CINCINNATI, OHIO, started 2016 off with a bang. The Queen City, which had been experiencing population declines since the 1950s and took the housing crash very, very hard (with losses in val- ues and a foreclosure crisis that extended long into the purported national “recov- ery”), found itself once again gaining in population and the recipient of a number of positive accolades, including Forbes’ “Number One Up-and-Coming City for College Grads” and a place on Christie’s International Real Estate’s “Top 10 Cities to Watch in 2017.” On the latter list, only one other U.S. city made the cut, so Cin- cinnati mainly kept company with cities like Vienna, Panama City and Lisbon. Despite all the positive press, how- ever, the Ohio metro ended 2016 on something of a sour note. Members of the media dubbed the area a “cold” market due to lack of inventory. Local housing advocacy groups and real estate professionals alike complained about the lack of inventory—affordable and otherwise—and the region’s negative equity numbers were still something to be concerned about: 16 percent of greater Cincinnati homeowners were still underwater at the end of last year (compared to 11 percent nationwide). It was hard to tell which direction, exactly, was actually “up” in the regional market as one could read, back to back, an analysis of the market indicating that things were stone-cold to the touch and an upbeat prediction about the burgeoning and as-yet-not-fully-tapped profitability and potential of turnkey rental investments in the area. To make things more complicated, both analyses could be backed by cold, hard numbers. The truth of the matter is: Both anal- yses could have been right. Cincinnati, along with the greater Ohio real estate market and the northernmost part of Kentucky, can best be described as “look- ing-glass” real estate. For the investors who put their money into and feel affec-
thinkrealty . com | 59
Made with FlippingBook Online document