24

Status
Not open for further replies.
test said:
So people in Irvine have it good.

So the people shouldn't be complaining about their tiny backyards, it could be worse! 

How fair is it to compare SF to Irvine.  I would guess that close to half, perhaps more, SF residents don't even own a car. 
 
Topography, land availability and population density are good excuses for the tinyness of SF's real estate.

In Irvine, those reasons don't hold up as well. Irvine's main excuse for smaller and smaller lots and setbacks is profitability AKA greed.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Topography, land availability and population density are good excuses for the tinyness of SF's real estate.

In Irvine, those reasons don't hold up as well. Irvine's main excuse for smaller and smaller lots and setbacks is profitability AKA greed.

So there's no greed in SF.
 
as long as Asians continue buying Irvine homes with decreasing setbacks, the builders will continue to push the limit.

irvinehomeowner said:
Topography, land availability and population density are good excuses for the tinyness of SF's real estate.

In Irvine, those reasons don't hold up as well. Irvine's main excuse for smaller and smaller lots and setbacks is profitability AKA greed.
 
thelandofnoland said:
...slopes are nearly at a 60 degree incline...
Comments?

Since you asked...no, it's not even close to a 60 degree incline. I doubt it's even a 60 percent slope, which is only a 31 degree incline.
 
The California Court Company said:
as long as Asians continue buying Irvine homes with decreasing setbacks, the builders will continue to push the limit.

irvinehomeowner said:
Topography, land availability and population density are good excuses for the tinyness of SF's real estate.

In Irvine, those reasons don't hold up as well. Irvine's main excuse for smaller and smaller lots and setbacks is profitability AKA greed.

#3 school district in Southern CA, we are going to buy.  Not even the cemetery can stop us now...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top