I think residents are starting to move into the "Shoreway" building at 76th adjacent to Battery Park.  Quite a bit of miscellaneous work still to do but a fantastic project nonetheless.

 

Vintage has an uphill battle building a 90 apartment building at Battery Park.  The development was planned, marketed & sold as a condo community, not an apartment community.  They will probably have to get the bylaws amended to allow an apartment building and they'll need the residents to agree to make that change.  Stay tuned as the drama unfolds there...

 

I don't know why the residents would object even if the initial representation made was that it would be resident/owner community.  As long as the apartments are upscale and fit the character of the development, I would rather have a dense lively development rather than empty lots as the long slog to complete build out continues.  More "feet on the ground" are what would make it an attractive community to me.

^ i see your point...but the density is pretty built up and people are happy with the pace at which things are moving, which is very fast.  The main concern is how will renters be incorporated into HOA fees?  They arent invested in the area by renting.  Homeowners have invested and pay monthly fees, and would have high expectations of the renters.  Could the renters meet those expectations?  The current crop of homeowners dedicate quite a bit of volunteer sweat equity to keep the neighborhoor beautiful and moving forward.  Reenters bring a significant amount of uncertainty.  That being said, we are very excited about the Shoreway Building.  They are not part of Battery Park, however.

They just wont be part of the HOA....and "marketed and sold as" means nothing unless it is written into a contract.

 

The Apt Bldg could also be the "new" industrial building site between 70th and 73rd.  Between the shoreway bldg, the new 300 unit (approx) rental property going in between 65th and 58th and now this new 90 unit building, renters will outnumber owners of BP, and the older units on 70th, Fr. Caruso, 69th and 67th.

 

I think almost everybody bought into this neighborhood, because people were buying into the neighborhood.  If we wanted to live in a neighborhood where renters outnumbered owners we would have moved to somewhere in Lakewood.

 

 

 

"If we wanted to live in a neighborhood where renters outnumbered owners we would have moved to somewhere in Lakewood."

 

Interesting.  So now in DS we have the original residents vs. the new residents, and now a new wrinkle, the new resident owners vs. the new resident renters.

 

 

 

 

 

Circle 118 added very expensive apartments and there doesn't appear to be any issues.

"If we wanted to live in a neighborhood where renters outnumbered owners we would have moved to somewhere in Lakewood."

 

Interesting.  So now in DS we have the original residents vs. the new residents, and now a new wrinkle, the new resident owners vs. the new resident renters.

 

Sorry not buying this.

 

Bought into the neighborhood because of the original and the new resident owners.  The old residents didn't flee to burbs and slumlord out their houses.  I love the old residents and wouldn't have moved here without them.  I know they are less happy than I am about all the new rental activity....I go to the community meetings.  They are the most vocal about rental.

 

 

Large volume of renters degrades property values of nearby owner-occupied housing. It's just the way it is. It is the reason why some HOA's limit the percentage of rentals in condo buildings. And why some communities limit the number of apartment complexes in their cities. See the recent blocked apartment project in Solon.

 

It is no wonder the owners are vocal about it. Why would that surprise anybody?

I think almost everybody bought into this neighborhood, because people were buying into the neighborhood.  If we wanted to live in a neighborhood where renters outnumbered owners we would have moved to somewhere in Lakewood.

 

If you can talk Marous or whoever to choose Lakewood instead I'd be much obliged :-)

Large volume of renters degrades property values of nearby owner-occupied housing.

 

source?

 

 

something for you to read

Why do condos even exist?

 

 

 

 

  If we wanted to live in a neighborhood where renters outnumbered owners we would have moved to somewhere in Lakewood.

 

This is ignores the reality of the morgage market and it's very recent history. It is  very difficult to get a mortgage with less than perfect credit. Banks know this and construction financing for a new residential Condos is very hard to find, but financing for residential rentals is not.

 

what do you think is better for property value: a)what is there now B) what is being planned

 

in general Americans are too wedded to the idea of owning real estate, with over 400 billion dollars a year in tax subsidies being spent on rewarding property owners.

^renting is the new black...if it wasn't for incredibly low interest rates right now it would be even more prevalent.  In fact it is amazing that the rental rate is so high with interest rates so low (although new financing restrictions have to be a factor).  Interest rates may very well be on the rise in the coming year if the experts are to be believe so the rental market may get even hotter.  Builders nationwide seem to think so.  Are we seeing a fundamental shift in the way Americans live and think about housing?  Well maybe not a huge shift as I think ownership is still engrained in our belief system, but there is some sort of small shift.

