No point in living a compromised life today while hoping for some unknown better tomorrow. 

^ I imagine that in most of our lifetimes we'll see self-driving cars, and I'd imagine most transportation methods will be almost autonomous by the next generation. If we really had jet packs and flying cars, I'm sure the user wouldn't be doing the flying, they'd just put in a destination. I think it'd take at least a generation for people to get used to that amount of flying, though. I took almost 40 round trips via air last year alone, and I’m still afraid to look out the window during a landing. I imagine if you plopped someone from 1920 into a compact car going 70 on the highway they'd be petrified, but just a generation or two later and it's a completely normal activity.

Imagine how easy it will be once we all have jetpacks or Jetson cars!

 

The difference between Boomers an Millennials

 

 

Boomers grew up with this vision and still firmly believe it will happen someday.

Millennials do not.

Millennials realize how much fricking waste this would produce and hope for nothing more than this will never happen.

 

Millennials champion reducing waste, reducing impact and sustainability. Boomers champion..... NASA.

 

 

*Whoever said Millennials were the liberal ones and Boomers were conservative was sorely mistaken*

 

In other words, boomers dream of major progress and millenials fret about the risks? 

 

I'm glad I disagree with that assessment (of the millenials).  Imagine a USA where only the old people went west and the younger ones stayed in Philly.

I think it's better described as an incorrect belief that technology will eventually solve all of our problems.

I think it's better described as an incorrect belief that technology will eventually solve all of our problems.

 

It has a rather good track record of solving most of them, or rendering them irrelevant.

Not to mention a generation that enjoys the fruits of the technology, while at the same time putting it down.

I think it's better described as an incorrect belief that technology will eventually solve all of our problems.

 

It has a rather good track record of solving most of them, or rendering them irrelevant.

 

Sure would like to eliminate moving laundry, folding it and putting it away.

 

Unfortunately, most "innovation" over the past 40 years has been limited to screens and communication, where little has happened in meatspace.

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say Millennials put technology down. As a person planted firmly within a nearly entirely Millennial existence...what? Nobody embraces it more and wants to use it more to solve problems than Millennials. We understand that it's not perfect and are more than happy to state our issues with technology, since that's the reality of it, but we aren't "putting it down." We're being realistic about what it can and cannot do and are a generation actively working to make it capable of solving more problems.

 

Also, I want a Mr. Fusion.

Also, I want a Mr. Fusion.

 

Don't get the in-dash version in your Jetcar.  You can get a cheaper portable version that supplies its own power!

Momentarily disregarding the laws of physics, portable, small scale energy producers that utilize waste from other functions would drastically change the world. Maybe not quite as much in places that have built energy grids already, but in remote locations and in developing parts of the world it could enhance living conditions much quicker than the current method of longterm development cycles.

Momentarily disregarding the laws of physics, portable, small scale energy producers that utilize waste from other functions would drastically change the world. Maybe not quite as much in places that have built energy grids already, but in remote locations and in developing parts of the world it could enhance living conditions much quicker than the current method of longterm development cycles.

 

Drastically change it is putting it mildly.  Even small efficient ways to store and deliver energy would have a massive impact.

I think it's better described as an incorrect belief that technology will eventually solve all of our problems.

 

It has a rather good track record of solving most of them, or rendering them irrelevant.

 

Sure would like to eliminate moving laundry, folding it and putting it away.

 

Unfortunately, most "innovation" over the past 40 years has been limited to screens and communication, where little has happened in meatspace.

 

You're one of the last people here I would expect to hear this from.  Those changes haven't had an impact on the infrastructure surrounding communication?  The distribution of media?  Just plain shopping and/or going to work?  Even socializing?

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say Millennials put technology down. As a person planted firmly within a nearly entirely Millennial existence...what? Nobody embraces it more and wants to use it more to solve problems than Millennials. We understand that it's not perfect and are more than happy to state our issues with technology, since that's the reality of it, but we aren't "putting it down." We're being realistic about what it can and cannot do and are a generation actively working to make it capable of solving more problems.

 

Also, I want a Mr. Fusion.

 

Putting it down is not accurate.  Taking it for granted is a better description, and maybe even taking for granted its current limitations.

Yes, I agree. Putting it down was a bad choice of words.

