^I should have expanded and said that buying an odd piece of land and throwing a bare-bones apartment complex on it is going to take a lot longer to rent because people who need a cheap place will go there but people who merely want a cheap apartment will hesitate to live in a very random place. 

 

All over Cincinnati there are sketchy apartment buildings from the prewar and immediate postwar years, and that's why rents are relatively low here.  Near UC, places like The Forum and Mont Michelle and 3060 Marshall were "luxury" when they were built, but are borderline shady now.  Places like 880 Lafayette or Columbia Tower in East Walnut Hills were luxury when they were built 45 years ago but were turned into mediocre condos back around 2004 and now the condos struggle to sell for $100,000.  So we had a bunch of apartments taken off the market and replaced by depreciating condos. 

I just don't think that most people realize that it isn't much more expensive to build a luxury car or a luxury apartment as opposed to a standard one, but the margins are much higher.

 

Not only do you collect more rent but you can likely rent the units faster.  So the 100+ unit building fills up in six months and then you sell to a buy-and-hold company. 

 

Yep. We have to have that conversation with most clients who get sticker shock at the budgets for their projects. They try to talk about reducing quality of finishes as a way to reduce costs, but in reality the only way to REALLY reduce cost is to reduce scope. A one bedroom with average finishes and that same layout with high end finishes really isn't that much different in cost. It's why the whole, "just build more affordable housing!" conversation is challenging. A bare bones building in this day and age is still fairly expensive and doesn't offer affordable rents to pay for itself without subsidy in most markets.

In a healthy market without all the zoning and NIMBY restrictions, it will be profitable to build mid-market housing, and possibly even low-end housing, since the market for luxury housing will quickly be saturated, driving down margins. 

^That's happening at OSU -- sort of. The market is getting flooded with new units that aren't going to get the kinds of rents initially proposed due to the supply glut.

^ Ultimately, what happens is that as new luxury product comes online, existing 1970s and 80s product is renovated to upgrade it to look much nicer and better and try and maintain the current tenant class. It is a lot cheaper to buy and renovate existing product than build new market rate product

The first Northside-style flip in Spring Grove Village, a 2-bed listed for $137k, or at least $50k if not $100k less than Northside:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1597752/630-Orient-Ave-Spring-Grove-OH-45232

The first Northside-style flip in Spring Grove Village, a 2-bed listed for $137k, or at least $50k if not $100k less than Northside:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1597752/630-Orient-Ave-Spring-Grove-OH-45232

 

Probably on the higher end in Northside, because of the big yard/vacant lot that comes with it.

 

Speaking of furnishing rooms to sell a house, why not add a growler?

https://www.sibcycline.com/retsphotos/CIN/1597752_11.jpg

Anyone checked out listings lately?  Ho-Lay...prices are exploding all over the city, even on the west side.  Westwood and Price Hill and Covedale were dirt-cheap through 2016 and 2017, not anymore.  It used to be that not a single property in those areas were listed over $100k, now there are hardly any move-in-ready homes for under $140k, and we'll soon see the prevailing home price push $200k. 

 

Even lowly North College Hill now has homes pushing $150k. 

5 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Anyone checked out listings lately?  Ho-Lay...prices are exploding all over the city, even on the west side.  Westwood and Price Hill and Covedale were dirt-cheap through 2016 and 2017, not anymore.  It used to be that not a single property in those areas were listed over $100k, now there are hardly any move-in-ready homes for under $140k, and we'll soon see the prevailing home price push $200k. 

 

Even lowly North College Hill now has homes pushing $150k. 

 

I've also noticed prices have begun to sharply increase north of liberty as well.

These sorts of articles are hilarious.  It's like those NY Times apartment hunting articles...people worrying about stuff that doesn't actually matter.  People used to raise entire families in 2-bed 1-bathroom houses, but how will couples with no kids possibly survive in such confines?

https://www.wcpo.com/homepage-showcase/homes-for-sale-in-the-tri-states-best-school-districts-might-give-you-sticker-shock

 

But seriously - the way we continue to segregate ourselves by school district is a bit distressing.  People who don't have kids and who don't plan on having kids are free to live anywhere.  But anyone wanting to have kids is forced to pay a huge up-front premium, plus much higher property tax to get into "good" school districts.  And by good, they mean minimal interaction with those people.  

 

 

Edited February 17, 20205 yr by jmecklenborg

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

But seriously - the way we continue to segregate ourselves by school district is a bit distressing.  People who don't have kids and who don't plan on having kids are free to live anywhere.  But anyone wanting to have kids is forced to pay a huge up-front premium, plus much higher property tax to get into "good" school districts.  And by good, they mean minimal interaction with those people.  

