Antares turns over projects - Greenwi...

Antares turns over projects - Greenwich Time

There are 19 comments on the Greenwich Time story from Sep 3, 2008, titled Antares turns over projects - Greenwich Time. In it, Greenwich Time reports that:

A Norwalk developer has taken sole control over two huge projects in Stamford's South End, the 80-acre Harbor Point redevelopment and Gateway, a proposed office complex on the former Manger Electric property.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Greenwich Time.

GreenwichMan

Redding, CT

#1 Sep 3, 2008
Good news, hopefully Building & Land Technology's management will be more responsible than these jokers at Antares.
Vox Pop

Seymour, CT

#2 Sep 3, 2008
Oh, yes.
And I love the claim that it wasn't a financial issue for Antares.
Apparently Antares' financial knees are weaker than previously disclosed.
Madmanmike

Holtsville, NY

#3 Sep 3, 2008
Vox Pop wrote:
Oh, yes.
And I love the claim that it wasn't a financial issue for Antares.
Apparently Antares' financial knees are weaker than previously disclosed.
You mean to tell me that the sixteenth brightest star lost its flare?
waiting for this news

East Greenwich, RI

#4 Sep 4, 2008
took awahile for this news to break - it all happened months ago
shame

East Greenwich, RI

#5 Sep 4, 2008
It's a shame that Carl's taking on the projects - I mean they probably will actually get completed now, but the projects will be much less astectically pleasing....
Publius

AOL

#6 Sep 4, 2008
shame wrote:
It's a shame that Carl's taking on the projects - I mean they probably will actually get completed now, but the projects will be much less astectically pleasing....
I have yet to see a project that looks as good built as it did on the drawing board presentations.
Vox Pop

Seymour, CT

#7 Sep 5, 2008
Publius wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see a project that looks as good built as it did on the drawing board presentations.
That is the greatest understatement ever!

And it is why the staff of a good land use consultant and architect is priceless.

As a case in point, the artist's renderings for Trump Parc create the impression of setbacks, which, as we all know, do not exist.
wow

Stamford, CT

#8 Sep 5, 2008
Publius wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see a project that looks as good built as it did on the drawing board presentations.
And I have yet to see a project that benefits the city or the taxpayers anywhere near as much as they claim it will.
Publius

AOL

#9 Sep 5, 2008
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
And I have yet to see a project that benefits the city or the taxpayers anywhere near as much as they claim it will.
That is why it is important for land use boards to apply critical analysis to presentations rather than take them at face value.
Vox Pop

Seymour, CT

#10 Sep 5, 2008
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
And I have yet to see a project that benefits the city or the taxpayers anywhere near as much as they claim it will.
The net gain is not easy to prdict.
One great unknown is the long-term effect of tax incentives in a state like Connecticut. They are always touted as bringing jobs. But the number of jobs in the state is declining. Where are they going? To states with little or no taxes. Seems like our incentives may be hurting us in the long run.
Publius

AOL

#11 Sep 5, 2008
Vox Pop wrote:
<quoted text>
The net gain is not easy to prdict.
One great unknown is the long-term effect of tax incentives in a state like Connecticut. They are always touted as bringing jobs. But the number of jobs in the state is declining. Where are they going? To states with little or no taxes. Seems like our incentives may be hurting us in the long run.
Good example of "critical analysis". The standard justification for new development is "it brings jobs". Developers present canned statistics on how many jobs a project will bring: first, building jobs; then direct employment; then indirect employment (jobs for local companies that do work for companies in the proposed project).

The problem is that Stamford has an oversupply of jobs, and an undersupply of housing. Therefore, adding jobs in Stamford does not bring all that many more jobs to Stamford residents; it brings jobs to residents of communities an hour away from Stamford.

Stamford has a real unemployment rate close to zero, and has had that for decades, with minor fluctuations. Yes, it is good to have a better choice of jobs for Stamford residents. But.. the downside is that creating more jobs than Stamford residents can fill tends to put upward pressure on the housing market, and increases traffic congestion along Rte 95 and 15, which in turn discourages companies from relocating to Stamford, and necessitates more tax breaks to justify it.

