Exposition for Great Park Post - Part 1

Most people know about the districts of Great Park already, hence this is labeled as an exposition. Most of this information has been released in 2007, but either has been modified or still applies today.

Here is a map for the purposes of the exposition:

District 8 has been already built. Known as Pavilion Park, this will probably also (sadly) be one of the least dense of the districts in the Great Park Neighborhoods.

District 1 is such a large area that it is split into four distinct areas, which I will always refer to as in my posts:

District 1-North (now selling as Beacon Park) is the area south of Irvine Blvd., north of Cadence, east of Ridge Valley, and west of Bosque.

District 1-Mid is the area north of Trabuco, south of Cadence, east of Ridge Valley, and west of Bosque. There will be approximately 800 condominiums built here. Originally, some single-family residences with lot sizes 70' by 60' were planned, but none are currently lasting now.

District 1-South is the area south of Trabuco, north of the Great Park, east of Ridge Valley, and west of Bosque. There will be 140,000 square feet of commercial uses, 705,000 square feet of offices and multi-use, 360,000 square feet for the medical sciences, and 6,000 square feet of child care. There are residences planned as of now.

District 1-West is the area north of Trabuco, south of Irvine Blvd., east of SR-133, and west of Ridge Valley. 3 affordable apartment complexes are planned here.

Districts 2, 3, and 6, as can be guessed, will be more urban than suburban in design.

The current schedule of design is: District 8 (built-out), District 1-North (currently selling), District 4, the rest of District 1, Districts 5 and a portion of 6, and more.

A few months ago, I posted information that indicated that of the approximately 1100 homes to be built in District 4, approximately 800 to 900 would be condominiums. The original plan called for only approximately 500 condominiums. This was viewed as a sign of increasing density in the rest of the Great Park Neighborhoods.

NOTE: The original area for the commercial district in District 4 is NOT in the center of the development. Currently, larger single-family homes are planned there. Instead, it will be relocated next to the high school adjacent to Irvine Blvd.

Also, Great Park has taken a leaf from Irvine Company and has begun to plan for detached condominiums that own their own land. This has occurred in several developments in Irvine already, such as Santa Cruz and Terrazza. Some lucky buyers in Marigold, San Mateo, and some other developments lucked out by buying one of a few homes in the development that actually own their land. Traditionally, the detached condominium was defined as a detached structure that shares its land with other homes. In the case of Great Park, most detached condominiums have been part of massive land shares that sometimes span the entire development, whilst the Irvine Company tends the subdivide the land more. However, the City of Irvine does not define the detached condominium by land ownership, but by setback. Further, all homes in a development must meet the setback standard. Otherwise, the entire development is classified as a "condominium"*.This explains the reason for such events in Irvine. Many people claim that detached condominiums do not appreciate as well as single-family homes, but they tend to do just as well, if not better, as in some special cases like Casero in 2014.

*The model homes in Springhouse are classified as single-family homes and not detached condominiums, even though all of the other homes in the development are detached condominiums. The reason? Great Park groups its model complexes into separate tracts from the other homes. Thus, the model complex that Springhouse resides in consists of single-family residences that all meet the setback standards. Hence, it is also classified as such.

Since we are comparing Five Points, the developer of Great Park, and Irvine Company, we might as well continue. Irvine Company tends to try (not always) putting their downstairs bedrooms such that nothing is over them. Five Points tends to try (not always) putting their garages such that nothing is over them. The primary reason for Five Points is the "second-floor garage hypothesis" which states that rooms over garages are more volatile in above-average temperatures to heat up than other rooms in a house. I have never lived in a house with a room over a garage, so I cannot say anything. The primary reason for Irvine Company is that California is earthquake country. Since sleeping consists of a large part of the 24-hour day, the chances that an earthquake will occur while you are sleeping are high. Therefore, you do not want to be sleeping below another structure when it occurs. Otherwise, whoomf! While Five Points' considerations are prudent, I feel that Irvine Company's considerations are a bit more practical.

Further, Five Points has not placed much consideration on upstairs units in an attached complex looking over downstairs' units yards. If you check out Rowland in Beacon Park, all of the units are tri-level, so each unit can easily discern what is going on in their neighbor's front patio. The same goes for Brio. In Primrose, the Residence 3's actually have a terrace that can look onto Residence 2's yard. In that case, why does Primrose even have a wall between the yard and the Residence 1's entry? Just make it a patio. If you check out Irvine Company's Entrata or Vista Scena developments in Orchard Hills, the Entrata Residence 2X (and Residence 2)'s courtyard has no windows looking down onto it from other units. This may make the courtyard a bit claustrophobic, but it is practical. Similarly, Irvine Company uses trellises to minimize side-to-side views in a unit.

The above comparison, however, does not apply for detached units. All units have windows facing their yards. Since yards are back-to-back and yards are so small nowadays, each unit can easily see their back neighbor's yard. This cannot be avoided, because the only solution would be to make the wall ridiculously high or have some units not have windows facing their yard, which would give less light to interior rooms. It would be interesting to see a builder try out the second option. If you try making each street single-loaded, the front units would look onto the backyards of back units, causing the problem to arise again. The only solution then would be to make some units have now windows on their front, which would be extremely unattractive if entries are not off a shared paseo (which eliminates the chance for such in single-family residences, since they must have a distinct back wall). Of course, you cannot be overly afraid of this. View lot residences are in extreme demand now. To afford views, most back walls are clear for those developments. Therefore, units below you (at the right angle) can see your yard. In the case of homes backing hills containing other homes, your back neighbor has a full-fledged view of your yard. Hence, they go at significantly lower prices, such as in the Olivos tract in Quail Hill. A $1.2 million home might be attractive when you consider Strada at Orchard Hills, but homes at that price are at the base of a slope, so your neighbor has an amplified view of your backyard.

In the case of Ellwood in Beacon Park, though, there is some considerations to think about. For the Residence 3, there are optional roof decks and optional decks on top of the garage. In both cases, each unit's deck entirely has an open view of another unit's deck. This is amplified because the intention of a deck is for views (unfortunately, this can be applied to your neighbor's property). While they may be a uniquity, it is not very practical.

To read about current plans, please read the Great Park Post.