Not a single housing unit is being demolished.  Who are you citing? Any reputable sources? This is getting silly.

 

It's 22 houses on vacant land.  Renovation of one vacant building into 8 apartments. Removal of the basketball courts.  And the community garden stays in their fenced and leased area.  They are currently illegally using the vacant city land, so they will have to stop doing that illegal activity and return to only using the private land they have a lease for.

^^the article doesn't say this, but at the last community council meeting where I saw this discussed, the plan was to renovate the existing building for "workforce" housing (which I think is housing with some income restrictions but not necessarily "low" income.) north pointe could definitely help their cause with a map and details of exactly what their proposal is.

^the article doesn't say this, but at the last community council meeting where I saw this discussed, the plan was to renovate the existing buildings for "workforce" housing (which I think is housing with some income restrictions but not necessarily "low" income.) north pointe could definitely help there cause with a map and details of exactly what their proposal is.

 

I'm not sure what their criteria is for "workforce" housing but that brings up a critical issue that is rarely discussed in these types of debates. There are plenty of expensive townhomes and condos, as well as existing subsidized housing and more added with nearly every 3CDC development. However what is often forgotten is the middle class -- people that make too much money to quality for subsidized housing, but also can't afford a $250,000 condo or $600,000 townhome. Having a strong middle class in OTR will be critical if we want the neighborhood to develop as a truly livable place with all the amenities that people need and want nearby.

I was quoting the last half of the 1st paragraph and the last half of the 2nd paragraph from the Soapbox article linked to at the top of this page.

 

Rothenberg Courts are across the street.

Grant park Courts are 0.17 miles away.

Ziegler Park Courts are .36 miles away.

I need some help from those who've completed OTR rehabs. I'm getting ready to start a rehab next week, and just had my "builder's risk" insurance cancelled. Reasons are complete B.S. in my opinion -- this insurance business has been a complete pain in the butt.

 

Does anyone have a good source for builder's risk insurance for an OTR rehab?

 

Any sources would be very much appreciated.

 

 

I need some help from those who've completed OTR rehabs. I'm getting ready to start a rehab next week, and just had my "builder's risk" insurance cancelled. Reasons are complete B.S. in my opinion -- this insurance business has been a complete pain in the butt.

 

Does anyone have a good source for builder's risk insurance for an OTR rehab?

 

Any sources would be very much appreciated.

 

I used American Modern a couple years ago on our Broadway St rehab. Had no problems from them.

^the article doesn't say this, but at the last community council meeting where I saw this discussed, the plan was to renovate the existing buildings for "workforce" housing (which I think is housing with some income restrictions but not necessarily "low" income.) north pointe could definitely help there cause with a map and details of exactly what their proposal is.

 

I'm not sure what their criteria is for "workforce" housing but that brings up a critical issue that is rarely discussed in these types of debates. There are plenty of expensive townhomes and condos, as well as existing subsidized housing and more added with nearly every 3CDC development. However what is often forgotten is the middle class -- people that make too much money to quality for subsidized housing, but also can't afford a $250,000 condo or $600,000 townhome. Having a strong middle class in OTR will be critical if we want the neighborhood to develop as a truly livable place with all the amenities that people need and want nearby.

 

Totally agree. Me and my wife would love to live there but def can't afford an expensive condo, huge house or a rehab. Would love if newer construction rowhouses about 1000-1500 sq ft could be built w some old charm at about 100-150k. Don't know if thats realistic, but it does seem a lot of these newer houses there are freaking huge on purpose to be luxury and get high prices.

Note: our house is a 75k 1400 sq ft over a hundred yrs old in kennedy heights, great house, but its def not otr.

I just don't think you can build $100K nice new construction anywhere without massive subsidies.  It's just not reasonable for a developer to do.  Old 1950's homes in California go for $600K+.  We are so spoiled here with the fact that you can buy an old but still nice house for under $150K, but then we get upset when we can't buy nice new houses for that same price.

 

The average US new construction home costs $295K to complete.  Now, it's also 2500 sqft because that's what developers keep building.  But cutting that down by 1000 sqft doesn't equally cut the price.  There's still one kitchen, there's still one whole lot of things.  Can you renovate some homes for less than $250K, of course! But no one is building market rate single family homes in the dead center core of our City for less than $225K without subsidy. The math just doesn't make sense.

^the article doesn't say this, but at the last community council meeting where I saw this discussed, the plan was to renovate the existing buildings for "workforce" housing (which I think is housing with some income restrictions but not necessarily "low" income.) north pointe could definitely help there cause with a map and details of exactly what their proposal is.

