Looking around Irvine on google maps and streetview, I see:
1- a fairly dense mix of different housing types
2- lots of pathways and consistent sidewalks that form a network (could be more consistent but pretty well connected - there are some bigger arterial roads that look like they could be easier to cross - see Scott's comment on getting to the corner store - but fairly good)
3- schools and parks that are connected to that pathway and sidewalk network
4- aside from schools, there are almost no 'practical' or commercial destinations (restaurants/shops/services/offices and their jobs) that take points 1-3 above into account and make non-driving access a consideration other than a couple of sidewalks through parking lots.
So my question is, why, when an entity like the Irvine Company comprehensively plans an area like this, would there be a near zero amount of such 'practical' destinations that provide a pleasant, high quality experience for those not in a car? There is clearly a significant effort to provide comfort for people walking (or cycling) throughout the area, but this abruptly stops when we get to the commercial sites. Why?
I can understand that many/most of these sites depend on car access (people are busy, they're in their cars doing all kinds of things beyond Irvine, they're just getting in and out for groceries, etc), but surely some share (5 or 10 per cent? 25?) of these commercial areas would want to be experience-focused and comfortable? Do people not want a nice place to sit and have a drink with friends? Do office employees never want a pleasant walk at lunch? Why are there not more places like University Center (or maybe Woodbridge Village Center), given how walkable and pleasant the surroundings are? Worth noting those two examples work for both the walking and 'place' experience as well as driving (not hard to park at University Center and get in/out from TJ's for example - the walk/experience quality doesn't have to undermine the drive quality, in other words).
I would love to hear your thoughts on why a comprehensively master planned community with extensive paths and sidewalks (and densities that mean amenities are not far) still ends up with the same roadside car-above-all commercial sites as everywhere else and not a higher share of commercial 'places' worth experiencing. Thanks!
I wonder what part of the strip mall development look and feel is due to parking mandates—and also due to use-specific zoning? I worked in one of the office parks near the Irvine Spectrum and it was painful to walk along the major thoroughfare to go grab lunch
Thanks Scott, this was the perfect post for my insomnia because I went down a bit of rabbit hole comparing Irvine to Boston, MA and Austin, TX. The standout statistic for Irvine is the surge in population from 1970 to 1980, which I think can be attributed to the establishment of the university in 1965. I'll surmise that at the time land north of Highway 73 was dirt cheap and the Cold War planners liked how it was a respectable distance from the blast radius of the atomic bombs that the Soviets would rain down on Disneyland.
In support of your thesis, and in contrast to the formation of Boston and other "conventional" cities, the University probably helped with overall development, but it was never a centralized core for growth due to its location. Also, 405, 133, and 5 act as barriers to centralization, but they also seem to be having the effect of defining neighborhood development patterns in the region. Currently, big stuff concentrates at the intersection of those highways, and The Spectrum Center looks impressive, if a bit inward looking despite its good design features. One obvious development opportunity is to build more high rises in that district.
If you wanted something along the scale and mixed uses of the new Boston Seaport, the Technology Center seems like the best candidate. It currently has too much surface parking and the buildings there are junky, low-rise offices. Somebody smarter than me is probably working on that---maybe Lennar, because it looks like they snapped up major tracts of land near the old airport.
Good comment. I agree that the Spectrum area and the airport area are the two plausible locations for a dense neighborhood. There's a commuter rail stop near the Spectrum, which would be a good location for lots of dense development.
As a South OC person I’d love to see a dense neighborhood around the Spectrum. Without much more housing and the resulting affordability improvement our kids will need to leave the area even though they love it here. Plus, as we grow old it would be wonderful to retire to a walkable neighborhood right here!
Good post, about both the present and possible future of Irvine. Especially the lack of walkability, especially dense walkable neighborhoods. And how it can achieve that, if it can create an urban center.
But is it possible that Orange County will become what critics of Los Angeles say about it: a metro area without a center? One can imagine for the next few decades that Orange County and Irvine will continue to grow, and Irvine will continue to be a desirable place to live (especially if they improve the walkability) ... and they might never build a high-density central business district? I.e. they might be able to just keep OC'ing and Irvine-ing as they have been. And that might be okay? A new urban paradigm. Traffic and transportation though might become impossible.
A side observation: a major metro area needs to have a major public university and a major private one. Orange County is large enough and far away enough (especially with traffic) that UCLA and USC don't count.
As you observe, UC Irvine already fills the role of the major public university, complete with Nobel prize-winning faculty. It's not UCLA, but it's only what, half the age of UCLA? It's on its way.
But what Orange County lacks is the major private university. But Chapman University has moved to fill that vacuum. They hired Vernon Smith, so there's their Nobel prizewinner. For awhile they even had their own public TV station, KOCE channel 50.