Multi-family housing is where it's at, even at very low interest rates (http://electricalmarketing.com/electrical-economy/multi-family-housing-continues-roll). Despite low interest rates, single-family construction is half of what it was before the recession (http://www.forconstructionpros.com/press_release/11597459/forecast-us-construction-starts-approaching-700b-by-2018).

 

The reasons are pretty clear. Millennials can't afford to buy homes and Baby Boomers are downsizing, often by selling their homes and using the money to live in a smaller rental unit (many of which are in the city or inner-ring suburbs). Millennials and Baby Boomers are half of this country's population. The generation (Gen X -- my generation) in between is already well settled and, if we aren't, we're buying homes sold by Baby Boomers.

 

We're in the midst of The Great Reset. It's happening on many levels. Baby Boomers downsizing. Millennials trying to move out of their parents' house. And a general shift from rural areas to urban areas. (http://www.popcitymedia.com/features/completecities062714.aspx). It's not quite to the scale of what's happened in China over the past 20 years. But it's game-changing nonetheless. So if we're looking to old rules and practices to make sense of The Great Reset, we're going to be confused. Instead, new rules and practices are being written with every new surprising day.

 

If you want to buy a house, your best bet is to look among the glut of for-sale housing that already exists. If you can get financing.

RE shoreway building.

 

Had a co-worker of my wife spend the night with us, she was supposed to be living there tonight.  They are going to be putting her up at quail hollow until she can move in.

 

Appliances are not installed (on site) she has no toilet, she was told the rooftop deck would be ready by labor day...I would bet she wont be enjoying it until memorial day.

 

they said it was a sewer issue.....It is more like they aren't finished, based on first/second hand information, I would say it wont be ready for 1-2 weeks.  They said "maybe monday"

 

Promises = nothing  Execution = everything.

 

Multi-family housing is where it's at, even at very low interest rates (http://electricalmarketing.com/electrical-economy/multi-family-housing-continues-roll). Despite low interest rates, single-family construction is half of what it was before the recession (http://www.forconstructionpros.com/press_release/11597459/forecast-us-construction-starts-approaching-700b-by-2018).

 

The reasons are pretty clear. Millennials can't afford to buy homes and Baby Boomers are downsizing, often by selling their homes and using the money to live in a smaller rental unit (many of which are in the city or inner-ring suburbs). Millennials and Baby Boomers are half of this country's population. The generation (Gen X -- my generation) in between is already well settled and, if we aren't, we're buying homes sold by Baby Boomers.

 

We're in the midst of The Great Reset. It's happening on many levels. Baby Boomers downsizing. Millennials trying to move out of their parents' house. And a general shift from rural areas to urban areas. (http://www.popcitymedia.com/features/completecities062714.aspx). It's not quite to the scale of what's happened in China over the past 20 years. But it's game-changing nonetheless. So if we're looking to old rules and practices to make sense of The Great Reset, we're going to be confused. Instead, new rules and practices are being written with every new surprising day.

 

If you want to buy a house, your best bet is to look among the glut of for-sale housing that already exists. If you can get financing.

On top of all that, people are more likely to move around the country/world than in the past. It does not make financial sense to buy if you could be gone in less than five years. And for those talking about rentals bringing down housing values....the new apartments are in the $1,000-2,000 a month range (more than a mortgage). These renters are a little different than $600 per month slumlord style renting.

To add to kennybabes[/member] Shoreway comments:  My friend who is supposed to be moving in today was also told the delay is due to a "sewer issue with the city."  However, we walked through the Battery Park tunnel to Edgewater Live last evening and although there may be a sewer issue, the building is not near ready for occupancy.  We could only see from the outside but new concrete is still being poured, the inside lobby doesn't look close to being finished, etc.  They also told my friend they are hoping for Wednesday but from what I saw it will be quite a bit longer than that until people can move in.

 

On top of all that, people are more likely to move around the country/world than in the past. It does not make financial sense to buy if you could be gone in less than five years. And for those talking about rentals bringing down housing values....the new apartments are in the $1,000-2,000 a month range (more than a mortgage). These renters are a little different than $600 per month slumlord style renting.

 

The rents are only 1000-2000 a month as long as people pay it,  once there aren't people paying that it will be 700-1500 then 600 - 1200.  The management company doesn't live there, they don't care if they destroy the neighborhood. 

