Where are all these mixed-income neighborhoods that we are supposed to be modeling after?  There certainly aren't many examples of millionaires and section 8'ers living in the same building, if there are any at all.  Where are the neighborhoods with mansions and trailers living in harmony, side-by-side?  The only example I can think of is Kato freeloading in OJ's guest house.

 

OJ's guest house wasn't a trailer, it had a permanent foundation.  If you went for a walk on Dexter Avenue in Walnut Hills and then walked a block on Wold and then walked up and down Fairfax you'd see some pretty tony 6 figure homes quickly dissolve into shit-brick apartments.  Other areas where this occurs include Avondale & Clifton.  Maybe you haven't seen this sort of thing because maybe it doesn't happen on the West Side.  The new City West development also does a good job of providing a place for all income types, though their are probably few millionaires there, but perhaps you were being facetious about that.  Certainly a millionaire could afford a place down there if he or she was interested.  That's why it's the utopic Cincinnati community par excellance, because a space is provided for all.

 

I certainly would like if they had a few dozen studio apartments for $450/mo., and in fact there are always some for that price somewhere in the CBD.  They are not very big or nice apartments, but if you want to go try and get a loan and buy a parcel down there and build a utopic apartment building and lose a lot of money, it's a free country.

 

Well, I could write a pretty lengthy response to this, but one of the more obvious points is that hard-nosed realist thinking like yours is so self-evident that it doesn't really need to explain itself, or even address the topic.  Let's just say that if the goal of a development project such as the Banks is to pay off debts, than the County should just present it as such.  If the goal is to attract a different type of purchaser than those who are being marketed to by private firms at the essentially adjacent new condos on Eastern Avenue and 4th Street, then there needs to be a lot more planning and expenditure involved.

Where are all these mixed-income neighborhoods that we are supposed to be modeling after?  There certainly aren't many examples of millionaires and section 8'ers living in the same building, if there are any at all.  Where are the neighborhoods with mansions and trailers living in harmony, side-by-side?  The only example I can think of is Kato freeloading in OJ's guest house. 

 

Lets not be obnoxious here jmeck.  A mixed income neighborhood is not directed at either end of the spectrum really.  It is not geared towards the homeless (obviously) nor is it geared towards millionares.  There is a massive middle-ground in the United States, and most developed nations, that is being looked at.

 

For examples of mixed-income neighborhoods....google 'Hope VI'.  This program is designed to mix neighborhoods with both upper middle class residents with lower middle class to lower income residents.  Therefore you have someone living in a unit that is subsidized by the govt right next to someone who has paid $200-300,000 for a condo.  Mixed-income neighborhoods, across the nation, have thus far proven to be successful in terms of viability.  I would love to see the Banks be a mixed-income neighborhood with a variety of people so that way you could be happy jmeck that we dont create this yuppyville down along the river that doesnt represent our city.  You of all people seem like you would be in favor of this type of thing.

You guys seriously think the housing on The Banks should be lower-middle class? Look at typical projects..they're not exactly nice looking buildings. The cheaper these condos are, the more likely they are to become section 8 eventually. I assumed most highrises were pretty expensive because of the cost of construction and mainaining it since most things in this country have to be competatively priced I don't understand how there could be a big mark-up.

This is not geared towards anyone inparticular, but rather an UR vent

 

This is a simple matter of your moral position on urban developments and developments in general.  Growing up in the 'burbs I have seen first hand the segregation by design that occurs.  This kind of segregation of people is unhealthy for society...people often lack knowledge of the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum and then just stay couped up in their own world.  I look back wishing that I had experienced different people with different backgrounds (from mine).

 

IMO, diversity should be embraced...reguardless of the location and/or land value.  If people do not naturally mix with one another...then developments/projects should force them together.  Its similar to when you were younger and all you wanted to do was eat candy...or not do your schoolwork.  Sometimes the right thing must be forced, and then looking back you realize it was the correct thing to do....even if it was not easy at the time.

 

The Banks, or any project, can be successful with a healthy mix of people with different economic standings.  This will not only diversify the neighborhood economically, but in our society, it will most often diversify the neighborhood racially as well.  Until we change the pattern of segregated neighborhoods throughout our country, then the pattern of racism and discrimination will continue.

 

END DISCRIMINATION NOW!!!!

