Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether it is conducive for cars or not, it's still funding on roads. Bicycles still use roads and are a form of transportation.
Hi nei--
A fair point taken, but I suppose I was also addressing some of the more rabid anti-car folks out there, because they also like to claim that such a huge amount of money is spent keeping those evil, pollution-spewing, global-warming causing means of personal transportation going
"....According to Jurjevich and Schrock’s research, which draws heavily on Census Bureau data (as you might have guessed), this obscure southern town called “Louisville” is doing a better job of attracting and keeping college-educated people under 40 years old.
The researchers studied Census data from 1980 to 2010, focusing on people ages 21 to 39, with college degrees.
As you can see in the chart above, Louisville trumps Portland and Seattle at “Demographic Effectiveness,” or getting non-natives to settle here, though the report never quites explains the methodology...."
but I suppose I was also addressing some of the more rabid anti-car folks out there, because they also like to claim that such a huge amount of money is spent keeping those evil, pollution-spewing, global-warming causing means of personal transportation going
Why you always trying to stir the pot? Why do you have to be anti-car to want a reasonable amount of amenities for bicyclist? Cincinnati sucks for bicycling. The few places you find a bike lane are a much appreciated. I drive daily but like to get out on my bike when I have time and take in the city. Again, you come on here trying to polarize people and start some kind of political debate.
Urban cores are experiencing re-birth for many reasons and they are not all 20 somethings. One is economics, property is dirt cheap compared to burbs (especially if you are restoring/rehabbing). I know of more than few empty nesters making the move to Urban, from Suburbia.
Crime is relative thing and it's ones perception of "acceptabale levels' . Everyone told me S. Fairmount was a "High crime" area and we were crazy to buy there. I get the monthly crime reports. I compared those crime reports to the upscale downtown area I moved from in Indy (homes 175-750K values). In terms of crime, S Fairmount had fewer car break-ins and less serious crime than my old neighboprhood in Indy which is highly desired . When I drill it down to my own neighborhood here of Knox Hill (within S Fairmount) , crime is just about non existant. We also have a strong crime watch group which helps.
Many of the perceptions of parts of the city being "high crime" are essentially misleading to those of us coming from out of state. I spoke with our police commander at a meeting earlier this year and he told me the vast majority of 'west side crime' in district 3 was in a five block area of Price Hill, but you could go just a couple of blocks away and its relatively crime free. They are concentrating on that area and it will be cleaned up ecventually.
Even within the urban core right now there is a shift going on. A lot of people in Mt Adams are selling (because the tax abatments from 10 years ago are running out and taxes are high). Who is buying? Executives who work downtown who can afford those high property taxes, moving from burbs. Where are the sellers moving? Fairmount, and Price Hill because they can buy dirt cheap and lock in a low tax rate., restore their new home and be locked in with that tax abatement for another 10 years.
The "biggest' issue is, where will the poor people go? Most likely, if Cincinnati follows the suit of just about every bigger city that has turned the corner is the 'Near burbs'/townships built in the 60's-70's-80's. If we follow patters of other cities there will be the affluent urban neighborhoods, the new "slums" of the near burbs and the affluent Suburbs.
Those 3-4 bedroom homes in the townships are ripe for section 8, the residents are older and dying off and the younger families members have no desire to hold on to and live in a house they grew up in.
That is the reason Urban neighborhood declined in the first place. Cities are cyclical and it all could shift back in 50-75 years, probably will for reasions we cant imagine.
But lest those think its just 20 somethings moving to the urban core? I am working on more and more projects where we aew being asked to incorporate home elevators as part of the restoration plans. People are thinking "long term" about living in urban neighborhoods. Thats our plan for our own home and we are in our 50's. as are many of my clients.
I also think the housing crisis is causing a rethink about how long we will keep our homes now. The days of moving every 2-3 years may be over, so as people stay longer in those urban homes, urban stability comes back, and with it higher expectations for the school system (charter and private schools) are expected and a better standard of behavior overall.
Its an exciting time to be in Cincinnati and watch the changes occuring.
One is economics, property is dirt cheap compared to burbs (especially if you are restoring/rehabbing).
I have to add that dirt cheap property is a rust belt / mid-west thing. Cities such as New York, San Francisco, etc. are anything but cheap. Yet people are willing to pay astronomically high prices for housing. It's so bad in New York that I may not move back there when it's all said and done. Yet, NYC keeps growing and adding population. And housing prices only move one way there --- UP!