 

Owners have an ownership stake. The developer only cares about $$.  he will take Sec 8 or turn his property into a frat house or rent 2 bedroom units to 10 people if he has to to satisfy his stakeholder(s)....who don't live in the neighborhood.  What's the ROI on 90-180 grand per  year for (what does it cost to throw up a 3-4 story stick built vinyl box with say 120,000 square feet under the roof)

 

5 year payback?? The fact that they might get 1000 a month now doesn't mean they will happily be cashing 500 a month checks in 2020, while their neighbors paid into the neighborhood at 200,000 to 500,000 grand.

 

What marching orders do you think the manger will have.

 

1) where's my money?

2) make sure our property is an asset to the community, the money, not so much.

 

And unlike Lakewood, Cleveland's finest cannot be bothered with "Quality of Life" calls.  They are too busy ignoring dead bodies on the freeway and blatant prostitution/drug dealing on major thouroghfares, including one of the "gateways" to this particular neighborhood. 

 

So you like rental, you can have the rental, this neighborhood doesn't want it.

That entire rant would make sense if this were Glenville. It's not. Would bet my life's savings that those rents increase year over year. No I do not currently live in the neighborhood but will within a year.

kennybabes, I don't understand your fears. Where's the end of supply of new residents? At this time, there is no end in sight. So why would rents decline? Owners of housing can just easily neglect them due to financial problems or job relocations, leaving a vacant and potentially foreclosed house for years until someone else buys it. If you want to build in some accountability, have the apartment residents elect a board of oversight to choose the apartment property manager. And give renters the option to make their apartments rent-to-own.

 

Ultimately, however, you're posing a false choice. The choice isn't between getting people to rent or buy. The choice is between building rental housing or none at all, leaving land vacant in your neighborhood. If you want to build for-sale housing, that's fine. Just don't expect as many people to move in.

That entire rant would make sense if this were Glenville. It's not. Would bet my life's savings that those rents increase year over year. No I do not currently live in the neighborhood but will within a year.

 

I agree.  This whole thing is absurd.

 

Thanks for doing your patient best to explain it KJP and others. 

Multi-family housing is where it's at, even at very low interest rates (http://electricalmarketing.com/electrical-economy/multi-family-housing-continues-roll). Despite low interest rates, single-family construction is half of what it was before the recession (http://www.forconstructionpros.com/press_release/11597459/forecast-us-construction-starts-approaching-700b-by-2018).

 

The reasons are pretty clear. Millennials can't afford to buy homes and Baby Boomers are downsizing, often by selling their homes and using the money to live in a smaller rental unit (many of which are in the city or inner-ring suburbs). Millennials and Baby Boomers are half of this country's population. The generation (Gen X -- my generation) in between is already well settled and, if we aren't, we're buying homes sold by Baby Boomers.

 

We're in the midst of The Great Reset. It's happening on many levels. Baby Boomers downsizing. Millennials trying to move out of their parents' house. And a general shift from rural areas to urban areas. (http://www.popcitymedia.com/features/completecities062714.aspx). It's not quite to the scale of what's happened in China over the past 20 years. But it's game-changing nonetheless. So if we're looking to old rules and practices to make sense of The Great Reset, we're going to be confused. Instead, new rules and practices are being written with every new surprising day.

 

If you want to buy a house, your best bet is to look among the glut of for-sale housing that already exists. If you can get financing.

 

What's crazy about this is in the Cleveland market, according to real estate agents I know, there is a GLUT of multi-family housing (in the traditional frame dwelling 2-unit "double").  I don't know why they haven't caught on, since the time is ripe to snap them up cheap, put in modern ammenities, and rent them out!

The risk of buying into a neighborhood like Detroit Shoreway is the unknown. If one is afraid of rentals, an established neighborhood would have been a better choice.

 

 

Its not like these rentals will be public housing.

kennybabes, I don't understand your fears. Where's the end of supply of new residents? At this time, there is no end in sight. So why would rents decline? Owners of housing can just easily neglect them due to financial problems or job relocations, leaving a vacant and potentially foreclosed house for years until someone else buys it. If you want to build in some accountability, have the apartment residents elect a board of oversight to choose the apartment property manager. And give renters the option to make their apartments rent-to-own.

 

Ultimately, however, you're posing a false choice. The choice isn't between getting people to rent or buy. The choice is between building rental housing or none at all, leaving land vacant in your neighborhood. If you want to build for-sale housing, that's fine. Just don't expect as many people to move in.

