[Stylo]

Source: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/index.html

[Stylo]

This is nearly a housing shortage crisis, no?

IMO we should be speeding up housing construction in our cities and TOD’s.

[JayCT]

Again it comes down to good planning practices. 8-30g and state mandated TOD development is NOT good planning. As I think we are seeing in New Haven, Stamford, Hartford and even Bridgeport, private developers now know there’s money to be made in apartment development in Connecticut. Jay

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Again it comes down to good planning practices. 8-30g and state mandated TOD development is NOT good planning. As I think we are seeing in New Haven, Stamford, Hartford and even Bridgeport, private developers now know there’s money to be made in apartment development in Connecticut. Jay

It’s just a matter of getting though the approvals red tape and NIMBY local governments. That’s the biggest reason we are not seeing more development.

Some red tape is required, but I do know one really good apartment project in Milford has been held up by the state for a very long time.

I’d love to see high rises in our cities. Go up and more dense. And continue to build on surface lots/abandoned/under utilized properties. No need to build dense in single family neighborhoods if that’s done.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Stylo

It’s just a matter of getting though the approvals red tape and NIMBY local governments. That’s the biggest reason we are not seeing more development.

Some red tape is required, but I do know one really good apartment project in Milford has been held up by the state for a very long time.

I’d love to see high rises in our cities. Go up and more dense. And continue to build on surface lots/abandoned/under utilized properties. No need to build dense in single family neighborhoods if that’s done.

I’m talking about the attempted state mandate that high density transit oriented development be allowed at every train station on the New Haven Line. I’m sorry but there is nothing uglier and more jarring than a 30 story building in the middle of a low rise areas. I can see them in our cities but state mandates allowing them anywhere is wrong. It’s not NIMBY, it’s preserving our states character which as has been shown on our Desegregate CT thread shows our state legislators do not care about.

So you know, the reason you see mostly five or six story buildings is that that’s about highest you can go with wood frame construction. It optimizes the price per square foot. High rise construction requires steel and/or concrete construction and is very very expensive. It really takes a lot of floors and a lot of apartments to justify the cost. Usually it’s not worth it. Especially in the suburbs. Jay

[Stylo]

Yes I do agree we shouldn’t build up in suburbs. I wasn’t aware that was allowed.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I’m talking about the attempted state mandate that high density transit oriented development be allowed at every train station on the New Haven Line. I’m sorry but there is nothing uglier and more jarring than a 30 story building in the middle of a low rise areas. I can see them in our cities but state mandates allowing them anywhere is wrong. It’s not NIMBY, it’s preserving our states character which as has been shown on our Desegregate CT thread shows our state legislators do not care about.

So you know, the reason you see mostly five or six story buildings is that that’s about highest you can go with wood frame construction. It optimizes the price per square foot. High rise construction requires steel and/or concrete construction and is very very expensive. It really takes a lot of floors and a lot of apartments to justify the cost. Usually it’s not worth it. Especially in the suburbs. Jay

Aren't most New Haven line stations within a relatively commercial area, or if not that, then just a sea of asphalt parking? I think having dense building around these places makes a lot of sense. What are the stations you are thinking of where it'd ruin the character to have denser, mixed-use construction? Are there really that many of them?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Aren't most New Haven line stations within a relatively commercial area, or if not that, then just a sea of asphalt parking? I think having dense building around these places makes a lot of sense. What are the stations you are thinking of where it'd ruin the character to have denser, mixed-use construction? Are there really that many of them?

You obviously haven’t been following the DesegregateCT thread closely. While you are correct that many stations are in or near commercial areas in town centers, that does not mean they are dense or walkable enough for that group. They specifically identified stations like Fairfield, Southport, Darien, among others where more density should be added.

Fairfield Station is located in Fairfield Center, the towns central business district. To the south of the tracks, along the Post Road (US Route 1) with a semi-suburban dense walkable commercial district with tons of stores and restaurants. To the north is a large very well used parking lot, a middle school, a couple condo complexes, an industrial/commercial complex and I-95. It’s all very walkable.

Beyond that is the Ludlowe Middle-High School/Sturges Park, a nursing home/rehab center, several suburban neighborhoods and the beautiful low density Winton Park neighborhood. I’m not sure why this is not sufficient to this group but it has been targeted for denser development. Do they want high rises? Do they want to eliminate the schools and park? What about the rest of it? Doing that would completely destroy the character of the town.

Darien is very similar to this. What do they want there?

