28 minutes ago, taestell said:

How does any of this relate to the housing market?

I know....seriously.

 Z- show us on the doll where Cincinnati touched you, and we will see if we can get you some help.

Let it go....

27 minutes ago, taestell said:

How does any of this relate to the housing market?

Many of the others' comments aren't meant to explain Cincinnati's housing market, but to discredit an unwelcome interloper in their local 'boys club'....Cincinnatians are even clannish online!, My comments are meant to highlight the forces that structure Cincinnati's strongly undervalued housing market housing. Jobs, wages, population, local finances and institutions are the foundations on which a particular housing market is built. I sought to discuss why Cincinnati's undervalued real estate is built on its particular job market, demographics, and the structure of it's local politics and economy. I was responding to the unrealistic and uniformed discussion about housing I found in this forum. There has to be some reason Cincinnati is so cheap and the value of real estate investment here is so low. I'm just trying to encourage a discussion about that. You can't answer a question you don't even ask........

6 minutes ago, TheCOV said:

I know....seriously.

 Z- show us on the doll where Cincinnati touched you, and we will see if we can get you some help.

Let it go....

Thanks for giving us an honest example of how Cincinnatians respond to criticism of Cincinnati.

1 hour ago, Z said:

This suggests that Cincinnati housing prices should be about 16 percent higher.https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/housing-market-perspectives/2018/us-housing.

 

 

Aha.  A genuinely interesting link, and on topic.  From 2018, but good enough.

 

Now let's look at what that stat captures and doesn't.

 

(1) First, the article itself says that no data was available for Cincinnati rental housing, which you focused a lot on above.  But you also did talk about residential sale prices, so let's move on to that.

 

(2) The charts are captioned "fair value" but what the smaller print says they measure is the change in housing prices to income ratios from 2000 to 2018.  In other words, housing looks more like a "bargain" in these stats if a metro's owned housing prices went up less than income in the area went up.  Each side of that ledger, in turn, will have many variables playing into it.

 

I also note that the same chart that you claim says Cincinnati real estate is "undervalued" by 16.7% also says that Cleveland is "undervalued" by 29.2%.  It also says Columbus is "undervalued" by 8.5%.  This of course rests on the presumption that the fixed "fair" value of real estate is whatever people were paying in 2000, but I get that sometimes you just need to pick an arbitrary starting date for following a trend.  But if you're going to argue that Cincinnati is somehow uniquely disadvantaged by its insular elite, this doesn't really get you there when it's not even close to being the largest increase in affordability (which you're phrasing as an undesirable decline in housing prices) in Ohio.  And you yourself were saying that Columbus doesn't have the kind of entrenched dynastic elite that Cincinnati does, and yet its numbers aren't that far off Cincinnati's.

 

What those numbers actually show is that residential real estate is a comparative bargain all across Ohio relative to what it was in 2000.  Cincinnati is in the middle of the pack in terms of increased affordability.  I also note that all six of the MSAs that had the largest increases in affordability over that span were in the Midwest: Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, and Columbus.  In other words, those data points could just as easily tell a story of systemic, regional influences as opposed to anything about any one metro.  If anything, they make you wonder what was going in Atlanta during that span, since without Atlanta there at #7, the Midwest would continue its run through the ranks there with St. Louis and Milwaukee.

 

  

18 minutes ago, Z said:

Many of the others' comments aren't meant to explain Cincinnati's housing market, but to discredit an unwelcome interloper in their local 'boys club'....Cincinnatians are even clannish online!, My comments are meant to highlight the forces that structure Cincinnati's strongly undervalued housing market housing. Jobs, wages, population, local finances and institutions are the foundations on which a particular housing market is built. I sought to discuss why Cincinnati's undervalued real estate is built on its particular job market, demographics, and the structure of it's local politics and economy. I was responding to the unrealistic and uniformed discussion about housing I found in this forum. There has to be some reason Cincinnati is so cheap and the value of real estate investment here is so low. I'm just trying to encourage a discussion about that. You can't answer a question you don't even ask........

 

I live in Akron.  I have lived in Columbus.  I have lived in Canton.  I have never lived in Cincinnati.  The closest I have gotten to the old boys' club of Cincinnati is when my high school cross country team raced Elder twenty-odd years ago.

 

This is not clannishness.  You're seeing the villains here that you're determined to see just as you're apparently determined to see the villains in Cincinnati that you want to see, as well as missing the counterevidence that you're determined to miss--whether it's commercial real estate data or even the alternative readings of your own data sources.

14 minutes ago, Z said:

Thanks for giving us an honest example of how Cincinnatians respond to criticism of Cincinnati.

