1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

I think the overarching theme of 20th century American home décor was a rustic or cozy countryside motif, whereas sometime in the early 2000s it all shifted to "urban sophisticated", including bringing the industrial loft clichés into detached suburban single-family housing.  I think the proliferation of Ikea throughout the United States is one of the big reasons, since mainstream furniture stores started selling "Ikea-ish" stuff in the 2010s.  

 

Plus, with those sharp corners and edges you get to be a part of a Fail compilation on MTV or TBD by simply bumping into your furniture if someone is taping you

Edited October 23, 20204 yr by GCrites80s

2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The big problem is that it caused a total collapse in the value of American antique furniture and decorations.  All of the ornately handcrafted prewar stuff is now basically worthless.  Meanwhile, the modernist dresser that I reluctantly accepted from my grandparents in 2008 or so when they moved to a nursing home could probably fetch $1,000 today.  The thing looks lightweight like Ikea furniture but it's built almost as sturdily as antique furniture.  It could probably support a 100-gallon aquarium.    

 

Oh and this reminds me of the Mid-Century Modern Chair Debacle at my mother's house that happened a couple weeks ago. Mom needed a simple chair that didn't need to match anything to temporarily use in the kitchen. So she winds up at some vintage store in Circleville just looking around and picks up a red Mid-Century Modern chair that looks straight out of a Leavittown or Lustron kitchen. It was $70. No she didn't just get a worthless one for $10 from the '80s or '90s at the thrift store. She literally doesn't know that the '80s/'90s stuff is so worthless and the furniture she grew up with (she's 78) is now expensive. Plus $70 doesn't even sound out of line to her for a chair anyway since she is used to all furniture being worth money. She also has no idea that the late 1800s/early 1900s stuff in her living room is now worthless too.

 

OK, now on to the Mute Debate.

Edited October 23, 20204 yr by GCrites80s

Will "Bicentennial Chic" ever come back in style? 

 

 

Spirit of '76!

 

Bonus points for a collection of 1976 election memorabilia in the corner 

2 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said:

 

 

 

They almost look like a cornhole set. 

 

Not sure why these eagles became popular at some point but this house went a little overboard:

 

 

 

Here is the listing:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/1/1677405/3399-Harry-Lee-Ln-White-Oak-OH-45239/?fbclid=IwAR2soQXgTGyPhsgOUCB93c9f9b5XASrogIVuBPRUG6PAF6adP9Ys9YHpQs8

 

 

This house is very close to where I grew up, in fact my great-grandmother lived about two blocks from here.  This type of house with bedrooms in the attic dominated Cincinnati's first ring suburbs after about 1930 but then stopped completely right around 1960.  I have to think that there was some sort of change to mortgage lending right around then that affected how square footage was calculated and the slanted-ceiling attic rooms fell out of favor. 

 

My garage still has one of those eagles. I don't know when their day was. The '60s maybe? Or maybe it was a Bicentennial thing too.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Or maybe it was a Bicentennial thing too.

 

That's my guess.  

 

As for the Cape Cod style houses from the 30s through the 50s, they were cheap and easy to build, and they also fit on small lots, and their boxy shape is more energy efficient.  As suburban lots got bigger, they had room for the more sprawling ranches, and electricity was going to be too cheap to meter, so a poor volume to surface-area ratio didn't seem to matter as much.  I think also the Cape style just ran its course and be came pasé, like most do.  It's rather nondescript too, so it hasn't really had a resurgence like Tudor or Colonial Revival styles in the '70s and '80s.  

Edited October 25, 20204 yr by jjakucyk

My house is Cape Cod style and built in the early 2000s. But you're right that they have somewhat fallen out of fashion.

20 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

 

That's my guess.  

 

As for the Cape Cod style houses from the 30s through the 50s, they were cheap and easy to build, and they also fit on small lots, and their boxy shape is more energy efficient.  As suburban lots got bigger, they had room for the more sprawling ranches, and electricity was going to be too cheap to meter, so a poor volume to surface-area ratio didn't seem to matter as much. 

 

Also the second floor of some Cape Cods were originally completely unfinished in order to save money.  My grandfather and his brother and sister lived in a completely unfinished attic space for their entire upbringings.  

 

Today those attic rooms are always cold in the winter and burning up in the summer.   

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Also the second floor of some Cape Cods were originally completely unfinished in order to save money.  My grandfather and his brother and sister lived in a completely unfinished attic space for their entire upbringings.  

 

Today those attic rooms are always cold in the winter and burning up in the summer.   

