^ Newness and amenities can't be ignored, especially things like the pool and some of the bathroom and kitchen finishes.  Is the garage included in that number as well?  The bigger units seem to be a better value though, at least on a per-square-foot basis.  $1,325 for a 682 sf studio is reasonable for being right in the heart of things, but not so much when plopped amidst a burning field of asphalt next to the railroad tracks. 

Heard on WCPO tonight that 60% of the new tenants so far are relocating from outside Cincinnati, so at least new projects like this are bringing in new residents to contribute to the city's tax base.

Heard on WCPO tonight that 60% of the new tenants so far are relocating from outside Cincinnati, so at least new projects like this are bringing in new residents to contribute to the city's tax base.

 

So are you saying burn the newbies as they don't have enough sense to realize when they are being had?

No, he's saying that these people previously likely lived in the region but further out and are making a first step towards living in the city. They're contributing to the recently reported increase in population for the city and providing taxes for the place they likely work and play. It's a huge step even if this project itself didn't turn out that great. It's starter urbanism. Which is honestly necessary. I have a feeling that quite a few of the people who live here might end up moving into a truly urban environment after their leases are up. It has happened with The Banks as well (though that's far more urban). In fact I can see people moving from this development into Phase IIa of The Banks. Similarly appointed, new, etc. while being closer to the amenities of the core.

^^^ I completely agree. This is a very good thing for our city. Not everybody is ready to live in OTR, and quite frankly most people will never be. A lot of people are, and we should keep rehabbing downtown to lure those people, but there's still a huge population of semi-urban minded people that need to be catered to. This development caters to that demographic perfectly.

Exactly. A more urban lifestyle doesn't have to mean OTR and Downtown. It  could just mean a change in density, a change in building type, a location closer to amenities, etc. We can keep the truly most urban stuff right in the core and most urban neighborhoods, but for the many, MANY people who want a only some of the differences urban living bring, projects like Oakley Station offer something that will cater to them. Which is good. Because it shows people the benefits of urban life and could result in them moving closer in, repopulates vacant space, adds to the tax base, job base, etc. It would just be nice if projects like Oakley Station came out better. The apartment portion isn't the most awful part of the development, that's for sure, but there's a lot of room for improvement for the people who will live there, especially for those prices.

Well, there is also the bit about supply not meeting demand. OTR and downtown are practically at 100% occupancy with waiting lists for nearly every place.

 

I was going to say that these were more affordable - but damn, the smallest units start at around $1,300. But if these fill up quickly - which it looks like it will, then the market stands to bear these prices and more. At the least, this development is built upon the foundation of an urban development, with grid/connected streets, surface parking with the potential for additional infill (that's always been the plan along the streets, at the least) and the addition of some live/work/shop essentials.

The rental market everywhere has seen massive increases in demand, and thus price. For any number of reasons people no longer want to purchase property as much as before, even though it has once again become an investment tool. You could buy a house or condo in Oakley and have a mortgage less than the rent is for these apartments. However, the same people that would have bought a home 10 years ago would rather rent today, so the rental prices everywhere have climbed to be just as much as the cost to purchase, if not more.  I remember being rather cynical a year ago today when I got gentrified out of my apartment in OTR by Urban Sites, as the rent jumped from $650 to $1300 but now that price is the norm, if not rather cheap for an 800 square foot loft.

The more people wanting to rent means the higher landlords can push the rent. Good time to own investment property.

Oakley has been hot with YPs for quite a while now. It definitely can't be called cheap anymore. But what I've noticed is that to buy a house there is tough unless you are in real estate. a 1-2 bedroom house lists at 160,000 to 180,000 or more. BUT a lot of the people who want to live there can't get a loan for that much, although they can cough up $1200+ a month for rent. So if the houses had to sell to owner-occupants they'd only be worth $140,000 because that's all they could get. With Oakley being a streetcar suburb, there's plenty of single-familys under 1000 sq. ft.

