Sweet Orange

Yesterday, I listed mostly the points in favor of the mixed-use, urban development in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). Now here is my criticism of the IBC development. The trade off for a more densely built development has often been lower home prices. However, in the boom years of our recent past, the developers could make more money building these high-end high-rises, and understandably this is what they choose to build.

However, even then that wasn’t the primary type of high-density housing that Orange County needed. And today, even with our reduced housing prices, affordability is still a problem in Orange County. Building housing that is more in harmony with the median Orange County income is what is needed. The trade off for higher density should be lower home prices.

I think it would be interesting to take the IBC’s Astoria design tour put on by the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), and, in the process, support the Orange County Performing Arts Center. But I suggest that future development objectives be tweaked to provide more affordability. And while I am at it, I will put in a word for keeping residential development on a more human scale, which would be four stories or less.

For a look at urban-living in the IBC from a design point of view, see Cindy McNatt’s “Loft-style living,” or watch this YouTube video.

Also, for more information on the current status of the IBC development and some various opinions on the development, see “Mothballed Condo Project in Irvine, CA,”  the City of Irvine’s IBC home page, “Irvine planners approve design of large-scale office retail project,” and “Irvine considers 6,000 residential units in urban core.”

GRAPHIC COURTESY THE CITY OF IRVINE

I have written about the evolving development of high- and mid-rise living in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and have been meaning to write more about this type of development. A recent post by Erica Chavez at the O.C. Register’s Irvine Homes blog has given me the nudge to get around to writing this post. So, before I go any further, thanks to Erica for her interesting post—and the nudge.

The post gives the details and some interesting links for the ongoing design tours that are occurring at the Astoria at Central Park West, one of the new IBC high-rise developments. As Erica points out the tours will continue through May 22, and the proceeds will benefit the Orange County Performing Arts Center. If you are interested in urban living and/or design, check out Erica’s post (Design tour offers sneak preview at Irvine’s newest high-rise).

Now here is where the nudge comes in. Some who left comments on the post had some harsh words about this development. My take is that Orange County is currently urban as well as suburban; however, some have trouble accepting that all development in Orange County is not going to be of the traditional suburban vintage. However, circumstances have changed since our suburban heyday, and our development criteria needs to progress with these changes. Our population has grown, so we don’t have the wide-open spaces of the past for housing developments. In addition, today we have more empty nesters and young professionals who want the advantages of urban living.

However, let me make it clear, I don’t think that suburban homes should be done away with. They should stay a big part of the mix. I just think that circumstances have changed and a need for a more diverse housing mix currently exists.

Tomorrow: my criticism of the IBC development

For more information on the IBC, see “The Housing Numbers for the Irvine Business Complex: Irvine’s Evolving, Mixed-Use Urban Center.”

GRAPHIC COURTESY ASTORIA

Previously, I wrote about the Irvine Ranch land that was designated as a National Natural Landmark and, more recently, designated as a California National Landmark. So you might think that this designation would prevent development on this land. Not true!  The designation of an area as a Natural Landmark does not prevent the area from being developed. The landowners can still make this call, as long as they comply with any zoning requirements and legal agreements that are already attached to the land. However, landowners have been successful in having zoning requirements changed, and the Natural Landmark designation does not put any binding legal agreements on the landowners.

The owners of the Irvine Ranch Natural Landmark land are the County of Orange, City of Irvine, The Irvine Company, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Laguna Beach, General Services Administration, and the City of Newport Beach.

As I mentioned in my previous post, a look at the locations that are included in the Irvine Ranch National Natural Landmark (such as the Anaheim Wilderness Area, Weir Canyon, Santiago Canyon, and Crystal Cove State Park) as well as the activities available at these locations is available by clicking here. A look at an Irvine Company YouTube video of the Irvine Ranch Natural Landmark, is available by clicking here. A map of that shows the 93,000-acre Irvine Ranch, 50,000 Irvine Ranch reserve, and 40,000-acre Irvine Ranch Natural Landmark is provided above.

Next week: A look at more housing numbers for Irvine neighborhoods

Map Courtesy the Irvine Company, LA Times, and OC Liberal

Following are the Irvine detached home numbers that cover the last six months. For previous Irvine detached home stats, see  my post from my past life as a Redfin blogger. More later on what these housing numbers mean.

