They're trying to save money by leaving the overheated housing market. Las Vegas crashed horribly in the late 2000s and still has cheap properties. I bet a lot of these techies are designing their own tools that allow them to do their work remotely once they've built up enough skill and clout at their jobs.

I was at this ULI real estate market panel a few weeks ago in Cleveland and they were talking about how teleworking might bring some kind of "leveling off" of the coastal metros and the great lakes and other smaller interior metros.

They're trying to save money by leaving the overheated housing market. Las Vegas crashed horribly in the late 2000s and still has cheap properties. I bet a lot of these techies are designing their own tools that allow them to do their work remotely once they've built up enough skill and clout at their jobs.

 

I get that, but there are other cheap metros that are, well, more interesting. But maybe techies don't care about that and want to still be somewhat close to Burning Man.

It just strikes me as so bizarre that these Bay Area people keep leaving one of the densest, most vibrant metro areas in the country for the likes of Phoenix and Vegas. Although I guess Phoenix sprawl really isn't that much different from the ugly subdivisions that dominate most of the cities south of SF and Oakland.

 

They're not talking about young up-and-comers. At a certain point in life, when one's earnings have probably peaked, affordable and convenient starts to matter a whole lot more than dense and vibrant.  Those are the people who are moving.

It just strikes me as so bizarre that these Bay Area people keep leaving one of the densest, most vibrant metro areas in the country for the likes of Phoenix and Vegas. Although I guess Phoenix sprawl really isn't that much different from the ugly subdivisions that dominate most of the cities south of SF and Oakland.

 

I also think that there are a lot of people who live in dense urban areas who are not actually that interested in urban issues. I have looked up a few people who previously used to own condos in my building in OTR to see where they live now. Several of them now live in the most generic subdivisions imaginable in cities all across the country.

 

This especially doesn't surprise me for the South Bay Area. Most of the built environment there is not great for walkability or transit usage. So people are leaving an expensive, dense, non-walkable area for less expensive, less dense, still non-walkable areas in other cities.

It just strikes me as so bizarre that these Bay Area people keep leaving one of the densest, most vibrant metro areas in the country for the likes of Phoenix and Vegas. Although I guess Phoenix sprawl really isn't that much different from the ugly subdivisions that dominate most of the cities south of SF and Oakland.

 

They're not talking about young up-and-comers. At a certain point in life, when one's earnings have probably peaked, affordable and convenient starts to matter a whole lot more than dense and vibrant.  Those are the people who are moving.

 

Yeah, if you see the article I posted earlier they quoted a retired industrial worker who was going back to Tennessee, her original home. She didn't seem like the kind of person who would value urban amenities anyhow.

 

The article also tried to blame rising crime and certain liberal policies as causing the out-migration, which sounded forced. More like a manufactured case of sour grapes resentment to me.   

This especially doesn't surprise me for the South Bay Area. Most of the built environment there is not great for walkability or transit usage. So people are leaving an expensive, dense, non-walkable area for a less expensive, less dense, still non-walkable areas in other cities.

 

Was going to say this exactly.

It just strikes me as so bizarre that these Bay Area people keep leaving one of the densest, most vibrant metro areas in the country for the likes of Phoenix and Vegas. Although I guess Phoenix sprawl really isn't that much different from the ugly subdivisions that dominate most of the cities south of SF and Oakland.

 

They're not talking about young up-and-comers. At a certain point in life, when one's earnings have probably peaked, affordable and convenient starts to matter a whole lot more than dense and vibrant.  Those are the people who are moving.

 

Yeah, if you see the article I posted earlier they quoted a retired industrial worker who was going back to Tennessee, her original home. She didn't seem like the kind of person who would value urban amenities anyhow.

 

The article also tried to blame rising crime and certain liberal policies as causing the out-migration, which sounded forced. More like a manufactured case of sour grapes resentment to me.   

 

That, or they lazily projected that one interviewee's opinion on everyone who is moving away.