Oakley has been hot with YPs for quite a while now. It definitely can't be called cheap anymore. But what I've noticed is that to buy a house there is tough unless you are in real estate. a 1-2 bedroom house lists at 160,000 to 180,000 or more. BUT a lot of the people who want to live there can't get a loan for that much, although they can cough up $1200+ a month for rent. So if the houses had to sell to owner-occupants they'd only be worth $140,000 because that's all they could get. With Oakley being a streetcar suburb, there's plenty of single-familys under 1000 sq. ft.

 

I was talking two weeks ago to a guy who is about 60 who bought a duplex in Oakley in 1974 for $40,000.  He's closing in on $1 million in earnings on that building, with perhaps another $1 million to come if he lives long enough.  But he wasn't content with that and nearly kicked the wall when the thought of the house he had the chance to buy in San Francisco in the early 80s for under $50,000.  Real landlords who are in the 50-65 year-old range are super-intense dudes because they often made reasonable buys in their 20s and 30s and have made money but can't let "the one that got away" rest in their mind. 

 

 

Oakley Station gets new retail leasing team

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

There’s a new retail leasing team for Oakley Station, the 74-acre mixed-use development along the Interstate 71 corridor.

 

Amy Holter and Jason Gibson with Anchor Associates are the new retail leasing team for the development, replacing Edge Real Estate Group. The change was made at the beginning of July.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/07/14/oakley-station-gets-new-retail-leasing-team.html

 

EXCLUSIVE: Oakley Station developer reworks office plan after losing out on GE

Sep 11, 2014, 10:47am EDT

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

It’s no secret the developers of Oakley Station made a run to land General Electric at the 74-acre project.

 

Since GE decided to locate its new U.S. Global Operations center at the Banks, the team behind the Offices at Oakley Station has reworked its plans to start development at the mixed-use project.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/11/exclusive-oakley-station-developer-reworks-office.html?page=all

The giant Kroger at Oakley Station started to go vertical last week.

CAGIS shows buildings in this development that definitely have not been constructed yet. The placement and size exactly match the developer's original proposed drawings, but I don't understand why CAGIS preemptively put them on the map. The Kroger building does not match what is actually being built which is one massive Kroger Marketplace, as opposed to the original proposal with 6 or 7 smaller parcels.

Huh.  That's weird.

So it looks like Ibsen street changes its name west of Marburg but I can't read the name of it on this monitor. What is it?

CAGIS shows it correctly as Disney, west of Marburg. You can also see it in Google Streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1610668,-84.424742,3a,15y,239.62h,88.94t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siwRG0Bc2IYI2vIN06W010w!2e0

Speaking of Ibsen, it was realigned as part of the Kennedy Connector. That extra land on the south side of the street is going to get three new bus bays that will be a new bus hub for all of the routes that meet there. It's supposed to start construction this year.

 

 

That area is the most confusing area of the Cincinnati metro.  If you're on Madison and stay on Madison, you have no sense for the chaos that surrounds you.  But getting from I-71 to any point in that area hurts your brain. 

At least twice while in the Target parking lot I've given people directions to Marburg Ave. south of Madison.

Not Oakley Station per se, but...

 

 

Name, look of luxury apartments coming to Oakley revealed

Feb 9, 2015, 3:03pm EST

Tom Demeropolis Senior Staff Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Buckingham Cos., an Indianapolis-based real estate company, revealed more details of its upscale apartment development in Oakley.

 

The 272-apartment development is called MadMar Flats, a play on the two streets the project is located on, Madison Road and Marburg Avenue.

 

"MadMar Flats has been an exciting project for us, and we are glad to see it near completion," John Cumming, senior vice president of development operations for Buckingham, said in a news release.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/02/09/name-look-of-luxury-apartments-coming-to-oakley.html

I didn't realize those were going to be so expensive! They have been going up fast, with at least 5 buildings topped out. I drive by there on the way to work everyday.

Yeah, who are all these fools paying WAY more to live in these apartments than the mortgage on a house a block away?

^ People who don't want a 100 year old house that's drafty, covered in aluminum (or asbestos siding), with sagging floors, tiny kitchens, and 20 layers of lead paint on everything.  I've been in a handful of Oakley houses, and a lot of them are really crappy.  I know we've been over this before, but those supposed "alternatives" are cheap for a reason Jake. 

