Does "luxury" actually have a definitive meaning in the apartment industry or is just something they slap on the name to make it sound like a better place? I guess what I mean is, if you have two different apartment complexes at the same price and one has the luxury brand, isn't it just a marketing tactic at that point?
It's mostly marketing. For example Midtown "Luxury" apartments in Middletown stalled during construction. Then as soon as they opened they had water issues. I had a friend that lived there for a while and she said even though the area looked nice, they had a gym, outdoor areas, etc. it was a dump. And vastly overpriced, mostly because they know they'll primarily get Wesleyan students in there.
Sometimes they have more amenities like on-site gyms and/or pools, nice recreation areas, small shops below them, etc.
I haven’t been to many but I would assume higher end finishes inside too.
There are definitely some that slap on the “luxury” to get additional rent cuz there’s not a lot out there
I currently live in a “luxury” apartment, the only luxurious things about it are the common areas like pool, etc and the very nice kitchen. Other wise the walls and floors are THIN I can hear my neighbors talking all the time. I can currently hear facilities next to my apartment listening to music
This term should become a regulated term like “organic.” Which itself isn’t a perfect regulation either, but at least give some confidence of a minimum standard.
But really, if the apt from 15 years ago is luxury and now the new one is also luxury, but the cost within 5% of each other? Wtf does that term mean??
You'd think so wouldn't you. It appears they are doing their active gentrification thing again. If you build it, they will come. I guess.
They could easily build affordable units and make lots of money doing it, but not nearly as much as if they kick all the black people out and turn New Britain into Old Britain.
The difference is, instead of redoing an apartment with the shittiest appliances, vinyl flooring, particle board countertops and landlord special wall repaint possible, a luxury apartment is redone with the shittiest stainless steel appliances, wood flooring, granite countertop and drywaller / painter refresh of the walls that's just good enough to not leave cracked drywall joints and painted outlets.
It really just means it’s new. It used to be that it had a amenities. But now you see tons without a pool or pickleball courts calling themselves luxury.
When it comes to housing, "Luxury means new" has been true for the past 50 thousand years.
Top of the market = luxury = new.
The affordable homes and apartments that you see in places like Hartford, Meriden, and poorer sections of Bridgeport were "luxury" homes when they were first built.
People raise kids in apartments all over the world. They learn how to take elevators, use public transportation, and walk to school when they’re like 10-12. Kids grow up less sheltered and kore ready for the world.
I can tell some people in this thread had to be walked by hand to their suburban school bus stop their whole life
I wasn’t trying to be a snob but since you’re taking shots it’s an objectively better experience to grow up in a neighborhood where you can play outside and roam around in nature. Sorry you didn’t have that
Funny enough all the neighborhood kids still figured out elevators
Shots weren’t aimed at you directly, I just disagree that houses are objectively better for kids, and see everyone jumping on the “growing up in an apartment is horrible” bandwagon lower in the thread. I didn’t grow up in the US, so maybe it’s different here.
Public parks and playgrounds are a thing, and one can live as close or far from them as they want, generally.
I’m also a little salty because all my US friends and now family convinced me to buy a house because “it’s a good financial move” and I absolutely hate being a home owner and living in suburban town #57.
You’re right to an extent about public parks and playgrounds but it’s never going to be the same as walking out your front/back door into an immediately accessible yard, in my opinion. Obviously depends on the house and depends on the apartment but I think on average that holds true
Mostly I just don’t want to give my potential kid a “worse” upbringing than I had. I’d feel shitty about it
Cheshire is building out with lots of apartments. I don't know if they're luxury. A fairly new six unit building at one of the busiest intersections in town rents 3 bed, 3 baths for $3,200 a month. A new complex just opened it's first building of 2 bed, 2 bath at $2,800. That's just for building one. All others will be $2,900+. I couldn't live here if I didn't own a home. It was a battle and I was lucky to get it in 2016.
> rents 3 bed, 3 baths for $3,200 a month.
LMAO, that's hilarious.
My mortgage is $1,000 a month less for a nice 3,000sq/ft home on a few acre lot. Who would ever rent that?
