September 2013

 

 

Here are some shots from my trip to Cincinnati a few months back. Special thanks to ColDayMan for showing me around the beautiful Queen City.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally made it to Terry's Turf Club

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cranleyville never looked so good :(

It was a pleasure, sir.

Nice! It is good to see some neighborhoods not in the adjecent-to-or-within-the-downtown area.

I took a picture of that Clifton Skyline about 6-7 years ago from a slightly different angle and I STUB, the same car was in front of it.

Lovely collection of photos showing why Cincinnati is my favorite Ohio city. During our last 8 day visit (from Texas) I demanded we sample some Skyline Chili to compare its character with some of our Texas versions. I think I had a 3-way or 4-way bowl but while it was quite different from Southwestern versions, I found it tasty. When I remarked to a local Cincinnati architect about my Skyline experience he informed me most of the Chili parlors in Cincinnati were originally owned by Greek immigrants who created their own distinct recipes. From the many places I've visited, Cincinnati stands out as the only one that seems to compare favorably with San Francisco with its historic architecture, sometimes steep streets and unique culture/foods. While not having views of the Golden Gate bridge or SF Bay, the expansive Ohio River views from Price Hill and city parks with the Roebling bridge spanning the river are just as inspiring. My only disappointment was finding that while San Franciscans instinctively recognize the beauty of their city including their signature old but colorful Victorian townhomes, (that now sell for millions) Cincinnatians frequently speak critically about their old architecture as well as lamenting about the sometimes faded character of their town. Anecdotal postings I've read from former Cincinnatians often mention how much they miss their beloved hometown once they have lived in the bland landscape of more modern, "progressive" cities sorely lacking Cincinnati's character. I appreciate you sharing this nice collection.

^Disagree with the San Francisco comparison. They are completely different cities. San Francisco is much bigger, ten times as dense at its core (Tenderloin and Chinatown are pushing 70,000 people per square mile), way more cosmopolitan (though that is fading fast ever since it became America's most expensive city), has half-assed mass transit (hey, one heavy rail subway is better than none!), is much colder in the summer, its hills are much more dramatic, and being on the ocean surrounded by water on three sides creates a wholly different vibe. San Francisco is a really unique place. Parts of it are like LA (SF's Marina District is like Santa Monica), New York (SF's Financial District is like the Wall Street of the West), or Seattle (Capitol Hill is sort of like a cleaner, prettier, less douchey Mission District), but I can't think of many other cities with similarities. The best way to describe San Francisco is as a poorly-dressed Manhattan with a culture that's half Los Angeles and half Pacific Northwest. And it's important to note that it by far has America's biggest Asian influence (Asians could be the majority of the city by 2020 or 2030, and it creates a wholly different culture- especially in neighborhoods where Asians have displaced working class whites). There are not many cultural similarities to any Midwestern or Eastern city. Even the architecture is different (I guess Old West End Toledo is like Pacific Heights for 1/50th the cost and gangs around it). Cincinnati is much older, 1/4th to 1/10th the cost, has way more African-American influence, doesn't have human feces in the street, doesn't have thousands of aggressive meth heads and gutter punks, and it's heavily brick townhouses and row houses. Cincinnati has way more bang for buck and is much lees cut-throat than San Francisco (you ain't got 100 tech millionaires going to open houses for $6000 a month apartments in Cincinnati). San Francisco is mostly wooden Victorian railroad flats, Spanish Marina apartments, doorman high rises (Nob Hill), and modern, glassy infill filling in the gaps. There really is no other city like San Francisco in North America. It's the extreme cost-of-living of Manhattan's best neighborhoods with an extreme tech-obsessed economy and ultra-leftist politics. When gay men and fully tatted ex-sorority girls start walking around drunk and naked on a Sunday morning drinking $15 cocktails and smoking up in front of cops in Cincinnati, then we'll talk. :wink:

 

Cincinnati to me is sort of like a smaller, friendlier Brooklyn (seems like there are tons of ex-Ohio people in Williamsburg and Greenpoint), but with pretty hills and heavily wooded areas in the middle of the city. It's also a geographic cousin of Pittsburgh, though culturally much different (Pittsburgh having an odd mix of Great Lakes and Appalachian culture). Though I know not to bring up Pittsburgh on this board...