 

I'm not sure what their criteria is for "workforce" housing but that brings up a critical issue that is rarely discussed in these types of debates. There are plenty of expensive townhomes and condos, as well as existing subsidized housing and more added with nearly every 3CDC development. However what is often forgotten is the middle class -- people that make too much money to quality for subsidized housing, but also can't afford a $250,000 condo or $600,000 townhome. Having a strong middle class in OTR will be critical if we want the neighborhood to develop as a truly livable place with all the amenities that people need and want nearby.

 

Totally agree. Me and my wife would love to live there but def can't afford an expensive condo, huge house or a rehab. Would love if newer construction rowhouses about 1000-1500 sq ft could be built w some old charm at about 100-150k. Don't know if thats realistic, but it does seem a lot of these newer houses there are freaking huge on purpose to be luxury and get high prices.

Note: our house is a 75k 1400 sq ft over a hundred yrs old in kennedy heights, great house, but its def not otr.

 

For that price, you can find some nice options in the West End, for example: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/513-Elizabeth-St-Cincinnati-OH-45203/34236763_zpid/

 

$160k, 1100 sq ft, built in 1992. Less than half a mile to Washington Park.

I will never understand how people say it's impossible to live in OTR, yet homes 2 blocks away in the west end sit on the market for under $200K.

Yea thats pretty decent. Trust me I've been working on my wife. My dream is to renovate a smaller 2 story in west end, but my wife refuses to consider, still doesn't think its nice enough there yet...oh well.

I will never understand how people say it's impossible to live in OTR, yet homes 2 blocks away in the west end sit on the market for under $200K.

 

Did a drive through of the west end, and boy that neighborhood is in sad sad shape.  There are pockets of redevelopment (and Dayton Street is pretty nice), but other than Betts-Longworth, the neighborhood needs a TON of work.  Real shame too because there are more single family houses and generally the housing stock was more affluent than was in OTR - so there is a lot more detailing when it survives.

I will never understand how people say it's impossible to live in OTR, yet homes 2 blocks away in the west end sit on the market for under $200K.

 

Did a drive through of the west end, and boy that neighborhood is in sad sad shape.  There are pockets of redevelopment (and Dayton Street is pretty nice), but other than Betts-Longworth, the neighborhood needs a TON of work.  Real shame too because there are more single family houses and generally the housing stock was more affluent than was in OTR - so there is a lot more detailing when it survives.

 

Theres a few different sections of the west end- I think OCtoCincy[/member] is referring to the City West townhomes from the 90's that are ready to move into. The north end of the neighborhood has similar issues to OTR to where it's going to take a lot of money to restore historic buildings one by one.

It amazes me how much historic stock in general Cincinnati has. Not just including OTR, but other neighborhoods as well like Mount Adams, OTR, Pendelton, West End, etc.

 

Surely there must not be many places like that in America that have retained so many historic structures and neighborhoods in major downtown city urban cores

It amazes me how much historic stock in general Cincinnati has. Not just including OTR, but other neighborhoods as well like Mount Adams, OTR, Pendelton, West End, etc.

 

Surely there must not be many places like that in America that have retained so many historic structures and neighborhoods in major downtown city urban cores

 

 

The city experienced much more suburban growth than could be sustained by the population.  That's why so many neighborhoods fell into decline.  That means it's a great time for any young person to buy one or more houses in these neighborhoods.  In 20-30 years all of them will have made significant rebounds and those who bought the homes for $50,000 or less back in 2015 will be collecting thousands per month in rent. 

 

 

It amazes me how much historic stock in general Cincinnati has. Not just including OTR, but other neighborhoods as well like Mount Adams, OTR, Pendelton, West End, etc.

 

Surely there must not be many places like that in America that have retained so many historic structures and neighborhoods in major downtown city urban cores

 

Its also amazing how much has been lost.  Cincy was more on par with Philly, Boston or Baltimore in its heyday.

Its also amazing how much has been lost.  Cincy was more on par with Philly, Boston or Baltimore in its heyday.

 

Just gonna throw this out in case anyone else gets incredibly depressed like I do when they think of what was lost. Sorry if it's all been said before.

 

#1, Cincinnati may no longer be on par with Boston, Baltimore, or Philly (where I lived for several years and adore), but at the same time, I couldn't dream of affording a house anywhere near the center of those cities. In Cincinnati I can.

 

#2, we have to look at the vacant lots as opportunities for the future. Room for new things. Spaces for future forms of urban development.

 

And #3, while buildings may be gone, the compact layout and streetscape of Cincinnati is pretty well intact, making it inherently much more pleasing to navigate than somewhere like Chicago (where I currently live). I took it for granted before moving to the Windy City how nice the narrower streets of Cincinnati are. Of course there's room for improvement there as well (I'm looking at you, Liberty. And what the hell, Bank St??).

