New Homes in Woodbury East and Woodbury

[quote author="pleasantville0001" date=1255487304]From the website,



Plan 2

From $640,000

2,090 Square Feet ($306/sq ft)

3 Bedrooms

3.5 Bathrooms



Plan 3

From $704,000

2,643 Square Feet ($266/sq ft)

4 Bedrooms

4 Bathrooms



That's pretty attractive pricing for WB per sq ft. I wonder what they're throwing into the base models in terms of upgrades like they were before? I would think barebones based on this new bubble they're riding. How does the pricing compare to the last release of WB East? If it's anything like that, I wouldn't be surprised if people are already camped outside the construction site.



(yay my first post, just wanted to say hi. Found the site a couple months ago, great resource, just wish I found out about it sooner!)</blockquote>


Price per sq ft looks great, but I notice they neglected to make any mention of the effective tax rate or HOA on their website. If tax rate is anywhere near the 2.2% or whatever it is at Woodbury East Ivy, $704k is going to look ugly real fast....
 
[quote author="USCTrojanCPA" date=1255527650]CK, don't forget the $400 in HOA fees each month. That can add up quickly.</blockquote>


Wow... No thanks.



At a 6% interest rate, $600 / month gets you an extra $100K in purchase price. I think I would rather get more house for my money rather than more HOA.



Also, Lennar is the builder. Weren't they the geniuses that thought <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lennar+chinese+drywall&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8"> using Chinese drywall</a> was a good idea?
 
2,643sf - 2,090 sf= 553 sf (Size difference)



704k-640k= 64k (price difference)



64k/553sf=$116/sf (cost per sf builder makes on larger home)



553sf x ($89/sf construction cost)= $50k (cost per sf to build the extra sf for the larger home)



64k-50k=14k (The builder is not making much on the 553sf difference)



This is the theory of BagOChip theory. Pump up the footage on the house because it is relatively cheap to do so on the same piece of land. The value ratio immediately drops to $266/sf. Seriously do you really need that big of a house?



In 1950s family size was 3.7 and average home size was 1,100 sf. In 2,000s family size was 2.4 and average home size was 2,100 sf. Family size has become smaller and house got bigger. We live in a society of over consumption.



The challenge is how to provide entry level detached homes 1,200sf - 1,550sf for the newbies when homes could not be put on steroid, stacked and attached and still be $266/sf.



In 1960s retail space was 3.5 sf/ person and today 15sf/person. We supersize everything in our live from a fast food meal to our daily life in our consumption.



In 1970s 10% of cars were large size pick up trucks varieties. Todays 38% of cars are SUVs and 12% are passenger vans and pick up trucks. 50% of cars are large cars today vs 10% in the 70's.



Homes and shopping centers we lived in are created in the labs of national corporate headquarters. Many creators don't even visit the sites. The solutions were preconceived formulas to standardize fast production (look at how fast a home is being built). This is the reason why all suburbs have the same appearance.



We live our lives in supersizing and fast velocity. We want high speed in everything we do and must have. We have no patience in old school research but fingertip goofu. We are trying to pack in more quantity of productivity as well measuring our lives in the quantity of possessions.



Slow down. Look for quality rather than quantity. Buy a few things of quality but cherish it for life and not quantity of things that end up in a 3CWG. The same wisdom should also go for a home. Buy a property that offers you a quality of life and not the misery of having to move in every few years.
 
This is the mentality of new money folks. I want quantity but I can't really afford the proper country size estate house. I still want my palatial McMansion NOW with Caesar Palace entry statement on a stamp size lot but the front door is forced to the side with 3 SUVs parked on the driveway because the garage is full of quantity goods from the big box warehouse retails. The mansions are only 10' apart with privacy rescued by Levelors.



Is this the definition of "size matters"?
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1255571465]This is the mentality of new money folks. I want quantity but I can't really afford the proper country size estate house. I still want my palatial McMansion NOW with Caesar Palace entry statement on a stamp size lot but the front door is forced to the side with 3 SUVs parked on the driveway because the garage is full of quantity goods from the big box warehouse retails. The mansions are only 10' apart with privacy rescued by Levelors.



