No Quarter said:
If you run a business and you produce less units, the marginal cost per unit is higher than if you produce more units. The fixed cost is the same regardless. Building homes is no different, the land is only 1 input that goes into the equation. Site prep, utility relocation, contract letting for labor & materials, 3rd party negotiations for permitting, zoning, environmental studies, community outreach, marketing, staging of materials, sequencing of tasks, integration activities and management of vendors all need to occur. Building 600 hundred homes vs. 200 would mean the builder is able to negotiate lower rates for materials and labor.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the original number was 200. From what I remember looking at the plans, it looked like there was originally going to be some attached housing so for all we know, the original number was also 600 but detaching them required using up the open space.
Yes, i do know folks at TIC. You may know people over there too. Ask your people about this and we can compare notes.
I don't know anyone at TIC... but maybe that's why I can be less biased towards their practices. Maybe you can ask them how many units did the original LA plan have.
Just as I don't claim to know everything that happens in your neighborhood, I would think that its very disingenuous for you to claim that you are sure what residents over here think. How is that possible that you speak for the majority of residents unless you live here and are talking to them regularly? I would counter that you are only speculating what people here think, unless you are the NSA.
Disingenuous? There is a difference between saying "I'm sure
SOME" and "speak for the majority". Spying accusations aside, I'm just using common sense that there is always *some* people who are unhappy with any situation.
Again with the paseo? Why get hung up on something that didn't happen?
I'm not hung up, I was just asking you (objectively) if you thought the original plan was better than the current one. It's okay, you're not being graded.
In the interest of full disclosure, where in Irvine did you buy?
I bought long ago. I have lived in Woodbridge, Northwood, Quail Hill, Westpark II and few others. Not sure how where I live is relevant to whether or not *you* prefer more open space in your neighborhood but if you're asking me... YES... I prefer more open space than more density.
As far as the mello roos, how are you sure that the prices of Lambert Ranch didn't have the cost of what mello roos would have been baked in? You indicated that you thought William Lyon was doing that in their development. Why would the New Home Company not seek the same sort of margin?
I believe LR has gone on record saying that what would otherwise be MRs were incorporated into pricing. I think I have a post here somewhere where I also questioned that because I didn't think there was very much MR costs to begin with.
Is that better than paying for infrastructure? Are those people getting ripped off as well?
But look at the pricing/sqft difference. For $1mil+ in LR, you get a much larger home and lot than the WL projects. LR pricing is actually in line with other TIC projects at the same prices points but without having to pay MRs, so maybe they're actually getting a better deal.
My question wasn't comparing LA to LR, my question was about the amount of MRs comparing LA to Stonegate or any other TIC project where you pay for MRs. If the MR costs are the same, what exactly are you paying for in LA? No schools, less public roads, less infrastructure. And if they did build more homes than originally planned, MRs should be even lower right? I think it's an honest question but if you don't want to answer it, that's fine.