Its also amazing how much has been lost.  Cincy was more on par with Philly, Boston or Baltimore in its heyday.

 

Just gonna throw this out in case anyone else gets incredibly depressed like I do when they think of what was lost. Sorry if it's all been said before.

 

#1, Cincinnati may no longer be on par with Boston, Baltimore, or Philly (where I lived for several years and adore), but at the same time, I couldn't dream of affording a house anywhere near the center of those cities. In Cincinnati I can.

 

#2, we have to look at the vacant lots as opportunities for the future. Room for new things. Spaces for future forms of urban development.

 

And #3, while buildings may be gone, the compact layout and streetscape of Cincinnati is pretty well intact, making it inherently much more pleasing to navigate than somewhere like Chicago (where I currently live). I took it for granted before moving to the Windy City how nice the narrower streets of Cincinnati are. Of course there's room for improvement there as well (I'm looking at you, Liberty. And what the hell, Bank St??).

 

I also currently live in Chicago ;) - at least here there is a mayor here who supports little things like road diets, protected bike lines, and is even putting in a shared pedestrian / car street on Argyle...  Though I'll agree with you the environment is more pleasant, particularly in the rare places where its fully utilized - I want to see more of that and a culture that is supportive of it too (too many people drive everywhere).  This is why going to East Coast cities and San Francisco is such a wonderful thing for me. (and San Fran despite being the same age as Chicago, feels like an older city - weird right?)  Cranley sadly is more interested in web infrastrcuture to remind people about traffic warnings because to paraphrase him that's the most important thing in Cincinnati now :roll:

 

#2 As I say broken record, Cincinnati needs to really work on the infill it puts in - perhaps a ban on CR architecture and its ilk ;).  What's generally being built here in Chicago is way nicer than almost everything being built in Cincinnati (though not all of it is good) - check out this project for instance: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150930/logan-square/check-out-total-overhaul-of-mega-mall-replacement-project

 

Its also amazing how much has been lost.  Cincy was more on par with Philly, Boston or Baltimore in its heyday.

 

Just gonna throw this out in case anyone else gets incredibly depressed like I do when they think of what was lost. Sorry if it's all been said before.

 

#1, Cincinnati may no longer be on par with Boston, Baltimore, or Philly (where I lived for several years and adore), but at the same time, I couldn't dream of affording a house anywhere near the center of those cities. In Cincinnati I can.

 

#2, we have to look at the vacant lots as opportunities for the future. Room for new things. Spaces for future forms of urban development.

 

And #3, while buildings may be gone, the compact layout and streetscape of Cincinnati is pretty well intact, making it inherently much more pleasing to navigate than somewhere like Chicago (where I currently live). I took it for granted before moving to the Windy City how nice the narrower streets of Cincinnati are. Of course there's room for improvement there as well (I'm looking at you, Liberty. And what the hell, Bank St??).

 

Getting depressed over what was lost is something that tends to hold back old timers, who can't fathom bringing back anything as good as what was lost, whereas younger folk who've only known the empty lots and mostly abandoned buildings view them as an opportunity to redevelop ala point #2.  Nowadays there's more ways to find out what a place used to look like, and that can give some inspiration as well as being kind of sad and shocking.  Check out these examples for instance. 

 

First is Reading Road and Florence Avenue.  100% of this is gone, buried under highway overpasses and a new hotel and parking deck.  The second and third are Riverside Drive at the Montgomery Inn Boathouse.  While those buildings are fairly ramshackle, some are quite large, and also 100% gone.  That's depressing yes, but if you've never known what it was like, and only know what it's like now, then there's nowhere to go but up, virtually unimpeded. 

It amazes me how much historic stock in general Cincinnati has. Not just including OTR, but other neighborhoods as well like Mount Adams, OTR, Pendelton, West End, etc.

 

Surely there must not be many places like that in America that have retained so many historic structures and neighborhoods in major downtown city urban cores

 

Its also amazing how much has been lost.  Cincy was more on par with Philly, Boston or Baltimore in its heyday.

 

Read a great article today about Phiily and how that city has gained 116,000 24-35 year olds since 2007. 116 THOUSAND. That's more than a third of Cincinnati's total population. The comparable # for us would be around 25,000 people. Can you imagine 25000 more people living within the city of Cincinnati?

 

Makes me wonder, a) what aren't we doing to attract those 25000 people? (Philly not exactly being a glitzy city in the cultural zeitgeist, much like us), and b) good god. This is big league stuff.

