May 24, 200718 yr A couple of things that I found interesting in the 1st Quarter State of Downtown Report: -Part 1 and 2 crimes continue to drop off on a year to year basis...that is VERY encouraging news. Most importantly the 'quality of life' Part 2 crimes are down a whopping 19.9%! -Hotel occupancy rates continue to rise...illustrating a growing tourism industry for downtown and the region as a whole -Of the residential projects under-construction or about to begin you can extrapolate about 160+ new residents in downtown in the near future (I am assuming there are 2 people per unit). Once these fill up you can add another 400-500 residents into the mix. -Of the retailers that opened there is a nail place, barber shop, golf shop, drug store, and two bar establishments...four of the six establishments look to be resident oriented retailers. This too seems to be a positive sign.
May 24, 200718 yr A couple of things that I found interesting in the -Of the residential projects under-construction or about to begin you can extrapolate about 160+ new residents in downtown in the near future (I am assuming there are 2 people per unit). Once these fill up you can add another 400-500 residents into the mix. I don't have any hard numbers, but I would probably use 1.5 people per unit as a ratio in the Central Business District and OTR. I think most new residents are either singles or couples without kids. There are some families moving in, but I suspect it's too low to get the average up to 2 per unit. Either way, I like the trends you cite.
May 24, 200718 yr A couple of things that I found interesting in the -Of the residential projects under-construction or about to begin you can extrapolate about 160+ new residents in downtown in the near future (I am assuming there are 2 people per unit). Once these fill up you can add another 400-500 residents into the mix. I don't have any hard numbers, but I would probably use 1.5 people per unit as a ratio in the Central Business District and OTR. I think most new residents are either singles or couples without kids. There are some families moving in, but I suspect it's too low to get the average up to 2 per unit. I agree...there are more singles than you're thinking.
May 25, 200718 yr Yeah I was thinking along the same lines...typical household sizes are around 3 people. That is why I knocked my estimates down to 2, but sure 1.5 whatever...it's still pretty similar.
May 25, 200718 yr I'm happy with the projections using either number. Even as a part time downtown resident, I've still noticed the increase in people downton in the evenings. Last week, I passed three people in my building I knew as I was walking down fourth street to dinner. I repeatedly see other downtown residents at some of the places I regularly go to when I'm in town. I've started to recognize people on the street that I've seen before, even though I haven't met them. I pretty sure Mrs A Weeks ran past me the other day (based on her picture in the paper) as I was walking home. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see the potential for downtown to start getting that neighborhood feel as the number of residents start to increase. Also, while I'm rambling on, I think the area around the Gateway Quarter is going to be a huge success. I've spent some time walking around there lately during the day to check it out. The housing in the area looks great. Between the American Building, the Gateway, and the rehab work going on, there seems to be something for everyone. There's lots of street level stuff coming in already. There's two theaters, and the new street car line will more than likely cut through there as well.
May 25, 200718 yr The high-end condo demographic has been more than tapped into both in the city and suburbs. I don't think it is a bad thing or a negative trend that the prices of condos are going down. The younger and middle class demographics that would like to own a home have been largely ignored over the past decade. It's time for some catching up with more affordable owner-occupied units and more rental units...that is where the market demand lies. I actually find this trend of lowering condo prices to be a positive for downtown. It will allow for more young people and families the opportunity to move downtown. Enough of this over-catering to the baby-boomers! Lets just hope lower prices mean more units will start sellings. Up to this point the lower prices have only been met with continued lower sales.
May 25, 200718 yr ^You and I both know that the issue of lower home sales is due to the overall market trends that exist. The product that is/was being offered downtown simply tries to match up with the market demand for that particular point in time. My prediction is that the next housing uptake will happen with units priced more reasonably. The market for the $300,000 and up homes has been eaten up and then some...However, the YP's, teachers, firefighters, police officers, and the other middle-class people of the world will have significant demand in the coming years.
May 28, 200718 yr When you say priced more reasonably, I hope you mean, smaller, in a less than desirable location (for most people), or heavily subsidized by taxpayers...$200/ft is a starting point in the CBD, while $100/ft might work in OTR. What this really says is that Cincinnati needs to attract either people young professionals who want an urban lifestyle or higher paying jobs for its YP's. A lot of people would kill for a $300K condo downtown. (even outside of the 1st and 2nd tier cities). I think that many of us who read these urban Cincinnati blogs have an unrealistic sense of the depth the "urban" market in Cincinnati. No offense, but most fireman and policemen have wives and families and are the least likely to buy in a city. The market is DINK (Dual Income, No Kids) YP, Creative, Gay, and Empty Nester. Not scientific. The "working class" will not find a home downtown anymore; in any city. Land prices and construction costs are way too high. For ragerunner, the 1st quarter of the year is always the slowest (yes I noticed 52 -> 17) however the market is not that deep downtown and a building or two, opening up or in this case, not opening, can skew the numbers completely. I can guarantee you that the housing prices downtown has not dropped 50%. Perhaps a relative shortage of new supply became available in Q1 2007. The downtown market is not very deep at all, so new construction is significant to sales, avg, median, whatever. Also to compare the Downtown Cincinnati housing "bust" to other cities is shortsided. As in detached, suburban construction, downtown never really "boomed" to the point of severe over supply, only a lack of demand; the downtown market is still evolving which leads to some market ineffeciencies that will work itself out as the downtown market matures. Like everything else written on a blog, no right or wrongs, only opinions. Digest as so desired. Ian
May 28, 200718 yr I disagree with you about the 'family buying in downtown' arguement. What you are stating is true and might be true based on what has happened in the past. Times have/are changing. The Generation X'ers and Y'ers (Millennials) are a unique bunch. I think we're going to see something new in real estate trends that we haven't really seen (maybe not so much so with NYC, but that's an animal unlike any other city in North America). I think that the demand for living as close to the central city as possible is going to become the mindset. However, it will only be that way based on entertainment, nightlife, the arts, and options. I've noticed with friends of mine that even though they may have little ones, having a decent nightlife is also held in high regard. I think safety is definitely important, but not to the extent that baby-boomers make it (based on perception). I also think $300,000 is a lot for a condo downtown. If this were San Francisco, Seattle, or Chicago, then no - but it's too early in my opinion to market a condo for $300 for a 1 bedroom in Cincinnati. People drive the market price, so if it's sitting on the MLS for a long period of time, then it's time to drop the price. If it's simply unrealistic to drop the price any lower, then find ways to cut cost. I think I speak for the majority of mid to late 20-somethings when I say "leave the concierge, sauna, and personal movie theatre out!".
