Submitted by Both-Level-6493 t3_1140r78 in StamfordCT
Pinkumb t1_j8tp1d0 wrote
Pretty straightforward answer
- People want to live here.
- The local government is controlled by people who do not want to increase housing.
As a result, the market understands it can price a premium on a limited quantity. New luxury apartments go up and they are reliably more expensive than the previous luxury apartments. They're more expensive because they're "newer," but meanwhile the old inventory isn't having any problems filling up. This is an indication that the slow increase in supply cannot meet the rapid increase in demand.
Why do people want to live in Stamford?
- Very low crime. Stamford is the safest city in New England (municipalities with more than 100k population measured by violent crime per captia, we're the lowest next to Newton, MA). For populated areas, crime negatively correlates with price of housing.
- Modern amenities. Stamford has long referenced that every single resident is within 10 minutes walk from a public park. This is unique to Stamford compared to other metro areas. Pets have become incredibly popular during the pandemic (and they were already popular before then) and having a place to walk your dog is on the high priority for people who want to move somewhere new.
- Access to employment opportunities. Stamford is the last express stop to New York City. You can take a 40 minute train from Stamford's transportation center directly to 125th and Grand Central. That's not true for other surrounding towns (such as Norwalk).
- Access to dating opportunities. UConn Stamford is relatively new but it has produced a "college crowd" of young people who are in the area. Additionally, the luxury apartments naturally attract high-performing, highly mobile, high-earners early in their career. As a result, most of the inventory from luxury apartments tends to be young people commuting to New York City. It creates a huge pool for dating options which is a kind of reinforcing pinwheel for the popularity of the area.
Which is to say, the only way you can decrease the demand is to change these things. Crime goes up, parks become dilapidated, employers leave the area, and therefore people leave the area. None of that is going to happen because the momentum is too strong. Businesses have moved here in droves (more people commute into Stamford than leave), their workforce is coming with them, that increase in residents results in more tax dollars to spend on services like parks maintenance and police.
The only option is to build more housing. Your local board actively fights against that. They complain there's too many cars, too many people, drought problems, and changes to the "character of the neighborhood." They're your problem.
Both-Level-6493 OP t1_j8ugzb3 wrote
You’re right! But I need a one bedroom that’s not going to cost me over $3000 a month (all inclusive). Any recommendations?
Pinkumb t1_j8wvn6j wrote
Look outside of downtown. Classic channels: Facebook marketplace, craigslist, flyers in grocery stores. There is a lot of apartment inventory north of Hoyt Street but you'll never find it by googling "apartments in Stamford." All the big companies dominate search engines. Woodside Green is a good example, but there are many more.
doggyloggy100 t1_j94nxat wrote
Sorry to necro this sub, but I just went through the apartment search in Stamford. Check out Village on Bedford St. They were running a great deal on 1 bed apartments. One unit had a price for under $2,000 after all amenity fees and such. Stamford corners had well priced 2 bed units. Parallel 44 had good units and prices too.
Now you’re right, after utilities and other bills, they’re all going to add a few hundred to your monthly ticket, but to say they’re all $3k+ means you’re looking at Summer House or Urby (both of which were great, I just couldn’t stomach the prices lol)
Alex3917 t1_j8u3fat wrote
> Additionally, the luxury apartments naturally attract high-performing, highly mobile, high-earners early in their career.
I get that for the 20-somethings, but how is it that even though more luxury buildings are built every year, the poverty rate is also going up every year? The public schools are now up to 57% FRPL the last time I checked. This is the only city I've ever seen that seems to be both gentrifying and getting poorer at the same time.
The-Magic-Sword t1_j8uctt5 wrote
The inequality is increasing if I had to guess, with some families still in homes they actually own outright but without the income that would now be required to back it up.
Pinkumb t1_j8wwy8e wrote
Yes, exactly.
Pinkumb t1_j8wwuam wrote
The increase in value is the result of property prices going up. If you don't own property (like a home), you're not capturing any of that new wealth. Even if you do own property, you're not capturing the increase until you sell your home. If you purchased a home 10 years ago, then the increase of your property value has resulted in a much higher property tax every 3-4 years (whenever the citywide evaluation is done). So your costs have gone up and you're feeling the squeeze. Unless you sell, which most people don't want to do if they have a life here already. Of course, I would guess most families using FRPL are renting and don't own property.
This is another reason why anti-development is counterintuitive but it's specifically for an argument that rich people don't like. If you build more housing, then property values won't be artificially inflated due to a shortage. This means property values... won't go up as much. Of course, if you're already wealthy and you're living within your means you want property to increase in value so you can get a return on your investment (owning property).
One thing you could do is build more of the "missing middle." Condos and multifamily homes. This is property that renters could reasonably afford without necessarily impacting the property value of homes because people who want homes — outside the city, big yard, away from downtown — don't want a condo. But the city doesn't build those units because they change the "character of the neighborhood." They'll say they care about parking and water/drought, but it just so happens it prevents "poor people" (i.e. someone who is not rich) to move into the neighborhood.
Also minor point, Stamford doesn't fit the definition of gentrification. All of the new housing is built on dilapidated land, brownfields, or formerly industrial zoning. With the exception of the Smith which replaced affordable housing, but that's because the owners sold it since they couldn't maintain it anymore. To the extent people are getting "priced out of their neighborhood" it's because of the lack of housing being built, not because old housing is being replaced with expensive housing.
heutral t1_j8xd9gd wrote
the high schools free and reduced is a bit higher too cuz a lot of families with the means pull their kids out of the public schools for high school bc they have a not so good reputation
heutral t1_j8x968u wrote
the stamford lowest crime rate is a myth. 2/5 of stamford geographically and 1/10 population wise is north stamford (north of the merrit), which is basically a very wealthy neighborhood with 0 crime and poverty. When you factor in Westover and Shippan (neighborhoods of the same character that are pretty much isolated from the rest of stamford and have 0 crime 0 poverty), and just consider Stamford to be downtown, its inner city, and its working and middle class suburbs, it's just as dangerous as anywhere else. Before the south end started gentrifying it was even worse. it's not NYC by any means but in parts it might as well be.
wheresmylife t1_j8yxock wrote
Wow what a brilliant take. So basically, if you remove the safe parts of somewhere the crime statistics look worse? Who would have thought! I mean, it’s not like every city has safe and dangerous parts, this is totally just a Stamford phenomenon.
heutral t1_j9qsvvo wrote
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Pinkumb t1_j8xb6h1 wrote
Nothing you've said suggests the fact Stamford has the lowest violent crime per capita is a "myth." You have discovered the concept of geography and population centers — concepts that exist everywhere else too — but they don't impact the data.
On average, in general, Stamford is safer than other cities in New England with a population above 100k. In fact, it is the safest. This does not mean crime doesn't exist. It means if you're looking to buy a house, Stamford is very attractive compared to alternatives (NYC, Bridgeport, New Haven, Norwalk).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments