[Catheetiem]

Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo

6000 sq ft is a tiny lot

60 x 100

.14 acres

Small house, 1 car garage and a tiny yard for the kids and a dog

I would think you'd be happier with that vs 1 acre zoning

That is a REALLY small lot lol. Our last rental before we bought was a 780 sqft ranch with a grage underneath on a 6k sqft lot. It was tiny for sure, and honestly played a part when we were looking to buy. Just too close to neighbors. Our neighbors on one side had chickens (not allowed in our area of town), they would wander onto our yard and in the summer their coop stank so badly. Our neighbor on the other side was cool, he was an eccentric guy but had a good heart, very nice lol, but he liked to do stonework/masonry projects and broke out the tile saw at 7 am most weekend mornings.

Both of them liked to blast music outside on their stereos lol. It can be alright if you have good neighbors, but you're obviously not in control of that.

We actually had the option to buy that house but decided against it, for multiple reasons but the lot was a big one. No room to expand the house at all. I also don't like ranches and wanted a historic house, but the lot was the number one reason why my bf didn't want to buy it either.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by Catheetiem

That is a REALLY small lot lol. Our last rental before we bought was a 780 sqft ranch with a grage underneath on a 6k sqft lot. It was tiny for sure, and honestly played a part when we were looking to buy. Just too close to neighbors. Our neighbors on one side had chickens (not allowed in our area of town), they would wander onto our yard and in the summer their coop stank so badly. Our neighbor on the other side was cool, he was an eccentric guy but had a good heart, very nice lol, but he liked to do stonework/masonry projects and broke out the tile saw at 7 am most weekend mornings.

Both of them liked to blast music outside on their stereos lol. It can be alright if you have good neighbors, but you're obviously not in control of that.

We actually had the option to buy that house but decided against it, for multiple reasons but the lot was a big one. No room to expand the house at all. I also don't like ranches and wanted a historic house, but the lot was the number one reason why my bf didn't want to buy it either.

I am .19 acres and that's super cramped as well. I've had issues with neighbors with stereos too, started a thread on that a few years back. Someone across the street put in a pool in 2020 and that was a ****show that summer. Thankfully they moved the next winter.

My SOs property is a city lot at 50' wide - talk about handing sugar to the neighbor out the window!

I stand by my earlier replies that if people want the density, have at it. There are plenty of dense areas in every state. Just don't expect everyone to want to live there.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by norcal2k19

We're not using our existing land as effectively as possible. How is a 6,000 sq. ft. lot for a single family in a densely populated county (e.g. FFC) good for the environment?

What about this part that didn't get addressed below? Not every single existing unit is going to get renovated. We need new builds, period, hence why we need to increase housing stock above the population - even 5% a year will not hurt this state nor our precious land.

"A 2.5% increase in over a decade is clearly insufficient simply to replace obsolete housing, let alone meet increased demand both by single people, the employers who need talented single people, combined with the natural growth in the number of households."

There certainly are parts of Fairfield County and our state where you can live in more densely populated areas if you want. The fact is most people don’t want it. They want their own piece of property and 4,500 to 6,000 square foot lots are about the smallest you can go doing that. Isn’t that dense enough? Why do we need more new housing? Can’t we reuse and remodel the homes we already have? Doesn’t that make more sense? Isn’t that more environmentally sensitive? I certainly think so.

Also why isn’t a 2.5% increase in housing sufficient for a less than 1% increase in population? It certainly should be. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

There certainly are parts of Fairfield County and our state where you can live in more densely populated areas if you want. The fact is most people don’t want it.

Exactly, and the wokesters continuously forget that while trying to push their anti suburban, pro urban agenda.

People don’t want it. Period.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Exactly, and the wokesters continuously forget that while trying to push their anti suburban, pro urban agenda.

People don’t want it. Period.