I started a new thread for all of the discussion about generic modern infill architecture since it's not directly related to gentrification.

this is great lol — gentrification backlash tactics:

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/new-generation-anti-gentrification-radicals-march-los-angeles-around-country-100000522.html#click=https://t.co/kfa2uQc8Z2

Yeah, intimidation and violence to stop redevelopment in the central city, real great.  But hey, let's b-tch about suburban sprawl too.  Idiots.

Yeah, intimidation and violence to stop redevelopment in the central city, real great.  But hey, let's b-tch about suburban sprawl too.  Idiots.

 

 

“If we don’t fight, we’re guaranteed to lose,” Rompe told them. “But if we do fight, we may not win — but at least we have a chance. So why not fight?”

 

Yeah, intimidation and violence to stop redevelopment in the central city, real great.  But hey, let's b-tch about suburban sprawl too.  Idiots.

 

It's pretty much one or the other, most places.  Gentrification or sprawl.

 

If you run around threatening violence at people who are not being violent, quite honestly you deserve it back at you.

There is without question a ton of hypocrisy with those who oppose "gentrification", however they define it, especially with racial dynamics. White people moving into low-income black or Hispanic neighborhoods are routinely vilified for pushing out local residents, which is such nonsense and limited to really a handful of cities in the US, and within them a handful of neighborhoods. Yet, at least in Chicago, you have protesters adamant about the Obama library NOT being built in Jackson Park, else the white gentrifiers will arrive and push out the poor black and Hispanic from those impoverished, high-crime adjacent neighborhoods. A completely fantasy, as South Shore and Woodlawn are years, maybe decades, away from being safe, functional neighborhoods, regardless of a museum nearby. 

 

And yet the people who protest the most about investors and white residents moving in are the FIRST to also vilify the more functional neighborhoods for not being diverse enough, which in itself is a false claim as there is much more to diversity than just black/brown or white.

 

The lesson of the day:

 

Diversity in poor areas = gentrification, pushing out the poor, and thus racism. And we can't have that, so let's block developments and damage new properties from new developers and residents alike. Let's protest new parks, stores, and museums, and other improvements because ALL improvements must be gentrification.

 

Yet a (falsely perceived) lack of diversity in more viable, peaceful, and gentrified areas = racism. How dare they not take in their share of section 8 housing, of affordable housing, of projects, etc, etc.

 

So basically gentrification is racism. Of course a lack of gentrification is also racism. And finally diversity in poor, non-gentrified areas is also racism.  The only thing that isn't racism is thus diversity - and by diversity we're limited to just racial diversity - in functional, already gentrified neighborhoods. Shit gets confusing.

 

I swear you just can't win with some people.

^A good number of the white anti-gentrification people are quite conspicuously from wealthy families.  It's okay, in their own minds, for them to move into poor neighborhoods because they did it for the "right" reasons.  They act like they really care about the poor but they usually just want attention from their wealthy peers.   

I remember back 20-30 years ago, people talked about gentrification, it was spoken about as a positive thing for neighborhoods. Now gentrification is a 4 letter word.

 

The lesson of the day:

Diversity in poor areas = gentrification, pushing out the poor, and thus racism. And we can't have that, so let's block developments and damage new properties from new developers and residents alike. Let's protest new parks, stores, and museums, and other improvements because ALL improvements must be gentrification.

 

Yet a (falsely perceived) lack of diversity in more viable, peaceful, and gentrified areas = racism. How dare they not take in their share of section 8 housing, of affordable housing, of projects, etc, etc.

 

So basically gentrification is racism. Of course a lack of gentrification is also racism. And finally diversity in poor, non-gentrified areas is also racism.  The only thing that isn't racism is thus diversity - and by diversity we're limited to just racial diversity - in functional, already gentrified neighborhoods. Shit gets confusing.

I swear you just can't win with some people.

 

The funny thing about diversity and gentrification the housing advocates forget or wont ever realize -

 

You wont be able to get people in poor urban neighborhoods to ever move to wealthy areas and create diversity that way. The economics of it will never work.  Putting a housing project in Indian Hill for example would be completely asinine because you effectively put it on an island and cut them off from social services and ability to get to and from jobs, etc.  It makes a lot for sense to achieve diversity by moving the wealthy into poorer neighborhoods than the other way around. 

