Irvine2Irvine
New member
Patrick Star said:
Where would you have to go to find a such house in a new development?
The Irvine Company becomes a builder again...
- Thread starter irvinehomeowner
- Start date
Where would you have to go to find a such house in a new development?
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
In Irvine? With a time machine.Irvine2Irvine said:
iacrenter
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
LOL...
Yes, sad but true. We will not see these type of homes unless you start paying Shady Canyon prices.
I even fear that Orchard Hills priced at $1M+ will also be turned into a Bag of Chips as well--an expensive one at that.
If you are willing to buy older resale homes in Irvine, there are villages that better match BK's rules.
iacrenter
Well-known member
test said:
The problem is that people are paying way too much for too little. They think they are getting a bargain when in fact they are getting fluff. Consumers deserve better.
I think the collapsed RE market and significant downturn in the economy has forced many consumers to reevaluate their priorities. The trend in building now is more toward Green construction, smaller homes, and efficiency. Toward that end, floor plan design is critical. Too often, builders add useless space to a home's sq footage.
Again BK has more wisdom for us in that area as well:
http://www.talkirvine.com/index.php?topic=274.msg2824#msg2824
"Here is rule of thumb.
Garage laundry
1,060 sf = 2 master BRs / 2.5 ba
1,250 sf = 2BR+ loft /2.5 ba
1,450 sf = 3BR /2.5ba
All inside laundry
1,700 sf = 4BR / 3ba + Great Room
2,150 sf = 4BR/ 3ba + 5th BR down + Great Room
2,250 sf = separate formal dining + 4BR +Great Room
Formal Livings
2,300 sf = Separate family room + 4 BR
2,650 sf = Separate living, dining and family +4 BR + bonus
If any footage higher than posted and offers less rooms then you are buying an inefficient floor plan. High sellable footage but low livable space.
This is the BagOCheesePuff theory (fill up the bag fast but still there is nothing there to eat).
Take the Juliette Balcony plan with 5 BR posted at 3400 sf and create an efficiency ratio.
2,150sf/3,400 sf=63%
90%=A
80%=B
70%=C
60%=D "
Irvine2Irvine
New member
I think that is HIGHLY subjectable.
In my hunt for a house, my wife and I looked at a lot of houses. Most were newer homes around 2300-2800 sq ft and had higher efficiency ratio than the 2010 collection. Only problem was that many of these homes feel cramped even with some having vaulted ceiling. We just didn't feel the need for formal dining room and nook. We also prefered larger great room over separate living room and familyroom. We also liked the open kitchen. We didn't want a lot of "rooms" of tiny sizes, but wanted less rooms but more open spaces.
The efficiency ratio may look great on paper.
90%=A
80%=B
70%=C
60%=D
But, the formula failed on understanding what we want out of our particular house.
In my hunt for a house, my wife and I looked at a lot of houses. Most were newer homes around 2300-2800 sq ft and had higher efficiency ratio than the 2010 collection. Only problem was that many of these homes feel cramped even with some having vaulted ceiling. We just didn't feel the need for formal dining room and nook. We also prefered larger great room over separate living room and familyroom. We also liked the open kitchen. We didn't want a lot of "rooms" of tiny sizes, but wanted less rooms but more open spaces.
The efficiency ratio may look great on paper.
90%=A
80%=B
70%=C
60%=D
But, the formula failed on understanding what we want out of our particular house.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I2I:
That rule of thumb is accurate for what it's meant for... space efficiency. What you are arguing for is personal preference which would of course differ from those guidelines.
If you look at the section under Inside Laundry, you will see 3 products for Great Room homes... all of which are exceeded by 2010 homes. While I like open floorplans too, much of the space is wasted. I've seen 1800 sft 4/3 homes that feel just as large as their 3/2 2345 sft home (Sonoma Plan 1). Many of the CalPac products are great at space efficiency.
That rule of thumb is accurate for what it's meant for... space efficiency. What you are arguing for is personal preference which would of course differ from those guidelines.
If you look at the section under Inside Laundry, you will see 3 products for Great Room homes... all of which are exceeded by 2010 homes. While I like open floorplans too, much of the space is wasted. I've seen 1800 sft 4/3 homes that feel just as large as their 3/2 2345 sft home (Sonoma Plan 1). Many of the CalPac products are great at space efficiency.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Oooo... IHO like.
Here's the floorplan:
And I think maybe they should rebrand that school district to TRWIUSD (Tustin Ranch West Irvine Unified School District)... because we know that those schools are just as good (if not better) than the IUSD ones.
Here's the floorplan:
And I think maybe they should rebrand that school district to TRWIUSD (Tustin Ranch West Irvine Unified School District)... because we know that those schools are just as good (if not better) than the IUSD ones.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Interestingly enough... there is probably just as much a dearth in Tustin Ranch homes as Irvine.
Pricewise they are pretty close except the homes are usually newer than some of the other Irvine 'hoods. I saw some 3WCGs for mid $700s but those went quick.
I think we are probably going to go into hibernate mode and try to save as much money as we can until 2013. But at the rate TIC is raising prices on new builds... a home in Laguna Crossings is going to require a $500k down (and that's on a 3.5% FHA loan... bwahaha!).
Pricewise they are pretty close except the homes are usually newer than some of the other Irvine 'hoods. I saw some 3WCGs for mid $700s but those went quick.