 

It isn't a false choice..Battery park has been chugging along quite nicely, it wont be vacant land for long.  But Vintage is just looking for the short quick dollar.  They see downtown at 95% capacity, they see Mariners watch renting out before it is built.

 

They are just switching gears for the fast dollar, now that they see it is out there.  We don't want it, we don't want to be glenville, we don't want transients, we want citizens, people who are invested in the community, not people searching for the next "shiny", or people with few or no options. 

 

I understand there are good renters, I was, before I bought.  A large segment of good renters become good homeowners, not to many bad renters become good homeowners, they stay bad renters or become bad homeowners.

 

My wife's co-worker will be a good renter someday she will be a good homeowner.....Has anybody looked at what happens to those buildings converted to residental with historic tax credits?  The way it was explained to me is that they need to be rentals for 10 years before they can be converted to For Sale housing...That is why Friese and Schule and that building next to the rockerfeller building started being sold off in the past few years.

 

This wont be that, this is purpose built rental housing, it will be "shiny" but cheaply made, it will look good with a little granite some laminate floors and a washer dryer hookup.  It will have garbage windows, little insulation, poor sound proofing, undersized electrical, 15 year roof .  Something that will not convert to for sale housing like the brick buildings made in the 20's 30's 40's, nobody with any level of sanity will buy this.

 

This will just deteriorate in place,  next door to my house as the rents decline, as will the renters, except the good ones who will chase the next new shiny in Cuddel or Collinwood, or on lakeshore on the other side of Brathenal, or in Lakewood. 

 

In my opinion after downtown people would gobble this up in the heights or Lakewood, nice walkable communities with responsive police forces before they would pick D/S.  You wouldn't have to look at the hookers or drug dealers on Detroit between W BLVD and W 80TH  if you put this in the Heights or Lakewood. 

 

The place they are putting in at Green and Chagrin isn't an equivalent because there isn't much there you could walk to.

 

But a brand new "luxury" rental would do better in Coventry or at Bunts and Detroit, than in D/S.  You get the same urban walk ability in those suburbs, and if somebody breaks into your car, the cops show up and at least act like they care and occasionally catch somebody.  In Cleveland they actively discourage you from going to the station and filing a report.

 

 

See I don't discriminate...I have disdain for everybody who isn't trying to be a net positive.  The boys in blue who cant be bothered to do their job, ineffective political leadership, Developers looking for the fast buck, crappy neighbors who have no skin in the game.  This isn't some analogue for Racialism.

 

I also really don't care about all ya all's (and no I am not from the south, that phrase just works really well here, it is the plural you, Pittsburghers would say Yinze) rationalizations about why I should be happy or accept this.  You want it you advocate to have it where you live.  Don't try to tell me I should like it, because I don't, Bless your hearts (that one too)

Sure it's a false choice. You can't create a for-sale housing market when the trend is going in the opposite direction. Americans are getting poorer as costs of living increase. And poor doesn't indicate the quality of the human being, only of their wallet. Instead of approaching this from a position of fear, approach it from a position of hope. Both are infectious. And the decision-making that results from hope will be far more positive for any neighborhood.

Multi-family housing is where it's at, even at very low interest rates (http://electricalmarketing.com/electrical-economy/multi-family-housing-continues-roll). Despite low interest rates, single-family construction is half of what it was before the recession (http://www.forconstructionpros.com/press_release/11597459/forecast-us-construction-starts-approaching-700b-by-2018).

 

The reasons are pretty clear. Millennials can't afford to buy homes and Baby Boomers are downsizing, often by selling their homes and using the money to live in a smaller rental unit (many of which are in the city or inner-ring suburbs). Millennials and Baby Boomers are half of this country's population. The generation (Gen X -- my generation) in between is already well settled and, if we aren't, we're buying homes sold by Baby Boomers.

 

We're in the midst of The Great Reset. It's happening on many levels. Baby Boomers downsizing. Millennials trying to move out of their parents' house. And a general shift from rural areas to urban areas. (http://www.popcitymedia.com/features/completecities062714.aspx). It's not quite to the scale of what's happened in China over the past 20 years. But it's game-changing nonetheless. So if we're looking to old rules and practices to make sense of The Great Reset, we're going to be confused. Instead, new rules and practices are being written with every new surprising day.

 

If you want to buy a house, your best bet is to look among the glut of for-sale housing that already exists. If you can get financing.

 

What's crazy about this is in the Cleveland market, according to real estate agents I know, there is a GLUT of multi-family housing (in the traditional frame dwelling 2-unit "double").  I don't know why they haven't caught on, since the time is ripe to snap them up cheap, put in modern ammenities, and rent them out!