Long term, Irvine is one of the most interesting cities to keep an eye on, for the reasons that you state. And Chapman University is a school to keep an eye on.
I’ve been getting local newspapers campaigning heavily for a mayor candidate that wants to prevent housing development, and attacking Tammy Kim for wanting to allow it. Since this is the only information I have about the mayor race, I am currently leaning heavily towards Tammy Kim, but if you know any way to find out if she is in the running for top two, that would be helpful!
If we can’t have an El Toro airport, we should at least have major urban development in that Great Park area, close to the intersection of the 405 and the 5.
I think it was a huge mistake to not allow the El Toro airport. Then they could have build a nice CBD where the John Wayne airport is located. It's a perfect spot.
Thanks for the nice post. I'm old enough to remember when the Irvine Ranch area was just a farm area. I think the 405 was completed in 1966 which provided a convenient detour when I was going from San Diego to UC Santa Barbara for school. Most of the development prior to this took place along the 101 corridor. The politics of the county have changed dramatically. Orange County was the most conservative county in the state and with the vast expansion, that quickly changed.
With the increasing movement of Chinese nationals into this and other areas taking place, do you have any idea what the capital outflow of funds from China looks like?
It's hard to get good data on that question, but it's clear that part of the money China earns from exports to the US is being recycled back into OC real estate.
I don't know if he'd disagree, as I see no conflict between his claim (which I think is true) and my claim. I said "at the margin", which is important because we have only a tiny number of people living in high rises, unlike Korea. If we built more high rises, the average family with kids would have more space. That's different from Korea, where families with kids lived in high rises.
Lyman has disagreed with the choice of building lots of highrise buildings. He regards them as long-term structures that will depress fertility, as they have done in east Asia. Instead he thinks our nation's housing investments should be in the kinds of places conducive to fertility.
Again, the East Asian experience has no bearing on the situation in SoCal. Going from 1% high rises to 2% or 3% high rises will not lower fertility, indeed it may raise it by freeing up SFHs for families with kids.
The term for CBD is BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing ANywhere at All
Looking around Irvine on google maps and streetview, I see:
1- a fairly dense mix of different housing types
2- lots of pathways and consistent sidewalks that form a network (could be more consistent but pretty well connected - there are some bigger arterial roads that look like they could be easier to cross - see Scott's comment on getting to the corner store - but fairly good)
3- schools and parks that are connected to that pathway and sidewalk network
4- aside from schools, there are almost no 'practical' or commercial destinations (restaurants/shops/services/offices and their jobs) that take points 1-3 above into account and make non-driving access a consideration other than a couple of sidewalks through parking lots.
So my question is, why, when an entity like the Irvine Company comprehensively plans an area like this, would there be a near zero amount of such 'practical' destinations that provide a pleasant, high quality experience for those not in a car? There is clearly a significant effort to provide comfort for people walking (or cycling) throughout the area, but this abruptly stops when we get to the commercial sites. Why?
I can understand that many/most of these sites depend on car access (people are busy, they're in their cars doing all kinds of things beyond Irvine, they're just getting in and out for groceries, etc), but surely some share (5 or 10 per cent? 25?) of these commercial areas would want to be experience-focused and comfortable? Do people not want a nice place to sit and have a drink with friends? Do office employees never want a pleasant walk at lunch? Why are there not more places like University Center (or maybe Woodbridge Village Center), given how walkable and pleasant the surroundings are? Worth noting those two examples work for both the walking and 'place' experience as well as driving (not hard to park at University Center and get in/out from TJ's for example - the walk/experience quality doesn't have to undermine the drive quality, in other words).
I would love to hear your thoughts on why a comprehensively master planned community with extensive paths and sidewalks (and densities that mean amenities are not far) still ends up with the same roadside car-above-all commercial sites as everywhere else and not a higher share of commercial 'places' worth experiencing. Thanks!
I agree that they need more walkable neighborhoods.
I wonder what part of the strip mall development look and feel is due to parking mandates—and also due to use-specific zoning? I worked in one of the office parks near the Irvine Spectrum and it was painful to walk along the major thoroughfare to go grab lunch
California could be the next California if only they wanted to be.
Irvine would be a great central city but the Angels still need to revert to the Anaheim Angels obviously.
And don't let the GOAT jump to the Dodgers!
Thanks Scott, this was the perfect post for my insomnia because I went down a bit of rabbit hole comparing Irvine to Boston, MA and Austin, TX. The standout statistic for Irvine is the surge in population from 1970 to 1980, which I think can be attributed to the establishment of the university in 1965. I'll surmise that at the time land north of Highway 73 was dirt cheap and the Cold War planners liked how it was a respectable distance from the blast radius of the atomic bombs that the Soviets would rain down on Disneyland.