May 29, 200718 yr The whole housing situation in the future will be solely determined by economics. The baby-boomers fueled the suburban sprawl we have today. The new housing that has/continues to be built is that, that is serving those baby-boomers. They have built their net wealth over the years and can afford this type of housing stock. However, the younger generations do not have the money right out of college to afford this type of housing. So the question is which location will be able to provide quality affordable housing for the younger generations, that also appeals to them. Well the suburban markets have worked VERY hard at limiting the housing stock to high-income only (exclusionary zoning). The city on the other hand has more opportunities for low, middle, and high income households. Either people will be forced to move closer to the inner-city due to availability of affordable housing...or the suburban markets will have to experience an extreme drop in home values. I personally don't see the latter happening, but I could be wrong. Obviously there are exceptions to all of these scenarios, but I don't think this is too unreasonable to expect. Combine these market forces with the social advantages the city offers, and I predict an inward migration to the city.
May 29, 200718 yr It would be a combination of those types of things (energy costs and so on) and the market demand. I am predicting that the market demand will be for homes at lower values (due to the population shift). This will either force lower values to keep those markets relevant...or they will go uninhabited. Which is unlikely as well.
May 29, 200718 yr When you say priced more reasonably, I hope you mean, smaller, in a less than desirable location (for most people), or heavily subsidized by taxpayers...$200/ft is a starting point in the CBD, while $100/ft might work in OTR. What this really says is that Cincinnati needs to attract either people young professionals who want an urban lifestyle or higher paying jobs for its YP's. A lot of people would kill for a $300K condo downtown. (even outside of the 1st and 2nd tier cities). I think that many of us who read these urban Cincinnati blogs have an unrealistic sense of the depth the "urban" market in Cincinnati. No offense, but most fireman and policemen have wives and families and are the least likely to buy in a city. The market is DINK (Dual Income, No Kids) YP, Creative, Gay, and Empty Nester. Not scientific. The "working class" will not find a home downtown anymore; in any city. Land prices and construction costs are way too high. For ragerunner, the 1st quarter of the year is always the slowest (yes I noticed 52 -> 17) however the market is not that deep downtown and a building or two, opening up or in this case, not opening, can skew the numbers completely. I can guarantee you that the housing prices downtown has not dropped 50%. Perhaps a relative shortage of new supply became available in Q1 2007. The downtown market is not very deep at all, so new construction is significant to sales, avg, median, whatever. Also to compare the Downtown Cincinnati housing "bust" to other cities is shortsided. As in detached, suburban construction, downtown never really "boomed" to the point of severe over supply, only a lack of demand; the downtown market is still evolving which leads to some market ineffeciencies that will work itself out as the downtown market matures. Like everything else written on a blog, no right or wrongs, only opinions. Digest as so desired. Ian Ian, Please note that the drop in sales has been continuous for several quarters now and so has prices, not just the first quarter. Also, the first quarter of '06 was actually the biggest quarter of that year.
June 3, 200718 yr Surely there will be some families who choose to reside in the center city, but most, probably 95% prefer to live in the suburbs. I work for a large builder in Atlanta, and although the city has seen a tremendous amount of population of growth in the city (relative to the declines in 60's-90's) most growth remains in the suburbs where land and housing is more affordable. Even with the ridiculous traffic, most, not all, people prefer suburban living because of the affordability and space. I also think that as gas/oil prices increase, the financial incentive to develop alternative fuels will continue to grow and in the next 10 - 15 years people will be able to drive their car as much as they like, in an affordable and "clean" manor. What is encouraging however, is that people more people (relative to the declines in the 60's - 90's) are making a decision to forgoe the large lot in the suburbs for a smaller lot in town, or townhome/condo. Its going to take a tremendous shift in American culture to encourage most families to migrate to condo living, especially those with school age children. My wife and I live in a condo in Midtown ATL, and as much I love the "lifestyle", its would be impossible to add a 3rd or 4th in our forth floor 2BR. Our option then will be to find an very expensive new construction in town, an expensive older house with high maintence costs in town, a little less expensive house in a first ring burb, or an affordable house in the "suburbs." Hopefully we'll be in a position where the first 3 are an option. I think most however are not, and Atlanta also happens to be a very affordable city to live in, relative to other large cities. I would also say to someone else's point that a 1 BR condo in Cincinnati would have to be extremely special to be $300K, such as view, finishings, etc. I would suspect that most 1BR condo's are probably about 900 SF and cost < $225K , but I havent pulled up the MLS listings. I would love to see Cincinnati take it to the next level, and I'm impressed with everything that's happening, especially in the last 1 - 2 years. Hopefully, the new residents will create a critical mass that will give DT and OTR the "Buzz" and energy that people really crave in urban living, and then it will just start to happen on its own. However, I also think that its failure to attract large numbers of the kinds of people who want to live in and invest in urban areas is going to make the revitalization longer than it ordinarly would. They can't change the weather (although Cincinnati would probably benefit from global warming, perhaps a sunbelt city in 2100?) but they can change their attitudes, but I'm not holding my breath.