Not everybody wants to own a house, even if the rent is higher.

 

It was very weird seeing cars on the Kennedy Connector when I was through there about a month ago. I'm used to houses being there. It honestly looked fake when you looked at it from Forbidden D-Word St.

^ People who don't want a 100 year old house that's drafty, covered in aluminum (or asbestos siding), with sagging floors, tiny kitchens, and 20 layers of lead paint on everything.  I've been in a handful of Oakley houses, and a lot of them are really crappy.  I know we've been over this before, but those supposed "alternatives" are cheap for a reason Jake. 

 

These apartments are $2100 a month, though. I understand wanting to pay $1000 or even up to $1200 or so rather than buy the house next door for an $800 month mortgage payment, but for $2100 you could have the house and $1300 a month to fix all the outdated crap. Unless there's a good chance someone won't be living in town for at least 5 years, there's a point where luxury rentals become a poor financial decision, in my opinion.

I think a lot of people also forget that for a lot of people it just doesn't matter. They're already maxing out their 401k every month, already have countless investments, etc. and don't need their residence to make financial sense. We all have something we do that makes absolutely no financial sense to someone else.

 

If you have two people with no plans for children making 6 figures each, $2100/month really isn't an issue whatsoever.

This is the key part from the article:

 

Rents at MadMar Flats will range from about $1.40 per square foot for the large three-bedroom, two-bathroom units to about $1.70 per square foot for one-bedroom, one-bathroom units. The monthly rent ranges from $1,304 to $2,106.

 

3 bed 2 bath is damn big, and those prices per square foot are not bad at all for a brand new rental.  $1/sf/month is typical for a decent older apartment.  Plus, even if someone did find an equivalent house nearby, they'd still have to save up that extra money to fix all the crappy stuff while having to live with it in the meantime, then they have to deal with all the construction hassles, and even when all is said and done it's still an old house, and you *STILL* have to put away a good chunk of money for all those maintenance items to come back again down the road.  I know very wealthy folks living in $million plus homes who still have no wall insulation, clanky steam radiators, ungrounded electric, and drafty windows because even though they can afford to fix them it would just be too disruptive to actually do it.  Compare these apartments to an equivalent sized house in the same neighborhood that's been completely remodeled and includes lawn care service, on-call maintenance staff, and no property taxes, then it's more apples to apples.

^When you then throw in tax incentives and building equity in a home(instead of throwing it away every month paying someone else’s mortgage) that is where the real advantages come in when owning a home.

^Yeah, but those tax incentives don't actually outweigh property taxes and mortgage interest.  And renters don't get hit with a surprise repair bill when something breaks (speaking as a proud home owner who had to have a chimney unexpectedly rebuilt, lined, capped, and flashed a few years ago).  And no HOA fees either (assuming apartment versus condo).  There are definitely advantages to both. 

 

Someone recently pointed out in another thread that the main advantage to home ownership is being immune to housing price increases and evictions.  That, plus the pride of ownership is worth it to me, but I wouldn't be surprised if owning actually costs more than renting over the course of a lifetime once you factor everything in (unless you have the home paid off for a long period and aren't paying a mortgage for years, or you own a duplex and rent half).

 

 

Another benefit of owning is that your principal and interest on your mortgage don't adjust for inflation. My principal and interest come out to around $375/month and in 29 years when I'm in that last year of paying it off, it'll still be $375/month. But by that time $375 will be a lot less money in proportion to now and considering the fact that I never plan on selling any property I own and instead renting it out, that can make a huge difference in the long run.

^Yeah, but those tax incentives don't actually outweigh property taxes and mortgage interest.  And renters don't get hit with a surprise repair bill when something breaks (speaking as a proud home owner who had to have a chimney unexpectedly rebuilt, lined, capped, and flashed a few years ago).  And no HOA fees either (assuming apartment versus condo).  There are definitely advantages to both. 

