^ It's not about developers following hipsters necessarily.  It's about "hipsters" following developers. 

Hipsters can come up with $1400/mo in rent and expenses tho

It's also interesting that Mexicans and other immigrants tend to almost always gravitate towards those Appalachian communities, yet somehow those white Appalachian folks are considered the most racist and intolerant group.

 

I guess these hipsters who somehow dictate all of the urban gentrification efforts, think they identify with the black community more-so than any other group, because they're a 'liberal.' This country is weird.

An inner-city Applachian area of Cincinnati seems to be turning around modestly or maybe it has for awhile, but Eastern Avenue corridor.  I think that is more to do with the pressure moving down from Mt. Lookout to Columbia Tusculum and people realized how beautiful that corridor is.

 

I think for a place like Lower Price Hill, there needs to be a TON of redevelopment in East Price Hill then move down from there. 

 

I don't know much about the West Side of Cincinnati being from Iowa but I've driven through on more than a few times and everytime it seems I get honked at like 5 times and yelled at for not moving fast enough.  I think it's a tough area of town, definitely an urban area (talking about Price Hill).  The thing is though is that you get to West Price Hill and some of the side streets honestly look like you are in Mt. Lookout.

Hipsters WILL NOT move into a white trash area. They avoid hillbillies, meatheads, wiggers et. al. like the plague. Those are the types of people that made hipsters miserable in their small town or fringe suburb and they never want to see them again.

 

This is why nobody is buying the super-cheap houses in Covington, Newport, and Latonia.  You can still get a great house over there in a walkable neighborhood less than 2 miles from DT Cincinnati for like $60,000.  But anyone with money and a degree is paying $300k+ for the same house in Northside or in Oakley. 

^Even as a white male I've gotten enough dirty looks from the Confederate flag-waving crowds in those pockets of NKY (and even here in parts of east Dayton) to have no desire to even really walk around and explore those neighborhoods on foot.

Hipsters WILL NOT move into a white trash area. They avoid hillbillies, meatheads, wiggers et. al. like the plague. Those are the types of people that made hipsters miserable in their small town or fringe suburb and they never want to see them again.

 

This is why nobody is buying the super-cheap houses in Covington, Newport, and Latonia.  You can still get a great house over there in a walkable neighborhood less than 2 miles from DT Cincinnati for like $60,000.  But anyone with money and a degree is paying $300k+ for the same house in Northside or in Oakley. 

 

There is a major factor that isn't being discussed. That is our city's growth rate. If the City of Cincinnati continues to grow at a pathetic rate of 150 people per year, there is just no way that developers can take on projects like rehabbing homes in Price Hill and make a profit.

 

Now let's say we land a new Fortune 500 company or government agency in Greater Cincinnati. That changes everything. If we are adding tens of thousands of new jobs in the city, not only will people start rehabbing every house in the region that isn't totally falling apart, developers will start shoving new apartment buildings into any oddly shaped piece of land they can find. In that type of market, hipsters would absolutely live in Latonia and Newport and Covington and South Fairmont.

^Even as a white male I've gotten enough dirty looks from the Confederate flag-waving crowds in those pockets of NKY (and even here in parts of east Dayton) to have no desire to even really walk around and explore those neighborhoods on foot.

 

I've had some bad personal experiences a few times in NKY that surprised me but happened and it has kind of turned me off on it a bit, but I know every area isn't like that.  Things like blatent racism (not directed at me), me getting screamed at while driving, a group of young guys trying to fight me and talking "ish" after a movie, for no reason whatsoever.  It makes me nervous thinking about that and being with my girlfriend.  In areas of Cincinnati that doesn't ever happen.  Other things sometimes happen in certain areas but it certainly doesn't freak me out like the things that happened in NKY.

Speaking of "those people", I just overheard this:  "I've been dipping since I was 9" from a guy who is about 25.

 

What is incredible about the Appalachian culture is just how resilient it is.  It's 2017 and people are still smoking, dipping, flying the confederate flag, working on cars, refusing to read books, arguing in public, etc., just like they were 50 years ago. 

It was?! I never saw any homes in Hilliard that looked that old. I suppose some parts are, though. There's neighborhoods in Upper Arlington that were built in the 50s that don't really look like it. I think Suburban Columbus might have been ahead of it's time in terms of bland, modern suburban architecture. Before exaggerated features that took over. I thought Hilliard didn't really take off until the 90s. I do recall seeing split-level houses that would be indicative of 70s'-ish development but the late 90s is when they built Tuttle and the farther-out parts of the west side of Columbus went to sh!t.

 

Before the mid-late 90s, it seemed that the Hilltop was much more in tact. It had many more middle class families and people who cared about the community and their kid's education. Now, it's worse than The Bottoms. With the recent development happening in The Bottoms, it's going to be MUCH worse than The Bottoms.

 

I remember as a kid living on the west side, people talking about Hilliard as if was some magical paradise. I honestly think the school district is what persuaded almost everyone to move there, though. Hilliard really isn't and never was that great. It's boring and sterile. It does have huge employment centers nearby, though. That's probably because the people who have a say in where companies are located, moved to Hilliard.