^Also, the market can't build new housing for the poor.  Construction costs are too high in the United States. 

 

 

I think the idea in the context of rust belt cities and Ohio in general is a different discussion than what is happening in coastal cities.  Generally, gentrification in Cleveland is a force of good. 

^Also, the market can't build new housing for the poor.  Construction costs are too high in the United States.

 

This can only be done with heavy subsidy.  But I hate when people say that building high end housing will drive up prices for houses.  If new housing isn't built the rich people will just bid on existing homes and cause greater pressure on affordability.  This is basic economics.

^Also, the market can't build new housing for the poor.  Construction costs are too high in the United States. 

 

 

 

^Also, the market can't build new housing for the poor.  Construction costs are too high in the United States.

 

This can only be done with heavy subsidy. 

 

It's unlikely that you can build a new apartment unit for under $100,000 as part of a plex without getting into dormitory-type construction with a shared bathroom at the end of the hall, which is illegal pretty much everywhere.  If such housing were suggested as part of a mixed development (for example 100 market-rate 900 sq foot apartments along with 100 450 sq foot apartments without bathrooms or AC) people would absolutely flip out. 

 

 

 

 

 

It's probably way more money over the lifetime of a building to pay a guy to keep them clean rather than having separate bathrooms.

There is without question a ton of hypocrisy with those who oppose "gentrification", however they define it, especially with racial dynamics. White people moving into low-income black or Hispanic neighborhoods are routinely vilified for pushing out local residents, which is such nonsense and limited to really a handful of cities in the US, and within them a handful of neighborhoods. Yet, at least in Chicago, you have protesters adamant about the Obama library NOT being built in Jackson Park, else the white gentrifiers will arrive and push out the poor black and Hispanic from those impoverished, high-crime adjacent neighborhoods. A completely fantasy, as South Shore and Woodlawn are years, maybe decades, away from being safe, functional neighborhoods, regardless of a museum nearby. 

 

And yet the people who protest the most about investors and white residents moving in are the FIRST to also vilify the more functional neighborhoods for not being diverse enough, which in itself is a false claim as there is much more to diversity than just black/brown or white.

 

The lesson of the day:

 

Diversity in poor areas = gentrification, pushing out the poor, and thus racism. And we can't have that, so let's block developments and damage new properties from new developers and residents alike. Let's protest new parks, stores, and museums, and other improvements because ALL improvements must be gentrification.

 

Yet a (falsely perceived) lack of diversity in more viable, peaceful, and gentrified areas = racism. How dare they not take in their share of section 8 housing, of affordable housing, of projects, etc, etc.

 

So basically gentrification is racism. Of course a lack of gentrification is also racism. And finally diversity in poor, non-gentrified areas is also racism.  The only thing that isn't racism is thus diversity - and by diversity we're limited to just racial diversity - in functional, already gentrified neighborhoods. Shit gets confusing.

 

I swear you just can't win with some people.

 

What they want, for others of course, is not merely racial or economic "diversity", but cultural diversity.  With the more "mainstream American" cultures deferring in all ways to the others of course.

 

That quite simply does not work when people have options.  Especially in denser neighborhoods.

Yeah, intimidation and violence to stop redevelopment in the central city, real great.  But hey, let's b-tch about suburban sprawl too.  Idiots.

 

It's pretty much one or the other, most places.  Gentrification or sprawl.

 

If you run around threatening violence at people who are not being violent, quite honestly you deserve it back at you.

 

This dichotomy is a policy choice; an outcome of not permitting increased density in high market neighborhoods, accelerating spillover. Its not inherent.

 

There is without question a ton of hypocrisy with those who oppose "gentrification", however they define it, especially with racial dynamics. White people moving into low-income black or Hispanic neighborhoods are routinely vilified for pushing out local residents, which is such nonsense and limited to really a handful of cities in the US, and within them a handful of neighborhoods. Yet, at least in Chicago, you have protesters adamant about the Obama library NOT being built in Jackson Park, else the white gentrifiers will arrive and push out the poor black and Hispanic from those impoverished, high-crime adjacent neighborhoods. A completely fantasy, as South Shore and Woodlawn are years, maybe decades, away from being safe, functional neighborhoods, regardless of a museum nearby. 

