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.
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.
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!
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.
The term for CBD is BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing ANywhere at All
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.
> 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.
Irvine has got to be the largest American city without a bar. A real bar, anyway.
Plenty of unhip OC cities still have their share of local watering holes. But not Irvine.
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!
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.
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.