 

Personally, I'd rather live in the Westgate neighborhood, than Hilliard even though there isn't much commercially going on nearby. That area is truly a diamond in the rough. They have a really cool park (Westgate Park) with an awesome recreation center for kids and adults. You can grill out, there. Play tennis or basketball. They have a great playground for kids. It also has a big pond where you can catch giant catfish - some of which I've seen caught, are 4 feet long!

 

Murray Hill is also a tucked-away gem and very under-rated.

 

what neighborhood are you referring to when you say 'Murray Hill'?  I grew up on Murray Hill Road in Lincoln Village.

It was?! I never saw any homes in Hilliard that looked that old. I suppose some parts are, though. There's neighborhoods in Upper Arlington that were built in the 50s that don't really look like it. I think Suburban Columbus might have been ahead of it's time in terms of bland, modern suburban architecture. Before exaggerated features that took over. I thought Hilliard didn't really take off until the 90s. I do recall seeing split-level houses that would be indicative of 70s'-ish development but the late 90s is when they built Tuttle and the farther-out parts of the west side of Columbus went to sh!t.

 

Before the mid-late 90s, it seemed that the Hilltop was much more in tact. It had many more middle class families and people who cared about the community and their kid's education. Now, it's worse than The Bottoms. With the recent development happening in The Bottoms, it's going to be MUCH worse than The Bottoms.

 

I remember as a kid living on the west side, people talking about Hilliard as if was some magical paradise. I honestly think the school district is what persuaded almost everyone to move there, though. Hilliard really isn't and never was that great. It's boring and sterile. It does have huge employment centers nearby, though. That's probably because the people who have a say in where companies are located, moved to Hilliard.

 

Personally, I'd rather live in the Westgate neighborhood, than Hilliard even though there isn't much commercially going on nearby. That area is truly a diamond in the rough. They have a really cool park (Westgate Park) with an awesome recreation center for kids and adults. You can grill out, there. Play tennis or basketball. They have a great playground for kids. It also has a big pond where you can catch giant catfish - some of which I've seen caught, are 4 feet long!

 

Murray Hill is also a tucked-away gem and very under-rated.

 

what neighborhood are you referring to when you say 'Murray Hill'?  I grew up on Murray Hill Road in Lincoln Village.

 

Murray Hill is just a street? I could have sworn it was a 'district.' I think the neighborhood is called Murray Hill but in any case, I was thinking of the neighborhood just north of that shopping center where the Westland Area Library is. New Rome/Westland area is generally quite a sh!t hole but I really liked that area north of those decayed shopping centers; you could tell residents take a lot of pride in it - at least around 2009-2011.

It was?! I never saw any homes in Hilliard that looked that old. I suppose some parts are, though. There's neighborhoods in Upper Arlington that were built in the 50s that don't really look like it. I think Suburban Columbus might have been ahead of it's time in terms of bland, modern suburban architecture. Before exaggerated features that took over. I thought Hilliard didn't really take off until the 90s. I do recall seeing split-level houses that would be indicative of 70s'-ish development but the late 90s is when they built Tuttle and the farther-out parts of the west side of Columbus went to sh!t.

 

Before the mid-late 90s, it seemed that the Hilltop was much more in tact. It had many more middle class families and people who cared about the community and their kid's education. Now, it's worse than The Bottoms. With the recent development happening in The Bottoms, it's going to be MUCH worse than The Bottoms.

 

I remember as a kid living on the west side, people talking about Hilliard as if was some magical paradise. I honestly think the school district is what persuaded almost everyone to move there, though. Hilliard really isn't and never was that great. It's boring and sterile. It does have huge employment centers nearby, though. That's probably because the people who have a say in where companies are located, moved to Hilliard.

 

Personally, I'd rather live in the Westgate neighborhood, than Hilliard even though there isn't much commercially going on nearby. That area is truly a diamond in the rough. They have a really cool park (Westgate Park) with an awesome recreation center for kids and adults. You can grill out, there. Play tennis or basketball. They have a great playground for kids. It also has a big pond where you can catch giant catfish - some of which I've seen caught, are 4 feet long!

 

Murray Hill is also a tucked-away gem and very under-rated.

 

what neighborhood are you referring to when you say 'Murray Hill'?  I grew up on Murray Hill Road in Lincoln Village.

 

Murray Hill is just a street? I could have sworn it was a 'district.' I think the neighborhood is called Murray Hill but in any case, I was thinking of the neighborhood just north of that shopping center where the Westland Area Library is. New Rome/Westland area is generally quite a sh!t hole but I really liked that area north of those decayed shopping centers; you could tell residents take a lot of pride in it - at least around 2009-2011.

 

Murray Hill Road is a street. It runs north and south of Broad street and connects Lincoln Village South(south of Broad) with Lincoln Village North(north of Broad). The neighborhoods are Lincoln Village North and South. The area was built in the 50's and 60's by Murray Lincoln, connected to Nationwide Insurance, and it is about 3000 homes. At the northeast intersection of Murray Hill Road and Broad is a big sign saying 'LINCOLN VILLAGE'. Murray Hill road was named after Murray Lincoln, of course. East of Lincoln Village North is a different neighborhood called Garden Heights, and west of it is place called Little Farms. East of Lincoln Village South is a rundown Appalachian type of neighborhood called oddly enough, Mix Estates. West of it is Columbia Heights and Rome Heights.

