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.
And seriously not going to lie out of all of this character keeps on coming up that it really seems less like a structure form and more of who lives in the structures... And you have not done a single thing to smooth that fear.
Zero done that negates the idea the whole large lot sfh was to keep poor's and coloureds out. Nothing to prove that want the point. Which is wrong and sick honestly. So why is it so important that people prove they aren't trying to destroy neighbor hood character but pnz boards don't have to prune they are keeping us out?
Hey I know you don't want my future missus, my red face, and out future kids in your world but we coming. deal with it. Seriously.
You might not think you don't but you're endorsing it. I mean not for us we got the money but for others that have slightly less. Which I guess is the point as I see it from all of this. Rather not have another Southport center pop up then rather admit the current policy is absolute garbage, so long "we" know our place
Last edited by Beeker2211; 05-14-2022 at 12:09 AM..
And the fact you lot don't want centers to grow at all because you endorse the current boards that prohibit any expansion makes that clear your generation just rants things the way they remember. My pops always said his generation was the brunt of the lead gasoline epidemic but I didn't believe him.
So we’ve moved from classism to racism to, now, ageism. Insults like these is precisely why average Americans cannot get behind the urbanist, woke, “support the latest thing” crowd. Keep showing those colors, Beeker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211
And seriously not going to lie out of all of this character keeps on coming up that it really seems less like a structure form and more of who lives in the structures... And you have not done a single thing to smooth that fear.
Zero done that negates the idea the whole large lot sfh was to keep poor's and coloureds out. Nothing to prove that want the point. Which is wrong and sick honestly. So why is it so important that people prove they aren't trying to destroy neighbor hood character but pnz boards don't have to prune they are keeping us out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211
Hey I know you don't want my future missus, my red face, and out future kids in your world but we coming. deal with it. Seriously.
You might not think you don't but you're endorsing it. I mean not for us we got the money but for others that have slightly less. Which I guess is the point as I see it from all of this. Rather not have another Southport center pop up then rather admit the current policy is absolute garbage, so long "we" know our place
So we’ve moved from classism to racism to, now, ageism. Insults like these is precisely why average Americans cannot get behind the urbanist, woke, “support the latest thing” crowd. Keep showing those colors, Beeker.
And honestly, this doesn’t even make sense.
Those posts alone are reason enough to oppose everything he supports. I have no idea what he is talking about.
Hey I know you don't want my future missus, my red face, and out future kids in your world but we coming. deal with it. Seriously.
You might not think you don't but you're endorsing it. I mean not for us we got the money but for others that have slightly less. Which I guess is the point as I see it from all of this. Rather not have another Southport center pop up then rather admit the current policy is absolute garbage, so long "we" know our place
Thought you said olive skin was keeping you out of places?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764
So we’ve moved from classism to racism to, now, ageism. Insults like these is precisely why average Americans cannot get behind the urbanist, woke, “support the latest thing” crowd. Keep showing those colors, Beeker.
And honestly, this doesn’t even make sense.
Oh he’s been there awhile. I was told I had a personality disorder too.
Hey I know you don't want my future missus, my red face, and out future kids in your world but we coming. deal with it. Seriously.
No one's coming anywhere in CT once the last of the unwokened NYers finally make their way in. You won't see much in the way of housing or growth going forward. Affordable or not, just teardowns and a few condos here and there.
CT native gaslighters: "Oh no, they want to build stuff everywhere"
Florida and South Carolina natives: "Hold my beer"
And seriously not going to lie out of all of this character keeps on coming up that it really seems less like a structure form and more of who lives in the structures... And you have not done a single thing to smooth that fear.
Zero done that negates the idea the whole large lot sfh was to keep poor's and coloureds out. Nothing to prove that want the point. Which is wrong and sick honestly. So why is it so important that people prove they aren't trying to destroy neighbor hood character but pnz boards don't have to prune they are keeping us out?
