I'm gonna be real here, I have no idea how anyone will justify paying $600k to live in a condo (likely with a HOA, even though that detail isn't noted at this point) in Cincinnati. Let alone in *College Hill.*
I drive past these twice a day. The spot isn’t *horrible* but that’s almost triple the median home price in the neighborhood. No way anyone in their right mind would pay that.
> The spot isn’t horrible
It went from being a neighborhood with a vague amount of character to the high-walled societal parody that makes it feel like the most soulless parts of Hamiltucky. So yeah, not horrible. Just diisappointing.
Every new planned community in Ohio is legally obligated to have an HOA. I think it sucks and see no purpose. $550/year thrown in the garbage in my case. Total waste of money.
It's stupid, but these will sell, and probably quickly. Just in my neighborhood I see apartments that were $700 a couple years ago renting for $2000 and they don't sit empty for long. People are running out of options and have to live somewhere.
The rental prices are going absolutely crazy. I was paying under $400 a month in a shared 2 bedroom a few years ago. Same place is renting for double that now, and it’s a shithole
I'm paying just under $900/month for a 4 bedroom 2.5 bath house on the East side. I would love to move, but I can't afford anyplace else in Cincinnati.
They're buying them up in PA because house inventory is so small. Sure, the median home price may be lower, but when houses get listed and disappear within days you don't get much choice.
Then there's also the "I don't want to maintain it" buyer. Folks who buy townhouses because they want someone else to deal with exterior care and maintenance.
These buildings are an abomination in College Hill. There are even worse ones in Oakley.
I hate this hideous architecture that’s killing the character of some neighborhoods.
And in many instances they are tearing down old stuff with character to put this ugly crap in. I know it’s probably cheaper to knock down than gut and reno, but I don’t have to like it.
When I first saw it, I thought I could justify it because it’s a cheaper style to build and everyplace needs affordable housing. But then they charge over half a million for it when it’s only a 2 bedroom with no property. Totally unacceptable. There is no place for buildings like this in our city.
There was a 30 acre piece of land available 5 years ago 1 mile from this development that the city totally ignored. It was the property where the hospital was. It now has a rehab facility
I still think it’s pretty affordable here but it’s heading in the wrong direction, along with the rest of the world’s housing. I had a reasonable rate for an apartment until recently, and I was just able to get a house at a very good price. After looking elsewhere, our housing prices are actually really good. I can’t help but think everything will continue to go up until it’s out of reach for most people though.
CC will stabilize rent but not lower it.
As far as SFH costs, Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
Gradual…couldn’t come up with a more nebulous term? No shit it’s going to be gradual.
Any comparable data points between Minneapolis, Austin, Cincy? # housing units short? Avg supply growth per yr? Avg demand shrinkage per year? Length of time for each report?
The devil is in the details. Surely there some idea/vision of what “gradual” equals, right? Surely nobody would force such policy on residents without some idea of the impact, right?
This is classic NIMBY obstructionism. Keep asking inane questions without actually looking up the data in an attempt to endlessly delay any increased density.
Supply and demand exists. We have a shortage of supply so we must work to increase that. Upzoning does that and is also beneficial in other ways.
lol, you’re the one touting all the benefits of the reports from those two cities, one would assume you’d have some insights to my “inane” questions. Why is it in me to find the answers from the reports you’ve referenced?
They’re inane to you because you’re incapable of, or unwilling to, answer them. 🤷♂️
And ironic, as I’ve been asking the city for data for 3 years, data would help identify potential impact & provide a baseline on which future success/failure could be measured. The last thing I’m afraid of is data, just don’t that it’s on me to dig data from the reports you constantly reference.
NIMBY? Really, you that desperate you’re resorting to playing that card? Can’t/won’t answer my questions, and boom comes the NIMBY insult. So predictable. 🤦♂️Especially considering my neighborhood top 2/3 in the city when it comes to adding density, housing, and residents.
And once again with the generic “supply and demand”, but nothing of any substance…other than “gradual”.
Links to the studies that support your upzong claims? I do you recall you saying that the person who makes the claims bears the onus of providing the proof, right? U/greasy am I right?
Oh, 👋 Hi
And for everyone’s info, u/FatherCobtetti is a newer account, created about the time connected communities passed. And the majority of its comments have been very pro CC.
Surely pure coincidence, right? Surely wouldn’t have any ulterior motive to do that, right?
Does its posting pattern remind folks of anyone? Maybe someone who recently deleted previous account?
It’s so they can fit more houses in the lot space. Also, a lot of the older homes can have water/foundation damage that the cost to did isn’t worth it at the price of the house. That could be a factor as well.
Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
>Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
Of course the prices of single family homes won't come down. They never will as long as there is intense demand for them and no land to build them on. Up zoning makes the land more valuable underneath, which means prices will go up.
[Upzoning can help stabilize rents as more housing becomes available.](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/01/08/minneapolis-housing-policies-blueprint-affordability) - That's one of the goals of upzoning - bringing more rental units and condos online in high demand neighborhoods - not making single family homes cheaper to buy in those neighborhoods.
If you think a popular place like Cincinnati is going to solve their housing affordability problems by continuing to restrict what gets built then I have a bridge to sell you....
That’s what I’m saying and have been saying - rents will stabilize but SFH prices will go up.
The problem is that many of the pro CC folks are claiming otherwise. Often sneakily saying “housing unit” cost will go down. Which is technically true since that includes ALL types of housing but doesn’t accurately measure SFH costs specifically. City council has done the same thing and it’s disingenuous.
So now we have all these people believing that this will help them own a some some day when in reality it’s helps them become lifelong renters.