 

It just seemed ironic to me that a generation that embraces technology so much would criticize the generation that helped provide it.

Only if you take that criticization personally is that a bad thing. Everyone, everything, everywhere deserves criticizing in some manner. Understanding that someone criticizing something or someone isn't personal, but just a pointing out of the flaws that everything has is a method of understanding what worked, what didn't, how to adapt what has been created, and how to alter what's wrong with it. It's a fact of life and a fact of the development of anything.

I think it's better described as an incorrect belief that technology will eventually solve all of our problems.

 

It has a rather good track record of solving most of them, or rendering them irrelevant.

 

Sure would like to eliminate moving laundry, folding it and putting it away.

 

Unfortunately, most "innovation" over the past 40 years has been limited to screens and communication, where little has happened in meatspace.

 

You're one of the last people here I would expect to hear this from.  Those changes haven't had an impact on the infrastructure surrounding communication?  The distribution of media?  Just plain shopping and/or going to work?  Even socializing?

 

Media is communication. Only 6% of shopping takes place on the internet; the same as catalogs used to have. Take a look at the physical space around. It's pretty much the same. Sure there have been refinements and gradual changes but cars, airplanes, boats, trains pretty much work the same. Some have higher potential for speed. It's not like the 1880s to 1920s where electricity, airplanes, cars, motorcycles, air conditioning etc. happened all at once.

Only if you take that criticization personally is that a bad thing. Everyone, everything, everywhere deserves criticizing in some manner. Understanding that someone criticizing something or someone isn't personal, but just a pointing out of the flaws that everything has is a method of understanding what worked, what didn't, how to adapt what has been created, and how to alter what's wrong with it. It's a fact of life and a fact of the development of anything.

 

Never said I couldn't take criticism.  I just thought it ironic that someone said that about baby boomers championing NASA, like its a bad thing.  I would love to see your generation improve on everything.

I work in the technology field as a consultant. We often come in and have client asking us to build X, Y, and Z, thinking that it will be the solution to their problems. Usually the best approach is to build a much simpler solution that is better designed. And often times when we give in and build the more complex solution because the client insists on it, it ends up causing a lot of unforeseen problems.

^An irrelevant example that always comes to mind is a company that used to exist called Arrow Dynamics. They created the tubular steel roller coaster, the first being the Matterhorn at Disneyland, and later went on to pioneer coasters with inversions, broke height and speed records on multiple occasions, etc. They were a huge innovator. In the late 90s they  came up with a concept referred to as the 4D coaster. Instead of two rails it had four. Two control the train movement, two control seat rotation. This way the seats can flip independently of the train to create wildly new experiences. Their concepts and comfort zone was for something around 100' tall and about 2,000-2,500 feet long. Six Flags was their first customer and pushed them to build a 200+ foot tall monster of a coaster named X at Six Flags Magic Mountain. It never worked right. It was far too large for an unproven concept. The trains were extremely heavy and just couldn't handle the speed they had to endure. This would have been figured out through test coasters much smaller but Six Flags pushed them. The consequence? Six Flags then turned around and sued them and they went bankrupt. All those decades of pioneering and innovation down the drain by one bad move to agree to go outside of their comfort zone (which was already much larger than peer coaster design companies). Thankfully the 4D concept was revived by S&S Power who purchased the IP and assets of Arrow Dynamics and they've since reworked the trains to be much lighter and have built a handful of other examples of the 4D coaster, much larger than X. X has also been redone as X2 with new trains and though still not perfect, functions much better than it originally did.

 

Moral of the story. Innovation doesn't have to be all at once. Innovation comes in small steps that make it seem like nothing much is happening until suddenly one day you look back and realize how far you've come.

I work in the technology field as a consultant. We often come in and have client asking us to build X, Y, and Z, thinking that it will be the solution to their problems. Usually the best approach is to build a much simpler solution that is better designed. And often times when we give in and build the more complex solution because the client insists on it, it ends up causing a lot of unforeseen problems.

 

This is why I'm an urbanist.  Here we have a nation of sedentary people who have eliminated the useful walk being faced with traffic congestion and increased commute times... and the solution being proposed is self-driving cars.  Uhh... How about building neighborhoods with sidewalks? Bike paths? Adjusting land use to allow people to live closer to the things they need to get to?