 

The whole census designated place in Prairie township south of the railroad tracks, north of Sullivant avenue, west of the freeway(270) and east of Norton and Hilliard-Rome road is called Lincoln Village.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Village,_Ohio

 

(and the article is wrong in that 'Rome Heights' is not adjacent to the CDP, but is a part of the CDP of Lincoln Village.)

 

I have seen on google maps the name "Murray Hill' over Lincoln Village South and have heard of the area referred to as that a few times, but the area is really a part of Lincoln Village.

 

*Lincoln Village Plaza also is not that 'decayed' as it seems to be fully occupied and has a Giant Eagle among other things. One of my brothers lives on Deerfield in Lincoln Village North.

 

I also had noticed that the recession/depression hit the area hard and it seemed every third home on South Murray Hill was vacant. Now there is not a vacant house on the entire length of the street. It is a working class area now, a mix of white, black, hispanic. Unlike when I grew up and it was 100 percent white and among my young friends their fathers varied from factory workers to police officers and attorneys.

Murray Hill is both. It's the formal name of a street and an informal name of a neighborhood.

It was?! I never saw any homes in Hilliard that looked that old. I suppose some parts are, though. There's neighborhoods in Upper Arlington that were built in the 50s that don't really look like it. I think Suburban Columbus might have been ahead of it's time in terms of bland, modern suburban architecture. Before exaggerated features that took over. I thought Hilliard didn't really take off until the 90s. I do recall seeing split-level houses that would be indicative of 70s'-ish development but the late 90s is when they built Tuttle and the farther-out parts of the west side of Columbus went to sh!t.

 

Before the mid-late 90s, it seemed that the Hilltop was much more in tact. It had many more middle class families and people who cared about the community and their kid's education. Now, it's worse than The Bottoms. With the recent development happening in The Bottoms, it's going to be MUCH worse than The Bottoms.

 

I remember as a kid living on the west side, people talking about Hilliard as if was some magical paradise. I honestly think the school district is what persuaded almost everyone to move there, though. Hilliard really isn't and never was that great. It's boring and sterile. It does have huge employment centers nearby, though. That's probably because the people who have a say in where companies are located, moved to Hilliard.

 

Personally, I'd rather live in the Westgate neighborhood, than Hilliard even though there isn't much commercially going on nearby. That area is truly a diamond in the rough. They have a really cool park (Westgate Park) with an awesome recreation center for kids and adults. You can grill out, there. Play tennis or basketball. They have a great playground for kids. It also has a big pond where you can catch giant catfish - some of which I've seen caught, are 4 feet long!

 

Murray Hill is also a tucked-away gem and very under-rated.

 

what neighborhood are you referring to when you say 'Murray Hill'?  I grew up on Murray Hill Road in Lincoln Village.

 

Murray Hill is just a street? I could have sworn it was a 'district.' I think the neighborhood is called Murray Hill but in any case, I was thinking of the neighborhood just north of that shopping center where the Westland Area Library is. New Rome/Westland area is generally quite a sh!t hole but I really liked that area north of those decayed shopping centers; you could tell residents take a lot of pride in it - at least around 2009-2011.

 

Murray Hill Road is a street. It runs north and south of Broad street and connects Lincoln Village South(south of Broad) with Lincoln Village North(north of Broad). The neighborhoods are Lincoln Village North and South. The area was built in the 50's and 60's by Murray Lincoln, connected to Nationwide Insurance, and it is about 3000 homes. At the northeast intersection of Murray Hill Road and Broad is a big sign saying 'LINCOLN VILLAGE'. Murray Hill road was named after Murray Lincoln, of course. East of Lincoln Village North is a different neighborhood called Garden Heights, and west of it is place called Little Farms. East of Lincoln Village South is a rundown Appalachian type of neighborhood called oddly enough, Mix Estates. West of it is Columbia Heights and Rome Heights.

 

The whole census designated place in Prairie township south of the railroad tracks, north of Sullivant avenue, west of the freeway(270) and east of Norton and Hilliard-Rome road is called Lincoln Village.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Village,_Ohio

 

(and the article is wrong in that 'Rome Heights' is not adjacent to the CDP, but is a part of the CDP of Lincoln Village.)

 

I have seen on google maps the name "Murray Hill' over Lincoln Village South and have heard of the area referred to as that a few times, but the area is really a part of Lincoln Village.

 

*Lincoln Village Plaza also is not that 'decayed' as it seems to be fully occupied and has a Giant Eagle among other things. One of my brothers lives on Deerfield in Lincoln Village North.

 

I also had noticed that the recession/depression hit the area hard and it seemed every third home on South Murray Hill was vacant. Now there is not a vacant house on the entire length of the street. It is a working class area now, a mix of white, black, hispanic. Unlike when I grew up and it was 100 percent white and among my young friends their fathers varied from factory workers to police officers and attorneys.

 

I really don't understand why you're upset. I gave props to 'Murray Hill' by explaining what a great community and hidden gem it is. Whether it's a street or neighborhood, something inspired me to call the neighborhood 'Murray Hill.' I really believe that it was due to signage and marketing but even if that's not the case, does it really matter? Why the hell would you be offended by the kind words I've said, regarding the neighborhood which I've put in the spotlight against Hilliard or the City of Columbus? I said that the area is a hidden gem and that I'd rather live there, than Hilliard. Jesus Christ. What are you complaining about?

Murray Hill is both. It's the formal name of a street and an informal name of a neighborhood.