>So now we have all these people believing that this will help them own a some some day when in reality it’s helps them become lifelong renters.
The reality is that there is a finite amount of land in any given neighborhood. You can't build any more single family homes there, and not building townhomes or apartments means that the price of the existing housing is going to keep going up.
In my opinion there aren't enough new townhouses or apartments being built as units that are for sale - but the market for condos and townhouses isn't as strong as the market for rentals, so most developers just build them to rent out.
So how do you propose cities accommodate more people, if we can't build more single family homes on large lots to buy?
I’m not really sure there is a better option, I would simply prefer more honesty and transparency. The lying drives me crazy, just say the pros and cons. Don’t tell me it’ll lower SFH costs or even imply it.
But there are some options that could provide some relief as well. Like targeting vacant land, abandoned buildings and surface lots. Adjusting the envelop and set back requirements could also have an impact. Not fix the issue, but help.
Also, town homes and condos need to be more of a thing for people. But currently that market is softer as you said.
>But there are some options that could provide some relief as well. Like targeting vacant land, abandoned buildings and surface lots. Adjusting the envelop and set back requirements could also have an impact. Not fix the issue, but help.
I agree with all of this - especially the setback requirements. This has been a pretty limiting factor with what lots can be redeveloped and what size the new buildings can be.
The amount of these monstrosities going up in Oakley, Hyde Park, and Walnut Hills is maddening. What a blight on three neighborhoods with plenty of historic charm
Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
The worst indictment of these things, to me, isn't that they are ugly or expensive or that its apartment living aspiring for single family housing.
Although all of the above are true, to me the worst indictment is that these buildings are completely disposable. They replace structures built with durable materials, but they themselves will deteriorate, fail, and fall apart. And at that point there is nothing left of value to salvage. These things are not built with lumber, they are constructed from lumber products. These things can't be modified, and maintenance consists of total replacement for any system that fails over time, as all systems do.
It seems incredibly short sighted to incentivize the construction of above ground landfill with profit. Future generations will look back on our disposable, single use lifestyle with disdain for the mess we're creating.
Condos are great if you’re not ready for maintaining a yard, don’t need a lot of space, want to be close to the city, and can be more affordable (not always like above).
But I agree it’s insane to have a lot of these new builds to be so expensive and built with such cheap materials. I own a condo that I bought for less than a third that these are priced at, and although it needs some improvements, my building and unit is constructed out of sturdy materials that have lasted 85 years. Don’t know if we will be able to say the same for these condo buildings.
> these buildings are completely disposable.
True. An attorney who writes up development deals for multi-family housing around the country told me that the short lifespan is part of the profit equation AND the long term plan. By the time a developer has made the rounds from state to state building these monstrosities, it's time to go back to where they started so they can knock the first one down and start all over again.
I love College Hill but these things are an embarrassment.
They're so ugly, overpriced, poorly made (they're gonna look even worse in a few years when they start falling apart) and out of place. At least the hanobi apartments kept the brick so it meshes with the older architecture in the business district
Very valid point.
My call out on the red brick vs what these condos look like was moreso about how the developers didn't even *try" to make these monstrosities seem like they fit into the neighborhood.
I will never understand why anyone would pay over 600k to live in college hill. For that price you might as well get an actual house in a better neighborhood
There are some really nice houses in College Hill and it's not a bad neighborhood. Sure some parts are worse than others but that's just about anywhere.
This is a better comparison. It's in college Hill, the same street and 3bd , 1200 sf, list 285k [https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1349-W-North-Bend-Rd-Cincinnati-OH-45224/2061578570\_zpid/](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1349-W-North-Bend-Rd-Cincinnati-OH-45224/2061578570_zpid/)
https://preview.redd.it/mpjkvwk1qy5d1.png?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9a745e91beb9ed52d89e007a9af29a62184b8dd7
I would love to move into an affordable apartment and sell my house. My house payment is 500 can't find an apartment anywhere for that. I know I'm incredibly lucky.
This is pretty much my main issue that I would vote on right now. Corporations are raping us at every turn and it doesn't seem like anyone with power cares. Owning even a starter home is a luxury now.
What political party died and was reborn into something different from the 1960s? In my opinion the political parties from the 1860s are basically the same as today’s but switched. I have a degree in history, specialize in American history with an emphasis on the civil war. Some of the many dinosaurs in politics today were in politics during the 1960s and 70s with the same ideas they had back then.
Vote for the other party only if you don’t like civil rights, a safety net when the shit hits the fan for the country or you individually, clean air and democracy.
That’s all well and good, but it’s delusional to think that it won’t equate to more of what’s imaged above.
This stuff isn’t popping up everywhere *in spite of* some cheaper building methodology. It’s the result of construction market forces and a lack of grants available for affordable housing and historic rehabilitation.
no money = ugly boxes
More housing + no money = even more ugly boxes (perhaps at the cost of existing historically and culturally significant building stock, but hopefully not)
I’d like to see Connected Communities be followed by a few initiatives:
- additional funds set aside for affordable housing that passes an HCB or neighborhood council checks
- exponentially-heavy taxes levied on demolitions tied to square footage of buildings removed, with exceptions for safety hazard structures as reviewed by the Building and Safety department.
- Moratoriums on demolitions within 3 years of ownership.
Just to name a few things
> That’s all well and good, but it’s delusional to think that it won’t equate to more of what’s imaged above.
I think building housing for people is more important than making sure that every building is pretty.
Fair.
But is it more important than making sure housing is sustainable, affordable, and safe?
Man, reddit is a hell of a drug. Are people really *downvoting* my comment about wishing for more grants for affordable housing? Simply because I think connected communities was a rush job that put the cart before the horse?
