Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-31-2017, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,727 posts, read 56,531,322 times
Reputation: 11168

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
I thought the federal government had the right to expropriate any private property for the greater good. No?
The Feds normally differs this type of things to the state. The state does have the power but that does not mean they could do anything they want. There is a very long process that gets very expensive. They would have to prove that widening I-95, I-84 or the Merritt Parkway was not feasible. Since that is unlikely, it would be nearly impossible. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2017, 08:30 PM
 
Location: JC
1,837 posts, read 1,601,209 times
Reputation: 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10 View Post
You're not following the bouncing ball -- current, not some maybe in the future, current people living in suburbia FFC are CT's golden goose. I could care less for trends in big cities, which none exist in FFC.
I'm not talking about big city trends. This is a nationwide relocation trend.

The majority of the FFC population reside in FFC because of some combination of safe neighborhoods, good schools, ease of commute, etc.

If you wish to ignore this and keep your head in the sand on transportation then enjoy the slow population decline and eventual tax hikes and services cuts that go with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 06:06 AM
 
3,346 posts, read 4,138,059 times
Reputation: 1931
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHuskies View Post
I'm not talking about big city trends. This is a nationwide relocation trend.

The majority of the FFC population reside in FFC because of some combination of safe neighborhoods, good schools, ease of commute, etc.

If you wish to ignore this and keep your head in the sand on transportation then enjoy the slow population decline and eventual tax hikes and services cuts that go with it.
Unfortunately big city trends are being shoved down our throats while in reality big city population declines persist once you look past NYC and LA. The cities that are seeing gains are still heavily car reliant and dominated by SFH within city limits.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-up-last-year/

Last edited by Wilton2ParkAve; 08-01-2017 at 06:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 07:00 AM
 
21,568 posts, read 30,996,964 times
Reputation: 9664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
Unfortunately big city trends are being shoved down our throats while in reality big city population declines persist once you look past NYC and LA. The cities that are seeing gains are still heavily car reliant and dominated by SFH within city limits.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-up-last-year/
I was just having this discussion with an acquaintance the other day and said exactly the same thing. The cities with growing populations are overwhelming car dependent (LA included).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 07:08 AM
 
Location: JC
1,837 posts, read 1,601,209 times
Reputation: 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
Unfortunately big city trends are being shoved down our throats while in reality big city population declines persist once you look past NYC and LA. The cities that are seeing gains are still heavily car reliant and dominated by SFH within city limits.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-up-last-year/
Statistics easily lie when presented in % change. I guarantee you NYC gained more population last year vs Cape Coral but when shown as a % change the numbers push FL ahead. Does this make sense?

More than half of the fastest growing metro areas mentioned are building up public transportation with light rail, heavy real, added bus lines, etc. The chart shows growth in both low/high density suburbs. There is no big population decline in cities aside from dead/dying cities like Hartford. The real decline is non-metro areas aka the rural sticks.

Back on the CT point; I don't think anyone here supports bull-dozing a new path across upper Greenwich but adding an additional lane to I-95 or extra track to NEC isn't out of the question. Trying to add a new rail line over developed areas lacking existing right of way will not happen.


Last edited by GoHuskies; 08-01-2017 at 07:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
5,104 posts, read 4,793,838 times
Reputation: 3636
IMO chasing population trends or population demographics is stupid. What are all these cities going to do when the trends reverse and no one wants to live in the cities?

Are they going to abandon all the new transportation modes, all the new high rises, all the new stores ?

So called Millennials are going to abandon all the cities when they have kids. They will want a backyard and grass where their kids and dogs can play. Can't do that on a balcony on the 18th floor of a city high rise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 11:18 AM
 
3,346 posts, read 4,138,059 times
Reputation: 1931
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHuskies View Post
Statistics easily lie when presented in % change. I guarantee you NYC gained more population last year vs Cape Coral but when shown as a % change the numbers push FL ahead. Does this make sense?

More than half of the fastest growing metro areas mentioned are building up public transportation with light rail, heavy real, added bus lines, etc. The chart shows growth in both low/high density suburbs. There is no big population decline in cities aside from dead/dying cities like Hartford. The real decline is non-metro areas aka the rural sticks.

Back on the CT point; I don't think anyone here supports bull-dozing a new path across upper Greenwich but adding an additional lane to I-95 or extra track to NEC isn't out of the question. Trying to add a new rail line over developed areas lacking existing right of way will not happen.
I'm completely with you but where is the overlay of population by area (i.e., higher density suburbs, urban counties etc) that would better articulate the numerical change in people? FWIW, the low density suburbs (sticks in some cases) are showing the most rapid population growth in the below chart. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Memphis and Chicago all lost population last year (are these all decaying rust belt cities?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 01:26 PM
 
Location: JC
1,837 posts, read 1,601,209 times
Reputation: 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers View Post
IMO chasing population trends or population demographics is stupid. What are all these cities going to do when the trends reverse and no one wants to live in the cities?

Are they going to abandon all the new transportation modes, all the new high rises, all the new stores ?

So called Millennials are going to abandon all the cities when they have kids. They will want a backyard and grass where their kids and dogs can play. Can't do that on a balcony on the 18th floor of a city high rise.
Well connected communities don't mean everyone has to live in a high rise. There are single family homes with backyards along the NEC tracks and near the stations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 01:33 PM
 
Location: JC
1,837 posts, read 1,601,209 times
Reputation: 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
FWIW, the low density suburbs (sticks in some cases) are showing the most rapid population growth in the below chart. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Memphis and Chicago all lost population last year (are these all decaying rust belt cities?)
Smaller population = more room for % growth. If 10,000 move into Smalltown USA it looks like a bigger % change than 50,000 people moving into LA.

Baltimore & Pittsburgh are former industrial cities with a host of problems. Chicago has high COL and unfavorable tax climate. Memphis I have no idea.

The decline in these cities does not mean some reverse trend has started. The overall population living in an urban area or metro area has increased relative to non metro dwellers. More importantly this doesn't mean abandoning transportation spending in CT on things other than highways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2017, 01:46 PM
 
1,998 posts, read 1,846,942 times
Reputation: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
I'm completely with you but where is the overlay of population by area (i.e., higher density suburbs, urban counties etc) that would better articulate the numerical change in people? FWIW, the low density suburbs (sticks in some cases) are showing the most rapid population growth in the below chart. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Memphis and Chicago all lost population last year (are these all decaying rust belt cities?)
All of those cities you mentioned and many others are crime ridden cities. That's why there is population lost. Nothing to do with being rust belt or any other belt. Who wants to be in a city with crime numbers like Memphis or bmore or new orleans
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top