BTW - great post, restorationconsultant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by restorationconsultant
Its an exciting time to be in Cincinnati and watch the changes occuring.
Urban cores are experiencing re-birth for many reasons and they are not all 20 somethings. One is economics, property is dirt cheap compared to burbs (especially if you are restoring/rehabbing). I know of more than few empty nesters making the move to Urban, from Suburbia.
Crime is relative thing and it's ones perception of "acceptabale levels' . Everyone told me S. Fairmount was a "High crime" area and we were crazy to buy there. I get the monthly crime reports. I compared those crime reports to the upscale downtown area I moved from in Indy (homes 175-750K values). In terms of crime, S Fairmount had fewer car break-ins and less serious crime than my old neighboprhood in Indy which is highly desired . When I drill it down to my own neighborhood here of Knox Hill (within S Fairmount) , crime is just about non existant. We also have a strong crime watch group which helps.
Many of the perceptions of parts of the city being "high crime" are essentially misleading to those of us coming from out of state. I spoke with our police commander at a meeting earlier this year and he told me the vast majority of 'west side crime' in district 3 was in a five block area of Price Hill, but you could go just a couple of blocks away and its relatively crime free. They are concentrating on that area and it will be cleaned up ecventually.
Even within the urban core right now there is a shift going on. A lot of people in Mt Adams are selling (because the tax abatments from 10 years ago are running out and taxes are high). Who is buying? Executives who work downtown who can afford those high property taxes, moving from burbs. Where are the sellers moving? Fairmount, and Price Hill because they can buy dirt cheap and lock in a low tax rate., restore their new home and be locked in with that tax abatement for another 10 years.
The "biggest' issue is, where will the poor people go? Most likely, if Cincinnati follows the suit of just about every bigger city that has turned the corner is the 'Near burbs'/townships built in the 60's-70's-80's. If we follow patters of other cities there will be the affluent urban neighborhoods, the new "slums" of the near burbs and the affluent Suburbs.
Those 3-4 bedroom homes in the townships are ripe for section 8, the residents are older and dying off and the younger families members have no desire to hold on to and live in a house they grew up in.
That is the reason Urban neighborhood declined in the first place. Cities are cyclical and it all could shift back in 50-75 years, probably will for reasions we cant imagine.
But lest those think its just 20 somethings moving to the urban core? I am working on more and more projects where we aew being asked to incorporate home elevators as part of the restoration plans. People are thinking "long term" about living in urban neighborhoods. Thats our plan for our own home and we are in our 50's. as are many of my clients.
I also think the housing crisis is causing a rethink about how long we will keep our homes now. The days of moving every 2-3 years may be over, so as people stay longer in those urban homes, urban stability comes back, and with it higher expectations for the school system (charter and private schools) are expected and a better standard of behavior overall.
Its an exciting time to be in Cincinnati and watch the changes occuring.
Good post, I agree with most of your positions. As you pointed out, as sections of a city successfuly rejuvenate they go from dirt cheap to expensive. This can result in some who were originally part of the upgrade to no longer being afford to live there and having to look elsewhere. I expect some in Mt Adams who took advantage of the tax abatements are now going Holy ****. It is akin to a balloon payment on a loan. At the rate of development, I can see OTR also quickly gaining this situation, with prices rapidly growing out of the reach of many.
I appreciated your comment on where will the poor people go? As they are pushed out of the urban core I think it depends on just how widely they can be dispersed. I do feel the concept of near burb slums is a valid one.
As long as the housing market remains as poor as it is I do not see people selling and moving every few years. For a period of time it was just up, up, up, with people expecting to sell their house at a profit. We are now how many years into the period where housing values dropped like a brick, combined with substantial unemployment, people losing their jobs, and mass foreclosures due to the fact people cannot make their loans nor sell their house for close to what they owe on it. I just see a much more cautious home buying public as I believe they should be. I also see a tightening in loan requirements to head off another financial collapse which is making it very tough on first time home buyers.
Your brought up the idea of people planning to stay in their home for a prolonged period of time, as evidenced by several of your clients requesting to consider a home elevator in their rehabbing.
BTW, I did not actually install a home elevator in my house.
