Is the Mason boom over? (Cincinnati, Warren: mortgage, house, employment)

[Briolat21]

I think also it has to be recognized that while downtown is still a major employer in the area, there is a lot of suburb to suburb commuting, not just suburb to downtown.

For that matter there's a decent amount of city to suburb commuting.

Westchester, Mason, even my little podunk area (Lebanon) - they have employers and are actively working to increase them. Lebanon has quite a bit of manufacturing (I was suprised by that, actually), as does WestChester, Fairfield, etc..

Personally - I commute Lebanon to WestChester. So moving downtown would never be a "cheap" transportation option for me. Moving to Liberty Twp would be where I would save my gas money.

Of course then I'd have to live in Liberty Twp which currently doesn't interest me.

My company is not the only one that is staffed by surburbanites, working in the suburbs. And yes, we have quite a few Masonites working here. By all accounts, they love their city and even if gas goes above $5, I don't see them moving.

[wrightflyer]

Originally Posted by restorationconsultant

What I see happening, if suburbia survives and can thrive, it has to be competitive in attracting corporate office centers and manufacturing ( things people in suburbia hate). When they start building 25-40 story office towers in suburbia let me know.

Interesting angle. I would agree with it but turn the argument a bit to say that there are "25-40 story" office "towers" in the suburbs. It's the large corporate campuses that employ 1,000+ people. This is more the suburban corporate norm than large towering office buildings. It does not necessarily have to be tech companies that have campuses as noted with the examples below (still, many tech companies have campuses vs. banks in towers, especially at HQ levels).

Certainly, it has to do with density. There are few suburbs that are truly like a downtown. Edge cities like Tysons Corner come to my mind. Clayton, Missouri is another example (though not sure if it would be an edge city).

Places like Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Well Point, Cintas, P&G, Macy's all have major operations with large employer bases out there (Mason or Deerfield). Even Citi has that Northern Kentucky office and Chase has a huge corporate campus in Polaris (up in Columbus).

I'd agree with the suburb to suburb commuting as well. I think the biggest losers from a revitalized Cincinnati (or pockets of Cincinnati) would be certain (not all) inner-ring subrubs. Places inside I-275 specifically. Perhaps in 20 years, redevelopment of blocks in those inner-ring areas will turn around those areas, similar to Rookwood Commons, and then perhaps we would see Mason suffer.

Between schools, transportation costs, and jobs, the most important factor would be jobs in that particular trifecta. The other two would depend on other circumstances (family, tolerable commute costs, personal choices, etc).

[kjbrill]

Trying to tear down the suburbs makes no sense to me. If suburbs like Mason, and several others, are doomed by their very existence, Cincinnati is also doomed. There is absolutely no way Cincinnati can absorb a large percentage of what is now the outer suburbs.

The decaying infrastructure which has been going on for several decades simply cannot keep up. People buying low cost property, simply because it was originally built very well, and spending a good sum to upgrade it, are simply not going to raise it to the equal of modern lifestyles.

The most significant statement I have seen here is the remark about suburb-to-suburb commuting. I personally think this is very significant, and why a lot of people are not too concerned about the suburb-to-city commute. I would like to see some actual figures concerning the number of jobs within the City of Cincinnati and those in the MSA outside of the City limits.

[t45209]

Originally Posted by wrightflyer

I'd agree with the suburb to suburb commuting as well. I think the biggest losers from a revitalized Cincinnati (or pockets of Cincinnati) would be certain (not all) inner-ring subrubs. Places inside I-275 specifically. Perhaps in 20 years, redevelopment of blocks in those inner-ring areas will turn around those areas, similar to Rookwood Commons, and then perhaps we would see Mason suffer.

There's no way that a primarily retail development like Rookwood would pose a threat to growth in the suburbs. Aside from the occasional Bass Pro or REI-type stores, retail is a local business.

[t45209]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Trying to tear down the suburbs makes no sense to me. If suburbs like Mason, and several others, are doomed by their very existence, Cincinnati is also doomed. There is absolutely no way Cincinnati can absorb a large percentage of what is now the outer suburbs.

The decaying infrastructure which has been going on for several decades simply cannot keep up. People buying low cost property, simply because it was originally built very well, and spending a good sum to upgrade it, are simply not going to raise it to the equal of modern lifestyles.