Tomorrow: a look at the Irvine condo statistics

Median List Sales Price:

• March 20, 2009: $850K/$370 per square foot
• February 22, 2009: $849K/$375 per square foot
• January 30, 2009: $859K/$376 per square foot
• December 31, 2008: $850K/$370 per square foot
• November 30, 2008: $875K/$375 per square foot
• October 27, 2008: $899K/$378 per square foot

Median Sold Price*:

• March 20, 2009: $700K/$326 per square foot
• February 22, 2009: $710K/$326 per square foot
• January 30, 2009: $743K/$328 per square foot
• December 31, 2008: $730K/$332 per square foot
• November 30, 2008: $690K/$327 per square foot
• October 27, 2008: $699K/$330 per square foot

Median Days on Market*:

• March 20, 2009: 91
• February 22, 2009: 96
• January 30, 2009: 92
• December 31, 2008: 85
• November 30, 2008: 82
• October 27, 2008: 83

Number of Homes on the Market (Inventory):

• March 20, 2009: 448 (17 foreclosures)
• February 22, 2009: 434 (17 foreclosures)
• January 30, 2009: na
• December 31, 2008: 351 (24  foreclosures)
• November 30, 2008: 386 (17 foreclosures)
• October 27, 2008: 383 (6 foreclosures)

Market Action Index (Source: Altos Research, see note below) :

• March 22, 2009: 16.35
• February 22, 2009: 16.85
• January 30, 2009: 16.48
• December 31, 2008: 19.31
• November 30, 2008: 18.93
• October 26, 2008: 19.32

Note: The Altos Market Action Index shows the balance between potential buyers and sellers, in other words, the balance between supply and demand. Above 30 is a sellers’ market; below 30 is a buyers’ market. Also, note that the Altos numbers are for detached homes only (condos are not included) and that the Altos median sales price and median price per square foot are for the list price, not the sold price.

*Based on homes sold or taken off market in the previous 90 days. These include MSL-listed, for-sale-by-owner, and bank-foreclosure homes.

Source unless otherwise noted: Redfin

Following are the Costa Mesa condo numbers that cover the last six months. Note that condos play a significant housing role in Orange County. However, in Costa Mesa this is less so than for some other areas. For example, Irvine has slightly more condos on the market than detached homes, whereas Costa Mesa has approximately 2.5 detached homes on the market for every condo.

For previous Costa Mesa condo statistics, see my post from my past life as a Redfin blogger.

Tomorrow: a look at some recent Irvine housing statistics

Median List Sales Price:

• March 20, 2009: $315K/$264 per square foot
• February 22, 2009: $315K/$254 per square foot
• January 30, 2009: $355K/$272 per square foot
• December 31, 2008: $336K/$269 per square foot
• November 30, 2008: $350K/$280 per square foot
• October 27, 2008: $342K/$284 per square foot

Median Sold Price*:

• March 20, 2009: $251K/$206 per square foot
• February 22, 2009: $273K/$229 per square foot
• January 30, 2009: $255K/$198 per square foot
• December 31, 2008: $275K/$213 per square foot
• November 30, 2008: $247K/$208 per square foot
• October 27, 2008: $218K/$203 per square foot

Median Days on Market*:

• March 24, 2009: 95
• February 22, 2009: 91.5
• January 30, 2009: 107
• December 31, 2008: 93
• November 30, 2008: 75
• October 27, 2008: 79

Number of Homes on the Market (Inventory):

• March 20, 2009: 100 (12 foreclosures)
• February 22, 2009: 103 (11 foreclosures)
• January 30, 2009: 117 (15 foreclosures)
• December 31, 2008: 119 (21  foreclosures)
• November 30, 2008: 132 (9 foreclosures)
• October 27, 2008: 156 (8 foreclosures)

*Based on homes sold or taken off market in the previous 90 days. These include MSL-listed, for-sale-by-owner, and bank-foreclosure homes.

Source unless otherwise noted: Redfin

 Welcome to the Sweet Orange Housing Blog where I will be answering the question: Is the Orange County housing juice worth the squeeze? I’ll do this mostly by focusing on the housing numbers in Irvine and Costa Mesa (more later on why I choose these two cities). However, since the numbers don’t give the complete picture of a community, at times, I will write about the people, places, and things that make these cities what they are.

In some ways, this will be a continuation of my past life as a Redfin blogger. In that life, I wrote about development in Irvine and Costa Mesa, and I gained some insight into these two cities. During my Redfin days, when I was writing about Irvine and Costa Mesa, I noticed how very different these two Orange County cities are. However, in spite of that, they are also very much the same in some basic Orange County sort of way. I wanted to follow through with these two cities to see what these different-but-the-same cities might tell us about what makes a city what it is.

Another reason that I decided to continue with both the Irvine and Costa Mesa development news instead of concentrating on just one or the other brings me to another insight I gained from my Redfin blogging day: At times, these different-but-the-same cities give a view into Orange County as a whole and the country at large. The reverse is also true: what happens at the Orange County and national level can affects what happens in Irvine and Costa Mesa. For example, the crash of AIG is having financial consequences for Orange County, including Irvine and Costa Mesa, and the crash of the subprime mortgage industry in Orange County had national consequences.

I want to follow through with what I was learning about the interconnection between what happens in one location or part of the economy affecting what happens in another location or part of the economy. Therefore, that will all be in the mix on this blog. (Here are two examples that show that what happens locally and nationally are interconnected: “Good O.C. borrowers brought down by bank’s bad loans” and “Bear Stearns Wraps Buy of Subprime Lender.”)

Time to wrap up this introduction and start squeezing the housing numbers. So until tomorrow…