It is the name of a street...I have never know it as even really an informal name of a neighborhood as I don't think much of anyone really refers to it as that-the first time I saw it called that was on Google maps and I wondered where did that come from?-I have relatives who live on Murray Hill Road and they have never heard of it. Are you from Columbus and did you grow up in the neighborhood or live there now? I have heard a few people refer to it but just a couple of times but never really thought much about it- is this something new that has developed in the last few years? I never heard of it ever referred to that way until a couple of years ago, and just a couple of times-which was why I was so surprised to see it on Google Maps.

It was?! I never saw any homes in Hilliard that looked that old. I suppose some parts are, though. There's neighborhoods in Upper Arlington that were built in the 50s that don't really look like it. I think Suburban Columbus might have been ahead of it's time in terms of bland, modern suburban architecture. Before exaggerated features that took over. I thought Hilliard didn't really take off until the 90s. I do recall seeing split-level houses that would be indicative of 70s'-ish development but the late 90s is when they built Tuttle and the farther-out parts of the west side of Columbus went to sh!t.

 

Before the mid-late 90s, it seemed that the Hilltop was much more in tact. It had many more middle class families and people who cared about the community and their kid's education. Now, it's worse than The Bottoms. With the recent development happening in The Bottoms, it's going to be MUCH worse than The Bottoms.

 

I remember as a kid living on the west side, people talking about Hilliard as if was some magical paradise. I honestly think the school district is what persuaded almost everyone to move there, though. Hilliard really isn't and never was that great. It's boring and sterile. It does have huge employment centers nearby, though. That's probably because the people who have a say in where companies are located, moved to Hilliard.

 

Personally, I'd rather live in the Westgate neighborhood, than Hilliard even though there isn't much commercially going on nearby. That area is truly a diamond in the rough. They have a really cool park (Westgate Park) with an awesome recreation center for kids and adults. You can grill out, there. Play tennis or basketball. They have a great playground for kids. It also has a big pond where you can catch giant catfish - some of which I've seen caught, are 4 feet long!

 

Murray Hill is also a tucked-away gem and very under-rated.

 

what neighborhood are you referring to when you say 'Murray Hill'?  I grew up on Murray Hill Road in Lincoln Village.

 

Murray Hill is just a street? I could have sworn it was a 'district.' I think the neighborhood is called Murray Hill but in any case, I was thinking of the neighborhood just north of that shopping center where the Westland Area Library is. New Rome/Westland area is generally quite a sh!t hole but I really liked that area north of those decayed shopping centers; you could tell residents take a lot of pride in it - at least around 2009-2011.

 

Murray Hill Road is a street. It runs north and south of Broad street and connects Lincoln Village South(south of Broad) with Lincoln Village North(north of Broad). The neighborhoods are Lincoln Village North and South. The area was built in the 50's and 60's by Murray Lincoln, connected to Nationwide Insurance, and it is about 3000 homes. At the northeast intersection of Murray Hill Road and Broad is a big sign saying 'LINCOLN VILLAGE'. Murray Hill road was named after Murray Lincoln, of course. East of Lincoln Village North is a different neighborhood called Garden Heights, and west of it is place called Little Farms. East of Lincoln Village South is a rundown Appalachian type of neighborhood called oddly enough, Mix Estates. West of it is Columbia Heights and Rome Heights.

 

The whole census designated place in Prairie township south of the railroad tracks, north of Sullivant avenue, west of the freeway(270) and east of Norton and Hilliard-Rome road is called Lincoln Village.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Village,_Ohio

 

(and the article is wrong in that 'Rome Heights' is not adjacent to the CDP, but is a part of the CDP of Lincoln Village.)

 

I have seen on google maps the name "Murray Hill' over Lincoln Village South and have heard of the area referred to as that a few times, but the area is really a part of Lincoln Village.

 

*Lincoln Village Plaza also is not that 'decayed' as it seems to be fully occupied and has a Giant Eagle among other things. One of my brothers lives on Deerfield in Lincoln Village North.

 

I also had noticed that the recession/depression hit the area hard and it seemed every third home on South Murray Hill was vacant. Now there is not a vacant house on the entire length of the street. It is a working class area now, a mix of white, black, hispanic. Unlike when I grew up and it was 100 percent white and among my young friends their fathers varied from factory workers to police officers and attorneys.

 

I really don't understand why you're upset. I gave props to 'Murray Hill' by explaining what a great community and hidden gem it is. Whether it's a street or neighborhood, something inspired me to call the neighborhood 'Murray Hill.' I really believe that it was due to signage and marketing but even if that's not the case, does it really matter? Why the hell would you be offended by the kind words I've said, regarding the neighborhood which I've put in the spotlight against Hilliard or the City of Columbus? I said that the area is a hidden gem and that I'd rather live there, than Hilliard. Jesus Christ. What are you complaining about?

 

Nobody is upset or complaining..why would you say that? What phrases or words did I use that conveyed that I was upset or complaining?  I was just explaining the neighborhood since I grew up in it. That is it.  What I don't understand is the apparent hostility to my comments here. What did I exactly write than suggested I was offended, upset, or complaining?  And no I am not upset, complaining, or offended now...just surprised really. Why  did pointing out some things and offering information about the neighborhood warrant such a harsh response?