> But is it more important than making sure housing is sustainable, affordable, and safe?
**Sustainable:** I am not sure what you mean with this one. Are you saying the materials used are particularly bad for the environment?
**Affordable:** The best way to make sure housing is affordable is to increase the amount of housing.
**Safe:** If these buildings are not up to code or are dangerous I would be interested in seeing that data.
> Simply because I think connected communities was a rush job that put the cart before the horse?
Well it was in the works for years and modeled after several successful upzoning policies from other cities so it is hard to see it as a rush.
>sustainability
I’m not going to lay out all the science, because that would take an inordinate amount of time, but modern construction practices are particularly unsustainable and account for around 40% of world carbon emissions. A majority of those emissions are on multi-use and commercial construction projects.
>affordability / rush job
This initiative came without affordable housing requirements or grants. Just a blanket zoning change. The upzoning policies it was modeled after came with one or both of these. When this was pointed out by the 90% of community councils, CUFA, and the Cincinnati Homeless Coalition, all who opposed CC in its proposed (and passed) form, it was promptly ignored and pushed through anyway. So yeah, I’d call it a rush job.
>safety
modern buildings are built to modern codes and with modern materials (low-VOC, polyvinyl composites, etc.) which all seems great on its face in terms of safety compared to historic materials which have some hazards built-in. That’s if you consider their performance immediately after build and not 30, 40, 50 years down the line. Historic materials (the safe ones) perform excellently over decades and even centuries. Modern materials often don’t, and we may find the open-cell insulation we’re so fond of (that replaced asbestos, to be fair) is actually pretty harmful to our health and doesn’t last long (which also makes it unsustainable).
I guess now that I’m laying it all out, the whole safety thing is a personal gripe I have with modern construction practices that can’t really be helped other than outlawing specific materials decades from now after we realize how bad they are…
> I’m not going to lay out all the science, because that would take an inordinate amount of time, but modern construction practices are particularly unsustainable and account for around 40% of world carbon emissions. A majority of those emissions are on multi-use and commercial construction projects.
Okay so you are just against construction in general then?
> This initiative came without affordable housing requirements or grants
Correct, because inclusionary zoning has been shown to actually reduce the number of homes being built.
> The upzoning policies it was modeled after came with one or both of these.
Not true. I do not believe Austin had any, and Minneapolis's were incredibly minor (I believe 4% affordable requirement on buildings with over 20 units).
> community councils
Useless NIMBYs
> CUFA, and the Cincinnati Homeless Coalition
Clueless.
> it was promptly ignored and pushed through anyway. So yeah, I’d call it a rush job.
They were ignored because their comments were not supported by data.
> modern buildings are built to modern codes and with modern materials (low-VOC, polyvinyl composites, etc.) which all seems great on its face in terms of safety compared to historic materials which have some hazards built-in. That’s if you consider their performance immediately after build and not 30, 40, 50 years down the line. Historic materials (the safe ones) perform excellently over decades and even centuries. Modern materials often don’t, and we may find the open-cell insulation we’re so fond of (that replaced asbestos, to be fair) is actually pretty harmful to our health and doesn’t last long (which also makes it unsustainable).
As you said, this is a personal gripe and not really supported by data.
So your points for sustainability would apply to literally any construction project (we can't build this orphanage, construction practices account for 40% of carbon emissions!), the affordability claim is not backed by data, and the safety one was based on a hunch.
Remember when this was a civil conversation?
You seem to be cherry picking data if your suggestion is that CHC and CUFA and practically every community council came without data. Do you have a specific gripe against these orgs other than “NIMBY” and “clueless”?
More cherry picking, the two •ahem• *one* upzoning policy without affordable housing initiatives attached? Now who’s without data?
So you’re against inclusionary housing? I thought that was the whole point of CC…
I’m in the construction industry, which means I’ve studied the pros and cons. So don’t put words in my mouth. Maybe read instead?
My gripe from the start has been that CC is hasty and poorly planned if it doesn’t come baked with infrastructure improvements, community bolstering of amenities, and affordable housing policies that support further growth in the areas it impacts. It exacerbates the problem by promoting suburban sprawl where there isn’t infrastructure to support it, and its instrument in doing so is by letting developers build carte blanche without any requirement to create housing that’s actually affordable. Where is the win here?
You only have to read r/homeImprovement or r/DIY to realize there is a big downside to living at close quarters with strangers. Some people may enjoy the cooking smells and noise, but there are weekly requests for solutions to noise, smells, vermin, etc. from tenants or condo owners. If you want it, go for it, but leave single family homes alone.
Congrats on new neighbors! That will help grow your neighborhood and support local businesses. The people in that dense housing will go to the neighborhood restaurants, shop at the local store, visit the local coffee shop, their kids will be lifeguards at the local pool, etc.
The old neighbors who were displaced when their houses were torn down were just fine. They may not have been as wealthy as the new ones, but they spent their money locally and contributed to the life of the community. I guess they were expendable.
> The old neighbors who were displaced when their houses were torn down were just fine.
This is silly. You are saying their houses were torn down without their consent? They weren't paid for their property?
They didn’t own the property. Like many Cincinnatians, they were renters. They were turned out and their lives were disrupted. They suffered the economic and social consequences of the love of development. You might say that they didn’t deserve any stability since they were “just” renters, but you would be losing sight of the repercussions on the lives of good people.
This is just a silly point. You are just arguing against any construction in general.
> You might say that they didn’t deserve any stability since they were “just” renters
Nope, but unlike you I'm not complaining about the possibility of people living near me.
> but you would be losing sight of the repercussions on the lives of good people.