 

I've heard San Francisco comparisons from Ohioans before, but as a San Franciscan, I just don't see it. There just aren't similarities to any Midwestern city, not even Chicago (Chicago is a much nicer, more livable place). Overall, San Francisco is kind of overrated to live in. I say this as someone who loves the city and has a blast living there, but I recognize major cultural shifts are underway that are going to change San Francisco forever. It is losing a lot of what made it cool, is rapidly losing cultural diversity (the joke I've heard is that "Diversity in San Francisco is cool as long as you're rich or gay"), seems to have lost almost all of its natives (who made this city great), and it has become a far less friendly place. You know it's bad when you think people in Manhattan and Hollywood are nicer and more down-to-earth than people in San Francisco. It will still be a beautiful world class city, and a mecca for European tourists, but to quote a friend in Orange County, "I feel like San Francisco is nothing but millionaires and homeless people." It's gorgeous and great to visit, but once the honeymoon wears off, you'll get jaded by its tech hipsters, overpriced everything, and homeless gutter punks. This is not the place for anybody middle class to try to survive. I moved to San Francisco poor without a job not knowing anybody, and it's amazing I got places to live and jumped a few tax brackets. If I tried that today, I think I'd be out on the streets. There is no justification for its insane cost-of-living (all the cost of Manhattan with way more competition for rentals and few of the amenities that make Manhattan great), and you have to battle like hell to keep your apartment in this market (once you get rent control, you probably can never afford to move again). It's a completely different city from just a few years ago before the tech boom took off. Now it is sort of the global mecca of the 1%. Its vibe is rapidly becoming "get rich or get out!" The problem is the city brought it upon itself with its anti-development policies. The tech boom has exploded the economy in SF (perhaps the best in America now), but the housing construction isn't close to keeping up with it. San Francisco might be the hardest city to build anything in (regs and permits run incredibly long). That's why it has gotten so cut-throat. San Francisco is an incredible city, but the price line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

By comparison, Cincinnati is accessible, has a large middle class, and some people even have kids there. It's normal. San Francisco is anything but normal.

 

Cincinnati is actually pretty great considering what you can get for such little money, and it really could become an inland urban mecca if it had better politics (how the hell did that new mayor get elected?), better transit, and better marketing to hipsters. It has some of the bones to be the next Oakland (Oakland is the more apt comparison, but culturally and economically, Oakland is more like Toledo), or better yet, Brooklyn! The gentrified parts of northern Brooklyn should be Cincinnati's goal. The bones are there in the basin and hillside neighborhoods, and it's far more affordable (also seems to have a better economy- a lot more people in Brooklyn are struggling than the high rents would lead you to believe). While I don't wish hipsters on any city, there is little doubt that's currently the most reliable way to redevelop urban areas. San Francisco, Oakland, Brooklyn, and Seattle prove this (I'd throw Portland in there too, but I think Cincinnati is already probably better than Portland). Cincinnati obviously isn't like a coastal city, but it could be the hub of Ohio Valley or Appalachian chic. Economically, it seems more diversified than Pittsburgh (ugh, I brought it up again), and it's got some serious history with its beer and German roots. Kids will eat that up like Skyline chili when they're drunk...

 

These pictures prove Cincinnati's potential, and with a population boom, it could be great. I look at formerly podunk towns like Austin that exploded and eclipsed cities like Cincinnati (or any place in Ohio), and ask myself, why? Ohio really needs to start marketing hard to coastal types. "Hey guys, we've got housing for a fraction of the cost and it's bigger and better! And we actually were hip in the 1890's! And not all our dive bars are fake dive bars!" Ohio is seriously underrated on the coasts.

 

Rant over.

I get your points but San Francisco's biggest difference in comparison is cultural/demographic. The 19th century architecture on the hillsides and the views of the Ohio River vs. SF Bay and Roebling Bridge vs. Golden Gate are roughly similar. My focus was on the picturesqueness of the two cities-both have million dollar views but in SF such views will cost you well over a million while in Cincinnati you can still by a house with a great view (as the photos above show) for $100k or even less. As for culture, because SF is so wealthy, crazy becomes eccentric and acceptable. Pump a few billion into Cincinnati's real estate/economy and I think a kind of Midwestern urban Chic would evolve. I agree that it will never be a San Francisco though, for all the reasons you enumerated. But that's not necessary a bad thing. As for age, San Francisco is technically a bit older than Cincinnati...the village of Yerba Buena (which was SF's original name) was founded in 1776 while Cincinnati had to wait until 1788. I have an older friend who lives in Noe Valley in SF and he and his spouse bought the c. 1880 townhome they live in around 1980 and paid about $79,000 for it, as I recall In recent years, he's had unsolicited offers of over $2 million for the property but he said if he ever sells, he wants to retire to Santa Cruz near the beach where prices are even higher. If you make that comparison, real estate in Cincinnati is insanely cheap. When OTR and West End townhomes start selling for over a million on average then you could say Cincinnati has arrived. Artists, hipsters, and creative types crave affordable digs and Cincinnati has them in abundance. Mayor elect Cranley ran on a neighborhoods-centric platform-we'll see if he delivers or not.  I think we are both in agreement that the potential for Cincinnati is there. No slight intended towards SF-it was and still is a world class city but as you also noted the demographics are sharply split between the very well off and the have nots with little in-between.