 

Also it is not about 'props' or what anyone thinks of the place. It has steadily gone downhill(especially after the closing of Westinghouse and GM nearby) and I myself do not think of any of it as any kind of 'gem' of any sort. There are some decent sections but that is about it IMO.

 

Maybe I just don't need to be on this forum anymore...I just don't understand the way people respond here.

It's also interesting that Mexicans and other immigrants tend to almost always gravitate towards those Appalachian communities, yet somehow those white Appalachian folks are considered the most racist and intolerant group.

 

I guess these hipsters who somehow dictate all of the urban gentrification efforts, think they identify with the black community more-so than any other group, because they're a 'liberal.' This country is weird.

 

That's crazy, because the rivalries there have been known to the mainstream culture for decades.  Even in 70s TV, Archie Bunker had a petition that one minority family in the neighborhood was enough, George Jefferson got on his case about it.  Then he found out they were Puerto Rican, and signed it.

 

With Hispanics, it's not that they get a warm welcome from the Appalachians, it's that they don't get a hostile one like they get from some Blacks, who get similar from Appalachians. 

 

It's also interesting that Mexicans and other immigrants tend to almost always gravitate towards those Appalachian communities, yet somehow those white Appalachian folks are considered the most racist and intolerant group.

 

I guess these hipsters who somehow dictate all of the urban gentrification efforts, think they identify with the black community more-so than any other group, because they're a 'liberal.' This country is weird.

 

That's crazy, because the rivalries there have been known to the mainstream culture for decades.  Even in 70s TV, Archie Bunker had a petition that one minority family in the neighborhood was enough, George Jefferson got on his case about it.  Then he found out they were Puerto Rican, and signed it.

 

With Hispanics, it's not that they get a warm welcome from the Appalachians, it's that they don't get a hostile one like they get from some Blacks, who get similar from Appalachians. 

 

 

If Archie Bunker were alive, he'd probably be living in Westchester or Mason. People like him ended up moving way out, I think.

 

I just think it's ridiculous how people get on here talking about hillbillies waiving confederate flags everywhere and acting ignorant and hostile. They're random anecdotes that don't coincide with real crime statistics or demographics that reveal diversity - at least in terms of historically Appalachian inner-city neighborhoods.

 

If Archie Bunker were alive, he'd probably be living in Westchester or Mason. People like him ended up moving way out, I think.

 

I just think it's ridiculous how people get on here talking about hillbillies waiving confederate flags everywhere and acting ignorant and hostile. They're random anecdotes that don't coincide with real crime statistics or demographics that reveal diversity - at least in terms of historically Appalachian inner-city neighborhoods.

 

Or in terms of rural areas either.  They aren't strangers to destructive or violent behavior, but it's relatively quite rare and pretty much "man bites dog" as far as publicity goes.

Hillbillies are awesome. They're resourceful. They know how to fix EVERYTHING. They're really community-oriented and always look out for their neighbors. I loved having hillbilly neighbors! Any time I needed random tools, ladders, parts for my bike, etc., they always had them! Anytime I needed help fixing something, they were always there for me! Incredible that they took so much time away from waving their confederate flags to do all that.

I think Mason or West Chester would be a bit out of Archie Bunker's price range.  I picture him in a place like Deer Park or Bridgetown.  The first ring suburbs and enclaves (and by first ring I mean immediately outside the city limits, though by date and style they'd probably be considered more like second ring) such as Deer Park and Bridgetown, as well as St. Bernard, Anderson, and Delhi, seem to be excessively curmudgeonly and anti-city compared to some of the farther out suburbs and exurbs. 

Hillbillies are awesome. They're resourceful. They know how to fix EVERYTHING. They're really community-oriented and always look out for their neighbors. I loved having hillbilly neighbors! Any time I needed random tools, ladders, parts for my bike, etc., they always had them! Anytime I needed help fixing something, they were always there for me! Incredible that they took so much time away from waving their confederate flags to do all that.

Mexicans are similar, which could be a big part of why they seem to get along with Appalachians. 

There's parts of Mason that are cheap. Drive up 42 and see all the houses with crummy additions.

Hillbillies are awesome. They're resourceful. They know how to fix EVERYTHING. They're really community-oriented and always look out for their neighbors. I loved having hillbilly neighbors! Any time I needed random tools, ladders, parts for my bike, etc., they always had them! Anytime I needed help fixing something, they were always there for me! Incredible that they took so much time away from waving their confederate flags to do all that.

Mexicans are similar, which could be a big part of why they seem to get along with Appalachians. 

 

That's not of much value to hipsters since they don't own anything. Therefore nothing can break.

It's funny; not a single person on this site  has countered my argument with real statistics and there are a lot of nerds on this site with a lot of resources who I know would love to prove me otherwise. Fact is, most of the west side of Columbus, Old Brooklyn on down  to Clark-Fulton in Cleveland and Lower Price Hill in Cincinnati have relatively low crime rates and a history of inclusion compared to the rest of their respective cities. Inner-city Appalachian neighborhoods are indeed misunderstood and I dare say disenfranchised. I have Appalachian people in my family so it sort of hits home for me and I'd hope that people can understand  it's somewhat offensive when someone says something like, "I'd never live in Lower Price Hill because I don't want to live next to Kid Rock" or insinuating that they all wave confederate flags and act hostile towards everyone else  for no apparent reason. That's not true. I can see how it might be hard to differentiate the two but Hillbillies aren't the same as Rednecks!