 

 

 

I also grew up in one(just one floor and much bigger than the Levitttown type though)and I like the style(or a variation of it. The home I lived in in Wilshire Heights in Western Columbus was also a version of a Cape Cod, but had two bedrooms down and two up. I kinda liked the little bit of sloped ceiling in the upstairs bedrooms and I also liked the fact that there was another attic section that could have expanded with a shed dormer and one or two regular dormer windows. I liked that there did not seem to be so much "wasted attic space". They do need to be built with finished space, adequate heating and cooling, insulation, etc or the upstairs will be problematic. They also work on smaller lots if you don't want a straight up two story home.  I despise sprawling ranch homes and the McMansion crap with huge two floor spaces that serve no purpose and are just empty wasted air space(and they are usually overbearing, ugly, or both).

Edited October 26, 20204 yr by Toddguy

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2020/10/24/real-estate-akron-area-home-sales-spike-mortgage-rates-historic-lows/3741651001/

 

Akron-area home sales spike with prices up 22% amid record low mortgage rates

 

September existing home sales nationally were up 9% from a year ago to 6.5 million units despite 19% fewer homes being available, the National Association of Realtors reported this week.

 

In Ohio, sales for September were up 18% to 15,851 from 13,421 a year ago, according to the Ohio Realtors association. That marked the third straight monthly increase in Ohio sales following a spring slowdown created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the organization said. The statewide average sales price in September was $224,081, up 15.7% from $193,713 a year ago.

 

In the Akron-Canton area, Summit County has the most impressive numbers for September.

 

========================================

 

Unreal to see this in the middle of a pandemic.

Happening pretty much everywhere. Just saw similar numbers for Cincinnati. 

I periodically check to see what landlords are trying to get around UC and despite the pandemic the going rate for a bedroom in a shared house is over $600 and even as much as $700+/mo.  

 

Here's one at $750~/mo. and it's on Eden Ave. so not really that close to campus:

https://cincinnati.craigslist.org/apa/d/cincinnati-charming-5bd-25ba-minutes/7217865760.html

 

Here's one on Chickasaw for $625/mo:

https://cincinnati.craigslist.org/apa/d/cincinnati-house-pre-leasing-aug-1st/7200456587.html

 

 

 

I wonder what "big" is referring to regarding cities...and I wonder which cities might actually pick up some people who are relocating-I would imagine the sunbelt will gain from this.

These people on Twitter are speculating that Biden is going to snap his fingers and hundreds of thousands of Americans will be relieved of their student loans by Feb 1.  If that happens, rents will explode.  If that happens, the prices of starter homes will explode.  Suddenly, hundreds of thousands, if not over one million Americans, will have $300-500 deleted from their monthly budgets.

 

-people living with parents to save money will want to get apartments

-people living with roommates will want to get their own place

-people who currently qualify to buy a $200,000 house will qualify to buy a $300,000 house

-married couples with student loans on both ends will go from qualifying for a $200,000 house to qualifying for a $400,000 house

 

Housing cannot be built as quickly as student loans can be written off and people qualify for mortgages.  Therefore, housing prices will explode. 

7 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

These people on Twitter are speculating that Biden is going to snap his fingers and hundreds of thousands of Americans will be relieved of their student loans by Feb 1.  If that happens, rents will explode.  If that happens, the prices of starter homes will explode.  Suddenly, hundreds of thousands, if not over one million Americans, will have $300-500 deleted from their monthly budgets.

 

-people living with parents to save money will want to get apartments

-people living with roommates will want to get their own place

-people who currently qualify to buy a $200,000 house will qualify to buy a $300,000 house

-married couples with student loans on both ends will go from qualifying for a $200,000 house to qualifying for a $400,000 house

 

Housing cannot be built as quickly as student loans can be written off and people qualify for mortgages.  Therefore, housing prices will explode. 

Maybe for a year or two.  If this does indeed happen, I'd hope the stingy banks would start opening their wallets for more speculative housing developments with a marketplace flooded with consumers.

7 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

These people on Twitter are speculating that Biden is going to snap his fingers and hundreds of thousands of Americans will be relieved of their student loans by Feb 1.  If that happens, rents will explode.  If that happens, the prices of starter homes will explode.  Suddenly, hundreds of thousands, if not over one million Americans, will have $300-500 deleted from their monthly budgets.

 

-people living with parents to save money will want to get apartments

-people living with roommates will want to get their own place

-people who currently qualify to buy a $200,000 house will qualify to buy a $300,000 house

-married couples with student loans on both ends will go from qualifying for a $200,000 house to qualifying for a $400,000 house

 

Housing cannot be built as quickly as student loans can be written off and people qualify for mortgages.  Therefore, housing prices will explode. 

