OMG that's cheap!!! For a beautiful neighborhood so close to downtown, that's insanity. Even Toledo has some apartments more expensive than that. But to be fair, there are early signs of first wave gentrification in Detroit and Toledo now. Because of how bad things got in those two cities during the recession (highest percentage of job losses in America), a lot of big time projects were delayed (like Fiberglas Tower in Toledo). Now there is a mad real estate rush in Detroit/Toledo, and some first wave renters are being forced out. Pittsburgh has been dealing with this for even longer since its economy crashed hard earlier (70s/80s), but also leveled off earlier (early to mid-2000s).

 

Its near-loop (but not like the hottest areas near the loop) Chicago level prices.  Cincinnatians are only freaking out because the previous mayor did changed the way things were done and actually made the city advance after a very long run of being managed by really terrible leadership which generated an increadible complacency in mediocrity and lack of change, even positive change is shunned as negative.  You want a good idea of how Cincinnati works, look at the bullshit surrounding the Dennison.  These anti-gentrification types in Cincinnati are just as conservative as the suburbanites who comment on the enquirer, they want to maintain the old/broken way of doing things in Cincinnati because positive change is scary.  Gentrification narratives from the coasts are convenient scapegoats for them to mask that parochial conservatism and appear to be more progressive than they actually are.

 

Chicago hasn't gotten a blue bottle yet.  Coastal elites want to go to europe or asia before going to Chicago :/.  (Even though in a lot of ways the North/near loop areas of Chicago is more like them than the rest of the midwest).  Chicagoans still have a chip on their shoulder due to this too, though I usually get furious with natives and tell them they have way more trendy cultural stuff (movies, concerts, trendy international food chains) than the rest of the midwest ever gets and to quit whining. ;)

 

At the last MPMF that was worth going to (old Cincinnati found a way to ruin that too - I guess this is why I've been pretty dour on Cincy lately, the old ways are creeping back in after a very off script burst of new awesomeness, if Yvette looses the election then Mallory may have just been an odd but good blip.) I randomly met a guy who was a cincy native, who then lived in the Bay, got priced out, went to Chicago, had kids reach high school age (where school gets a lot more difficult in Chicago to pull off) then move to OTR.  He worked at Salesforce making a Bay area salary.  He could easily afford to send his kids to private school and live like a king in Cincy.  Only folks who know about Cincinnati are natives (or oddball Daytonians like myself though the two cities are joined pretty much), not even Chicago knows about how much of a gem OTR is because Cincinnatians are terribly bashful people, Chicagoans look down on most other midwest cities, and the Coasts don't give a darn / are scared of the middle of the country even Chicago. (re-blue bottle)

 

Btw my biggest pet peeve with coastal stereotypes of Chicago is that its somehow quintessentially Midwestern - in spite of the much better developed transit system, generally more progressive politics and way greater diversity.  Its an outlier in many many respects with only Minneapolis being similar in those ways (though per-capita its more prosperous and its transit is good but not as good as Chicagos).

SW Ohio is missing out on so much latino culture its not even funny. First time I heard bodega used was by a guy I knew who worked in LA for many years then moved back to Cincy (when I was in college) due to sustaining injuries that made him less able to work.

 

When did people start calling corner stores "bodegas"?  I had barely heard the word until about five years ago. 

 

 

thats because you are in sw ohio. bodegas started when latinos from the islands moved to the states. we have them in lorain and cleveland too. bodegas have staples, quick grab stuff like sodas/beer, sandwiches and brain frying coffee always made with bustelo and steamed milk. and a cat. always a cat. don gato watches over the place.

 

My favorite bodegas are the ones (though I think this is strictly a Chicago thing) where they also cook food on site in the store.  Most of the affluent north side doesn't have easy access to these but they are pretty awesome for great cheap greasy food along with toiletries and bread/tortillas and milk.

Face it, there is no true consensus on what gentrification is. You see a developer in a low income/high crime neighborhood looking to put in housing and all hell breaks loose with the residents. Maybe they feel empowered with the false narrative of gentrification, when in fact there isn't any. No one is going to be pushed out due to property tax increases anytime soon. No Whole Foods will replace the local corner store. And yet they act like tomorrow is moving day.