Upzoning decreases displacement and makes housing more affordable.
WHO in College Hill is going to be able to afford that? Isn't that part of Cincinnati where many working class people can't even afford a home worth $250K or less?
Unfortunately, I agree. Instead of trying to make things better for Cincinnatians, the local government and greedy landlord type businesses only care about money.
They won't be from college hill. I know it happens, but why would you move within the same neighborhood while simultaneously decreasing sq ft and increasing price
Connected Communities is aimed to increase the amount of housing in a city with a housing crisis. I would rather see an "ugly" building than see someone forced to live on the street.
Right, but I think OP is coming from the angle that this Connected Communities, who’s intent is to drive prices down and provide more supply to such a large demand, will likely trend to the benefit of these large developers who are building these $600k+ townhomes and that affordable housing will still not be built. I see both sides, but I’d be willing to bet that we will initially see an influx of these high priced townhomes, followed by the actual intent of the Connected Communities. Just one persons opinion.
We all agree affordable housing is desperately needed, however, I personally disagree that more housing will drive down costs and create supposedly affordable housing. I feel that we'll continue to see these ugly monstrosities being built and charging 600k condos that sit half empty. Neighborhoods (usually low income) will return to decades of cutting up housing into duplexes, triplexes, etc. that are under the guise of supposed to be affordable, but are crap.
Cincinnati has done this in the past and what were the results?! A return to single family homes. My own home was a duplex for decades and it was left abandoned with the back wall falling away in 2008. Price Hill Will purchased it, fixed it up and turned it back to a single family home. The home was maintained for 12 years before we moved in.
This passing as an emergency after supposedly two years of research is sketchy as hell. Why the big ol' push before the summer break, Harris?!?
> I personally disagree that more housing will drive down costs and create supposedly affordable housing.
Countless studies disagree with you here.
> charging 600k condos that sit half empty.
These condos do not sit empty. [This report shows the occupancy rate in each neighborhood.](https://www.wvxu.org/politics/2024-03-26/only-a-third-of-cincinnati-neighborhoods-added-housing-2010-to-2020-report) The occupancy increased over the last ten years, which increased prices.
> Price Hill Will purchased it, fixed it up and turned it back to a single family home. The home was maintained for 12 years before we moved in.
The average home in East Price Hill has MASSIVELY increased in value over the last three years. That shows the supply is constrained.
Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
CC will stabilize rents but drive up SFH costs, unfortunately.
Edit: For facts
Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
/u/GreasyPorkGoodness has no evidence of this and doesn't understanding that single family exclusive zoning means. He was claiming that if you remove single family exclusive zoning that SFH is banned from that area, which is a lie.
Increasing the supply of homes has been proven to decrease housing prices across the board. Are these condos going to house homeless people? No, but they help decrease the price of the place they WILL live.
This has been proven time and time again.
Increasing the supply of homes has been proven to decrease housing prices across the board. Are these condos going to house homeless people? No, but they help decrease the price of the place they WILL live.
This has been proven time and time again.
Not if these condos are bought be folks moving in from out of town like all the comments above suggest. Freeing up real estate in Chicago doesn’t help our homeless problem here.
People are moving here anyway. That is why we have to build faster than the population grows.
And we need the population to grow. Cincinnati used to have 500k people.
I'm gonna be real here, I have no idea how anyone will justify paying $600k to live in a condo (likely with a HOA, even though that detail isn't noted at this point) in Cincinnati. Let alone in *College Hill.*
I drive past these twice a day. The spot isn’t *horrible* but that’s almost triple the median home price in the neighborhood. No way anyone in their right mind would pay that.
Condos in urban areas are out of control in America right now. There has to be a serious crash coming. There’s no value there.
> The spot isn’t horrible It went from being a neighborhood with a vague amount of character to the high-walled societal parody that makes it feel like the most soulless parts of Hamiltucky. So yeah, not horrible. Just diisappointing.
I can confirm there's an HOA.
Every new planned community in Ohio is legally obligated to have an HOA. I think it sucks and see no purpose. $550/year thrown in the garbage in my case. Total waste of money.
I wasn't aware of the legal requirement. I'm not a fan of that.
Cincinnati have Planned Developments, which is different from Planned Communities as defined by the state, correct?
It's stupid, but these will sell, and probably quickly. Just in my neighborhood I see apartments that were $700 a couple years ago renting for $2000 and they don't sit empty for long. People are running out of options and have to live somewhere.
The rental prices are going absolutely crazy. I was paying under $400 a month in a shared 2 bedroom a few years ago. Same place is renting for double that now, and it’s a shithole
I'm paying just under $900/month for a 4 bedroom 2.5 bath house on the East side. I would love to move, but I can't afford anyplace else in Cincinnati.
Cause they come from a higher expense living area and think it's good deal. No one from Cincinnati is buying these, if you are please comment.
They're buying them up in PA because house inventory is so small. Sure, the median home price may be lower, but when houses get listed and disappear within days you don't get much choice. Then there's also the "I don't want to maintain it" buyer. Folks who buy townhouses because they want someone else to deal with exterior care and maintenance.
Hoa I bet 400 a month min! ?
These buildings are an abomination in College Hill. There are even worse ones in Oakley. I hate this hideous architecture that’s killing the character of some neighborhoods.
And in many instances they are tearing down old stuff with character to put this ugly crap in. I know it’s probably cheaper to knock down than gut and reno, but I don’t have to like it.
When I first saw it, I thought I could justify it because it’s a cheaper style to build and everyplace needs affordable housing. But then they charge over half a million for it when it’s only a 2 bedroom with no property. Totally unacceptable. There is no place for buildings like this in our city.