I think some people need to leave the Cincinnati bubble for a weekend.  Affordable housing on the most prime real estate in Cincinnati is a joke.  While I would love affordable housing so I for one could purchase a condo between the two ballparks, in reality this land is usually reserved for exclusive people with money.  That is life all over the world. 

 

Spending this weekend in Chicago makes me hope and pray we get something close to Millennium Park on our riverfront.  Watching people stair at themselves for hours through that reflective bean makes me realize that it might be the most brillant piece of public art I have ever seem.

 

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a comment in general.

This is not geared towards anyone inparticular, but rather an UR vent

 

This is a simple matter of your moral position on urban developments and developments in general.  Growing up in the 'burbs I have seen first hand the segregation by design that occurs.  This kind of segregation of people is unhealthy for society...people often lack knowledge of the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum and then just stay couped up in their own world.  I look back wishing that I had experienced different people with different backgrounds (from mine).

 

IMO, diversity should be embraced...reguardless of the location and/or land value.  If people do not naturally mix with one another...then developments/projects should force them together.  Its similar to when you were younger and all you wanted to do was eat candy...or not do your schoolwork.  Sometimes the right thing must be forced, and then looking back you realize it was the correct thing to do....even if it was not easy at the time.

 

The Banks, or any project, can be successful with a healthy mix of people with different economic standings.  This will not only diversify the neighborhood economically, but in our society, it will most often diversify the neighborhood racially as well.  Until we change the pattern of segregated neighborhoods throughout our country, then the pattern of racism and discrimination will continue.

 

END DISCRIMINATION NOW!!!!

I would love to live in an area that is racially and economically diverse too. But I only pay 430 a month for an apartment in Clifton for a REASON. This building is old, they don't have high standards for their tenants, my kitchen hasn't been updated since the 50s, my bathroom has room for 1 person to stand and the bathroom sink is part of the bedroom. I learned first hand that you can only rent nice property to more responsible (usually higher earning people) when I went to check on my parents really nice property that they allowed section 8 for, only to discover the front door was off its hinges, walls written on, mold growing all throughout the fridge, microwave broken, paint chipped on the outside--all this damage done in ONE MONTH OF RESIDENCE. Economics and basic human psychology wouldn't allow your ideology to work most of the time.

I think some people need to leave the Cincinnati bubble for a weekend.  Affordable housing on the most prime real estate in Cincinnati is a joke.  While I would love affordable housing so I for one could purchase a condo between the two ballparks, in reality this land is usually reserved for exclusive people with money.  That is life all over the world.

 

Totally.  I've resigned my fact that this development - like all other waterfront developments in this city - will be Yuppieville. 

 

That is fine by me, as long is it is not exclusionary as far as access goes.  I don't want a place that makes me feel like I don't belong or that I'm trespassing when I visit.  If this were going to be some self-contained, gated "neighborhood" like Riverfront Terrace, then I would be pissed.

 

My hope is that affordable housing is created in the adjacent neighborhoods, most notably Over-the-Rhine.  I don't think anyone who's on a budget is going to get anywhere near the water.

 

Our Opinion

Let's get off back of Banks group

Cincinnati Business Courier - May 26, 2006

 

 

How about if everyone in Greater Cincinnati would let the Banks Working Group do its job?

 

In other words, we think everyone -- and that really means everyone, from Cincinnati City Council to the Hamilton County Commission and every community group and individual in between -- needs to stop the nitpicking, nay-saying and general backbiting that's going on about the makeup and the work of the Banks Working Group.

 

Full story text is available at

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/05/29/editorial1.html

Totally.  I've resigned my fact that this development - like all other waterfront developments in this city - will be Yuppieville... My hope is that affordable housing is created in the adjacent neighborhoods, most notably Over-the-Rhine.  I don't think anyone who's on a budget is going to get anywhere near the water.

 

If it is a raw cost/benefit analysis we are concerned about, then I think we can all agree that building from scratch on bare land is less expensive than rehabbing a 100+ year old building.  That's why when they did urban renewal in the 1940's and 50's, they tore down virtually the entire West End (which was filled with buildings like you find in Over-the-Rhine) and rebuilt anew, albeit for the same tenants.  And then they recently tore down those old projects and built City West.

