[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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.

It could also be cost efficient to just knock down and start new. Those exteriors are labor intensive.
I'm on board with either.

[mdovell]

I drive by an area in willington at least once a week. There' s a few houses there and it's a big plot
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8823...7i16384!8i8192

Been that way for years. There's room for redevelopment that's for sure. I think eventually a flipper will go in and get some landscaping and clean it up. There's other areas like this in northeast ct. There's plenty of open space here to develop. at one point there was a bit of a train to boston and nyc but I doubt that at storrs although the recent rail article could be a big boom eventually. The political capital and financial is coming to a head and they'll be a reestablishment of the inland route.

Not to knock on ideas but much of the time when people think of new ideas there's usually program that already go on. There's some other changes that can happen but it's going to take other state reforms. In Mass for example housing authorities used to have local lists. This led to a few obvious and significant problems. First and foremost it encouraged generations of people to pretty much stay regardless of opportunities. Second is that it meant that there were empty units literally sitting in some places and a line out the door for others. This made no sense for spending or policy. So in 2014 it was eliminated with a central list. If you want state housing the state will tell you where to go as there's empty units just sitting there. Do you want housing or just want to "hang around"? The community preservation act in mass is a property tax surcharge matched with the state. It can go for housing (and historical preservation and recreation and open space) decisions are made locally, not by the state.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

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.

Two things though to this:

1) When New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport reached their previous peak populations (I don't want to go and check but I believe in each case it's either 1950 or 1960), the surrounding areas were a lot smaller and less developed. So growth would have a harder affect on character and services now.

2) I think you mostly have population growth vs. House seats right but I think it's a little more complicated than that. NY had a 4.2% growth rate 2010-20 and CT only a 0.9% growth rate yet NY lost a seat and CT didn't. So something else has to factor into that that puts bigger states with more House seats to begin with more likely to both gain and lose one. I think California still had a 6% growth rate but lost a seat.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Two things though to this:

1) When New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport reached their previous peak populations (I don't want to go and check but I believe in each case it's either 1950 or 1960), the surrounding areas were a lot smaller and less developed. So growth would have a harder affect on character and services now.

2) I think you mostly have population growth vs. House seats right but I think it's a little more complicated than that. NY had a 4.2% growth rate 2010-20 and CT only a 0.9% growth rate yet NY lost a seat and CT didn't. So something else has to factor into that that puts bigger states with more House seats to begin with more likely to both gain and lose one. I think California still had a 6% growth rate but lost a seat.

I have read the census uses round up when seats are threatened, round down in growing states. It means for Ct to hold its 5th seat, its natural ratio of seats using Congress' per capita must stay 4.01 or above. That is round up. If a state has 16 seats, and grows faster than nat'l average, its calculated rate of House seats must reach 17. At a rate of 16.99 or less, round down is used.

Round up/round down does affect states with a lot of seats like NY far quicker than less populated states like Ct.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

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.

The point is, though, neither option is happening, and we are presenting an exceptionally ugly view to all who pass through much of Bridgeport. Too many dying carcasses of the past.

[mdovell]

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'm all for preservation of historical buildings but sometimes they cross a point by which that they can be saved. I've heard of old churches that had rot so significant that the trusses are starting to buckle and it had to be demoed. A church I know of had a bad fire and it just sat there with asbestos flying out. It was historic to a point but it compromised safety. While I could feel sympathetic towards a historical black church being demoed it had to. It isn't natural seeing snow that isn't really snow. Now it's an empty lot ready for redevelopment. I lived near a place that was a apartment complex but fell into disrepair to the point where the walls were exposed and weathered. Finally it's getting demoed now but it took awhile to say the least. Tax credits with workforce development can be a great help. At the same point though you still have to have ADA.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

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

That's the Remington Arms factory, which is slated for demolition. My guess is city will create developable land out of it.

Many other factory buildings, namely along 95, have been renovated or are in the process of being renovated for mixed use. I never thought I'd see that happen when I used to commute past those 10 years ago.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

The point is, though, neither option is happening, and we are presenting an exceptionally ugly view to all who pass through much of Bridgeport. Too many dying carcasses of the past.

Dramatics. It's a 1/2 mile stretch of 95 in one city. Every state has it's dying carcasses. The US is getting older, starting to show it's age, throughout.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I have read the census uses round up when seats are threatened, round down in growing states. It means for Ct to hold its 5th seat, its natural ratio of seats using Congress' per capita must stay 4.01 or above. That is round up. If a state has 16 seats, and grows faster than nat'l average, its calculated rate of House seats must reach 17. At a rate of 16.99 or less, round down is used.

Round up/round down does affect states with a lot of seats like NY far quicker than less populated states like Ct.

Thanks that makes sense. It's also makes it easier for a large state like Texas to gain multiple seats.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Stylo

That's the Remington Arms factory, which is slated for demolition. My guess is city will create developable land out of it.

Many other factory buildings, namely along 95, have been renovated or are in the process of being renovated for mixed use. I never thought I'd see that happen when I used to commute past those 10 years ago.

Many eyesores left. Particularly after leaving the station, the old Exit 26 industrial area around Hancock looks horrific still. Some were long closed platers. The pollution is no doubt why they remain. No one wants to buy the property. Just as Wal Mart backed out on Old Gate Lane Milford idea, when city would not first buy and flip the former Connecticut Aerosol property due to pollution.

Bridgeport MN viewed buildings are abominable. This city has the worst looking view on the MN New Haven line, by far, even today.