 

Complaints of disinvestment followed by panic of potential investment followed by rehashed complaints of empty stores. True gentrification  (with its consequences) as seen in Manhattan and San Fran are a drop in the bucket. Gentrification is such a misplaced concern in most cases.

 

Nobody cared when the yupsters and rich divorcees booted the hillbillies and Italians from Northside and Mt. Adams, respectively.  "Gentrification" is only when a conspicuously white upper class displaces a conspicuously not-white underclass. 

 

 

 

Face it, there is no true consensus on what gentrification is. You see a developer in a low income/high crime neighborhood looking to put in housing and all hell breaks loose with the residents. Maybe they feel empowered with the false narrative of gentrification, when in fact there isn't any. No one is going to be pushed out due to property tax increases anytime soon. No Whole Foods will replace the local corner store. And yet they act like tomorrow is moving day.

 

Complaints of disinvestment followed by panic of potential investment followed by rehashed complaints of empty stores. True gentrification  (with its consequences) as seen in Manhattan and San Fran are a drop in the bucket. Gentrification is such a misplaced concern in most cases.

 

Nobody cared when the yupsters and rich divorcees booted the hillbillies and Italians from Northside and Mt. Adams, respectively.  "Gentrification" is only when a conspicuously white upper class displaces a conspicuously not-white underclass. 

 

I chose not to say that because I thought it could take over the tone of the conversation, but there's that as well.

I chose not to say that because I thought it could take over the tone of the conversation, but there's that as well.

 

Reverse blockbusting.  It was briefly an issue in Wash DC but care was taken (and information widely disseminated) to make sure people weren't victimized by developers. The old residents quickly became attuned to fair prices. There was some lingering resentment, but that's life.

I remember seeing a study linked on here where gentrification was defined as areas turning white. If a bunch of poor white people take over a middle class black neighborhood and park a bunch of rusty Novas in the yards that is NOT gentrification.

Well, when rich white people kick out middle class white people, it's called a tear-down.  People express mild bewilderment but generally move on with their lives.  What's weird is that tear-downs can occur because an area has had great schools and a great reputation for decades OR it can happen in a poor area with small homes that aren't worth rehabbing.  In the former situation it's just tear-downs -- in the later it's "gentrification". 

Well, when rich white people kick out middle class white people, it's called a tear-down.  People express mild bewilderment but generally move on with their lives.  What's weird is that tear-downs can occur because an area has had great schools and a great reputation for decades OR it can happen in a poor area with small homes that aren't worth rehabbing.  In the former situation it's just tear-downs -- in the later it's "gentrification". 

 

Its not always a tear down (SF for instance doesn't really allow those to happen so older buildings are constantly renovated with higher and higher end features), though tear downs are a lot more common when richer people move in (though their are exceptions like mid-century north side Chicago suburbs where people don't like the ranch houses and replace them with McMansions).

ha ha the first comment on this is from San Francisco

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GuYwBry824

In the Bay, it's not typically called gentrification until 1% white people kick out upper middle class white people. Hence why only recently have people been freaking out about Oakland's gentrification crisis (due to decades of protesting hushing construction and the extreme NIMBY politics of Oakland-Berkeley). You barely heard a peep from national/global media when upper middle class white folks were first flooding Oakland hoods like Temescal, Rockridge, Adams Point, Uptown, Eastlake, etc. Now that those original upper middle class white folks are being displaced by millionaires, it's considered a crisis. Very little attention is ever paid to the African-American history of Oakland neighborhoods. There is certainly a double standard based on race in Oakland. When blacks folks and businesses originally got evicted, big media hardly paid notice. Now there is a deluge of gentrification articles about Oakland focusing on majority white neighborhoods. What's really crazy is that they still don't call it "gentrification" in East Oakland despite the plethora of middle class people being evicted right now. When tiny 1000-square-foot teardowns are going for over $500,000 and evictions are through the roof, that's gentrification whether people want to admit it or not. It doesn't matter how violent the neighborhood in East Oakland still is, when renters making median income are thrown to the streets, housing prices triple, and displacement is at all-time highs, it's gentrification.