 

Ehhh... It doesn't work that way. The housing market is much more complex than that. There would certainly be some upward pressure on housing prices, but they wouldn't "explode" over night. That's magical thinking. It would incentivize the construction of new housing though, so that's a big plus.

There are a lot of people 5-10 years out of college who already own a home and still have tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. Having their debt disappear isn't going to cause them to move, it would give them more disposable income. Some would spend it, some would save it. Some would put extra towards paying down their mortgage. So I don't think it would necessarily result in a shock to the housing market, it would be more spread out to other types of consumer goods as well.

8 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

These people on Twitter are speculating that Biden is going to snap his fingers and hundreds of thousands of Americans will be relieved of their student loans by Feb 1. If that happens...

 

That's a pretty big "if." 

3 minutes ago, taestell said:

There are already a lot of people 5-10 years out of college who already own a home and still have tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. Having their debt disappear isn't going to cause them to move, it would give them more disposable income. Some would spend it, some would save it. Some would put extra towards paying down their mortgage. So I don't think it would necessarily result in a shock to the housing market, it would be more spread out to other types of consumer goods as well.

 

Hi. I am one of these people. We plan to be in our house for a very long time, regardless of how our financial situation might change. Why? Well, it's plenty big enough for us. It's in a neighborhood we love. And we have neighbors we adore. So no need to change it up. Now, more disposable income might mean we accelerate some projects, like new countertops or a new master bath. 

 

Ultimately, though, the student loan debt forgiveness is a good policy, not because it will help people like me, but because it'll help a lot of people who were exploited by scams like Trump University or Whatever University Online at City You'll Never Visit. There are tons of people out there who have my student loan debt load but none of the degrees I got out of it. Many of them were people I grew up with. Appalachians who came from hardworking families and wanted a better life for their children. But they got caught up in scam universities and scam degrees. Now they have no future, because that debt is a huge anchor. Forgive the debt and crack down on the scammers. 

16 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

 

That's a pretty big "if." 

A very big one.  

IMO this is a good idea--but there needs to be volunteer and/or military service tied to it.    There is no such thing as a free lunch.  If you want your debt absolved, then sign up for a four year hitch, or volunteer in underserved areas.   

26 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

A very big one.  

IMO this is a good idea--but there needs to be volunteer and/or military service tied to it.    There is no such thing as a free lunch.  If you want your debt absolved, then sign up for a four year hitch, or volunteer in underserved areas.   

 

Or working in a public service position, like teaching at a public school.

28 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

IMO this is a good idea--but there needs to be volunteer and/or military service tied to it.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.  If you want your debt absolved, then sign up for a four year hitch, or volunteer in underserved areas.   

I disagree, the increased taxes people pay with their higher incomes will pay back in the long term. We already have the poverty draft, poor people are far more likely to join the military to get the GI bill. Your proposal is just indentured servitude with extra steps. 

 

4 minutes ago, Henryefry said:

I disagree, the increased taxes people pay with their higher incomes will pay back in the long term. We already have the poverty draft, poor people are far more likely to join the military to get the GI bill. Your proposal is just indentured servitude with extra steps. 

 

 

This is an excellent point. I received a full scholarship to college and worked two jobs. I still had to take out loans for living expenses, and when my car broke down it was almost the end of my college career. Luckily, a friend of my grandma (who I had never met) found out I may have to drop out of college because of my car repair and sent me $1,000. I was extremely grateful, but it would be nice if we had a system where people can get ahead without relying on the kindness of strangers.

I disagree that student loan forgiveness should be tied to any volunteer or military requirement. In the not too distant past, public universities were mostly funded by the states and tuition/fees were very low. Over time states cut funding and the burden was passed to students, making it their responsibility to take out tens of thousands of dollars worth of student loans (or more for some universities/majors). We should go back to the old system. Every student should be able to afford to go to college without taking out loans, regardless of whether they want to become a school teacher or anything else. Students with outstanding loans should have at least some percentage forgiven by the federal government.

Schools in many areas get flooded with applicants already since outside of cities they're about the only way to use a college degree. 

Edited November 16, 20204 yr by GCrites80s

4 hours ago, 10albersa said:

Maybe for a year or two.  If this does indeed happen, I'd hope the stingy banks would start opening their wallets for more speculative housing developments with a marketplace flooded with consumers.

