[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Somewhat pricey, but the food (when reviewed beforehand) was awesome, and the bands superb. The view, though, is the draw. The food and bands append the view as secondary draws.

It is also ca-ching for tourism GDP, and if you recall Jay's thread on our 30 year temporary income tax, tourism revenue is key in several of the 8 income tax free states. We have never done as well as we should in tourism revenue IMO. I'd like to see more than just NY plates in Milford, in massive numbers, thank you.

Where is our Economic Development team on tourism?

We seem to have different tastes as it was not attractive to me. I think some degree of regional tourism could be good even if it's only to keep regional spending dollars, though I don't think beach scenes are really CT's strong suit over other beach scenes people would travel to even if highly developed. Still, it's always nice to have things nicer. If tax dollars are what we're worried about, the big worry for CT is that there's a massive imbalance between federal tax receipts versus federal tax expenditure for this state and a couple of the states around it compared to the average for US states and most of the income tax free states. That dwarfs any possible additional revenue from beach tourism and by a large margin and the incentive for state (and local) taxes such as the income tax perversely exists as part of an informal handshake of SALT deductions that were in place since the dawn of the federal income tax. CT's teats (NY's and MA's as well) are delicious and nutritious for the nation especially for many of the net taker states which are the majority of states, but can cause quite a bit of chafing.

Originally Posted by JayCT

I’m not sure how or why you think adding 3,000 people is “two steps back”? To me that’s a good step forward and it shows in all the new development that is going on in the city. The funny thing is it’s been going on for the past 20 plus years. Even during the Great Recession New Haven had development going on. It didn’t really stop like other cities. And despite all the new apartments being built, the city still has one of the tightest rental markets in the country. If anything, I’d say that’s a GIANT LEAP forward. Too bad you don’t see it. Jay

Yea, that sounds about right to me and that's while household sizes aren't exactly increasing.

Originally Posted by BPt111

Jersey City have is much smaller than Stamford but it almost 300k city and it 6.5 miles from point a to point b in most extreme parts of the city compare to Stamford 12 miles. Stamford would need to make Downtown more dense to Harbor point.

Yes, that sounds about right as long as demand is there. I'm still curious about what kind of height restrictions or parking minimums or other zoning restrictions are in place for the greater downtown area of Stamford. Perhaps those are being a bit of an incumbrance?

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Stylo

It ain’t ocean beaches, but West Haven beaches are all sand for miles. It could be more than it is for sure. People love waterfront dining and hotels with views.

In western and middle Ct, beaches are our best tourist asset. I simply want that utilized.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Probably not, but are there substantial height restrictions in the southern part of Stamford? Much of Miami has pretty middling density, not nearly as low as the fancy mansion parts, but not that bustling either. It's a lot of one-story single family detached homes like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8291...7i13312!8i6656

However, there's also a small part of the city with very high density that contributes disproportionately to its population numbers. Now if Stamford's land value is actually valuable enough to build high on the plots that aren't north Stamford and there aren't height restrictions such that you can build high-rises, then you could conceivably add quite a lot of people, but I don't know if Stamford land values in its more urban parts are actually that valuable and if there are major height restrictions.

True but that section is VERY dense. It's considered tied with San Francisco for the third densest downtown skyline in the US after NYC and Chicago. And Miami Beach (technically a seperate city) is quite dense too.

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

True but that section is VERY dense. It's considered tied with San Francisco for the third densest downtown skyline in the US after NYC and Chicago. And Miami Beach (technically a seperate city) is quite dense too.

Brickell/Downtown Miami is 3rd biggest skyline in U.S it only 2 square miles. Stamford have so much restrictions it could easily be little major city in CT. Paterson, NJ is 8.71 square mile it have 159,000+ residents

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

True but that section is VERY dense. It's considered tied with San Francisco for the third densest downtown skyline in the US after NYC and Chicago. And Miami Beach (technically a seperate city) is quite dense too.

Yes, very dense and kind of pleasant. That's with some very high land values there so it's worth it to build high up like that. It also means that it doesn't necessarily need to take all that much land to add quite a bit of population and do so while still making it pretty nice. I'm just not sure what the restrictions on building like that (at least in terms of height if not style since maybe the Miami look doesn't make much sense) in Stamford would be. Another high density and small built up area to consider as maybe a more appropriate model would be West End and downtown Vancouver on the rather small Burrard Peninsula.