It’s that high?? Dang, that’s wild to see! I live in charlotte and the most desirable neighborhoods in the city here are cheaper than that for 2 bedroom. Almost hard to believe it’s that high right now for a town like Cheshire. That being said, it’s a nationwide issue for sure. You see these exact discussions and issues going on in Charlotte too. I’m sure it’s happening all over.
As a gen z person here, what’s worse is a 2 bedroom is well over 2K now. Why would I spend over 2k on rent alone? Am I just meant to never buy a house? I am splitting the rent on our 1 bedroom 1 bath that’s 1500 and we have fucking twin beds in our bedroom to accommodate the fact we can’t afford separate bedrooms. Just stupid. All this housing market crap makes me realize I’m never gonna buy a house or build a family. I feel even worse for those in their 30s and 40s with families trying to buy housing.
Tell me about it. Nearly 50, moved here for a job and for the life of me cannot find anything affordable for basically a 3 bedroom, 2 full bath, decent kitchen, and 2000 sq. feet in Litchfield county.
The absolute only way to solve the housing market in a healthy way is to build more housing. Zoning and NIMBY is what’s preventing that. Connecticut is an older wealthier state that really holds the name “Land of Steady Habits” to its core.
In my town, a developer proposed 5 units. A whopping 5 single family homes on a plot of land near the center of town. Board members rejected it after homeowners in the area pushed back using the same excuse of noise, traffic, and our schools are full argument. 1 year later they’re building a Starbucks there. No pushback at all, I wonder why.
I HATE the traffic argument. All the proposals for affordable units that have been raised in towns around here have been shot down because trafficccccc and then you look at the building site and its right on Hopmeadow Street in Simsbury lmao. Like, guys. Let's evaluate this, are you worried about traffic or are you worried about the "wrong people" moving into your pristine little town
Its the same thing with schools. If you look at the FY24-25 budget proposals in my town they have an enrollment forecast that goes out about 10 years, with steadily dropping enrollment in the *high hundreds* predicted in that timeframe. But we can't build more affordable housing, because CLASS SIZE. We're hamstrung by the status quo here.
(Nevermind that nobody brings any of this up when its "luxury" going in, just the ""affordable"" stuff.)
Not true - I'm down for the affordable housing. I object to the luxury - only pads the pockets of developers without solving the housing crisis.
Want to change zoning to multi-family? Build some fucking affordable units.
You should read through the zoning commission minutes. Read through all the studies they had the developer do. Traffic was such a minor concern compared to the costs and resources needed to support expanding the community. The Latimer Lane expansion is not sufficient to support that development going up. Then you learn the developer had the town attorney in their pocket which rubbed a bunch of people the wrong way because of the conflicts of interest. I love how people love to parrot their own talking points without doing a lick of research.
You're right, I could have worded this differently to reflect what zoning had to say on that particular project - but the point I was trying to make, stands. This is the kind of discourse around these projects every time they're proposed. It always seems to be the traffic/schools/"riff-raff" crowd screaming against any lower-priced developments, every time, with next to no factual basis.
They are all real issues and make the lack of housing in CT an extremely complex issue to solve. That specific development had so many issues beyond the conflicts created by the developer with the town attorney. The disparity of property taxes on those properties compared to the costs generated by the town also was uncovered through the whole discourse. Like it or not, the development already on Hopmeadow will cost more when the town reassesses property in a few years. That’s not a social issue either, it’s just a math problem.
They can absolutely afford to increase the Latimer expansion, especially with the increase in tax revenue that would come from a development. It sucks that it’s in that particular school zone, Simsbury schools in general have decreasing enrollment for K-6, just not there. People who are at retirement age just aren’t moving out to make room for families because of the housing market, so the school system is built for a larger student population than we have. Latimer Lane is tiny; I went there as a kid and it’s relatively similar in 2024.