Dude this is so annoying, why do you keep coming in late at night and accusing us all of racism? I don't care what ****ing color you are, don't care what the color of people who move here are, I care that the the town I moved to cause of it's chacter, charm, and relative quiet remain.
Look, I almost moved to FL when my parents did in 2015. I decided to stay, and honestly one of the major reasons I did is because of our history and character here. My mom was a real estate agent up here, and when she brought people down ridgefields main street some of them were so taken by the character of the town that they actually decided to live there rather than another town. It's important to people.
I think I've described pretty explicitly, down to the architectural styles of buildings, what that character is. It's not the character of the people but the structures themselves, and to have you continuously come here and suggest otherwise is so frustrating. Like I've literally spelled it out for you and you continue to assert that that's not true, it's about racism instead. It's insulting, disingenuous, and it hampers your own arguments when you continue to tout these supposed motives when people explicitly explain otherwise. Sorry that you have no appreciation for the history of the state you claim to love, but not everyone is the same as you and just cause they aren't doesn't mean they're racist.
??? There are subdivisions all over my town that are on septics. The house I grew up in, in a subdivision, was/is on a septic. Septic is by far the most common type of waste removal in all the towns I've lived in, only the very centers of towns have had public sewer.
Obviously, prohibiting septic systems on all real property in the state would be prohibitively expensive (though for a state this small, there is really no reason not to gradually phase them out).
I recognize logic and reading comprehension here is difficult. But firstly, I prefaced that I am not in the single-family home development business. I am not an expert. But I do know that in many municipalities in Fairfield and New Haven Counties, it is not legal to construct a new home that has a septic system.
There are relatively few new homes in Connecticut.
The most recent ACS survey published by ESRI (2015-2019 estimate) indicates there are 1,516,629 housing units, of which 59% are owner-occupied - rather low for the nation as a whole. Interestingly, nearly 1/3 of those homeowners do not have a mortgage. So, 40% of the population can't afford to buy, but nearly 20% don't even require a mortgage.
In the most densely populated state in America (often repeated around here) 65% of the housing units are 1-family homes. 8.2% are 2-family homes (this includes in-law units), 14.1% are in smaller apartment buildings of between 3 and 9 units, 7.3% are in moderately sized buildings of between 10 and 49 units, and a comparatively tiny 5.4% of the entire state's housing units are found in buildings with 50 or more housing units.
Consistent with exclusionary zoning policies, mobile homes were 0.8% of the housing units. It is often not discussed but the many municipalities that have 1-acre single-family home zoning regulations also prohibit manufactured housing on those lots. It's pretty hard to justify this as anything other than excluding people with lower incomes, particularly when modern manufactured housing is actually of a very high quality for the price.
What's really interesting is the typical year of construction. The forum moderator and his supporters make it sound like building a 3-flat apartment building will somehow destroy the 18th century character of the state. As we can see below, only 22.1% of the housing units were build prior to 1940. New housing construction more or less kept up with demand until 1989, slow to WWII levels from 1990 to 2009, and cratered after that. Only 2.5% of all housing units in the state have been built since 2010, a period of significant demand. This is a very unusual distribution. Demand increased every year from 1990 to 2009, and in Southern Connecticut, also grew even after the 2008 financial crisis.
HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Total 1,516,629 100.0%
Built 2014 or later 16,920 1.1%
Built 2010 to 2013 21,126 1.4%
Built 2000 to 2009 103,075 6.8%
Built 1990 to 1999 116,028 7.7%
Built 1980 to 1989 188,655 12.4%
Built 1970 to 1979 203,700 13.4%
Built 1960 to 1969 204,879 13.5%
Built 1950 to 1959 224,393 14.8%
Built 1940 to 1949 103,008 6.8%
Built 1939 or earlier 334,845 22.1%
Now, let's look at Fairfield County.
The 2000 census reported a population of 882,567, the 2010 census 916,829 persons, and ESRI (which the Census Bureau uses) estimates a 2021 population of 943,780. There were 324,232 households in 2000, 335,545 households in 2010, and an estimated 344,840 households in in 2021.