 

People keep referring to the Banks as, "the most prime real estate in Cincinnati".  Assuming this is true, what does it actually matter?  The city/county government has owned this property for at least four years (according to the auditor's website), probably longer.  So it's not inherently valuable enough for anything to have happened in the past four years.  And what was there when the real estate was privately owned?  A bunch of parking lots, produce warehouses, Caddy's, the Old Spaghetti Factory, a bar called O'Flanagan's (I think that was the name) and a Skyline Chili.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was all.  Maybe a Coca-Cola bottling plant as well, but I'm pretty sure they moved that out to Madisonville way before the Banks/Stadiums project was even conceived.

 

What does all this mean, economically speaking?  Simply that the only reason this real estate has the potential to be "prime" is because of the value added that only the government can bring.  Private capital alone is not capable, or simply unwilling to bring what we all consider the acreage's potential to be.  That's why the Corporex/Vandecar deal fell through.

 

Once again, I come back to this point.  With the Madison/Marquette McAlpin's development on Fourth Street, and the Towne Properties Twain's Pointe etc. developments that are slowly snaking their way down Eastern Avenue, the potential "yuppie" or "millionaire" or whatever you want to call them purchaser has options for both Riverfront living and urban living.  All this development is being done by private firms with private capital.  So is it really that inevitable that Banks cater to this group?  Is it really in the best interest of the County to market this public resource to this group?  Is this group of potential buyers even large enough to sustain the purchases required for this massive new development when they have these other choices available?  Is it in the interest of the County to cannibalize this existing private sector market with public funds?  Why not provide an opportunity for low-income buyers, single parent families, or first time home buyers to live in this area?

^Why would the government subsidize luxury living? I think a lot of people would be outraged. Person X living beyond his means will want in on it to and have his hand extended. Pretty soon everyone will be bitching that they can't live on the river in a nice new development while some people with the same economic status can.

I think some people need to leave the Cincinnati bubble for a weekend.  Affordable housing on the most prime real estate in Cincinnati is a joke.  While I would love affordable housing so I for one could purchase a condo between the two ballparks, in reality this land is usually reserved for exclusive people with money.  That is life all over the world. 

 

Spending this weekend in Chicago makes me hope and pray we get something close to Millennium Park on our riverfront.  Watching people stair at themselves for hours through that reflective bean makes me realize that it might be the most brillant piece of public art I have ever seem.

 

This is not a very good example in terms of developments.  Chicago has often been refered to as the displacement/gentrification capital of the US.  This is in terms of their lakefront development that has literally displaced thousands of low-income residents in return for 'more desireable' residents that have money.  I would hope that we would not look to Chicago (or most US cities), but rather European models for our own kinds of diverse developments that embrace all walks of life.

ive never been to europe but arent most euro. cities divided economically just as American cities are, its just that, in Euro. the rich and poor are divided by neighborhoods because of their property rights controls due to small country size and not by city v. suburbs?

Capitolism, anyone?  It's a pretty good concept.

Capitalism's pretty great too. ;)

Well if you guys are able to influence some affordable condo's down there let me know because I will be in line for mine.  I really want to invest in a place downtown and I can't think of a better location. Baseball, Football, Fireworks o' my...

I don't think anyone could find anything for less then 200K in the CBD. Parker Flats really grab my attention, but it's still a bit beyond my reach. And to expect to find that at a premier space as The Banks is a bit unrealistic. If diversity is what your looking for, City West seems to be the best of both worlds.

Well if you guys are able to influence some affordable condo's down there let me know because I will be in line for mine.  I really want to invest in a place downtown and I can't think of a better location. Baseball, Football, Fireworks o' my...

 

As would most young people...but why would officials want to try to attract the young/creative class downtown.  They have those aging baby boomers that are looking for places to live...so why even bother with those young punks.....right?

Usually I find the place to be silly, but the cincinnatibeacon.com website has had some interesting contributions from Todd Portune and Chris Bortz about the Banks.

 

Especially this one:

 

http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/magaddiction/comments/chris_bortz_too_soon_for_to_choose_a_developer_for_the_banks/

 

In his follow-up comment, he states:

 

"The Banks should attract a younger buyer who will need a lower price point.  Average sale price will also drop to ensure a mixed-income community."

 

Go read that link, it's interesting.

Good response by Chris Bortz, he is one of the smartest and most common sense councilmen.

Capitalism's pretty great too. ;)

 

No, uh... see... I meant... uh, we should all live in Columbus!  Yeah, that's it... Columbus!!!

 

I'm an idiot.

"The Banks should attract a younger buyer who will need a lower price point.  Average sale price will also drop to ensure a mixed-income community."