 

The Mission's situation is called hyper-gentrification because there have been so many consecutive waves of wealthier and wealthier people kicking out existing residents. But really everything in SF is hyper-gentrification at this point. All SF neighborhoods are on their second to fourth wave of gentrification. Even Bayview and the Tenderloin recently entered their second wave.

 

*Oakland has just a handful of hoods where there is actual first wave gentrification (in deep East Oakland). Anything east of the old Raiders stadium is experiencing its first wave of real gentrification. Until recently, there were not significant eviction pressures around Coliseum station. That is still Oakland's most violent area, but the big money is moving in now.

 

**That horrendous location in deep East Oakland is a big part of the reason the Raiders wanted to leave. They had no chance in hell of ever getting approved to move to a better neighborhood, so Vegas makes more sense. If the Raiders could have built a stadium in Jack London Square on a vacant waterfront lot, they would have likely stayed in Oakland. All of Oakland's stadium proposals kept them in the ghetto, which is bad for business. The A's always got treated better by Oakland (better location options), but they will likely leave too. Portland makes the most sense for the A's since there is not even a Triple-A baseball team up there (and San Jose looks increasingly impossible). Oakland will likely be America's first city to lose all of its pro sports teams. The location of the sports stadia in deep East Oakland was a strong motivation for all of these teams to leave.

 

So in a weird way, Oakland's pro sports teams were gentrified out of the city. The only safe, viable lots for sports stadiums were in neighborhoods far too expensive to have sports stadiums. Deep East Oakland always caused problems with attendance when teams weren't red hot. But it is Oakland's cheapest land...

There is an overuse of the term gentrification and an underuse of the term housing crisis.  Intense gentrification on its own can lead to a citywide housing crisis, of course, but there are usually demographic and economic issues at play which get confused in the emotional swells surrounding gentrification. 

 

There's a tear-down happening down the street from me. Upscale areas such as Upper Arlington and Bexley have seen teardowns for decades (I bet Hyde Park has had a few too) but in Groveport? It just goes to show how people want to live in the Old Town since the subdivision and ribbon development parts of Groveport are definitely not seeing tear-downs.

 

Also, Groveport has "terrible schools" but I turned out fine. I only went to them for three years though. Going to "terrible schools" meant interacting with black people then later going to an all-white school that had tons of poor kids (but had a reputation as a "better school") meant learning that it's extremely distracting poverty rather than race that makes for "terrible schools". It's such BS, those trailer park kids in the next district over's "better schools" were even more distracting. In Groveport we were able to "hide money" by having an unassuming suburban house but moving to our family's giant farm in Ashville ruined that.

Also, a lot of outsiders can't handle the notion of others sending their kids to schools that have a mix of income levels.

There's a tear-down happening down the street from me. Upscale areas such as Upper Arlington and Bexley have seen teardowns for decades (I bet Hyde Park has had a few too) but in Groveport? It just goes to show how people want to live in the Old Town since the subdivision and ribbon development parts of Groveport are definitely not seeing tear-downs.

 

Also, Groveport has "terrible schools" but I turned out fine. I only went to them for three years though. Going to "terrible schools" meant interacting with black people then later going to an all-white school that had tons of poor kids (but had a reputation as a "better school") meant learning that it's extremely distracting poverty rather than race that makes for "terrible schools". It's such BS, those trailer park kids in the next district over's "better schools" were even more distracting. In Groveport we were able to "hide money" by having an unassuming suburban house but moving to our family's giant farm in Ashville ruined that.

 

Correlation is not causation.  Could indifference to (and even antipathy for) education lead to the poverty and the terrible schools?

There's a tear-down happening down the street from me. Upscale areas such as Upper Arlington and Bexley have seen teardowns for decades (I bet Hyde Park has had a few too) but in Groveport? It just goes to show how people want to live in the Old Town since the subdivision and ribbon development parts of Groveport are definitely not seeing tear-downs.