I looked at about everything on the market, decided I did not like both the prices, the specs on capacity, and the requirements in case of a failure. The majority are a cable and drum arrangement with the drum at the top driven by an electric motor through a worm gear. Should there be a power outage, the only way to lower the elevator is via a manual shaft located over the top of the highest elevation, requiring a ladder to reach, and insertion of a hand crank to first lift the elevator ro release the emegency brakes which engaged when the power went out (so the elevator could not fall with a thud), and then try to lower it. You might recognize with the brakes released that hand crank becomes a real arm buster as the weight is all on it. If you need a home elevator you are probably not in the best of shape to operate this.
What I actually installed is called a commercial wheelchair lift. It is designed to be used in commercial buildings to satisfy the disability access laws. What attracted me to it was 3 things, 1) I could tell right away from their specs and online installation manuals it was definitely a commercial design, 2) The lift capacity, well over 1000 lbs, exceeding any home elevator I had looked at, and 3) The lift design itself.
It is a simple platform lift mounted to a vertical steel mast using double opposing rollers. The lift mechanism is a hydraulic cylinder mounted in the center of the mast using a cable driven, multiple pulley design to give both the mechanical advantage and stoke required to move the platform between floors. The hydraulic cylinder of course needs a hydraulic pump to provide pressure, which is in turn driven by an electric motor. But some things are not immediately obvious. The motor and hydraulic pump are only needed to lift the platform. The platform is always suspended on the hydraulic pressure. So to lower the platform requires nothing more than a controlled bleeding off of the hydraulic pressure. Only once since we have had it was a my wife stuck in it during a power failure. The down button would not work, as it requires electric power. But they provided us a nice little conrol box with a manual relief value release. So I just pulled it and the platform settled down nice and easy.
It is not the most beautiful thing in the world, with the lift platform only having about 4' side and back walls. The rest of it is open. But I had it encased in the typical enclosure, so externally you cannot tell it is not an elevator until you open and enter. But this is where the engineer in me comes out. We had it installed in 2004, and have never had a single service call on it.
Why you always trying to stir the pot? Why do you have to be anti-car to want a reasonable amount of amenities for bicyclist? Cincinnati sucks for bicycling. The few places you find a bike lane are a much appreciated. I drive daily but like to get out on my bike when I have time and take in the city. Again, you come on here trying to polarize people and start some kind of political debate.
I agree. While I would love to be able to bike to work I too primarily use an automobile for the bulk of my miles traveled. However, this does not mean I'm totally dependent on auto for transportation. My wife and I could be classified as the young adults shunning suburban living mentioned in the title of this thread. We do not live in the core of Columbus but rather one of its bedroom communities. However, where we chose to live within that bedroom community is in the 'downtown' area similar to Old Montgomery in Cincinnati. This allows us to walk or bike to dozens of restaurants, pubs, coffee shops, pizza shops, dry cleaners, post office, banks, a hardware store, and entertainment such as bowling and other attractions like walking and biking trails and canoe liveries. Our only gripe is the housing stock in older, core neighborhoods is on the smaller side and the addition of children will force us to move as the lot our house is on is too small to permit expansion. But for now it is great. Once the weekend arrives and the workweek is at its end I typically don't start the car except to pull out of the garage and wash/wax it as most everything I need is within walking or biking distance. And with work 9 miles away one-way I'm putting less than 100 miles a week on my car and my wife about the same with her's. With gasoline at $3.50/gal inevitably on its way to $4 in the years ahead it is welcome to burn calories and not petrol when we run errands.
When people talk about mileage/cost of gasoline, they leave out car ownership's biggest cost: depreciation. It doesn't matter how much a car costs new or used -- one day it will be worth absolutely nothing. They also leave out maintenance, insurance, interest on a loan (few people buy new or newer used cars with cash) and the cost of a garage, if they have one.
The central goal of anyone who is serious about saving money for retirement should eliminate car ownership from their budget, and if they must drive to work, spend no more than $10,000 on a used car and hopefully much less than that.
When people talk about mileage/cost of gasoline, they leave out car ownership's biggest cost: depreciation. It doesn't matter how much a car costs new or used -- one day it will be worth absolutely nothing. They also leave out maintenance, insurance, interest on a loan (few people buy new or newer used cars with cash) and the cost of a garage, if they have one.
The central goal of anyone who is serious about saving money for retirement should eliminate car ownership from their budget, and if they must drive to work, spend no more than $10,000 on a used car and hopefully much less than that.
Quite often people who grew up where cars are necessary do not know how to function without one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