Is that metro Philly or city of Philly? I guess that's over a 7 year period. Seems high for just the city.

I understood it to be the city, which is coterminous with the county. and yes, over 7 years.

 

this is the article: http://www.phillymag.com/citified/2015/09/27/death-gentrification-guilt-le-bok-fin/

 

credit to the Urbanophile for the find.

 

 

edit: 106 thousand people. not 116.

I don't know a lot about Philadelphia but two pieces of information are always overlooked by these sorts of articles -- U.S. live births dropped precipitously in the 1970s with widespread use of oral contraceptives and the legalization of abortion.  The birthrate stayed more or less the same but the number of live births reached baby boom numbers by 1990 due to the "echo boom".  This means there are about 25% more native-born 25-30 year-olds in 2015 than there were in 2000.  This alone explains much of the growth of universities and repopulation of some city neighborhoods.  Then there is the whole matter of foreign immigration, which I assume has been much more significant in Philadelphia than in the Midwest. 

 

But at some point people are going to throw in the towel in the expensive coastal cities and realize they can have 98% of what they have there in the Midwest for much less than half of the living expense.  Someone could move out of a 1950s paid-for ranch house in Los Angeles and buy five of them in suburban Cincinnati with cash.  Someone could move out of a paid-for brick row house in Boston or Philadelphia and buy and renovate five of them in Cincinnati's West End or across the river in Covington or Newport.   

I forsee the streetcar narrowing that gap.

I forsee the streetcar narrowing that gap.

 

I'm concerned now that there's some kind of systemic issue causing surface parking lots to be worth many times their weight in gold. Cincinnati is a conservative town, to be sure, but this is downright pigheaded obtuseness with these demographic tailwinds, sky high demand, low interest rates and the streetcar one year away from operation that downtown surface lot number one has not been redeveloped yet.

I forsee the streetcar narrowing that gap.

 

The ridiculous housing prices in mediocre Nashville neighborhoods is being caused to a large extent by an influx of people from the Los Angeles and New York City entertainment industry.  It only takes 500 people with $500,000 in equity who paid $350,000 for flipped houses to send things into bubble territory.  All the sudden all these father-uncle-son hacks start flipping houses, maybe make money on the first one, then bite off a little too much with the second one and lose it all.   

 

The price spike in Over-the-Rhine 2013-2014 caused a lot of people to overpay for stuff by late 2014 and continuing into 2015.  I think a lot of people are assuming that Cincinnati real estate prices are going to take off as they have in the inferior built environments of Nashville, Charlotte, etc. but they aren't.  There's way too much good product in the other neighborhoods that is priced fairly or undervalued and there are far too few people moving into this region with inherited money.  No doubt many more who have collected large inheritances are moving out of Cincinnati than moving in.

 

How much of that is because they're used as parking for big companies, such as Kroger or P&G? Sale might not even be a possibility in that case.

How much of that is because they're used as parking for big companies, such as Kroger or P&G? Sale might not even be a possibility in that case.

 

Perhaps and in those cases those companies could really increase the profile of their own headquarters by surrounding it with development, and get help from tax breaks to do it too.

 

I was thinking more of the little lots such as the one next to Knock Back Nat's on 7th. Seems pretty central to everything

The parking lot owners view the downtown lots as an annuity. In other words, they have a fixed amount of money coming in every year with almost no upkeep costs. If I own a parking lot that brings in $1 million a year in income, why would I sell that lot for $10 million when I could just hold on to it and keep bringing in $1 million per year for the rest of my life while doing nothing but minimal upkeep? The parking lots will only be redeveloped when the current owners can sell them at a massive premium, or they can simply lease the land to a developer and keep getting that fixed annual payment.

^seems like an almost intractable problem. How is this playing out in many other cities across the country then, where the downtown population is growing by the thousands? Jake mentioned Nashville? And as the city grows couldn't the remaining lots start charging like $20 a day, making the problem even worse?

This looks relevant

 

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-114547.pdf

^seems like an almost intractable problem. How is this playing out in many other cities across the country then, where the downtown population is growing by the thousands? Jake mentioned Nashville? And as the city grows couldn't the remaining lots start charging like $20 a day, making the problem even worse?

 

One solution (politically impossible, of course) would be to raise taxes on surface lots.

 

It won't let me post an external link, but check this out: streetsblog.net/2012/12/10/want-to-end-the-scourge-of-surface-parking-tax-land-not-buildings

I am certain developers are working out ways to make this happen.  Even 3CDC did the same thing when they spoke of livening the gap between Fountain Square and OTR which is a lot of surface lots, etc.

