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 standard urban lot is 25-30x100 feet. I live on a 6,000 SF lot combined from two 30 foot lots platted in like 1880. I guess the lot is small if you want a big yard, but I don't and it comfortably fits an over 5,000 square foot home. In very desirable areas, they can be as narrow as 15 feet.
Larger lots, then and now, are simply not economically feasible to deliver water, sewer, gas, electricity, sidewalks, and other services most people want. No, most people do not want septic systems, wells, oil tanks, and no sidewalks. Hence, larger lots means lower prices per square foot of building area (please don't mention statistical outliers. We're talking about millions of sales here). This trend has been the case since we started collecting data.
Yes that's very tiny and a good portion of the reason why I don't live in an urban area and don't want to live in an urban area lol. We have about half an acre and I'm pretty happy with it. Set up the hammock yesterday, had room to wash off all of our screens and storm windows, sat outside at our table and enjoyed the quiet, the birds, and the river. Nice day.
We don't have public water and sewer or gas. It depends on what people want, some want the convenience of city services, others don't like the consistent bills or reliance on the town. You can actually find examples of people's opinions on this site, I've seen discussions about it before. Just depends on the person. I don't really care either way, but I'm very used to well and septic, growing up in Ridgefield it's almost all anyone had. Again, with large lots vs small lots, city services vs well/septic, it just depends on the person. I don't think either way is right or wrong, it's just up to preference and luckily we have the option to choose here.
Exactly, and the wokesters continuously forget that while trying to push their anti suburban, pro urban agenda.
People don’t want it. Period.
I am not a "wokester." What does that term even mean? I support good use of our land and conversation of our green spaces, yes that includes suburbs too. Thanks!
Yes that's very tiny and a good portion of the reason why I don't live in an urban area and don't want to live in an urban area lol. We have about half an acre and I'm pretty happy with it. Set up the hammock yesterday, had room to wash off all of our screens and storm windows, sat outside at our table and enjoyed the quiet, the birds, and the river. Nice day.
We don't have public water and sewer or gas. It depends on what people want, some want the convenience of city services, others don't like the consistent bills or reliance on the town. You can actually find examples of people's opinions on this site, I've seen discussions about it before. Just depends on the person. I don't really care either way, but I'm very used to well and septic, growing up in Ridgefield it's almost all anyone had. Again, with large lots vs small lots, city services vs well/septic, it just depends on the person. I don't think either way is right or wrong, it's just up to preference and luckily we have the option to choose here.
But the problem is that the "choice" has already been made by many zoning boards. Really cannot stress how large lot sfh heavy the region has gotten, with all other zoning types a mere afterthought if thought of at all. For really no good reason.
Take Ridgefield, a town we both know well, would it be that terrible to increase the type of zoning that is found along Portland Ave a few blocks north and east to an area that is already somewhat dense? So terrible to allow more townhouses/apartments around Copps Hill Plaza? Reallowing multi-family conversions that were fairly common until about 1980? More above retail residential along Ethan Allen Highway? Allowing more courtyard cottages near off of Katonah? If they expanded the Downtown Special District, or helped zone the back parking lot that's not used often near the Mariner for another mixed-use building (I'm referring to that 20is parking unit L shaped wedge that abuts the Post Office. In all my years I rarely see anyone use those spots)?
Because, as it stands, zoning boards in many municipalities of this state are loathe to do any of that. Even though it'd cause little, if any, disruption to already established large lot sfh areas. The increase of units wouldn't even be in competition with those large lot sfhs, as they clearly are two different markets for buyers/renters. Towns are leaving money, good money, on the table and we really have to start asking... why?
The standard urban lot is 25-30x100 feet. I live on a 6,000 SF lot combined from two 30 foot lots platted in like 1880. I guess the lot is small if you want a big yard, but I don't and it comfortably fits an over 5,000 square foot home. In very desirable areas, they can be as narrow as 15 feet.
Larger lots, then and now, are simply not economically feasible to deliver water, sewer, gas, electricity, sidewalks, and other services most people want. No, most people do not want septic systems, wells, oil tanks, and no sidewalks. Hence, larger lots means lower prices per square foot of building area (please don't mention statistical outliers. We're talking about millions of sales here). This trend has been the case since we started collecting data.
It's also telling that whenever there is a market downturn (as even in my lifetime we've had several) those types of units lose more of their value faster and take much longer to recover than say similarly valued smaller lot mixed area units. It shows the relative weakness of effective demand on these properties.
Again, not that they're bad... just having such an overabundance at the raw expense of other zoning patterns isn't healthy with a primarily urban population (as almost the entirety of CT actually is, as most people are reliant on urban style work to make their living even if they rest their heads in more pastoral settings. The agriculture sector is a mere 20k statewide including the support industries).