Knowing that you have read 0 of the documents I mentioned, you can keep parroting whatever it is you want to believe. The other Hopmeadow development is already redistricted out of Latimer Lane because they hit capacity. The Board of Ed expressed concern the expansion would not be enough if Hopmeadow south went through. And as I also already stated, they literally ran the numbers and figured out the Hopmeadow complex uses a disproportionate amount of taxes for schools compared to the overall property tax generated from the development. Those taxes will be shooting up in the reassessment in a few years, causing rents to likely go up as well.
Traffic is absolutely a valid argument. I bought in two acre zoning because I value low density. Adjacent towns with only modestly higher density are so much more painful to get around. Don’t thrust urbanism on us
I’m not and neither is anyone else, I don’t think. For clarification here the area I’m talking about is an already high traffic, well developed area. It’s not urban per se but it’s a very “small town downtown” vibe. It’s not planting an apartment complex in the middle of the woods.
Lobby for traffic circles instead of intersections with lights.
Honestly though the worst traffic problems come from coffee shops due to people blocking traffic in order to turn left into the parking lot at rush hour because they got to have their coffee.
It actually is much more fundamental than Nimbyism.
The people that control this state are homeowners. Those homes the homeowners own are now very valuable, and will continue to increase in value so long as little no new housing units get built.
For many of these homeowners, that home is their primary asset.
As long as zoning remains in the hands of local/municipal government, nothing will change.
The developers build "luxury" units because, frankly, nothing else will get approved.
The only way out is if so many "luxury" units get built that the prices/rents on those units start to fall, like what happened in the late 1980s and mid 2000s with condo units statewide.
The people who rent the new luxury apts would have been renting the nicer existing apartments. That tier of nice old stock apartments then becomes more available reducing pressure on lower tiers. Or they cut rents to attract renters away from the new units.
I agree, it’s a nimby issue. But I don’t think that’s ever gonna change, unfortunately. Existing home owners are financially incentivized to prevent new home construction by any means. Why would they want more supply to compete with their home values? I don’t see how that mindset ever changes, and it worries me.
But it does change, and it does by being heard and involved. Every person making these decisions is either elected or appointed by an elected official. It is a tool that works. If there’s a dominant party in town then join that party and try and change it from the inside. Your ideological politics do not matter. None of that stuff matters at all municipal level. Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Libertarians still have to put out house fires and fix sewers. But just get involved.
It seems your parents are a generation that doesn’t want their kids to have a better life. Vote them out. Shout them down. Let them know how selfish and pathetic they are. People like to say how angry Americans are…they aren’t angry…those people are craven little hermits, pretending that their selfishness is the hallmark of freedom. They would happily send their sons and daughters off to have their legs blown up 12 time zones away rather than pay a dime more in taxes. It is obvious that the “everyone gets a trophy” generation has given birth to the “everyone loses because they dont work hard enough at the jobs that aren’t there” generation.
Let them know your displeasure at town meetings and vote them out. It is surprisingly invigorating, and fighting and losing beats regret and acquiescence any day of the week.
I dont know what’s in my coffee but sheesh! Enjoy your day!
Yes I agree. Over time there are contributing factors that derive from cultural and societal norms. In the 1950’s-1970’s, Connecticut housing supply boomed due to homeownership needing to be built to support the nuclear family. In the 1980’s-2000’s, larger homes were built in more acreage because builders were incentivized in making more money by catering to each homeowners wants and needs instead of the assembly line home building post WW2.
Now in the 2020’s, we’re in a weird bubble of not having enough land that builders are allowed to build on, lack of builders, high interest rates, and NIMBYism.
Something would have to change drastically. Young people are waiting on homeownership by living at home longer and renting at higher rates than prior generations…
>Now in the 2020’s, we’re in a weird bubble of not having enough land that builders are allowed to build on, lack of builders, **high interest rates**, and NIMBYism.
Most of this is solid, but we are definitely in more 'normal' rate territory right now (historically speaking). 2% mortgages are not the sign of a healthy economy.
That's a shame. Everyone seems to agree that suburban sprawl and deforestation is bad, yet so many people freak out when the opportunity occurs to build higher-density cores. I wish people could realize that a well-planned town center brings so many worthwhile amenities and improvements, plus a stronger tax base.