 

 

It's funny; not a single person on this site  has countered my argument with real statistics and there are a lot of nerds on this site with a lot of resources who I know would love to prove me otherwise. Fact is, most of the west side of Columbus, Old Brooklyn on down  to Clark-Fulton in Cleveland and Lower Price Hill in Cincinnati have relatively low crime rates and a history of inclusion compared to the rest of their respective cities. Inner-city Appalachian neighborhoods are indeed misunderstood and I dare say disenfranchised. I have Appalachian people in my family so it sort of hits home for me and I'd hope that people can understand  it's somewhat offensive when someone says something like, "I'd never live in Lower Price Hill because I don't want to live next to Kid Rock" or insinuating that they all wave confederate flags and act hostile towards everyone else  for no apparent reason. That's not true. I can see how it might be hard to differentiate the two but Hillbillies aren't the same as Rednecks!

 

 

Inclusion might be a bit of an overstatement (Appalachians are usually only truly inclusive with their own kin and allied families)  but only a bit of one as they aren't exclusive the way some groups can be.  They tend to be "equal opportunity" as far as suspicion goes.

 

One thing's for sure though, the disdain for them (and other rural/southern whites) is a big part of what got Trump elected.  It started with Gore in 2000 and a lot of people, myself included, thought that was mostly about guns.  That was part of it, but mostly it was about condescension.  Hillary was even worse than Obama and Gore at talking "at them" at best, but more likely down to them. 

 

No excuse for Hillary, because Bill didn't do that.  Trump, like him, got them to think he was talking to them, and with them.  He was probably faking and almost certainly generally full of fertilizer and deep down they knew it, but that turned them off far less than the "Progressive" approach does.

Young Appalachian males in Columbus are explosive. They're always jittering around and about to blow at any time. Always jabberjawing on the phone too. Between that and the willingness of an Appalachian to dump all their problems on you from the minute you meet them, you can see why they make other groups nervous.

Growing up on the west side, our little baseball league teams were usually 50/50 Catholic/Appalachian.  The Appalachian kids on our teams always had dads who were gainfully employed (often wore those work uniforms to the games with name tags that said "Gary" or whatever).  But once or twice per year we'd play some hillbilly team up in Butler County near Hamilton.  Their dads didn't have jobs and things usually got out-of-control.  Their dads yelled at the umps, at each other, and occasionally coolers, folding chairs, and other items were thrown.  We were on vacation one year and so missed the time when a hillbilly dad got his gun out of his truck and threatened an umpire. 

 

In our area a fair number of the dads had union jobs at GE Aviation.  The place paid really well.  My dad had an advanced college degree but those guys were making as much or more than my dad did until he was at least 30.  Sometimes the moms had a little job on the side, but the men were definitely the breadwinners.  It established an order that allowed people to deal with problems one at a time.  Today, the lack of good employment for men is the cause of so much of the insane behavior we see all the time.  People are overwhelmed with problems because their financial situation is so precarious. 

 

It's funny; not a single person on this site  has countered my argument with real statistics and there are a lot of nerds on this site with a lot of resources who I know would love to prove me otherwise. Fact is, most of the west side of Columbus, Old Brooklyn on down  to Clark-Fulton in Cleveland and Lower Price Hill in Cincinnati have relatively low crime rates and a history of inclusion compared to the rest of their respective cities. Inner-city Appalachian neighborhoods are indeed misunderstood and I dare say disenfranchised. I have Appalachian people in my family so it sort of hits home for me and I'd hope that people can understand  it's somewhat offensive when someone says something like, "I'd never live in Lower Price Hill because I don't want to live next to Kid Rock" or insinuating that they all wave confederate flags and act hostile towards everyone else  for no apparent reason. That's not true. I can see how it might be hard to differentiate the two but Hillbillies aren't the same as Rednecks!

 

If you honestly think that your experience as a straight, white male who's family is from Appalachia is the same as other people's experiences (i.e. people who don't fit your description), then I don't know if it is worth even discussing this with you. But as far as Mexicans getting along with Appalachian folk, lol, yeah....maybe for my fellow Mexicans who are white, but that inclusion pretty much ends if you're unwilling to sell out your heritage (how many self-respecting Mexican Americans would put up with the blatant racism and anti-Mexican sentiment that white people/Appalachians/Trump supporters project?) or if you are not white presenting. Also, I used to work for a CDC that serves a neighborhood that has a mix of Latinos, African Americans, and white people of Appalachian decent and oh boy, do they not like outsiders, especially people who are not white. The amount of times I had to hear about how no one helps them out or how the area is being taken over by "those" people...

 

Oh, and I would not say that Old Brooklyn is primarily an "inner-city" Appalachian community, but my experiences with residents from those areas are anecdotal, but if you are truly interested in this and want statistics for these neighborhoods of which you speak, perhaps you could do your own work instead of relying on the "nerds on this site" to do it for you.

Growing up on the west side, our little baseball league teams were usually 50/50 Catholic/Appalachian.  The Appalachian kids on our teams always had dads who were gainfully employed (often wore those work uniforms to the games with name tags that said "Gary" or whatever).  But once or twice per year we'd play some hillbilly team up in Butler County near Hamilton.  Their dads didn't have jobs and things usually got out-of-control.  Their dads yelled at the umps, at each other, and occasionally coolers, folding chairs, and other items were thrown.  We were on vacation one year and so missed the time when a hillbilly dad got his gun out of his truck and threatened an umpire. 

