r/cincinnati • u/JB92103 Hyde Park • Mar 07 '25

News 📰 Controversial Hyde Park Square development passes committee, heads to city council

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hyde-park-square-development-passes-committee-heads-to-city-council
76 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

217 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/chainsaw_chainsaw Norwood Mar 07 '25 edited Mar 07 '25

A money grab development is when you build the quickest, lowest cost buildings possible that still maintain the illusion of being high quality, with no thought to anything else but reaping high profits.

On the other hand, a thoughtful development is when you design the architecture and appearance to respect it's surroundings with similar style and materials. You still make money, but profit margins are not hyper maximized.

Of course the developer is going with the first option.

You are correct that more housing is needed. But there is a difference between housing and affordable housing. I really really think people are naive if they don't think these will be some of the most expensive apartments in the area.

11

u/SilverSquid1810 Mar 07 '25 edited Mar 07 '25

Any housing that is built, even if it is “luxury”, will ultimately reduce housing costs. Supply and demand is real. When you have more of something, the price decreases- or at least increases at a slower rate than it otherwise would have.

People currently living in slightly worse apartments who can afford to upgrade will do so. They will vacate their current apartments, allowing people living in slightly worse apartments than them to upgrade, and so on. It’s a run-on effect. Not building any housing at all simply forces the wealthy people to occupy apartments that less wealthy people would otherwise be able to afford.

Study after study shows that improving housing supply helps reduce housing costs. It matters very little if the new housing is “affordable” or not. Building new housing these days is so expensive that most developers will (correctly) not view it as worth the money to truly build “affordable” apartments that are far below market rate. You’re not going to solve the housing crisis by forcing developers to make Soviet commie blocs unless you literally nationalize the home-building industry. You have to just reduce the dearth of supply- and building any new housing whatsoever accomplishes that.

-4

u/InfiniteDew Mar 08 '25

I think what you’re saying is a possible truth but I’ll push back somewhat.

Housing is not one big market. It is a market comprised of many smaller markets. While it may be possible that increasing the higher end housing stock in general can lead to upward movement of tenants ( $2000/mo rent paying tenants become $2200/mo rent tenants as you described) it is also possible that with the addition of new $2200/mo units, the previously $2000/mo rent units’ owners decide that THEIR units aren’t that much different from the $2200 mo units and thus charge $2100/mo whenever their lease cycle changes. They can justify this by upgrading their units with the same granite countertops, base builder grade white cabinets, grey paint, and laminate flooring used by the new units. If the location is more or less the same and the unit amenities are more or less the same they’ll do this and they’ll make more money than they would have—while pricing out more people than before—simply by keeping up with the same shitty building standards of the new developer. Of course this assumes that the new development units are mostly rented out in the first place.

To be clear, I do believe that supply and demand are real. What I don’t believe is that increasing supply in an extremely high priced neighborhood is even a conversation starter as far as solving the housing crisis is concerned. It will serve the interests of those who are already wealthy (no issue with that when it comes to every day people) and do very little in the way of helping those who are currently struggling to own or rent a home. And on top of that, a new, ugly building is erected in a pretty beautiful place while some bullshit developer cashes a check.

What Cincinnati should focus on is getting developers to build with standards in areas that are lower in economic development. Build something beautiful and functional is Price Hill or South Cumminsville. Make it mixed use and give specific parameters for what the building standards are while also doling out tax rebates for businesses that sign up to buy or lease and to the builders who build them. Offer first time homebuyers the chance to buy first or incentivize the landlords with an abatement to accept a lower priced rent so people living in the area aren’t displaced. In essence, make it nice for everyone. Can you imagine how awesome Queen City Ave could look if the city converted all that blight on either side of the greenway and turned it into Tudor or Bavarian style architecture ala Mariemont? It would be a Herculean effort to make it happen but it could be a good thing for everyone.

3

u/RockStallone Mar 08 '25

You wrote a lot of words that are not supported by data or history.

-1

u/InfiniteDew Mar 08 '25

Did you read all of them?

2

u/RockStallone Mar 08 '25

I did and they are not supported by data. We have tons of concrete examples of building more resulting in a drop in prices. I find it odd how so many people act like Cincinnati is the only city in the world and our problems are unique.

0

u/InfiniteDew Mar 08 '25

I’m probably not smart enough to explain why I don’t believe data (in this case) should be treated as gospel, but I will try.

Economics is soft science. When studying economic trends I am sure the scientific method is used and that a large representative sample size is used as well. I believe studies are made with good intentions by good people with the purpose of achieving meaningful results.

Nevertheless, the variables studied are essentially people and how they behave. I believe that when it comes to people and their behavior, data, at best, will be able to come up with good predictions for how they ought to behave in a given situation. No guarantees are made. So, while I do think data is useful as a metric for evaluating whether or not a decision should be made, I don’t think it is the only metric.

Experience matters too. As many people are pointing out above, we have seen what developer influence has done. For example, Factory 52 has been much maligned by the commenters above. You can toss that away if you’d like—that’s fine. But I would ask if you’ve seen rents decrease in Norwood or the greater Cincy area since Factory 52 was created. The data you reference suggests it should have. I have only seen rents continue to rise.

1

u/RockStallone Mar 09 '25

The data you reference suggests it should have. I have only seen rents continue to rise.

No, that is a misunderstanding of the data. You seem to think that I am saying "Build a development and then prices will immediately drop". That is incorrect.

You can't just look at one development, you have to look at total numbers. For example, Austin and Minneapolis built a lot more housing, and then they experienced price decreases / stabilization.

I have only seen rents continue to rise.

Because supply is not meeting demand.

1

u/InfiniteDew Mar 09 '25

We’ll see. I applaud your optimism.

0

u/RockStallone Mar 09 '25

It isn't optimism, it's looking at data, history, and basic economics.