Jake - What about HCA, Lifepoint, CHS, Quorum, etc. What is their employment impact. Plus you also have Nissan

Aw, every Southern city has a massive healthcare industry

Nashville is a unique hub. All the for profit systems outside of Tenet and UHS are headquartered there.

https://www.nashvillechamber.com/explore/work/major-employers

 

According to that list, Vanderbilt is the largest employer.  No doubt that 24,000 head count includes the research hospital and possibly a suburban hospital or two.  Nissan is #2 with 10,000.  I am shocked by that number because Cincinnati lost about 2,500 when Toyota left for Dallas.  The new HQ in suburban Dallas will have a total of 4,000 employees, including those moved from Los Angeles. 

 

Aha:

http://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/nissan-growing-crazy-tennessee-and-most-new-hires-are-long-term-temps#stream/0

 

So apparently they're counting the plant workers in exurban Smyrna as Nissan employees, since they are. 

^ Jake - the 10k counts the plant workers in the area. Dallas Toyota HQ operations is just HQ and operations workers.

 

 

^^ Sorry, I just noticed you clarified that in your post

Also keep in mind that in much of the sunbelt the growth industry is growth itself.  With so much of our economy tied to construction and home ownership, you get a self-reinforcing growth pattern in places like that.  The state DOT is more than willing to reinforce that with new highways and widened arterial streets.  A relative lack of legacy regulations, institutions, and entrenched politics helps move things along.  Of course the problem is it's a total ponzi scheme.  So it's not as much about being in the south (or the west) but about being younger.  It's why Columbus, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis are more like southern sprawlburgs in a lot of ways, while Memphis, Winston-Salem, and Birmingham have more in common with northern rust belt cities. 

I also contend a capital city has benefits to growth. Look at the growth of state and federal governments over the last 30 years and you will see the exponential growth in capital cities. They often have a research university in the area as a talent generator, and stable jobs for graduates which helps aide growth.  Look at Indy, Columbus, Nashville, Austin, Atlanta, Raleigh Durham and Minneapolis/St. Paul. They are all state capitals and therefore the hub of their region. Memphis, Cleveland, Cincy, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, St. Louis do not have this built in system. They don't have the proliferation of state jobs in these cities. No longer is a major waterway the key to growth in cities, it is now about being close to the center of power, which is where you get the capital effect.  About the only major new city that appears to defy these odds would be Charlotte, NC and I would argue that Raleigh Durham will overtake Charlotte in the next 20 years.

^A lot of state capitals are unimportant such as Frankfort and Pierre, though.

 

 

Also keep in mind that in much of the sunbelt the growth industry is growth itself.  With so much of our economy tied to construction and home ownership, you get a self-reinforcing growth pattern in places like that.  The state DOT is more than willing to reinforce that with new highways and widened arterial streets.  A relative lack of legacy regulations, institutions, and entrenched politics helps move things along.  Of course the problem is it's a total ponzi scheme.  So it's not as much about being in the south (or the west) but about being younger.  It's why Columbus, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis are more like southern sprawlburgs in a lot of ways, while Memphis, Winston-Salem, and Birmingham have more in common with northern rust belt cities. 

 

It's 2006 all over again, except this time the banks won't loan money to a tract homebuilder until the house is pre-sold.

^ yes, but as mentioned, it is the state capital coupled with a major research university combination.

 

Austin - UT

Columbus - OSU

Raleigh Durham - UNC, Duke, NC State, etc.

Nashville - Vandy

Minneapolis - Minnesota

etc.

 

Frankfort, Pierre, Boise, Montgomery, Jackson, Harrisburg may all be nice cities and all, but they don't have the R1 Carnegie level research university in town too. I think there is a correlation between the two.

 

I think it's hard to get non-healthcare people to pay attention to that kind of stuff since healthcare seems like a closed industry and most people treat hospitals like the seaweed in Ninja Turtles 1 on Nintendo.

 

Also keep in mind that in much of the sunbelt the growth industry is growth itself.

 

Exactly.  Many of the Mexicans building houses in Tennessee retreated back to Mexico in 2009.  They're back now. 

 

 

 

 

It's 2006 all over again, except this time the banks won't loan money to a tract homebuilder until the house is pre-sold.

 

U.S. home mortgage debt is the single-biggest asset class in the world.  All of the banks around the world were buying some of it.  Those who bought a lot of it collapsed.  It's interesting to note that the first place to stop buying it was FRANCE.  Because they actually did the math in late 2007 and could see the risk that others ignored.  When they stopped buying it in early 2008 a bunch of other banks around the world stopped as well and we all know what happened next. 