June 4, 200718 yr It is important to distinguish between an urban real estate market and a CBD market. The numbers for downtown and even near downtown, esp. OTR are quite limited and focused on the YP, EN, and similar unencumbered folks. The streetcar line will likely expand that market as it will hopefully open the market for ever wished for grocery store. But most people with families any where in the world want a yard of some sort. You just won't get that in the CBD. I can see City West or the Cov and Newport or along Eastern/Riverside Drive being amenable to that. For families, it is really about enlivening the turn of the last century neighborhoods more so than the CBD. Mt. Auburn, Fairview, Clifton, Walnut Hills, East Price Hill that is where the Xers (not so much) and Yers (more likely) will move for the urban experience. I think Mt. Lookout/East End is really more family friendly over the long term than the CBD ever will be or could be.
June 5, 200718 yr igon...a couple quick thoughts I would contend that the majority of Americans choose to live in suburban markets, because that is what's offered. Not to mention, current zoning codes and economic programs are built that facilitate the 'suburban nation' that we are. It is hard to like something that is not offered. When the feds started offering all of the home ownership programs following WWII to promote the "American Dream" this is what happened. People utilized the interstates and the federal programs that encouraged suburban living. The housing trends of American society are MUCH more complex than the simple explanation of "people like the suburbs better because of cheaper land, less crime, better schools, blah, blah blah." There is a deeply rooted history in America that has created this "demand" that we see today. For example...you work for a "large home builder"...the zoning codes in most areas make it very easy for builders to construct suburban tract housing. It is difficult for them to offer anything else. So why fight it?? Just keep the status quo and keep pulling in the $$$. That's fine, but just because the American public is buying the only thing being offered doesn't make it the "preferred" living choice. I would argue that if such federal policies/programs change in the other direction...then you would see Americans gravitating towards urban living.
June 5, 200718 yr Rando, You make some good points, none of which can be argued against...there is a cause and effect of every single policy that the government and social policy that has occurred since the beginning of time, but that creates a society. Like I stated in my post, it would have to take a fundamental shift in American culture to foster true "urban living" but I also would insist that affordability is going to drive demand more than "what developers" provide. Personally, I doubt this shift to an urban life will occur in masse, and I doubt this will really change most what most American's percieve to be the ultimate American Dream. Its too engrained in our culture. Although I'm not a huge fan of many suburban zoning policies that have segrated land uses, and downzoned property to decrease density, I cant help but say that the people who are making these decisions are elected officials who are reacting to the desires of their constituents... If people really didnt like the way the suburbs where developing they'd vote the policy makers out of office. Its a fact..I've been in rezonings where some jackass is objecting to the amount of traffic that will be created in a development of 2.5 units/acre...All this coming from a schmuck living in a community with, gasp, 4 units per acre...We've been voted down because politicians know its what people want. It's embedded in our culture..as are many other ills caused by crappy government policies such as racism, prolifieration of guns, you name it...Only when people demand change at the ballot will these policies evolve. Change however is happening in some areas, and these areas have seen an increased development and demand for "mixed-use" projects; but because our society is they way it is, the market for these communities is still a niche market. People have more choices than ever, now..neotraditional communities are popping up all over the place, and term "mixed-use" developed is more overdone than a hamburger on a grill for 2 hours...(at least in ATL) For now Cincinnati and other cities have to create places that will attract the demographic that is most likely to enjoy "urban living." Only 10 years ago this blog probably wouldnt have existed (even if technology had allowed it) so its gaining traction, but it well never replace the percieved "American Dream" of a nice big house with a piece of dirt in the burbs...so to debate why are the way we are is a mute point. Oh, and cities that have limited sprawl by creating urban growth boundaries, or have natural boundaries preventing overt sprawl (namely NYC, SF, Portland, etc, etc...) have seen property values rise to the point where most working class people have a hard time affording a place to buy, as such migration to more affordable parts of the country (namely sunbelt) have been occurring to give people what they want; a cheap plot of land the raise a family. They only saving grace in these urban cities is immigration from foreigners who have helped to reclaim long neglected neighborhoods...Oh shit, in Cincinnati they dont like immigrants (at least what's percieved)...so they go elsewhere. I'm probably rambling by this point..thanks for reading.
June 5, 200718 yr I have to say that I think there is a vast potential downtown housing market. The property values of Prospect Hill are indicative of that potential. The streetcar will greatly facilitate this development in OTR. It is absurd to believe that a 19th century neighborhood can maintain it's fabric if it's residents are required to own a car. The "superior schools" arguments for the suburbs has always been something of a smokescreen- Cincinnati Public has always had more cutting edge programs (Montessori, Paidiea, Arts, Foreign Language, IB) than any other local public district. You can study Latin for more years at Walnut Hills than you can in the Catholic school system. When people move to the suburbs, it's primarily because they can get more house for their money, or to be closer to their job. And with house sizes growing while lot sizes are shrinking I don't see the "need a yard for the kids" argument holding much water. People don't garden recreationally like they used to. I'm cautiously optimistic.