 

You offered criticism of Cincinnati, and multiple people have directly responded to your criticism. Probably every Cincinnatian on this forum is aware that there are some "elite" local families that want to hold the city back and prevent it from growing/changing/progressing in a way that takes the power and the control away from them. However multiple people have explained that 3CDC was started as the business community's attempt to remake the urban core, specifically because they were having trouble attracting and retaining employees from other places, and they realized that they were not going to be successful in the long run if they kept up their old, insular ways and apathy towards downtown.

 

There is no need to be condensing with your snide "the truth sometimes hurts" comments.

 

I suggest everyone gets back on topic.

36 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Aha.  A genuinely interesting link, and on topic.  From 2018, but good enough.

 

Now let's look at what that stat captures and doesn't.

 

(1) First, the article itself says that no data was available for Cincinnati rental housing, which you focused a lot on above.  But you also did talk about residential sale prices, so let's move on to that.

 

(2) The charts are captioned "fair value" but what the smaller print says they measure is the change in housing prices to income ratios from 2000 to 2018.  In other words, housing looks more like a "bargain" in these stats if a metro's owned housing prices went up less than income in the area went up.  Each side of that ledger, in turn, will have many variables playing into it.

 

I also note that the same chart that you claim says Cincinnati real estate is "undervalued" by 16.7% also says that Cleveland is "undervalued" by 29.2%.  It also says Columbus is "undervalued" by 8.5%.  This of course rests on the presumption that the fixed "fair" value of real estate is whatever people were paying in 2000, but I get that sometimes you just need to pick an arbitrary starting date for following a trend.  But if you're going to argue that Cincinnati is somehow uniquely disadvantaged by its insular elite, this doesn't really get you there when it's not even close to being the largest increase in affordability (which you're phrasing as an undesirable decline in housing prices) in Ohio.  And you yourself were saying that Columbus doesn't have the kind of entrenched dynastic elite that Cincinnati does, and yet its numbers aren't that far off Cincinnati's.

 

What those numbers actually show is that residential real estate is a comparative bargain all across Ohio relative to what it was in 2000.  Cincinnati is in the middle of the pack in terms of increased affordability.  I also note that all six of the MSAs that had the largest increases in affordability over that span were in the Midwest: Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, and Columbus.  In other words, those data points could just as easily tell a story of systemic, regional influences as opposed to anything about any one metro.  If anything, they make you wonder what was going in Atlanta during that span, since without Atlanta there at #7, the Midwest would continue its run through the ranks there with St. Louis and Milwaukee.

 

  

 

I live in Akron.  I have lived in Columbus.  I have lived in Canton.  I have never lived in Cincinnati.  The closest I have gotten to the old boys' club of Cincinnati is when my high school cross country team raced Elder twenty-odd years ago.

 

This is not clannishness.  You're seeing the villains here that you're determined to see just as you're apparently determined to see the villains in Cincinnati that you want to see, as well as missing the counterevidence that you're determined to miss--whether it's commercial real estate data or even the alternative readings of your own data sources.

The data from the federal reserve is for 2000 to 2018. It covers 18 years.

26 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

You offered criticism of Cincinnati, and multiple people have directly responded to your criticism. Probably every Cincinnatian on this forum is aware that there are some "elite" local families that want to hold the city back and prevent it from growing/changing/progressing in a way that takes the power and the control away from them. However multiple people have explained that 3CDC was started as the business community's attempt to remake the urban core, specifically because they were having trouble attracting and retaining employees from other places, and they realized that they were not going to be successful in the long run if they kept up their old, insular ways and apathy towards downtown.

 

There is no need to be condensing with your snide "the truth sometimes hurts" comments.

 

I suggest everyone gets back on topic.

My snide comments were in response to others' snide comments. I honestly want to understand why Cincinnati under performs. Admitting that it does seems to be the issue here. 

53 minutes ago, Z said:

Thanks for giving us an honest example of how Cincinnatians respond to criticism of Cincinnati.

No, it's not a response to criticism, as there aren't any feelings or emotions involved when looking at data. It's a reaction to your constant airing of grievances about a self-conjured conspiracy that are not relevant to the topic. I'd go back and count how many times you brought it up, but I'm not a masochist. 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

Aha.  A genuinely interesting link, and on topic.  From 2018, but good enough.

 

Now let's look at what that stat captures and doesn't.

 

(1) First, the article itself says that no data was available for Cincinnati rental housing, which you focused a lot on above.  But you also did talk about residential sale prices, so let's move on to that.

 

(2) The charts are captioned "fair value" but what the smaller print says they measure is the change in housing prices to income ratios from 2000 to 2018.  In other words, housing looks more like a "bargain" in these stats if a metro's owned housing prices went up less than income in the area went up.  Each side of that ledger, in turn, will have many variables playing into it.