Its not going to happen until the public demands it. There is progress being made but for the most part people aren't fighting to live in the city. Who would make those kind of investments if they just aren't sure?

The public is demanding it. There's a reason there are waiting lists on every new development in urban areas in Ohio. There's a reason we've seen literal billions invested in Downtowns and urban neighborhoods, even during a huge economic downturn that the suburbs still haven't recovered from. It's the reason walkability is one of the first things realtors are asked about when people are searching for homes, even when it's not in a super urban area. People do want it but the problem is that politics lag behind the rest of the country. Road investment is still continuing on pace despite no longer being a necessity since we haven't increased how much we're driving in over a decade now despite a nearly 10% increase in population (countrywide).

 

Urbanism =/= CBD. Urbanism is an environment that offers basic life service accessibility on foot/bike/transit/etc. It means people living in a relatively dense manner (when compared to suburbs) allowing for a higher concentration of population to support businesses. The further people spread the less likely it is that you'll have bars, restaurants, shops, etc. to walk to since those like to concentrate. Urbanism is zoning that doesn't separate commerce from residential like they're allergic to one another.

 

This can be anything from a CBD to a far off neighborhood built pre-WWII that offers all these things on a smaller scale. It can be a smaller town that retained its general footprint and didn't allow things like Walmart to take over an entire business district's worth of services. It can be a neighborhood like OTR that's dense and is a nightlife hot spot or a neighborhood like Oakley or Hyde Park that are relatively dense but still offer single family homes with yards whilst having a walkable layout and neighborhood business district. Urbanism comes in many forms and people definitely are asking for it.

Its not going to happen until the public demands it. There is progress being made but for the most part people aren't fighting to live in the city. Who would make those kind of investments if they just aren't sure?

 

They aren't? Why is urban land worth so much and subdivision land worth so little? That post reveals your bias in thinking cities are run down and 'burbs are pristine.

Its not going to happen until the public demands it. There is progress being made but for the most part people aren't fighting to live in the city. Who would make those kind of investments if they just aren't sure?

 

Reality may demand it before the public does, unless we see a powerful boom in economic growth that makes the mounting costs of sustaining our aging autocentric infrastructure sustainable.  God can veto what men might not.

 

Note that I am also very bullish on self-driving car technology; I consider myself a good driver, but would gladly turn that task over to a capable computer in exchange for compelling everyone else to do likewise.  (No matter how good a driver I am, I can't actually start moving at a green light if I'm the second car in line and the @$$hole at the front is still texting or doing her makeup or just generally being a lackadaisical miscreant; linked autonomous systems would be able to get far more cars through any given green light because they wouldn't suffer the delays caused by humans being too irritatingly human.)

 

If using your car cost $0.23 per vehicle-mile (IRS moving mileage rate for 2015), you'd see considerably more enthusiasm for high-density, car-optional development.  Even if it were only $0.14 (charitable mileage rate), it would dramatically affect living patterns; at 13,476 miles per year (national average), that would mean an extra $1886.64/yr for the average person unless they changed their habits--and that still wouldn't be enough to bring some of our more expensive road systems up to the level where they pull their own weight.  Is such a VMT system in the immediate future?  No.  But we're probably only a few financial crises away.

I work in the technology field as a consultant. We often come in and have client asking us to build X, Y, and Z, thinking that it will be the solution to their problems. Usually the best approach is to build a much simpler solution that is better designed. And often times when we give in and build the more complex solution because the client insists on it, it ends up causing a lot of unforeseen problems.

 

This is why I'm an urbanist.  Here we have a nation of sedentary people who have eliminated the useful walk being faced with traffic congestion and increased commute times... and the solution being proposed is self-driving cars.  Uhh... How about building neighborhoods with sidewalks? Bike paths? Adjusting land use to allow people to live closer to the things they need to get to?

 

Exactly, Bill, this is the point I was trying to get at. While I think self-driving cars will eventually take over from human-driven cars, I have already found a much simpler solution to the problem of not having to drive. I can walk, take transit, or take a Uber. I have found a solution for the problem of getting from home to work quicker. I moved a few blocks away from where I work.