June 5, 200718 yr Rando, You make some good points, none of which can be argued against...there is a cause and effect of every single policy that the government and social policy that has occurred since the beginning of time, but that creates a society. Like I stated in my post, it would have to take a fundamental shift in American culture to foster true "urban living" but I also would insist that affordability is going to drive demand more than "what developers" provide. Personally, I doubt this shift to an urban life will occur in masse, and I doubt this will really change most what most American's percieve to be the ultimate American Dream. Its too engrained in our culture. Although I'm not a huge fan of many suburban zoning policies that have segrated land uses, and downzoned property to decrease density, I cant help but say that the people who are making these decisions are elected officials who are reacting to the desires of their constituents... If people really didnt like the way the suburbs where developing they'd vote the policy makers out of office. Its a fact..I've been in rezonings where some jackass is objecting to the amount of traffic that will be created in a development of 2.5 units/acre...All this coming from a schmuck living in a community with, gasp, 4 units per acre...We've been voted down because politicians know its what people want. It's embedded in our culture..as are many other ills caused by crappy government policies such as racism, prolifieration of guns, you name it...Only when people demand change at the ballot will these policies evolve. Change however is happening in some areas, and these areas have seen an increased development and demand for "mixed-use" projects; but because our society is they way it is, the market for these communities is still a niche market. People have more choices than ever, now..neotraditional communities are popping up all over the place, and term "mixed-use" developed is more overdone than a hamburger on a grill for 2 hours...(at least in ATL) For now Cincinnati and other cities have to create places that will attract the demographic that is most likely to enjoy "urban living." Only 10 years ago this blog probably wouldnt have existed (even if technology had allowed it) so its gaining traction, but it well never replace the percieved "American Dream" of a nice big house with a piece of dirt in the burbs...so to debate why are the way we are is a mute point. Oh, and cities that have limited sprawl by creating urban growth boundaries, or have natural boundaries preventing overt sprawl (namely NYC, SF, Portland, etc, etc...) have seen property values rise to the point where most working class people have a hard time affording a place to buy, as such migration to more affordable parts of the country (namely sunbelt) have been occurring to give people what they want; a cheap plot of land the raise a family. They only saving grace in these urban cities is immigration from foreigners who have helped to reclaim long neglected neighborhoods...Oh shit, in Cincinnati they dont like immigrants (at least what's percieved)...so they go elsewhere. I'm probably rambling by this point..thanks for reading. I would be happy to at least see neo traditional and mixed use projects 'pop up all over the place' in Cincy and its suburbs. It would sure beat the 1980s and early 1990s development patterns of strip centers, individual office parks and track housing that the local development community seems unable to break away from.
June 6, 200718 yr For those who are members of ULI (Urban Land Institute), check out the latest issue of Urban Land. There is a great article which disputes a lot of what I have said. Very well written and encouraging for supporters of change in the suburbs..If you are not a member, you should join. Great organization..www.uli.org One more thing, as most readers, most recent American development has been driven by ease of transportation, e.g., the automobile. While the development of most European and to some extent older American cities were driven by the need to walk or use street cars to commute, much of America has developed Post WWII where the affordable use of cheap, private cars allowed jobs and residences to relocate further outside cities. In my opinion...if and when the use of automobiles becomes cost prohibitive, we will see mass transition to other types of growth, whether it be mass rail transit or what; only then will the economics justify a substantiative change in lifestyle. As we all know, this has started to occur in some cities.
June 7, 200718 yr The ULI has made some big shifts in thinking. They used to be the people who had the smarts on how to develop shopping centers and subdivisions but seem to have went over to the "New Urbanist" side. would be happy to at least see neo traditional and mixed use projects 'pop up all over the place' in Cincy and its suburbs. It would sure beat the 1980s and early 1990s development patterns of strip centers, individual office parks and track housing that the local development community seems unable to break away from. Suburban developement in Cincinnati is pretty abysmal..the city has some really ugly suburbs. One thinks it would be a bit better than it is..but no. Probably worse in older areas like that Colerain Road strip, or Route 4 between the bypass and Hamilton...those are some truley sucky strip developments that seem to go on forever.
June 7, 200718 yr Oh, and cities that have limited sprawl by creating urban growth boundaries, or have natural boundaries preventing overt sprawl (namely NYC, SF, Portland, etc, etc...) have seen property values rise to the point where most working class people have a hard time affording a place to buy, as such migration to more affordable parts of the country (namely sunbelt) have been occurring to give people what they want; a cheap plot of land the raise a family. In the case of Lexington two things happened. Development went higher density (yet still suburban) and upscale single family. The more mid-range/low-range housing for blue collar folks then happened in the ring of county seat towns surrounding Lexington...like Nicholasville, Winchester, Georgetown (and also industrial development that needed a large SF footprint). Lex became more white collar/service and not really industrial as it used to be (the first wave of growth there after WWII was "branch plants"). So urban growth zoning, in Lexignton, had the effect of causing an "urban region" to develope in the inner Bluegrass, though there is still a lot of farmland there.
