Why is Portola Spring a Flop?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I wondered why TW went downhill and now I know why. They took on people who only have experience from two builders who build garbage. Thanks bkshopr now I have another builder to add to the list of do not buy from.
 
can you please explain:





a builder, like TW, undergoes high turnover. how does that affect the actual floorplans they use? i was under the impression that builders have a binder of proprietary old floor plans, then whip out the binder every time they win a bid to build new homes.





thank you
 
My biggest problem with PS is that it is way too far away from the freeway (no, the 133 doesn't count). It takes 10 minute minimum just to get to the 5. At that point, I might as well live in Foothill Ranch for half the price.





As for the houses themselves, I'm okay with them. I wish that there was more originality to them. Several of the community have the same home plans as others in Irvine (Woodbury) or in the IE.
 
For me, it was definitely price - and high taxes, and high HOA fees. Buying a home at PS would be like repealing the 13th Amendment, except your masters would be the bank, HOA, and community facilities district(s). The distance doesn't bother me, nor the landfill (it's new, incorporates the new linings, and water is pumped in from elsewhere in any event). I'm just not going to pay $900K for a paired attached home or a detached condo. Sorry, no.
 
<p>I think everything mentioned matters much less than overly-ambitious <strong>pricing and taxes</strong> just when the market was struggling to maintain altitude. The biggest issue with re-use was not the product but the plain-as-day pricing comparisons to the last version of said neighborhood elsewhere in Irvine.</p>

<p>Overpriced but Original product would hardly have made a difference.</p>

<p>After a few builder defections they will eventually lower prices. </p>

<p>SCHB</p>
 
I don't understand who the target market is for some of the developments there. Paloma is one such development. $800k gets you no driveway, no privacy, a 4 foot deep side yard that might as well be shared with the neighbor and bizarre floorplan layouts. They spend the time to include ridiculously large bathrooms, but give you absolutely no outside space. These wont appeal to families with kids and I don't see retired folks willing to blow almost 1Mill on these. Just who are these designed for?





Another issue with Portola that others have raised is that it really is out in the boonies of Irvine. It feels like you are driving to RSM or Foothill Ranch. I can understand placing product in a far location if you can offer more lot space, but that isn't the case here. The lots are stingy and have no privacy. It just feels like a sardine can in the middle of vast empty farm fields.





There is also the issue of the insane tax/mello roos and HOA fees. Most people laugh and walk away when they see how high these cost. Must be fun paying the steep mello roos with no elementary school to show for it.
 
The pricing strategy in Portola makes no sense to me. I can understand price premiums if lot space, location, amenities, or home design commands a premium, but in Portola's case, none these apply. Then you get slapped with the 1.8% mello roos and property tax... On 1M home, do you really want to pay $18000 a year just to be in Portola Springs? I think not. Maybe when the great park is built out it, PS may have some appeal, but why gamble on such a hefty price tag when newer developments are likely to be cheaper in few years time.





When my wife and I were out there, we were like, is this still irvine? I've never been out here before, where is this place?









 
<p>irvine_native,</p>

<p>Why do you say the floorplans are bizarre?</p>

<p>I liked a couple of them quite a bit.</p>

<p>I guess I just feel that people simply expect too much from a small-ish product like this.</p>

<p>After doing the 3,600 sq. ft. / big lot thing, to me it's refreshing to get back to a simpler existence.</p>

<p>I do think the outside spaces are very tight, but am still OK with it overall.</p>
 
Well, I come from a different background. Family of 4 in 1200 sq. ft (now 1800 sq. ft. with a massive back yard where we spend most of our free time). I wouldn't consider these homes smallish. To me they are large and they waste the space that they have. The layout of space just in portola didn't seem efficient to me. I place a high value on outdoor space and privacy. In one of the plans, I forget which one, the neighbors second floor windows look down into your living room/kitchen area from just a few feet away. Yuck. 30 year old condos in Woodbridge, Turtle Rock and University park have more privacy than this and they actually have yards big enough for kids to play in. You would think that in 30 years they would make better condos, but the opposite seems to be true.





The plans seem to pad the square footage in a wasteful manner. Paloma plan 3 gives you 2400 sq foot 3 bedrooms, but it lacks sense. For example, the master bathroom is three times as large as the downstairs "office". 2400 sq. ft. for a 3 bedroom and you can't put in a decent downstairs office/den? The upstairs loft wouldn't cut it for me as I need to do real work in the office and need to lock the kids out. Funny how our 1800 sq ft home seems bigger than these 2400 sq ft homes.





Here you are out in the boonies of Irvine yet there is no sense of space. If I'm going to buy something so dense, I would like it to be in walking or biking distance of my Job. Portola Springs is ultra dense housing in the middle of... farmland?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top