 

We have known how to build great, functional cities for thousands of years. Why not look to these techniques rather than throwing it all away and hoping inventions like jetpacks and flying cars will solve our problems?

Its not going to happen until the public demands it. There is progress being made but for the most part people aren't fighting to live in the city. Who would make those kind of investments if they just aren't sure?

 

They aren't? Why is urban land worth so much and subdivision land worth so little? That post reveals your bias in thinking cities are run down and 'burbs are pristine.

 

Absolutely wrong about my bias.  The kind of demand will have to far exceed what you are seeing today.  I don't disagree with the fact that city life is booming.  That's why I own a number of city properties and no suburban properties.

I work in the technology field as a consultant. We often come in and have client asking us to build X, Y, and Z, thinking that it will be the solution to their problems. Usually the best approach is to build a much simpler solution that is better designed. And often times when we give in and build the more complex solution because the client insists on it, it ends up causing a lot of unforeseen problems.

 

This is why I'm an urbanist.  Here we have a nation of sedentary people who have eliminated the useful walk being faced with traffic congestion and increased commute times... and the solution being proposed is self-driving cars.  Uhh... How about building neighborhoods with sidewalks? Bike paths? Adjusting land use to allow people to live closer to the things they need to get to?

 

There is another element to this and that is the financial element. The amount of money and time people spend on cars is astounding.

 

Mr. Money Mustache - The True Cost of Commuting

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/

 

Not to mention, the need for car transportation to jobs is a huge barrier to people trying to escape poverty.

Its not going to happen until the public demands it. There is progress being made but for the most part people aren't fighting to live in the city. Who would make those kind of investments if they just aren't sure?

 

They aren't? Why is urban land worth so much and subdivision land worth so little? That post reveals your bias in thinking cities are run down and 'burbs are pristine.

 

Much depends on the location or the existing amenities.    Plus, it’s a simple matter of supply and demand.  By definition, urban land is limited.  Undeveloped “subdivision land”, not really.

 

While people are moving into the cities, there's no pressure to find more space for them yet.

Sure there is. Think about how many cities have demand so far outpacing supply that housing prices have gotten completely out of hand. Even in small cities like Cincinnati we're having that trouble in our desirable urban neighborhoods. Nothing stays for sale or for rent for long at all and there is far more demand than there is supply coming online.

 

There was that study a handful of years ago done that said at any point in time there were 3,000-4,000 people's worth of demand for housing in OTR and Downtown Cincy. We're not building anywhere near that rate and the desirability has only gone up since then. It's the reason that nearly every project is full before completion or shortly after.

 

Demand is huge and there is most certainly pressure to find space for them. Otherwise we'll continue on the trend of pricing out average people of urban areas by not keeping up with demand.

Sure there is. Think about how many cities have demand so far outpacing supply that housing prices have gotten completely out of hand. Even in small cities like Cincinnati we're having that trouble in our desirable urban neighborhoods. Nothing stays for sale or for rent for long at all and there is far more demand than there is supply coming online.

 

There was that study a handful of years ago done that said at any point in time there were 3,000-4,000 people's worth of demand for housing in OTR and Downtown Cincy. We're not building anywhere near that rate and the desirability has only gone up since then. It's the reason that nearly every project is full before completion or shortly after.

 

Demand is huge and there is most certainly pressure to find space for them. Otherwise we'll continue on the trend of pricing out average people of urban areas by not keeping up with demand.

 

First of all, is the demand in Cincy for market rate or "affordable" housing?  That makes a big difference.

 

If it's the former, are the neighborhoods in question geographically constrained, preventing the block-by-block growth we see elsewhere?

Very much market rate. And yes, they are geographically constrained. There is still a lot of potential in the existing layout, but over half of OTR has gone from vacant to occupied in less than a decade. As we move forward it's becoming harder and harder to find available buildings to rehab or lots available to build on. We aren't at, say, Brooklyn levels of redevelopment, but we're quickly approaching it.

 

Cities like Cincy have heavy geographical barriers dividing neighborhoods. This is a positive and a negative for the city. It creates distinct neighborhoods with individual character, but also creates barriers to redevelopment. You can have million dollar homes up a hill from abandoned buildings. With that has brought a huge increase in prices in the neighborhoods that have seen the most interest. Places like Mt. Adams don't have any available land left to build on really yet there is constant demand for young professionals and families to live up there. OTR and Pendleton are going to be at that point before we know it. Downtown has a lot more potential since the numbers sometimes work to build up, but other places don't have that advantage.

