SWOH

Any updates on this?

^Good point. So will Dayton have two districts? Given the fact taht the next smallest city, Youngstown, is sub 100k people, it hardly seems fair to shut Dayton off from having a second entertainment district with this arbitrary cutoff.

Yes and no. It's an old talking point, but what about Peak Oil? What about sustainable living, using our natural resources carefully, and ethical sourcing (so higher cost good produced without child/slave labor, bad working conditions, etc.)? Food prices are (or were, at least) going up in comparison to inflation. Other commodities are too. And more and more consumers are demanding ethically created products, from fair trade clothing to organic locally grown fruits and vegetables. More individuals and families are putting their money towards experiences, like a brew at the new craft brewery down the street, rather than items, like a new Escalade. And products now are built with higher quality and last longer than they ever have (homebuilding being a notable difference from this trend, where quality has declined significantly over time). Standards concerning workplace conditions, environmental regulations, and diversity are stronger than they ever have been before. And are becoming more and more reflective of how society works every day. And consumers are demanding more service and better value from the products they purchase - an excellent case in point being the rise of fast-casual dining establishments over fast food. So in short, costs on every aspect of our lives are going up. And where costs aren't going up, they are being decimated by the internet (who needs a real lawyer when you can get a will on LegalZoom? Who needs a copy editor when spell check can do the work? Who needs to buy a CD or a movie when we can just rent it or view it for free with Netflix or Youtube? Who needs to buy a book when you have a Kindle? - me for the last one, but that's beside the point haha). Two factors are at play, the first being increasing commodity costs and the second being decreasing information costs. Every day we are learning how to rent, share, and get by with less while achieving the same result - a la the Ubers, Youtubes, and Amazons of our world are finding ways to better utilize resources. To put it simply, our world is getting lean. Suburban housing is bloated. As a YP, even if I had a family (which gottaplan correctly called that I do not) I wouldn't want a big yard. Instead, I would want to live in a community that could serve as my yard - imagine the Shaker Squares, Lakwoods, Grandview Heights', Oakwoods, Hyde Parks, etc. of our world. Or even a cool small town like Troy, OH or Columbus, IN would be great too. In essence, I would "rent" my "real" yard by living in a walkable community that takes care of all of the maintenance and upkeep, etc. of all of those spaces. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's a leaner, smarter, more efficient way to live. And if we really want to get serious about solving peak oil and excessive resource consumption, creating sustainable communities desirable communities for generations to come, limiting our local environmental impact, and allow ourselves to have the ability to better connect to one another, we need to promote living in communities that foster these qualities. Cities do an excellent job of this, but then again cities can only target a narrow population. Solutions are needed for all people, and gottaplan and others point out a lot of good points the average skeptical suburban parent would be thinking. But even then what frustrates me is the fact that the demand is there but yet developers refuse to do anything about it. As has been pointed out, while the demand is certainly there and is probably increasing, it's not as big as some may think or wish it was. There's still a lot of neighborhoods in the inner ring (for example, Bedford on the streets off downtown) that have that potential. If the demand really existed beyond that, at least some developers would be all over it. "Walkability" can often be determined by where you live in a neighborhood as much as the neighborhood itself. My house is quite walkable, at least when it hasn't snowed. At the end of my street, it isn't. True. The key is converting already existing property.... I assume a lot of this demand is deflected by outdated housing stock (note that I'm not saying "old", which can be a selling point, but housing product with 20+ year old kitchens, loads of wallpaper, old carpet, even paneling haha). Many people don't want to commit to doing a house reno, even if it is cosmetic. Also, there are a ton of people that can't even commit to a city for longer than a year or two. The majority of jobs being offered out of college to Miami grads now, at least, are on two-year rotational programs. Often someone in one of these programs is only in a location for six months. No way they can commit to buying a house, so they're stuck with whatever apartment they can find that will do a 6-month lease. And the rental mentality often doesn't go away until after marriage, and even them more times than not people rent right up until they start having children. Considering the earlier comments about raising children in the city, this severely compounds the issues with renovating old housing stock. It needs to be done, and it can be profitable, and core cities and inner ring suburbs can definitely profit and do well (case in point - Kettering OH and Oakley in Cincinnati) but right now suburban apartment communities are winning this demographic. Which all circles back to building places people want to live. The housing market is not a fair and dynamic market, and current supply most certainly doesn't meet current demand.

Makes me wonder about Dayton. The city is under 150,000 in population, I believe... somewhere around 145k. Can it get three entertainment districts? The OD, downtown around Jefferson & Webster Station, and UD seem like logical locations to me.

Yeah this whole conversation is reminding me of It's Always Sunny where Charlie and Mac are stuck in a drained decrepit pool, and Charlie's telling Mac he only uses burner cell phones... Great episode!