[mdovell]

Tourism is important that factors into things like Transit the hospitality industry beaches historical sites and so on. If people live in a given area they might not always rush to see the local sights all the time. Just like seasonal events I think it's great when I see places that have ethnic, religious and non profit events. If it isn't the public sector doing them that it doesn't come to a cost of a taxpayer.

I can critique the state of Connecticut on a variety of issues but I do think the beaches are in pretty good shape. Massachusetts there's so much of the shoreline which has significant develop in the form of condos and that's been pretty much the policy for over 30 years.

Every time I see a body of water I just have to ask where you're nearest bait and tackle shops? Is there a fishing tournament? Is there a swimming tournament? Is there a boating Tournament?

I was just in Virginia Beach Virginia and I found the beach to be incredible. They dramatically expanded the beach over the years and has been significant development for the past 17 or so years. More statues and memorials more events. The nice thing is the boardwalk and the bike lane is alongside the beach. You still have your high-end hotels with great views but you still have your other hotels behind those that much cheaper rates that are literally a five-minute walk away from the beach. Having said this the amount and size of the Waves as much higher than that then you'd seen in New England.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by norcal2k19

This is a bit misleading because of tight town/city boundaries in CT dating back a few hundred years in some cases. In other states, especially in the West and South, a "city" includes many of what would be the surrounding towns in CT.

So for example Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Stamford don't really function as 100k-140k cities from a non-legal perspective.

Huh?

I don't think you really you're making a legitimate argument. The actual words of city and town are how that local government is incorporated. There are cities in Texas with hundreds of people and there are towns in Massachusetts of tens of pain tens of thousands of people. You can have strong Mayors and weak Mayors and town of ministrator is in town manager's this is all wheel basic Civics 101.

What's a non-legal perspective exactly? You might be describing things that might be on a county level or metro area. For example the city of Miami is in Miami-Dade County. So people can technically say they live in Miami without actually living in the city of Miami.

Proximity to an urban area can be significantly different depending on where you are. No one in Pittsfield Massachusetts says they work in the Boston metro area it's at least a good two hours away. However if you drop that same size in Texas than Pittsfield would be considered a suburb of Boston.

Now certainly there can be some confusion if you have say housing authorities that share the name and transit authorities and water authorities and Electric. I don't see what you mean by they don't operate at a city from a non legal perspective can you explain that?

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Huh?

I don't think you really you're making a legitimate argument. The actual words of city and town are how that local government is incorporated. There are cities in Texas with hundreds of people and there are towns in Massachusetts of tens of pain tens of thousands of people. You can have strong Mayors and weak Mayors and town of ministrator is in town manager's this is all wheel basic Civics 101.

What's a non-legal perspective exactly? You might be describing things that might be on a county level or metro area. For example the city of Miami is in Miami-Dade County. So people can technically say they live in Miami without actually living in the city of Miami.

Proximity to an urban area can be significantly different depending on where you are. No one in Pittsfield Massachusetts says they work in the Boston metro area it's at least a good two hours away. However if you drop that same size in Texas than Pittsfield would be considered a suburb of Boston.

Now certainly there can be some confusion if you have say housing authorities that share the name and transit authorities and water authorities and Electric. I don't see what you mean by they don't operate at a city from a non legal perspective can you explain that?

I think whats meant is in the Northeast (and to some extent the Midwest) the cities are dense and low in physical area with a lot of large suburbs around them (Hartford is a very good example, so is Boston and Buffalo), whereas the rest of the US is often different. Houston includes maybe 80% of it's metro built up area in the city limits, and virtually the entire builtup area of metro Jacksonville, FL is within the city limits.

Of course there are exceptions (Miami is more like the Northeast in that sense, Columbus, OH and Indianapolis are more like the rest of the country and less like most Midwest cities, I can't think offhand of a Northeast city whose city limits include much of suburbia).

[Connecticut203]

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/loc...src=sthpdesecp

[Connetquoter]

Was walking through the south end and the Magee ave today morning. There are still a lot of vacant lots and dilapidated buildings. Hopefully they all get put to a good use instead of just turning into a coop city.