The most significant statement I have seen here is the remark about suburb-to-suburb commuting. I personally think this is very significant, and why a lot of people are not too concerned about the suburb-to-city commute. I would like to see some actual figures concerning the number of jobs within the City of Cincinnati and those in the MSA outside of the City limits.

I don't have any interest in tearing down the suburbs...it's a lifestyle choice...doesn't suit me personally, but I can accept that it does suit others.

I disagree however that Cincinnati needs the 'burbs. Many successful cities have far higher population densities than Cincinnati. Historically speaking, in the late 19th century, the population density of downtown and OTR was 30,000 per square mile. Today, that's less then five thousand. Granted, the late 19th century living conditions for many were less than ideal by modern standards, but the point is, there's still a lot of unused capacity within the city.

Aside from living space, there's also a lot of underutilized industrial capacity, all up the Millcreek Valley, for example. I could probably come up with a dozen other former industrial sites that could be redeveloped and encourage growth within the city. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons why that isn't magically happening, but it's not because the city can't support it.

I also strongly disagree with your statement that rehabbing an old building is not going to raise it to modern standards. That's simply untrue, and has been proven incorrect a million times over, not just in Cincinnati, but the entire country...you can even throw Europe in, for that matter.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 20-30 years in places like Mason or West Chester, when the new construction of today starts reaching the end of its useful life. There's almost a planned obsolescence in today's construction that will take homeowners and future buyers by surprise.

At the end of the day, though, I'm quite content to see the population shifting the suburbs. I don't think I could stand the day in and day out congestion of the areas around Fields Ertel and Union Center.

[wrightflyer]

Originally Posted by t45209

There's no way that a primarily retail development like Rookwood would pose a threat to growth in the suburbs. Aside from the occasional Bass Pro or REI-type stores, retail is a local business.

Sorry, I should have specified. What I meant was that you would see renewal projects of land that was used for different purposes. Either residential to commercial or lower density residential to higher density, etc. Individual tear-downs would also be considered.

Rookwood was just one example. Also, these types of developments would be a mid to long-term future outlook where inner-ring suburbs are beginning to turn around. Unless there is a sudden demand for 1200-1700sqft 1945-1960 style homes, there are certain areas inside I-275 that will probably need redevelopment (in whatever form that may be).

[jmecklenborg]

>There's almost a planned obsolescence in today's construction that will take homeowners and future buyers by surprise.

They are throw-away suburbs. All the stuff from the 50's-70's is deteriorating rapidly on the west side, Butler/Warren counties are next.

[kjbrill]

Obviously, we have great differences of opinion on this subject. But before anyone just wants to throw in the towel on Mason, I think some simple facts cannot be ignored.

1980 - Cincinnati population 385,457
2010 - Cincinnati population 296,943
Difference = -88,514 or -23%

1980 - Mason population around 6,000
2010 - Mason polulation 30,712
Difference = +24,712 or +411%

Interestingly, during that time frame Mason gained about 28% of what Cincinnati lost. And it is still only a city of around 30,000. Bye the way, Mason is 18 sq. mi. so its population density is 1,706 per sq. mi.

When you want to talk about 30,000 people per sq. mi. in Cincinnati, just leave me out. those living conditions had to be horrrible, which is likely a damn good reason few people live there now.

Through several posts on this forum, I have stated the CBD of Cincinnati remains healthy and will continue to do so. The business climate will see to this. What concerns me is the residential component of the City, particularly the inner-ring suburbs. I keep reading about a few hundred new residences here, a couple of hundred there, but when you have been bleeding at the rate of about 3,000 per year for 30 years that is just not enough.

If the downtown manages to gain 30,000, let's say over 10 years, and the inner ring suburbs continue to lose 100,000, you are still 70,000 in the hole. I just don't see where the City has a plan for the entire Cityto be successful. If I was a resident of Cincinnati I would be requesting what are the specific plans for the whole City to be healthful.

[austiNati]

^^^^

Schools, schools, schools, schools, mass transit, city and community services

[kjbrill]

These are some of the numbers I would like to see between 2000 and 2010. I keep looking, but cannot find them expicitly.

How many people both worked in and lived in the City of Cincinnati boundaries in 2000 compared to 2010?

How many people worked in the City of Cincinnati boundaries but did not live within the City in 2000 compared to 2010?

How many people both lived and worked in the MSA outside of the City of Cincinnati boundaries in 2000 compared to 2010?

You would think these would not be difficult numbers to obtain, but I have not found it easy at all. To me it would say a lot as to what has been going on for the last decade.