 

Yeah I think your right about the old school elite areas (and nearby) of Cincinnati having teardowns, though when I'm in town I don't notice as many proportionally as I have in Chicagoland's comparable areas.  Columbia Tusculum is probably the neighborhood that has the worst infill vs what was orginally there, I still can't believe the community/council allowed a crummy mcmansion to be built right next to where its well known (by cincy standards) painted lady row is on Tusculum...

 

Btw 2 apartments ago for me was a teardown - it was in Wicker Park, which is probably 3rd wave gentrification right now, its starting to feel a lot like Lincoln Park these days.  It kind of sucked because it was the nicest workers cottage on the block, built right in 1900 with a few extra details on it.  It was replaced by a large mansion, which looks great as far as modern infill goes but I'm still sad the old building is gone. (though I am happy for the landlord who was a really nice guy who deserved a good retirement I'm sure he cashed out big).

 

Here's a good example of teardowns in Montgomery, Ohio. About half of the 1950's ranches on this suburban street, which were all in good condition, have been replaced with larger McMansions.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2387925,-84.3615799,3a,75y,121.17h,71.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssjfsZFVm-k2hnpDuj87NYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There's a tear-down happening down the street from me. Upscale areas such as Upper Arlington and Bexley have seen teardowns for decades (I bet Hyde Park has had a few too) but in Groveport? It just goes to show how people want to live in the Old Town since the subdivision and ribbon development parts of Groveport are definitely not seeing tear-downs.

 

Also, Groveport has "terrible schools" but I turned out fine. I only went to them for three years though. Going to "terrible schools" meant interacting with black people then later going to an all-white school that had tons of poor kids (but had a reputation as a "better school") meant learning that it's extremely distracting poverty rather than race that makes for "terrible schools". It's such BS, those trailer park kids in the next district over's "better schools" were even more distracting. In Groveport we were able to "hide money" by having an unassuming suburban house but moving to our family's giant farm in Ashville ruined that.

 

Correlation is not causation.  Could indifference to (and even antipathy for) education lead to the poverty and the terrible schools?

 

In Columbus you have the added complexity of the "Win-Win" Agreement where some students from inside Columbus city limits attend suburban schools. CCS then pays the suburb back in cash for teaching the students. If the Groveport district only included Groveport and Southeastern Madison Township students as it did until the late '60s what you describe could be studied. The "Win-Win" Agreement throws in a variable that is difficult to control for until someone writes their thesis or dissertation on the subject. Maybe someone has -- I don't know.

 

What I do know is that anything south of I-70 except for German Village has a somewhat trashy reputation. The side of town where the river got dirty has always been less desirable, and in Columbus that's the southern third.

 

Here's a good example of teardowns in Montgomery, Ohio. About half of the 1950's ranches on this suburban street, which were all in good condition, have been replaced with larger McMansions.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2387925,-84.3615799,3a,75y,121.17h,71.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssjfsZFVm-k2hnpDuj87NYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

Look at those plebes at 7792 with their original house and '90s pickup truck with tape stripes and an aluminum cap

Take a drive up U.S. 62 from Gahanna through New Albany to see miles of ribbon development teardowns.

 

Here's a good example of teardowns in Montgomery, Ohio. About half of the 1950's ranches on this suburban street, which were all in good condition, have been replaced with larger McMansions.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2387925,-84.3615799,3a,75y,121.17h,71.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssjfsZFVm-k2hnpDuj87NYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Yes, Montgomery probably has the most teardowns similar to Chicago's North Shore, it's just taken 20 years ;)  Indian hill sees plenty of it too, but it's not as noticeable. 

On that same street...are these a pair of 4-families?  The horror!

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.238114,-84.3578898,3a,75y,241.92h,77.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSOuIUNyqSF7fyw79jHvkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Your high property taxes paying for buses since nobody can walk to school:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2380292,-84.3567733,3a,75y,120.83h,75.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVQZaiLT89LAVXLXnMrAg6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

On that same street...are these a pair of 4-families?  The horror!

