[bobtn]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Sure, maybe a percentage comes from the midwest, but when I'm in the sound (I boat every weekend in the summer), you can see the cloud of air hovering over Connecticut. If this were solely due to the Midwest it would be over the sound as well. We have a lot of traffic that contributes to this so it should not be a surprise. We need to stop blaming others for issues that we contribute equally to.

The older industrial cities were prone to having large scale pollution problems. Bridgeport is amongst them. That is the reason those brownfields will, 90+% of the time, never be redeveloped productively. New owners must clean the property before using it.

Raybestos one town over cost in excess of half a billion to partially clean up, they covered it, but the preferable method, the "bathtub" all around it would have been more than double that cost. I mention that to bring up the giant cost of making brownfields reusable again, while none come up to Raybestos $, Carpenter's question marks were deep enough to scare off cainso moguls 20 years ago, w/o the state/city owning the land FIRST.

I do agree it is a very sad city to drive through in many parts, as the rate of abandonment is quite large. Not Detroit yet, but it may go that way, as more time passes.

[7 Wishes]

It's bogus as it's going by metro area (it said so for New Haven, even calling it New Haven-Milford), NYC ranked #11 on it on this basis. I'm not denying that Bridgeport and New Haven are "dirty" but if some parts of northeast NJ were considered on their own they'd blow even those California metros away.....

Originally Posted by bobtn

I do agree it is a very sad city to drive through in many parts, as the rate of abandonment is quite large. Not Detroit yet, but it may go that way, as more time passes.

I can see the analogy, especially the abandoned factories, but I don't think it will ever quite be Detroit, and for one simple reason:

Proximity to NYC and being part of the NYC metro area! (And easily commutable to many other parts of CT).

With the expensive real estate and other job markets surrounding it, someone somewhere will always produced a market to semi-gentrify something there (or at the very least large tracts won't be abandoned, just smaller ones). Granted, many parts of it will likely always be "dumpy" (no one with school age kids is going to move there unless they can't afford anywhere else and some of it is local government inaction and corruption too) but remember it actually * GAINED * population slightly between the 2000 and 2010 census. Even though that's the first gain in several decades, to equal Detroit's decline percentage-wise the city would've had to have almost 400,000 people in 1950 (remember, Detroit is at only 40% of it's peak population, Bridgeport's peak population was just under 160K in 1950 and it's low was just under 140K in 2000......now it's about 145K.....that's means it's low was about 80-85% of it's peak). The only city in the entire tri-state area to even remotely approach Detroit's level of population loss is Newark, NJ (440K in 1950, about 275K now and while hardly "paradise", it too is showing population gains on similar rationale)

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

It's bogus as it's going by metro area (it said so for New Haven, even calling it New Haven-Milford), NYC ranked #11 on it on this basis. I'm not denying that Bridgeport and New Haven are "dirty" but if some parts of northeast NJ were considered on their own they'd blow even those California metros away.....



I can see the analogy, especially the abandoned factories, but I don't think it will ever quite be Detroit, and for one simple reason:

Proximity to NYC and being part of the NYC metro area! (And easily commutable to many other parts of CT).

With the expensive real estate and other job markets surrounding it, someone somewhere will always produced a market to semi-gentrify something there (or at the very least large tracts won't be abandoned, just smaller ones). Granted, many parts of it will likely always be "dumpy" (no one with school age kids is going to move there unless they can't afford anywhere else and some of it is local government inaction and corruption too) but remember it actually * GAINED * population slightly between the 2000 and 2010 census. Even though that's the first gain in several decades, to equal Detroit's decline percentage-wise the city would've had to have almost 400,000 people in 1950 (remember, Detroit is at only 40% of it's peak population, Bridgeport's peak population was just under 160K in 1950 and it's low was just under 140K in 2000......now it's about 145K.....that's means it's low was about 80-85% of it's peak). The only city in the entire tri-state area to even remotely approach Detroit's level of population loss is Newark, NJ (405K in 1950, about 275K now and while hardly "paradise", it too is showing population gains on similar rationale)

True. What is a bit troubling about Bridgeport is many of the brownfields were clustered-which creates the affect of empty complete adjoining/consecutive blocks.

There simply is no financial reason to redevelop brownfields. So sadly, I doubt the dumpy areas will look any better in 20,40, or even 80 years.

[NewHavensFinest]

Originally Posted by Blazah1080

When you head out to the middle of the sound... you can seriously look back over the land and see a huge BROWN layer of crap over it..