 

 

"Good schools" seems to be mostly a socially acceptable method of sorting. Voucher systems would seem to go against that view, but I think that voucher proponents would turn fairly quickly into voucher opponents, if the proposal was for a voucher system large enough to disrupt the current sorting. 

6 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

People who don't have kids and who don't plan on having kids are free to live anywhere.  But anyone wanting to have kids is forced to pay a huge up-front premium, plus much higher property tax to get into "good" school districts.  And by good, they mean minimal interaction with those people.  

 

I would argue that while the childless people *could* live anywhere, they're more likely to be sorted out of the neighborhoods with good schools, because of the higher prices and taxes.  DINK's can swing it, but if they know they're never having kids, why pay the premium?  Singles on the other hand may not be able to afford what should otherwise be a cheap house if not for the school district. 

2 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

 

I would argue that while the childless people *could* live anywhere, they're more likely to be sorted out of the neighborhoods with good schools, because of the higher prices and taxes.  DINK's can swing it, but if they know they're never having kids, why pay the premium?  Singles on the other hand may not be able to afford what should otherwise be a cheap house if not for the school district. 

 

Yeah the whole duel income issue is a major issue unto itself, if not the central issue in postwar housing alongside suburbanization.  I have never been able to find a well-researched article on it, but sometime in the 1960s, the banks (possibly enabled by the FHA) began underwriting construction and mortgage loans based on duel incomes.  Previously, the lesser of two incomes was ignored.  The duel income era was fuel for the 2,000+ sq foot house boom that began in the 1970s and accelerated right up to the 2008 collapse.  And the collapse itself snowballed as wives or husbands lost jobs and the entire burden of a $2,800/mo mortgage fell on the working spouse. 

 

Keeping up with the Jonses requires two incomes, most of the time.  The emotions are the same in 2020 as they were in 2000 - but the big difference is that developers aren't building suburban condos for downsizing.  Instead empty nesters AND new families are competing for the exact same flipped house in Mariemont or Milford.  

 

In the same way that a young professional duel income family would never buy a $100,000 2 bed/1 bath in Price Hill or Spring Grove Village, neither do their retired empty-nesting parents who just sold their house in Loveland for $480,000.  It's putting a huge amount of pressure on the small homes. 

 

Some LLC bought 139 vacant lots for $20,000, so about $140 per lot.

How is that even possible?   Most vacant land goes for $2500 to $5000 normally on the low end.  How does one organization land that many lots for that cheap?

Edited March 6, 20205 yr by oakiehigh

Here you go...the first big virus-related price break:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/1/1642432/3481-Morrison-Pl-Clifton-OH-45220/

 

This house originally listed for $220k...they just cut it to $150k. 

I don't think the real estate market is looking at a long-term dip or freefall, but yes in the short-term things are doing to be down. Anyone forced to move at this time by work or other life circumstances is in trouble since people aren't making any changes that they don't have to. That looks like a professor's house just by the location and the decor. Obviously a lot of professors are subject to moves. Real estate is a flight-to-quality asset class in the absence of issues within the overall real estate market such as those seen in 2008.

 

One of my neighbors just moved out at midnight on Saturday since their house sold. I was thinking "what a terrible time to move" since it's going to be hard to eat a decent meal or entertain yourself at home during your downtime with all of your stuff packed up and utilities not turned on yet.

 

But yes, any holdout is not going to get their max while construction stops.

 

On 3/21/2020 at 11:20 PM, jmecklenborg said:

Here you go...the first big virus-related price break:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/1/1642432/3481-Morrison-Pl-Clifton-OH-45220/

 

This house originally listed for $220k...they just cut it to $150k. 

 

Someone desperately wants to get out of that place. Its been dropping steadily since it got listed in October of 2019.

 

3/19/2020 further reduction to $150,000 from $ 187,000

3/5/2020 Reduced Listing Price $187,000 from $197,000

10/24/2019 initial Listing Price $259,000

Since it's being sold as-is I wouldn't be surprised if there's some lurking structural or foundation issue that's not in the listing but is part of the owner declarations.  It looks nice, but the second to last photo of the rear of the house shows some pretty wonky stuff going on with the stucco.  

29 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

Since it's being sold as-is I wouldn't be surprised if there's some lurking structural or foundation issue that's not in the listing but is part of the owner declarations.  It looks nice, but the second to last photo of the rear of the house shows some pretty wonky stuff going on with the stucco.  

 

I heard from someone on another site that the house is like a funhouse in some rooms with crooked floors.  It's probably a fairly routine repair for foundation guys but the sellers for whatever reason aren't doing it.  

