Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 481477)

I'll bet you enjoy eating at the Olive Garden.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 481484)

Sounds delightful.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 481475)

Seriously, do you people never visit the neighborhoods built in the 40s, 50s and 60s?

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 481473)

You are obviously not a homeowner.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 481456)

bwaHAHAHAHAHAHA

ETA I do take your point as to the rest.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 481485)

I do not, but I'll consider the possibility that the Olive Garden is better than the typical red-sauce, 1950s "Italian" cuisine that would have been available before it showed up.

You seem to be confusing average and high end.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 481473)

You are obviously not a homeowner.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 481475)

I'm a condo owner. My building was built in 1985. It is certainly larger and better quality than condo buildings built before then. Both because of improvements in building codes and because it was built as a luxury building and has been maintained that way.

But that's not the point. We're comparing the housing stock in existence in 1980 to that built since 1980. In what ways do you think my statement is untrue?

I don't think there is any doubt that houses have gotten bigger, on average. And, lo!, lookie here. Census data showing that the mean and median size of new single family homes has gone up over time, both up about 50% between 1973 and 2010.

Now quality is a tricky thing. On the one hand, there might be less brick and stone and other stuff that feels sturdy and heavy. And of course there's the annoyance the new stuff doesn't seem to last as long.

But those new homes have more features (things like more bathrooms per bedroom, and, of course, air conditioning which didn't used to be universal), improved safety and code standards, especially when it comes to plumbing and electric, bigger garages, gas or electric heat instead of fuel oil or coal (going way back), and all kinds of stuff.

Seriously, do you people never visit the neighborhoods built in the 40s, 50s and 60s?

ETA: I'll grant you that modern subdivisions can be soulless and lacking in other ways, but the houses are bigger and better quality than their equivalents from earlier periods.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 481488)

Condo ipsa loquitur.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 481489)

I've had cause in the last two days to look at the real estate market in the Peninsula and I think I can afford to live in East Palo Alto. Maybe.

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 481498)

Please come!

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 481489)

I've had cause in the last two days to look at the real estate market in the Peninsula and I think I can afford to live in East Palo Alto. Maybe.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 481489)

I've had cause in the last two days to look at the real estate market in the Peninsula and I think I can afford to live in East Palo Alto. Maybe.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 481489)

I've had cause in the last two days to look at the real estate market in the Peninsula and I think I can afford to live in East Palo Alto. Maybe.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 481499)

from what I hear, this is pretty much the extent of your sexual technique. Sad.

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 481504)

I'd ask your wife, but she's sleeping.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 481500)

Drove through it on Monday. There's some good living to be had there.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 481505)

from what i hear, this is pretty much the extent of your comedic technique. sad.

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 481498)

Please come!

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 481507)

Let me tell you, the Moth audience sure dug it. Man, those people are easy.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 481510)

SF Moth is on the radar. Are you free to stand me up?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 481506)

Sure, inside the Four Seasons or the IKEA store.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 481512)

Actually, that's a so-so four seasons as they go.

But, come on, just being in spitting distance of Palo Alto makes it nicer than anyplace 20 flyover states have to offer.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 481495)

Quality isn't one big thing. It's the only thing. We've had to replace almost everything that can be replaced without a building permit on a house that is less than ten years old.

Today's subdivision is full of boxes made of prefab panels and the cheapest materials available. My parents lived in one house for almost 30 years and the only time they had to replace anything was one water heater.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 481515)

Seriously? Palo Alto is another upscale suburb. If you want really nice climate, you need to head to Redwood City.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 481516)

I'll grant you I've not spent much time in suburban subdivisions that are less than ten years old. But surely you had many features they did not, which is one aspect of quality, although certainly not the only one.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 481518)

It's all just more shit you gotta pay someone else to repair or replace because it has this gizmo or that in it.

Get off my lawn!

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 481515)

Seriously? Palo Alto is another upscale suburb. If you want really nice climate, you need to head to Redwood City.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 481520)

The combination of profs., entrepreneurs, and decent restaurants is hard to find elsewhere. Plus, after college visits with my kid, I decided I really want to go to Stanford.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 481521)

3.7 and only 1400 SAT... and how many start ups did you sell in high school? Zero? Dream on.

Ball State for you.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 481516)

I'll grant you I've not spent much time in suburban subdivisions that are less than ten years old. But surely you had many features they did not, which is one aspect of quality, although certainly not the only one.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 481524)

I considered Pomona or Harvey Mudd as a backup - that cluster is just drop-dead gorgeous and looked like a lot of fun. But, you know, L.A.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 481531)

Oh, Adder. When did you become an Old?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 481520)

The combination of profs., entrepreneurs, and decent restaurants is hard to find elsewhere. Plus, after college visits with my kid, I decided I really want to go to Stanford.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 481534)

Having a university around is terrific. Entrepreneurs are great if you do legal work for them, but I'm not sure that they make for a good place to live.

As for Palo Alto's restaurants, "decent" is a kind way to put it.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 481532)

I went to Pomona. I loved it. 45 minutes from Mt. Baldy, an hour to the beach. Lots of great people, and sunshine and 76 degree weather every day. I spent every single moment of studying in my (undergraduate) college career on a blanket outside in the sunshine. Oxford was more atmospheric, but Pomona was more all around pleasant. I suspect I could have duplicated my study schedule at Stanford.

My sister went to Stanford. She hated hated hated living in Palo Alto and graduated a quarter early to get the hell out of there, moving in with me in Berkeley as soon as she could. (Of course four or five years later, she took a job with Stanford, but she got them to let her telecommute from the city.) She's moving back to Texas next week after 15 years in the bay area. Her last day at Stanford is tomorrow.

(We both mocked the weather plights of our other siblings who chose Cornell and the University of Vermont for their undergraduate studies.)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 481534)

Entrepreneurs are great if you do legal work for them.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 481539)

no. they mostly go bankrupt. it's like printing campaign materials for a candidate who is losing in October.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 481540)

You need to screen your clients better.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 481539)

no. they mostly go bankrupt. it's like printing campaign materials for a candidate who is losing in October.