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.
The Steel Point(e) development is a sterling example of the anti-urbanist sentiment that pervades the state. It is an attempt to carve out a section of suburban sprawl in the very center of a city, a waste of prime waterfront for non-water-dependent businesses and a waste of transportation infrastructure on an auto-dependent shopping center.
The white flight of the wealthy and middle class out of the cities to the suburbs greatly hurt most of the larger CT cities. They are now mostly inhabited by poor minority groups. This has unfortunately increased crime and decreased property values making them less attractive to many that might move there. Suburbanites are quite comfortable living in the suburbs and have little concern for the cities.
The CT cities are worse off than comparable out of state cities such as Providence and Worcester as they still have larger numbers of the wealthy and middle class still living within their borders.
The proximity of Providence and Worcester to Boston allows then to benefit from Boston's spillover. The same if true for Stamford and Norwalk (and Bridgeport and New Haven to a lesser degree), which benefit from NYC's spillover. These smaller cities are firmly in the orbit of a larger city and they are able to feed off the larger city's growth.
The policies I refer to are the containing of virtually ALL of the subsidized low-income housing, the trash-to-energy plants, the regional sewage-treatment facilities, the halfway houses, the recycling businesses, and everything else that the suburbs would not tolerate in a few select municipalities. Case in point: How many units of Section 8 housing are located in the town of Fairfield vs. how many in the city of Bridgeport? I find the belief curious that low student test scores in an urban area are the fault of the building. And that $140,000,000 high school surpassed in cost the next most-expensive high school in the state by a factor of three.
The Steel Point(e) development is a sterling example of the anti-urbanist sentiment that pervades the state. It is an attempt to carve out a section of suburban sprawl in the very center of a city, a waste of prime waterfront for non-water-dependent businesses and a waste of transportation infrastructure on an auto-dependent shopping center.
The "bunch of old rundown houses" that were sacrificed for this abomination comprised one of the greatest concentrations of 18th- and early-19th-century architecture in the southwest part of the state. Shorn of fake siding and cobbled-on additions, they might have been restored as one of the most agreeable waterfront neighborhoods in the nation. Instead what we have is a wannabe chunk of the Boston Post Road in Milford.
I agree with you on the poor leadership of many of our larger municipalities over the last few decades. But enlightened guidance from the State that would actually enhance the quality of life in our cities and make them attractive to non-subsidized development has also been lacking.
Your argument is a bit weak. There are probably a lot more low income homes in Fairfield than you think. Here is a link to current listings. Plus there are several new projects going up that will add to these (Commerce Drive, Old Kings Highway, Fairchild Avenue).
Regional sewage treatment plants are located where they serve the most people without expensive pumping sewage all over the region. As an example, Fairfield has its own plant which discharges into Long Island Sound. Bridgeport's plant serves most if not all of Bridgeport but also serves Trumbull. That is because it is located in the same river basin as Bridgeport, not because Trumbull does not want its own plant. It would be ridiculously expensive and harmful to the environment for every town to have their own sewage treatment plant.
The trash to energy plants are located in cities because that is where there was industrial land available to build them that is also accessible to the majority of the people they serve. Again it is expensive to truck garbage great distances. Plus there are plants located outside of cities including a large one in Preston, CT. There are also local recycling facilities in most towns large enough to support them.
To my knowledge there are not a lot of new high schools that have been built in Connecticut in recent years. $140 million sounds like a lot but today it really is not. Farmington just had a referendum to build a new high school that would be of similar size to Harding and it was $135 million. Harding High School is a mess. It is old, cramp and a horrible place to educate anyone. The roof leaks, there are mold and vermin problems and the site does not lend itself to expansion or renovation. It is LONG overdue for replacement plus the city has an anxious buyer (Bridgeport Hospital) wanting to take the building. It makes sense to finally replace it with a modern facility.
I also question your characterization of the homes at Steel point being "comprised one of the greatest concentrations of 18th- and early-19th-century architecture in the southwest part of the state". Except for one or two buildings which were saved and moved, the homes there were typical of housing built during Bridgeport's great expansion back at the turn of the 20th Century. There are thousands of similar homes and structures spread across the city. Plus the fact that I-95 was built right through the middle of it made the area less desirable to live. And don't forget a good chunk of the site was an abandoned electric plant.
While we can argue quality of architecture of the buildings built so far there, it is no doubt that Bass Pro is bringing in a LOT of people from all over the region. This is exactly what Bridgeport needs to shake off its image of an old dangerous city that no one wants to go to. You may not like that there are open air parking lots to serve it but at least those lots are full of shoppers who otherwise would have been driving somewhere else to spend their money. While it may not be perfect, Steel Point gives the city the opportunity to grow and attract more people. It just will take time. Jay
Yes, we can argue till the cows come home about the merits of the buildings that were sacrificed for this nine-figure development effort (if anyone is interested there is an architectural study on file at the Bridgeport History Center). My point is, the cities that take advantage of their history and architecture become your Portland, Maines, your Newports, your Savannahs, and all the other urban centers that have rebounded from decrepitude to become the great success stories of America. The cities that tear down their historic buildings to create urban prairies become your Detroits and Newarks and East St. Louises, the failed cities that residents flee as soon as they are able and developers avoid like the plague. You don't see Boston tearing down the storied North End to make way for a Lowe's and a Dunkin Donuts, yet that is exactly what the taxpayers of Connecticut have underwritten in Bridgeport.