 

Something to do with making new garages, and probably setting a certain revenue aside for the current owner a long with a lump sum cash payment at the start.  For a $1 million dollar surface lot per year, that could mean a $2 million dollar pay out and $800k a year to the current owner.  Who knows if it will work but, I assume people are working on details in many spots.

I forsee the streetcar narrowing that gap.

 

 

 

The price spike in Over-the-Rhine 2013-2014 caused a lot of people to overpay for stuff by late 2014 and continuing into 2015.  I think a lot of people are assuming that Cincinnati real estate prices are going to take off as they have in the inferior built environments of Nashville, Charlotte, etc. but they aren't.  There's way too much good product in the other neighborhoods that is priced fairly or undervalued and there are far too few people moving into this region with inherited money.  No doubt many more who have collected large inheritances are moving out of Cincinnati than moving in.

 

 

I won't get into the inheritance angle--I don't know how anyone ever finds any information on that kind of claim--but I think OTR housing prices are much more likely to end up on a Hyde Park or Mt. Adams trajectory than to stay flat.  There are certainly plenty of other neighborhoods with good "product," but in the end, it's about location.  There's a reason that housing prices in Hyde Park are a multiple of neighboring Madisonville, and there's a reason that even after years and years of really positive development, Oakley is still significantly more accessible than Hyde Park. 

 

The West End is very interesting, because it is so close to OTR (especially City West).  At the same time, because of Music Hall and Central Parkway, there feels like a significant border between the two that makes the relatively close distance between them seem farther than it really is. 

 

All that aside, people in Cincinnati (and plenty of other places) have proven that they will be more than happy to drive up the prices of neighborhoods significantly, even though there are plenty of other places with similar product.  That's why you see huge old houses in Price Hill that you can get for cheap, but if the same house was in Hyde Park it would be a million dollars.  Just because someone could buy 2, or 4, or  8 houses in Westwood for the price of one condo in OTR doesn't mean that they are going to.  Most people don't make housing decision like a commodity.  Too many other factors go into it that are "soft" factors and don't necessarily make sense. 

This looks relevant

 

(link)

 

As mentioned in this report, some surface lot owners may be interested in teaming up with a developer if they can operate the parking component of a vertical development.

 

Various interviewees report that these owners “don’t know what else they would invest in if they were to sell” and, in light of the City of Minneapolis’ prohibition on new commercial surface parking lots in downtown, will not  be  able  to  find  local  replacements  for  their portfolio, which  likely impacts value expectations and  the  willingness  to  sell. Several  interviewees  suggested that  some  of these owners might be interested in joint venture partnerships with developers such that the owners could continue to operate the parking component of a vertically redeveloped site.

^seems like an almost intractable problem. How is this playing out in many other cities across the country then, where the downtown population is growing by the thousands? Jake mentioned Nashville? And as the city grows couldn't the remaining lots start charging like $20 a day, making the problem even worse?

 

One solution (politically impossible, of course) would be to raise taxes on surface lots.

 

It won't let me post an external link, but check this out: streetsblog.net/2012/12/10/want-to-end-the-scourge-of-surface-parking-tax-land-not-buildings

 

I'm pretty sure you have to post a minimum of 5 or 10 times here before you can post external links to prevent bots from sending spam.

 

It should open up for you soon, oudd[/member]

 

And welcome to Urban Ohio!

The parking lot owners view the downtown lots as an annuity. In other words, they have a fixed amount of money coming in every year with almost no upkeep costs. If I own a parking lot that brings in $1 million a year in income, why would I sell that lot for $10 million when I could just hold on to it and keep bringing in $1 million per year for the rest of my life while doing nothing but minimal upkeep? The parking lots will only be redeveloped when the current owners can sell them at a massive premium, or they can simply lease the land to a developer and keep getting that fixed annual payment.

 

That is true of *any* income-generating asset. But people buy and sell annuities all the time, so this (alone) doesn't explain why an owner of a surface lot would be so unlikely to sell their property if somebody else values it more. If it were like any other annuity, the property *should* get sold whenever somebody else believes they can make *more* money off it than the current owner. But the fact that lots (though not all) of the parking-to-building infill projects involve government support (The Banks, the Casino) just indicates how heavily distorted the market is when it comes to parking, driving up the value of parking due to all of the subsidies that encourage car-based transportation patterns.

 

Developers with enough capital can run the numbers to figure out if there's a higher/better use for the property (e.g. a mixed use facility with integrated garage + retail + office gets you all of that parking revenue plus the revenue from the leased space). Of course, there's risk involved since you never know exactly how the construction costs will play out and how much revenue you'll get from leasing the building... but that's just the nature of any kind of investment with varying degrees of risk. It's like stocks (riskier but potentially higher return) versus treasury bonds (lower risk and lower return) - with surface parking lots analogous to treasury bonds. The government can (and does) of course affect the relative prices through incentives (e.g. tax abatement on new construction and renovations), zoning rules, historic conservation boards (not allowing demolition of certain buildings), and so on. 