 

And yet the people who protest the most about investors and white residents moving in are the FIRST to also vilify the more functional neighborhoods for not being diverse enough, which in itself is a false claim as there is much more to diversity than just black/brown or white.

 

The lesson of the day:

 

Diversity in poor areas = gentrification, pushing out the poor, and thus racism. And we can't have that, so let's block developments and damage new properties from new developers and residents alike. Let's protest new parks, stores, and museums, and other improvements because ALL improvements must be gentrification.

 

Yet a (falsely perceived) lack of diversity in more viable, peaceful, and gentrified areas = racism. How dare they not take in their share of section 8 housing, of affordable housing, of projects, etc, etc.

 

So basically gentrification is racism. Of course a lack of gentrification is also racism. And finally diversity in poor, non-gentrified areas is also racism.  The only thing that isn't racism is thus diversity - and by diversity we're limited to just racial diversity - in functional, already gentrified neighborhoods. Shit gets confusing.

 

I swear you just can't win with some people.

 

Eh, this is a bit of a caricature you're painting here. The major strains of fair housing advocacy by and large don't care about diversity for diversity's sake. They care about access to neighborhood housing, and the forces that block it: rising rents (gentrification) in incumbent neighborhoods and the local police power of land use regulations, punitive policing, and transport policy, plus straight out racial discrimination by realtors and landlords, in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods with strong public amenities.  As a YIMBY type, I have all sorts of bones to pick with various aspects of housing advocacy and particular actors, and certainly agree about the misplaced gentrification angst in some places, but this "can't win with these people" attitude is a little obtuse.

There is without question a ton of hypocrisy with those who oppose "gentrification", however they define it, especially with racial dynamics. White people moving into low-income black or Hispanic neighborhoods are routinely vilified for pushing out local residents, which is such nonsense and limited to really a handful of cities in the US, and within them a handful of neighborhoods. Yet, at least in Chicago, you have protesters adamant about the Obama library NOT being built in Jackson Park, else the white gentrifiers will arrive and push out the poor black and Hispanic from those impoverished, high-crime adjacent neighborhoods. A completely fantasy, as South Shore and Woodlawn are years, maybe decades, away from being safe, functional neighborhoods, regardless of a museum nearby. 

 

And yet the people who protest the most about investors and white residents moving in are the FIRST to also vilify the more functional neighborhoods for not being diverse enough, which in itself is a false claim as there is much more to diversity than just black/brown or white.

 

The lesson of the day:

 

Diversity in poor areas = gentrification, pushing out the poor, and thus racism. And we can't have that, so let's block developments and damage new properties from new developers and residents alike. Let's protest new parks, stores, and museums, and other improvements because ALL improvements must be gentrification.

 

Yet a (falsely perceived) lack of diversity in more viable, peaceful, and gentrified areas = racism. How dare they not take in their share of section 8 housing, of affordable housing, of projects, etc, etc.

 

So basically gentrification is racism. Of course a lack of gentrification is also racism. And finally diversity in poor, non-gentrified areas is also racism.  The only thing that isn't racism is thus diversity - and by diversity we're limited to just racial diversity - in functional, already gentrified neighborhoods. Shit gets confusing.

 

I swear you just can't win with some people.

 

What they want, for others of course, is not merely racial or economic "diversity", but cultural diversity.  With the more "mainstream American" cultures deferring in all ways to the others of course.

 

That quite simply does not work when people have options.  Especially in denser neighborhoods.

 

<eye roll>

Have you looked at housing prices and short time spans that homes are on the market in the most dense, diverse, multicultural urban centers of this country?  Have you looked at housing prices and sale speeds in increasing numbers of Cleveland neighborhoods as well as densely developed areas of Lakewood and  Cleveland Heights? It's actually quite stunning. I've got lots of good material to write a very interesting blog about Greater Cleveland's urban housing market.

Inventory is very tight. Only 13 SFH between $150-300 in Lakewood, for example.