Is this the definition of "size matters"?</blockquote>
That's the definition of "hyperbole".



I don't blame people for wanting bigger space, it's more relaxing and less cluttered. Believe me, I just moved from a nearly 4000sft house to something less than half... it's not about new money or McMansioning... it's just preference. Sure it's nice I can get to the kitchen from the front door in like seconds but there is something to be said about having separate spaces and being able to have discrete areas for different activities and furnishings.



My mini-van can fit 8 passengers... sure a SmartCar will save more gas but it can't get my family and their cousins to Target or wherever in one trip.



That's how "size matters".
 
It is about your preference of lifestyle. Personal space is about 250 sf per resident in a home and that is a 15x16 space for luxury. A 4,000 sf home is designed for 16 residents. An Extreme Makeover house with 4,000 sf was built recently for a white firefighter family of 4 with 12 black orphan black kids from Haiti.



I am sorry to say that you were living a life of over consumption in footage.



If you make an effort then you can modify your life to consume less space.



To have a green environment we all will need to make effort starting with less footage=less energy consumption.
 
Does anybody know what percentage of all the homes in Irvine are 4000 square feet and above? Does 10% sound about right? I've noticed that homes do not get much larger than 4000 square feet from anything north of Quail Hills.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1255573249]It is about your preference of lifestyle. Personal space is about 250 sf per resident in a home and that is a 15x16 space for luxury. A 4,000 sf home is designed for 16 residents. An Extreme Makeover house with 4,000 sf was built recently for a white firefighter family of 4 with 12 black orphan black kids from Haiti.



I am sorry to say that you were living a life of over consumption in footage.</blockquote>
Oh believe me... it was way too big... but it was nice living there. It was the first time we could have a family party and no one was in the garage.



Sure, a family of 4 can probably fit in 1000sf, but it would be very cramped and no one can have their own room nor do you have the ability to house guests or be able to entertain. If I can afford more space, why front on me if I do? Personally, I think 2500-3000 is good for a family of 4/5.



250sf per person? That's not right, you have to take into account access halls, closets, bathrooms, shared space, etc etc. Even if they fit 16 people into 4000sft... did they fit 12 bedrooms in that house too? Sounds like lots of lack of privacy to me. Let's see how that works out when they become teenagers.



You design houses for a living, you know well as I that people want more space... stop hyper-bowling.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1255573935][quote author="bkshopr" date=1255573249]It is about your preference of lifestyle. Personal space is about 250 sf per resident in a home and that is a 15x16 space for luxury. A 4,000 sf home is designed for 16 residents. An Extreme Makeover house with 4,000 sf was built recently for a white firefighter family of 4 with 12 black orphan black kids from Haiti.



I am sorry to say that you were living a life of over consumption in footage.</blockquote>
Oh believe me... it was way too big... but it was nice living there. It was the first time we could have a family party and no one was in the garage.



Sure, a family of 4 can probably fit in 1000sf, but it would be very cramped and no one can have their own room nor do you have the ability to house guests or be able to entertain. If I can afford more space, why front on me if I do? Personally, I think 2500-3000 is good for a family of 4/5.



250sf per person? That's not right, you have to take into account access halls, closets, bathrooms, shared space, etc etc. Even if they fit 16 people into 4000sft... did they fit 12 bedrooms in that house too? Sounds like lots of lack of privacy to me. Let's see how that works out when they become teenagers.



You design houses for a living, you know well as I that people want more space... stop hyper-bowling.</blockquote>


There are plenty of 1,200 sf houses in central OC with 4 BRs for family of 5.



Sorry, I never came across designing for people wanting more space. It is always greedy developers wanting more density.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1255573935][quote author="bkshopr" date=1255573249]It is about your preference of lifestyle. Personal space is about 250 sf per resident in a home and that is a 15x16 space for luxury. A 4,000 sf home is designed for 16 residents. An Extreme Makeover house with 4,000 sf was built recently for a white firefighter family of 4 with 12 black orphan black kids from Haiti.



I am sorry to say that you were living a life of over consumption in footage.</blockquote>
Oh believe me... it was way too big... but it was nice living there. It was the first time we could have a family party and no one was in the garage.