 

I also note that the same chart that you claim says Cincinnati real estate is "undervalued" by 16.7% also says that Cleveland is "undervalued" by 29.2%.  It also says Columbus is "undervalued" by 8.5%.  This of course rests on the presumption that the fixed "fair" value of real estate is whatever people were paying in 2000, but I get that sometimes you just need to pick an arbitrary starting date for following a trend.  But if you're going to argue that Cincinnati is somehow uniquely disadvantaged by its insular elite, this doesn't really get you there when it's not even close to being the largest increase in affordability (which you're phrasing as an undesirable decline in housing prices) in Ohio.  And you yourself were saying that Columbus doesn't have the kind of entrenched dynastic elite that Cincinnati does, and yet its numbers aren't that far off Cincinnati's.

 

What those numbers actually show is that residential real estate is a comparative bargain all across Ohio relative to what it was in 2000.  Cincinnati is in the middle of the pack in terms of increased affordability.  I also note that all six of the MSAs that had the largest increases in affordability over that span were in the Midwest: Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, and Columbus.  In other words, those data points could just as easily tell a story of systemic, regional influences as opposed to anything about any one metro.  If anything, they make you wonder what was going in Atlanta during that span, since without Atlanta there at #7, the Midwest would continue its run through the ranks there with St. Louis and Milwaukee.

 

  

 

I live in Akron.  I have lived in Columbus.  I have lived in Canton.  I have never lived in Cincinnati.  The closest I have gotten to the old boys' club of Cincinnati is when my high school cross country team raced Elder twenty-odd years ago.

 

This is not clannishness.  You're seeing the villains here that you're determined to see just as you're apparently determined to see the villains in Cincinnati that you want to see, as well as missing the counterevidence that you're determined to miss--whether it's commercial real estate data or even the alternative readings of your own data sources.

Believe me, I don't want to see the Cincinnati I see. I inherited property there that forms a majority of my total personal wealth today. I desperately wish Cincinnati wasn't as it is. I don't know what alternate reality makes low real estate values with little growth a net positive. Detroit and Cleveland are disasters. If we're comparing Cincinnati to them, all hope is lost. Indy and Columbus are doing much better in growth in numbers of housing units and transactions almost entirely due to greater population growth. Chicago is on another level as it replaces it's old industrial economy to become the Midwestern headquarters of globalization. It's moving out old middle and working class people while replacing them with new professional class people. It's doing two things at once because it has the size and complexity to pull that off. Even Pittsburgh has managed to achieve some degree of professional class/globalized growth. That leaves Cincinnati....unable to engage the growth in numbers of housing units of Indy and Columbus, and unable to engage the professional class growth of central Chicago, either. Other than legendarily troubled metros like Detroit and Cleveland, Cincinnati does appear to be alone in missing out on both counts. Can you imagine if Cincinnati simply went from being 16 % undervalued to 8% undervalued? That would represent a substantial increase in the net value of real estate in Cincinnati. The question is why Cincinnati is so undervalues. Why is Cincinnati not engaging either aspect of the growth models we see in the rest of the region? There is absolutely no reason Cincinnati can't change. Cincinnati could definitely emulate aspects of success in other metros. 3cdc proves that on a modest but still noteworthy scale. We could work toward better public transit as in Pittsburgh and St. Louis..better land use planning and public infrastructure as in Columbus,..simplification of local government as in Louisville. None of that can happen if Cincinnatians see no reason to do so in the first place...which apparently the don't. 

Edited April 21, 20205 yr by Z

7 minutes ago, TheCOV said:

No, it's not a response to criticism, as there aren't any feelings or emotions involved when looking at data. It's a reaction to your constant airing of grievances about a self-conjured conspiracy that are not relevant to the topic. I'd go back and count how many times you brought it up, but I'm not a masochist. 

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

Units in Columbus are new because they have to be. Downtown got leveled in the '70s and much of our development is on old industrial sites. We just don't have the vacant historic structures that Cincinnati does.

16 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Units in Columbus are new because they have to be. Downtown got leveled in the '70s and much of our development is on old industrial sites. We just don't have the vacant historic structures that Cincinnati does.

Quote

Downtown got leveled in the '70s

Truth. Although we didn't lose as much that would be so valuable right now as they did with their West End-such a huge loss. That would be like German Village being leveled. But Market-Mohawk, Flytown, and the areas taken by the freeways that was substantial enough-and when you add in the other random demolitions...smh.

 

I do find this discussion about Cincinnati interesting though(I don't know the city that well) I hope it does not veer too far off course.