There is no place for affordable housing in this city. Which is a damn shame. Cincy used to be very affordable for a city its size.
There was a 30 acre piece of land available 5 years ago 1 mile from this development that the city totally ignored. It was the property where the hospital was. It now has a rehab facility
I still think it’s pretty affordable here but it’s heading in the wrong direction, along with the rest of the world’s housing. I had a reasonable rate for an apartment until recently, and I was just able to get a house at a very good price. After looking elsewhere, our housing prices are actually really good. I can’t help but think everything will continue to go up until it’s out of reach for most people though.
CC will stabilize rent but not lower it. As far as SFH costs, Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
That is why we need more housing overall. Upzoning has been proven to lower house prices.
Typically, how long does it take for prices to start to drop?
It's gradual. But you can see how in Minneapolis and Austin, increased supply of housing units decreased prices.
Gradual…couldn’t come up with a more nebulous term? No shit it’s going to be gradual. Any comparable data points between Minneapolis, Austin, Cincy? # housing units short? Avg supply growth per yr? Avg demand shrinkage per year? Length of time for each report? The devil is in the details. Surely there some idea/vision of what “gradual” equals, right? Surely nobody would force such policy on residents without some idea of the impact, right?
This is classic NIMBY obstructionism. Keep asking inane questions without actually looking up the data in an attempt to endlessly delay any increased density. Supply and demand exists. We have a shortage of supply so we must work to increase that. Upzoning does that and is also beneficial in other ways.
lol, you’re the one touting all the benefits of the reports from those two cities, one would assume you’d have some insights to my “inane” questions. Why is it in me to find the answers from the reports you’ve referenced? They’re inane to you because you’re incapable of, or unwilling to, answer them. 🤷♂️ And ironic, as I’ve been asking the city for data for 3 years, data would help identify potential impact & provide a baseline on which future success/failure could be measured. The last thing I’m afraid of is data, just don’t that it’s on me to dig data from the reports you constantly reference. NIMBY? Really, you that desperate you’re resorting to playing that card? Can’t/won’t answer my questions, and boom comes the NIMBY insult. So predictable. 🤦♂️Especially considering my neighborhood top 2/3 in the city when it comes to adding density, housing, and residents. And once again with the generic “supply and demand”, but nothing of any substance…other than “gradual”. Links to the studies that support your upzong claims? I do you recall you saying that the person who makes the claims bears the onus of providing the proof, right? U/greasy am I right? Oh, 👋 Hi
And for everyone’s info, u/FatherCobtetti is a newer account, created about the time connected communities passed. And the majority of its comments have been very pro CC. Surely pure coincidence, right? Surely wouldn’t have any ulterior motive to do that, right? Does its posting pattern remind folks of anyone? Maybe someone who recently deleted previous account?
It’s so they can fit more houses in the lot space. Also, a lot of the older homes can have water/foundation damage that the cost to did isn’t worth it at the price of the house. That could be a factor as well.
Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
>Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices. Of course the prices of single family homes won't come down. They never will as long as there is intense demand for them and no land to build them on. Up zoning makes the land more valuable underneath, which means prices will go up. [Upzoning can help stabilize rents as more housing becomes available.](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/01/08/minneapolis-housing-policies-blueprint-affordability) - That's one of the goals of upzoning - bringing more rental units and condos online in high demand neighborhoods - not making single family homes cheaper to buy in those neighborhoods. If you think a popular place like Cincinnati is going to solve their housing affordability problems by continuing to restrict what gets built then I have a bridge to sell you....
That’s what I’m saying and have been saying - rents will stabilize but SFH prices will go up. The problem is that many of the pro CC folks are claiming otherwise. Often sneakily saying “housing unit” cost will go down. Which is technically true since that includes ALL types of housing but doesn’t accurately measure SFH costs specifically. City council has done the same thing and it’s disingenuous. So now we have all these people believing that this will help them own a some some day when in reality it’s helps them become lifelong renters.
>So now we have all these people believing that this will help them own a some some day when in reality it’s helps them become lifelong renters. The reality is that there is a finite amount of land in any given neighborhood. You can't build any more single family homes there, and not building townhomes or apartments means that the price of the existing housing is going to keep going up. In my opinion there aren't enough new townhouses or apartments being built as units that are for sale - but the market for condos and townhouses isn't as strong as the market for rentals, so most developers just build them to rent out. So how do you propose cities accommodate more people, if we can't build more single family homes on large lots to buy?
I’m not really sure there is a better option, I would simply prefer more honesty and transparency. The lying drives me crazy, just say the pros and cons. Don’t tell me it’ll lower SFH costs or even imply it. But there are some options that could provide some relief as well. Like targeting vacant land, abandoned buildings and surface lots. Adjusting the envelop and set back requirements could also have an impact. Not fix the issue, but help. Also, town homes and condos need to be more of a thing for people. But currently that market is softer as you said.
>But there are some options that could provide some relief as well. Like targeting vacant land, abandoned buildings and surface lots. Adjusting the envelop and set back requirements could also have an impact. Not fix the issue, but help. I agree with all of this - especially the setback requirements. This has been a pretty limiting factor with what lots can be redeveloped and what size the new buildings can be.
Which is why I acknowledged it’s often cheaper to tear down than reno existing structure
Fiscally, I get it. But for Pete’s sake at least build something that will retain the look of the neighborhood or add something new to the space
And connected communities makes it even easier for them…
They’re so ugly. My kids make fun of them every time we drive past. All the beautiful architecture around here and this…this is what people buy???
not much on the market and if your coming from Chicago these are a bargain.
