[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Stylo

With a few million more people, we’d have the density of NJ. Yeahhh, no thanks.

I’d be ok with 2-3% growth over the next decade, if it’s spurred by quality jobs.

Exactly and no one I know wants Connecticut to become like New Jersey. I’d much rather see us preserve what good and improve on the bad. Adding millions of people won’t do that. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Re: growth, I don’t think less than 1% in a decade is anything to brag about. Connecticut can do better than that and, in agreeance with Beeker, Connecticut can absolutely handle several million more people. It’s the infrastructure that cannot. If the state wants to turn the leaf and start attracting, en masse, profitable companies, 95 and MNRR need serious upgrades. They’ve been neglected for years and, IMO, investing some dough into it would help the state become desirable again - and by “desirable”, I don’t mean covid-desirable - I mean desirable enough to start attracting people back from Texas and Tennessee. If that means tolls, so be it, but something needs to happen (dodges flames). Solid infrastructure is imperative to a booming economy.

Several million more people? Exactly where? Connecticut only has 3.6 million people today. It’s already among the most densely populated in the country. To add several million you are basically talking about doubling the population of just about every town in our state. That would clearly destroy their character. No way. Jay

[ayoskillz]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Exactly and no one I know wants Connecticut to become like New Jersey. I’d much rather see us preserve what good and improve on the bad. Adding millions of people won’t do that. Jay

Outside of Northern New Jersey which is were the main population is and trenton/camden, NJ is not very dense and has beautiful areas just like any place.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Several million more people? Exactly where? Connecticut only has 3.6 million people today. It’s already among the most densely populated in the country. To add several million you are basically talking about doubling the population of just about every town in our state. That would clearly destroy their character. No way. Jay

Most of Connecticut is actually quite rural, and that includes even much of Fairfield County. As noted earlier in the thread, CT’s density is concentrated in certain areas. Some of those communities in the “dense” areas of CT, like Greenwich through Westport, have retained amazing character as they grew. It did not disappear. All it takes is some strict zoning and growth can be monitored. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any growth. Zero population growth is never good for an economy - ever.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by ayoskillz

Outside of Northern New Jersey which is were the main population is and trenton/camden, NJ is not very dense and has beautiful areas just like any place.

I know New Jersey very well and it’s very densely populated. It’s No. 1 in density. I also know there are beautiful areas but let’s face it, a lot of it is ugly sprawl. I have good friends there that, like we here in Connecticut, are fighting to preserve what little character is left in their Morris County towns. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Most of Connecticut is actually quite rural, and that includes even much of Fairfield County. As noted earlier in the thread, CT’s density is concentrated in certain areas. Some of those communities in the “dense” areas of CT, like Greenwich through Westport, have retained amazing character as they grew. It did not disappear. All it takes is some strict zoning and growth can be monitored. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any growth. Zero population growth is never good for an economy - ever.

Yeah, but that character will be difficult if not impossible to maintain when these towns face doubling their population. A large town like Fairfield would have to accommodate over 120,000 residents. How will they do that? You’d have to rezone Greenfield Hill from 2 acre minimum, build more apartments all over town and increase the building heights from maximum of five floors to ten. That will definitely change its character.

A town like a Westport will have to become more like Fairfield to double its population. That means increasing housing density north of the Post Road, adding a LOT of apartments and increase building heights. Again how do you do that without changing character. You can restrict zoning all you want, there’s only so much that will do.

Character is a very fine line that can disappear easily. Rural towns across the state will have to become suburban. Development would have to encroach on the little vacant land we have left and our limited agricultural industry would likely disappear. Who wants that other than greedy developers out to make a quick profit? I’m sorry, there’s no good reason for this other than to have bragging rights that we are a growing state. That’s just ego talking. If you want high growth and all the problems it brings, then move to one of those states. Oh wait, you did. Good luck with that. Jay

[RoundTableKnight]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

BUt but taxes. LOL. This is so disappointing. I wanted CT to lose at least 25% of its population. There's too many dam people here already.

My man LMAO

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Yeah, but that character will be difficult if not impossible to maintain when these towns face doubling their population. A large town like Fairfield would have to accommodate over 120,000 residents. How will they do that? You’d have to rezone Greenfield Hill from 2 acre minimum, build more apartments all over town and increase the building heights from maximum of five floors to ten. That will definitely change its character.

A town like a Westport will have to become more like Fairfield to double its population. That means increasing housing density north of the Post Road, adding a LOT of apartments and increase building heights. Again how do you do that without changing character. You can restrict zoning all you want, there’s only so much that will do.

Character is a very fine line that can disappear easily. Rural towns across the state will have to become suburban. Development would have to encroach on the little vacant land we have left and our limited agricultural industry would likely disappear. Who wants that other than greedy developers out to make a quick profit? I’m sorry, there’s no good reason for this other than to have bragging rights that we are a growing state. That’s just ego talking. If you want high growth and all the problems it brings, then move to one of those states. Oh wait, you did. Good luck with that. Jay

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.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Jay,

Really the only city that wasn't really planned to have massive growth was Stamford ironically.

You are wrong about that. My relatives had a lot to do with the growth in Stamford. I'm older so I know. One of my cousins was very involved in the government and he created the "Stamford Economic Development Commission". What you see was all planed from the 1970's when they started giving corporations a 7 year tax abatement to attract business.

I also have other cousins that were very involved with the planning and zoning on the West Side of Stamford (where my family is originally from).

Do you notice there is no haphazard growth in Stamford? The southern portion near transpiration is city and dense, the middle portion is suburban and the northern portion is rural......all planned.

[Stylo]

You could add 100,000+ people each to cities like New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford with dense housing and high rises without losing much character if the infrastructure can support it, but I agree—towns like Westport are pretty full. That’s why tear downs continue to be popular. There’s no lots left. Changing zoning would be detrimental to those towns. Same with the more rural ones.