 

There is a reason why you don't see vast swaths of American-style suburbs anywhere else in the world, except maybe around Sydney.  Because no other country lets its banks lend for housing we don't actually need.  Basic regulation would have prevented the hollowing of cities, vacation homes in flood zones, and speculation on primary residences. 

Also keep in mind that in much of the sunbelt the growth industry is growth itself.

 

Exactly.  Many of the Mexicans building houses in Tennessee retreated back to Mexico in 2009.  They're back now. 

 

 

 

 

 

^ yes, but as mentioned, it is the state capital coupled with a major research university combination.

 

Austin - UT

Columbus - OSU

Raleigh Durham - UNC, Duke, NC State, etc.

Nashville - Vandy

Minneapolis - Minnesota

etc.

 

Frankfort, Pierre, Boise, Montgomery, Jackson, Harrisburg may all be nice cities and all, but they don't have the R1 Carnegie level research university in town too. I think there is a correlation between the two.

 

 

But that wouldn't explain Tallahassee, Lansing, Lincoln, or Baton Rouge. All of which have major research universities and are state capitals (two in top 10 states).  In reality, it's about how a city/metro is run.  Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, or even Kansas City do not need a state capital or "top research facility" in order to have high growth.  It's how to run a city and run it well (through a collaborative business community, progressive planning, etc)...or in some cases, weather and cheap land. 

 

Okay, in most cases, weather and cheap land.

Condos priced at $600k-1.2 million replace an apartment building in Marriemont.  Nobody calls this gentrification because it's 8 miles from downtown and white people just booted out white people. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/03/inside-the-final-phase-of-greiwe-s-luxury.html

Is gentrification a problem when 94% of Cuyahoga county is experiencing property value decreases?

 

Some interesting maps in this @richeypipes study. Look at residential property value changes for the county. https://t.co/cdni9I4nNa

 

Outside of the wildly overheated coastal markets, I've really never understood anti-gentrification activism, for precisely those reasons (even if I hadn't seen the exact statistics, the phenomenon is generally not exactly hidden).  It would take another twenty Tremonts and Ohio Cities to really cause a shortage of affordable housing within the city limits, and that doesn't take into account the increasingly affordable (though not always for the best of reasons) inner-ring suburbs.  At the current rate of gentrification, that is literally generations away.

Hey according to Zillow's estimates my house is worth slightly more now than when I bought it in 2009... I'm pretty much the little angry red dot in the middle of old Brooklyn.

Is gentrification a problem when 94% of Cuyahoga county is experiencing property value decreases?

 

Some interesting maps in this @richeypipes study. Look at residential property value changes for the county. https://t.co/cdni9I4nNa

 

 

Did I miss something in Bedford Heights/Oakwood/Solon along Richmond Road?  There's a new development there, but nothing special.

Outside of the wildly overheated coastal markets, I've really never understood anti-gentrification activism, for precisely those reasons (even if I hadn't seen the exact statistics, the phenomenon is generally not exactly hidden).  It would take another twenty Tremonts and Ohio Cities to really cause a shortage of affordable housing within the city limits, and that doesn't take into account the increasingly affordable (though not always for the best of reasons) inner-ring suburbs.  At the current rate of gentrification, that is literally generations away.

I suspect it's all about getting "compensated".

A BBC report on investors buying trailer parks and jacking up the rents:

Wow...

 

Over $500 a month to rent a room in a trailer park because you're a 'sex offender.' I don't even like the word 'sex offender.' At least from what I've been told, you can be cited and become a 'sex ofender' by getting caught taking a wiz behind a dumpster when you really have to go. There's a difference between that and raping some woman against her will.

^Well also the film crew made a point of the investors snickering at the tenants, culminating in the "trailer park!" group photo at the end. 

Yet more millionaires created by poorly-crafted laws. America!

that's no different than the owners of old manhattan walk ups and the like sitting around on their boats in long island laughing at the people paying their crazy rents. its a landlord thing.

 

mario batali's first restaurant, called po, closed recently because the landlord jacked the rents and i noticed this because the building owner happened to be our landlord, so it caught my eye. i actually sided with the landlord because it said they were only paying something like $10k/mo for it and i thought, damn, that ain't right these days. talk about stockholm syndrome!

 

"I don't control market rates!" is totally the rich landlord thing to say when doubling someone's rent.