And going beyond Ohio, many cities have already run into this problem. Outward expansion of the CBD has caused problems and strong opposition leading to a longer build process meaning demand is piling up while supply isn't increasing. SF and NYC are the two best examples of this. The process of building in those cities is incredibly long due to the nature of redevelopment in many areas and as such prices are insane. There's something like demand for 200,000 people right now in NYC yet this year it's estimated about 50,000 people's worth of housing units will come online. I don't know SF's numbers, but they were proportionally similar. And many of the cities those turned away from places like SF and NYC are starting to see the same problem. They're smaller and have more lifelong residents oppposed to/scared of change and therefore push back the "block by block" type of expansion you mention. This is how places like Portland, Seattle, San Diego, Boston, etc. have found themselves unable to keep up with demand.

Over-the-Rhine is nowhere near half-occupied or even 1/4 occupied.  First of all, half of all of its original structures have been demolished.  Second, there are still hundreds of vacant buildings, and most of the recent rehabs were not vacant.  Third, singles and couples are replacing spaces where families with kids often lived. 

 

A lot of homes throughout California and especially LA do not have basements which means they can't do basement apartments.  This explains part of their high housing costs.  Meanwhile Washington, DC has height limits but almost every house does have a basement and basement apartments are very common there.  If not for that Washington would have a much more severe housing crisis. 

 

Cincinnati does have a fair number of basement apartments in Prospect Hill and Mt. Adams, but it will take a huge housing crush before you see people (like me) spend $40,000 building basement apartments in our homes.  That is the "release valve" that still hasn't been exploited in Cincinnati and that's why we aren't going to have sky-high rental costs throughout the city for at least 30 years. 

 

Jake, in no way shape or form is your statement, "most of the recent rehabs were not vacant" accurate. That's so far off from the truth I don't even know where to begin.

 

Yes, half of OTR was demolished. But at the same time many of the vacant lots are being incorporated into developments and won't ever be built on. They're being used as parking, as courtyards, as side yards, etc. OTR south of Liberty is very quickly reducing the number of vacant buildings with the exception of a handful of pockets which are where we're seeing entire blocks of buildings/lots being purchased and planned to be built on. In 5 or so years it's going to be hard to find a vacant building south of Liberty.

 

When 3CDC started its work there were around 500 vacant buildings. Since that point 12 years ago over 200 buildings have been brought back from vacancy. And on top of that there has been a decent amount of new construction in key areas.

...we aren't going to have sky-high rental costs throughout the city for at least 30 years. 

 

But it doesn't have to be throughout the city to be a problem, just like lower housing prices in Oakland don't matter much to San Francisco because Oakland is a dump by comparison, or that Chicago's south and west sides are going down the toilet compared to the Loop and north sides, or that Queens or Newark are cheaper than Manhattan.  In the same vein, it doesn't matter to Mt. Adams or Hyde Park that there's cheap housing in the East End, South Fairmount, or Klotter Avenue, because that's not where people want to live.  Rents and purchase prices are a problem TODAY in Mt. Adams, Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, and an ever-increasing amount of OTR.  That doesn't mean elevating other neighborhoods wouldn't be a good thing, but it's not really going to help relieve the pressure on the more desirable neighborhoods.

 

A lot of homes throughout California and especially LA do not have basements which means they can't do basement apartments.  This explains part of their high housing costs. 

 

 

My cousin lives near Ventura. When he built his house in the '90s, he wanted to add living space in the basement but as a fireman he knew that the basement dwelling code regulations were intense in CA. He ended up having to slope one side of the dirt by the foundation and add a fire escape out the side. I doubt you could just move a door in front of your basement stairs no matter how old the existing structure in order to rent out your basement there -- if you had one.

Very much market rate. And yes, they are geographically constrained. There is still a lot of potential in the existing layout, but over half of OTR has gone from vacant to occupied in less than a decade. As we move forward it's becoming harder and harder to find available buildings to rehab or lots available to build on. We aren't at, say, Brooklyn levels of redevelopment, but we're quickly approaching it.