June 7, 200718 yr The real problem with cities is the school problem. Until the school systems are a viable option for educating children of the middle class, this will limit their potential. Keep in mind that Chicago, which is building almost 5,000 condos per year downtown and has experienced probably the biggest condo building boom of any city in the US - there are probably more high rise condo towers under construction in Chicago right now that there are total skyscrapers in Cincinnati - is losing population. The influx of the wealthy can't make up for the departure of everyone else. Incidentally, if there is anyplace that might show a path forward for urban schools, it is Chicago. As having kids has become trendy again, Chicago's yuppie neighborhoods are experiencing horrific stroller congestion. Interestingly, a number of people I know there are planning to stay in the city and give the public schools a shot. If a critical mass of educated, affluent people start putting their kids in the local schools, that's probably the best medicine for a turnaround. Those parents will certainly hold the school's feet to the fire. It will be an interesting experiment at least.
June 7, 200718 yr Arren, I agee with you, unfortunately, Cincinnati, like most 3rd tier cities will probably never (or at least for a while) have this occur naturally. The same thing that is occuring in Chicago is occuring in the ATL where I live now. Schools have started to get better because these people care and DEMAND it. Incidentally Arenn, Walnut Hills HS is awesome, and although I cant say for sure, I'd have to imagine that some primary schools in HP / Oakley are probably ok as well. Its my guess that Middles Schools are the big issues, but its also unfortunate that there is only one real respectable high school. Ian
June 7, 200718 yr >Arren, I agee with you, unfortunately, Cincinnati, like most 3rd tier cities will probably never (or at least for a while) have this occur naturally. Brother don't come around here calling Cincinnati a 3rd tier city, especially when you live in Atlanta. Nothing could ever get me to move down there. Second, we have a large number of people on this site who can't pass up a chance to gloat about Walnut Hills. >You can study Latin for more years at Walnut Hills than you can in the Catholic school system. Oh so that makes it better, even though St. X still has four years of Latin and in fact required Latin for all four years until about 1980 when it unfortunately dropped that requirement in favor of "world cultures", "bioethics", and other things that prepare you for how weak college is. But I guess due to the liberal takeover of education 40 years ago Latin might be new again.
June 8, 200718 yr Brother don't come around here calling Cincinnati a 3rd tier city, especially when you live in Atlanta. Nothing could ever get me to move down there. Couldn't have said it better myself. Out of all the cities to choose in the U.S., please do not use the ATL. This is just sad ... http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=atlanta&ie=UTF8&ll=33.766305,-84.38633&spn=0.072636,0.151062&t=k&z=13&om=1
June 8, 200718 yr >Arren, I agee with you, unfortunately, Cincinnati, like most 3rd tier cities will probably never (or at least for a while) have this occur naturally. Brother don't come around here calling Cincinnati a 3rd tier city, especially when you live in Atlanta. Nothing could ever get me to move down there. Second, we have a large number of people on this site who can't pass up a chance to gloat about Walnut Hills. >You can study Latin for more years at Walnut Hills than you can in the Catholic school system. Oh so that makes it better, even though St. X still has four years of Latin and in fact required Latin for all four years until about 1980 when it unfortunately dropped that requirement in favor of "world cultures", "bioethics", and other things that prepare you for how weak college is. But I guess due to the liberal takeover of education 40 years ago Latin might be new again. WHHS was ranked 35th best high school in the U.S. this year according to U.S. News and World Report. I think that says a lot. The course work is extremely demanding. About 4-6 hours a night of studying to get decent grades. The general concensus there was that the Latin was pointless but it is a great way to learn the root of words. Glad I was able to take Spanish instead though.
June 8, 200718 yr I didn't know where else to put this, so mods please feel free to move it if you like. I just did a quick and dirty downtown Cincinnati housing analysis of some of the larger projects going on, here is how the listings break down (active=for sale, pending=contract accepted/presold): Parker Flats: 22 active, 32 pending Lofts at Fountain Square: 9 active, 9 pending The Edge Condos: 23 active, 26 pending Gateway Condos: 7 active 26 E. 6th: 2 active, 1 pending The McAlpin: 43 active, 5 pending (I think all those delays reaaaalllly cost this project some buyers) American Building: 11 active, 2 pending (most active listings are in the $300K range, there is 1 at $900K and 1 at $1.05M) Captains Watch: 6 active, 4 pending (will Towne Properties go forward with CW Phase II very soon?) One River Plaza Phase I: 18 active, 15 pending (when will they pull the trigger?) It works out to a 60/40 split of actives to pendings with a total of 235 listing, not too bad considering the McAlpin drags the whole average down. If you take out the McAlpin, the ratio goes to 52/48. Please discuss!
June 8, 200718 yr Summit Country Day won the state latin convention this year (beating St X. and Walnut) if that means anything! Walnut does offer the most AP's in the city, (followed by SCD actually...)
June 8, 200718 yr Court Street brainstorming Entrepreneurs share revitalization ideas About three dozen community leaders, politicians and business executives got a taste of Court Street on a blocklong tour Thursday afternoon, and Marco Ollino, the 29-year-old Estonia native and owner of the Passage Café, hopes they will remember this: "We need to create something that resembles Europe," said Ollino, who opened his restaurant 1½ years ago, "a fresh market that is open late, someplace for students to go, maybe a block party for people who live along Court Street or own businesses here." The challenges and opportunities for struggling businesses along historic Court Street just north of downtown's central business district were the focus of the third annual small business tour and roundtable sponsored by Downtown Cincinnati Inc. David N. Ginsburg, president and chief executive of DCI, sees the stretch of small businesses, which includes a meat market, art gallery, pastry shop and bookstore of first editions and photographs, as a pocket business district with plenty of potential. Read full article here: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070608/BIZ01/706080342/1076/BIZ
June 8, 200718 yr ^ I would love to see Court St. revitalized. It is so neat during the afternoon Monday through Friday. I would love to see this continue through the evenings and on weekends.