It used to be (until last couple of years), that the only part of Lakewood where a house sold for $300,000+ was north of Clifton, close to the lake. Now it's the exception to find a Lakewood house listing for less than $300,000 anywhere in the city. A friend of mine is a realtor and another is house shopping. They've told me that when someone wants a house, they may have to offer MORE than the listed price in order to win it. It's crazy. And this is true for just about every listing north of Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Fairview Park, and if course Lakewood and Rocky River.

Inventory is very tight. Only 13 SFH between $150-300 in Lakewood, for example.

 

By the way, a friend of mine lives in a double off Hilliard at the west end of Lakewood. Her double and others like it on her street were sold in the upper 100s, gutted, turned into single-family for-sale homes, and resold for $300K to $400K.

Have you looked at housing prices and short time spans that homes are on the market in the most dense, diverse, multicultural urban centers of this country?  Have you looked at housing prices and sale speeds in increasing numbers of Cleveland neighborhoods as well as densely developed areas of Lakewood and  Cleveland Heights? It's actually quite stunning. I've got lots of good material to write a very interesting blog about Greater Cleveland's urban housing market.

 

Any chance you could share the data Ken? I'm starting to look at purchasing a home myself and would like to get some more insight on the market. I'd love to fix up a house while I'm in it, purchase and renovate another home after the first is done, then move and rent out the first while I renovate a third, and repeat. I'm looking in Clark-Fulton and Stockyards mostly, but if the right home came up in Detroit-Shoreway or Ohio City I'd consider purchasing there as well. I'm mostly worried about dumping $30-50k into a home in some of these areas and then never getting any of that money back if I ever do sell. I think they'd cash flow pretty well in the $700-$1000/month range though, and with the Metrohealth campus upgrade along with investment in Clark-Fulton there might actually be some value appreciation. I think that neighborhood is ripe for the next wave of gentrification because of its proximity to Ohio City and Tremont. What do you think?

^ Cudell

Zillow is a very good resource. It's not perfect, but one thing I like about it is that it is map-based and you can use filters to refine what you're looking for. For example, if you want to do some bargain-hunting in or next to hot neighborhoods, set the filter to look only for foreclosures or homes meeting physical basics/amenities. What is also cool is that, if you zoom in close enough, it shows the approximate values for all residential properties and even some commercial ones.

 

Also, go on to the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's website to find homes up for auction. These are often best because they come out Sheriff auctions clean of liens and violations. One of the downsides of Zillow is that there are some for-sale-by-owner scammers on there who list properties they may not own or if they do, the properties are loaded down with back taxes, liens and violations and Zillow doesn't always list what they are or if they do, the fines aren't detailed.

Cool, thanks for the advice guys!

^ 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.

 

At today's CPS school board meeting, Josh Spring apparently claimed that "you don't see kids playing in Washington Park anymore" which has gotta be one of the more blatantly false things that you can say about Washington Park. It's is packed with people of all ages and all races, all the time. Maybe not so far this year due to the unusually cold spring we're having. But to claim that the park has been gentrified and is no longer used by neighborhood kids is just absurd.

^ Washington Park has been turned into an urban melting pot and something that should be considered the envy of many neighborhoods nationwide. Josh Spring may have a platform, but his voice should carry zero credibility anymore. He is nothing more than a blowhard.

^ 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.

 

At today's CPS school board meeting, Josh Spring apparently claimed that "you don't see kids playing in Washington Park anymore" which has gotta be one of the more blatantly false things that you can say about Washington Park. It's is packed with people of all ages and all races, all the time. Maybe not so far this year due to the unusually cold spring we're having. But to claim that the park has been gentrified and is no longer used by neighborhood kids is just absurd.

 

There's a perverse kind of self-hatred in Spring's 'career' against OTR's development. He has a romantic vision of himself as a kind of Robin Hood protecting the poor against the evil Lord of the Manor. I shows that he thinks he's better than the residents of OTR and that he is not somehow really one of them. What would he do without them?