Try over looking L.A. from Griffith Observatory

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

True. What is a bit troubling about Bridgeport is many of the brownfields were clustered-which creates the affect of empty complete adjoining/consecutive blocks.

There simply is no financial reason to redevelop brownfields. So sadly, I doubt the dumpy areas will look any better in 20,40, or even 80 years.

True back as well......

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

It's bogus as it's going by metro area (it said so for New Haven, even calling it New Haven-Milford), NYC ranked #11 on it on this basis. I'm not denying that Bridgeport and New Haven are "dirty" but if some parts of northeast NJ were considered on their own they'd blow even those California metros away.....



I can see the analogy, especially the abandoned factories, but I don't think it will ever quite be Detroit, and for one simple reason:

Proximity to NYC and being part of the NYC metro area! (And easily commutable to many other parts of CT).

With the expensive real estate and other job markets surrounding it, someone somewhere will always produced a market to semi-gentrify something there (or at the very least large tracts won't be abandoned, just smaller ones). Granted, many parts of it will likely always be "dumpy" (no one with school age kids is going to move there unless they can't afford anywhere else and some of it is local government inaction and corruption too) but remember it actually * GAINED * population slightly between the 2000 and 2010 census. Even though that's the first gain in several decades, to equal Detroit's decline percentage-wise the city would've had to have almost 400,000 people in 1950 (remember, Detroit is at only 40% of it's peak population, Bridgeport's peak population was just under 160K in 1950 and it's low was just under 140K in 2000......now it's about 145K.....that's means it's low was about 80-85% of it's peak). The only city in the entire tri-state area to even remotely approach Detroit's level of population loss is Newark, NJ (440K in 1950, about 275K now and while hardly "paradise", it too is showing population gains on similar rationale)

Actually, I was pretty surprised Philadelphia-Camden didn't rank high on the list. Not as dirty as Fresno or Bakersfield, but pretty nasty.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Actually, I was pretty surprised Philadelphia-Camden didn't rank high on the list. Not as dirty as Fresno or Bakersfield, but pretty nasty.

Actually I thought Philly was #3? It kind of goes with my argument that if the NJ portion of the NY metro area was considered separately (which the CT part obviously was) it would be #1.....

I'm guessing with those 2 California metros it's all that driving combined with terrain favorable for smog with (in the case of Fresno and Bakersfield) a lot of agricultural and oil-industry related pollution.

[DarkWolf]

They cleaned up most of the Brownfield sites in Urban Jersey , now there doing the Rivers and Marshes and Suburban areas...

[veloman777]

You can certainly smell the difference going down in the fair haven area, and up Quinnipiac. I use to bike around a lot and avoid that area. Of course, the number of autos on the road is always directly correlated.

You're literally pissing in the air you breath. Sorry to say it, unless you drive an electric vehicle powered by renewable energy, or human power.

The best you can do is choose a car that gets the highest mpg, and/or runs the cleanest. LOTS of people run old vehicles that aren't maintained and they are big polluters compared to a newer model.

School buses are the worst, hands down. That exhaust pipe comes out the back right at face level to a cyclist. I swear I've had temporary asthma due to being stuck behind a school bus while biking.

[NewHavensFinest]

Originally Posted by veloman777

You can certainly smell the difference going down in the fair haven area, and up Quinnipiac. I use to bike around a lot and avoid that area. Of course, the number of autos on the road is always directly correlated.

You're literally pissing in the air you breath. Sorry to say it, unless you drive an electric vehicle powered by renewable energy, or human power.

The best you can do is choose a car that gets the highest mpg, and/or runs the cleanest. LOTS of people run old vehicles that aren't maintained and they are big polluters compared to a newer model.

School buses are the worst, hands down. That exhaust pipe comes out the back right at face level to a cyclist. I swear I've had temporary asthma due to being stuck behind a school bus while biking.

AHHH yes I know how you feel. I ride the shoreline sometimes, and I used to ride to and from work in Hamden close to Albertus Magnus. Around 7 miles one way.

Theres always Yale buses and such over there and they all use Bio-Diesel. While they say its better it is really the thickest smoke out there and it makes you sick from the first inhale. The smoke is really dirty and extremely nauseating.

The biggest polluters are obviously the pick-up trucks, Theres still alot of old fords on the road and I feel people like them because they are emission exempt by now and they are easy to work on/parts availability.

Some of them smell like rotten eggs which means they all have bad catalytic converters, and most people just cut them off because theres no emissions on them.

Lets not forget Gateway Terminal right on the harbor, theres a bit of industry here too.