 

Someone recently pointed out in another thread that the main advantage to home ownership is being immune to housing price increases and evictions.  That, plus the pride of ownership is worth it to me, but I wouldn't be surprised if owning actually costs more than renting over the course of a lifetime once you factor everything in (unless you have the home paid off for a long period and aren't paying a mortgage for years, or you own a duplex and rent half).

 

 

 

Owning a small house in a cheap city like Cincinnati over time shouldn't cost more money if you pay the damn thing off quickly and don't blow a bunch of cash rehabbing it and buying furniture every few years.  It only becomes an "investment" when you actually come out in the black given the alternative, and that's only possible if you keep your costs down relative to renting. 

 

A true investment in property ownership is renting out rooms or living in a multi-family that you own.  Unfortunately it hasn't been socially acceptable since the suburban boom to raise a middle-class family in a multi-family. 

Let's try to stay on the topic of Oakley Station.

Owning a small house in a cheap city like Cincinnati over time shouldn't cost more money if you pay the damn thing off quickly and don't blow a bunch of cash rehabbing it and buying furniture every few years.  It only becomes an "investment" when you actually come out in the black given the alternative, and that's only possible if you keep your costs down relative to renting. 

 

A true investment in property ownership is renting out rooms or living in a multi-family that you own.  Unfortunately it hasn't been socially acceptable since the suburban boom to raise a middle-class family in a multi-family. 

 

Agreed, but many people aren't doing either of those things...  which is why I specifically excluded both of those scenarios.  Everyone touts the financial benefits of home ownership, but unless you actually pay it off or make money on a portion of the property, renting can be a better option.

 

Another benefit of owning is that your principal and interest on your mortgage don't adjust for inflation. My principal and interest come out to around $375/month and in 29 years when I'm in that last year of paying it off, it'll still be $375/month. But by that time $375 will be a lot less money in proportion to now and considering the fact that I never plan on selling any property I own and instead renting it out, that can make a huge difference in the long run.

 

Good point, but I'd still recommend refinancing to a 15 year fixed if you can afford it.  15 goes by quickly, 30 is almost a lifetime, and the difference in interest over the life of the loan is immense.

 

Let's try to stay on the topic of Oakley Station.

 

Okay, okay...    8-)

The important thing is that the market is there for these kinds of units in this particular place.  If you want to argue that they're overpaying, fine whatever, but there's simple supply/demand forces at work here.  What would be nice is to see some of this kind of development happening at a smaller more granular scale, but unfortunately zoning is too restrictive to allow that to happen and only big players can get in the game. 

 

That's a more important topic, because Cincinnati is in a good position to prevent the kind of housing shortages and explosive prices seen in places like NYC, SF, and more and more in Chicago, but it's going to get harder and harder to fix the underlying problems of artificial scarcity created by the zoning laws as time goes on, and make no mistake, nowhere in the city or developed suburbs is the zoning set up to allow for new growth other than vacant lot infill.  So I'm happy to see projects like this take some of the pressure off market demand, but these one-off projects won't be enough in the long term. 

One of my main beefs with new buildings today is the quality of the finish carpentry, drywall work and tile installation. That can determine if a unit is really overpriced or not.

$25 million luxury apartment project gets key approval

Mar 6, 2015, 2:59pm EST

Tom Demeropolis Senior Staff Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Real estate developer Ray Schneider's plan to build a more than $25 million upscale apartment development in Madisonville received a key approval onFriday morning.

 

The Cincinnati Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a major amendment for the planned development Madison Circle Development at 5101 Madison Road, changing the permitted office use to residential use. The Cincinnati Planning Department recommended the planning commission approve the major amendment.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/03/06/25-million-luxury-apartment-project-gets-key.html

^ That's not Oakley Station, it's Madisonville.  It's already posted over there.

New office development planned near Oakley Station

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/04/20/exclusive-new-office-development-planned-near.html

 

The city of Cincinnati owns a 3-acre piece of land less than a half-mile from Oakley Station, a 74-acre mixed-used development in Oakley. Developers Vandercar Holdings LLC and Al Neyer plan to buy the vacant land, a remnant piece of land from the Kennedy Connector project, for the fair market value of $530,000. They plan to combine this piece of land with an adjacent 1.4-acre parcel to build two new office buildings.