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.238114,-84.3578898,3a,75y,241.92h,77.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSOuIUNyqSF7fyw79jHvkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Your high property taxes paying for buses since nobody can walk to school:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2380292,-84.3567733,3a,75y,120.83h,75.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVQZaiLT89LAVXLXnMrAg6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

No, they're just ugly houses, but they do fit the proportions.  At least some kids can walk to Montgomery Elementary from Ross, Campus, and Zig Zag, but the disconnected street grid quickly becomes a hindrance.

On that same street...are these a pair of 4-families?  The horror!

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.238114,-84.3578898,3a,75y,241.92h,77.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSOuIUNyqSF7fyw79jHvkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Your high property taxes paying for buses since nobody can walk to school:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2380292,-84.3567733,3a,75y,120.83h,75.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVQZaiLT89LAVXLXnMrAg6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

PLEASE STAND CLEAR OF THE SCHOOL BUS! BEEP BEEEP BEEP BEEEEEEP! THE SCHOOL BUS IS ABOUT TO MOVE! BEEP BEEEP BEEP!

 

School buses get to be the loudest vehicles on the road with their noisy non-turbo diesel engines and screaming announcements. They also don't have to have Jayne Mansfield bars under the back bumper unlike all commercial trucks.

 

Here's a good example of teardowns in Montgomery, Ohio. About half of the 1950's ranches on this suburban street, which were all in good condition, have been replaced with larger McMansions.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2387925,-84.3615799,3a,75y,121.17h,71.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssjfsZFVm-k2hnpDuj87NYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Suburban homes are so obese. Any time you see 1950s homes next to modern homes, it makes it so obvious.

Yeah, Montgomery and Madeira are the epicenter of the tear down trend in Cincinnati. Whole portions of Montgomery are almost unrecognizable now. I'd rather people tear down and build new rather than build on the periphery out in Mason or somewhere. The tear down trend speaks to a lack of appealing housing in these neighborhoods that otherwise are very desirable. I know several youngish couples who are trying to find a house in Sycamore schools, and the options are either too expensive or too small. These communities need to build more housing, and you are seeing Blue Ash start to get more aggressive in its residential growth.

Tear-down after tear-down in Charlotte, NC:

 

Same pattern in Nashville and throughout the south.  The difference there is that the homes near the downtowns tend to be very small yet situated on much larger lots than what are typical in the north. 

Honestly, I am seeing a  TON of this in Columbia Tusculum.  I walk around this area quite frequently and there is at least 10 of these tear down re-builds going on.  Also some on side streets in Mt. Lookout I see them as well.

 

It's funny, they have these cute little, old houses up top on the hills, and next door, they tore down the house and cut out all the ground, create retaining walls and drive way into a monstrous house

My neighborhood (an inside-the-Beltway suburb of Wash DC) is rife with teardowns.  According to my tax bill, my lot is 8 times more valuable than my house. The next buyer will no doubt tear it down.

^What do you all think the threshold is for lot value vs house value to warrant a teardown?

I ran into this post on City-Data...I snorted a bit to myself.  This guy sounds like a real prude who somehow had no idea what he was getting into, or that the neighborhood he describes is what 90% of New York City was until about 2000. 

 

I'm leaving this neighborhood soon, and I won't name the 'hood but it's been written up by the NYtimes as a gentrifying place. It's relatively safe and full of families.... But...

 

Litter everywhere, every-fokin-where. People love donating their trash to the sidewalk. Limited amenities. Restaurants around here serve food that is tasty but it's mostly greasy, obesity-inducing grub. Want grilled chicken? NO, YOU TAKE IT FRIED LIKE A GOOD FATTY.

 

What else is charming about my neighborhood? I'm glad you asked. First.. People blasting their music with zero regard for their neighbors. Every other household has a subwoofer and you must listen to what they listen to! Sharing is caring.

 

What else? People letting their dogs sh1te everywhere without picking up. People illegally breeding multiple dogs. Parents who let their children run around like wild animals with zero oversight. Really bad parenting in general, I think. Half the kids in my neighborhood are overweight by the time they are 8.