^Definitely a step up from a mega-mall. Anyone remember back when Mills was a strong company and was considering building a mega-mall by the I-75 rest stop? What worries me about this center primarily is the tenant mix. It's weak. Very weak given the location, market, etc. But I think i did a good enough job expressing those concerns upthread.

Yes and no. It's an old talking point, but what about Peak Oil? What about sustainable living, using our natural resources carefully, and ethical sourcing (so higher cost good produced without child/slave labor, bad working conditions, etc.)? Food prices are (or were, at least) going up in comparison to inflation. Other commodities are too. And more and more consumers are demanding ethically created products, from fair trade clothing to organic locally grown fruits and vegetables. More individuals and families are putting their money towards experiences, like a brew at the new craft brewery down the street, rather than items, like a new Escalade. And products now are built with higher quality and last longer than they ever have (homebuilding being a notable difference from this trend, where quality has declined significantly over time). Standards concerning workplace conditions, environmental regulations, and diversity are stronger than they ever have been before. And are becoming more and more reflective of how society works every day. And consumers are demanding more service and better value from the products they purchase - an excellent case in point being the rise of fast-casual dining establishments over fast food. So in short, costs on every aspect of our lives are going up. And where costs aren't going up, they are being decimated by the internet (who needs a real lawyer when you can get a will on LegalZoom? Who needs a copy editor when spell check can do the work? Who needs to buy a CD or a movie when we can just rent it or view it for free with Netflix or Youtube? Who needs to buy a book when you have a Kindle? - me for the last one, but that's beside the point haha). Two factors are at play, the first being increasing commodity costs and the second being decreasing information costs. Every day we are learning how to rent, share, and get by with less while achieving the same result - a la the Ubers, Youtubes, and Amazons of our world are finding ways to better utilize resources. To put it simply, our world is getting lean. Suburban housing is bloated. As a YP, even if I had a family (which gottaplan correctly called that I do not) I wouldn't want a big yard. Instead, I would want to live in a community that could serve as my yard - imagine the Shaker Squares, Lakwoods, Grandview Heights', Oakwoods, Hyde Parks, etc. of our world. Or even a cool small town like Troy, OH or Columbus, IN would be great too. In essence, I would "rent" my "real" yard by living in a walkable community that takes care of all of the maintenance and upkeep, etc. of all of those spaces. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's a leaner, smarter, more efficient way to live. And if we really want to get serious about solving peak oil and excessive resource consumption, creating sustainable communities desirable communities for generations to come, limiting our local environmental impact, and allow ourselves to have the ability to better connect to one another, we need to promote living in communities that foster these qualities. Cities do an excellent job of this, but then again cities can only target a narrow population. Solutions are needed for all people, and gottaplan and others point out a lot of good points the average skeptical suburban parent would be thinking. But even then what frustrates me is the fact that the demand is there but yet developers refuse to do anything about it.

That is true. It's because of the retail component of a mixed use space. These days it's tough to get financing for retail spaces since the U.S. has way too much of it. Also, the banks have experienced the leapfrogging effect of sprawl going bad after only 10-12 years as someone else built something even further out. Thanks, good to know. Building off the bolded point, wouldn't that be a reason to finance walkable, dynamic communities instead of generic slash and burn sprawl? The key is to build places people actually will want to live now and in the future, and developers still can't get it right. If this were the auto industry we'd be calling all developers AMC Motors and they'd be dead. Or KMart. Why do we keep building f***ing KMarts? (not literally, but I hope you all understand my point. Why keep doing the same stupid thing over and over?)

Looks great! It's one city I've always wished I had time to explore on foot. Thanks for the posting the photos.

Great point! Here's my hypothesis on this that I've held for a number of years.... I strongly believe the most successful people come from solidly middle class background. Not upper middle class, but solid middle class. So for Ohio, maybe a $180k home at most with parents making $60k/yr each at most. The best and brightest (as in the absolute cream of the crop of students) from my knowledge always seemed to share this background - typical plain house, worth about this value, parents with incomes around here, etc. Rarely was there any variation (like, an absolutely exceptional student from a $300+k home or < $100k.). The students from this kind of background seemed to be the ones that got the 36 ACT, the full ride scholarship, pursued the advanced STEM degrees, etc. Rarely if ever do I see a student from an affluent background (i.e. the child of a CEO, high up VP, etc.) pursuing a STEM degree. Again, I'm throwing out huge stereotypes here. I don't mean to offend anyone or "prove" a point, but this is what I have noticed from my interactions with thousands of individuals around my age from grade school to the workforce as well as dozens of absolutely exceptional students.