 

In our area a fair number of the dads had union jobs at GE Aviation.  The place paid really well.  My dad had an advanced college degree but those guys were making as much or more than my dad did until he was at least 30.  Sometimes the moms had a little job on the side, but the men were definitely the breadwinners.  It established an order that allowed people to deal with problems one at a time.  Today, the lack of good employment for men is the cause of so much of the insane behavior we see all the time.  People are overwhelmed with problems because their financial situation is so precarious. 

 

 

If you've got your name embroidered on your shirt that indicates that your company at least cares about you a little and feels that you are important. All that warehouse stuff that dominates the sub I-70 Columbus economy doesn't do anything like that.

^ I worked my way through college at a job wearing those uniforms with my name embroidered on the front. I took a shirt as a keepsake when I left and the company docked like $12 of pay from my last paycheck for it.

They had just hired another guy named Ram and planned to re-use it.

TODAY IS YESTERDAY’S TOMORROW 

JANUARY 17, 2018

BY JASON SEGEDY

 

I looked at the hundreds of modest wooden-frame houses with front porches, in varying states of repair, clustered tightly together around the churches.  This neighborhood had seen slightly better days, but, all-in-all, to my mind, the image formed an idyllic and somewhat winsome tableau.

 

I remember thinking to myself, “You know, with a little bit of tender-loving-care, these neighborhoods could really be something special.  All of the components of a great place are here, even if it needs to be polished up a bit.”

 

Suddenly, my friend turned to me and said, “What a sh**hole!  Who the hell would ever want to live here?  I wouldn’t live here if you paid me a million dollars.”

 

MORE:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/12/today-is-yesterdays-tomorrow

Reason #4,236 of why I hate the suburbs.....

 

tfw you live in a sprawl development that used to be a farm, and you successfully campaign against the neighboring farmer (who was there first) from opening a bed & breakfast because you claim it would lower your property values and increase traffic

 

This is an extremely eye-opening map. It shows socioeconomic status in NE Ohio.

 

Dark blue = less than 1/2 of national average on income & education

Light blue = between 1/2 and national avg

Yellow = between national average and 1.5x national avg

Red = Over 1.5 times national avg

 

I like the map, but can you post/link the source?

I like the map, but can you post/link the source?

 

https://twitter.com/thestile1972/status/988459269875011585

 

Jason adds:

 

The level of segregation and separation between the well-educated and affluent, and the poorly-educated and impoverished is such that, in only two spots in the entire 12-county region, do significant numbers of these two groups live near one another

 

Spot #1 - Cleveland & Eastern Suburbs (University Circle, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights)

 

 

Spot #2 - Akron's west side (Highland Square, West Akron)

 

 

I thought it looked familiar! 

 

[slaps forehead]

 

Of course it's a Segedy.

 

The level of segregation and separation between the well-educated and affluent, and the poorly-educated and impoverished is such that, in only two spots in the entire 12-county region, do significant numbers of these two groups live near one another

 

 

 

Since we are talking about people who are usually culturally quite different and have divergent priorities and values, a certain degree of voluntary segregation isn't neccesarily a bad thing.  That "s word" carrys a heavy stigma because it used to mean something quite involuntary, but in and of itself isn't always a negative.

 

In fact, it's probably more comfortable for all concerned.

Except for those wanting to work and those trying to hire workers. You really do live in your own world. They are quite different BECAUSE of segregation. Greater Cleveland ranks #2 in hyper-poverty due to economic isolation. Yeah, I'm sure that's the comfort that they want....

 

 

I'm betting this isn't where KJP is going with it, but at least with respect to Akron, I'd suggest that that last remaining border is in a state of unstable equilibrium and won't last another decade.  The separation will become more complete, not less  Either the red on the north side of that divide (Merriman Hills) will fall to yellow, or the dark blue below (West Hill) will rise to light blue.  Happily, I'd put my money on the latter.  That dark blue looks like it represents the neighborhood in between Highland Square (yellow) and downtown, most of which is West Hill, which doesn't have a whole lot of neighborhood consciousness yet, but it could, and in fact the city (including, inter alia, Segedy himself) is pushing that.  The housing stock there is obviously nothing like Merriman Hills, but there are some more solid places there than people might expect.

 

I'm less familiar with the area in Cleveland noted (UC/CH/SH), but I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar pattern at work there.

 

The level of segregation and separation between the well-educated and affluent, and the poorly-educated and impoverished is such that, in only two spots in the entire 12-county region, do significant numbers of these two groups live near one another

 

Since we are talking about people who are usually culturally quite different and have divergent priorities and values, a certain degree of voluntary segregation isn't neccesarily a bad thing.  That "s word" carrys a heavy stigma because it used to mean something quite involuntary, but in and of itself isn't always a negative.

 

In fact, it's probably more comfortable for all concerned.

