[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

Even Stamford converted some office towers to apartments. It's the only way forward.

, with remote and hybrid, there is far less demand for office space. No demand for retail space. Might as well use the building for something.

[BPt111]

Farmington is near Hartford so I post here

Developer wants series of apartment buildings, fresh businesses between Route 4 and Farmington River in Farmington

A West Hartford developer is proposing to build 190 apartments and refurbish commercial space along a stretch of Farmington Avenue in Farmington.
The plan involves rehabilitating a nearly century-old grain storage building alongside the Big Bird Bridge, and constructing more than a half-dozen new residential buildings on the mostly wooded property.

Without that change, “the most likely future development would be strip retail development taking advantage of the Route 4 frontage. This would not be the ideal development of the parcel,” planners wrote.
“Perhaps the most unique attribute is the former McCallum grain storage building,” they wrote. “There are two buildings totaling 40,000 square feet. One building is four stories with impressive views. The buildings are almost completely vacant and ripe for redevelopment.”

https://www.courant.com/news/connect...outputType=amp

[mdovell]

I'm not technically against apartments as I lived in one for five years. But the issue I see with apartments as a form of growth is that eventually they'll probably want to stop renting. If people are trapped into renting (i.e. Boston) I dont' think this helps much in the long run. I think renting can be fine for a individual or a couple but once you start putting in kids, especially more than one then that really limits what you can do with an apartment and the amount of apartments. If you practically limit family sizes due to apartments eventually that limits population growth. Of course there's going to be limits. Most units I see are one are two bedroom. When I hear requests for three, four or even five apartments I have to ask why not just get a condo at that point?

Don't get me wrong I get the concept that that renters can bring higher incomes to an area and walkable downtowns to cafes, restaurants, retail etc....but...how long do you want this to go for? If you have kids it's going to be harder to be quiet with more people working from home. There's obviously money in being a landlord, every market is a landlord market if it's up or down. But if Hartford becomes majority renters and they can't invest more and miss out in the stock market or have to simply move to a cheaper market. I'm not saying home ownership is for everyone but after awhile the difference can be significant. I'm not sure if we can legitimately say that people within the hartford area will economically benefit in the long term by staying in apartments.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Farmington is near Hartford so I post here

Developer wants series of apartment buildings, fresh businesses between Route 4 and Farmington River in Farmington

A West Hartford developer is proposing to build 190 apartments and refurbish commercial space along a stretch of Farmington Avenue in Farmington.
The plan involves rehabilitating a nearly century-old grain storage building alongside the Big Bird Bridge, and constructing more than a half-dozen new residential buildings on the mostly wooded property.

Without that change, “the most likely future development would be strip retail development taking advantage of the Route 4 frontage. This would not be the ideal development of the parcel,” planners wrote.
“Perhaps the most unique attribute is the former McCallum grain storage building,” they wrote. “There are two buildings totaling 40,000 square feet. One building is four stories with impressive views. The buildings are almost completely vacant and ripe for redevelopment.”

https://www.courant.com/news/connect...outputType=amp

From what I read, there is steep opposition to this. It's not that Farmington residents are against apartments, but rather something of this size. If developers were proposing something of a smaller, more modest size, they'd probably be more willing to accept it. The developer is from West Hartford, which is increasingly becoming home to massive apartment complexes. While I commend the town for taking empty parcels of space and making them productive and useful, I'm wondering if there's truly a demand for all these apartment communities, and if this is really the best use of space. One reason our property taxes are so high is the lack of commercial properties, and while COVID has changed how we view office space, there's still a need for it. Not everyone will be working remotely, and it's not going to happen forever, so there's still a need for office and commercial space, something my town is lacking. As for Farmington, I'm not convinced that residents want large, grandiose apartment communities.