And we are left with empty commercial office buildings which then claim reductions in their property tax based on high vacancy levels. And, we have to subsidize affordable housing because the excess jobs have pushed up the cost of housing.

At some point we are chasing our collective tail.
wow

Stamford, CT

#12 Sep 5, 2008
Publius wrote:
<quoted text>
Good example of "critical analysis". The standard justification for new development is "it brings jobs". Developers present canned statistics on how many jobs a project will bring: first, building jobs; then direct employment; then indirect employment (jobs for local companies that do work for companies in the proposed project).
The problem is that Stamford has an oversupply of jobs, and an undersupply of housing. Therefore, adding jobs in Stamford does not bring all that many more jobs to Stamford residents; it brings jobs to residents of communities an hour away from Stamford.
Stamford has a real unemployment rate close to zero, and has had that for decades, with minor fluctuations. Yes, it is good to have a better choice of jobs for Stamford residents. But.. the downside is that creating more jobs than Stamford residents can fill tends to put upward pressure on the housing market, and increases traffic congestion along Rte 95 and 15, which in turn discourages companies from relocating to Stamford, and necessitates more tax breaks to justify it.
And we are left with empty commercial office buildings which then claim reductions in their property tax based on high vacancy levels. And, we have to subsidize affordable housing because the excess jobs have pushed up the cost of housing.
At some point we are chasing our collective tail.
Well said. When will we learn that what looks good on the surface isn't always going to be good for us in the long term.

Now the question remains, why isn't anybody asking the tough questions or doing the proper critical thinking?
Thomas H Thornton

Elizabeth, NJ

#13 Sep 5, 2008
Both of the Advocate writers did a great job in research and in explaing the story.
Good for both of them!
Tom Thornton
Vox Pop

Seymour, CT

#14 Sep 5, 2008
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. When will we learn that what looks good on the surface isn't always going to be good for us in the long term.
Now the question remains, why isn't anybody asking the tough questions or doing the proper critical thinking?
My point was that we may have been working against ourselves for a while; that what seemed like a good idea perhaps is not any longer.

I believe people have been asking tough questions.
Perhaps not as diligently as we would like. And perhaps some answers need time to become evident.

It seems we agree that much more critical analysis is the order of the day. Some new criteria as well?
Steve

Montville, NJ

#16 Nov 11, 2008
It is a shame. I think the Antares group was doing a great job
Vox Pop

East Granby, CT

#17 Nov 13, 2008
Steve wrote:
It is a shame. I think the Antares group was doing a great job
Money problems.
Couldn't carry the project forward.
Watch, they'll probably farm out more of it.
Retired GPD

Garnerville, NY

#18 Nov 13, 2008
Vox Pop wrote:
<quoted text>
Money problems.
Couldn't carry the project forward.
Watch, they'll probably farm out more of it.
I'll bet the Putnam Green/Weaver Hill projects really hurt them.
Vox Pop

East Granby, CT

#19 Nov 13, 2008
Retired GPD wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll bet the Putnam Green/Weaver Hill projects really hurt them.
Yes, even though they say those eggs were not in the same basket.
One must wonder how much of Antares' anticipated backing was from hedge funds. A lot of them have tanked, and credit is a lot more difficult to get today than it was even six months ago.
Madmanmike

Holtsville, NY

#20 Nov 13, 2008
Vox Pop wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, even though they say those eggs were not in the same basket.
One must wonder how much of Antares' anticipated backing was from hedge funds. A lot of them have tanked, and credit is a lot more difficult to get today than it was even six months ago.
Hedge funds, big surprise there..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Stamford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Norwalk police rated the worst in the state 19 hr Lousfool 4
Robtard is an Azz (Mar '12) Jun 28 What a Queen 291
Looking for a pink Harley Jun 27 facebook update 24
Norwalk's thugs and G-Monies are out showing th... (May '11) Jun 26 ffctguitar 313
Gangstalking Information (May '09) Jun 21 Onthelist 885
What is Fertigation? Jun 21 FairfieldIrrigation 1
Commercial Irrigation Systems Fairfield County Jun 21 FairfieldIrrigation 1

Stamford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Stamford Mortgages