 

Cities like Cincy have heavy geographical barriers dividing neighborhoods. This is a positive and a negative for the city. It creates distinct neighborhoods with individual character, but also creates barriers to redevelopment. You can have million dollar homes up a hill from abandoned buildings. With that has brought a huge increase in prices in the neighborhoods that have seen the most interest. Places like Mt. Adams don't have any available land left to build on really yet there is constant demand for young professionals and families to live up there. OTR and Pendleton are going to be at that point before we know it. Downtown has a lot more potential since the numbers sometimes work to build up, but other places don't have that advantage.

 

Yeah, that’s what I thought from my own limited experience of Cincinnati and what I have heard.  You face very different challenges than we do here.

 

I’ve said for a long time that it’s easier to expand a viable (as in active and safe) urban neighborhood through gradual growth, sometimes block by block, than by trying to nucleate a new one.  I still maintain that’s generally true, but when the existing neighborhoods fill up, you may have to push said nucleation through.  That can lead to a lot of strife because things can happen more quickly, and the more controversial model of “gentrification” takes place.  More crime suppression may be needed, early on.  On the other hand, the physical boundaries can potentially minimize crime once a neighborhood has changed.

 

In Cleveland, particularly on the west side, that’s not the case.  Neighborhood boundaries are more artificial.  If there’s demand, a viable neighborhood can slowly grow into space that used to be considered “blighted”.  The good news is there’s less culture shock and displacement, when it happens, is less profound.  The bad news is the blight can remain close by.

 

On the other hand, Cincy seems to have less CERCLA issues than Cleveland.  Old meat packing places may contain less hazardous materials than foundries and machine shops.

 

We're getting off the thread topic here, but in a way that's closer to the general subject of the forum.  Go figure...

 

I think you're definitely right that it's easier when redevelopment can just jump arbitrary boundaries. The demand from one neighborhood exceeding people's comfort levels can easily mean the next neighborhood over, arbitrarily defined by a street, can start to see some redevelopment. But if you have a 200' tall hill between the expensive neighborhood and the next neighborhood over, that's going to be a difficult jump to make. So basically each neighborhood has to first create its own successful center in order for the entire neighborhood to see redevelopment. And it's obvious when that happens because you start to notice the main squares and business districts come back just before housing really takes off. Pros and cons to each type of geography but it presents interesting challenges to work around which I've come to the conclusion often allow for the most interesting results.

We aren't at, say, Brooklyn levels of redevelopment, but we're quickly approaching it.

 

What's happening in OTR is excellent but it is no where near approaching Brooklyn level housing pressures.  No non-coastal city in America (with the exception of very few select markets in Chicago) is approaching near the housing demand/development seen in Brooklyn and New York - and probably won't ever.

I should have clarified what I meant by that. I didn't mean quantities of demand, I was referring to areas being fully redeveloped in some manner. OTR will eventually have essentially all of its buildings redeveloped and that's what I was getting at.

 

A lot of homes throughout California and especially LA do not have basements which means they can't do basement apartments.  This explains part of their high housing costs. 

 

 

My cousin lives near Ventura. When he built his house in the '90s, he wanted to add living space in the basement but as a fireman he knew that the basement dwelling code regulations were intense in CA. He ended up having to slope one side of the dirt by the foundation and add a fire escape out the side. I doubt you could just move a door in front of your basement stairs no matter how old the existing structure in order to rent out your basement there -- if you had one.

 

Yeah a basement apartment almost always requires two points of egress.  So if you don't have a walk-out basement you're probably not going to be able to do it economically.  I can't imagine that having a basement door cut into an existing basement wall and having a staircase poured costs less than $10,000.  And of course you aren't going to get more than $500/mo for a basement apartment in Cincinnati outside of a few areas so obviously it's a bad idea to build something that's going to take 20 years to break even. 

 

 

As for comparing Brooklyn prices to OTR prices, here is what you get for $250k in Brooklyn these days:

http://www.trulia.com/property/3193879307-246-Cornelia-St-D9-Brooklyn-NY-11221#photo-8

 

So for the same price as a brand-new condo within walking distance of downtown Cincinnati you're getting something without central air, apparently no washer and dryer, in need of about $30,000 in kitchen and other renovations, and you're an annoying 5 mile ride from Manhattan on a branch subway line with poor evening and weekend service.

