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.
I always think of Fairfield as being the quintessential suburban town--it has the beach, beautiful Greenfield Hill, a pretty vibrant downtown that's walkable with decent parking, a variety of housing stock, and at least a tiny bit of socioeconomic diversity. I'm sure you'd have no trouble finding tons of sports and activities for your kids. Snobbishness to a certain degree is just par for the course, but I've found Fairfield to be at least a little more down to earth than, say, Westport.
Some of the other more down to earth suburbs that are mentioned are fine, but they lack the "pretty" factor that Fairfield has. (I'm thinking of Trumbull and Shelton.) Lots of subdivisions.
I agree that the Town of Fairfield would be a good place to start. It is a great town with a wide rnage of housing options and styles. In the $1 million plus range, you could consider Greenfield Hil and Southport sections of town. These are stunningly beautiful areas with great homes. Good luck, Jay
Sorry, but you're about 30 years too late to move into what was once a great middle-class affordable town where everybody knew everybody.--I grew up in Fairfield as did my parents.--My dad was a contractor who specialized in "starter homes"-- built close to 100 of them in the 50's and 60's--something that nobody in today's Fairfield can connect with
Sorry, but you're about 30 years too late to move into what was once a great middle-class affordable town where everybody knew everybody.--I grew up in Fairfield as did my parents.--My dad was a contractor who specialized in "starter homes"-- built close to 100 of them in the 50's and 60's--something that nobody in today's Fairfield can connect with
Actually I don't think Fairfield was ever considered "affordable". Even back in the 1960's young couples left Fairfield for more affordable towns like Milford, Stratford and Trumbull. Just like today, you could get a lot more house for your money in other towns. Those homes your father built are still there and still providing more affordable housing for people in Fairfield. Today Fairfield has little to no land left to build on so of course no new affordable single family homes are being built. That is the same as many mature suburbs anywhere in the country. Jay
To a large degree the differences between what your father built years ago and what you see in Fairfield today have to do with the substantial changes in home mortgaging behavior between the 1950s and 60s and today. A young, upper-middle-class family in your father's day would probably live in, say, a 1300sf Cape because at that time home mortgages were more like 20% of total household income and were for a 15-year term. Now it's typical for people even in upscale communities like Fairfield to have mortgages for more than 300% of their household income and the 30-year term is standard, and correspondingly the typical home for a young, upper-middle-class family looks very different (Fairfield's median family income now is $100k, while its median home price is over $600k now, for example). In a lot of ways, Fairfield was probably less "affordable" (even though they were cheaper, accounting for inflation) then because you'd need more money for a down payment and couldn't stretch your payments out over 30 years.
A young, upper-middle-class family in your father's day would probably live in, say, a 1300sf Cape because at that time home mortgages were more like 20% of total household income and were for a 15-year term.
You mean 200%? Interest rates were higher as well.
I don't see that stat anywhere in that document. It also doesn't make sense. Why would you mortgage approx 20% of your yearly income over 15+ years?
What I do see is mortgage debt in the country being 20% for a short time compared to national GDP.
Sentence #2: "In 1949, mortgage debt was equal to 20 percent of total household income." I guess that could be interpreted in a number of different ways (but not your way--GDP =/= total household income), such as as a percentage of the total household income for the whole country, not for an individual family, but the larger point is that: drastically liberalized mortgage policies have increased the size and expense of houses for people with otherwise equivalent assets and income since the time that previous poster was referencing, such that they're just not comparable. It's expected now that most people, particularly in HCOL areas like Fairfield, will mortgage 80-90% of their home's cost and will have a mortgage many times their annual income.
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.