But the problem is that the "choice" has already been made by many zoning boards. Really cannot stress how large lot sfh heavy the region has gotten, with all other zoning types a mere afterthought if thought of at all. For really no good reason.
Take Ridgefield, a town we both know well, would it be that terrible to increase the type of zoning that is found along Portland Ave a few blocks north and east to an area that is already somewhat dense? So terrible to allow more townhouses/apartments around Copps Hill Plaza? Reallowing multi-family conversions that were fairly common until about 1980? More above retail residential along Ethan Allen Highway? Allowing more courtyard cottages near off of Katonah? If they expanded the Downtown Special District, or helped zone the back parking lot that's not used often near the Mariner for another mixed-use building (I'm referring to that 20is parking unit L shaped wedge that abuts the Post Office. In all my years I rarely see anyone use those spots)?
Because, as it stands, zoning boards in many municipalities of this state are loathe to do any of that. Even though it'd cause little, if any, disruption to already established large lot sfh areas. The increase of units wouldn't even be in competition with those large lot sfhs, as they clearly are two different markets for buyers/renters. Towns are leaving money, good money, on the table and we really have to start asking... why?
Where are these townhouses and apartments going around copps hill? There's literally no room for them. The only space there that's not built up is a cemetery, open space, and a swamp. There's literally nowhere to build. Same thing on portland, there's adorable turn of the century houses all over that road (most on extremely small lots to begin with), where are these apartment buildings going to be put? Also will note that most of portland is in redding, only a tiny section is in ridgefield.
Multifamily conversions were popular in places like Danbury and Bethel, not in Ridgefield. These are different places. One of the reasons ridgefield was able to keep its historic charm is because the wealth of the residents generally allowed these older, sometimes larger, houses to be maintained intact whereas those in less affluent areas were carved up into apartments, slapped with vinyl siding, and allowed to deteriorate.
Again, please tell me where in god's name you are putting more buildings off Catoonah??? The land is full, there is nowhere to build. All of the buildings there are on tiny lots as well, and there is just no more room for anything more, no matter the lot size. The houses on high ridge, griffith, and abbott back up to catoonah. There is no room to put anything.
The parts by the mariner are often totally full, I don't know when you're going there but that parking lot is usually totally packed. We used to go back in the woods there in high school cause the cars obstructed the view and we could get away with things lmao. Especially anytime there is any event in town parking is an absolute nightmare. The town is quite well aware of this and is actually including more parking spots when they redo main street, because parking is so terrible in the area. They cannot afford lose any at all.
It's because there's no room beeker. There's no room and there's no support for the increase in density. I don't know if you've been to town recently, but in the past 5 or so years traffic has become abhorrent. It used to back up from about south street toward danbury down through the 35/7 intersection at rush hour. Now it backs up from gilbert street or casagmo every day. A multi-million dollar street project is being undergone as we speak in an effort to improve traffic on main street because it has gotten so bad.
Last edited by Catheetiem; 05-16-2022 at 11:59 AM..
But the problem is that the "choice" has already been made by many zoning boards. Really cannot stress how large lot sfh heavy the region has gotten, with all other zoning types a mere afterthought if thought of at all. For really no good reason.
Take Ridgefield, a town we both know well, would it be that terrible to increase the type of zoning that is found along Portland Ave a few blocks north and east to an area that is already somewhat dense? So terrible to allow more townhouses/apartments around Copps Hill Plaza? Reallowing multi-family conversions that were fairly common until about 1980? More above retail residential along Ethan Allen Highway? Allowing more courtyard cottages near off of Katonah? If they expanded the Downtown Special District, or helped zone the back parking lot that's not used often near the Mariner for another mixed-use building (I'm referring to that 20is parking unit L shaped wedge that abuts the Post Office. In all my years I rarely see anyone use those spots)?
Because, as it stands, zoning boards in many municipalities of this state are loathe to do any of that. Even though it'd cause little, if any, disruption to already established large lot sfh areas. The increase of units wouldn't even be in competition with those large lot sfhs, as they clearly are two different markets for buyers/renters. Towns are leaving money, good money, on the table and we really have to start asking... why?
The choice has been made in all towns in the state because every town is required to have a Town Plan for Conservation and Development. Those plans go through a rigorous process of development and public input so they are the base used for zoning in each town. What is the purpose of those plans if they are not followed?
Your description of ways to provide more housing is very romanticized. It’s not what is happening. Instead under 8-30g we are getting monster buildings crammed on small lots in the middle of quiet residential neighborhoods.
