HeHateMe

It is interesting because we seem to be repeating some mistakes from the past. In Miller's 'Changing Plans for America's Inner Cities', the author describes Cincinnati's urban renewal programs of the forties and fifties. The slums in the West End were cleared in favor of highways and industrial/business purposes imposed by strict city zoning. Not only did the strategy not attract industry, but it resulted in the terrible living conditions for the poor brought on by newly established public housing initiatives. The programs displaced far more than they housed, resulting in a new ghetto near avondale. Given this historical presidence, it is important to ask ourselves: What effects may occur that are not immediately seen by our actions?

I understand this. I use this forum as a source of news. You guys are great. I just want to know how you can populate OTR and the banks with affluent people without having a detrimental effect on Oakley, Hyde Park, and the Gaslight District.

Take me for example. I graduated from UC in 2007 in computer engineering and I got a good job. I was born and raised on the west side. I graduated during the housing boom. I was pre-approved for a mortgage of $125,000 and I didn't have a steady job. I decided not to buy a $110,000 condo in OTR even though it is my favorite neighborhood in the city. Instead I rent in Oakley for $440 a month and I get better amenities and less crime (statistically). What happens to Oakley and Hyde Park when people like myself choose to live in OTR instead? Net property tax revenue may marginally increase, but what is the real benefit to the city? In response to the second question, The Cincinnati Metro has grown at a very slow rate for a very long period of time. Where are the additional people coming from in your model?

First off, I'd like to say that I love OTR. I walk the neighborhood frequently and it is beautiful in many ways. I particularly enjoy the architecture and sense of history. I can envision what life was like in 1880 when I walk her streets. I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment. If OTR was revitalized, it would be a hip spot for people aged 20-35. It would be a functioning neighborhood: walkable, convenient, and upper-class. Let's assume that OTR rises again: What would this do to Hyde Park, Oakley, the Gaslight District,and other parts of city that currently target the same demographic? Do we really believe that the pie will get larger and that these neighborhoods will retain their identities as OTR rises?

This post baffles me. Why would you want some yuppie condos to be built at the height of the real estate crisis? The cost of real estate is plummeting, particularly in Dayton, Ohio. Why would anyone buy a condo in a vacant downtown for $200,000 when they can get an estate in the suburbs for 110,000? There is clearly no market for this product. Wouldn't the investor's money be better spent on a project that is economically viable (that the community wants)?