[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Jay,

I think that you're being a bit overboard. There are areas that are already suited in CT for much more growth and population. Also the character that we have here is a largely organic one, far away not tract development like in New Jersey, Long Island, or really any new growth area in the country. But it's just not feasible to lock in CT to how it exists today. I mean CT is a far different place than when my dad was growing up. It'll be different for my kids if I have any.

A 3% increase is just over 10k/year, which would not be noticeable addition if more spread out state wide.

Also good to remember that Bridgeport's infrastructure was built with a population of 250k in mind, Fairfield over 100k, Stratford over 100k, Hartford 200k, Waterbury 200k, New Haven about 225k... Really the only city that wasn't really planned to have massive growth was Stamford ironically. We have plenty of space in this state that could house new homes and businesses with minimal infrastructure investment when it comes to sewers and fresh water.

No one is saying that we let developers run roughshod on our sensitive communities, but even they have to take on at least some growth if the market is there.

CT def needs more housing variety, and buying opportunities. More younger people and reasons for college students to stay with jobs here. It's not about bragging rights of having a booming state: it's basic acknowledgement that character and growth are not mutually exclusive.

If you look, I was responding to the comment made by Kidyankee that said Connecticut could add “millions”. With only 3.6 million people, adding “millions” is like doubling our population which is what I was addressing. I’m sorry but I don’t see how we can double our population and not affect our state’s character. Not possible.

I am not sure what makes you think a town like Fairfield or Stratford could accommodate more than 100,000 people. Where? I believe that Fairfield’s Plan for Conservation and Development maxs the town out at about 75,000. Beyond that, you can’t avoid affecting the town’s character.

Stratford currently has about 52,000 people so you are talking about doubling its size. Again that’s not happening without affecting its character. And that goes for just about every town in our state. Some have more room than others but not nearly what’s needed to add “millions”. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Stratford currently has about 52,000 people so you are talking about doubling its size. Again that’s not happening without affecting its character. And that goes for just about every town in our state. Some have more room than others but not nearly what’s needed to add “millions”. Jay

I agree we cannot add millions, but think hundreds of thousands are manageable outside of the New Haven-Greenwich corridor's suburbs.

If New Haven, Hartford, & Bridgeport matched their maximum population, that alone would add about 2.5% to our growth, and around 75,000 residents between the 3, which would change us from losing a House seat every 30 years to losing one every 60 or 70. That is a huge gap, as it means, when we drop to 4 seats in 2032, had we been at 3.5% population growth vs 1% all along, that is when we would be dropping from 6 to 5 (vs 5 to 4), and we would not drop to 4 would not come until around 2102 if we stayed at the 3.5% growth rate.

Adding 5%/decade to the towns east of New Haven burbs, and especially north of coast, plus the 75k to restore our cities peak population, would bring us to a decade growth rate of 4 or 5% overall, and drastically assist our outlook beyond just House seats. People add to Federal funding levels also, Jay, for every state.which is why they fight census counts they feel are erroneous.

Population growth works like compound interest. The further behind the nation we are, and the LONGER we are behind, increases the decreased representation affect exponentially. That is why NY, despite having Wall St, has now lost 17 seats in 7 census cycles..because it has been so far behind the nation in growth. It had 45 electors in 1960, will have 28 now, despite adding a few million people in 60 years, as its percentage of growth was abysmal.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

If you look, I was responding to the comment made by Kidyankee that said Connecticut could add “millions”. With only 3.6 million people, adding “millions” is like doubling our population which is what I was addressing. I’m sorry but I don’t see how we can double our population and not affect our state’s character. Not possible.

I am not sure what makes you think a town like Fairfield or Stratford could accommodate more than 100,000 people. Where? I believe that Fairfield’s Plan for Conservation and Development maxs the town out at about 75,000. Beyond that, you can’t avoid affecting the town’s character.

Stratford currently has about 52,000 people so you are talking about doubling its size. Again that’s not happening without affecting its character. And that goes for just about every town in our state. Some have more room than others but not nearly what’s needed to add “millions”. Jay

Nowhere did I state anything about Fairfield or Stratford doubling in size. Because much of CT is actually rural, there’s a ton of buildable land and therefore plenty of room for growth. That includes private land. Am I suggesting CT encourage building subdivisions like crazy? No. But there’s certainly room for it if the state wished to encourage that.

