Mt. Healthy? Is there a better option? (Hamilton, Fairfield: apartment, college)

[kjbrill]

The problem with Greenhills is while convenient to Fairfield you gain very little in proximity to Cincinnati, in fact you may even lose.

So we have to go back to the OP's original presentation. She is currently living in West Chester. That is likely more of a direct shoot to downtown than from Greenhills. I am not anti-Greenhills, I am just saying, it is not on a prime route to downtown, time or distance.

I did like the recommendation of St Bernard, an independent city which I have always liked. Certainly a rental there should be below Montgomery or Blue Ash.

It really boils down to what percentage of the time are you just going to work and back home or what percentage are you going carousing in the evening? If you like carousing get closer to the City.

[Serpens]

Originally Posted by natininja

If I were you, I'd bite the bullet and move because I want to live in X place, leaving concerns about commute behind. Either that, or just move to Fairfield.

Mt. Healthy is a compromise in every way, including safety.

Exactly. If I can make it from DT to Mason in 25-30min when I leave at 7am, so should the OP. I would live where most of the people in our age group live and just deal with the commute. You won't find decent 2BR apartments in DT or Mt. Adams at your price point, but I would check the nicer areas of Clifton/Northside/East Walnut Hills/Oakley/HP.

[Montrell]

Originally Posted by cp31220

I'll check in to Oakley, Blue Ash, Northside and Clifton. Haven't found anything in Reading yet, a coworker had suggested I look there.

Why not move to Fairfield? Fairfield is a very nice area, very diverse, growing and healthy, and if safety and commute are important to you then it is better than 3 of your 4 other options.

Blue Ash would be a good option but it is no closer to the city than Fairfield and far more expensive.

If you dont want a sizeable commute to work then I'd scratch Oakley off the list for sure (another area in decline). If you want "safe" then like I said Fairfield is more desireable than the other places you mentioned. (You're going to have a long commute from Clifton & Northside as well because of the traffic and your highway options from there).

It just depends on what is most important to you. Getting close to the city, safety, commute time...

[natininja]

I tend to think of Clifton as being safer than Fairfield. I don't have numbers to back that up, but it seems right.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by Montrell

If you dont want a sizeable commute to work then I'd scratch Oakley off the list for sure (another area in decline)

Have I missed something? How is Oakley in decline?

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Have I missed something? How is Oakley in decline?

I agree with this, if you consider Oakley in decline you haven't been around here very long. It has been ascending. But it is also full of a lot of old property which is renting/selling for too much of a premium.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by natininja

I tend to think of Clifton as being safer than Fairfield. I don't have numbers to back that up, but it seems right.

Why do you think of Clifton as a safer area than Fairfield? Clifton is in a conjested area of Cincinnati surrounded by a whole complex of different things, including a lot of areas in decline.

Fairfield is out beyond the I-275 loop, a bedroom community between I-275 and Hamilton. So what prompts you to say it is less safe than Clifton?

[natininja]

"Congested" is irrelevant (not sure what you mean, anyway). Fairfield has a greater proportion of low-income residents (and low-income teenagers!) than Clifton does, unless you count college students. Not saying Fairfield's dangerous, but I'd feel more comfortable walking around Clifton at night.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by natininja

"Congested" is irrelevant (not sure what you mean, anyway). Fairfield has a greater proportion of low-income residents (and low-income teenagers!) than Clifton does, unless you count college students. Not saying Fairfield's dangerous, but I'd feel more comfortable walking around Clifton at night.

You say Fairfield has a higher percentage of low-income residents than Clifton, but then you exclude college students. How can you exclude college students since they are all over the place?

I never felt all that secure walking around Clifton at night when I was 19 years old, and that is well over 50 years ago.

And the dig about low-income teenagers, are you saying they are all hanging out on streetcorners looking for trouble? I can believe that about Mt Airy, Mt Heathy and other sections along Colerain Ave., but not so sure about Fairfield.

[Montrell]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

You say Fairfield has a higher percentage of low-income residents than Clifton, but then you exclude college students. How can you exclude college students since they are all over the place?

I never felt all that secure walking around Clifton at night when I was 19 years old, and that is well over 50 years ago.

And the dig about low-income teenagers, are you saying they are all hanging out on streetcorners looking for trouble? I can believe that about Mt Airy, Mt Heathy and other sections along Colerain Ave., but not so sure about Fairfield.

This. Fairfield as a whole is very safe based on my experiences. A part of it gets a little sketchy as you near Hamilton, but that is only very small area of the whole of Fairfield. And without question safer than Mt Airy, Colerain, Mt. Healthy and Clifton.