 

No it won't.  It will be market based, just like Loveland, just like Hamilton, just like Florence, just like west chester, just like...

Capitalism's pretty great too. ;)

 

No, uh... see... I meant... uh, we should all live in Columbus!  Yeah, that's it... Columbus!!!

 

I'm an idiot.

Capitalism's pretty great too. ;)

 

No, uh... see... I meant... uh, we should all live in Columbus!  Yeah, that's it... Columbus!!!

 

I'm an idiot.

 

Don't tell anyone but Columbus is more dangerous than Cincinnati.

No it won't.  It will be market based, just like Loveland, just like Hamilton, just like Florence, just like west chester, just like...

 

I'm sorry...but are you comparing Cincinnati and the Banks development to Loveland....Hamilton....Florence....and WC?!?!?!?  I'm pretty sure, with the exception of Hamilton (little growth), that these communities are limited to subdivisions and big box developments...they really have no say in what occurs there, which is why you see the growth that you do in these locations.

 

Please dont ever compare Cincinnati to LOVELAND again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^ I dont think hes comparing the developments of the places, hes just saying it will be market driven just like the suburban markets ask for big box and sprawl, etc. 

Ditto what Atlas said.

>Fairfax you'd see some pretty tony 6 figure homes quickly dissolve into shit-brick apartments.  Other areas where this occurs include Avondale & Clifton. 

 

I used to live on Vine St., right where you're talking about.  I know all about that, but the fact is communities are center much more around churches, schools, organizations, hobbies, and dog parks than they are by physical proximity and street activity.  There is no shortage of community out in the country, where there are no sidewalks, yet the biggest and most active cities can actually be much more lonely.  These rich and relatively poor people live nearby in Clifton & Avondale, but they have little to do with each other.  Across national borders, economic class often has more to do with cultural similarity than does nationality.  It's like the old analogy where officers of opposing armies have more in common with each other than the troops they command.       

 

 

>Maybe you haven't seen this sort of thing because maybe it doesn't happen on the West Side.

 

The west side rules, you're all just jealous. 

 

 

>to attract a different type of purchaser than those who are being marketed to by private firms at the essentially adjacent new condos on Eastern Avenue and 4th Street, then there needs to be a lot more planning and expenditure involved.

 

If it were up to me each one of those blocks would be divided into 4 or 8 parcels and individual developers would build whatever the hell they think will work on their parcel, there would be little aesthetic or zoning regulation.  If it takes 20 years for it to be built out, so be it.       

 

 

 

^ I dont think hes comparing the developments of the places, hes just saying it will be market driven just like the suburban markets ask for big box and sprawl, etc. 

 

It's already not market driven. We're subsidising the per unit cost. The market has driven parking lots, and before that produce stands, the Old Spaghetti Factory, and Caddy's.

 

>to attract a different type of purchaser than those who are being marketed to by private firms at the essentially adjacent new condos on Eastern Avenue and 4th Street, then there needs to be a lot more planning and expenditure involved.

 

If it were up to me each one of those blocks would be divided into 4 or 8 parcels and individual developers would build whatever the hell they think will work on their parcel, there would be little aesthetic or zoning regulation.  If it takes 20 years for it to be built out, so be it.       

 

 

Bortz states (and since he's something of a development insider, I suspect he knows) that the market for the empty nester is reaching a saturation point. I think he feels that the $400k and up asking prices aren't going to be realistic. Besides, if nothing but people who can afford half a mil for a condo live there, it's not going to be the kind of place you want to visit.

Dissapointing to say the least..... :|

 

Playhouse to stay in the park

By Jerry Stein

Post contributor

 

 

The Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park has opted to build its new theater in Eden Park.

 

The board of the Mount Adams regional theater has decided to begin the process of launching a capital campaign to build a new theater at its current site in the park.

 

Full story text is available at

www.cincypost.com

Three venues...that's what Stratford, Ontario has for their Shakespeare Festival.  That town is built on that festival (and it's a gorgeous town, wonderful theater, fantastic way to spend a long weekend)...I wonder if they might get something like that going here - run a coordinated festival with maybe six shows running in the three venues...only issue would be hotel space nearby - in Stratford, you stay at a hotel or B&B in town, park your car, and walk everywhere.  That wouldn't be very practical in Mt. Adams...but that's easily solved with public transit...