June 8, 200718 yr Walking on Court Street nearly every day now that I live around the corner it really is a great street. Huge potential. Especially the block between Vine & Walnut. Once a streetcar goes down Walnut I think the parking lots on the east side of Walnut, north and south of Court, will hopefully be developed. Passage Cafe is open late and on weekends. And there is a new chicken place or something next to Chambers. I need to get the name. It was in the Downtowner I think.
June 8, 200718 yr KMK renews downtown lease Law firm Keating, Muething & Klekamp announced Thursday that it will extend its lease downtown at 1 East 4th Street until 2014. The Courier reported in February that the law firm was examining options to move from its eight floors in the building, formerly called the Provident Building, to space that could accommodate 20 percent growth over the next few years. Read full article here: http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/06/04/daily49.html
June 8, 200718 yr Well, I am glad they are staying downtown, but I would have loved to have seen them anchor a new building!
June 14, 200718 yr Hey, some other people are starting to realize...damn Downtown really does have a lot going on! We aren't a bunch of loonies on here after all. Are we catching the 'next wave'? For a city whose residents keep griping about a long-term decline, Cincinnati seems to have plenty of irons in the development fire right now. This week's announcement that Western & Southern Financial Group is reviving its long-dormant plan for a major downtown office tower is just the latest in a list of projects and proposals that could transform our region's core. "It's time for the next wave" of downtown development, said John Barrett, chairman and chief executive of Western & Southern, about his firm's proposed Queen City Square. He was talking specifically about the office-space building cycle, yet it could be taken in a broader sense. That's a tantalizing proposition to those who have a stake in the city's vitality. But is it mostly talk, or are we on the brink of an urban renaissance? Read full article here: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070613/EDIT01/706130317/1090
June 14, 200718 yr Second, we have a large number of people on this site who can't pass up a chance to gloat about Walnut Hills. >You can study Latin for more years at Walnut Hills than you can in the Catholic school system. Oh so that makes it better, even though St. X still has four years of Latin and in fact required Latin for all four years until about 1980 when it unfortunately dropped that requirement in favor of "world cultures", "bioethics", and other things that prepare you for how weak college is. But I guess due to the liberal takeover of education 40 years ago Latin might be new again. The point I was trying to make was that the whole idea that middle class or wealthy folks move to the suburbs for better schools is patently ridiculous. CPS offers more diverse programs than any other school district in the area- if your concerned about the best approach for teaching your child, CPS offers the most choice. But middle class and wealthy people move out of the city because they can get more house for their money, or to be closer to their jobs, etc. I suppose I was digging on the Catholic school system when I mentioned that Walnut Hills requires and offers more Latin than any Catholic school. So yes, it does make Walnut Hills better than St. X, and by your own standards. St. Xavier has a lot to offer the adolescent boy, particularly by providing an environment that encourages the more erratic youngster to discipline and apply oneself to their education. It is a very good school. But you've correctly criticized it in your statement above. The Catholic Church is certainly one for instruction they consider supremely relevent and timeless, and the Ratio Studiorum as created by the Jesuits is a good guide to that. The fact that after 1980 the school dropped portions of it's curriculum that were once considered essential belies the fact that St. X has changed its original purpose and become merely a home for the wealthy. It's incredible tuition increase over a similar time frame gives support to that fact.
June 14, 200718 yr It has to do purely with status. Everyone has to be the model parent. You simply aren't that by sending your kid to an inner city school full of black kids and less qualified teachers (most quality teachers avoid inner city schools like the plague...probably for the same reason, status). St. X, Moeller, Summit, Elder, Mercy, ...Cinci Country Day (for the ultra elite Indian Hill resident evading a situation that would require them to be among the only moderately rich). Its all about status. Ignorant people equate spending more money with higher quality. They use the same logic to defend themselves when joining frats (It looks oh-so-great on a resume!). Pshh... No, you know what looks great on a resume? SKILLS. Knowing three foreign languages. I would argue that its a bigger issue than just schools. How many young professionals living in Over-the-Rhine are really a part of the overall OTR community? For one thing, if you look up the data, they're all concentrated around Main street. If they were literally forced to interact and adhere to the same quality of life as the dope dealer, the same way kids in a school setting recieve the same quality education, then they simply would never live there. To get back on topic though, Cincinnati has but a few quality public schools, SCPA and Walnut, but they drain the city of its smart and creative students, leaving the rest to struggle and decay. You see cheap attempts to make the inner city schools appear to be better with uniform requirements and "university" attached to the name of the highschool. Its kinda sad. Basically, there are a few inner city public schools that are good, and in fact better than most private schools, but overall I think catholic schools are overrated.