I'm confused, didn't this help lead to the collapse of the economy twelve years ago or so

9 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

I'm confused, didn't this help lead to the collapse of the economy twelve years ago or so

Well, presumably, the CFPB will still be keeping tabs on solvency now that a funcitonal administration will be in office.  Banks don't like investing in condo/townhome developments at the rates they like investing in apartments.  I was just stating that hopefully that evens out a little bit and we can get denser, more affordable, and  have home-ownership rates improving in these denser areas.

Edited November 16, 20204 yr by 10albersa

A reminder that this is the housing market thread.  We have other threads for discussion of higher education and student loans.

48 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

Well, presumably, the CFPB will still be keeping tabs on solvency now that a funcitonal administration will be in office.  Banks don't like investing in condo/townhome developments at the rates they like investing in apartments.  I was just stating that hopefully that evens out a little bit and we can get denser, more affordable, and  have home-ownership rates improving in these denser areas.

 

SFH might have a better chance of coming back than condos since demand for SFH is sky-high right now. Condo demand should be higher right now but Boomers aren't retiring on time.

10 hours ago, Cleburger said:

A very big one.  

IMO this is a good idea--but there needs to be volunteer and/or military service tied to it.    There is no such thing as a free lunch.  If you want your debt absolved, then sign up for a four year hitch, or volunteer in underserved areas.   

 

There is a profound moral hazard in simply writing off student loans, aside from the impact the instant improvement to everyone's debt-to-income ratio would have on mortgage prequalifications.  So...does everyone currently in college also get their debts forgiven?  What about the class of 2030?  If so won't they just take out the max amount and buy iPhone 17's and drones and pot brownies and whatever else with their loan money since that'll be forgiven?   

 

There will be no motivation to build more "affordable" housing if 1 million are suddenly able to afford homes they couldn't a month earlier.  Construction will continue to be almost entirely "luxury" since the margins are so thin for small homes and "affordable" multifamilies.  

 

We're also waiting for that first new infill triplex to be built in Minneapolis.  Any day now...

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

I'm confused, didn't this help lead to the collapse of the economy twelve years ago or so

 

Yes. 

Cincinnati has the fastest selling homes in the US...

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2020/11/17/re-max-cincinnati-market-homes-sell-fastest-usa/6328448002/

Edited November 18, 20204 yr by DEPACincy

 

15 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Houston and Austin are the big shockers in this to me, particularly since it's metro numbers, not central city numbers.

 

Is this graphic suggesting there is actual YOY GROWTH in the CLE metro? Do you know if there's a basis for that claim other than inferred causation or the license plate anecdotes we like to throw around?

31 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Houston and Austin are the big shockers in this to me, particularly since it's metro numbers, not central city numbers.

 

Is this graphic suggesting there is actual YOY GROWTH in the CLE metro? Do you know if there's a basis for that claim other than inferred causation or the license plate anecdotes we like to throw around?

I do not think it speaks to YOY growth as much. Although Cleveland is not really shrinking like it was 20 years ago. The big thing obviously the simple supply and demand. While there are probably an influx of people into Cleveland (it is probably not too large), the larger factor is that there is probably not the same influx into Austin as there was before the pandemic. While the pace of movement to Austin may have slowed, they had a ton of Class A apartments in the building stage or near completion when this hit. I know even before the pandemic there were concerns about the Austin and Dallas markets being able to absorb all the new inventory coming on the apartment market in a short time frame (3 years out not a big problem) so given that Austin was a bit overbuilt from the start and then you had a large influx of new construction that likely hit the market in the middle of the pandemic, it is natural that there will be downward pressure on rents in that market.

 

San Fran and NY were a bit different animals, but it seems as if their problems are more people leaving the cities because of the restrictions than an oversupply.

 

Orlando makes sense given its draw to tourism. The surprising thing was that Vegas was not on that list given its reliance on tourism and hospitality.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

While there are probably an influx of people into Cleveland (it is probably not too large)

 

 

Actually it is quite large, but so was the amount of people leaving Cleveland too. Now, less people are leaving and we're attracting more newcomers simultaneously. 

^That graphic is referring to RENT GROWTH, not population growth. But the title says that its driven by migration. So the 4.2% for Cleveland is not pop growth, its the rent payment.

3 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^That graphic is referring to RENT GROWTH, not population growth. But the title says that its driven by migration. So the 4.2% for Cleveland is not pop growth, its the rent payment.

 

I know this.

^sorry---i was responding to the comment above that said, "Is this graphic suggesting there is actual YOY GROWTH in the CLE metro?"

8 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^sorry---i was responding to the comment above that said, "Is this graphic suggesting there is actual YOY GROWTH in the CLE metro?"

I know the 4ish% doesn't mean population growth. What jumped out to me was "migration-driven housing demand" which implies actual population growth.

