Westover residents oppose housing development

Moving the entrance to Connecticut Ave doesn't solve anything. Traffic still has to get to Connecticut Ave somehow, mostly by way of already congested Stillwater. With a school nearby and the winding of Stillwater is a recipe for disaster. Go back to the drawing boards and come up with a better traffic management proposal. This one is doomed right from the start, much like the traffic re-routing when they rebuily Ridgeway Center. Look at the mess that is.

Prophetic Warnings

Hamden, CT

Here we go again, The City that Works, working hard to destroy more neighborhoods, and more tax advantaged projects to shift taxes to the hard pressed single family homeowner.

When are We The People going to wake up to the gradual destruction of this once wonderful city.

Frijoles

It does seem odd that in their zeal to replace old public housing with new public housing the Housing Authority is responsible for interjecting hundreds of new units of PRIVATE housing into the Westside.

This will be the fourth project proposed by SHA in this neighborhood. I think all of this needs to be looked at with the total picture in mind. Do we really need this much new (private) housing on the West side, or anywhere in the city for that matter? Is there a market for these additional units? How is all of this going to affect the traffic patterns? Why should the neighbors suffer the consequences of all of these additional housing units?

Grant

There goes the neighborhood. Will Westover residents GET LOWER TAX BILL TO OFFSET MAJOR EDUCTIONS IN PROPERTY VALUES?

What is it with Stamford - USSR Central Planners?

Frijoles

More like lack of planning. Unless they deny this. The SHA is running the show.

facts

Darien, CT

The recent Charter Oak developments have been very aesthetically pleasing (Ex: Post House, Taylor St, and Fairfield Court), well laid out, are mixed income and are helping transform the West Side into a mixed use walkable communities cutting down on the need to drive everywhere. Compare that to many of the single family neighborhoods in Stamford, even ones in so called nice neighborhoods. I'm shocked at how many of these single family homes are cheap looking and ramshackle.

Frijoles

facts wrote:

The recent Charter Oak developments have been very aesthetically pleasing (Ex: Post House, Taylor St, and Fairfield Court), well laid out, are mixed income and are helping transform the West Side into a mixed use walkable communities cutting down on the need to drive everywhere. Compare that to many of the single family neighborhoods in Stamford, even ones in so called nice neighborhoods. I'm shocked at how many of these single family homes are cheap looking and ramshackle.

That would be great IF this was true, regarding the walkability. However......

WHERE the h8ck do you walk to from Southfield Village???? The new autoparts store?

WHERE are the jobs that the new residents on Westover or Progress Drive are going to walk to?

The units may be relatively pretty compared to some of the existing housing stock, but the risk of increased traffic outweighs this benefit. If SHU owns property on CT avenue, their better bet would be do demo and rebuild that at the higher density.

Grant

Frijoles wrote:

More like lack of planning. Unless they deny this. The SHA is running the show.

Its not lack of planning, its INAPPROPRIATE planning: social engineering appropriate for the world of the "community organizer" (ie communist).

Frijoles

SHA isnt a community organizer, they act more like a corporation. But I agree it is almost like central planning when 1 group monopolizes and steers the entire show on this side of town.

The last two sites intended for SHA housing are far from ideal, and do not meet the village concept. One site is smack in the middle of an active industrial park (with industrial traffic). The other site, PalmerHill, will require an extensive removal of a few acres of trees in an area that should be left bucolic. Both sites will create additional traffic, all within a block of each other.

David

Hicksville, NY

The Planning Board is holding a public hearing Tuesday on changing the Master Plan to allow COC to build multi family housing on West Broad between Shelburne and Merrill as part of the Vidal Court replacement. It would be 4 buildings to replace the 4 current homes there, two buildings would have 2 units and the other 2 would have 3 units. There will be 16 parking spaces behind the units accessed from Merrill Ave. Overall that area would become less dense as the 217 units in Vidal Court and the homes on Shelburne, West Broad and Merrill would be replace by 117 units.

Vox Pop

Where's the Hubbard Heights Association on this one?

David

Hicksville, NY

Vox Pop wrote:

Where's the Hubbard Heights Association on this one?

Mixed, many can see the overall benefit but some don't like it.

Rob

Vox Pop wrote:

Where's the Hubbard Heights Association on this one?

Meeting has been postponed until November because of their concerns.

Refried

David wrote:

<quoted text>
Mixed, many can see the overall benefit but some don't like it.

The devil is in the details. It needs to look equal or better than the current single family streetscape. If they are pretty, than opposition will be muted. If they look like McUnits, then.....

Refried

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
Meeting has been postponed until November because of their concerns.

Please keep us posted.

David

Hicksville, NY

Refried wrote:

<quoted text>
The devil is in the details. It needs to look equal or better than the current single family streetscape. If they are pretty, than opposition will be muted. If they look like McUnits, then.....

They will look nice, but it's still the issue of changing from single family to multi family.

Publius

Refried wrote:

<quoted text>
The devil is in the details. It needs to look equal or better than the current single family streetscape. If they are pretty, than opposition will be muted. If they look like McUnits, then.....

Uh-oh. You're asking for trouble again.

The Master Plan change, and the following Zoning change, CANNOT be conditioned on how the units look. This is the same problem as the Progress Drive development.

The applicant can present any picture they want. They are not bound to it, and can easily change it to another design after the zone change is approved.

Refried

Publius wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh-oh. You're asking for trouble again.
The Master Plan change, and the following Zoning change, CANNOT be conditioned on how the units look. This is the same problem as the Progress Drive development.
The applicant can present any picture they want. They are not bound to it, and can easily change it to another design after the zone change is approved.

Yes I do ask a lot.

This should be interesting. This is the first time that the SHA sprawl is actually creeping closer to Hubbard. Lets see how upset they get, or if they get bought off with the promises that you refer to.

Hard to feel sorry for Hubbard when their neck of the project is what is driving all the rest of the sprawl on the west side.

When all is said and done, I bet they are McUnits. They havent detoured off the cookie cutter yet.

Vox Pop

Publius wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh-oh. You're asking for trouble again.
The Master Plan change, and the following Zoning change, CANNOT be conditioned on how the units look. This is the same problem as the Progress Drive development.
The applicant can present any picture they want. They are not bound to it, and can easily change it to another design after the zone change is approved.

You're right. But that absence of condition might just be what tilts the HH Association into opposing the proposal.

Refried