I wonder how less often renters trash the places in expensive areas. In less-expensive areas, the landlords often avoid raising the rent on current tenants since they know that they aren't going to trash the place, let the pipes freeze rather than pay a $37 gas bill or park a bunch of junk cars in the yard -- unlike a stranger which might do those things. Those things aren't as much of a problem in wealthy areas which empowers landlords to start from scratch with a new tenant.

That's why people don't accept section 8 tenants. You'll lose your ss[/member] doing that. I remember when my stepdad decided to rent out our house after we moved. The house in Pleasant Ridge was in really good shape and newly remodeled. The RE market started to go down the tubes and he wasn't able to sell it for what he originally paid so he decided to rent. He thought the section 8 route would be good; guaranteed payments of at least $800 and he'd be helping a family who would really appreciate the house. He visited the property a couple months later and the front door had been kicked in and was off the hinges. Holes in the walls. Cigarette burns in the new carpet. Etc. Etc. In TWO MONTHS.

I wonder how less often renters trash the places in expensive areas. In less-expensive areas, the landlords often avoid raising the rent on current tenants since they know that they aren't going to trash the place, let the pipes freeze rather than pay a $37 gas bill or park a bunch of junk cars in the yard -- unlike a stranger which might do those things. Those things aren't as much of a problem in wealthy areas which empowers landlords to start from scratch with a new tenant.

 

I have never seen a trashed apartment in San Francisco of anyone under 40. Nobody ever wants to get evicted, and usually renters do their own repairs and appliance upgrades on rent-controlled properties (we usually did). That's part of the deal when you have rent control. You never complain to your landlord and you take care of the apartment for them. That way, they are less motivated to evict you and then double/triple the rent to market rate. If you're 50% or more below market rate, you make damn sure your apartment is in good shape.

 

*I imagine people on 6-month or 1-year rotations at tech companies who have their temporary housing paid for in full by corporate are far more likely to trash apartments. I've seen that a few times as places devolved into tech frats or social media marketing sorority party hubs on Ohio University level.

 

**Oakland hipsters still trash apartments and houses on occasion, which risks eviction. The worst place I saw was a large Victorian house of hipsters in Temescal (single-family homes, condos, and duplexes in Oakland are not covered by rent control, so high eviction risk). These hipsters seemed to have all completely given up on life. The carpet in one of the bedrooms was caked in vomit, urine, and sex fluids. The kitchen had spilled beer and cigarettes everywhere. The backyard was littered entirely in trash. The smell of this place was ungodly, and I immediately bailed without finishing my interview. This was like five years ago, so I am 100% sure all of those hipsters are up in Portland now. Any reasonable landlord would have evicted them once rents spiked in Temescal (2013-2016 was the huge spike). This house was as trashed as Mill Street or Palmer Street in Athens...

 

Obviously, Oakland's illegal Burning Man warehouses/art spaces are total hellholes too and major fire hazards. As we saw last year at Ghost Ship, these illegal Burning Man warehouses are deathtraps and pose serious hazards to their surrounding neighborhoods. That's why landlords are trying to tear these warehouses down and build legal housing on the sites in West Oakland and East Oakland. There is no reason for these warehouses to exist anymore and the sites can support much-needed high-rise housing. None of them are particularly historic at this point. But of course, being Oakland, people are violently protesting this housing, or burning it down as warehouses are converted to housing:

 

Suspicious 5-alarm fire tears through Oakland condo project site

 

It's the second fire at the million dollar condo complex under construction, and developers of the project say they are sure it was arson. The fire sent flames shooting high into the sky and sent smoke drifting as far as San Jose. "That's the second time they burn it down. It's unbelievable. It looks like somebody's against us," construction worker Matt Padilla, who worked on the condo project, said.

 

The developer says he will not be deterred. "Whoever is doing this is not going to stop us from building housing. We had two armed guards and 12 cameras," Rick Holliday with Holliday Development said.

http://abc7news.com/news/5-alarm-structure-fire-investigated-in-oakland-/1988484/

 

I thank my lucky stars I've been in a rent-controlled master tenant power position for years. As soon as a roommate crosses the line, I kick them out. I am admittedly more ruthless than the average soft, passive aggressive Oakland type (but I am only ruthless on the filthy rich trust fund kids, which have been most of my roommates). Most of my roommates have been clean and responsible because they know not to mess with me. Oakland's housing crisis is more recent, so people are still learning how to survive in a hyper-gentrified place like Oakland. I learned from being poor in San Francisco how to game the system and legally protect yourself from bad roommates. I make sure I always give myself eviction rights in roommate contracts. I only give one warning for contract violations. After the second violation, I kick them out!