[BPt111]

Hartford and Cleveland got similar skylines ?

dreamstime


247wallst

[JayCT]

One of Hartford’s biggest downtown landlords is proposing to build affordable first time homes in the city’s Blue Hills neighborhood. Shelbourne Global has purchased a 1.1 acre parcel and is proposing to subdivide it into 12 lots where modest homes will be built. Great idea. Jay

https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/art...me-home-buyers

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by JayCT

One of Hartford’s biggest downtown landlords is proposing to build affordable first time homes in the city’s Blue Hills neighborhood. Shelbourne Global has purchased a 1.1 acre parcel and is proposing to subdivide it into 12 lots where modest homes will be built. Great idea. Jay

https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/art...me-home-buyers

I work in Blue Hills, so I drive past this triangle block where the streets converge so I know it well. To me, this is a lot to build on a plot of land of this size. There's definitely ample space to build homes there, and don't get me wrong I'm all for it, but twelve homes seems to be a lot for the amount of space here.

[ConnecticutSir]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

I work in Blue Hills, so I drive past this triangle block where the streets converge so I know it well. To me, this is a lot to build on a plot of land of this size. There's definitely ample space to build homes there, and don't get me wrong I'm all for it, but twelve homes seems to be a lot for the amount of space here.

They said each lot will be about 4,000 sq ft which is very tiny.

[CTREInvestor]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I'm not technically against apartments as I lived in one for five years. But the issue I see with apartments as a form of growth is that eventually they'll probably want to stop renting. If people are trapped into renting (i.e. Boston) I dont' think this helps much in the long run. I think renting can be fine for a individual or a couple but once you start putting in kids, especially more than one then that really limits what you can do with an apartment and the amount of apartments. If you practically limit family sizes due to apartments eventually that limits population growth. Of course there's going to be limits. Most units I see are one are two bedroom. When I hear requests for three, four or even five apartments I have to ask why not just get a condo at that point?

Don't get me wrong I get the concept that that renters can bring higher incomes to an area and walkable downtowns to cafes, restaurants, retail etc....but...how long do you want this to go for? If you have kids it's going to be harder to be quiet with more people working from home. There's obviously money in being a landlord, every market is a landlord market if it's up or down. But if Hartford becomes majority renters and they can't invest more and miss out in the stock market or have to simply move to a cheaper market. I'm not saying home ownership is for everyone but after awhile the difference can be significant. I'm not sure if we can legitimately say that people within the hartford area will economically benefit in the long term by staying in apartments.

Most homeowners never pay off their mortgage and are essentially renting with a 30-year lease.

The issue isn't preference, the issue is energy. The price of oil will continue to skyrocket making anything other than dense urban development economically infeasible.

We are returning to the way the world was 100+ years ago. You live in dense cities, or farms.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by CTREInvestor

Most homeowners never pay off their mortgage and are essentially renting with a 30-year lease.

The issue isn't preference, the issue is energy. The price of oil will continue to skyrocket making anything other than dense urban development economically infeasible.

We are returning to the way the world was 100+ years ago. You live in dense cities, or farms.

You are wrong about homeowners never paying off their mortgages. According to this afticle, nearly 40% of America have paid mortgages. I’m happy to say I’m one of them. I think most people’s goal is to have their home fully paid off by the time they retire. Many people I know feel that way.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendar...of-a-mortgage/

I also disagree that the world is returning to the way it was 100 years ago with people returning to the cities. It looked that way two years ago but the pandemic pretty much changed that. People see the problems associated with living on top of one another so there’s been a mass exodus to the suburbs.

I will also remind you that 100 years ago, our country was already Well along in developing the suburbs. By the 1920’s pretty much every major city had highly desirable Streetcar Suburbs. They were being built up until the Great Depression followed by World War II which slowed it down. After the war, pent up demand caused an explosion that pretty much lasted for 40 years. It’s still going on.

As for energy costs, even that is being addressed as energy using appurtenances are becoming increasingly efficient and alternative energy sources are being developed. That will help assure our country doesn’t have to give up on the suburbs. Jay