Edited April 21, 20205 yr by Toddguy

2 hours ago, Z said:

Many of the others' comments aren't meant to explain Cincinnati's housing market, but to discredit an unwelcome interloper in their local 'boys club'....Cincinnatians are even clannish online!, My comments are meant to highlight the forces that structure Cincinnati's strongly undervalued housing market housing. Jobs, wages, population, local finances and institutions are the foundations on which a particular housing market is built. I sought to discuss why Cincinnati's undervalued real estate is built on its particular job market, demographics, and the structure of it's local politics and economy. I was responding to the unrealistic and uniformed discussion about housing I found in this forum. There has to be some reason Cincinnati is so cheap and the value of real estate investment here is so low. I'm just trying to encourage a discussion about that. You can't answer a question you don't even ask........

 

I live in Cincinnati. I have for almost three years. But I'm not from Cincinnati. People who know me know that I have PLENTY of criticism for Cincinnati and the way it is run. I like it here, but I'm no Cincinnati apologist. I've lived in better places, to be perfectly honest. Folks are pushing back against you because your arguments don't make any sense. It's not because of some weird loyalty to Cincinnati.

1 hour ago, Z said:

Believe me, I don't want to see the Cincinnati I see. I inherited property there that forms a majority of my total personal wealth today. I desperately wish Cincinnati wasn't as it is. I don't know what alternate reality makes low real estate values with little growth a net positive. 

May I ask what area of Cincinnati you inherited property in? 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I live in Cincinnati. I have for almost three years. But I'm not from Cincinnati. People who know me know that I have PLENTY of criticism for Cincinnati and the way it is run. I like it here, but I'm no Cincinnati apologist. I've lived in better places, to be perfectly honest. Folks are pushing back against you because your arguments don't make any sense. It's not because of some weird loyalty to Cincinnati.

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

Just now, Z said:

Is the idea that Cincinnati can even be discussed at all the issue? 

 

No.  The name of this Web site is UrbanAllOfOhioButCincinnati.com.

 

Seriously?!

It's unclear how much housing prices will decline this year because we have no idea when "this" is over.  People with the luxury of doing so are pulling their homes off the market, which is constricting supply and so keeping prices steady for the moment. But one-by-one people will move into retirement homes (or die), and those homes hit the market, plus there will be foreclosures.  On top of that, many people who would have qualified to buy a home in 2020 will not, reducing demand. So this temporary constriction of supply will give way to a mild price meltdown in late 2020.  We won't see the widespread vacancies (and squatters) that we saw 2009-2012, but it's going to be a mess.  

 

Also, rental demand will soften as people who have lost their jobs move in with relatives.  So the prices of rental properties, be they single-family rentals or plexes, will also fall since the same property won't command the same rent in 2021 that it collected in 2019.  

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 20205 yr by jmecklenborg

2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Units in Columbus are new because they have to be. Downtown got leveled in the '70s and much of our development is on old industrial sites. We just don't have the vacant historic structures that Cincinnati does.

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

37 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

It's unclear how much housing prices will decline this year because we have no idea when "this" is over.  People with the luxury of doing so are pulling their homes off the market, which is constricting supply and so keeping prices steady for the moment. But one-by-one people will move into retirement homes (or die), and those homes hit the market, plus there will be foreclosures.  On top of that, many people who would have qualified to buy a home in 2020 will not, removing So this temporary constriction of supply will give way to a mild price meltdown in late 2020.  We won't see the widespread vacancies (and squatters) that we saw 2009-2012, but it's going to be a mess.  

 

Also, rental demand will soften as people who have lost their jobs move in with relatives.  So the prices of rental properties, be they single-family rentals or plexes, will also fall since the same property won't command the same rent in 2021 that it collected in 2019.  

 

 

 

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

2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

May I ask what area of Cincinnati you inherited property in? 

Northern end of Clifton and East Price Hill. 

3 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I live in Cincinnati. I have for almost three years. But I'm not from Cincinnati. People who know me know that I have PLENTY of criticism for Cincinnati and the way it is run. I like it here, but I'm no Cincinnati apologist. I've lived in better places, to be perfectly honest. Folks are pushing back against you because your arguments don't make any sense. It's not because of some weird loyalty to Cincinnati.

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

 

41 minutes ago, Z said:

 It's a socioeconomic class, class in the marxist sense, that is deeply invested in Cincinnati. Growing cities simply don't have this class of people. Therefore, if Cincinnati wants to grow more quickly it needs to challenge this class in a systematic way. That's my point. 