In support of your thesis, and in contrast to the formation of Boston and other "conventional" cities, the University probably helped with overall development, but it was never a centralized core for growth due to its location. Also, 405, 133, and 5 act as barriers to centralization, but they also seem to be having the effect of defining neighborhood development patterns in the region. Currently, big stuff concentrates at the intersection of those highways, and The Spectrum Center looks impressive, if a bit inward looking despite its good design features. One obvious development opportunity is to build more high rises in that district.
If you wanted something along the scale and mixed uses of the new Boston Seaport, the Technology Center seems like the best candidate. It currently has too much surface parking and the buildings there are junky, low-rise offices. Somebody smarter than me is probably working on that---maybe Lennar, because it looks like they snapped up major tracts of land near the old airport.
Good comment. I agree that the Spectrum area and the airport area are the two plausible locations for a dense neighborhood. There's a commuter rail stop near the Spectrum, which would be a good location for lots of dense development.
As a South OC person I’d love to see a dense neighborhood around the Spectrum. Without much more housing and the resulting affordability improvement our kids will need to leave the area even though they love it here. Plus, as we grow old it would be wonderful to retire to a walkable neighborhood right here!
Yes, I feel the same way.
Good post, about both the present and possible future of Irvine. Especially the lack of walkability, especially dense walkable neighborhoods. And how it can achieve that, if it can create an urban center.
But is it possible that Orange County will become what critics of Los Angeles say about it: a metro area without a center? One can imagine for the next few decades that Orange County and Irvine will continue to grow, and Irvine will continue to be a desirable place to live (especially if they improve the walkability) ... and they might never build a high-density central business district? I.e. they might be able to just keep OC'ing and Irvine-ing as they have been. And that might be okay? A new urban paradigm. Traffic and transportation though might become impossible.
A side observation: a major metro area needs to have a major public university and a major private one. Orange County is large enough and far away enough (especially with traffic) that UCLA and USC don't count.
As you observe, UC Irvine already fills the role of the major public university, complete with Nobel prize-winning faculty. It's not UCLA, but it's only what, half the age of UCLA? It's on its way.
But what Orange County lacks is the major private university. But Chapman University has moved to fill that vacuum. They hired Vernon Smith, so there's their Nobel prizewinner. For awhile they even had their own public TV station, KOCE channel 50.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_Channel
Long term, Irvine is one of the most interesting cities to keep an eye on, for the reasons that you state. And Chapman University is a school to keep an eye on.
I’ve been getting local newspapers campaigning heavily for a mayor candidate that wants to prevent housing development, and attacking Tammy Kim for wanting to allow it. Since this is the only information I have about the mayor race, I am currently leaning heavily towards Tammy Kim, but if you know any way to find out if she is in the running for top two, that would be helpful!
If we can’t have an El Toro airport, we should at least have major urban development in that Great Park area, close to the intersection of the 405 and the 5.
I think it was a huge mistake to not allow the El Toro airport. Then they could have build a nice CBD where the John Wayne airport is located. It's a perfect spot.
I haven't followed the Irvine mayor's race.
Thanks for the nice post. I'm old enough to remember when the Irvine Ranch area was just a farm area. I think the 405 was completed in 1966 which provided a convenient detour when I was going from San Diego to UC Santa Barbara for school. Most of the development prior to this took place along the 101 corridor. The politics of the county have changed dramatically. Orange County was the most conservative county in the state and with the vast expansion, that quickly changed.
With the increasing movement of Chinese nationals into this and other areas taking place, do you have any idea what the capital outflow of funds from China looks like?
It's hard to get good data on that question, but it's clear that part of the money China earns from exports to the US is being recycled back into OC real estate.
This article was considerably more interesting and informative than I expected!
> At the margin, more LA high rises are good for fertility.
Lyman Stone would disagree. East Asian countries built lots of skyrises, and the result was a conveyor belt of the population into big cities where they proceeded to have very low fertility. https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-crowding-fewer-babies-the-effects-of-housing-density-on-fertility
I don't know if he'd disagree, as I see no conflict between his claim (which I think is true) and my claim. I said "at the margin", which is important because we have only a tiny number of people living in high rises, unlike Korea. If we built more high rises, the average family with kids would have more space. That's different from Korea, where families with kids lived in high rises.
Lyman has disagreed with the choice of building lots of highrise buildings. He regards them as long-term structures that will depress fertility, as they have done in east Asia. Instead he thinks our nation's housing investments should be in the kinds of places conducive to fertility.
Again, the East Asian experience has no bearing on the situation in SoCal. Going from 1% high rises to 2% or 3% high rises will not lower fertility, indeed it may raise it by freeing up SFHs for families with kids.
How do you know at what percentage level high rises go from increasing fertility to decreasing it?
As a person who grew up in Wisconsin, I find that incomprehensible. :)