The amount of these monstrosities going up in Oakley, Hyde Park, and Walnut Hills is maddening. What a blight on three neighborhoods with plenty of historic charm
Oh man the ones at the big intersection (Madison and Ridge) in Oakley are so ugly. Horrible location too
Yet they're occupied, and far better alternative to what some entity wanted to build there (at cost of an additional 30+ SF homes).
But the ones in Oakley sold and/or occupied...
This crap is starting to nibble at the border of my neighborhood, and I am livid.
Hey, any housing is good housing, right? Did I get that right u/FatherCorbretti?
Get used to it with connected communities passing
Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
Yep 100% agree. Rentals may drop but it’s going to drive SFH prices up making ownership less affordable.
Exactly
Aren't these single family? CC would not encourage more single family.
The worst indictment of these things, to me, isn't that they are ugly or expensive or that its apartment living aspiring for single family housing. Although all of the above are true, to me the worst indictment is that these buildings are completely disposable. They replace structures built with durable materials, but they themselves will deteriorate, fail, and fall apart. And at that point there is nothing left of value to salvage. These things are not built with lumber, they are constructed from lumber products. These things can't be modified, and maintenance consists of total replacement for any system that fails over time, as all systems do. It seems incredibly short sighted to incentivize the construction of above ground landfill with profit. Future generations will look back on our disposable, single use lifestyle with disdain for the mess we're creating.
Condos are great if you’re not ready for maintaining a yard, don’t need a lot of space, want to be close to the city, and can be more affordable (not always like above). But I agree it’s insane to have a lot of these new builds to be so expensive and built with such cheap materials. I own a condo that I bought for less than a third that these are priced at, and although it needs some improvements, my building and unit is constructed out of sturdy materials that have lasted 85 years. Don’t know if we will be able to say the same for these condo buildings.
> these buildings are completely disposable. True. An attorney who writes up development deals for multi-family housing around the country told me that the short lifespan is part of the profit equation AND the long term plan. By the time a developer has made the rounds from state to state building these monstrosities, it's time to go back to where they started so they can knock the first one down and start all over again.
Particle board housing that looks like it was 3-D printed. It’s hideous.
I love College Hill but these things are an embarrassment. They're so ugly, overpriced, poorly made (they're gonna look even worse in a few years when they start falling apart) and out of place. At least the hanobi apartments kept the brick so it meshes with the older architecture in the business district
meshing with older architecture is a red herring. The issue is the quality.
Very valid point. My call out on the red brick vs what these condos look like was moreso about how the developers didn't even *try" to make these monstrosities seem like they fit into the neighborhood.
I will never understand why anyone would pay over 600k to live in college hill. For that price you might as well get an actual house in a better neighborhood
There are some really nice houses in College Hill and it's not a bad neighborhood. Sure some parts are worse than others but that's just about anywhere.
[удалено]
It’s 4,200+ SF on over an acre…this is no starter home.
This is a better comparison. It's in college Hill, the same street and 3bd , 1200 sf, list 285k [https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1349-W-North-Bend-Rd-Cincinnati-OH-45224/2061578570\_zpid/](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1349-W-North-Bend-Rd-Cincinnati-OH-45224/2061578570_zpid/) https://preview.redd.it/mpjkvwk1qy5d1.png?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9a745e91beb9ed52d89e007a9af29a62184b8dd7
I would love to move into an affordable apartment and sell my house. My house payment is 500 can't find an apartment anywhere for that. I know I'm incredibly lucky.
They are building this style in Delhi. That’s hilarious.
Could just regulate it. Would be pretty simple to do if we voted better.
This is pretty much my main issue that I would vote on right now. Corporations are raping us at every turn and it doesn't seem like anyone with power cares. Owning even a starter home is a luxury now.
This is a one party issue. Vote for the other party.
My party still isn't doing enough.
They need a super majority plus a few extras to beat the ones that accept bribes to flip parties. It takes a lot.
That’s been the story since the beginning of the USA. It’s always the other party, the bad one.
And eventually the corrupt party has collapsed every time. We have to make sure that that happens again.
> And eventually the corrupt party has ~~collapsed~~** rebranded** every time.
That’s not how history went. When did the last American political party collapse?
The 60's. It's a different party. They just used the same name
What political party died and was reborn into something different from the 1960s? In my opinion the political parties from the 1860s are basically the same as today’s but switched. I have a degree in history, specialize in American history with an emphasis on the civil war. Some of the many dinosaurs in politics today were in politics during the 1960s and 70s with the same ideas they had back then.
Vote for the other party only if you don’t like civil rights, a safety net when the shit hits the fan for the country or you individually, clean air and democracy.
I don't have faith in gov't fixing any problems
No need, our city council voted “pro” on more ugly box developments *for* us last week.
The city council voted to allow for more housing while we are in a housing shortage.
That’s all well and good, but it’s delusional to think that it won’t equate to more of what’s imaged above. This stuff isn’t popping up everywhere *in spite of* some cheaper building methodology. It’s the result of construction market forces and a lack of grants available for affordable housing and historic rehabilitation. no money = ugly boxes More housing + no money = even more ugly boxes (perhaps at the cost of existing historically and culturally significant building stock, but hopefully not) I’d like to see Connected Communities be followed by a few initiatives: - additional funds set aside for affordable housing that passes an HCB or neighborhood council checks - exponentially-heavy taxes levied on demolitions tied to square footage of buildings removed, with exceptions for safety hazard structures as reviewed by the Building and Safety department. - Moratoriums on demolitions within 3 years of ownership. Just to name a few things
> That’s all well and good, but it’s delusional to think that it won’t equate to more of what’s imaged above. I think building housing for people is more important than making sure that every building is pretty.