 

Cincinnati's urban area is seeing an increase in property values *and* and increase in parking costs. As long as the city doesn't do too much to artificially suppress rising parking prices (no guarantee there), those forces will gradually result in fewer surface parking lots.

I forsee the streetcar narrowing that gap.

 

 

 

The price spike in Over-the-Rhine 2013-2014 caused a lot of people to overpay for stuff by late 2014 and continuing into 2015.  I think a lot of people are assuming that Cincinnati real estate prices are going to take off as they have in the inferior built environments of Nashville, Charlotte, etc. but they aren't.  There's way too much good product in the other neighborhoods that is priced fairly or undervalued and there are far too few people moving into this region with inherited money.  No doubt many more who have collected large inheritances are moving out of Cincinnati than moving in.

 

 

I won't get into the inheritance angle--I don't know how anyone ever finds any information on that kind of claim--but I think OTR housing prices are much more likely to end up on a Hyde Park or Mt. Adams trajectory than to stay flat.  There are certainly plenty of other neighborhoods with good "product," but in the end, it's about location.  There's a reason that housing prices in Hyde Park are a multiple of neighboring Madisonville, and there's a reason that even after years and years of really positive development, Oakley is still significantly more accessible than Hyde Park. 

 

The West End is very interesting, because it is so close to OTR (especially City West).  At the same time, because of Music Hall and Central Parkway, there feels like a significant border between the two that makes the relatively close distance between them seem farther than it really is. 

 

All that aside, people in Cincinnati (and plenty of other places) have proven that they will be more than happy to drive up the prices of neighborhoods significantly, even though there are plenty of other places with similar product.  That's why you see huge old houses in Price Hill that you can get for cheap, but if the same house was in Hyde Park it would be a million dollars.  Just because someone could buy 2, or 4, or  8 houses in Westwood for the price of one condo in OTR doesn't mean that they are going to.  Most people don't make housing decision like a commodity.  Too many other factors go into it that are "soft" factors and don't necessarily make sense. 

 

The real division of OTR and the West End isn't really Central Parkway, it's the fact that the canal was built *above* the prevailing grade in this area (a creek used to run where McMicken St. is downhill toward the casino).  You really notice it on Findlay St. where the road slopes up to Central Parkway on both sides.  If the opposite were the case, with the parkway traveling through a mild dip, there would be a much stronger visual connection.  The street isn't very wide north of Liberty St., but the subtle difference in grade still exists. 

 

The prevailing price of homes in many areas of Cincinnati is still significantly below that of peer cities like Columbus and is in reality on par with Portsmouth, Middletown, Hamilton, Richmond, etc.  This region still has way, way more housing than it needs with vacant lots all over the place and hundreds of move-in ready homes for sale in 2015 in Cincinnati and immediately across the river in Covington and Newport for $50,000 or less.

 

I forsee the streetcar narrowing that gap.

 

 

 

The price spike in Over-the-Rhine 2013-2014 caused a lot of people to overpay for stuff by late 2014 and continuing into 2015.  I think a lot of people are assuming that Cincinnati real estate prices are going to take off as they have in the inferior built environments of Nashville, Charlotte, etc. but they aren't.  There's way too much good product in the other neighborhoods that is priced fairly or undervalued and there are far too few people moving into this region with inherited money.  No doubt many more who have collected large inheritances are moving out of Cincinnati than moving in.

 

 

I won't get into the inheritance angle--I don't know how anyone ever finds any information on that kind of claim--but I think OTR housing prices are much more likely to end up on a Hyde Park or Mt. Adams trajectory than to stay flat.  There are certainly plenty of other neighborhoods with good "product," but in the end, it's about location.  There's a reason that housing prices in Hyde Park are a multiple of neighboring Madisonville, and there's a reason that even after years and years of really positive development, Oakley is still significantly more accessible than Hyde Park. 

 

The West End is very interesting, because it is so close to OTR (especially City West).  At the same time, because of Music Hall and Central Parkway, there feels like a significant border between the two that makes the relatively close distance between them seem farther than it really is. 

