[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

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

Correct, or easier to lose them for a big state, too. It favors status quo on the mid-range EV states. With the House having 435 seats, the average is 8.7/state, so we are far closer to average than either NY or Texas. Distribution favors status quo until you get into upper echelons of House seats in population. Rounding done differently based on growing vs shrinking preserves status quo sometimes.

[JayCT]

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.

Have you seen this project? One of those “dying carcasses”. Not bad if you ask me. Jay

Forgot to include link. Here you go.

https://cherrystreetloftsct.com/

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

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.

I’ll be the first to criticize Bridgeport. For example, downtown is a stagnant disappointment and the entire east side is pretty awful.

But exit 26 buildings have all been rehabbed or will be. That’s a massive improvement.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I’ll be the first to criticize Bridgeport. For example, downtown is a stagnant disappointment and the entire east side is pretty awful.

But exit 26 buildings have all been rehabbed or will be. That’s a massive improvement.

I've seen some not rehabbed yet, and happen to know a few as former suppliers of former employers. Not giant by any means, more in the 35-75,000 sq foot range. So not Casco which burned down, nor Bryant or Hubbell (reused), but some of the suppliers who sold to local manufacturers plating services and similar stuff are still there.in bad shape. Visible from I95.

Downtown I do agree is the worst part, as handled well (the politics of re-development), it could have been in much better shape. I'd like a special zone for new development with a NO Property tax agreement for 10 years for anyone willing to add a certain threshold of investment $ and full-time, full benefit jobs downtown.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I’ll be the first to criticize Bridgeport. For example, downtown is a stagnant disappointment and the entire east side is pretty awful.

But exit 26 buildings have all been rehabbed or will be. That’s a massive improvement.

It doesn't look like a war torn city anymore from I-95.......just a decaying CT city.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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.

You said Connecticut could add “millions”. Well with our state only having 3.6 million, “millions” could easily mean doubling our size. If you look my comments on Stratford and Fairfield were related to Beeker’s comment that these towns could grow to more than 100,000 each. That too is almost doubling the populations.

Another consideration is that the size of families have shrunk significantly. Back in the 50’s and 60’s it was not uncommon to have families with three, four or more kids. Today it is rare to have more than two. This has impacted the population growth.

So you understand, I’m not saying our state can’t accommodate more growth. What I’m saying is we can’t accommodate the high growth rates of Florida and Texas, two states that are known for sprawl and overdevelopment. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

I can't wait to see the state-state migration analysis that comes out after every census. Excellent data to have.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You said Connecticut could add “millions”. Well with our state only having 3.6 million, “millions” could easily mean doubling our size. If you look my comments on Stratford and Fairfield were related to Beeker’s comment that these towns could grow to more than 100,000 each. That too is almost doubling the populations.

Another consideration is that the size of families have shrunk significantly. Back in the 50’s and 60’s it was not uncommon to have families with three, four or more kids. Today it is rare to have more than two. This has impacted the population growth.

So you understand, I’m not saying our state can’t accommodate more growth. What I’m saying is we can’t accommodate the high growth rates of Florida and Texas, two states that are known for sprawl and overdevelopment. Jay

I was the one to say CT could handle adding millions... with the tongue in cheek caveat that we certainly could not handle the additional cars. The 100k each statistic for Stratford and Fairfield was the public build-out infrastructure audits and upgrades from the 50's and 60's based on projections. Those upgrades mostly dealt with water, sewer, and transportation build outs (which actually took into account the massive inflow needed for the amount of heavy industry in those towns at the time). Most of that infrastructure has been maintained excellently so only minor improvements would be needed to accommodate a massive influx to those areas. Remember back in those days Bridgeport was still one of the world's richest cities and State planners earnestly believed that it would continue being the main hub metro for most of Southern Connecticut.

I'm not saying that we should try to immediately max out to current infrastructure tolerances, just that especially in the core business districts and former factory sites we have plenty of wiggle room especially for TOD and mostly car-independent development. It's already happening in both towns and Bridgeport itself.

Additionally we should NOT try to emulate the growth rates of Florida and Texas, which are already having issues with their infrastructure being so poorly and ad-hoc-ly (if that's a word) planned and built on shoe-string budgets. Do we want to be Houston that can't figure out why roads are impassable with light rain? Heck heck no. But a little to moderate growth in CT is possible and probably desirable, as long as we don't start strip developing greenfields.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Downtown I do agree is the worst part, as handled well (the politics of re-development), it could have been in much better shape. I'd like a special zone for new development with a NO Property tax agreement for 10 years for anyone willing to add a certain threshold of investment $ and full-time, full benefit jobs downtown.

Downtown has had starts and sputters for the last decade, especially on a retail/restaurant level but still almost every new apartment development gets a wait list. Some pretty cool eateries down there but the need for a "critical mass" to make it a destination for those outside the city is still elusive.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Downtown has had starts and sputters for the last decade, especially on a retail/restaurant level but still almost every new apartment development gets a wait list. Some pretty cool eateries down there but the need for a "critical mass" to make it a destination for those outside the city is still elusive.

Some great restaurants have come and gone quickly