 

 

Hi. Interesting discussion. So I can better hone in on your position,  can you please provide 1. an example of how Cincinnati can successfully challenge this class to the betterment of the city and 2. examples from another city where this same problem existed and something was conscientiously done to change the dynamic?   

10 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Hi. Interesting discussion. So I can better hone in on your position,  can you please provide 1. an example of how Cincinnati can successfully challenge this class to the betterment of the city and 2. examples from another city where this same problem existed and something was conscientiously done to change the dynamic?   

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

 

The first essential step in challenging Cincinnati's old guard is to acknowledge that it has one. Even that first steps seems to be too much for many in Cincinnati...as evidenced in this forum. The presumption seems to be that Cincinnati's fine and the issue is that the rest of the world hasn't managed to figure out how wonderful Cincinnati is. 

Edited April 22, 20205 yr by Z

10 hours ago, Z said:

There aren't many other cities where this problem has existed.

 

Think about this. You are saying Cincinnati's problems are unique to the country, the world even. So one cannot begin to understand the issue, because when asked for an example you can't give one. Very convenient. It is a problem that only you have figured out and everyone else is oblivious. Do you see how prima facie silly this is? 

 

10 hours ago, Z said:

The first essential step in challenging Cincinnati's old guard is to acknowledge that it has one.

 

No one here has denied that an "old guard" exists. What is being debated is their relation to the housing market and the motivations of their actions, as well as the influence they have over the larger economy of the region. You've provided zero evidence for any of your claims. You've shared several pieces of data that didn't show what you thought they did and when that is pointed out you move on to the next thing or accuse everyone of being blind Cincinnati boosters. 

 

10 hours ago, Z said:

The presumption seems to be that Cincinnati's fine and the issue is that the rest of the world hasn't managed to figure out how wonderful Cincinnati is. 

 

LOL it seems that you've come into this conversation with your mind made up that everyone in Cincinnati is a provincial, backwoods, loyalist who shuns the outside world. In your mind, any disagreement with your theories just reinforces your worldview. 

36 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Think about this. You are saying Cincinnati's problems are unique to the country, the world even. So one cannot begin to understand the issue, because when asked for an example you can't give one. Very convenient. It is a problem that only you have figured out and everyone else is oblivious. Do you see how prima facie silly this is? 

 

 

No one here has denied that an "old guard" exists. What is being debated is their relation to the housing market and the motivations of their actions, as well as the influence they have over the larger economy of the region. You've provided zero evidence for any of your claims. You've shared several pieces of data that didn't show what you thought they did and when that is pointed out you move on to the next thing or accuse everyone of being blind Cincinnati boosters. 

 

 

LOL it seems that you've come into this conversation with your mind made up that everyone in Cincinnati is a provincial, backwoods, loyalist who shuns the outside world. In your mind, any disagreement with your theories just reinforces your worldview. 

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

"They say Cincinnati has 'character', 'heritage', 'tradition', ' an intact urban form,' and  'a sense of place' that other cities lack and that these things are to be defended, not questioned."

 

Why shouldn't those things be defended?  Are you saying Cincinnati should strive to be characterless, eschew heritage, reject tradition, destroy its urban form, and become placeless?  Sure you can make agruments about why heritage and tradition can be problems, especially when so broadly defined, but I look forward to hearing your arguments about why character, intact neighborhoods, and sense of place are problems.

 

"Several here have denied the existence of a local elite, or of any elites anywhere at all."

 

You're the one saying that the the elite don't exist in other cities, supposing that Cincinnati and a few other cities are unique in that respect.  Prove that these powerful connected families don't exist in other cities, and I'll name some from Cincinnati that I bet you've never heard of.  If there's people here that you don't know about, then how can you possibly know who the key players are or aren't in cities like Minneapolis or Charlotte or Tampa?  And as has been pointed out multiple times, nobody says Cincinnati doesn't have elites, but you are overestimating their power in the real estate market.  

 

"What data did I provide that didn't show what I thought it did? Being defensive about Cincinnati does it no favors. Shooting the messenger is part of Cincinnati's problem. Taken together, it explains why Cincinnati's housing market under performs so substantially."

 

That, right there.  You were shown stats by Gramarye, DEPACincy, and Brutus_buckeye that indicate Cincinnati's housing market is right in line other metros of a similar size and that institutional investors are not looking at Cincinnati any differently than comparably sized metros.  Yet you still think it's "substantially underperforming" by some imaginary metric you have yet to articulate.    

Dude keeps talking about "the elite" and how he inherited property.  

I wouldn't call New Orleans a thriving city that's re-invented itself. Of course its home values are going to be inflated in some areas, it's an international tourist destination, but move away from the river and there's still a lot of the city that feels like a swampy Detroit. It's arguably worse off from a living perspective since you're sinking so much into your house and job prospects aren't that great in Louisiana.