June 14, 200718 yr >St. Xavier has a lot to offer the adolescent boy, particularly by providing an environment that encourages the more erratic youngster to discipline and apply oneself to their education. It is a very good school. But you've correctly criticized it in your statement above. The Catholic Church is certainly one for instruction they consider supremely relevent and timeless, and the Ratio Studiorum as created by the Jesuits is a good guide to that. The fact that after 1980 the school dropped portions of it's curriculum that were once considered essential belies the fact that St. X has changed its original purpose and become merely a home for the wealthy. It's incredible tuition increase over a similar time frame gives support to that fact. The disgusting tuition increases and expansions of the physical plant are the primary reasons why I don't pay attention the the goings-on at the school. And that's without even looking into what they're teaching now. Backpeddling a bit, during the period 1970-1990 all catholic schools across the nation experienced a dramatic drop in the number of priests and nuns teaching. Their expenses obviously increased while hiring lay teachers and now they're stuck paying pensions for many more lay teachers from the 70's and 80's and its only going to get worse as 99% lay faculties and staffs retire and live on average for 30 more years. To illustrate this, around 1990 St. Xavier renovated what was known as the Jesuit Wing from a residence for the dozens of Jesuit priests who used to staff the school into classrooms. A new freestanding house was built nearby with 13 bedrooms and around 1992 there were still 8 or so priests living there. Now they're down to maybe 3 with a big empty house to pay for. Also the big difference between St. X and the private schools you mentioned is that St. X is primarily a west side school. It draws well over 50% of its students from College Hill on over (Forest Park, Hamilton, even Batesville and Rising Sun, IN) with only a sprinkling of people from Hyde Park and Indian Hill. In fact I didn't even know anyone who lived over there. I never even saw Hyde Park Square until I was 19 or 20. The only east siders I knew lived in Anderson Twp or Loveland. There were also a fair number of people from Kentucky and in fact when the school was downtown for a period 1/3 of the student population was from Kentucky. 1 or 2 people from the nice part of Clifton and North Avondale. Ursula and Ursuline? East side schools.
June 14, 200718 yr Backpeddling a bit, during the period 1970-1990 all catholic schools across the nation experienced a dramatic drop in the number of priests and nuns teaching. Their expenses obviously increased while hiring lay teachers and now they're stuck paying pensions for many more lay teachers from the 70's and 80's and its only going to get worse as 99% lay faculties and staffs retire and live on average for 30 more years. My dad, a St. X grad, said essentially the same thing, that the school changed when they stopped having the scholastics (priests in training) manning the faculty. Without this essentially free faculty, costs rose. But I also believe that with the rise of confessional choice, and the stigma against Catholics that disappeared pretty quickly after the 60s, leadership of the school made a conscious decision to market the school as a premier private school, a la Cincinnati Country Day, etc. St. X has some pretty strong alumni loyalty, guys who give a lot of money, money that could go into keeping the tuition down. But then again, why not make those who can afford it pay the full rate? That's why Harvard does it. But you can't help but losing something of value to gain that type of liquidity. Also the big difference between St. X and the private schools you mentioned is that St. X is primarily a west side school. It draws well over 50% of its students from College Hill on over (Forest Park, Hamilton, even Batesville and Rising Sun, IN) with only a sprinkling of people from Hyde Park and Indian Hill. In fact I didn't even know anyone who lived over there. I never even saw Hyde Park Square until I was 19 or 20. The only east siders I knew lived in Anderson Twp or Loveland. There were also a fair number of people from Kentucky and in fact when the school was downtown for a period 1/3 of the student population was from Kentucky. 1 or 2 people from the nice part of Clifton and North Avondale. I can't say that this has been my experience. I know a lot of guys who went to X, and all but one of them were from the East Side of town (coincidentally, that one was from Batesville, IN). Definitely knew plenty of guys who went to X from the Hyde Park/Mt. Lookout area.
June 14, 200718 yr I'm with LK as to the fact that CPS actually has some decent schools that the middle class can thrive in. My sense is that the weakness is getting students to 'Nut outside of the Montessori system. From talking to parents who had children in CPS, the feeder system is pretty hit and miss. I've actually chatted with a number of parents from the suburbs who have children that really want to go Walnut Hills instead of their suburban high school (well each was in a first ring suburb, like North College Hill). I'm okay with letting the middle class shield their children from the more challenging aspects of big city school systems, when that doesn't happen cities decline much more quickly. JMeck, there were actually quite a lot of us at St. X from the east side, such as the person who sat behind you in Geza's class freshman year. We ESers mostly just tried to avoid the WSers. I do agree that StX moved too far away from its classical form of education as it become of school for the rich. The power of parochial schools should be in their religious identity and purpose rather than their ability to make you or your progeny rich. You mean LK and Flick didn't go to St. X. No way.
June 14, 200718 yr WHHS was ranked 35th best high school in the U.S. this year according to U.S. News and World Report. And with such distinguished alumni as Stan Chesley and Michael Redmond Walnut was and is a truly great school Are we catching the 'next wave'? Can[Has] Cincinnati reach[ed] the "critical mass" needed for a true urban boom? Just a bit of editing. I do not see things slowing down and with the success of Gateway II, there is all the reason in the world to continue on.
June 14, 200718 yr >JMeck, there were actually quite a lot of us at St. X from the east side, such as the person who sat behind you in Geza's class freshman year. Merkowitz, I'd tread lightly around here as I have some video footage of you predicting a Steve Forbes rout in '96. While wearing a plaid suit. >We ESers mostly just tried to avoid the WSers. I do agree that StX moved too far away from its classical form of education as it become of school for the rich. The power of parochial schools should be in their religious identity and purpose rather than their ability to make you or your progeny rich. Well I don't know about your kind but people definitely weren't rich in my area and if they were you didn't know it. St. X was nothing like a WASP prep school, that's for sure. I remember when Mr. Parmentier cancelled the 70's liesure suit day, and that was in 1992. He'd been having it since like 1987. It's hilarious how St. X beat the nationwide 70's retro trend by a full decade. Those Ursuline girls were rich, though.