^ He is a disciple of Buddy Gray a famous homeless advocate in Cincinnati who ran the drop in center and was a force in the city in the 70s and 80s and part of the 90s until he was gunned down. Buddy set OTR redevelopment efforts back 20 years because of his insistence to keep OTR as a haven for the poor and sought to prevent any development or opportunities to revitalize the neighborhood.  He wielded considerable more power than Spring does at that time. Plus, the movers and shakers of the town did not really focus on the benefits of developing OTR at that time and the benefits of a healthy downtown.

 

Spring came around trying to emulate him but the times had changed. Now instead of a voice of the homeless who can be part of the solution, he really has been reduced to a voice in the room with no credibility.

I have a distinct memory of being bused down to Music Hall for a "lollypop concert" field trip in the 80s.  The buses from various schools parked in a long line on Elm St. along Washington Park.  We were told before we got off the buses that we weren't allowed to step into the park. 

the happiest person in this story is undoubtedly the landlord. I think I only once met someone who lived in a cold-water apartment who paid less than $50/month, and that was almost 30 years ago. This building is located in the heart of Green. Vill. on a busy stretch of 6th Ave (@12th St.) which is one of the most expensive parts of NY! And I thought my apt. was a little spare. To say this woman was a little eccentric is to say the least--but hey, she must have been a Hillary supporter--see sticker on refrigerator .lol

 

A Manhattan miracle! Actress paid less than $30 A MONTH for her Greenwich Village apartment for 63 YEARS due to rent control clause (but shunned any renovations living without a bath, hot water or heat)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715533/Manhattan-miracle-Woman-paid-28-43-rent-apartment.html#ixzz5FDRsaoUF

 

That's incredible!!! eastvillagedon[/member] . I have a buddy living in Midtown paying $4200 for a 680 sq ft 1BR

^that's outrageous. I assume he has heat.

^ Cudell

 

Cleveland Bricks is really pushing the Cudell market right now. They have two listings for 1.2k/month.

 

Additionally, there is a townhouse next to West Tech with new owners that was just renovated and listed for 1.2k, while one of the infill houses next to West Tech is listed at 220k and an older century house a block over is at 100k.

 

The price shift has been very sudden.

The Twitter account that represents the Cincinnati Public Schools teachers' union just tweeted and accused 3CDC of "gentrification" and "ethnic cleansing."

The Twitter account that represents the Cincinnati Public Schools teachers' union just tweeted and accused 3CDC of "gentrification" and "ethnic cleansing."

 

Apparently there is a rumor that 3CDC wants to tear down the new SCPA.  Not sure where that started, but I definitely suggested years ago that the SCPA parking lot should be redeveloped as apartments that pay into CPS. 

^ That wasn't so much a "rumor" but the teachers union making a wild speculation, "first 3CDC takes away our parking, next thing you know, they're buying the SCPA and turning it into condos!"

 

They are continuing to tweet anti-3CDC stuff like this:

 

Q. Is #3CDC trying to push #SCPA and CPS kids and teachers out of the "new" #OTR? #notposhenough #gentrification.

^ Cudell

 

Cleveland Bricks is really pushing the Cudell market right now. They have two listings for 1.2k/month.

 

Additionally, there is a townhouse next to West Tech with new owners that was just renovated and listed for 1.2k, while one of the infill houses next to West Tech is listed at 220k and an older century house a block over is at 100k.

 

The price shift has been very sudden.

 

Ironically I ended up renting less than a block from there from $985. Love the place even if the neighborhood is very much still "up and coming".

I posted this back in February:

 

I just listened to an interview with Carrie Brownstein, one of the co-stars of Portlandia, in which she talked about the final season of that show. One interesting topic that came up was how much American cities have changed since the show first came on the air in 2011. When Portlandia started, the show was making fun of over-the-top hipster stuff that you'd only find in places like Portland (or maybe SF or Brooklyn), but now, most of those things are mainstream. You no longer have to go to Portland to find a gourmet donut shop or a "curated" flea market or a third wave coffee shop with an interior made of reclaimed wood or a dozen microbreweries specializing in obscure styles of beer. Literally every mid-sized American city now has all of those things.