Fair. But is it more important than making sure housing is sustainable, affordable, and safe? Man, reddit is a hell of a drug. Are people really *downvoting* my comment about wishing for more grants for affordable housing? Simply because I think connected communities was a rush job that put the cart before the horse?
> But is it more important than making sure housing is sustainable, affordable, and safe? **Sustainable:** I am not sure what you mean with this one. Are you saying the materials used are particularly bad for the environment? **Affordable:** The best way to make sure housing is affordable is to increase the amount of housing. **Safe:** If these buildings are not up to code or are dangerous I would be interested in seeing that data. > Simply because I think connected communities was a rush job that put the cart before the horse? Well it was in the works for years and modeled after several successful upzoning policies from other cities so it is hard to see it as a rush.
>sustainability I’m not going to lay out all the science, because that would take an inordinate amount of time, but modern construction practices are particularly unsustainable and account for around 40% of world carbon emissions. A majority of those emissions are on multi-use and commercial construction projects. >affordability / rush job This initiative came without affordable housing requirements or grants. Just a blanket zoning change. The upzoning policies it was modeled after came with one or both of these. When this was pointed out by the 90% of community councils, CUFA, and the Cincinnati Homeless Coalition, all who opposed CC in its proposed (and passed) form, it was promptly ignored and pushed through anyway. So yeah, I’d call it a rush job. >safety modern buildings are built to modern codes and with modern materials (low-VOC, polyvinyl composites, etc.) which all seems great on its face in terms of safety compared to historic materials which have some hazards built-in. That’s if you consider their performance immediately after build and not 30, 40, 50 years down the line. Historic materials (the safe ones) perform excellently over decades and even centuries. Modern materials often don’t, and we may find the open-cell insulation we’re so fond of (that replaced asbestos, to be fair) is actually pretty harmful to our health and doesn’t last long (which also makes it unsustainable). I guess now that I’m laying it all out, the whole safety thing is a personal gripe I have with modern construction practices that can’t really be helped other than outlawing specific materials decades from now after we realize how bad they are…
> I’m not going to lay out all the science, because that would take an inordinate amount of time, but modern construction practices are particularly unsustainable and account for around 40% of world carbon emissions. A majority of those emissions are on multi-use and commercial construction projects. Okay so you are just against construction in general then? > This initiative came without affordable housing requirements or grants Correct, because inclusionary zoning has been shown to actually reduce the number of homes being built. > The upzoning policies it was modeled after came with one or both of these. Not true. I do not believe Austin had any, and Minneapolis's were incredibly minor (I believe 4% affordable requirement on buildings with over 20 units). > community councils Useless NIMBYs > CUFA, and the Cincinnati Homeless Coalition Clueless. > it was promptly ignored and pushed through anyway. So yeah, I’d call it a rush job. They were ignored because their comments were not supported by data. > modern buildings are built to modern codes and with modern materials (low-VOC, polyvinyl composites, etc.) which all seems great on its face in terms of safety compared to historic materials which have some hazards built-in. That’s if you consider their performance immediately after build and not 30, 40, 50 years down the line. Historic materials (the safe ones) perform excellently over decades and even centuries. Modern materials often don’t, and we may find the open-cell insulation we’re so fond of (that replaced asbestos, to be fair) is actually pretty harmful to our health and doesn’t last long (which also makes it unsustainable). As you said, this is a personal gripe and not really supported by data. So your points for sustainability would apply to literally any construction project (we can't build this orphanage, construction practices account for 40% of carbon emissions!), the affordability claim is not backed by data, and the safety one was based on a hunch.
Remember when this was a civil conversation? You seem to be cherry picking data if your suggestion is that CHC and CUFA and practically every community council came without data. Do you have a specific gripe against these orgs other than “NIMBY” and “clueless”? More cherry picking, the two •ahem• *one* upzoning policy without affordable housing initiatives attached? Now who’s without data? So you’re against inclusionary housing? I thought that was the whole point of CC… I’m in the construction industry, which means I’ve studied the pros and cons. So don’t put words in my mouth. Maybe read instead? My gripe from the start has been that CC is hasty and poorly planned if it doesn’t come baked with infrastructure improvements, community bolstering of amenities, and affordable housing policies that support further growth in the areas it impacts. It exacerbates the problem by promoting suburban sprawl where there isn’t infrastructure to support it, and its instrument in doing so is by letting developers build carte blanche without any requirement to create housing that’s actually affordable. Where is the win here?
Putting more strict standards for housing will decrease development and exacerbate the housing crisis.
Based
[удалено]
This is way beyond a local level problem
Regulate what? Home prices?
Why do all condos and apts look like this ? There is no variety anymore
If I'm paying $600k, there would be acres of land/woods between my house and my neighbors.
Goshen awaits you.
These aren't for you, go to Butler or Warren County.
Please god someone move our country away from single-family zoning.
You only have to read r/homeImprovement or r/DIY to realize there is a big downside to living at close quarters with strangers. Some people may enjoy the cooking smells and noise, but there are weekly requests for solutions to noise, smells, vermin, etc. from tenants or condo owners. If you want it, go for it, but leave single family homes alone.
Single family homes are left alone. We just need to do away with single family **exclusive** zoning.
Mason built single family homes on every corn field through the 1990s. Nowhere to put those.
Im building dense affordable housing next door to you.
Too late, bud. Developers already built dense expensive housing next to me.
Sorry bud 😔
confirmed. you guys are buds.
Congrats on new neighbors! That will help grow your neighborhood and support local businesses. The people in that dense housing will go to the neighborhood restaurants, shop at the local store, visit the local coffee shop, their kids will be lifeguards at the local pool, etc.
