Will Irvine change from bedroom community to metropolitan by 2020?

TIC seems intent on building lots of high density living areas. Lots of IAC units coming in the next 10 years, and lots of attached product in places like Woodbury.

The Irvine I lived in the past 15+ years was for the most part a sleepy bedroom community feeding into L.A proper and even San Diego. Now many companies are basing their HQs in Irvine (Hyundai Financial for example), and people are actually staying in Irvine for work rather than commuting into the city. Irvine has become an economic center in its own right, compared to where the city was in the mid-90s.

In terms of land size, Irvine is similar in size to Oakland, CA. Currently, Oakland's population stands at 390,000 (2010 Census). It's the 8th largest city in California, and considered the largest metropolitan area in the East Bay. Over the past decade, Irvine's population has increased by nearly 50%. If that rate continues, and I have no reason to believe it won't, that would put Irvine at about 320,000 people by 2020. Combined with Santa Ana (which is already a city of around 325,000 people), that would make Irvine-Santa Ana bigger than Seattle, Washington in less than a decade.

Something to think about.

Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

Still plenty of land for homes (The Great Park) and TIC is building apts like crazy... but traffic is so bad compared to 15-20 years ago.

Isn't that what some people like? Urban metropolis like NYC? The Great Park = Central Park, the Big Orange Balloon = Statue of Liberty, Pedestrian bridge connecting Woodbury to Cypress Village = Brooklyn Bridge?

irvinehomeowner said:

Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

Still plenty of land for homes (The Great Park) and TIC is building apts like crazy... but traffic is so bad compared to 15-20 years ago.

Isn't that what some people like? Urban metropolis like NYC? The Great Park = Central Park, the Big Orange Balloon = Statue of Liberty, Pedestrian bridge connecting Woodbury to Cypress Village = Brooklyn Bridge?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not sure if it's good or bad myself based on my own value system. On one hand, I think it would be great for the local economy if Irvine were to become a business and financial center for Orange County (it pretty much is already though not a municipal center). On the other hand, the suburb charm of Irvine from the 90s would disappear forever. Part of this discussion is based upon my desire to keep my home in Irvine as an inflation hedge because I do see Irvine becoming a bigger city in the next decade with correspondingly high increases in property values. By 2020, the elevated Irvine prices might actually make sense.

2020 is a good year. According to my calculation 2021 is the year where home prices will gain the biggest leap. To add to your theory Irvine will not become the metropolis as some of the cities you cited. When William Pereira carefully laid his master plan he envisioned it to be a super clean and an well oraganized suburb. Metropolis is a evolving city with an old downtown core with several iconic streets like Broadway and Blvds created 130 years ago or more. At that time the lack of planning, zonings, and fire codes permitted side by side vertical structures that allowed the topology uniquely downtown like Manhattan, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and Boston to flourish.  Today's planning mandates the setbacks between buildings and these gaps are used as open air parking lots. Irvine's car culture inhibits public transportation and vertical density. Zoning prevents the chaotic adaptive mix uses of residential, manufacturing, retails and restaurants that made an old downtown metropolis interesting and lively. One might argue that planning a new metropolis is possible like Dubai. It is a miserable failure.

Without the proper environment and setting Irvine will never become a metropolis that urbanites want to be. It is not the business or population count that define a metropolis but rather a setting that allow interesting and unpredictable developments to occur that attracts the people interested in eating off a sidewalk kiosk.

That's a valid point. Irvine lacks a true "downtown" that would form the core of a metropolitan city. The closest candidate I can think of is Jamboree from the 405 all the way to Barranca. It's a stretch I know.

As IHO put it the miniature golf version of Central Park, Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge are the reasons that separate the Boomers from the PGAs.

I?m not sure if you have kids or whether it?s paid off, what about keeping the home as a hedge against inflation for now and giving it to them as a place to live in the future?

Environment and history are the number one reason why certain cities become a major league player.

A good example is university campus. Inorder for a campus to be a top tier campus first there need to be classical or brick buildings around a courtyard on campus. Ivy on the walls would be a bonus.

This is the reason why UCI will never become a top tier college. UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Claremont, Cal Tech and Occidental all have features I described.

WoodburyDad said:

I?m not sure if you have kids or whether it?s paid off, what about keeping the home as a hedge against inflation for now and giving it to them as a place to live in the future?

Click to expand...

I bought in Irvine when they were selling 5 bedroom homes for the price of 2 bedroom condos today, so I'm not worried about a payoff. My kids are relatively young as well, and we just moved to CDM (although contractor work is keeping us out as of right now).