46 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

"They say Cincinnati has 'character', 'heritage', 'tradition', ' an intact urban form,' and  'a sense of place' that other cities lack and that these things are to be defended, not questioned."

 

Why shouldn't those things be defended?  Are you saying Cincinnati should strive to be characterless, eschew heritage, reject tradition, destroy its urban form, and become placeless?  Sure you can make agruments about why heritage and tradition can be problems, especially when so broadly defined, but I look forward to hearing your arguments about why character, intact neighborhoods, and sense of place are problems.

 

"Several here have denied the existence of a local elite, or of any elites anywhere at all."

 

You're the one saying that the the elite don't exist in other cities, supposing that Cincinnati and a few other cities are unique in that respect.  Prove that these powerful connected families don't exist in other cities, and I'll name some from Cincinnati that I bet you've never heard of.  If there's people here that you don't know about, then how can you possibly know who the key players are or aren't in cities like Minneapolis or Charlotte or Tampa?  And as has been pointed out multiple times, nobody says Cincinnati doesn't have elites, but you are overestimating their power in the real estate market.  

 

"What data did I provide that didn't show what I thought it did? Being defensive about Cincinnati does it no favors. Shooting the messenger is part of Cincinnati's problem. Taken together, it explains why Cincinnati's housing market under performs so substantially."

 

That, right there.  You were shown stats by Gramarye, DEPACincy, and Brutus_buckeye that indicate Cincinnati's housing market is right in line other metros of a similar size and that institutional investors are not looking at Cincinnati any differently than comparably sized metros.  Yet you still think it's "substantially underperforming" by some imaginary metric you have yet to articulate.    

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

15 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

I wouldn't call New Orleans a thriving city that's re-invented itself. Of course its home values are going to be inflated in some areas, it's an international tourist destination, but move away from the river and there's still a lot of the city that feels like a swampy Detroit. It's arguably worse off from a living perspective since you're sinking so much into your house and job prospects aren't that great in Louisiana.

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

1 minute ago, Z said:

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

 

So you're not actually going to address any of my comments, just deflect?  I (and likely everyone else) legitimately want to know why you think something is a liability instead of an asset and what should be done about it, how you know for sure that elites aren't having similar effects in other cities, and how you can rationalize your position in the face of contradictory statistics.  You need to actually support your arguments instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.  Put up or shut up.  

7 minutes ago, Z said:

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

LOL - you know, no one is taking you seriously, right?

Edited April 22, 20205 yr by Clefan98

42 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

LOL - you know, no one is taking you seriously, right?

Thanks for helping me to make my point!

15 minutes ago, Z said:

Thanks for helping me to make my point!

 

Let's all inherit property and then complain about it.  

19 minutes ago, Z said:

Thanks for helping me to make my point!

So the only conclusion I can draw from the last 4 pages on this topic in the last few days is that 

1) you own property in Cincinnati, but you are not happy about it

2) you dont like Cincinnati, but you really cannot articulate a good reason why. 

3) you have many observations with the Cincinnati real estate market that are personal observations and may be personally true to you but you do not have data to back these observations up on a macro level.

 

 

Cincinnati is NOT "right in line with other 

45 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

 

So you're not actually going to address any of my comments, just deflect?  I (and likely everyone else) legitimately want to know why you think something is a liability instead of an asset and what should be done about it, how you know for sure that elites aren't having similar effects in other cities, and how you can rationalize your position in the face of contradictory statistics.  You need to actually support your arguments instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.  Put up or shut up.  

I legitimately want to know why anyone thinks that "heritage" or 'tradition" are assets. The most rapidly growing cities don't worry about such things. That means they are unnecessary for growth, as much as some may value these ideas...whatever they may actually mean by these terms. The rhetorical use of "heritage" and 'tradition' in Cincinnati is meant to deflect attention from Cincinnati's failings. If someone wants to argue that such ideas have value, the burden is on them to do so. Cincinnati is NOT "right in line" with other analogous metros.

 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS18140Q

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS17140Q

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS31140Q

All these metros saw significantly greater increases in property values with significantly larger increases in the total number of housing units or with significantly smaller metro populations in the case of Louisville. Indy and Columbus did it without virtually any sense of 'tradition' or 'heritage' at all.  Cincinnati is in-line with Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis. Those aren't places you want to be associated with if you're trying to attract professionals, businesses, and investors. 