 

 

 

 

A lot of homes throughout California and especially LA do not have basements which means they can't do basement apartments.  This explains part of their high housing costs. 

 

 

My cousin lives near Ventura. When he built his house in the '90s, he wanted to add living space in the basement but as a fireman he knew that the basement dwelling code regulations were intense in CA. He ended up having to slope one side of the dirt by the foundation and add a fire escape out the side. I doubt you could just move a door in front of your basement stairs no matter how old the existing structure in order to rent out your basement there -- if you had one.

 

Yeah a basement apartment almost always requires two points of egress.  So if you don't have a walk-out basement you're probably not going to be able to do it economically.  I can't imagine that having a basement door cut into an existing basement wall and having a staircase poured costs less than $10,000.  And of course you aren't going to get more than $500/mo for a basement apartment in Cincinnati outside of a few areas so obviously it's a bad idea to build something that's going to take 20 years to break even. 

 

 

As for comparing Brooklyn prices to OTR prices, here is what you get for $250k in Brooklyn these days:

http://www.trulia.com/property/3193879307-246-Cornelia-St-D9-Brooklyn-NY-11221#photo-8

 

So for the same price as a brand-new condo within walking distance of downtown Cincinnati you're getting something without central air, apparently no washer and dryer, in need of about $30,000 in kitchen and other renovations, and you're an annoying 5 mile ride from Manhattan on a branch subway line with poor evening and weekend service.

 

 

 

I wiouldn't compare that unit, considering it's a coop.  NY and recently DC are two of a few cities in the US that has Coop Sales.  However, I do understand what you're saying about housing costs.

@nextcityorg: 53% of Millennials don't want to drive to work/shop; 58% want govt support for alternatvs to driving

 

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/metro-homebuyers-want-sidewalks-walkable-communities

If you had any doubt that OKI (the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments) was a pro-car, anti-transit organization, check out this article.

 

OKI CEO Mark Policinski says that Millennials are driving more because our region "doesn’t have a history of mass transit" so we are choosing to drive. Of course he is using this as justification for highway expansion.

 

“Obviously, if people are driving more and more and more, then that’s a different set of solutions that we’ll look to as opposed to if people are driving a lot less. And if we saw that millennials are driving a lot less, it would change how we view the future and how we plan for it,” he says.

A study that dove into people preferences and what they wanted in the future regarding transit options... not just what they do now would be much more beneficial.

 

Of course people drive here as it is the only realistic option. So using that info to justify not investing in alternatives makes no sense.

Meanwhile, developers tout live/work/play neighborhoods ad nauseum and everyone I know under age 35 is buying homes in the core and inner-ring.  Keep trying to convince us that everybody loves sitting in a car 60-120 minute a day.  Add another lane so it can immediately fill up.

 

Reduced SOV is cited multiple times in the plan.  Read this as bikeways, I suppose.

Not to mention that gas is temporarily cheap and people have extremely short memories. Why not buy a new huge SUV now, gas is only $2.30 and falling!

Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Denver, Phoenix etc also lacked transit histories. They're more concerned about their futures.

^SLC has an amazing rail transit network for a city/metro area of such a small size: barely over 1M residents, total, but with 2 40 mile networks of rapid transit and commuter rail.  And obviously Denver, a Cleveland size metro area, is constructing a 100+ mile rapid and electric commuter rail network... The huge TOD walkable growth around Denver's Union Station hub is a major result -- just a few years  ago it was a barren, run-down warehouse district at the far northern  corner of downtown.  Now it's the center of activity ... and getting bigger.  High/mid-rise mixed-use apartments are sprouting everywhere...

 

The good news for older, Rust Belt cities like Cleveland, is that the millennials moving into downtown and close-in urban districts like Ohio City and University Circle, are demanding more transit and walkable neighborhoods.  ... and many don't own/don't want cars.  Meanwhile, a number of those suburban, 60s/70s sprawl-induced office campuses in places like Beachwood and Mayfield Heights are now struggling and dying ... even getting torn down, in Beachwood's case... Great to see.

Beachwood isn't dying. It's apartment market is a close second to downtown as measured by rents and occupancy. And more product is being added.