True. People vote with their wallets. That why we’ve had the housing boom here and across the country. People have found that living on top of each other just is not worth it if they have the choice. I don’t blame them. Jay

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by JayCT

True. People vote with their wallets. That why we’ve had the housing boom here and across the country. People have found that living on top of each other just is not worth it if they have the choice. I don’t blame them. Jay

Right. Remember back in the 2Kteens when everyone wanted high walkability scores. Those days are over. That fads done.
CT won't ever get to Florida sprawl, whether pols open up all the zoning to satisfy urban wokeys or not, or whether people want it or not. It naturally won't happen, not enough are moving in.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

There certainly are parts of Fairfield County and our state where you can live in more densely populated areas if you want. The fact is most people don’t want it. They want their own piece of property and 4,500 to 6,000 square foot lots are about the smallest you can go doing that. Isn’t that dense enough? Why do we need more new housing? Can’t we reuse and remodel the homes we already have? Doesn’t that make more sense? Isn’t that more environmentally sensitive? I certainly think so.

Also why isn’t a 2.5% increase in housing sufficient for a less than 1% increase in population? It certainly should be. Jay

Jay, sorry but there are serious misconceptions and I'll admit it's infuriating to me as someone who is well versed in these issues. Probably why I lose it and for that I apologise but it's worth stepping back and looking at this holistically rather than issue to issue.

First you claim most people don't want denser living. Ok even if that is true the huge preference of large lot sfh exclusivity has made it close to impossible to build new and expand the inventory for those that don't, for whatever reasons they personally have. And bonus is those large lot parcels get parted out in any other way it reduces the inventory/supply of those that remain. And if demand is as overwhelming as you think wouldn't that increase price? Kind of a win-win, no?

Yes. We need new housing. There's a backlog of demand almost every variety except large lot sfh.

Your environmentally sound argument makes zero sense. 10 units on something that only had 1 previously. Just the heating and cooling alone.

And 2.5% starts with any growth is effectively losing units. It's very similar to natural growth logarithms found in biology, and couples with Balmors cost decay you can see why this is extremely worrying. And I'm CT if you look at growth numbers those outter ring and exurb areas are losing population while core and over are not only taking that loss of growth slack but increasing.

[Beeker2211]

This goes for a few but the sheer arrogance of telling people that they don't want what they say they want is astounding. As is legally keeping new structures to meet that demand with so much upside and little downside is insanity, like the shop that pressures you to buy the shirt you don't want because the one you actually want is legally barred to be sold because those that own that type of shirt lobbied the government to make it illegal to make. Utter. Insanity.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

This goes for a few but the sheer arrogance of telling people that they don't want what they say they want is astounding. As is legally keeping new structures to meet that demand with so much upside and little downside is insanity, like the shop that pressures you to buy the shirt you don't want because the one you actually want is legally barred to be sold because those that own that type of shirt lobbied the government to make it illegal to make. Utter. Insanity.

Seriously?! I have zero problem with you wanting what you want. How about you respect those of us who don't want to live in high density areas

Pot meet kettle

BTW my minimum acreage requirements would shrivel your brain. I don't want to hear or see ANYONE. Your high density utopia can kiss my country lovin' butt

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by Catheetiem

That is a REALLY small lot lol. Our last rental before we bought was a 780 sqft ranch with a grage underneath on a 6k sqft lot. It was tiny for sure, and honestly played a part when we were looking to buy. Just too close to neighbors. Our neighbors on one side had chickens (not allowed in our area of town), they would wander onto our yard and in the summer their coop stank so badly. Our neighbor on the other side was cool, he was an eccentric guy but had a good heart, very nice lol, but he liked to do stonework/masonry projects and broke out the tile saw at 7 am most weekend mornings.

Both of them liked to blast music outside on their stereos lol. It can be alright if you have good neighbors, but you're obviously not in control of that.

We actually had the option to buy that house but decided against it, for multiple reasons but the lot was a big one. No room to expand the house at all. I also don't like ranches and wanted a historic house, but the lot was the number one reason why my bf didn't want to buy it either.

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.