 

Anyone recognize this? It's insane that we live in such a wealthy city but have so many neighborhoods like this

 

 

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-york-city/2736326-so-many-neighborhoods-ny-feel-third.html#ixzz4dIwJC0KZ

 

Every excerpt I've ever read from the City Data forum is just "old white guys complaining about America these days."

Every excerpt I've ever read from the City Data forum is just "old white guys complaining about America these days."

 

The Cincinnati threads have five or six of those guys.  I think that site attracts people because it has property tax data (I think - I've never looked) and people who spend a lot of time analyzing and complaining about property taxes are a tribe unto themselves. 

 

People can choose to pay lower property tax by moving to a smaller house in an uncool part of town.  But they never, ever do that.  They have plenty of money -- they just want something to complain about. 

 

People also use City Data to overanalyze crime statistics while actually underanalyizing them.

People also use City Data to overanalyze crime statistics while actually underanalyizing them.

 

The frustration that portends to be permanent fixture for all eternity is that thanks to the internet people have much easier access to source materials -- the stuff that real researchers use when they do their real research -- but they refuse to look at it.  Instead they're fooled by tabloid journalism and the bots that pump out the flawed statistics on Zillow and City-Data.  The big crime stat nobody believes is that violent crime is down 50% since 1990 nationwide.  People can't be convinced that the country is significantly safer than it was 25 years ago. 

 

We kept thinking back in the 90s that if the radio would just start playing good music everyone would like it. We kept thinking that as libraries went online, people would better-educate themselves.  We were wrong.  They can listen to anything now so they listen to all crap.  They could be researching real stats or at least watch lectures by international experts but instead they're taking photos of themselves or what they're about to eat. 

 

 

^What do you all think the threshold is for lot value vs house value to warrant a teardown?

 

It's location specific, I think.  Contributing to the likelihood of my house being torn down is its 108 year-old functional obsolescence; people who can afford the lot will no longer put up with the inadequacies of the house. 

 

The old real estate rule used to be the cost of the house was supposed to be 1.5 times the cost of the lot - I don't think that applies any more. In my neighborhood it's more like 1 to 1, the missing house value being the price of a short commute.

^Yeah, lots on the east side command ridiculous prices. 

 

Here is an tear-down behind Mt. Lookout Square subdivided into two $250k lots:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1532457/1002-Crocus-Ln-Lot-1-Mt-Lookout-OH-45208

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1532461/1002-Crocus-Ln-Lot-2-Mt-Lookout-OH-45208

 

 

Ridiculous price for a lot that small in Cincinnati.  Guess you can't put a price on exclusivity and not having to live with the riff-raff.

^not just Riff Raff, but also Hector, Wordsworth and Mungo

^not just Riff Raff, but also Hector, Wordsworth and Mungo

 

I didn't want to say it, but clearly others feel the same way I do about it. 

Lol, Riff Raff. I guess he can't handle how hard people go at Ohio U....

 

A Silicon Valley native complaining about being pushed out...the realtor is pretty wild in the last minute.  He sez buyers are 30 IQ points higher than sellers and Google workers work harder than natives so they deserve the houses and too bad to those who happened to grow up in the area.

 

Ridiculous price for a lot that small in Cincinnati.  Guess you can't put a price on exclusivity and not having to live with the riff-raff.

 

Unfortunately a lot of the money that could have accelerated the rebirth (oops did I just argue for gentrification?!) of various Cincinnati neighborhoods is instead being spent rebuilding east side neighborhoods that were already just fine.  Take 200 people that have squeezed houses onto odd lots in the past 8 years and put that money in Walnut Hills or Avondale or Evanston and everything would be different. 

 

Ridiculous price for a lot that small in Cincinnati.  Guess you can't put a price on exclusivity and not having to live with the riff-raff.

 

Unfortunately a lot of the money that could have accelerated the rebirth (oops did I just argue for gentrification?!) of various Cincinnati neighborhoods is instead being spent rebuilding east side neighborhoods that were already just fine.  Take 200 people that have squeezed houses onto odd lots in the past 8 years and put that money in Walnut Hills or Avondale or Evanston and everything would be different.