Fixing stuff like that is nigh impossible if it's not a gut job.  I have a project under construction in Newport right now, and while the foundation is good, the beams and other floor supports are all terrible, so the floors were sagging and crooked.  New walls were built under the beams in the basement, and rotted sill beams and studs were replaced.  The floors are now stiff and level, but the front door won't open, and the few wall finishes that weren't demo'd basically all exploded as the floors were jacked up.  Imagine if all the walls were still plastered, it would be a disaster.  

On 3/21/2020 at 11:20 PM, jmecklenborg said:

Here you go...the first big virus-related price break:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/1/1642432/3481-Morrison-Pl-Clifton-OH-45220/

 

This house originally listed for $220k...they just cut it to $150k. 

The property disclosure says:

"We undertook a comprehensive program of foundation stabilization shortly after we purchased the property. All plans, receipts, etc are available for inspection." 

 

That implies they already addressed the foundation issues, but perhaps there are ongoing issues. The disclosure statement doesn't reveal anything else alarming, and says that there haven't been any structural issues in the last 5 years. 

 

 

Walworth Junction off of Delta Ave. is happening.  Per their literature, the development will have 39 lots.  Cincinnati's Homearama 2020 will be here in October. 

 

 

it will be interesting to see how this sells. 

 

It seems like houses on the westside are being sold faster than ever.  I've sort of started keeping tabs since I might buy something next year and it's really surprised me how high the prices are and how fast they are going anyway.  A few houses near me have gone on the market and sold in under a week.  I'll have to think about renting instead if prices start getting too ridiculous.  

One of these articles...what these sort of articles mean by "house" is a move-in ready, instagrammable house.  If you sign up for price reduction emails there are price reductions all over the place...but not for Instagram movie sets.  

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/07/31/cincinnati-homebuyers-face-tightest-housing-market.html

 

 

Ugh.  More preppy people only talking about preppy houses:

 

Anyone can get on any site and see houses in "hot" neighborhoods that have at on the market for 90 days or more. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell is a preppy house? 

I took a stroll through Cincinnati on Zillow the other day and was shocked at the asking price of houses.  Shocked because they were more than I was expecting.  I was focusing on Mt. Adams (not much under 500K), downtown, OTR (not much under 250K - and that's a fixer upper) and whatever else was on the map around there.  I didn't realize the Cincinnati housing market was so strong. 

8 hours ago, jeremyck01 said:

I took a stroll through Cincinnati on Zillow the other day and was shocked at the asking price of houses.  Shocked because they were more than I was expecting.  I was focusing on Mt. Adams (not much under 500K), downtown, OTR (not much under 250K - and that's a fixer upper) and whatever else was on the map around there.  I didn't realize the Cincinnati housing market was so strong. 

there is very little inventory on the market. People are not wanting to move right now. 

All the pandemic has done is reduce the number of listings, so prices haven't budged.  Empty lots and fixer uppers are all being bought by flippers and speculators looking to be a middleman.  I've been looking for 2-3 years now and haven't seen any sign of the market cooling off, which is a real downer.  Even if it does, then these people will just sit on those properties indefinitely.  There's two houses at the end of my street that are not in good shape but could be fixed up, yet they've been abandoned for at least half a decade now awaiting some sort of windfall.    

Mann questions charter amendment that would divert $50 million to affordable housing

 

By: Chris Wetterich | Cincinnati Business Courier.

Quote

 

Councilman David Mann, a candidate for 2021 mayor, as well as other council members, said Wednesday they were deeply troubled by a proposed city charter amendment likely to make the May 4 primary ballot that would require the city to put at least $50 million per year in an affordable housing trust fund.

 

“It should be a matter of great concern,” Mann said. “It doesn’t identify a source. It doesn’t do the hard lifting. It ignores the likely impact on our basic services. It identifies sources that can’t lawfully be used, and appoints a board from outside organizations. It leads down a path that would be very unfortunate for this community.”

 

Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval, a Clifton Democrat, and state Sen. Cecil Thomas, D-North Avondale, who also are running for mayor, said in separate statements Thursday that they also oppose the amendment.

 

 

It sounds like the Affordable Housing Trust Fund got the required signatures to appear on the May primary ballot (during the Mayoral primary as well). This would be an amendment to the City Charter.

 

I'm really concerned about the unintended consequences of locking up $50M every year. The amendment itself identifies very few sources of new funding that could be used, so most of it is going to come from the existing budget. I'm probably in the minority among the city electorate, but I would be more willing to vote for this if it included some kind of income tax increase to pay for it. 