Schools are definitely a factor for people not moving into urban areas. What I don't get is the resistance to building better sprawl. In areas that have "good" school districts. I've posted a parallel thread on City-Data, and one resident poster there suggested it is harder for walkable new suburban developments to get financing. I don't know whether or not that is the case, but it seems like one plausible behind the scenes explanation. Because a lot of people out there demand this type of product... ideally it can be achieved in cities but when it cannot, I don't understand why these consumers get pigeonholed into something they don't want. The current suburban slash and burn development model doesn't meet the average Millennial or Baby Boomer's lifestyle demands. These kinds of homes requires more maintenance, upkeep, and pesticide than anyone should have to deal with. Consumers are screaming they want less land, walkable accessibility to parks, community centers, restaurants, bars, and shops, all in a quality built house within a quality neighborhood "worth saving". Aside from financing and lack of competition, why can't developers meet these goals in the communities they choose to build?

You missed/left out quite a few steps. Mainly the carrying costs of buying the land, financing it, clearing it, getting utilities/streets installed, marketing the property. It can take years and years before these unsophisticated developers ever see a dime back on their initial investment. If the market turns south during that course of years, or the land takes more to develop than anticipated, the small profit margin that was initially expected can be wiped out. This is precisely why we need intelligent people building communities, not meat heads. Because if developers were intelligent, they would know better ways to mitigate land disruption. They could build their developments so that the majority of land within them not sold can still be farmed, used for grazing, etc. They would implement sustainable community design and build houses on smaller lots to minimize overall environmental impact. Portland and much of Europe has solved this problem with development barriers.

So affordability as a reason to not build walkable, sustainable, desirable communities? More on this line of thought: This screams easy cop-out - developers don't want to cut ino their profit margins to build places where people actually want to live. It, more than anything, has made me officially realize the mindset of most suburban developers. The Atlantic IMO hit the nail on the head with this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-are-people-still-building-sprawl/385741/ And this DDN article drove the point home (literally, for me at least). So what do you all think? How could a cultural shift take place to get developers to come off their high horse and build places people want to live? Why, precisely, should they make less money in order to do the things the way "urban planners and smart growth advocates" think they should? Perhaps they realize that people may answer a survey one way, but do things differently when it's a life-defining decision being made. Who's actually on a "high horse"? If everyone plays by the same rules, than there shouldn't be a difference. And even if all developers are (they aren't), they can still make a healthy profit margin. Developer profits shouldn't be a top priority when considering the fact that we are stuck with whatever they build indefinitely. Or until some one pays (a lot) to have it removed. And sadly, normally the group who pays for removal is the government of the municipality many years after the fact, at the expense of the citizens who live there. Developers need to be held to a far more stringent standard than they are currently. The free market is great, but we're playing with the lives of many generations to come. Safety, quality, and longevity need to be top concerns, not a quick buck. To your later post in response to jmica about ISO - sounds like a good solution. If communities could mandate anyone building a house within their city or township limits held those credentials and designed specifically to meet set quality, safety, sustainability, and longevity standards then that would probably make tremendous strides towards solving slash and burn development.

This article left me with a lot of impressions about the future of home building in Ohio (and the US): http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/local/26-mile-plan-would-complete-dayton-cincy-metroplex/nkQFD/?source=ddn_skip_stub#e72a2577.3546996.735665 Here's some quotes from Steve Feldmann, ‎Director of Government Affairs at Home Builders Association of Greater Cincinnati: So affordability as a reason to not build walkable, sustainable, desirable communities? More on this line of thought: This screams easy cop-out - developers don't want to cut ino their profit margins to build places where people actually want to live. It, more than anything, has made me officially realize the mindset of most suburban developers. The Atlantic IMO hit the nail on the head with this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-are-people-still-building-sprawl/385741/ And this DDN article drove the point home (literally, for me at least). So what do you all think? How could a cultural shift take place to get developers to come off their high horse and build places people want to live?

They don't even promote INstate. Most people in Dayton don't know this exists. I'd venture to say a quarter don't know Ohio has beaches to begin with (probably more than a quarter; I'm being generous). Thanks for the photos. That is true. I'm a Daytonian who knew nothing about Fairport Harbor before reading this thread. Looks like a great town though.

Yep this would be correct. Fijis (Phi Delta Gammas) are currently in the Sigma Chi house off Sycamore. This is because Sigma Chi was kicked off campus after a number of bizarre offenses, ranging from procuring and distributing hard drugs to hazing to animal cruelty... Basically a basket case. Acacia (the house with the plywood window) is also no longer on campus, although I think this is due only to enrollment, along with Beta Theta Pi and a few others. As for the Fiji house, someone did set it on fire. And being an old wooden house, it burned fast and hot. The arsonist still has not been found...