19 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Actually it is quite large, but so was the amount of people leaving Cleveland too. Now, less people are leaving and we're attracting more newcomers simultaneously. 

Plus, the arriving people have higher incomes than the departing; that accounts for a lot of the income growth in the region and the upward pressure on rent prices.

1 hour ago, Dougal said:

Plus, the arriving people have higher incomes than the departing; that accounts for a lot of the income growth in the region and the upward pressure on rent prices.

 

 

This chart gives a good example of why rent growth is flat in certain metros, especially during the pandemic.

https://www.naahq.org/news-publications/units/august-2019/article/apartment-completions-set-spike-2020

 

I dont have the Cleveland slides but I remember that over the last few years, the Cleveland Market averaged between 3000-5000 new units year over year. Columbus and Cincinnati are similar with Columbus generally being on the higher end of all the Ohio metros.  Point being, Austin and Cleveland are typically about the same size metros but there is a heck of a lot more product coming on the market there than in Cleveland making it harder to absorb in a slow market like this, no matter what the high end job market looks like.  

 

Now on the Cleveland side, Cleveland, as an older city developed the infastructure much earlier than Austin (or Columbus for that matter) so there is a lot of existing product in Cleveland (I cite some of the towers over in Gates Mills or North Olmstead as examples) that was Class A at one time that can be renovated into good product again and absorb larger rent increases. There is a lot of that going on in Cleveland that does not necessarily register on the statistic reports but goes a long way to the climbing rents seen on the rent stats

 

It is becoming more socially acceptable in a lot of cities to rent. So someone that previously would have invested a good chunk of money into a single family home might now choose to rent a luxury apartment. That is certainly skewing the average rent higher — I wouldn't interpret this number as evidence that the region is either booming or getting more affluent.

The WSJ today published one of their periodic "the future of everything" sections.  For housing, they are predicting that parking, in an age of autonomous vehicles, will be remote: central garages at some distance from car-restricted housing areas. The cars drops you off and picks you up at or near your residence and otherwise stays in a remote garage. 

 

Obviously we're not there yet; but it makes so much sense. Remote parking would eliminate the parking discussions/problems  currently affecting the Bridgeworks and Brickhaus West Blvd. and probably every other project in town.  😀

6 hours ago, Dougal said:

The WSJ today published one of their periodic "the future of everything" sections.  For housing, they are predicting that parking, in an age of autonomous vehicles, will be remote: central garages at some distance from car-restricted housing areas. The cars drops you off and picks you up at or near your residence and otherwise stays in a remote garage. 

 

Obviously we're not there yet; but it makes so much sense. Remote parking would eliminate the parking discussions/problems  currently affecting the Bridgeworks and Brickhaus West Blvd. and probably every other project in town.  😀

Not trashing this idea, but man would it suck to forget something in your car when it has to fetch itself 😅

 

Parking destroys and undermines urbanism, so anything that can shift parking uses away from city centers and create walkable, pedestrian-centric neighborhoods is a net positive for society.

17 hours ago, infrafreak said:

Not trashing this idea, but man would it suck to forget something in your car when it has to fetch itself 😅

Recovery will be hopeless when vehicles are time-shared. 

18 hours ago, infrafreak said:

Not trashing this idea, but man would it suck to forget something in your car when it has to fetch itself 😅

 

 

 

People leaving their cell phones in rideshare vehicles is one of the big flaws in the whole Uber/Lyft model.  When I was a driver it happened multiple times per night if I drove from 8pm-4am or a similar long run.  You'd be on your way to pick up the next fare and suddenly you'd hear a ringtone coming from the back seat.  About half of the time people tipped you cash if you drove the phone back to them and the other half of the time they tried to blame you for their own forgetfulness.  One time a girl was wildly drunk and had her mom drive her to meet me at the CVS at 1 Wm H Taft.  I sit there for 30+ minutes waiting for them to show up and finally they show up and she's crying and arguing with her mom. She grabbed the phone from me, didn't make any eye contact, and jumped back in the SUV to be whisked back to her decadent life.  So I missed out on a total of like 2 paid rides to drive from Mt. Adams (where the phone rang) to the agreed-upon meeting spot, then they took forever to show up.   

 

One year a couple left a bottle of wine in the back seat that they were taking to a party I dropped them off at.  I tried to call them back and even went back to the building but couldn't get anyone to come down from any of the apartments. 

 

But back to the phones - I remember the leaving of phones in cars was such an epidemic that Uber drivers on forums were claiming that they'd throw the ringing phones out onto the highway rather than deal with trying to return them since the people were often so awful about it.