15 minutes ago, Z said:

Cincinnati is NOT "right in line with other 

I legitimately want to know why anyone thinks that "heritage" or 'tradition" are assets. The most rapidly growing cities don't worry about such things. That means they are unnecessary for growth, as much as some may value these ideas...whatever they may actually mean by these terms. The rhetorical use of "heritage" and 'tradition' in Cincinnati is meant to deflect attention from Cincinnati's failings. If someone wants to argue that such ideas have value, the burden is on them to do so. Cincinnati is NOT "right in line" with other analogous metros.

 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS18140Q

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS17140Q

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS31140Q

All these metros saw significantly greater increases in property values with significantly larger increases in the total number of housing units or with significantly smaller metro populations in the case of Louisville. Indy and Columbus did it without virtually any sense of 'tradition' or 'heritage' at all.  Cincinnati is in-line with Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis. Those aren't places you want to be associated with if you're trying to attract professionals, businesses, and investors. 

 

This post reeks of someone living in trollville. If everyone ignores him he'll scurry back to his hovel under whichever Kentucky bridge he came from.

Edited April 22, 20205 yr by Clefan98

If tradition doesn't matter, Let's all move to Plano TX, Fishers IN and Lewis Center then.

Edited April 22, 20205 yr by GCrites80s

37 minutes ago, Z said:

Cincinnati is NOT "right in line with other 

I legitimately want to know why anyone thinks that "heritage" or 'tradition" are assets. The most rapidly growing cities don't worry about such things. That means they are unnecessary for growth, as much as some may value these ideas...whatever they may actually mean by these terms. The rhetorical use of "heritage" and 'tradition' in Cincinnati is meant to deflect attention from Cincinnati's failings. If someone wants to argue that such ideas have value, the burden is on them to do so. Cincinnati is NOT "right in line" with other analogous metros.

 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS18140Q

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS17140Q

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS31140Q

All these metros saw significantly greater increases in property values with significantly larger increases in the total number of housing units or with significantly smaller metro populations in the case of Louisville. Indy and Columbus did it without virtually any sense of 'tradition' or 'heritage' at all.  Cincinnati is in-line with Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis. Those aren't places you want to be associated with if you're trying to attract professionals, businesses, and investors. 

 

Last response from me, but again this is just ludicrous. Some of the most economically dynamic cities in the world have built a reputation around their traditions and heritage. London, Munich, Paris, Amsterdam. In the US, New Orleans (which you seem to think more highly of than Cincinnati), Philly, New York, Boston, Chicago! You mention Columbus. Do you think it is a coincidence that the most sought after parts of Columbus are also the parts with the most tradition and heritage? German Village, Victorian Village, Italian Village, Grandview, Olde Town East, etc. If anything, Cincinnati has shot itself in the foot by not valuing its heritage enough. If Cincinnatians valued their heritage, history, and tradition they wouldn't have leveled the West End to build I-75.

21 hours ago, Z said:

Is the idea that Cincinnati can even be discussed at all the issue? 

 

I dunno, maybe UrbanOhio will have to institute the same policy that Urbanophile had to:

 

Quote

I’m glad there’s an active commenter community and enjoy reading people’s back and forth. But the comment threads have a tendency to devolve into rehashes of the same people debating the same topics. One of the perennials is Cincinnati. A commenter named [retracted] has a very negative take on the city and its culture. Others disagree.

 

Unlike some, I think [retracted] actually makes valid points about Cincinnati. There’s clearly something going on there that needs to be understood and confronted. But posts that have nothing to do with Cincinnati often get turned into Cincinnati shouting matches for some reason.

 

To keep things on topic I’m instituting a new rule: no one is allowed to discuss Cincinnati in a comment unless the post in question mentions Cincinnati. I will delete any comments that violate this policy.  That might seem draconian, but it’s necessary in order to keep comment threads from devolving. I will make other policy changes in the future as necessary.

 

1 minute ago, taestell said:

 

I dunno, maybe UrbanOhio will have to institute the same policy that Urbanophile had to:

 

 

 

I'm not sure we need to go this far but I do think the constant "Cincinnati elite's are all conspiring" thread of this conversation has played out and we should move on to other things. Consider this fair warning from the mods.

 

Thanks.

Getting back to how this relates to real estate in Ohio...According to Z's argument, Cleveland is worse off than Cincy, pretty much circling a real estate black hole by now, right up there with Detroit even. So in that case, if I am able to make a healthy investment off real estate in the CLE along with many other people I know both on this board and in my personal life, then I guess I just don't get how the "elite" in Cincy have any impact on your ability to roll up your sleeves and earn some money off your inherited real estate?

