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.
Providence: It's a cheap alternative to Boston and has potential. The one down side is that the RI govt. seems somewhat inept.
Stamford: Compared to some of the other cities in CT, Stamford seems to be a desirable place to live.
Providence: It's a cheap alternative to Boston and has potential. The one down side is that the RI govt. seems somewhat inept.
Stamford: Compared to some of the other cities in CT, Stamford seems to be a desirable place to live.
The argument I have against Stamford in the context of this is that I think it's already "there". It's found it's economic niches, it's very nice, very wealthy smaller city. The potential has been realized already.
The argument I have against Stamford in the context of this is that I think it's already "there". It's found it's economic niches, it's very nice, very wealthy smaller city. The potential has been realized already.
Yeah, I'd agree. Right now Stamford is booming, insofar as their doing modern infill of downtown, and extending the downtown into older unused industrial and waterfront areas. But the majority of Stamford (the old "Town of Stamford" before the two were amalgamated) is zoned single-family housing. This is particularly the case north of the Merritt Parkway, where the housing is secluded, multi-million dollar estates similar to Greenwich. Most of the area south of the Parkway isn't quite a mansion district, but it's still fundamentally suburban in built structure, with a long distance to walk into "town" for shopping. Stamford is also still shedding black and Latino population from the neighborhoods surrounding downtown. As these neighborhoods gentrify the absolute number of people in them may fall, due to smaller households, re-conversion of subdivided houses into single-family structures, etc.
The bottom line is Stamford is going to hit a wall in terms of development within the next 10-20 years. The stuff upzonable will be upzoned, and NIMBYs will block the rest of the city from changing built form.
Could we suggest that with the addition of "high speed" rail, that Springfield might see a boom? Aside from Stamford, I don't see the CT cities getting that much better in the near future. I might be wrong. As for Portland, it's kind of already there and operating above its potential. Manchester, if it gets commuter rail, could improve itself as well.
Could we suggest that with the addition of "high speed" rail, that Springfield might see a boom? Aside from Stamford, I don't see the CT cities getting that much better in the near future. I might be wrong. As for Portland, it's kind of already there and operating above its potential. Manchester, if it gets commuter rail, could improve itself as well.
I doubt, maybe a small near the train station. But there's no particularly good reason why, most money and attention in the area has already left Springfield. If you want a cheap semi-decent city near Boston, there's Worcester, Providence and Lowell. For New York City in the New England direction, Bridgeport and New Haven are much better connected; though Bridgeport is in worse shape than any others I listed besides Springfield.
The benefit of rail is it's a comfortable connection to a center city without having the unreliability of getting stuck in traffic. It would be an added convenience to some residents and businesses that rely on connections to Boston or New York City, but it can one of many improvements. If there was already a small desirable core, it would be different, but that's not the case and there are plenty of other alternatives.
Manchester is in decent shape, from what I know [haven't been there]. It's not hip like Portland but doesn't have swathes of high poverty and crime like Springfield or even Worcester. If New Hampshire felt like spending a not large amount of money, one of the current MBTA passenger rail lines could be extended on existing rail to Nashua and Manchester and possibly Concord; similar to the Amtrak to Portland. The rail is partly there, the highways towards Boston have traffic issues.
Could we suggest that with the addition of "high speed" rail, that Springfield might see a boom?
I lived near Springfield for years. I just don't see it becoming a draw of any sort any time soon. Springfield doesn't have a single thing going for it. The downtown was fairly heavily urban renewed. Downtown employment is pretty weak compared to nearby Hartford (which is only a 30-minute drive away). The architecture is blah. There isn't even a single semi-gentrified neighborhood. As Nei said, why move to Springfield when you have so many better options in new England?
I think it's more likely the "Knowledge Corridor" will help the other stops on the like - Holyoke, Northampton (which is already pretty gentrified) and Greenfield. Springfield already had rail service on the old Vermonter line after all. If anything more Springfield commuters could choose to live in the other three small cities, which would further hurt Springfield (or, at least, hurt the suburbs around Springfield).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolehboleh
Aside from Stamford, I don't see the CT cities getting that much better in the near future. I might be wrong.
I lived in New Haven around ten years ago. it was a really nice city then, and it's only gotten better. Downtown always retained a walkable appeal due to Yale being right there, so there were plenty of bars, restaurants, music venues, galleries, theaters, etc. New Haven also retained two stable middle-class neighborhoods right next to downtown (East Rock and Wooster Square) which are popular with young professionals. Since I moved away Downtown gained two grocery stores. It's not a perfect city - crime is pretty high, and there were some truly horrible examples of urban renewal - particularly south of the New Haven Green. But it's far and away Connecticut's most urban, intact city - the only place you can find a street like this.
Also, Norwalk has been improving significantly. In some ways it could be described as a mini-Stamford now, since it has many of the same dynamics (historic enclave of poverty within lower Fairfield County, surrounded by wealth, redeveloping its urban core, appeals to NYC commuters due to Metro North access). It's small, but you can see the appeal of places like this.
Stamford reminds me of a more upscale Quincy. It had good transit options, a fairly dense downtown, but mostly suburban neighborhoods surrounding downtown. I often thought of Quincy as a good example of what suburbs can look like because it combines urban elements and still has a fair amount of single family homes. I think that Stamford is the same.
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.
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.