Your comment on “leaving money on the table” is very telling. It’s a comment commonly made by greedy developers out to make a buck. There is more to this than money. It has to do with quality of life and preservation of character. You can’t do that when neighborhoods are overrun with 30 unit per acre buildings. That doesn’t speak small town. That doesn’t speak quiet. That doesn’t speak of good planning. It speaks of creeping urbanization, over development and greed. I’m sorry that is wrong. Jay
A housing boom and construction boom are two different things. I recently found out a neighboring property has practically doubled in price over the past four and a half years. It went from about 150k to 300k. I think that's pretty good that prices go up that much maybe it's a little too hot. But regardless there's not a whole lot of construction. There's an industrial site near me that supposedly we're going to be constructing this year and I hardly see any pavement done. Not a single wall has been put up I don't see any water and sewer lines... nothing. Smaller jobs are being ignored because there's more money in bigger jobs.
I was talking to a neighbor of mine that rents their house. Their landlord is absent to say the least. She lives down in Florida which wouldn't be a problem but she actually has one unit and misrepair to the point where it cannot be rented out. She doesn't even tell her tenants about anything. Tomorrow they're going to be flushing hydrants for about 8 hours I was informed about three times and a half a week they had no clue what's happening.
At the same point with respect to land they plenty of land in the quiet corner Connecticut to build on period right now the problem to me seems to be just a supply problem period there's not enough people in the trades there's not enough supplies and we're going to see properties just sit there in terms of maintenance until we can get some more people here.
With respect of buffer is if you want to see a place that's really spaced out try block island. it wouldn't surprise me if you have one house on 10 to 15 acres of land.
Getting back to the way things look take a look to see how the Cumberland Farms looks like over in Brimfield ma
With the right zoning boards and laws you can have things like this happen. It obviously doesn't look like the average Cumberland Farms but at the same point it's still exist. I didn't think this was a convenience store until I drove by it.
The choice has been made in all towns in the state because every town is required to have a Town Plan for Conservation and Development. Those plans go through a rigorous process of development and public input so they are the base used for zoning in each town. What is the purpose of those plans if they are not followed?
Your description of ways to provide more housing is very romanticized. It’s not what is happening. Instead under 8-30g we are getting monster buildings crammed on small lots in the middle of quiet residential neighborhoods.
Your comment on “leaving money on the table” is very telling. It’s a comment commonly made by greedy developers out to make a buck. There is more to this than money. It has to do with quality of life and preservation of character. You can’t do that when neighborhoods are overrun with 30 unit per acre buildings. That doesn’t speak small town. That does speak quiet. That doesn’t speak of good planning. It speaks of creeping urbanization, over development and greed. I’m sorry that is wrong. Jay
The purpose of that plan is the purpose of every other plant it simply just exists but it doesn't necessarily mean it's fully enacted. Just like there's a master plan required every 10 years which is all good and fine but if it's a town takes longer than 10 years there's really no repercussions. It's fine to have the Watchers but if nobody's watching the Watchers it just leads to malfeasance and we've already seen that with school Construction.
Any organization will there be public private and nonprofit has to have somewhat of flexibility in order to raise more funds because we continue to see inflation. I know of major corporations that have to expand because it's really the only way of gaining Revenue. Nobody tells the tech sector that they must have fell out new technologies but they take it upon themselves to maximize shareholder revenue and develop more. Amazon for example does not have much for dividends and went without profitability for a while to build up are indeed things like the Kindle platform. With government you consistently have higher costs. Your employees have higher health care costs and then you have to maintain the pension and then you have to maintain other forms of insurance on buildings and Fuel etc. If you don't expand how many people in the entities are paying in ultimately it's going to lead to higher taxes or significant budget cuts.
Take a look at the Berkshire Regional of Massachusetts as a template for what can happen if things get worse. On the surface things look nice and frankly there's a number of common aspects. Both had General Electric leave a bad Legacy, both count on higher proximity to other urban areas for work, both try to lay claim to being tight-knit communities. But the problem is is that once you have a place that not only is in coronavirus shrinking it becomes much harder to pay for things and it leads to dependency.
Everyday I pass by housing in businesses that needs significant work sure. There's not as many people in Eastern Connecticut and frankly with inflation there's not as much of an incentive so yes there are other places to build things in the state. Sometimes conversations on this board act as if New Haven County and Fairfield County are the only counties in Connecticut.
When I say that Town's a week it's because they are weak. If you're dealing with entities that aren't growing you can just disregard them and I've seen that firsthand. I've got people in town that would beg for other choices in terms of grocery stores and drugstores but it's not going to happen. No business really wants to enter a general business that is not growing.
I can certainly understand that there is some people on this boy that think that things should just stay small. The trouble with that though is that it economically isn't always as feasible and frankly one thing about growing up is that you have to understand how other people view things. In many respects is the presentation in viewpoint. For example if I take a bodega that sells small tacos it could sit in an urban area for a while but if I take that same food put on a food truck now all of a sudden it gets a crowd. Younger people are more attracted to urban areas that offer more and amenities and more services. I'll delete people are in the same boat. I know of many elderly people that live in more suburban and rural areas that frankly don't have a higher quality of life because there's just not enough people. My girlfriend's been a teacher in Connecticut schools for 20 years. For the first time ever last Friday they had to take half a day off. They simply already enough teachers so it was declared a half day. Supposedly if they don't get enough people in certain trades that just going to shut them down because there's not enough people. The problem becomes circular we can't train people because there's not enough that want to teach but those salaries are lower so who wants to take the hit on this?
