Great Park vs Villages of Irvine

Which neighborhood do you prefer?

  • Great Park

    Votes: 6 13.3%
  • Villages of Irvine

    Votes: 34 75.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 11.1%

  • Total voters
    45

irvinehomeowner

Well-known member
So I know this gets discussed in every sub thread around here but reading some of these threads, there seems to be some big resistance to Great Park (mostly because of MRs).

When I look at price and floorplan comparisons... they don't seem too different other than VOI has more traditional exteriors vs GP's modern block homes. GP also seems to have more 3-story and rear-garage plans but I can't really be sure as I have not looked at all the hoods in both (is it just me or is VOI's website really slow?).

The one advantage I see for GP is the location (geography-wise... not the other toxic marine base claims) if you're working in the Spectrum (sure Barcelona is good too but they are pretty much done).

But with WFH, location becomes less of an issue and I can see why places like Portola Springs that was once considered "boondocky" is now preferable.

Either way... new homes are so expensive and now that some hoods have gone to "bidding wars" not sure if resale or new has any real advantage today.

But I guess it's all relative... and I thought buying earlier this decade was overpriced.
 
Personally I prefer Villages of Irvine, as their design language is consistently boring, which means in the long run 20-30 years later its going to age better. To me West Park was one of the first Villages I think that carried this design theme and I think it has aged well 20-25 years later.

GreatPark might not age well with their modern art deco, industrial, semi minimalist designs.

Each builder also has a different take on the exterior design of the homes, so that might make people happy that their home isn't like everyone else compared to the Villages.

Great Park also attracts more people since its closer proximity to amphitheatres, ice skating rink, parks, etc. So if you want to be in isolated quiet areas, I would stick to the Villages.

Also Irvine Pacific isn't playing weird games like having potential buyers bid up on releases. I seen some of the Great Park builders basically asking for highest bidder rather than working from a waitlist order.

 
ScottWilson said:
Personally I prefer Villages of Irvine, as their design language is consistently boring, which means in the long run 20-30 years later its going to age better. To me West Park was one of the first Villages I think that carried this design theme and I think it has aged well 20-25 years later.

GreatPark might not age well with their modern art deco, industrial, semi minimalist designs.

Each builder also has a different take on the exterior design of the homes, so that might make people happy that their home isn't like everyone else compared to the Villages.

Great Park also attracts more people since its closer proximity to amphitheatres, ice skating rink, parks, etc. So if you want to be in isolated quiet areas, I would stick to the Villages.

Also Irvine Pacific isn't playing weird games like having potential buyers bid up on releases. I seen some of the Great Park builders basically asking for highest bidder rather than working from a waitlist order.
I can't stand IP. Their homes and floor plans are all the same and copy and pasted to other areas in Irvine like Azul for example.
 
sleepy5136 said:
I can't stand IP. Their homes and floor plans are all the same and copy and pasted to other areas in Irvine like Azul for example.

While I tend to agree with that, the upside is if you liked the floorplan/model but didn't like the area... you can get it in another area. :)
 
Personally, I prefer Villages of Irvine.

I like VoI's floorplan more, but I do like GP's modern exterior more.

Although GP's location is more convenient, I still prefer PS/OH because I prefer residential neighborhood.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
sleepy5136 said:
I can't stand IP. Their homes and floor plans are all the same and copy and pasted to other areas in Irvine like Azul for example.

While I tend to agree with that, the upside is if you liked the floorplan/model but didn't like the area... you can get it in another area. :)

Well, if you come up with floorplans that people like, you tend to re-use them.

And really, you can shuffles the rooms around, but there's only so much you can do. Basically, you HAVE TO put kitchen, great room, dining room, possibly another bedroom + bath downstairs and the other bedrooms + baths, laundry room, and possibly loft upstairs.
 
I prefer Irvine Company's Common Area's / Pools / Playgrounds / Home Exteriors, but prefer GP's Floorplans and Lot Sizes. 

If only we could get a fusion of these 2.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
But with WFH, location becomes less of an issue and I can see why places like Portola Springs that was once considered "boondocky" is now preferable.

Is it wrong of me to still consider Portola Springs and Orchard Hills "boondocky" ?

I can't be the only one with the bias for west of the 405.  :)
 
CalBears96 said:
irvinehomeowner said:
sleepy5136 said:
I can't stand IP. Their homes and floor plans are all the same and copy and pasted to other areas in Irvine like Azul for example.

While I tend to agree with that, the upside is if you liked the floorplan/model but didn't like the area... you can get it in another area. :)

Well, if you come up with floorplans that people like, you tend to re-use them.