 

I'm going to keep doing research on this, but my gut is to vote no.

When we rehabbed our 6 unit apartment building in OTR we got a tax abatement from the City. One of the requirements - I’d say the most significant - was to achieve LEED silver status. I’d estimate this cost at least an extra $30K. This money had nothing to do with high energy appliances or good windows cause I was going to do that already.
 

IMO LEED is mostly a sham that ends up spending money on bureaucratic silliness instead of putting it into solid building features to be enjoyed. The city could do better, and instead of asking me to increase the balance sheet of LEED architects, ask me to put that toward affordable housing for the tax abatement period. In my case I would be indifferent to paying for LEED or paying $30K into a rent subsidy pool. That would be enough to reduce the rent of 1 unit by $3900/year for 10 years (5% interest). 
 

My point is, we should be a lot more intentional about what our policies are requiring or incentivizing, and there’s money on the table that might be used in different ways. 

Edited February 28, 20214 yr by jim uber

On 2/27/2021 at 3:22 PM, ryanlammi said:

Mann questions charter amendment that would divert $50 million to affordable housing

 

By: Chris Wetterich | Cincinnati Business Courier.

 

It sounds like the Affordable Housing Trust Fund got the required signatures to appear on the May primary ballot (during the Mayoral primary as well). This would be an amendment to the City Charter.

 

I'm really concerned about the unintended consequences of locking up $50M every year. The amendment itself identifies very few sources of new funding that could be used, so most of it is going to come from the existing budget. I'm probably in the minority among the city electorate, but I would be more willing to vote for this if it included some kind of income tax increase to pay for it. 

 

I'm going to keep doing research on this, but my gut is to vote no.

Here's a breakdown of the funding sources and their adequacey- 

 

 

On 5/19/2021 at 11:49 AM, Dev said:

 

I’d love to see some of this money used to create new affordable unit buildings in empty lots around OTR.

This article says that Western & Southern has an "aspiration" (not a "commitment") of investing $100 million in "affordable housing" in Cincinnati:

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/transportation-development/move-up-cincinnati/western-southern-poised-to-invest-millions-to-tackle-cincinnatis-affordable-housing-shortage

 

Quote

Barrett said his company hasn’t decided yet whether it will develop housing for very low-income people or people who earn more. Some of the investment could come in the form of a revolving loan fund, he said, or could help finance some of Cincinnati Development Fund’s projects to help “get them over the finish line.”

 

“There’s a lot of stuff that’s kind of like in people’s heads. But we need people living in houses with good roofs over their heads,” Barrett said. “We’re not ruling anything out. But there are rules, and there are taxes, and there are regulations. We’ll live within all of them.”

The company’s affordable housing development in Over-the-Rhine will serve as a model for much of Western & Southern’s work, he said.

 

A lot of words to say nothing. Just feels like a puff piece so WS can make investors feels good about them.

Aftab, Councilmember Harris, and Councilmember Lemon Kearney held a press conference yesterday about affordable housing. Here's some news coverage: https://www.citybeat.com/news/cincinnati-announces-new-equitable-housing-policy-reforms-12519708

 

A motion will be introduced next week to perform a comprehensive review of incentives and zoning to remove barriers to affordable housing. The stated policy goal is to revise the incentives to boost mixed income affordable housing. Quote from Aftab: "antiquated zoning code creates a structural barrier to improve density where it is needed most." He said he was especially troubled by three aspects of current policy: "70% of the City prohibits multi-family units. We have parking requirements that make it difficult to create more housing. We make it difficult, sometimes prohibit, auxiliary dwelling units."  He also mentioned increasing resources (increasing staffing in Law Department's quality of life division) to hold out-of-town nuisance landlords accountable. 

 

Comments from Councilmember Harris: "We fully support Councilmember Keating's density proposal and we look to go further. If you live in a duplex or triple or quad in most neighborhoods, likely your building is illegal [to construct under current rules]. These are some of the most beautiful buildings in our city and provide affordable alternatives and so we want to legalize and promote the creation of them. And we want to partner with Metro and SORTA to ensure we are building housing on the expanded rapid transit." Harris mentioned that CMHA received a competitive implementation choice grant, which will bring additional affordable and mixed income housing to the West End. I'm not sure if he was referring to this grant from 2020, or if a more recent grant was also awarded. 

