Z

It is. The lengths some will go to in order to prevent an honest discussion of how Cincinnati works is silly.

Cincinnati's housing markets share some significant characteristics with the vibrant and appealing metros of Youngstown, Scranton, and Wichita. https://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-housing-markets-metro-areas-for-generation-z-homebuyers#2-metro-area-grand-rapids-wyoming-mi-9

How do you know that?

https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/coronavirus-wont-lead-to-another-great-recession-for-housing "By metro area, Cleveland home prices grew the most at 3.5%, trailed by 1.4% in Milwaukee and 0.8% in Cincinnati. The greatest decreases came with San Francisco's 8.4%, Boston's 8.2% and Denver's 8.1%." Again and again, you'll find that Cincinnati is at one end of virtually every spectrum of economic activity. It's not "in line" with other metros. It's not a moderate, average, or representative metro when it comes to housing or most other measures of economic activity.

Cincinnati renters are among the least "burdened" renters in America. That is, there's less incentive to invest in rental property in Cincinnati than in most metros in America.https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/many-renters-are-burdened-housing-costs.

There's some hopeful news for Cincinnati's housing market in this article on March housing markets. https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/colorado/re-max-national-housing-report-for-march-2020/article_4e0202ce-fded-5e0d-a6e7-75ad6a5a95c3.html

Values aren't rising 15-20 percent a year in Columbus, Indy, or various southern boomtowns. Cincinnati and SF are at opposite ends of the spectrum of housing markets. Almost every metro in America is somewhere between these two extremes in most measures of housing markets. Increasing values are an important incentive for investment. To pretend otherwise is an example of the defensiveness I've described.

Tell us about New York.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/early-data-point-slight-housing-040028517.html In metros with high property values and/or high numbers of transactions, these declines mean that either sellers have less incentive to sell now. In metros with lower values and/or low numbers of transactions, these declines show that more limited markets are less affected by macroeconomic forces. The pandemic is shuffling things dramatically, though temporarily, I'm sure. Dallas and Cincinnati, for example, couldn't be more different housing markets.

Rising prices are an important incentive to invest in NEW housing. Housing isn't a zero sum game, well, at least not in most metros.

London, Paris, and New York are amongst the most transient cities on earth. The residents of those cities share less tradition and heritage of those particular cities and neighborhoods than anywhere on the planet. I'm not talking about buildings and street festivals. I'm talking about the social experience of living in a place. The population of manhattan must have a 90% turn over rate every decade. Only the super rich stick around that long these days. Up until the pandemic, New York was a giant perpetual motion machine with people flowing in around, and out continuously. Cincinnatians use the terms 'tradition' and 'heritage' to refer to how Cincinnati functions. They aren't actually seeking to capitalize on Cincinnati's history or culture. They are just rationalizing Cincinnati's poor performance in the guise of history and culture. When you point out the high percentage of very poor people, the areas of concentrated crime, or the very low property values in many parts of Cincinnati, locals respond that that is just the way Cincinnati is. They say that people prefer it that way. They SAY it's Cincinnati's 'heritage' and 'tradition.' They imply that Cincinnati can't be different than it is. Poverty, crime, and very low property values are inherent that way, they say. They assert that Cincinnatians don't really care about reducing crime or having higher incomes or increasing property values and that one must accept Cincinnati as it is. Change, they imply, is impossible because Cincinnati is 'just that way.' They use 'heritage' and 'tradition' to really mean fatalism. Some of the comments in this very forum describe the advantages of being a landlord or real estate investor in places with low property values. These attitudes don't come out of nowhere. They develop in response to the reality of Cincinnati's real estate and job markets over time.

"Better" for who?

That isn't a quote of my comments. I never wrote such a thing. I don't know who's being warned about what.

Cincinnati is NOT "right in line with other I legitimately want to know why anyone thinks that "heritage" or 'tradition" are assets. The most rapidly growing cities don't worry about such things. That means they are unnecessary for growth, as much as some may value these ideas...whatever they may actually mean by these terms. The rhetorical use of "heritage" and 'tradition' in Cincinnati is meant to deflect attention from Cincinnati's failings. If someone wants to argue that such ideas have value, the burden is on them to do so. Cincinnati is NOT "right in line" with other analogous metros. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS18140Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS17140Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS31140Q All these metros saw significantly greater increases in property values with significantly larger increases in the total number of housing units or with significantly smaller metro populations in the case of Louisville. Indy and Columbus did it without virtually any sense of 'tradition' or 'heritage' at all. Cincinnati is in-line with Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis. Those aren't places you want to be associated with if you're trying to attract professionals, businesses, and investors.

Thanks for helping me to make my point!

If you'd followed New Orleans since the early 90s, you would.