This is the age of "the great inversion," a major reassessment of the nation's priorities in which the up-and-coming generation rejects the wasteful suburban lifestyle and heads back to the gritty, diverse, and fascinating centers of our older cities and transforms them into hip, hot, and highly desirable places to spend one's life. Knocking down hundreds of National Register-eligible homes in an ancient seaport community to make way for a big-box retailer is simply insane. This is not the kind of development any progressive city would entertain for a second.
Yes, we can argue till the cows come home about the merits of the buildings that were sacrificed for this nine-figure development effort (if anyone is interested there is an architectural study on file at the Bridgeport History Center). My point is, the cities that take advantage of their history and architecture become your Portland, Maines, your Newports, your Savannahs, and all the other urban centers that have rebounded from decrepitude to become the great success stories of America. The cities that tear down their historic buildings to create urban prairies become your Detroits and Newarks and East St. Louises, the failed cities that residents flee as soon as they are able and developers avoid like the plague. You don't see Boston tearing down the storied North End to make way for a Lowe's and a Dunkin Donuts, yet that is exactly what the taxpayers of Connecticut have underwritten in Bridgeport.
This is the age of "the great inversion," a major reassessment of the nation's priorities in which the up-and-coming generation rejects the wasteful suburban lifestyle and heads back to the gritty, diverse, and fascinating centers of our older cities and transforms them into hip, hot, and highly desirable places to spend one's life. Knocking down hundreds of National Register-eligible homes in an ancient seaport community to make way for a big-box retailer is simply insane. This is not the kind of development any progressive city would entertain for a second.
I'm not sure what the Steel Point area looked like before, but I generally agree with your overall sentiment. Historical areas are now big draws, and there was a time, especially after the "car era" that lots of historic areas were abandoned for "progress".
I've seen historic photos and maps of New Haven, and the area near Long Wharf, if left intact, would've been a little Old Port in Portland-esque attraction.
95 is a prime example of this, and tore through our cities without much consideration. A modern 95 would've likely been far from the coast.
I'm not sure what the Steel Point area looked like before, but I generally agree with your overall sentiment. Historical areas are now big draws, and there was a time, especially after the "car era" that lots of historic areas were abandoned for "progress".
I've seen historic photos and maps of New Haven, and the area near Long Wharf, if left intact, would've been a little Old Port in Portland-esque attraction.
95 is a prime example of this, and tore through our cities without much consideration. A modern 95 would've likely been far from the coast.
That power plant was one of the biggest blunders in Bridgeport history. Even if you had a quaint seaside village, no one wants to stare at that monstrosity.
Yes, we can argue till the cows come home about the merits of the buildings that were sacrificed for this nine-figure development effort (if anyone is interested there is an architectural study on file at the Bridgeport History Center). My point is, the cities that take advantage of their history and architecture become your Portland, Maines, your Newports, your Savannahs, and all the other urban centers that have rebounded from decrepitude to become the great success stories of America. The cities that tear down their historic buildings to create urban prairies become your Detroits and Newarks and East St. Louises, the failed cities that residents flee as soon as they are able and developers avoid like the plague. You don't see Boston tearing down the storied North End to make way for a Lowe's and a Dunkin Donuts, yet that is exactly what the taxpayers of Connecticut have underwritten in Bridgeport.
This is the age of "the great inversion," a major reassessment of the nation's priorities in which the up-and-coming generation rejects the wasteful suburban lifestyle and heads back to the gritty, diverse, and fascinating centers of our older cities and transforms them into hip, hot, and highly desirable places to spend one's life. Knocking down hundreds of National Register-eligible homes in an ancient seaport community to make way for a big-box retailer is simply insane. This is not the kind of development any progressive city would entertain for a second.
Come on now, Portland, Newport and Savannah are tourist towns, not major industrial cities. There is no comparison to Bridgeport. Still Newport's whole waterfront is redevelopment that tore down older buildings for new ones. I remember when it was a bunch of vacant lots just like Steel Point.
Boston tore down lots of buildings over the years to build the Central Artery, City Hall, Long Wharf, Copley Place, the Prudential Center, etc. New York has tore down thousands of buildings to make way for new buildings. In fact every major city has done that for economic development. If they did not they would still be just farmland with farmhouses and barns. Jay
That power plant was one of the biggest blunders in Bridgeport history. Even if you had a quaint seaside village, no one wants to stare at that monstrosity.
Bridgeport was a major industrial city back then. The power plant fit perfectly with it back then. How else would you provide power for all of the factories there? Jay
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.