June 14, 200718 yr For the ATL haters (JMeck), I have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of infill and urban development occuring in this city having lived in Hoboken, Washington DC, Cincinnati (5 Years), San Jose, Madison, WI, and Charlotte and now ATL for 1.5 years Yes, it's a suburban mess, but the infill is something to desired, especially by a city like Cincinnati. The inward migration of families is very impressive. Many people feel the same way about Cincinnati as you feel about ATL; and honestly, most given the option (especially people in our Gen X demographic) would probably move to Atlanta. And yes, as far a US importance goes, I'd give Cincinnati a 3rd tier ranking. My opinion... For example: Tier One NYC, LA, SF, CHI, DC Tier Two BOS, ATL, DAL, PHL, SEA, HOU, MIA, SD, etc Tier Three CIN, CLE, DET, STL, CLT, so on and so forth...
June 14, 200718 yr For the ATL haters (JMeck), I have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of infill and urban development occuring in this city having lived in Hoboken, Washington DC, Cincinnati (5 Years), San Jose, Madison, WI, and Charlotte and now ATL for 1.5 years Yes, it's a suburban mess, but the infill is something to desired, especially by a city like Cincinnati. The inward migration of families is very impressive. Many people feel the same way about Cincinnati as you feel about ATL; and honestly, most given the option (especially people in our Gen X demographic) would probably move to Atlanta. And yes, as far a US importance goes, I'd give Cincinnati a 3rd tier ranking. My opinion... For example: Tier One NYC, LA, SF, CHI, DC Tier Two BOS, ATL, DAL, PHL, SEA, HOU, MIA, SD, etc Tier Three CIN, CLE, DET, STL, CLT, so on and so forth... By US importance do you mean GDP by metro area? Theres already a thread with that data. Even if Cincinnati is a third tier city regarding "US importance" thats no indication of "quality of life". Just keep reminding yourself of Atlanta's US importance every time you're stuck in traffic for and hour and a half trying to get from downtown to Alpharetta.
June 14, 200718 yr By US importance do you mean GDP by metro area? Theres already a thread with that data. Even if Cincinnati is a third tier city regarding "US importance" thats no indication of "quality of life". Just keep reminding yourself of Atlanta's US importance every time you're stuck in traffic for and hour and a half trying to get from downtown to Alpharetta. Sh!t...I'm going to be living in Alpharetta, and I hate driving! I spent 1 day driving around in the Alpharetta area, and the drivers in ATL are a-holes for no good reason. It's not like it's NYC or Chicago for craps sake...so quit driving like it's the damn Indy 500 please!
June 14, 200718 yr David, If you read back in the thread you will find that I'm responding to a comment from someone else to my comment about 3rd tier cities such as Cincinnati having a hard time attract "urban dwellers and people who will risk sending their kids to city school." At which point he mocked calling Cincinnati a 3rd tier city. This is why blogs suck; It seems like someone is always jumping into a conversation that half finished and expecting to know what people have been talking about for the past hour...I'm probably guilty of it myself. Like every city, there's a trade off. Personally, I love what Cincinnati could be, its natural beauty and for the most part, the people...but I'll take the economic prosperity of Atlanta or any other sunbelt city for that matter... The same goes with living in Manhattan. A great city of course, but I would think that living in Manhattan is a real pain in ass. Going to the airport's a pain in the ass, the cost of living is a pain in the ass, or Chicago, shit, standing on the El platform at 7:00AM in January is a real pain in the ass, but a lot of people do it...It just depends on how they choose to prioritize their life. I'll take my 1/2 hour reverse commute in the AM and 1 hr PM drive in exchange for opportunities that exist in ATL and not in CVG as well as the pleasant winters. Just my own personal trade off; and it would seem the 125,000 + who move to Greater Atlanta every year. If I worked downtown like my wife, I'd have a mile commute...so not everyone sits in traffic for an hour and a half. I wasnt thrilled to move here from Charlotte, but as an "urban" fan, I've been absolutely amazed by the neighborhoods in this city and the revitalization occuring...
June 14, 200718 yr Can we please keep this thread on topic...if you wish to continue the penis contest between Cincinnati and Atlanta, can you at least do it through PM? The two cities are COMPLETELY different breeds and its like comparing apples to oranges. Hopefully we can get back to the discussion about the current state of Downtown Cincinnati. I also plead that this ridiculous conversation about Walnut Hills, St. X, etc stops as well. Create another darn thread for this convo if you so choose to continue it. All of these discussions are just getting out of hand.
June 15, 200718 yr Randy, I agree that the ATL vs the CVG has nothing to do with the state of downtown, but the thread has taken on a life of its own; I guess its only natural that the thread will evolve as more people respond with their own takes why things are the way they are...
June 15, 200718 yr 3rd tier seems about right for cincinnati, but for 1.5 million in manhattan you get a 2 bedroom condo/apt. In cincinnati 1.5 million gets you the 15th, 16th and 17th floors of the american building totaling about 6000 sq ft with four parking spaces. Its a question of values, do you want to live in the capital of the world and work 60 hrs to get by or work in cincy and work 40 hrs to live comfortably. The state of downtown is getting better. we need to keep working because we aren't across the finish line yet, but hey you have opportunities in cincinnati you would never have in nyc, atl or other places. do you want to be a big fish in a little pond or the other way around. thats the real question. by the way atlanta's northwestern suburbs are a vicious wasteland of stripmalls and the nuevo riche.
Create an account or sign in to comment