Where are these townhouses and apartments going around copps hill? There's literally no room for them. The only space there that's not built up is a cemetery, open space, and a swamp. There's literally nowhere to build. Same thing on portland, there's adorable turn of the century houses all over that road (most on extremely small lots to begin with), where are these apartment buildings going to be put? Also will note that most of portland is in redding, only a tiny section is in ridgefield.
Multifamily conversions were popular in places like Danbury and Bethel, not in Ridgefield. These are different places. One of the reasons ridgefield was able to keep its historic charm is because the wealth of the residents generally allowed these older, sometimes larger, houses to be maintained intact whereas those in less affluent areas were carved up into apartments, slapped with vinyl siding, and allowed to deteriorate.
Again, please tell me where in god's name you are putting more buildings off Catoonah??? The land is full, there is nowhere to build. All of the buildings there are on tiny lots as well, and there is just no more room for anything more, no matter the lot size. The houses on high ridge, griffith, and abbott back up to catoonah. There is no room to put anything.
The parts by the mariner are often totally full, I don't know when you're going there but that parking lot is usually totally packed. We used to go back in the woods there in high school cause the cars obstructed the view and we could get away with things lmao. Especially anytime there is any event in town parking is an absolute nightmare. The town is quite well aware of this and is actually including more parking spots when they redo main street, because parking is so terrible in the area. They cannot afford lose any at all.
It's because there's no room beeker. There's no room and there's no support for the increase in density. I don't know if you've been to town recently, but in the past 5 or so years traffic has become abhorrent. It used to back up from about south street toward danbury down through the 35/7 intersection at rush hour. Now it backs up from gilbert street or casagmo every day. A multi-million dollar street project is being undergone as we speak in an effort to improve traffic on main street because it has gotten so bad.
So which is it? Is Ridgefield a small town that can't handle more people or a bustling village with insane traffic?
Complaining about traffic and selected density is mutually exclusive. The excess of one (traffic) is caused and exasperated by the lack of the other (density). Reducing the number of units in proportion that need cars for 4 or 5 trips a day per residential unit is the only way out of congestion. It's better for public finances, and makes for a better QOL. The only downside, as far as I can tell, is that it's different than what some people are used to.
Not more traffic lights (which increases congestion), not more parking (which creates more need for driving), and certainly not more road expansions. This isn't utopian thinking, it's something that works even here in "built for the cars" good'ol US of A. Reducing the percentage of car trips (again some 75% are non-commuting trips) is the only way out. In fact, selective removal of parking and making other modes safer is much better for local businesses, as people that arrive by non-cars (conversely enough) spend more per trip.
And just because you don't see any room doesn't mean it's not there if the parcels are reimagined even slightly. Used to happen all the time (which I believe most people from not here absolutely consider a giant portion of the "charm").
The choice has been made in all towns in the state because every town is required to have a Town Plan for Conservation and Development. Those plans go through a rigorous process of development and public input so they are the base used for zoning in each town. What is the purpose of those plans if they are not followed?
Your description of ways to provide more housing is very romanticized. It’s not what is happening. Instead under 8-30g we are getting monster buildings crammed on small lots in the middle of quiet residential neighborhoods.
Your comment on “leaving money on the table” is very telling. It’s a comment commonly made by greedy developers out to make a buck. There is more to this than money. It has to do with quality of life and preservation of character. You can’t do that when neighborhoods are overrun with 30 unit per acre buildings. That doesn’t speak small town. That does speak quiet. That doesn’t speak of good planning. It speaks of creeping urbanization, over development and greed. I’m sorry that is wrong. Jay
And yet, no matter how many times the rationale and effect of why large lot sfh zoning preference comes up... that's somehow moral? Come on man, at least lie to me a little.
Congestion, housing market failure, overuse of personal vehicles contributing to global climate change, and the socio-racial-economic adverse effects of your preferred zoning type that you'd want to see built aren't just phantasms... they're real issues that aren't being confronted by, yes, greedy current owners (which actually helps the hyper greedy developers that through scarcity can extract far more per the parcels they own vis-a-vis if the competition was more open legally). That's immoral by any standard, literally the standard of all civilization.
And I'm not calling for massive buildings everywhere, just allowing small buildings in certain areas to get a little bigger and reusing structure types to enhance public funds and social cohesion and health. How that is wrong is an utter inversing of good and bad.
Last edited by Beeker2211; 05-17-2022 at 12:17 PM..
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.