 

All that aside, people in Cincinnati (and plenty of other places) have proven that they will be more than happy to drive up the prices of neighborhoods significantly, even though there are plenty of other places with similar product.  That's why you see huge old houses in Price Hill that you can get for cheap, but if the same house was in Hyde Park it would be a million dollars.  Just because someone could buy 2, or 4, or  8 houses in Westwood for the price of one condo in OTR doesn't mean that they are going to.  Most people don't make housing decision like a commodity.  Too many other factors go into it that are "soft" factors and don't necessarily make sense. 

 

The real division of OTR and the West End isn't really Central Parkway, it's the fact that the canal was built *above* the prevailing grade in this area (a creek used to run where McMicken St. is downhill toward the casino).  You really notice it on Findlay St. where the road slopes up to Central Parkway on both sides.  If the opposite were the case, with the parkway traveling through a mild dip, there would be a much stronger visual connection.  The street isn't very wide north of Liberty St., but the subtle difference in grade still exists. 

 

The prevailing price of homes in many areas of Cincinnati is still significantly below that of peer cities like Columbus and is in reality on par with Portsmouth, Middletown, Hamilton, Richmond, etc.  This region still has way, way more housing than it needs with vacant lots all over the place and hundreds of move-in ready homes for sale in 2015 in Cincinnati and immediately across the river in Covington and Newport for $50,000 or less.

 

 

Move-in ready????  They may be technically able to be occupied, but the move-in ready standard would be pretty low.  I'll agree we have tons of available housing, much of it woefully substandard. That's why the prices are so low. They require substantial investment.

No, there really are tons of great homes on the market in and around Cincinnati requiring no structural work right now for $50,000 or less:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1465435/6066-Lantana-Ave-College-Hill-OH-45224

 

There are also tons of flips selling for $45-55k all around the city.  People who could afford "better" neighborhoods just really, really, really don't want to live in certain neighborhoods because of a perception of crime AND because they don't want to constantly have to defend their decision to live in a cheap neighborhood. 

 

 

 

You speak condescendingly towards others despite the fact that location has always been and will always be the most important aspect of real estate. People choose OTR/Downtown/Pendleton at five times the cost per square foot over other neighborhoods because those other neighborhoods aren't close to employment centers, aren't close to entertainment, aren't seeing improvements, etc. I can afford entire apartment buildings in many west side neighborhoods but I don't because I have no desire to live there. Not because of some bullshit "oh no what will my friends think" reasoning, but because I would be nowhere near my work or the places I enjoy going.

Yeah if I didn't go out with friends a lot I would likely have bought a house in Pleasant Ridge or College Hill. They are both closer to work so I would have a shorter commute. But I want to be able to walk to the bars, restaurants, Reds games, etc so I bought in OTR(ish).

I forsee the streetcar narrowing that gap.

 

 

 

The price spike in Over-the-Rhine 2013-2014 caused a lot of people to overpay for stuff by late 2014 and continuing into 2015.  I think a lot of people are assuming that Cincinnati real estate prices are going to take off as they have in the inferior built environments of Nashville, Charlotte, etc. but they aren't.  There's way too much good product in the other neighborhoods that is priced fairly or undervalued and there are far too few people moving into this region with inherited money.  No doubt many more who have collected large inheritances are moving out of Cincinnati than moving in.

 

 

I won't get into the inheritance angle--I don't know how anyone ever finds any information on that kind of claim--but I think OTR housing prices are much more likely to end up on a Hyde Park or Mt. Adams trajectory than to stay flat.  There are certainly plenty of other neighborhoods with good "product," but in the end, it's about location.  There's a reason that housing prices in Hyde Park are a multiple of neighboring Madisonville, and there's a reason that even after years and years of really positive development, Oakley is still significantly more accessible than Hyde Park. 

 

The West End is very interesting, because it is so close to OTR (especially City West).  At the same time, because of Music Hall and Central Parkway, there feels like a significant border between the two that makes the relatively close distance between them seem farther than it really is. 

 

All that aside, people in Cincinnati (and plenty of other places) have proven that they will be more than happy to drive up the prices of neighborhoods significantly, even though there are plenty of other places with similar product.  That's why you see huge old houses in Price Hill that you can get for cheap, but if the same house was in Hyde Park it would be a million dollars.  Just because someone could buy 2, or 4, or  8 houses in Westwood for the price of one condo in OTR doesn't mean that they are going to.  Most people don't make housing decision like a commodity.  Too many other factors go into it that are "soft" factors and don't necessarily make sense. 

 

 

 

The prevailing price of homes in many areas of Cincinnati is still significantly below that of peer cities like Columbus and is in reality on par with Portsmouth, Middletown, Hamilton, Richmond, etc.  This region still has way, way more housing than it needs with vacant lots all over the place and hundreds of move-in ready homes for sale in 2015 in Cincinnati and immediately across the river in Covington and Newport for $50,000 or less.