 

Of my last dozen roommates, only one has been dirty or damaged the flat. The bigger issues are always with relationships as roommates try to move in significant others since they can't find/afford their own place. I've had to warn two roommates about that and my right to evict them. They both left on their own once they knew I was serious about kicking them out. I also had to throw one of the girlfriends out of the shower once because I had a flight to catch! If you don't pay rent or utilities, you don't have shower rights. Couples should not live with roommates off of craigslist!

 

I've lived with over 100 roommates over the last 10 years, so I've really learned how to protect myself, my money, and maintain an upper hand in apartments. Roommates only work when one has more power than the other ones. Only one person should ever be on the original lease. That's the situation in almost every San Francisco and Oakland rent-controlled flat. Landlords prefer it this way (less headaches and only one rent-controlled tenant), and it makes it easier for them to raise rent to market rate once that master tenant moves out.

C-Dawg, I just heard this morning at a family funeral that my cousin who has been working in San Francisco (and living for free as part of the program she's in) has a new boyfriend...who just inherited an apartment in Nob Hill from his grandfather.  I'm sure any dude in SF with a paid-for living arrangement in just about any neighborhood is scooping up the ladies, but Nob Hill is pretty big-time. 

 

 

Nob Hill is top notch. Nothing tops it as far as dating goes. It's an amazing neighborhood as a single male and that's where I usually go out. The women are incredible in Nob Hill and the entire north side of San Francisco...though most already have their own money. :wink: That's one of the few hoods where women I date usually live alone.

Here they barely care about money or stability. They want smooth.

Here they barely care about money or stability. They want smooth.

 

Damn I'm smooth. 

 

 

 

Over 1 million Moscovites to be displaced in corrupt Putin-related gentrification scheme...except it looks like a way to charge pensioners more to live in new buildings where their old one once stood:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/moscows-real-estate-roulette.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

The feature story in this week's CityBeat is titled Moved Aside. The subhead is, "Longtime residents are being uprooted as affordable housing options dwindle in OTR."

 

The article mostly picks on Model Group, who recently purchased the Parkway Towers building on Central Parkway near Findlay Market. Apparently Model had informed residents that they will be relocated to other low income housing in the area so that the building can be renovated. Model Group eventually plans to redevelop the site, but even then, 25% of the units will be affordable. (Presumably they will build new buildings on the parking lot next to the site...but the article did not specify.)

 

"Contrary to Model’s letter, most residents there have only mild complaints about the building’s condition, and HUD documents show that Parkway scored an 84 percent — much higher than other buildings that continue to receive HUD approval — during a recent inspection."

 

The problem is that many of these old building that have been neglected, and were converted to low income housing when Downtown and OTR real estate became dirt cheap, likely have major problems that are probably not obvious to the residents.

 

However...due to the negative backlash, Model Group has decided to delay the renovation and let current residents continue living there. "Model has since backed off telling tenants to move. In response to a request by CityBeat for comment on the situation, Chief Operating Officer Bobby Maly said the company has decided to leave the building as it is after [Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio]’s requests."

 

My biggest problem with articles like these is they they ignore the fact that it was a mistake to concentrate all of the low income housing and social services into a single neighborhood in the first place. Neighborhoods work better when there is a diversity of people. When landlords make barely any money because all of their apartments are dirt cheap, they allow the buildings to fall apart. Seriously, if you're renting an apartment for $300/month in OTR right now, it's not because you got a great deal...it's because your landlord doesn't care and is letting the building fall apart.

 

The article also sticks up for "anti-gentrification advocates" who would rather keep low income people living in that deteriorating housing, rather than letting developers bring them up to code and develop historic buildings into mixed-income housing. These people will be the ones to blame if we ever have a Ghost Ship-like tragedy where dozens of people are killed when their building catches fire because it's not up to electrical code, doesn't have working smoke detectors, doesn't have proper fire escapes, etc.

And this:

 

Some pro-development factions trust the market to take care of housing costs, arguing that increasing density in the city by building more housing of any kind — even luxury condos — will eventually decrease all housing costs by soaking up demand. But others say those high-end units just increase property values around them and make the neighborhood more and more expensive. While data isn’t conclusive in San Francisco, studies in other cities show more housing doesn’t always equal affordability.

 

Is he seriously comparing gentrification Cincinnati with gentrification in San Francisco? Give me a f@#$&@ break.

I run a fairly sizable Cleveland-centric instagram account. Each time I've posted something about a new development in Ohio City or Detroit Shoreway I've gotten either: a) comments claiming the development is terrible for residents because they will be priced out of the neighborhood or b) nasty direct messages asking me how I could advocate for such developments.