Thanks for illustrating my point. What does Cincinnati need defending against? What is the threat? What horrors do you imagine would befall Cincinnati if it wasn't relentlessly defensive?

Cincinnati isn't unique, but there are only a few other cities in the country that share it's challenges to the degree it does, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh are the only ones I can think of...and only St. Louis seems to be as unsuccessful as Cincinnati in reinventing itself. Cincinnatians are actually aware of how unusual their city is, but they don't see it as a liability but as an asset. They say Cincinnati has 'character', 'heritage', 'tradition', ' an intact urban form,' and 'a sense of place' that other cities lack and that these things are to be defended, not questioned. I'm not the only one who sees this. I'm the only one who sees this and cares enough to mention it. I've known at least 20 people who've left Cincinnati because they saw the profound limits of its incestuousness for their personal and professional ambitions. They don't care enough to mention it or don't want to offend the people they leave behind. They just leave. It's like a socially awkward person throwing a party and the guests quietly disappearing one after the next rather than telling the host that the toilet doesn't work, the food is spoiled, and the drinks are making people sick. Several here have denied the existence of a local elite, or of any elites anywhere at all. They don't want to even consider how Cincinnati, or the world, work. Those who have power and who are willing to work on Cincinnati ARE largely 'loyalists who shun the outside world' in my experience, especially those who have returned to Cincinnati from other cities. I've had more than a few conversations with people in Cincinnati politics, arts organizations, medicine, and real estate where they proudly proclaim their loyalty to Cincinnati and dismiss the idea that Cincinnati has anything to learn from anywhere else. Without trying to at all, I HAVE met many "blind Cincinnati boosters" in my time here. If I dared to disagree with them, things got very tense. I mention it here, but it's too difficult to mention to Cincinnatians in person. That is my real experience. What data did I provide that didn't show what I thought it did? Being defensive about Cincinnati does it no favors. Shooting the messenger is part of Cincinnati's problem. Taken together, it explains why Cincinnati's housing market under performs so substantially. Cincinnati does have real potential, but the locals don't seem to think so. They don't think Cincinnatians can handle the truth. Maybe they're right...........

There aren't many other cities where this problem has existed. Other old cities that once dominated their regions figured out how to reinvent themselves. Cincinnati is in an unusual situation, I admit. The one other city that clearly shares Cincinnati's circumstances is St. Louis. Cincinnati is much older than other cities in its region and has fallen further from its peak in the mid-19th century, when it was the 6th biggest city in America, to its current state than just about any city in America. Boston and New Orleans offer examples of overcoming entrenched local elites, but it took a hurricane to give New Orleans the shock to its system to create the possibility of change. Even then, it only led to moderate reform. Boston just waited around until the larger economy changed and the knowledge produced by its universities became more and more valuable with globalization. That took several generations and involved eye-wateringly high property values pricing out whatever there was of its middle class...there really is no scenario of growth in which property values don't increase in real terms. The first essential step in challenging Cincinnati's old guard is to acknowledge that it has one. Even that first steps seems to be too much for many in Cincinnati...as evidenced in this forum. The presumption seems to be that Cincinnati's fine and the issue is that the rest of the world hasn't managed to figure out how wonderful Cincinnati is.

I have encountered some intense loyalty to Cincinnati from its ordinary residents..and some of the nastiest encounters I've ever had with strangers in my life. But that's not my point. I was describing the domination of Cincinnati's politics and local economy by a small in-bred class of local property owners. Their power over Cincinnati is my point and the issue that I think is at the heart of Cincinnati's under performance. It's not a conspiracy. It's a socioeconomic class, class in the marxist sense, that is deeply invested in Cincinnati. Growing cities simply don't have this class of people. Therefore, if Cincinnati wants to grow more quickly it needs to challenge this class in a systematic way. That's my point.

Northern end of Clifton and East Price Hill.

Yes, all the data is from before the pandemic. The next year or two will be a special and temporary situation. Who knows how people will respond over that time. It won't necessarily change the trajectory of Cincinnati, or anywhere else, though.

The TOTAL number of housing units in Columbus is growing more strongly than in Cincinnati, not just the number of NEW units. I'll post a link to the stats as soon as I find them.

What's 'weird' about my argument that Cincinnati has a distinctive socioeconomic structure? Every place has a distinctive socioeconomic structure. Each produces distinct economic results. Is the idea that Cincinnati can even be discussed at all the issue?

I see plenty of "feelings or emotions involved in looking at data" in this forum. You're the one who sees "grievances" and "conspiracies." I see economic and political interests rationally pursuing their individual and group goals at the expense of Cincinnati. Your emotions and resentments are yours, not mine.