I attended an event last Wednesday (May 31, 2006) at the Mercantile library. The event was a discussion by "Mayor Mark Mallory and Buck Niehoff, founder of the University of Cincinnati's Niehoff Urban Design Studio, on how Cincinnati might develop its potential through its architecture".

 

During his opening remarks prior to introducing the mayor, Buck Niehoff sited the inclusion of Over-the-Rhine to the National Trust's list of 11 Endangered places (see http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=7357.msg101672#msg101672 for details). As part of his remarks, (and I'm paraphrasing heavily), he basically called for for a re-prioritization by the city to focus on the of the revitalization of OTR over the development of the banks. One reason he gave for this was that the deterioration of OTR negatively impacts the entire city.

 

My personal concerns:

 

• We have to solve the crime and blight problems in OTR in order to maintain a viable downtown that can continue to attract new residents and visitors.
  
• I'm concerned that trying to revitalize the central business district (ie the Fountain Square redevelopment), OTR, and development of the banks will result in three key areas fighting for the same potential residents, and entertainment and dining venues, resulting in three downtown areas struggling to reach a critical mass needed to keep the areas economically healthy.
  

 

I wonder if we're trying to do too much at once.

 

Is anyone else worried about this?

 

I am.  My strictly unschooled opinion is that although the space between the stadiums is essentially an eye sore (welcome Cirque de Soliel) it is too far away from the CBD and OTR to be create a synergy (unless they cover the Ft. Washington expressway there).  So my cup-half-empty side says concentrate all warp drives on CBD and OTR, but my cup-half-full side says it's not a zero sum situation and the combination of ALL of that activity would draw more residents in total.  Add all the activity in N.Ky. (Ascent, etc.) and you HAVE to worry about over saturation......  don't-cha?

No, it's a synergy.  The more people you attract to downtown/OTR/NKY, the more people will want to come to downtown/OTR/NKY...at least that's what I've always thought - and hoped...

Someone mentioned that we don't have a centralized nightlife or entertainment scene. Centralizing anything really changes the perception. If you see an extremely crime ridden block you think of that general area as being really bad. If you see nothing but bars, clubs, and restaurants downtown on a particular street that naturally have a constant inflow and outflow of people then people think wow downtown is really jumping.

 

The fact is that you have to develop everything at once.  It's not in the City or the County's power to develop what they want, when they want it, simply because there are other entities involved, mostly state and federal, but also private investors, the world economy, and, particularly in OTR, the passage of time.  But if I had to prioritize, I would do it like this:

 

1)  Build the below ground parking garages on the Banks

2)  Cap Fort Washington Way according to plan

3)  Put in Streetcar lines that connect Clifton/Zoo-UC-OTR-Downtown-Banks

4)  Start rehabbing buildings in OTR around those lines

5)  Build the section of the Banks between the Freedom Center and the Reds Ballpark

6)  Fix up Short Vine

7)  More OTR

8)  The rest of the Banks

9)  More Public Transit

10) More OTR

 

Or something like that.

I don't know why that damn smiley face with sunglasses came up when I where I wrote the number eight.

The main push for the Banks (instead of OTR) is perception.  The city, and downtown in particular, is trying to win over the suburbanites.  Guess where these individuals go when they venture into the city.  They go to work and mingle near Fountain Square and possibly do some daytime shopping.  Other than that they come down for events (Reds, Bengals, fundraising walks, festivals, concerts, dining).  All of these things, that they attend, are located in the CBD not OTR.

 

When those individuals come down for an event...officials would like them to be wowed and impressed with what the city has to offer.  The hole in the ground between the stadiums doesnt wow...nor did the dated concrete mess of Fountain Square.  Whether you agree with the priority of pleasing suburbanites first is your opinion, but it appears to be the stance for the city.  It where the $'s at.

I think it's a mistake to focus on the City.  This whole obsession with the Banks is County driven.  The media's recent focus on the Banks development began when the County announced their surprise deal with Convergys and Vandercar last year.  The City basically acquiesed in that deal, essentially because no one was thinking about the Banks at the time, but once that deal fell through the City essentially said that no more suprise deals or attempts by the County to go it alone would be tolerated.  And since their is conflict their, particularly a suburban (County) v. City conflict, the Enquire keeps talking about it, even though all the interesting, insightful and relevant stories are in the Business Courier.