 

I had no idea gentrification was a four-letter word to do so many people. All I know is that there are hundreds of jobs in the service industry now that did not exist in 2010 in both neighborhoods.

Yep. We get that all the time on the UrbanCincy instagram account. Every time we post a rendering of a new development we get three things.

 

"Ugly! Why can't the make new buildings look like the old ones?"

 

"Who will be able to afford to live there?!"

 

or just simply, "Gentrification"

^ It fascinates me how there are homeless advocates (Josh Spring, cough cough) who vigorously campaign and fight gentrification and want to keep certain neighbohoods for the poor yet at the same time complaining that the neighborhood is poor and needs investment. You cant have it both ways.

^ It fascinates me how there are homeless advocates (Josh Spring, cough cough) who vigorously campaign and fight gentrification and want to keep certain neighbohoods for the poor yet at the same time complaining that the neighborhood is poor and needs investment. You cant have it both ways.

 

They either want to control the "investment" or actually believe keeping neighborhoods poor increases activism among same.

 

What's funny is when they also oppose "sprawl".  In 90% of US cities that's the sole alternative to what they call gentrification.

I heard someone put it this way recently. (Can't remember who, unfortunately.)

 

Both of these ideas can't simultaneously be true:

- Home ownership/equity is a good way for the middle class to build their savings.

- Everyone deserves housing at an affordable price in whatever location they choose.

WCPO has complied a list of the 9 Cincinnati-area locations where rents are rising the fastest. And guess what neighborhood is not on the list?

 

I guess it's time for the anti-gentrification activists to start focusing on Covington and Oakley...

Residents worried they will be priced out of up-and-coming Cleveland neighborhoods

 

CLEVELAND - They've seen their communities at their worst, some hitting rock bottom. But turns out, the bounce back they're now experiencing could come at a cost.

 

As more remodeled homes and apartments hit the market in Cleveland’s hottest neighborhoods, concern is growing for those who remember how it used to be.  Helane Bryant lives on Lorain Avenue at West 78th.  "I've seen a lot of improvements," said Bryant.

 

The low-income resident, along with her neighbors in the Detroit Shoreway neighborhood are living in fear.

 

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/building-boom-in-cleveland-neighborhoods-creating-concern

These people have such a distorted version of reality.

These people have such a distorted version of reality.

 

"Living in fear" is a bit over the top.

Is 78th and Lorain really gentrifying?  If so, is anyone really in fear of being priced out?

As someone who frequents most of the Westside, maybe not everything is gentrifying, but most most neighborhoods are looking better as the land bank tears down problem houses. If suddenly you are the worst looking house on your street you take notice and step up repairs, painting, etc.

 

I know in my end of things (old Brooklyn) property management companies have been snapping up houses as fast as they can; fixing up houses and raising the rent to unheard of levels. And people are paying it!

 

It's not always a full house gut and rehab; update the kitchen and bath and now a 600 a month double unit  is now worth 800. Double and duplex prices have similarly risen.

 

I've looked at buying houses in the Westside "hood", and prices have taken a similar leap in the last 2-3 years. Not everywhere is up to Tremont or Gordon Square pricing but a definite price floor is being established.

As you travel along the West Shoreway, the amount of development visible is remarkable. For many blocks at a time, it's as if there's a whole new city. And the portions that haven't yet been redeveloped, we hear updates on UO of new projects that will redevelop them soon. Now if we could just access them from the transit that plies the Shoreway...

As someone who frequents most of the Westside, maybe not everything is gentrifying, but most most neighborhoods are looking better as the land bank tears down problem houses. If suddenly you are the worst looking house on your street you take notice and step up repairs, painting, etc.

 

I know in my end of things (old Brooklyn) property management companies have been snapping up houses as fast as they can; fixing up houses and raising the rent to unheard of levels. And people are paying it!

 

It's not always a full house gut and rehab; update the kitchen and bath and now a 600 a month double unit  is now worth 800. Double and duplex prices have similarly risen.

 

I've looked at buying houses in the Westside "hood", and prices have taken a similar leap in the last 2-3 years. Not everywhere is up to Tremont or Gordon Square pricing but a definite price floor is being established.

 

The average for a Lakewood double was nearing $900 this past summer. I expect to see many asking over $1000 by next summer.

 

This sounds like a bubble.  There's been no corresponding gain in local jobs or wages.  I suspect it's also a function of dwindling candidates for home ownership, which suggests not a bubble.  At least some bathrooms are getting updated in the process, that's a community benefit. 

 

 

^but I like pastel. reminds me of Alf's house