 

What divergent priorities and values are those?  When it comes to what my priorities for a school district, do I share more priorities with my cafeteria cashier who has two children or my fellow attorney who has zero (or whose children are all grown)?  When it comes to my priorities for potholes, should I assume that people in the exurbs are more OK with them because they have giant gas-guzzling SUVs with moon-buggy suspensions?  For that matter, when it comes to priorities for walkable environments, should we really assume that apathy towards such built environment values increases with socioeconomic status?

 

Don't get me wrong, there's a strong chance I'll be part of that self-sorting segregation, even if we stay put in Akron proper because my children will have access to private schools that most Akron children don't.  That won't be because I think that the other kids have "divergent priorities and values."  It will be because my wife and I have more means to vindicate our priorities.

I'm not sure I really agree with the sentiment of the complaint.  If there were more pockets of red surrounded by blue or vice versa, does that mean the areas are less "segregated"?  No, it just identifies enclaves of the rather rich or rather poor.  Or, if there were a wall of the blue and several census blocks bordering it with red -- that's not an indicator of "yippee, integration". I'd ask why isn't the presence of the red blocks turning those deep blue blocks into cyan blue blocks?  If anything I find the idea that those areas don't border each other very much to be expected.

 

Note that I'm not disputing the existence of socioeconomic segregation in the region. I'm disputing the use of the data in the chart as evidence or even an illustration of it. 

The annual public cost a city bears for each suburban home is more than double that of each urban home, concludes @sustpro. #CityMakingMath

 

If that were true why are taxes typically much higher in urban areas?

 

This isn't a loaded question. I'm genuinely curious because all we here is about old infrastructure that needs to be replaced, higher cost per pupil for education, more police/fire to combat higher crime rates. I didn't read the article (if there was one), but it doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm just looking at it through the lens of an aging city with middling economy.

If that were true why are taxes typically much higher in urban areas?

 

I would say that there are a number of reasons...

 

(1) Urban areas tend to pay for regional services (such as airports, stadiums, etc.) that suburban areas do not (yet still enjoy, hence why I call these people "Collar County Leeches").

(2) Some of these costs may be transferred to homeowners in other ways, such as homeowners association fees.

(3) Some of these services may be scaled back or outright eliminated in suburban areas, such as public transportation.

(4) A built environment which excludes poverty means the cost per person of these services is divided among people with larger average incomes, thus the tax rate can be lower while the total amount of taxes collected still is relatively high.

 

For Cleveland, #4 is probably one of the biggest factors (although all four do apply).  There is so much poverty that the cost of services per person must disproportionately burden those who have a good income in order to be able to cover everyone's cost.  If Strongsville or Solon had Cleveland-level poverty, their tax rates would be astronomical.

Cuties have a ton of legacy fees

A confounding factor here is that urban populations generally demand more services, so even if the cost per service is lower, the aggregate cost might be higher. Transit, schools and waste collection are obvious examples of this.

If that were true why are taxes typically much higher in urban areas?

 

This isn't a loaded question. I'm genuinely curious because all we here is about old infrastructure that needs to be replaced, higher cost per pupil for education, more police/fire to combat higher crime rates. I didn't read the article (if there was one), but it doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm just looking at it through the lens of an aging city with middling economy.

 

There's less infrastructure per person. In a dense urban neighborhood you might have 100 people living along the same length of street where you would have like two families in the burbs. That can be extrapolated to water/sewer lines, electric lines, police service, fire service, etc. It takes a lot more money to cover a low-density, spread out area.

 

And concerning the old infrastructure: The infrastructure in the burbs will be old one day too. Indeed, we're starting to see this be an issue in many older burbs. And there' MUCH more of it to deal with. Plus, the big infrastructure costs in the city often are there to serve the burbs. In Cincinnati it's the bridges and viaducts that are the huge expenses we're all worried about right now. Well if everyone lived in the basin (which I realize is not desirable) we wouldn't need viaducts and bridges. They mostly serve to get folks from the burbs to the city.

 

EDIT: I would add highways to that too. Expanding I-75 through the heart of the city isn't to serve city residents. It's to get people from Butler County downtown.

At the state and federal level taxes from cities are redistributed to the suburbs, and from metro areas to rural.  On a more local level, the depopulation and demolition of cities has led to existing taxpayers (and utilities rate payers) having to cover the cost of serving vacant and dilapidated properties with pipes and pavement.  With flat utility rates, a city dweller is subsidizing the suburbanite directly because there's virtually no difference in base service/hookup fees even though the city dweller may have only 25' of pipe/wires in front of their house and the suburbanite can easily have several hundred.  This is combined with the required upgrading of treatment facilities, larger mains, and disruption of city streets to throw those services farther out. 

A confounding factor here is that urban populations generally demand more services, so even if the cost per service is lower, the aggregate cost might be higher. Transit, schools and waste collection are obvious examples of this.

 

This is also true, although many people ignore the fact that they pay for these things privately in the suburbs.  Owning multiple vehicles is a huge cost (although not a tax) that is necessary if public transportation is not available.  Waste collection is often paid for privately in suburban areas rather than through taxes.  Many exurbs don't have sewers, so you must pay for a septic tank.  Etc.  These all give the appearance of lower costs because the taxes are lower, but in reality they are more than made up for by the increased private expenses one must incur.

People wonder why cities are loath to annex parts of the metro that have 5-acre plots with only one 2-3 bedroom house on them. Duh, those properties would be total leeches! Columbus did it decades ago and its costs are very high per square mile than other cities in the region.