The construction trends match the state distribution, so the number of households increased by 20,248 while the number of new housing units built since 2000 was just shy of doubling that.
When you consider that this number of housing units includes, for example, several thousand in Stamford that really didn't cater to Connecticut native, and in many areas (like mine in Milford) older houses are demolished to make bigger, newer ones... Can we really say that construction met demand of the people who lived here in 2000, and were long established here? What about their children?
The distribution above looks more like someplace like New York City, which is constrained by lack of available land.
How can we justify a 2.5% increase in the supply of housing units since 2010 in the face of prices and rents that make it all but impossible for most Connecticut natives to afford to live here without resorting to crowding?
We don't have excuses like New York City does - while we have half the population, we have 20x the land area. The vast majority of land area in the state is undeveloped or developed with houses on 1 acre or larger parcels. Demolishing most single-family homes in Connecticut on 1 acre lots is a trivial cost, it's not like NYC where you have to take down a 3-story masonry building at the cost of $50-$75 per square foot plus thousands of dollars a day to block off the street. We do not have rent stabilization as an option for municipalities, so demolishing existing apartment buildings to construct larger ones can be done anywhere as-of-right with only minor legal costs.
Dude this is so annoying, why do you keep coming in late at night and accusing us all of racism? I don't care what ****ing color you are, don't care what the color of people who move here are, I care that the the town I moved to cause of it's chacter, charm, and relative quiet remain.
Look, I almost moved to FL when my parents did in 2015. I decided to stay, and honestly one of the major reasons I did is because of our history and character here. My mom was a real estate agent up here, and when she brought people down ridgefields main street some of them were so taken by the character of the town that they actually decided to live there rather than another town. It's important to people.
I think I've described pretty explicitly, down to the architectural styles of buildings, what that character is. It's not the character of the people but the structures themselves, and to have you continuously come here and suggest otherwise is so frustrating. Like I've literally spelled it out for you and you continue to assert that that's not true, it's about racism instead. It's insulting, disingenuous, and it hampers your own arguments when you continue to tout these supposed motives when people explicitly explain otherwise. Sorry that you have no appreciation for the history of the state you claim to love, but not everyone is the same as you and just cause they aren't doesn't mean they're racist.
Ridgefield is, in my opinion, the most desirable place to live in the state. But let's be real. It's not like the small urban center can't be expanded completely in line with the existing "character".
It is curious to me that no one on this forum cares about how the police powers of zoning can be used to stop develop or restrict it to a certain density.
If Connecticut residents cared about such things, they would mandate masonry construction with brick facades, imprinted concrete lintels, wood cornices, and other architectural details found in attached, urban development areas from the 19th century.
Why do you think there are few local zoning ordinances that have any kind style requirements, considering most like yourself are obsessed with this concept of "character".
Ridgefield is, in my opinion, the most desirable place to live in the state. But let's be real. It's not like the small urban center can't be expanded completely in line with the existing "character".
It is curious to me that no one on this forum cares about how the police powers of zoning can be used to stop develop or restrict it to a certain density.
If Connecticut residents cared about such things, they would mandate masonry construction with brick facades, imprinted concrete lintels, wood cornices, and other architectural details found in attached, urban development areas from the 19th century.
Why do you think there are few local zoning ordinances that have any kind style requirements, considering most like yourself are obsessed with this concept of "character".
It's a wonderful town and I love it dearly. However it is becoming extremely crowded and many new developments are being built that do not in the slightest conform to the existing character or architecture, you can look back to previous posts where I linked pictures and plans of new builds there. I agree that it can be expanded (slightly, existing buildings and sidewalks are very much constricting how much growth can be achieved) while preserving character, the issue is that with 830 g it is not.
Dude, Ridgefield DOES have rules about what type of architecture is required in our historic districts (of which we have 7). The problem, again, is that 830 g allows developers to ignore these requirements, and developers have done exactly that.
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.
