina Shea was praising the Village and its layout. I believe she said something to the effect that when she first saw the complex from the outside it looked ugly but was impressed with how it was designed once she saw the arrangement of the apartments and stores like Starbucks and Juice it Up.</blockquote>


Mixed use is the opiate of the planning department.



I think that's the best looking 4 story apartment project in most of southern california and it actually has architectural lighting. I remember processing a project through city hall and they pointed to Camden's main and jamboree project as the ideal elevation and in line with their contemporary/modern architectural vision for the IBC. I didn't know that vision included alumnium siding.</blockquote>


Because they will be in a great position when the market comes back and turn all these new apartments and sell them as condos. It may be a long time but it will happen.
 
[quote author="tkaratz" date=1232689659][quote author="ABC123" date=1232682564]Part of the few minutes of the council meeting that I watched, Christina Shea was praising the Village and its layout. I believe she said something to the effect that when she first saw the complex from the outside it looked ugly but was impressed with how it was designed once she saw the arrangement of the apartments and stores like Starbucks and Juice it Up.</blockquote>


Mixed use is the opiate of the planning department.



I think that's the best looking 4 story apartment project in most of southern california and it actually has architectural lighting. I remember processing a project through city hall and they pointed to Camden's main and jamboree project as the ideal elevation and in line with their contemporary/modern architectural vision for the IBC. I didn't know that vision included alumnium siding.</blockquote>


That's funny. My wife and friends were commenting on how Irvine is starting to resemble the slums of Rio with all the new condo/apt and their horrible color schemes. I guess the aluminum siding is the icing on the cake. It's tough to design Post-modern in an appealing way; it tends to be overdone and self defeating. Contemporary and Modern were much easier.
 
[quote author="kwong7" date=1232680303][quote author="momopi" date=1232675121]There are many people commuting to Irvine for work every day, who'd love to live closer to work.

You'd find them bagging your groceries at Ralphs, stocking shelves at Costco, and teaching at your local elementary school.

If these additional apartments and condos are made "affordable" for people who actually <em>work in Irvine</em>, I'm all for it.

If they work in <em>other cities</em>, then I don't believe it's Irvine's responsibility to provide affordable housing to them.</blockquote>


That's a very interesting point. I like the freedom to live and work wherever one chooses, but also believe in reinvesting in the community one lives. It'd also be a great way to reduce traffic to neighboring cities if more people worked in the cities in which they lived.</blockquote>


Please allow me to put it another way. If the City of Anaheim decides to pave over a block of old apartments and replace it with theme park or hotel expansions, I don't believe the City of Irvine is responsible for providing affordable housing for the Anaheim residents who were displaced.



I believe each city should be responsible (within reason) for its own affordable housing requirements. People who actually work in the city should be eligible, and given priority for affordable housing. This would hopefully reduce our reliance on the freeway to commute to work every day.



From urban planning perspective, cities should NOT be allowed to build only luxury homes. I don't care if the land in Newport City or Beverley Hills is expensive, they're still responsible for building affordable housing units for the waitresses, mail man, and teachers who work in the city.



=============



As for the Jamboree area, IAC has a "last option" to lease buildings and shops to Asian ethnic stores (see: Ranch 99 & Zion shopping plaza example). It may turn the area into Rowland Heights, but it'd never be a slum any time soon.
 
[quote author="momopi" date=1232675121]



From urban planning perspective, cities should NOT be allowed to build only luxury homes. I don't care if the land in Newport City or Beverley Hills is expensive, they're still responsible for building affordable housing units for the waitresses, mail man, and teachers who work in the city.



. </blockquote>


Momo,

That is exactly what happened to me and my little place near Crystal Cove. The city decided my little property was going to be a parking lot to better serve the apartment converted condos (IE their parking requirements). I could have held out, but my one lawyer to their SIX lawyers made quick work of that. Plus the judge politely informed me that it would be to my advantage to settle out of court. Joy.



anyways

-bix
 
[quote author="momopi" date=1232702642]

From urban planning perspective, cities should NOT be allowed to build only luxury homes. </blockquote>


This is also the contention of the SCAG, who further contends this is precisely what Irvine did (build upper end homes and push the common shlubs out). Alternatively, Irvine feels singled out because they build most recently, and the economics of development favor upper end homes (you can't give this shit away and make a profit? Who could have known?).



I'm pretty sure Stanton would trade problems with Irvine in a heartbeat, but I digress.........
 
[quote author="OCCOBRA" date=1232692083][quote author="tkaratz" date=1232689659][quote author="ABC123" date=1232682564]Part of the few minutes of the council meeting that I watched, Christina Shea was praising the Village and its layout. I believe she said something to the effect that when she first saw the complex from the outside it looked ugly but was impressed with how it was designed once she saw the arrangement of the apartments and stores like Starbucks and Juice it Up.</blockquote>


Mixed use is the opiate of the planning department.



I think that's the best looking 4 story apartment project in most of southern california and it actually has architectural lighting. I remember processing a project through city hall and they pointed to Camden's main and jamboree project as the ideal elevation and in line with their contemporary/modern architectural vision for the IBC. I didn't know that vision included alumnium siding.</blockquote>


Because they will be in a great position when the market comes back and turn all these new apartments and sell them as condos. It may be a long time but it will happen.</blockquote>
I would not be shocked at all if IAC does condo conversions on some of their apartment complexes when the market picks back up (however long that'll be).
 
[quote author="usctrojanman29" date=1232715558][quote author="OCCOBRA" date=1232692083][quote author="tkaratz" date=1232689659][quote author="ABC123" date=1232682564]Part of the few minutes of the council meeting that I watched, Christina Shea was praising the Village and its layout. I believe she said something to the effect that when she first saw the complex from the outside it looked ugly but was impressed with how it was designed once she saw the arrangement of the apartments and stores like Starbucks and Juice it Up.</blockquote>


Mixed use is the opiate of the planning department.



I think that's the best looking 4 story apartment project in most of southern california and it actually has architectural lighting. I remember processing a project through city hall and they pointed to Camden's main and jamboree project as the ideal elevation and in line with their contemporary/modern architectural vision for the IBC. I didn't know that vision included alumnium siding.</blockquote>


Because they will be in a great position when the market comes back and turn all these new apartments and sell them as condos. It may be a long time but it will happen.</blockquote>
I would not be shocked at all if IAC does condo conversions on some of their apartment complexes when the market picks back up (however long that'll be).</blockquote>


Depends upon how fast they can write down the apartment and make a profit. But knowing IAC, they will want a completely GROSS profit.

-bix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top