This is what I plan to do. Rent some, sell some. Unfortunately, I'm a year or so out though.

Sure it's a false choice. You can't create a for-sale housing market when the trend is going in the opposite direction. Americans are getting poorer as costs of living increase. And poor doesn't indicate the quality of the human being, only of their wallet. Instead of approaching this from a position of fear, approach it from a position of hope. Both are infectious. And the decision-making that results from hope will be far more positive for any neighborhood.

 

Your false choice is a false choice,  You sell smaller footprints and sell them for less.  If you care about where you do it...if not you throw up crappy construction and squeeze every nickel out of it and leave the damage behind, because you don't live there.

 

The human being determines the quality of the human being.  There are already too many non citizens within a 1 mile radius of my address.  There are plenty of poor people who live in and care about this neighborhood, they are more vocal about rental housing than I am.  I am at the meetings.  It's not the poor...it is the not caring about those around you. 

 

You be hopeful in Lakewood over there.  I live with the reality that I see every time I drive down Detroit Rd.  You take those people and hope em up all you have to give.

 

Hope in 1 hand in poop in the other..see which one fills up first.

 

I will advocate for for sale housing and actively work against rental they can call it "luxury" all they want, that will go out the window the second the bottom line is involved.

 

  Bless your heart.

Wow!  People who can't afford to or choose not to buy aren't "citizens"?

I got lost in this thread

 

Is someone saying that neighborhoods where rentals outnumber single family homes bring down the value of SFH owned property?

 

If that is what someone is saying, how are neighborhoods like UC (indluding LI), Shaker Square and Coventry prosperous, even during the downturn?

 

On SS the rental market is is close to 60% of the units.  I know my value of my apartment has not been affected.

 

In MC, we had some owners rent out their units, I was concerned.

 

On the otherside, my parents own quite a number of rental properties, which are SFH,  in CH, SH & UH and one in Cleveland.  That hasn't affected the value of the surrounding properies.

It's just NIMBY nonsense. Plain and simple.

I think you all are searching for an answer where there is none.  An increase in renters or multi-family units can have a negative effect or a positive effect.  The houses in my neighborhood turning to rentals would likely decrease the property values of owner-occupied homes.  That might not be true for neighborhoods in which the rental market has a different pull

Landlords make bad neighbors. Priorities shift when a house becomes a source of profit, not a home. It's not a question of character or poverty or whatever labels you want to put on people. Renters are rougher on their homes and landlords are more willing to put off maintenance and renovations as long as the house is rented and making money. It's what happens when you have less vested interest in the neighborhood.

 

Would you rather live next to renters or owner occupied? I don't doubt the demographics are shifting away from home ownership but the negative stigma hasn't gone away just yet. I don't blame home owners in that area for complaining one bit.

I think some like to overstate the "decline of homeownership." Starter homes? Maybe...but most people end up buying once they have kids or when they get married.

 

As for this development, I think higher end apartment buildings are generally better than rented single family homes.

I think some like to overstate the "decline of homeownership." Starter homes? Maybe...but most people end up buying once they have kids or when they get married.

 

 

I think that used to be the case. But it's becoming less so due to numerous factors, which are only becoming more prevalent. Look at the trend lines. What's to stop or reverse them?

Landlords make bad neighbors. Priorities shift when a house becomes a source of profit, not a home. It's not a question of character or poverty or whatever labels you want to put on people. Renters are rougher on their homes and landlords are more willing to put off maintenance and renovations as long as the house is rented and making money. It's what happens when you have less vested interest in the neighborhood.

 

Would you rather live next to renters or owner occupied? I don't doubt the demographics are shifting away from home ownership but the negative stigma hasn't gone away just yet. I don't blame home owners in that area for complaining one bit.

I'm asking this question solely on the above?

 

Are you or have you ever been a Landlord, particularly in a SFH area?

Are you currently renting from a landlord or have ever rented from a landlord in a SFH area?

 

I hope what you write above is a generalization.  Landlord only make bad "neighbors" when they do not have a grip on their tenants.  My mother manages all the properties and she is on the tenants like a Hawk!  Yet at the same time, she does everything to maintain the homes - inside and out - in tip top condition.  Most of the tenants are long term.

 

I'm not asking to be combative, but to further understand what you wrote.

Many renters could afford mortgages, but can't afford homes http://t.co/MFr435EeP3