 

Lemon Kearney talked about how the City is working on a proposal to follow Columbus's model of "tiered" tax abatements, where neighborhoods have different rules/incentives based on their "distress factors". Currently, Cincinnati's residential tax abatement program makes no distinctions based on neighborhood. Columbus has three tiers and targets just 22 neighborhoods:

• Market Ready (1-2 distress factors): has affordability requirements, encourages density, no abatements for single-family new construction homes, 
• Ready for Revitalization (2-4 distress factors): some affordability requirements, allows abatements for single-family new construction
• Ready for Opportunity (5-6 distress factors): no affordability requirements, allows abatements for all projects

All in all, I'm glad to hear these three talking about these issues, and it seems like movement in the right direction by making it easier to build denser, streamlining processes for getting LIHTC, and targeting abatement incentives on a neighborhood basis based on need.

Edited January 19, 20223 yr by jwulsin

The policy of granting tax abatement to all new projects should have ended a long time ago. I'm not familiar with how this has been working in Columbus, but it sounds like a good policy. My one concern is how this will impact the VTICA program which is in use in neighborhoods all across the city.

For reference, article from last year asking how well Columbus' system has worked: Columbus Underground - Is the City’s Tax Abatement Policy Meeting Affordable Housing Need?

 

Seems like it's better but still not enough, though I don't think anyone is advertising it as a single solution anyways. They have committed to review the program every 3 years.

How does this move forward to City Council if the Planning Commission didn't recommend it?

 

Cincinnati plans to legalize accessory dwelling units

 

Cincinnati Councilman Mark Jeffreys and Mayor Aftab Pureval unveiled a plan Thursday to legalize accessory dwelling units, sometimes referred to as “granny flats,” throughout the city wherever there currently is single-family zoning.

 

City leaders and stakeholders said the plan would help add naturally affordable housing, help people make ends meet and stay in their homes, and provide options for seniors to age in place in neighborhoods where they live.

 

“We need more housing. We’re adding 2,000 people a year, and, net, we’re producing 500 (units) a year. This is not the silver bullet to solve everything but it’s an element,” Jeffreys told the Business Courier in February. “Those units will be naturally affordable. You can only charge so much for a basement unit. It is a means for homeowners to build wealth in their own homes.”

 

An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is often a small apartment above a garage or in a back yard, a basement unit or an apartment in a home’s attic. It has its own entrance, kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area. It’s on the same lot as a single-family home and its use is secondary to the larger, main home. The ADU must be smaller in square footage than the primary home.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/03/17/cincinnati-plans-to-legalize-granny-flats.html

 

8 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Cincinnati plans to legalize accessory dwelling units

 

Cincinnati Councilman Mark Jeffreys and Mayor Aftab Pureval unveiled a plan Thursday to legalize accessory dwelling units, sometimes referred to as “granny flats,” throughout the city wherever there currently is single-family zoning.

 

City leaders and stakeholders said the plan would help add naturally affordable housing, help people make ends meet and stay in their homes, and provide options for seniors to age in place in neighborhoods where they live.

 

“We need more housing. We’re adding 2,000 people a year, and, net, we’re producing 500 (units) a year. This is not the silver bullet to solve everything but it’s an element,” Jeffreys told the Business Courier in February. “Those units will be naturally affordable. You can only charge so much for a basement unit. It is a means for homeowners to build wealth in their own homes.”

 

An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is often a small apartment above a garage or in a back yard, a basement unit or an apartment in a home’s attic. It has its own entrance, kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area. It’s on the same lot as a single-family home and its use is secondary to the larger, main home. The ADU must be smaller in square footage than the primary home.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/03/17/cincinnati-plans-to-legalize-granny-flats.html

 

First, while I personally think this is a great idea and should be applauded and encouraged, the cynic in me wonders how many years will it be before the same politicians or politicians from similar ilk are lambasting the creation of these units as unsafe, leading to blight or whatever else may be the perceived problem at that time and such politicians looking for a scapegoat and a panacea by blaming such construction of ADU units. 

 

Again, just the cynic in me. 

 

 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 5:05 PM, Lazarus said:

The Florida numbers are a bit interesting. I wonder how many are actually "moving" vs just classifying themselves as Florida Residents yet still maintaining an Ohio home or their old Ohio home while they winter in Florida?

1 hour ago, Dev said:

 

Direct link to article: https://local12.com/news/local/home-values-jumped-131-in-one-cincinnati-neighborhood-april-johnson-market-value-econ-hamilton-county-east-westwood-mount-lookout-mariemont-auditor-brigid-kelly-home-rent-house-cincinnati-ohio#

Here is a link to the affordable housing charter amendment, which will appear on the November ballot:

https://www.scribd.com/document/669503599/Nov-2023-Affordable-Housing-Charter-Amendment#

 

Totally vague plan which will eat up money and accomplish almost nothing.  The poorest people in the city already live in public housing and/or receive Section 8 vouchers.