Safe Urban Living (construction, housing, wealthy)

[Wilson513]

Well, 3630 Shaw is a few houses up from the beverage drive through and the street is busy enough that they had to put in speed bumps. Marjorie P. Lee home is a quiet place but it is a big business what with food service and staff. There are probably 100 people who work there. And we used to think of Wasson as "across the tracks" back when there were trains.

As for Montieth, I think it is a great street. No traffic, walk to everything, St, Mary at the end of the street. So, I would expect full price for house on Montieth.

[t45209]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Your feelings about this are recognized and respected, but, your facts are quite wrong.

One does not find an "average bungalow with questionable updates" in Hyde Park for $500k. One finds a spacious family home in a great neighborhood.

Let's see what there is for exactly that price, today:

Here is 1342 Edwards Rd. (that is on the "good side " of Observatory - you know, the elite part toward the country club, not the part over by Rookwood Commons:

1342 Edwards Rd, Cincinnati OH 45208 | Huff Realty

A five bedroom 3000 square foot brick center hall built in 1910. Lovely.

_______________

And, here we have 3584 Zumstein, between Erie and Madison, a block from where I grew up.

3584 Zumstein Ave, Cincinnati OH 45208 | Huff Realty

Quoted as a 4 bedroom (but understand there are going to be two attic rooms for anyone who wants six bedrooms).

Do these updates look questionable?

Clearly, Wilson, your idea of historic and mine are two entirely different things. The house on Edwards does not appear all that spacious, and I do think some of the updates are out of character with the home. People have this bizarre notion that new = better, and I've found that undoing insensitive updates to be more annoying than dealing with original. Oh, and both of these houses that cost half a million bucks don't even come with a garage that I can park my BMW in. So, why would I pay $500,000 for houses no different from those in Oakley for $300,000 or less and still have access to all of the same amenities?

With a million dollar budget, I still stand by East Walnut Hills (a stone's throw from Hyde Park) or Clifton Gaslight. There I can buy a lot more historic property that is less likely to be remuddled.

[flashes1]

Originally Posted by t45209

Clearly, Wilson, your idea of historic and mine are two entirely different things. The house on Edwards does not appear all that spacious, and I do think some of the updates are out of character with the home. People have this bizarre notion that new = better, and I've found that undoing insensitive updates to be more annoying than dealing with original.

Can't people have differing views on things? Wow. Interestingly, the house on Edwards is pending while the one on Zumstein remains for sale. Hmmmmm.....

[Wilson513]

Of course people can differ on this point. I would not want t45209 to live in Hyde Park if he does not value the neighborhood. He can live in Oakley for a small discount (and Norwood for a slightly larger discount) although I doubt that there is a house in the entire Oakley neighborhood as nice as the Edwards Rd. house, unless one considers Broadview Dr. and Country Club Pl. to be Oakley in which case there is no discount).

There is a fundamental difference among people who shop for houses and people who shop for neighborhoods. No doubt an equivalent house to the Edwards Rd. could be found elsewhere. but the quality of life would be different. There is simply no place in Cincinnati that is equivalent to Hyde Park as to safety, walkability, amenities, commuting distances, and charm.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by flashes1

Can't people have differing views on things? Wow. Interestingly, the house on Edwards is pending while the one on Zumstein remains for sale. Hmmmmm.....

Interesting isn't it. To me the surrounding homes and the whole general neighborhood are just as important as the individual house itself. And I would much prefer to have a reasonably sized home with all updated baths, kitchen and such than some big barn full of antique fixtures. Wilson I certainly agree with you that homes are for the living and preserving architectural integrity is not the top priority.

Just because the OP has a million dollar budget doesn't mean he has to spend that much. Sounds too much like one-upmanship to me. If he can find the type of older home which fits their family needs for less money that's how I would go.

[t45209]

My point is, when someone says "historical", it doesn't mean to me that all it has is a staircase that hasn't been painted and the rest of the interior looks like any old tract home that stands at the end of cul-de-sac in Mason. Many people who are attracted to older homes want the older features...inside and out. If you want new, buy new. Leave the old houses alone.

[Wilson513]

Well, trouble is that when developers started building suburban houses for families in Cincinnati, they took the best land. So today if you want a good location, you have few new houses to choose from. We have tear downs in my neighborhood. Perfectly good houses that are demolished for the lot. But, that results in a very expensive house.

[t45209]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Well, trouble is that when developers started building suburban houses for families in Cincinnati, they took the best land. So today if you want a good location, you have few new houses to choose from. We have tear downs in my neighborhood. Perfectly good houses that are demolished for the lot. But, that results in a very expensive house.

Seems to be happening all the time these days. I grew up in a mid-century mod neighborhood in Montgomery. I can't even recognize my street anymore. Most of the California ranches and mid-century contemporaries have been torn down and replaced with McMansions. The going rate for a lot with a tear down house in that neighborhood is about $225,000. Then you build your $500,000 house on top of that, and they just aren't that nice when it's all said and done. I guess it's their money to do with as they please.

[flashes1]

Originally Posted by t45209

Seems to be happening all the time these days. I grew up in a mid-century mod neighborhood in Montgomery. I can't even recognize my street anymore. Most of the California ranches and mid-century contemporaries have been torn down and replaced with McMansions. The going rate for a lot with a tear down house in that neighborhood is about $225,000. Then you build your $500,000 house on top of that, and they just aren't that nice when it's all said and done. I guess it's their money to do with as they please.

A person I know did a tear down on Ross Avenue. The "California" ranch he tore down was an eyesore. Professional level people will not live in them. If there weren't more tear-downs in Montgomery I suspect the prior owners would have rented to, let's say non-standard Montergomerians, and within 10 years sections of Montgomery would be one step above ghetto. It's good for the economy and city of Montgomery. They're collecting taxes on a $700k house rather than a $225k. Everyone's happy except for the people still living in the 1970's.

[progmac]

Originally Posted by flashes1

A person I know did a tear down on Ross Avenue. The "California" ranch he tore down was an eyesore. Professional level people will not live in them. If there weren't more tear-downs in Montgomery I suspect the prior owners would have rented to, let's say non-standard Montergomerians, and within 10 years sections of Montgomery would be one step above ghetto. It's good for the economy and city of Montgomery. They're collecting taxes on a $700k house rather than a $225k. Everyone's happy except for the people still living in the 1970's.

Can't argue that money is money, but plenty of "professional-level people" (what a snobbish term, sheesh) recognize the trappings of success and are quite content with a home of normal proportions and normal finishes. Believing otherwise shows an extraordinary level of myopia.