This is great news! Couldn't think of a neighborhood anywhere that could use this kind of development more desperately.

Hey, you were in my neck of the woods! Great shots eridony!

Another great set, Eridony! I'm enjoying looking through these pictures a lot. EDIT: Shouldn't have put "enjoying" in this post! The second I posted it the ad refreshed to "Date Arab Women"...

... Not even including what's at Pyramid Hill! Anyways, excellent set, Eridony. I've been watching the progress there from Oxford for a while now, and it's amazing what all is happening there. To put it in perspective, here's Ink's excellent threads from 2006: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=10975.0 Compare downtown of then to now. Amazing progress!

Yep, that is true. The Biltmore was originally a hotel, but now is for senior living. And agreed on the urban Kroger haha. There were proposals in the past for a Wayne Ave. replacement Kroger at the intersection of Wayne and Wyoming, but the city didn't have its cards in order. When the city was finally set, Kroger pulled the plug on the deal. Probably one of Dayton's biggest failures to date. Also about two years ago there was talk of Constantino's Market moving into the former Greyhound Bus space in the transportation center at 5th and Patterson. That never materialized, and now Drake's Gym downtown will be taking over the space instead. But yeah, if the plans ever came up again there surely would not be a shortage of real estate. thebillshark - yes, there is an imminent threat of demolition. If you have connections with preservationists in Cincinnati that could meet with Mayor Nan Whaley, please contact them! At the moment she and her task force appear to be open to suggestions and input from the community, but keep in mind Raunch Demolition holds a major spot at the table. Owner Steve Rauch was a big contributor to her election campaign, and already the buck has slid with projects like the somewhat botched DDN building demo. Again, I get the vibe she is open to discussion, but she's going to need some dang good reasons to not pursue demolition...

I'll add to it: http://www.usrowing.org/News/15-01-23/Champion_Paper_Plant_May_Once_Again_be_a_Home_for_Water_Sports_in_Ohio.aspx What's particularly important to note is that everything in the graphic except the 5000-seat ballfield is inside the Champion Paper complex.... Keeping my fingers crossed!

Came across this thread and thought if bring it back for fun! For the old members, I'm curious about whether or not your perspective has changed, and for the new members like me, what's your favorite Non-Ohio city? For me, large city I'd probably go with Chicago, although there are many I haven't seen or seen a lot that I would like to try out. Mid-sized, probably Rochester NY from what I've seen and heard, Louisville from places I've actually visited. Small cities, probably Columbus Indiana. Amazing place! Least favorite would be Gatlinburg.

That it will. And again can 100% be attributed to Simon's management. So if Wet Seal for instance wanted to locate at Premium Outlets in Monroe, then Simon may require in their contract that they also locate at Upper Valley for the same length of time. They do this to keep all of their malls well occupied and at least marginally profitable. But Upper Valley is a dud of a mall in a dismal location, even within Springfield. It's out of the way on the other side of the interstate and out of most shoppers' memory. It's one time that locating outside city limits was a very bad strategic move. So Simon must have decided this mall was doing poorly enough that it wasn't even worth keeping as a low performer. Probably the county assessment lowering the mall's value by over half and the fact that no money had ever really been invested in the facility since it's opening day were the primary root causes. Look for all those stores to be bolting and running as soon as their leases are up. As for its future, I'm hoping someone else besides me thinks it's a great idea to relocate the Johnny Appleseed museum from Urbana University to one of the anchors and have a giant museum haha. Structurally it's fine and it's location is near invisible, so... I see little reason for demo and I can't wait to see its future!

If y'all want to know the truth, the only reason these stores were still in the mall circa 2008 was because Simon owned it. It's a class C mall, in small demographic area, oversized for its population. Simon forced stores to operate there as part of their agreements to operate in other higher profile malls. Simon decided to finally give up it's game there about a year or two ago when it decided to stop paying it's taxes on the mall. That article is here: http://www.crenews.com/general_news/general/simon-poised-to-surrender-springfield-ohio-mall-to-cmbs-trust.html The Betchle Ave retail corridor is doing well, it's a solid mid market retail corridor akin to what you would find at Hilliard Rome Rd in Columbus, Bridgewater Falls in Hamilton, etc. but Upper Valley and the area surrounding hasn't been updated in over 20 years. To put it in perspective, the JCP in the mall was still using original displays from the 1970s and had burnt orange near shag carpet. The mall had been forgotten ages ago... And I doubt Springfield will be hurting without its presence. Call me crazy, but I'm betting someone builds an outlet mall along I-70 between Englewood and Springfield within the next 10 years to fill the void. With Salem and Upper Valley dead, there's a large retail void...