 

Exactly!

Ridiculous price for a lot that small in Cincinnati.  Guess you can't put a price on exclusivity and not having to live with the riff-raff.

 

Unfortunately a lot of the money that could have accelerated the rebirth (oops did I just argue for gentrification?!) of various Cincinnati neighborhoods is instead being spent rebuilding east side neighborhoods that were already just fine.  Take 200 people that have squeezed houses onto odd lots in the past 8 years and put that money in Walnut Hills or Avondale or Evanston and everything would be different.

 

Exactly!

 

I feel like this is an issue in a lot of mid-size, Rust Belt-y cities. Not entirely apples to apples, but it's like how in Detroit they're currently building a tower full of expensive micro-apartments two miles away from both vast urban prairie and somewhat-still-intact midtown neighborhoods.

It's been mentioned before, but the percentage of people that are willing to be pioneers, or even "risk-oblivious" or "risk-aware" is very very small.  That's why so many stick to the "safe" neighborhoods and suburbs. 

But that effect can also spread gentrification using the established neighborhoods as anchors once a given neighborhood is, for lack of a better term, "fully gentrified."  In Columbus, places like Merion Village owe a lot of their growth to people who wanted to move into German Village but couldn't afford it anymore.  Harrison West grew in part because demand for Victorian Village got so high.  In some sense, people feel like less of a risk-oblivious pioneer when their thinking can be "moving just onto the edges of {established neighborhood}" rather than "taking a chance on {potentially up-and-coming neighborhood}."  I'm less familiar with Cleveland's growth but it certainly at least looks like the growth of Tremont -> Ohio City -> Detroit-Shoreway -> etc. may have followed a pattern like this, too.

I think this is true and more is spreading in Cincinnati to East Walnut Hills, Evanston around O'Bryonville, and then Madisonville but the latter is further out.

 

Also noticed even around some parts of Oakley there are houses in rough shape.  I think Oakley still has room to fully be built out.

 

Columbia Tusculum is also an area where it is getting closer and closer to full build out.  It needs to move somewhere at somepoint....

But that effect can also spread gentrification using the established neighborhoods as anchors once a given neighborhood is, for lack of a better term, "fully gentrified."  In Columbus, places like Merion Village owe a lot of their growth to people who wanted to move into German Village but couldn't afford it anymore.

 

That's the way it worked in Washington. The newly gentrified neighborhoods quickly became unaffordable, and adjacent cheaper neighborhoods became the new hot spots. In addition to the Tremont pattern, Cleveland is also seeing Downtown -> Midtown/Hough <- University Circle.  Gentrification, even those who see it as a problem will admit, is one of the better problems to have.

Spillover really needs contiguous urban fabric in order to work.  There's so many barriers that can block it, from highways to railroad berms to housing projects.  It's hard to find that in Cincinnati, especially with the neighborhood business districts being so nodal.  Hyde Park spillover to Oakley is about the only good example we have.  Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout aren't much different.  Mt. Lookout and Columbia-Tusculum is a smaller example, and also Walnut Hills to East Walnut Hills.  So many neighborhoods have hillside barriers and/or industrial corridors, like Red Bank separating Madisonville from everything else. 

But that effect can also spread gentrification using the established neighborhoods as anchors once a given neighborhood is, for lack of a better term, "fully gentrified."  In Columbus, places like Merion Village owe a lot of their growth to people who wanted to move into German Village but couldn't afford it anymore.

 

That's the way it worked in Washington. The newly gentrified neighborhoods quickly became unaffordable, and adjacent cheaper neighborhoods became the new hot spots. In addition to the Tremont pattern, Cleveland is also seeing Downtown -> Midtown/Hough <- University Circle.  Gentrification, even those who see it as a problem will admit, is one of the better problems to have.

I've been saying this for years.  Desirable urban areas grow block by block, it's very rare that they nucleate in blighted areas.

 

This came up a lot during the Opportunity Corridor discussion when some thought that would be a great place to put a new, dense, walkable neighborhood.