And really, you can shuffles the rooms around, but there's only so much you can do. Basically, you HAVE TO put kitchen, great room, dining room, possibly another bedroom + bath downstairs and the other bedrooms + baths, laundry room, and possibly loft upstairs.
I forgot to mention it's not only the inside, but the outside is copied too or very darn similar.
 
sleepy5136 said:
CalBears96 said:
irvinehomeowner said:
sleepy5136 said:
I can't stand IP. Their homes and floor plans are all the same and copy and pasted to other areas in Irvine like Azul for example.

While I tend to agree with that, the upside is if you liked the floorplan/model but didn't like the area... you can get it in another area. :)

Well, if you come up with floorplans that people like, you tend to re-use them.

And really, you can shuffles the rooms around, but there's only so much you can do. Basically, you HAVE TO put kitchen, great room, dining room, possibly another bedroom + bath downstairs and the other bedrooms + baths, laundry room, and possibly loft upstairs.
I forgot to mention it's not only the inside, but the outside is copied too or very darn similar.

I guess IP likes the Mediterranean style.  ;D
 
CalBears96 said:
sleepy5136 said:
CalBears96 said:
irvinehomeowner said:
sleepy5136 said:
I can't stand IP. Their homes and floor plans are all the same and copy and pasted to other areas in Irvine like Azul for example.

While I tend to agree with that, the upside is if you liked the floorplan/model but didn't like the area... you can get it in another area. :)

Well, if you come up with floorplans that people like, you tend to re-use them.

And really, you can shuffles the rooms around, but there's only so much you can do. Basically, you HAVE TO put kitchen, great room, dining room, possibly another bedroom + bath downstairs and the other bedrooms + baths, laundry room, and possibly loft upstairs.
I forgot to mention it's not only the inside, but the outside is copied too or very darn similar.

I guess IP likes the Mediterranean style.  ;D
anddd....no driveway for single story 2.3m home... that....is..just..not..right....!!!
 
Kenkoko said:
irvinehomeowner said:
But with WFH, location becomes less of an issue and I can see why places like Portola Springs that was once considered "boondocky" is now preferable.

Is it wrong of me to still consider Portola Springs and Orchard Hills "boondocky" ?

I can't be the only one with the bias for west of the 405.  :)

There is nothing wrong with preferring convenience, but I prefer the "boondocky" Portola Springs because it's a nice quiet neighborhood.
 
CalBears96 said:
There is nothing wrong with preferring convenience, but I prefer the "boondocky" Portola Springs because it's a nice quiet neighborhood.

Yep. And that's the point... if you're WFH and you don't need to go out and about every day... most people would prefer to live in the more distant, quiet (and elevated) areas.

I mean, why are people paying so much to live in the "boondocky" areas of Lake Forest (and that area doesn't have the elevation of Foothill Ranch)?
 
just had a debate with my wife. For the same price, would you want
either
1. View lot but a smaller house (let?s say 2100 sqft)

or
2. No view lot, but against a slope so some privacy and a bigger house (let?s say 3400 sqft)

all else bing equal to the extent possible.

She prefers view lot but my argument we spend more time indoors, so bigger house is more practical.



 
depends on stage in life

kid(s), def bigger house, you will end up 'things'

no kids (either before or approaching empty nest), def view and smaller house
 
The California Court Company said:
just had a debate with my wife. For the same price, would you want
either
1. View lot but a smaller house (let?s say 2100 sqft)

or
2. No view lot, but against a slope so some privacy and a bigger house (let?s say 3400 sqft)

all else bing equal to the extent possible.

She prefers view lot but my argument we spend more time indoors, so bigger house is more practical.

I would go with view lot but smaller house, but 2100 sq ft is a bit small, 2500-2600 sq ft. would be perfect.  ;D

I mean, bigger house is nice, but something like 3400 sq ft is way to big anyway. My current house is 3309 sq ft, so I know how wasteful it is.

Personally, I think the fact that you spend more time indoors makes the view lot even better. I mean, you choose the view lot BECAUSE you get the view from INSIDE your house, right? On the other hand, if you spend less time at home, then against the slope to give privacy would be sufficient.
 
Ready2Downsize said:
The California Court Company said:
just had a debate with my wife. For the same price, would you want
either
1. View lot but a smaller house (let?s say 2100 sqft)

or
2. No view lot, but against a slope so some privacy and a bigger house (let?s say 3400 sqft)

all else bing equal to the extent possible.

She prefers view lot but my argument we spend more time indoors, so bigger house is more practical.

Avoid the slope, no matter what size the house is. I can't say enough........ avoid the slope.

Curious, what is the issue with the slope?
 
Wow most people prefer the view lot.
I forgot to say for the same price, half year ago we saw a house, single story, 3CWG and driveway, 2800 sqft, view lot , on a cul de sac, enough backyard space to build infinity pool, zoned for a top 50 ranked HS in the state, not backed to a major street,  for the same price as the two examples I gave today. Probably we should have gambled and emptied our investment fund to get that house.
 
Back
Top