I think we are probably going to go into hibernate mode and try to save as much money as we can until 2013. But at the rate TIC is raising prices on new builds... a home in Laguna Crossings is going to require a $500k down (and that's on a 3.5% FHA loan... bwahaha!).
iacrenter
Well-known member
Patrick Star said:irvinehomeowner said:
Case in point is this recent listing in Vidorra which has captured my interest --- if only to see how it is executed. 4 bedrooms with one downstairs in 1,770 sq ft --- and judging from the pictures the family/dining/kitchen space are certainly adequate although not grand.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tustin/10258-Boyd-Dr-92782/home/4776332
Now I understand of course most on Talk Irvine would not find this an acceptable option as it zoned to Peter's Canyon, Pioneer, and Beckman. But to those of us who know better, this is a very attractive alternative to the Woodbury Collection.
+1, great location and good schools in the area. I also like that floor plan as well.
I just hope when people plunk down their money into TIC Bag of Chips they really know what they are getting and what are the nearby alternatives. Yes TIC pushes shiny new products, but that doesn't mean it is always better.
Irvine2Irvine
New member
Tustin Ranch is basically same as Irvine. It was owned by the Irvine Company before being developed and was developed just like Irvine. I remember back in 1995, they had exactly the same floorplan by same builder selling in Irvine and Tustin Ranch. Yes, Irvine was slightly more expensive, but not by much. We looked at houses in Tustin Ranch, and I actually would not have minded buying in Tustin Ranch this year except for my kids being in APAAS program in Irvine school district. We actually prefer Tustin Ranch over West Irvine.
As for the listing above, I do remember looking at 1700+ sq ft 4 bedroom houses in Tustin Ranch and West Irvine a few years ago and I recall that downstairs were REALLY cramped and tiny. Yes, they have high efficiency and they have a lot of "rooms" for given the square footage, but it felt like being in my friends townhome in Garden Grove. It was almost claustrophobic. It reminded me of my childhood living in a 1100 sq ft house which had 3 br, living room, family room and nook(dining room). Now, that efficiency has to be way above 100%!!! It still sucked to live there...
As for the listing above, I do remember looking at 1700+ sq ft 4 bedroom houses in Tustin Ranch and West Irvine a few years ago and I recall that downstairs were REALLY cramped and tiny. Yes, they have high efficiency and they have a lot of "rooms" for given the square footage, but it felt like being in my friends townhome in Garden Grove. It was almost claustrophobic. It reminded me of my childhood living in a 1100 sq ft house which had 3 br, living room, family room and nook(dining room). Now, that efficiency has to be way above 100%!!! It still sucked to live there...
Irvine2Irvine
New member
Toyota corolla has 5 seats while being a much smaller car than the 5 seater Toyota Avalon. The Corolla has much higher efficiency but it sure is nicer to spread out in an Avalon. I know it's not the same but you can apply some of that logic to houses. As people pay higher price for nicer homes, many prefer open floorplan and larger "rooms". Of course, if you are buying a house for extended family, you would prefer a high efficiency with as many rooms as possible.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
No, your analogy is not the same. We are talking about the same footprint but different execution of space.Irvine2Irvine said:
It would work if you were talking about a car with the same size as the Avalon but only a two-seater. Much more space for the two occupants but not very efficient since it can fit 5 people comfortably. You are basically paying the same price for less... and that's important when we are talking *family* homes (which seems to be the focus of WB)... not single/DINK homes (like WBE).
iacrenter
Well-known member
ps99472 said:
But does the layout work for you and your family? Are you happy with the amount of space for your needs? I think that is more important than what your visitors think. Unfortunately, this is part of the reason we got into this RE mess in the 1st place--too much emphasis on bigger is always better.
Choice and competition is always a good thing. I'm happy there are buyers who love their new TIC homes and I am still happier there is always resale homes (sometimes with better layouts/locations/value) to keep them honest. If only we could get more resale inventory in the Irvine market...that is another story.
Irvine2Irvine
New member
I think it really matters how you look at it. You are looking at putting different number of rooms in a same size house. I am looking from a point of view of having same number of rooms in differnt size home. It's a matter of preference. All I am pointing out is that because a house doesn't fit a efficiency ratio to the optiamum, it doesn't mean it is not a nice house for someon else.irvinehomeowner said:
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I2I:
We are going in circles. As I mentioned previously, what you are talking about is subjective and everyone agrees that personal preference will take top priority. The point is that current floorplans are space inefficient based on the last 10 years of Irvine floorplans.
If you've looked at my DIY floorplan thread, it's quite easy to add one or two more living spaces to the current 2010 floorplans which would increase the value of the home and still keep the open feeling.
If you are going to be spending $350+/sft wouldn't you rather have a 4/3 for the same prices as a 3/2.5 or a 5/3 for the same prices as a 4/3 if they had similar open, modern floorplans?
The fact that people are willing to pay for it is just encouraging TIC to continue this trend... getting less for more.
We are going in circles. As I mentioned previously, what you are talking about is subjective and everyone agrees that personal preference will take top priority. The point is that current floorplans are space inefficient based on the last 10 years of Irvine floorplans.
If you've looked at my DIY floorplan thread, it's quite easy to add one or two more living spaces to the current 2010 floorplans which would increase the value of the home and still keep the open feeling.
If you are going to be spending $350+/sft wouldn't you rather have a 4/3 for the same prices as a 3/2.5 or a 5/3 for the same prices as a 4/3 if they had similar open, modern floorplans?
The fact that people are willing to pay for it is just encouraging TIC to continue this trend... getting less for more.
Irvine2Irvine
New member
IHO,
I don't know how you can have a similar open floorplan when you have 4/3 in a same space as 3/2.5. You have to give up something to gain something else.
I don't know how you can have a similar open floorplan when you have 4/3 in a same space as 3/2.5. You have to give up something to gain something else.