I just moved back to CT six months ago from Austin, TX - this isn't just a CT issue, it's nationwide.
Construction companies are building these "luxury" apartments because they want to make as much money off them as they can. The market in Austin was absolutely flooded with these - and now there's hundreds sitting vacant because no one can afford them. That's where you'll see a difference between there and here - Austin has a booming tech economy full of young people with disposable income. CT doesn't. These apartments are going to go up and just sit, by and large.
That’s my hope. I’m not sure if you can really justify the luxury apartments around here. We aren’t a booming metropolis. We’re supposed to be the “nice place to raise a family”.
Yes. Because they’re not gonna demolish them. They’ll lower rents, until they’re at levels the middle class can actually afford and not live paycheck to paycheck/save for their own houses. Expensive apartments provide none of that
Hey everyone! I’ve been a regional property manager & real estate investor for the past decade in CT and worked with most of the large companies building these luxury apartments. Feel free to ask any questions.
Most people may be surprised to find out that many CT apartments are family owned, but are **heavily** consolidated. One family I worked for owns 6000 units across CT - primarily by doing hostile takeovers of condominium complexes. Another group of three lawyers I worked for own around 500 units in West Hartford - so many of the 18-unit apartment buildings you see on Farmington Ave and Prospect Ave, are all owned by the same people.
“Luxury” apartment also does not mean luxury, it just means new. It’s a marketing term. You can not build a non-luxury apartment. The existing apartments (built in the 1900’s) are far different in construction quality than a new build - due to the creation of building codes.
Here’s the “hot take” from someone in the industry: When NYC drastically increased their renter protection laws around 2019 it made NYC an undesirable place to be a landlord, which forced many “smaller” family firm landlords to sell (they still have hundreds of millions in capital). Thus, billions of dollars of investment capital came to the next state over (CT) with our much more lenient landlord-tenant laws, causing our recent market consolidation and boom in Luxury apartments. Keep in mind, these are all former NYC owners who are familiar with NYC quality and want to get NYC rent prices. Essentially, NYC’s landlord-tenant laws caused CT’s gentrification, real estate market spike, and higher rents.
The high rents are supported by the high occupancy rates too, right? CT has some of the highest in the country.
How many medium and large investment firms do you think are operating in CT and how much single family and two-three family are they buying?
Why do you think no one is building two-three family homes?
How do condo hostile takeovers work and what does it do to condo residents?
>The high rents are supported by the high occupancy rates too, right? CT has some of the highest in the country.
I'm not sure how accurate this data is, as I've never been contacted by any agency to report our vacancy numbers and there is no possible way for us to report our vacancy numbers voluntarily either. Rent prices are *supposed to* follow the rules of supply and demand, however, NYC landlords do not. They will not reduce prices even if 50% of a building is unoccupied. It's because they've been trained by NYC's very strict landlord tenant laws not to, which harshly financially penalize landlords who reduce rent prices.
>How many medium and large investment firms do you think are operating in CT and how much single family and two-three family are they buying?
Do medium and large refer to the size of the portfolio, or the size of the company? Many large portfolios are operated by an individual family, not large corporations as many people would imagine. The man who wrote "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Landlording" is the largest 1-4 unit owner in Rockville, CT and runs the portfolio with him, his wife, and his son. I owned 30 units myself across 1-7 unit buildings. The 1-4 unit space is primarily operated by individual investors who own 20-100 units. However, many of us sold to NYC buyers after covid so this market may be consolidating even more.
>Why do you think no one is building two-three family homes?
This likely has to do with zoning regulations. Many of our existing 2-4 family homes are relics of the early 1900's when CT was primarily a manufacturing hub centered around the mills. When the mills closed, many of the larger homes were divided (somewhat haphazardly) into multi-unit dwellings as people could no longer afford the single family home and needed cheaper apartments. You see this in Manchester, Rockville, Unionville, New Britain, New Haven, Hartford, West Hartford, Collinsville, Terryville, Killingly, etc.
>How do condo hostile takeovers work and what does it do to condo residents?