Sure, a family of 4 can probably fit in 1000sf, but it would be very cramped and no one can have their own room nor do you have the ability to house guests or be able to entertain. If I can afford more space, why front on me if I do? Personally, I think 2500-3000 is good for a family of 4/5.



250sf per person? That's not right, you have to take into account access halls, closets, bathrooms, shared space, etc etc. Even if they fit 16 people into 4000sft... did they fit 12 bedrooms in that house too? Sounds like lots of lack of privacy to me. Let's see how that works out when they become teenagers.



You design houses for a living, you know well as I that people want more space... stop hyper-bowling.</blockquote>


You are spoiling your kids by giving them their own room and luxury and later in life they will ask you for the moon with sense of entitlement. They may even expect a handout for buying their homes. Does this sound like your FCB theory? Many Irvine kids are this way because their parent allowed it.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1255575325]

You are spoiling your kids by giving them their own room and luxury and later in life they will ask you for the moon with sense of entitlement. They may even expect a handout for buying their homes. Does this sound like your FCB theory? Many Irvine kids are this way because their parent allowed it.</blockquote>
So do you, GK and your daughter all share a room?



It's not FCB theory... it's called working hard so that my kids can have that "luxury". Granted they end up sleeping in the same room or in our room but they have their own space with their own furniture , toys and clothes (although my clothes are in one of their closets because our closet is too small).



I sense the pseudo-snob label you are steering at and it's not going to work... it's 2009, we are in Irvine (not a foreign country) and that is the standard way of life... not preferred. Heck... when I was living in the LA suburbs I had my own room... maybe I'm a king after all.
 
Bk, it's not because I can live in a 1,000 house that I want to. If I can afford what you call luxury (which I see as basics for me) then what is the problem? I work hard everyday since I'm young to get where I'm at today. Now you're telling me I shouldn't enjoy it? Am I a bad person if I live in a big house? Am I wasting energy? What about all those people not driving an hybrid or watering their grass? What about those not giving to charity or spending time in their community, will you go after them too?



I would love to live in these 6,000 sf homes in Crystal Cove with a few, wine cellar, game room, exercise room, media room, 5 bedrooms, office, kitchen, etc. Now that would be a bad thing?



My kids won't be spoiled because they get their own bedroom. They would be spoiled if I said yes to everything they ever wanted. I can give them a lot and teach them the right things and they will be educated correctly (as far as I am concerned at least).



You make it sound like less is more. More is more...that's it.
 
There is a big difference between kids having their own room in a 2,300 sf house vs kids having their own room in your previous 4,000 sf home. The 1,250 sf houses in central OC also have a separate BRs for each of the 3 kids but certainly it does not meet the 2009 lifestyle standard.



My 2,000 sf home is too big for my family. When we bought the beautiful yard and avocado tree the house came with it. How many do you have in the family to live in a 4,000 sf house?
 
Chasing after materialistic dream is an addiction and it will never stop. You will want more and more. After the basement home theater and wine cellar you would want the basement garages of the Joneses. I am not telling you to go live in a shack but be content with what will deliver you a good life but not an extravagant life. You are missing my point here. I am not telling you to deprive your kids and make them share a room. Having their own room is fine and they will turn out just fine. Having their own room in a 4,000-6,000 sf house with materialistic appetite at young age is too excessive.
 
Living in Irvine, OC, or suburban CA in general can skew our perception of what's normal. Size of US families has steadily decreased over the last few generations while the size of our homes has increased. Siblings sharing a bedroom - what is that a crazy concept now? I can't recall a television sitcom pre-mid 90s where the kids in the show didn't share bedrooms.



<em>According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average home size in the United States was 2,330 square feet in 2004, up from 1,400 square feet in 1970.</em>



Americans no longer know what it means to live efficiently in all manners of life. The size of homes has gone up 66% while the size of families has gone down 66%. These days everyone is complaining about not enough space. Homes prior to the 90s rarely had walk-in closets but these days that's standard but everyone still gripes about closet space. Despite more room in the homes, people still can't manage to clear enough room in their garages to park a car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top