I have an older friend who lives in Noe Valley in SF and he and his spouse bought the c. 1880 townhome they live in around 1980 and paid about $79,000 for it, as I recall In recent years, he's had unsolicited offers of over $2 million for the property but he said if he ever sells, he wants to retire to Santa Cruz near the beach where prices are even higher.

 

Sounds about right. :wink: He'd be smart to hold onto that house. It's way too early to sell. $2 million is nothing in San Francisco, and give this economic boom another couple of years, and it's worth double or triple that. He'll sell in days and have an outside investor pay in cash. Noe Valley is one of the most desirable locations in the city for Silicon Valley workers since the shuttles run down Guerrero nearby. The city is very reluctant to build housing for its tens of thousands of new millionaires, and the tech economy is explosive beyond belief:

 

"The big issue, above and beyond all of this, is that we created 68,000 new jobs last year and added something like 120 new housing units,"

 

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Housing-crisis-taking-toll-with-no-fault-evictions-4988391.php#photo-5472405

 

It will be 20 years before things level off...actually never since SF has insanely low height restrictions in 90% of the city. It's a city of 800,000 people that 2-3 million want to live in, but skyscrapers are banned in most places. The prices in desirable neighborhoods have more than doubled over the last two years, but even then, the smartest thing to do is rent out spare bedrooms if you own a house.

 

San Francisco had a large working and middle class as late as the mid-90's. Anyone who moved to the city before then and bought property can retire. I have a bartender friend who inherited a house in Inner Richmond from her uncle. She's 21 and never has to work another day in her life. She can just rent bedrooms for $2,000 a month each and make a killing. The fog belt is exploding right now since there is nowhere else to live and tech shuttles now run out there.

 

Here's where the Rust Belt and Midwest comes in...it's crazy cities like Cleveland, Toledo, Buffalo, Rochester, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. aren't start-up hubs or hipster hubs like San Francisco and New York (or at least Austin). The costs are a mere fraction what they are in desirable places, and they are far more "authentic." It all comes down to marketing...

 

Cincinnati should be a city of 500,000 people, not 300,000. It should be going hard at SXSW and Tech Crunch, and recruiting companies to leave San Francisco and the Valley.

 

Million dollar views exist in a lot of cities, but San Francisco isn't what it is because of geography (and that geography is unique with the much larger hills, extreme density, palm trees, water, piers, and cold beaches everywhere). It's what it is because of its insanely good economy and being an enclave of the ultra-rich and depraved. Cincinnati has far more in common with Portland than it does with San Francisco. That's not a bad thing. It's woodsy, built on a river, and slower paced and relaxed. But unlike Portland, I think Cincinnati has more economic diversity.

 

That dynamic economy (I'd argue the best private sector economy in Ohio), woodsy feel, and historic brick housing should be leveraged for all its worth. The average age of housing in Cincinnati's core neighborhoods is older than any West Coast city. It boomed in the mid-1800's, not the late 1800's. Being brick also makes it more robust. Northeast and Midwest cities have an edge here that isn't marketed well enough to the proper people.

 

Thank you both, TPH2 & ColDayMan,  for the richness of your combined, inspired Cincinnati photo-shoot.  Gawd, how I loved it all!  (The beauty of Cincinnati has to experienced firsthand, as you men did, by walking it; no "flyovers" allowed!)

Thanks! Love the city!

Great photos!

C-Dawg you can buy a historic 2-bedroom row house between 1-2 miles from DT Cincinnati (either near UC or across the river in Covington or Newport) for under $100,00 and one that has been fully rehabbed for about $150,000.  The property tax on a home of that value is about $2,000 a year.  No parking problems except in Mt. Adams.  It's insanely cheap to live here.   

Instead of creating a new thread, I thought I'd just update one of my old ones. Here are some shots from my trip down to Cincy this past Saturday. I was amazed at how much OTR has changed since I was last there in 2013. Walking down Vine reminded me of walking down High St in the Short North...or dare I say, like walking down Bleecker St in West Village. Good things are happening in the Queen City.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDawg, I like your posts about SF and NorCal, and how that compares to Cincy or other places. Regarding Austin, having UT there is one reason it grew so much.

Graduates could stay and find good work. UT is an insane machine, they have like 20 billion dollar endowment and the city welcomes all things UT.

I would like to see the City of Cincy embrace UC much more as it is the largest employer in the region or close to it. Really dumb to not get the streetcar

route to uptown UC in phase 1.

Beautiful photos of Cincy. I was just in OTR for the first time in December. I was very impressed with the amount and quality of the architecture. Cincy is very lucky to have such a beautiful neighborhood.

 

Agreed on the housing costs. It is beyond cheap to live here. I am looking for a house right now and what you get for your money here in Cleveland is incredible compared to other cities. I assume it is the same for Cincy. IMHO, Ohio in general is a sleeping giant. Three large cities each with very different architecture and topography. We have the most diversity in cities of any state out there!