 

When those individuals come down for an event...officials would like them to be wowed and impressed with what the city has to offer.  The hole in the ground between the stadiums doesnt wow...nor did the dated concrete mess of Fountain Square.  Whether you agree with the priority of pleasing suburbanites first is your opinion, but it appears to be the stance for the city.  It where the $'s at.

 

I can't really agree with this statement.  Although some people might talk about it in terms of encouraging suburbanites downtown, that is essentially an outdated notion where in fact the money isn't at.  While suburbanites are certainly encouraged an expected to attend baseball and football games, this is obviously a requirement if you want to fill a 40K+ arena.  As for other attractions in downtown Cincinnati, I don't think that idea holds.  Classical music, gourmet dining and live theater isn't something that seems particularly appealing to suburbanities, and that's pretty much what downtown offers.

 

The City is wealthier than the old urban/suburban divide assumes.  My parents and my friends parents bought their houses in Mt. Lookout and Hyde Park 20+ years ago, soon after graduating college.  My neighborhood friends and I, graduating from better colleges than our parents, could never afford to live where we grew up.  The problem that confronts the County and the City regarding the Banks development is one of long-term vision versus short-term gain, and the fact that both governments have essentially the same problems facing them- (increased operating expenses, declining population, uncertain tax base, etc.) and no one anywhere is quite certain about how to properly develop large public assets nowadays as they were in the 50's and 60's.

My dad bought a house in Hyde Park in 1976 for the equivalent of about $120-125k in 2005 dollars. He sold it about 20 years later. In the 10 or so years since, and some improvements, the price has skyrocketed -- it's now valued at about $425k. The problem is that young people and families have been priced out of desirable neighborhoods, and that's a huge reason why people move to the burbs. It has a lawn and they can afford it. The problem is that the housing stock that is left in the City that's affordable comes with it's own set of difficulties, whether it's the condition of the house, the borderline neighborhood, or crime, etc.

 

Arts and cultural institutions depend hugely on suburban audiences (especially for growth) and monetary support. This may not have been the case many years ago, but it is now. I think that these things are desirable to suburbanites, or at least a certain subset of suburbanites. I think the ratio of Hyde Parkers and Masonites (?) that attend the CSO is closer than you might imagine. Nouveau riche is as blue blood does, if you like.

An excerpt from a letter to the editor of Citybeat, from the CSO's Director of PR, Rosemary Weathers (http://www.citybeat.com/2003-07-23/letters.shtml)

 

Ramos incorrectly writes that "suburban women with plenty of disposable income but little interest in coming downtown to spend it" are not inclined to attend performances at Music Hall. However, women as well as men from every ZIP code in a 10-county area attend the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and Cincinnati Pops performances at Music Hall. Neighborhoods with the highest concentration of CSO subscribers are located throughout Hamilton County into Warren, Clermont and Butler counties and deep into Kenton County in Northern Kentucky.

 

I emailed one of the media contacts to ask if there was any hard data that had been published from the big 2003 survey they did - if I get any info, I'll definitely post it...

I used to and currently work for different cultural institutions in town. The "typical" visitor to each were suburban moms.

Arts and cultural institutions depend hugely on suburban audiences (especially for growth) and monetary support. This may not have been the case many years ago, but it is now. I think that these things are desirable to suburbanites, or at least a certain subset of suburbanites. I think the ratio of Hyde Parkers and Masonites (?) that attend the CSO is closer than you might imagine. Nouveau riche is as blue blood does, if you like.

 

Ramos incorrectly writes that "suburban women with plenty of disposable income but little interest in coming downtown to spend it" are not inclined to attend performances at Music Hall. However, women as well as men from every ZIP code in a 10-county area attend the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and Cincinnati Pops performances at Music Hall. Neighborhoods with the highest concentration of CSO subscribers are located throughout Hamilton County into Warren, Clermont and Butler counties and deep into Kenton County in Northern Kentucky.

 

I suppose I didn't make my point as clearly as I should have.  I was trying to say that the stereotypical suburbanite and the stereotypical urban dweller are not useful archetypes when contemplating future development.  The point of bringing up the Hyde Park price changes was to show that the most desirable real estate still lies in the City of Cincinnati, not in the suburbs, and I think Cramer has given a nice example of what I was talking about.

 

We're sort of straying from the subject matter, and I guess it's kind of my fault, but I think it's important to realize that the Banks development should be driven by long-term goals, and take into account the groups (young people, single parent families) that are generally not catered to by the market because they generate less revenue per development.