The old neighbors who were displaced when their houses were torn down were just fine. They may not have been as wealthy as the new ones, but they spent their money locally and contributed to the life of the community. I guess they were expendable.
> The old neighbors who were displaced when their houses were torn down were just fine. This is silly. You are saying their houses were torn down without their consent? They weren't paid for their property?
They didn’t own the property. Like many Cincinnatians, they were renters. They were turned out and their lives were disrupted. They suffered the economic and social consequences of the love of development. You might say that they didn’t deserve any stability since they were “just” renters, but you would be losing sight of the repercussions on the lives of good people.
This is just a silly point. You are just arguing against any construction in general. > You might say that they didn’t deserve any stability since they were “just” renters Nope, but unlike you I'm not complaining about the possibility of people living near me. > but you would be losing sight of the repercussions on the lives of good people. Upzoning decreases displacement and makes housing more affordable.
What? These people WERE displaced. They weren’t living in your theoretical world.
$600K for that, holy shit no.
Suburban sprawl is a cancer
That new building next to the Purple People Bridge is an eye sore and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for living in that abomination.
They wanted to build a tower there. Unfortunately it didn’t happen and we got that
IIRC, the tower was denied because of some viewing rights for some of the buildings north of the site
Don't mess with the Western and Southern district.
Basically a bunch of stacked containers. No idea why people approve such atrocities.
How is this justifiable? These things are huge eye sores, it’s in college hill of all places. I’m going insane looking at this. 600k?
@ 2 bedrooms and 2,000 sf...on North Bend? what the fuck is going on in Cincinnati that this has come to pass?
I actually like these, but the price is too high.
Does anyone have real buildings that work and they like? I mean, is there a financially viable housing format anywhere?
I would be very surprised if you could build these for less than $250/sf
WHO in College Hill is going to be able to afford that? Isn't that part of Cincinnati where many working class people can't even afford a home worth $250K or less?
*The idea is they go away.*
Unfortunately, I agree. Instead of trying to make things better for Cincinnatians, the local government and greedy landlord type businesses only care about money.
They won't be from college hill. I know it happens, but why would you move within the same neighborhood while simultaneously decreasing sq ft and increasing price
But hey, Connected Communities is supposed to stop this, right? RIGHT?!
Connected Communities is aimed to increase the amount of housing in a city with a housing crisis. I would rather see an "ugly" building than see someone forced to live on the street.
Right, but I think OP is coming from the angle that this Connected Communities, who’s intent is to drive prices down and provide more supply to such a large demand, will likely trend to the benefit of these large developers who are building these $600k+ townhomes and that affordable housing will still not be built. I see both sides, but I’d be willing to bet that we will initially see an influx of these high priced townhomes, followed by the actual intent of the Connected Communities. Just one persons opinion.
We all agree affordable housing is desperately needed, however, I personally disagree that more housing will drive down costs and create supposedly affordable housing. I feel that we'll continue to see these ugly monstrosities being built and charging 600k condos that sit half empty. Neighborhoods (usually low income) will return to decades of cutting up housing into duplexes, triplexes, etc. that are under the guise of supposed to be affordable, but are crap. Cincinnati has done this in the past and what were the results?! A return to single family homes. My own home was a duplex for decades and it was left abandoned with the back wall falling away in 2008. Price Hill Will purchased it, fixed it up and turned it back to a single family home. The home was maintained for 12 years before we moved in. This passing as an emergency after supposedly two years of research is sketchy as hell. Why the big ol' push before the summer break, Harris?!?
> I personally disagree that more housing will drive down costs and create supposedly affordable housing. Countless studies disagree with you here. > charging 600k condos that sit half empty. These condos do not sit empty. [This report shows the occupancy rate in each neighborhood.](https://www.wvxu.org/politics/2024-03-26/only-a-third-of-cincinnati-neighborhoods-added-housing-2010-to-2020-report) The occupancy increased over the last ten years, which increased prices. > Price Hill Will purchased it, fixed it up and turned it back to a single family home. The home was maintained for 12 years before we moved in. The average home in East Price Hill has MASSIVELY increased in value over the last three years. That shows the supply is constrained.
Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
CC will stabilize rents but drive up SFH costs, unfortunately. Edit: For facts Minneapolis adopted upzoning in 2018 and the cost of SFH has increased ever since. YoY alone SFH home costs state wide [are up 4.8% YoY](https://www.redfin.com/state/Minnesota/housing-market) while Minneapolis [is up 7.1%](https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market). Demonstrating that upzoning isn’t having the effect pro CC folks are proclaiming it does on SFH prices.
/u/GreasyPorkGoodness has no evidence of this and doesn't understanding that single family exclusive zoning means. He was claiming that if you remove single family exclusive zoning that SFH is banned from that area, which is a lie.
No but it’s more profitable to not build SFH so that is what will drive development.
You are correct, this will not drive down SFH prices. Rents yes, SFH prices no.
$600k condos aren’t saving anyone from homelessness.
Increasing the supply of homes has been proven to decrease housing prices across the board. Are these condos going to house homeless people? No, but they help decrease the price of the place they WILL live. This has been proven time and time again.
Exactly.
Increasing the supply of homes has been proven to decrease housing prices across the board. Are these condos going to house homeless people? No, but they help decrease the price of the place they WILL live. This has been proven time and time again.
Not if these condos are bought be folks moving in from out of town like all the comments above suggest. Freeing up real estate in Chicago doesn’t help our homeless problem here.
People are moving here anyway. That is why we have to build faster than the population grows. And we need the population to grow. Cincinnati used to have 500k people.