As for the economy, there’s a strong correlation between moderate population growth and a good economic performance in the long run. It’s the reason CT needs to start finding alternate solutions to encourage growth, whether it’s more housing variety or streamlining the removal of dilapidated and condemned buildings in the inner cities to be replaced with vibrant housing. The state needs to keep up with the rest of the country if it wants to be competitive.

There’s plenty of room for growth in CT. As long as it’s managed, no character will disappear.

[RoundTableKnight]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Stratford currently has about 52,000 people so you are talking about doubling its size. Again that’s not happening without affecting its character. And that goes for just about every town in our state. Some have more room than others but not nearly what’s needed to add “millions”. Jay

I just took a look at Stratford on google maps and it's already squeezed tight. Really the only open land they have is the Roosevelt Forest. I don't think they could add another 5k let alone double their population.

It's the same thing with a lot of towns especially on the sound coast. With the open land that's left why on earth would we want to knock trees down to build more housing. I see zero benefits to the idea.

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

As for the economy, there’s a strong correlation between moderate population growth and a good economic performance in the long run. It’s the reason CT needs to start finding alternate solutions to encourage growth, whether it’s more housing variety or streamlining the removal of dilapidated and condemned buildings in the inner cities to be replaced with vibrant housing. The state needs to keep up with the rest of the country if it wants to be competitive.

I prefer the remove dilapidated and condemned buildings in the inner cities to be replaced with vibrant housing part.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by RoundTableKnight

I just took a look at Stratford on google maps and it's already squeezed tight. Really the only open land they have is the Roosevelt Forest. I don't think they could add another 5k let alone double their population.

It's the same thing with a lot of towns especially on the sound coast. With the open land that's left why on earth would we want to knock trees down to build more housing. I see zero benefits to the idea.

As noted in the post before yours, nobody is suggesting or advocating for that. But the land is available and CT can handle it if the infrastructure were up to par.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by RoundTableKnight

I prefer the remove dilapidated and condemned buildings in the inner cities to be replaced with vibrant housing part.

Same.

[RoundTableKnight]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Same.

Perhaps a chunk of the federal stimulus money will go toward such things?

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It’s the reason CT needs to start finding alternate solutions to encourage growth, whether it’s more housing variety or streamlining the removal of dilapidated and condemned buildings in the inner cities to be replaced with vibrant housing. The state needs to keep up with the rest of the country if it wants to be competitive.

There’s plenty of room for growth in CT. As long as it’s managed, no character will disappear.

Amen. Bridgeport looks like a post WWII city in Germany from Metro North for much of the ride. One falling apart abandoned manufacturing plant after another. Clearing that land, and replacing it with new, low density housing stock would add population PLUS improve the character.

This image is not character, and there are many shells of industrial buildings in view on a Metro North ride through Bridgeport:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...RST&ajaxhist=0

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Amen. Bridgeport looks like a post WWII city in Germany from Metro North for much of the ride. One falling apart abandoned manufacturing plant after another. Clearing that land, and replacing it with new, low density housing stock would add population PLUS improve the character.

This image is not character, and there are many shells of industrial buildings in view on a Metro North ride through Bridgeport:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...RST&ajaxhist=0

I would have to disagree here and let me explain why and how it works today. The exterior of that particular one in the photo can be reno'd and restored to its' former beauty, it could look amazing with modern trendy interior lofts and apartment living spaces. This has been done in places like NH, Fairfield and Sono centers, Brooklyn, others around the nation. If mold and rodent damage has gone too far and unattended, then I would have to agree, it would have to come down, start over from scratch.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

I would have to disagree here and let me explain. The exterior of that particular one in the photo can be reno'd and restored to its' former beauty, it could look amazing with modern trendy interior lofts and apartment living spaces. This has been done in places like NH, Fairfield and Sono centers, Brooklyn, others around the nation. If mold and rodent damage has taken too far of a toll, then yes, it would come down, start over from scratch, then I would have to agree.

That’s sort of what happened with Derby. There were old beautiful buildings lining Main Street but because the city neglected them for years, they were past the point of revival, and torn down. Nothing destroys character quite like that.