Then there is Southport, an unbelievably charming and stunning village of historic homes south of the tracks. North of them is a mix of multi-family, commercial and a few single family homes. Beyond that is I-95 and more of the same and the Post Road (US Route 1). Do we really want to destroy one of our state’s most beautiful and charming villages for the sake of a blanket state mandated density? I say NO! Jay

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You obviously haven’t been following the DesegregateCT thread closely. While you are correct that many stations are in or near commercial areas in town centers, that does not mean they are dense or walkable enough for that group. They specifically identified stations like Fairfield, Southport, Darien, among others where more density should be added.

Fairfield Station is located in Fairfield Center, the towns central business district. To the south of the tracks, along the Post Road (US Route 1) with a semi-suburban dense walkable commercial district with tons of stores and restaurants. To the north is a large very well used parking lot, a middle school, a couple condo complexes, an industrial/commercial complex and I-95. It’s all very walkable.

Beyond that is the Ludlowe Middle-High School/Sturges Park, a nursing home/rehab center, several suburban neighborhoods and the beautiful low density Winton Park neighborhood. I’m not sure why this is not sufficient to this group but it has been targeted for denser development. Do they want high rises? Do they want to eliminate the schools and park? What about the rest of it? Doing that would completely destroy the character of the town.

Darien is very similar to this. What do they want there?

Then there is Southport, an unbelievably charming and stunning village of historic homes south of the tracks. North of them is a mix of multi-family, commercial and a few single family homes. Beyond that is I-95 and more of the same and the Post Road (US Route 1). Do we really want to destroy one of our state’s most beautiful and charming villages for the sake of a blanket state mandated density? I say NO! Jay

I have not followed it--I'll take a look. I think ruining the character with massive high-rises of very different styles from the surrounding area is certainly not to my taste, though I think there certainly are a lot of surface parking lots that are not really historic in nature or appearance that I think building over near the stations are a good idea. There are certain sorts of laws or incentives I've seen in municipalities that encourage certain styles and layouts that perhaps could be leveraged, though I'm not sure how that goes about within CT's state and municipal legal frameworks. I will say that I don't find the places you mentioned to be particularly good quality urbanism. Certainly far from the worst within the US, but there's a lot better that it could do and it could do so with fairly low-rise or mid-rise buildings as low-rise buildings can also have quite a bit of density and from historic pictures of a lot of CT villages, towns, and cities I've seen, very closely placed or even attached multi-level buildings (and not high-rises) seemed to be pretty common in the past with there having been visible removal of some of these in the latter 20th century for surface parking lots. One thing I'd like to understand is what the mechanisms at work in terms of municipal laws, zoning, and economics that have made so much surface parking along these stations given how expensive real estate is within those areas. I would have thought that multi-level parking garages or basement levels where some of at least the street facing parts of it would be better utilized given the expensive of the land area. Do these areas often have large parking minimum requirements? Is that potentially part of why things are built the way they are?

[norcal2k19]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I have not followed it--I'll take a look. I think ruining the character with massive high-rises of very different styles from the surrounding area is certainly not to my taste, though I think there certainly are a lot of surface parking lots that are not really historic in nature or appearance that I think building over near the stations are a good idea. There are certain sorts of laws or incentives I've seen in municipalities that encourage certain styles and layouts that perhaps could be leveraged, though I'm not sure how that goes about within CT's state and municipal legal frameworks. I will say that I don't find the places you mentioned to be particularly good quality urbanism. Certainly far from the worst within the US, but there's a lot better that it could do and it could do so with fairly low-rise or mid-rise buildings as low-rise buildings can also have quite a bit of density and from historic pictures of a lot of CT villages, towns, and cities I've seen, very closely placed or even attached multi-level buildings (and not high-rises) seemed to be pretty common in the past with there having been visible removal of some of these in the latter 20th century for surface parking lots. One thing I'd like to understand is what the mechanisms at work in terms of municipal laws, zoning, and economics that have made so much surface parking along these stations given how expensive real estate is within those areas. I would have thought that multi-level parking garages or basement levels where some of at least the street facing parts of it would be better utilized given the expensive of the land area. Do these areas often have large parking minimum requirements? Is that potentially part of why things are built the way they are?

Totally agree with everything written above by OyCrumbler.

No one is trying to turn precious Southport or Fairfield into a New Rochelle. You can have human scaled density near the train stations with two to four story buildings along with green space and well-designed parking that contains green features. This is likely the direction CT will take to development adjacent to Metro North Stations sans Stamford, Merritt 7, New Haven Union station in partnership with Amtrak. Matter of fact, Norwalk is taking this human-scaled approach with its South Norwalk TOD and partnership with Spinnaker along with Darien too with the new Corbin district and Norton Heights developments so it'll be helpful to turn down the words full of hyperbole about destroying character - no one in this thread is interesting in ruining great assets within our state.