 

 

EDIT: Mods please remove if needed. Your warning came through as  I was typing this response

 

Edited April 22, 20205 yr by YO to the CLE

16 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

Cleveland is worse off than Cincy, pretty much circling a real estate black hole by now, right up there with Detroit even. So in that case, if I am able to make a healthy investment off real estate in the CLE along with many other people I know both on this board and in my personal life, then I guess I just don't get how the "elite" in Cincy have any impact on your ability to roll up your sleeves and earn some money off your inherited real estate

 

 

The thing is, IMO, no matter what market you are in, there is opportunity. It all depends on how you want to structure your investment. Is Cleveland like Seattle or Denver now where you can buy a building and know it will appreciate 15-20% each year? Of course not. But the people buying in Seattle are just sitting on the property waiting for it to appreciate and not putting any cash in their pockets either. 

 

Personally, I prefer to be able to put cash in my pocket every month on the rents collected and not have to wait for an event such as a sale to collect my return. If you buy in Cleveland, you can do this, and in some cases you can do this quite nicely. From an investment standpoint, if you are buying an investment property, it does not matter what city you buy in. You can make a good return no matter where. What matters is how you want that return to look and the fundamentals behind the asset you choose to purchase.  If I had a choice between a property in San Diego or Cleveland right now, I would probably choose Cleveland because of how the return would be structured,but that is just me.

6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

The thing is, IMO, no matter what market you are in, there is opportunity. It all depends on how you want to structure your investment. Is Cleveland like Seattle or Denver now where you can buy a building and know it will appreciate 15-20% each year? Of course not. But the people buying in Seattle are just sitting on the property waiting for it to appreciate and not putting any cash in their pockets either. 

 

Personally, I prefer to be able to put cash in my pocket every month on the rents collected and not have to wait for an event such as a sale to collect my return. If you buy in Cleveland, you can do this, and in some cases you can do this quite nicely. From an investment standpoint, if you are buying an investment property, it does not matter what city you buy in. You can make a good return no matter where. What matters is how you want that return to look and the fundamentals behind the asset you choose to purchase.  If I had a choice between a property in San Diego or Cleveland right now, I would probably choose Cleveland because of how the return would be structured,but that is just me.

This is very true. I should've been a little more specific in the type of real estate investment I was referring to. If  someone is looking to get a 15-20% appreciation in a year or two here and then sell, then absolutely, that person may be in the wrong city/state/region. But the areas where you do see that type of appreciation also have a VERY high cost of entry. Catch 22 of course. 

 

But from a rent collection cash flow point of view, there are not many places better off than good ole Ohio right now in terms of cost of entry vs returns. 

Ohio cities can't see the kind of appreciation that Seattle and San Francisco have because our economies aren't distorted by the internet and tech. It's better this way since we aren't forced to leave if we don't work in tech.

32 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

This is very true. I should've been a little more specific in the type of real estate investment I was referring to. If  someone is looking to get a 15-20% appreciation in a year or two here and then sell, then absolutely, that person may be in the wrong city/state/region. But the areas where you do see that type of appreciation also have a VERY high cost of entry. Catch 22 of course. 

 

But from a rent collection cash flow point of view, there are not many places better off than good ole Ohio right now in terms of cost of entry vs returns. 

If you got a 40% return on your cash after 3 years i dont think you are going to care too much  if the return is from appreciation or rental cash flow

57 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If you got a 40% return on your cash after 3 years i dont think you are going to care too much  if the return is from appreciation or rental cash flow

 

I'm a bit nervous that residential rents are going to dip markedly as leases expire.  A lot of people who bought rental properties in the last 1-2 years are going to be losing money every month for many months.  Some highly leveraged mini-empires are going to collapse.  

 

2 hours ago, JYP said:

 

I'm not sure we need to go this far but I do think the constant "Cincinnati elite's are all conspiring" thread of this conversation has played out and we should move on to other things. Consider this fair warning from the mods.

 

Thanks.

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

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Ohio cities can't see the kind of appreciation that Seattle and San Francisco have because our economies aren't distorted by the internet and tech. It's better this way since we aren't forced to leave if we don't work in tech.

"Better" for who? 

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Last response from me, but again this is just ludicrous. Some of the most economically dynamic cities in the world have built a reputation around their traditions and heritage. London, Munich, Paris, Amsterdam. In the US, New Orleans (which you seem to think more highly of than Cincinnati), Philly, New York, Boston, Chicago! You mention Columbus. Do you think it is a coincidence that the most sought after parts of Columbus are also the parts with the most tradition and heritage? German Village, Victorian Village, Italian Village, Grandview, Olde Town East, etc. If anything, Cincinnati has shot itself in the foot by not valuing its heritage enough. If Cincinnatians valued their heritage, history, and tradition they wouldn't have leveled the West End to build I-75.

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