 

Vandercar and Al Neyer plan to invest $4.5 million at the site to build 45,000 square feet of office space. The developers do not have signed tenants for the proposed office buildings but are targeting medical users, according to a report from the Department of City Planning and Buildings.

 

The Planning Commission packet discussion is on pages 17-19: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning-buildings/city-planning-commission/apr-17-2015-packet-revised/

I have it on good authority that Anthem will be moving their Walnut Hills office (1351 William Howard Taft road) to a built to suit office building at Oakley station. It also looks like the developer will be buying their current location (building and lot) for redevelopment. Could be a good opportunity for Walnut Hills. Two developments one move

Thanks for the info and welcome to the Forum!

I have it on good authority that Anthem will be moving their Walnut Hills office (1351 William Howard Taft road) to a built to suit office building at Oakley station. It also looks like the developer will be buying their current location (building and lot) for redevelopment. Could be a good opportunity for Walnut Hills. Two developments one move

 

I'm hoping that A) this is true and B) the developer does something that will bridge the gap between E and regular Walnut Hills - that would be an awesome and transformative project for a severely underutilized area.

 

Since Hotels are popping up everyday, when is some hotel operator going to decide to buy out the Alms Apartments?  As soon as that is cleaned up the whole area will boom.

Yeah I agree that the Alms Hotel redevelopment will be a turning point, but all of the hype over Walnut Hills is a bit misplaced because the quality of the housing is typically very low.  Yes, there are some late-1800s homes of the quality seen in Clifton, but many homes are wood siding and not with the high quality interior floors and woodwork that make ideal flips.  Same problem with the Mt. Auburn housing on the main streets like McGreggor, Helen, Kinsey, etc. 

 

 

 

Yeah I agree that the Alms Hotel redevelopment will be a turning point, but all of the hype over Walnut Hills is a bit misplaced because the quality of the housing is typically very low.  Yes, there are some late-1800s homes of the quality seen in Clifton, but many homes are wood siding and not with the high quality interior floors and woodwork that make ideal flips.  Same problem with the Mt. Auburn housing on the main streets like McGreggor, Helen, Kinsey, etc. 

 

 

 

 

Most of the higher quality Mt Auburn houses were torn down... :( - the ones that were on Auburn for instance.

 

With Walnut Hills there is a lot of  opportunities for infill, if they don't decide to turn everything into pocket parks.

 

Walnut Hills suffers from an incongruity caused by the unnatural configuration of MLK, Wm. H. Taft, and a few of the big buildings like the Kroger and the building we're talking about between Victory Parkway and Woodburn.  I don't see how the neighborhood regains the prewar rhythm without mandating redevelopment with forms identical to what was torn down.  Also Wm. H. Taft should probably be reconfigured as the disjointed series of side streets it once was and Gilbert rebuilt between McMillan and MLK either with a landscaped center esplanade or expanded landscaped sidewalks.   

^I'm pretty sure UC would hate your plan.

^I'm pretty sure UC would hate your plan.

 

The hatred is mutual. 

Walnut Hills suffers from an incongruity caused by the unnatural configuration of MLK, Wm. H. Taft, and a few of the big buildings like the Kroger and the building we're talking about between Victory Parkway and Woodburn.  I don't see how the neighborhood regains the prewar rhythm without mandating redevelopment with forms identical to what was torn down.  Also Wm. H. Taft should probably be reconfigured as the disjointed series of side streets it once was and Gilbert rebuilt between McMillan and MLK either with a landscaped center esplanade or expanded landscaped sidewalks.   

 

Walnut Hills has great potential simply due to its proximity to uptown and downtown job centers, as well as dining/nightlife options in OTR, Hyde Park, Oakley, etc. Hopefully it will be developed in a way that is better looking than the USquare/Vine Street Flats garbage going up in CUF. However, I think some people have the impression that Walnut Hills is going to be "the next OTR", which I think is misguided.