 

 

Latest data from the National Association of Realtors has a median home price of $128K in Cincinnati, $136K in Columbus.  There are certainly plenty of neighborhoods in the metro area that have home prices below that, but guess what--there are certainly plenty of places in Columbus, too, that have home prices below their median. For comparison sake, the median in Cleveland is $110K, Youngstown is $72K, and in Toledo is $80K. 

 

Do you have some data to support the idea that *average* or *median* home prices are lower than places like Columbus?  I am sure there are plenty of specific listings online that are lower, just like there are hundreds of homes listed on line that are higher than the average or the median.  But averages and medians do a far better job of giving the picture of a region. 

 

http://www.realtor.org/topics/metropolitan-median-area-prices-and-affordability

 

 

I may have uttered this next sentence in another thread somewhere, but... It's incredible that nearly every large building on the west side of Elm between Central Parkway & 14th (3 blocks) is being renovated now or will soon be renovated. YMCA, future Cincinnati Shakespeare Company at former Drop Inn Center, the Transept, Memorial Hall, and Music Hall.

 

According to Bill Rinehart on Twitter: The replacement for the Drop Inn Center, the Barron Center for Men, opens nexts Friday in Queensgate.

According to some sources it sounds like the majority of the operations should be move from the Drop Inn Center by October 16th as well.

I may have uttered this next sentence in another thread somewhere, but... It's incredible that nearly every large building on the west side of Elm between Central Parkway & 14th (3 blocks) is being renovated now or will soon be renovated. YMCA, future Cincinnati Shakespeare Company at former Drop Inn Center, the Transept, Memorial Hall, and Music Hall.

 

According to Bill Rinehart on Twitter: The replacement for the Drop Inn Center, the Barron Center for Men, opens nexts Friday in Queensgate.

 

Here's a pic I took last week:

You speak condescendingly towards others despite the fact that location has always been and will always be the most important aspect of real estate. People choose OTR/Downtown/Pendleton at five times the cost per square foot over other neighborhoods because those other neighborhoods aren't close to employment centers, aren't close to entertainment, aren't seeing improvements, etc. I can afford entire apartment buildings in many west side neighborhoods but I don't because I have no desire to live there. Not because of some bullshit "oh no what will my friends think" reasoning, but because I would be nowhere near my work or the places I enjoy going.

 

However I think Jake is right that there are a lot of undervalued markets - the example he provided wasn't a good one.  Take a look at Covington for instance - its very bikeable to downtown (and walkable to a point) and yet property is still dirt cheap - its not like its a bottom rung slum, but its not exactly a hot neighborhood.  The West End is more challenging, but its kind of a similar situation (and there you can literally walk to OTR, its kind of surprising that its been slow to catch on).  Or look at Court Street, nothing has been turned around there, but it looks like cheap apartments are still there and I'm sure that if you wanted to make an investment there it would be cheaper than OTR in spite being a block away!

 

Cincy has such a narrow outlook on their neighborhoods - the city is very fractured and its outlook on hoods is too even down to street to street in some areas.  This is a good thing as it keeps the city varied in its environment (Its part of what makes Dayton so boring by contrast), but on the flip side it leads to this hyper local way of looking at things without seeing the bigger picture...

I know that this term is very loaded and problematic, but the average person does not want to be an "urban pioneer." The reason that OTR, Northside, and Pleasant Ridge are taking off is that those neighborhoods have already reached that critical mass with dozens of new businesses opening, older homes being renovated and new ones being built. In a city the size of Cincinnati, there are only so many people willing to move into an neighborhood that isn't as far along in terms of redevelopment.

I agree with that statement, but considering neighborhoods like CUF, Covington North of 9th street, or even Betts-Longworth (tiny area I know) or Court Street in downtown Cincy there are plenty of areas that aren't quite places where one would have to "urban pioneer" as amenities are still pretty close by and they are generally safe places (or in Court Streets case the amenities are literally a block away), but they are still undervalued for one reason or another.  Covington IMO is the worst offender, the housing stock is in pretty good shape, mainstrasse has a lot of bars and restaurants and its a 15 min walk to downtown (or a 5 min bike ride) - you could be in OTR in 15 mins with a redbike (or a 10 min uber/lyft ride for like 6-7 dollars).

 

Also I'm not going to harp on anyone who wants to live in the middle of it all too, OTR for anyone who has bought into it will continue to grow as an investment for a while and there is totally an advantage to living in the heart instead of off to the side.  Though I'll argue that Cincinnatians idea of what's acceptable walking distance is surprisingly short given the urban form and compactness of the core city ;)