I agree, it is your fault. I also agree that the Banks should fill in holes in the market, not cater to bases that are already well-covered. Hooray for mixing metaphors.

People like cities. It's not that people don't like cities. It's the damn markup on anything good inside the city. People want to live somewhere crime free. You can say "crime happens everywhere" that's true but you can't deny that it's more likely to happen in certain areas. We've created a huge gap in our cities where the uppermiddle class reside in Hyde Park, Mt. Adams, Mt. Lookout, (expensive and unrealistic for the average person) where parents send their kids to private schools, then you have the impoverished crime ridden areas where all of the kids go to public schools if they even go to school. If Cincinnati had more "Oakleys" it wouldn't be so sprawled in my opinion.

There are loads and loads of Oakleys in the city...perception may not match reality, but the reality is that there's a ton of affordable housing, in the city, in good neighborhoods.  Price Hill, Pleasant Ridge, Walnut Hills, Avondale, Evendale, Mt. Auburn, Northside, CUF, Madisonville, etc., etc., etc...yes, there are problems in each of those neighborhoods, but there are plenty of attractive, affordable, safe digs in all of them and more....

Evendale's not in the city.

 

Oakley + 10 years = Hyde Park with big boxes.

Your missing my point. The point is people make low crime and schools a priority. Walnut Hills, Price Hill, Northside, Madisonville, etc have enough crime and blight to scare people away...hence them being affordable. I don't care much about crime and blight nearby, people break into cars in my parking lot all the time; I put up with it but you can't avoid the fact that its unappealing to most people so when they eliminate those areas, it comes to choosing between an average size subdivision house or an average size house in Hyde Park or Mt. Lookout, what's going to be a better deal?  I could see Pleasanr Ridge being a valid point but that's about it.

Evendale's not in the city.

 

Sorry, I had Evanston in my head, but was rushing to a meeting and didn't proofread...I almost added Norwood to the list as well, but didn't since it's not in the city...thanks for catching that.

 

Your missing my point. The point is people make low crime and schools a priority. Walnut Hills, Price Hill, Northside, Madisonville, etc have enough crime and blight to scare people away...hence them being affordable. I don't care much about crime and blight nearby, people break into cars in my parking lot all the time; I put up with it but you can't avoid the fact that its unappealing to most people so when they eliminate those areas, it comes to choosing between an average size subdivision house or an average size house in Hyde Park or Mt. Lookout, what's going to be a better deal?  I could see Pleasanr Ridge being a valid point but that's about it.

 

Yes, there is crime in all those neighborhoods - but not in every area of every neighborhood.  No more so than anywhere else.  Just because someone gets murdered near Chapel and Park doesn't mean a condo on St. James is more dangerous - but they're both Walnut Hills, they're both 45206, and they bear little relation to one another.

 

I lived in Evanston for a couple years, and didn't see any crime.  Perfectly safe street, no problems.  The houses on that street are all assessed at well below $100K.  It's not blighted, it's not crime-ridden, and there are areas like that in every neighborhood in the city.  It's there, if folks will realize that Evanston is more than Fairfield at Hewitt, Walnut Hills is more than Concord at McMillan, Avondale is more than Reading at Blair, etc., etc., etc.  There are a lot of nice, safe, non-blighted neighborhoods in the city - you don't need to confine yourself to Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout and Pleasant Ridge to find them.

What do you mean they bare little relation to each other? When I live in a neighborhood I like to walk to the corner store (Riddle road market) where it's convenient, jog around the block to exercise, maybe walk my dog. That's what people like about places like Hyde Park. People are always jogging in places like Hyde Park and walking to the little specialty shops. People want their kids to be able to safely play outside. You probably didn't see any crime in Evanston because you didn't walk around the neighborhood at night--which isn't smart, but some people like being able to do that without worrying about crime.

OK, we're into the point in the argument of diminishing returns...but yes, I'd walk around lots of parts of Evanston at night (and did), lots of parts of Walnut Hills at night (and do), lots of parts of Clifton at night, etc.  No, I'm not going to take a stroll through Peeble's Corner at 1am, but that doesn't mean I need to sit inside with the doors locked and a shotgun on my lap.  When you say there are safe neighborhoods where kids can play only in Pleasant Ridge and Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout, you're 100% wrong, just dead wrong.  That doesn't mean there aren't bad parts of the city - just that there are TONS of great parts to it.