This is more of a future fantasy scenario that I thought might be interesting to discuss given Irvine seems to be on the precipice  of changing from sleepy suburb to bustling city.

irvinehomeshopper said:

This is the reason why UCI will never become a top tier college. UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Claremont, Cal Tech and Occidental all have features I described.

Click to expand...

I think UCI is beginning to build a reputation for certain fields. But putting ivy on the walls won't make it "ivy-league".

I didn't know UCLA was top tier... I thought Indie said any UC was lower tier.

irvinehomeowner said:

irvinehomeshopper said:

This is the reason why UCI will never become a top tier college. UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Claremont, Cal Tech and Occidental all have features I described.

Click to expand...

I think UCI is beginning to build a reputation for certain fields. But putting ivy on the walls won't make it "ivy-league".

I didn't know UCLA was top tier... I thought Indie said any UC was lower tier.

Click to expand...

UC Berk and UCLA are in the top tier of schools where UCI is in the second tier.

Indie, Irvine will not be a bustling city within your great grand kids lifetime.

USCTrojanCPA said:

irvinehomeowner said:

irvinehomeshopper said:

This is the reason why UCI will never become a top tier college. UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Claremont, Cal Tech and Occidental all have features I described.

Click to expand...

I think UCI is beginning to build a reputation for certain fields. But putting ivy on the walls won't make it "ivy-league".

I didn't know UCLA was top tier... I thought Indie said any UC was lower tier.

Click to expand...

UC Berk and UCLA are in the top tier of schools where UCI is in the second tier.

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Berkeley and UCLA actually have interesting research. UCI accepts 25% to 40% of the qualified people who apply any given year. Not exactly a great or super selective school.

irvinehomeshopper said:

Indie, Irvine will not be a bustling city within your great grand kids lifetime.

Click to expand...

Well by that time, Irvine will be desolate, and abandoned. The only thing dotting the landscape will be slightly black smoke spires from tire fires started by homeless vagrants.

Keep dreaming? I have never heard of a second tier at 50% acceptence rate. UCSD yes but UCI no.
http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2008/fall_2008_admissions_table_5.pdf

USCTrojanCPA said:

irvinehomeowner said:

irvinehomeshopper said:

This is the reason why UCI will never become a top tier college. UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Claremont, Cal Tech and Occidental all have features I described.

Click to expand...

I think UCI is beginning to build a reputation for certain fields. But putting ivy on the walls won't make it "ivy-league".

I didn't know UCLA was top tier... I thought Indie said any UC was lower tier.

Click to expand...

UC Berk and UCLA are in the top tier of schools where UCI is in the second tier.

Click to expand...

irvinehomeshopper said:

Environment and history are the number one reason why certain cities become a major league player.

A good example is university campus. Inorder for a campus to be a top tier campus first there need to be classical or brick buildings around a courtyard on campus. Ivy on the walls would be a bonus.

This is the reason why UCI will never become a top tier college. UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Claremont, Cal Tech and Occidental all have features I described.

Click to expand...

Those other schools are top notch but also seem very expensive.
I?m all for live at home with the parents and attend UCI
The amount of money we save can go toward paying for grad school, med school, or toward the down payment on a house.

OC employment centers in 2035

I like this thread. Interesting food for thought.

WoodburyDad said:

irvinehomeshopper said:

Environment and history are the number one reason why certain cities become a major league player.

A good example is university campus. Inorder for a campus to be a top tier campus first there need to be classical or brick buildings around a courtyard on campus. Ivy on the walls would be a bonus.

This is the reason why UCI will never become a top tier college. UCLA, Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Claremont, Cal Tech and Occidental all have features I described.

Click to expand...

Those other schools are top notch but also seem very expensive.
I?m all for live at home with the parents and attend UCI
The amount of money we save can go toward paying for grad school, med school, or toward the down payment on a house.

Click to expand...

It may save money to live at home, but I think dorm living is a very important part of the college experience. I think it ultimately disadvantages your child not to have that separation and independence (plus living with peers really helps kids make friends and feel like part of the campus community).

I really like Trace's answer lately.


I agree with her that is the only time a child learns to become an adult by leaving the tiger den and Helicopter parents.

The average educational loan amount the students are responsible for after attending the top tier private colleges is $15,000. Survey was among Stanford, Caltech, Claremont Colleges and the Ivy schools. The reason is the large private endowment amount these schools get to benefitting the few students attending the top tier schools.

Endowment for public universities are limited and often these money goes to glorifying the researching program rather than helping the poor undergrads.