 

Aaron Renn published a great article on this topic today:

 

One of the most important writing decisions I ever made was to make the original Urbanophile a Midwestern regional blog, not just a single city blog. I did that because people in these Midwest cities did not even know what was going on in the next city just 100 miles down the road. They were celebrating all these downtown condos being built. But the same condos were being built everywhere. I wanted to try to help bring awareness to this, to help give Midwest cities a sense of the regional market.

 

But even today people in most cities don’t really seem to get it that every city now has this stuff. Their city has dramatically improved relative to its own recent past, but it’s unclear how much it’s improved versus peers if at all.

 

He quotes from this New York magazine article:

 

In every single city mid-size and above you’ll also find:

 

The barbecue place with lacquered-wooden tables that repel sauce, creating an atmosphere that is content to evoke the feeling of a roadside joint that roasts its hogs whole in a real pit for 12 hours, without actually providing that feeling in full.

 

The Asian-fusion restaurant that is either owned by one of the Vietnamese families who came to America after the Vietnam War, and therefore reasonably authentic, or promises sushi made by someone who just really loves Japanese culture, man.

 

The American bistro or brasserie whose innards can invariably be described as “steampunk by way of West Elm.”

 

The brunch place that plies you with the same mimosas and pickle-tinged Bloody Marys, with the same menu of dressed-up, oversauced leftovers of every brunch place. Eggs-whatever. Bourbon bacon. Avocado everywhere. Truffle fries? De rigeur.

 

Public murals that dare you to pass them without posing for a pic for the ‘gram. Even the dive bars can blur together when you’ve been to enough of them.

I, for one, welcome our Edison bulb overlords.

 

Whatever "cool" city innovation happens will quickly be available to us in Ohio at a discounted rate.

I posted this back in February:

 

I just listened to an interview with Carrie Brownstein, one of the co-stars of Portlandia, in which she talked about the final season of that show. One interesting topic that came up was how much American cities have changed since the show first came on the air in 2011. When Portlandia started, the show was making fun of over-the-top hipster stuff that you'd only find in places like Portland (or maybe SF or Brooklyn), but now, most of those things are mainstream. You no longer have to go to Portland to find a gourmet donut shop or a "curated" flea market or a third wave coffee shop with an interior made of reclaimed wood or a dozen microbreweries specializing in obscure styles of beer. Literally every mid-sized American city now has all of those things.

 

Aaron Renn published a great article on this topic today:

 

One of the most important writing decisions I ever made was to make the original Urbanophile a Midwestern regional blog, not just a single city blog. I did that because people in these Midwest cities did not even know what was going on in the next city just 100 miles down the road. They were celebrating all these downtown condos being built. But the same condos were being built everywhere. I wanted to try to help bring awareness to this, to help give Midwest cities a sense of the regional market.

 

But even today people in most cities don’t really seem to get it that every city now has this stuff. Their city has dramatically improved relative to its own recent past, but it’s unclear how much it’s improved versus peers if at all.

 

He quotes from this New York magazine article:

 

In every single city mid-size and above you’ll also find:

 

The barbecue place with lacquered-wooden tables that repel sauce, creating an atmosphere that is content to evoke the feeling of a roadside joint that roasts its hogs whole in a real pit for 12 hours, without actually providing that feeling in full.

 

The Asian-fusion restaurant that is either owned by one of the Vietnamese families who came to America after the Vietnam War, and therefore reasonably authentic, or promises sushi made by someone who just really loves Japanese culture, man.

 

The American bistro or brasserie whose innards can invariably be described as “steampunk by way of West Elm.”

 

The brunch place that plies you with the same mimosas and pickle-tinged Bloody Marys, with the same menu of dressed-up, oversauced leftovers of every brunch place. Eggs-whatever. Bourbon bacon. Avocado everywhere. Truffle fries? De rigeur.

 

Public murals that dare you to pass them without posing for a pic for the ‘gram. Even the dive bars can blur together when you’ve been to enough of them.

 

So, cities are getting better, and the public's tastes are getting better. Small businesses with some degree of  uniqueness are thriving instead of everybody going to TGI Fridays? Sounds like a good thing to me.

I think we will see some diversification eventually. Urban centers for the most part had been on a hiatus for what, about 50 years? Probably more like 70. There needed to be a template/blueprint to guide this, for many, new frontier.