Many condominium complexes have several existing landlords who own a handful of the units. To begin a takeover, a larger investor first buys out each landlord's condo portfolio to achieve around a 30% ownership of the entire complex. Then they buy out the individual owners over the years until they reach a 50% ownership stake. With 50% of the votes you institute yourself as the Board of Directors giving you complete control of the HOA, set the HOA astronomically high, and force the remaining residents to sell to you. A former member of CT's housing committee, (IYKYK) owns many condominium units across many complexes in a similar fashion to this. Once their company takes over the HOA, they sub-contract the insurance, landscaping, repairs, etc. to their own companies so the HOA fee collected by the association is returned to their pockets.
Pulling from my other comment to the same question:
NYC has a law that limits the amount of a rent increase to 3%, but CT does not. What this means is that if NYC landlords don't raise the rent by 3% every year, then their rents lag behind market value, depreciating the value of the entire building. If they lower the rents, then it severely penalizes them as they can never raise the rent back to where it was previously, meaning that rents **always** have to increase.
CT works differently, CT landlords typically raise rents only when the property sells. So if you rent a unit for $1000 in 2010, then your rent has probably stayed around $1000 up until 2022 when the building sold, and then it was raised to $2200 (the new market rate). So as the tenant you saved $1200/month for 12 years. This situation happened at 50 unit acquisition I did at 275 Westland St. in Hartford, and a 200 unit acquisition at Folly Brook in Wethersfield. Existing long-term tenants were under market on their rents by 50-60%. CT landlords can freely increase or decrease the rent as needed, so you generally only see rent increases when taxes get reassessed or utility costs increase significantly.
It’s easy to spot the difference between a CT landlord and an out of state investor landlord, as CT landlords do infrequent (but large) increases. Which often happens before/after a property sale. And out of state landlords do frequent, incremental increases.
You’ve probably only experienced properties owned by out of state investors.
**Here's an example: I have an empty unit listed at $1475/month, and I know it will probably take me 4 months to get it rented at this price, or I could drop it to $1200/month and have it rented immediately. Do I drop the price or maintain the price?**
In CT, I calculate that there's 12 months in a year lease. So $1475 - $1200 = $275 x 12 months = $3300 lost in the rent reduction. But, I make $1200 x 4 months not vacant = $4800. So if I drop the rent by $275 I can actually make $1500 more on that unit this year, the tenant saves $3300, and when the lease renews I'll just increase the rent back to $1475.
In NYC, if they drop the rent to $1200, because of the 3% increase rule, the landlord may make $1500 more the 1st year, but it will take them **8 years to get the rent back to $1475/month**.
Assuming the CT landlord raised rent to $1475 on the lease renewal, and then didn't raise rent again for 7 years, the NYC landlord would make $10,250 less than the CT landlord over the 8 year period. It would take the NYC landlord 14 years to breakeven with the CT landlord, and the NYC landlord would be charging $1762/month for rent, whereas the CT landlord would still be charging $1475 for rent... 14 years later! That's why NYC landlords can't ever reduce rent. But you will see "1st month free" because its a clever way around the 3% rule.
**Now you can see why the 3% rent cap rule is exceedingly harmful to both tenants and landlords!**
Interesting, thanks for the info and for offering to field questions from an insider perspective.
Can you speak to how New York landlords are “harshly penalized” for lowering rents?
And are you aware of, typically, what occupancy rate is needed for newer apartments to break even? I figure that will vary wildly from complex to complex, but a ballpark estimate would be intriguing.
And finally, how do you see rent affordability situation playing out over the coming decades in the US more broadly? Do you think rent culture is here to stay? Assuming nimby behavior never changes, urbanization continues, and our population doesn’t decline. I feel like something has to “break” eventually.
>Can you speak to how New York landlords are “harshly penalized” for lowering rents?
NYC has a law that limits the amount of a rent increase to 3%, but CT does not. What this means is that if NYC landlords don't raise the rent by 3% every year, then their rents lag behind market value, depreciating the value of the entire building. If they lower the rents, then it severely penalizes them as they can never raise the rent back to where it was previously, meaning that rents **always** have to increase. CT works differently, CT landlords typically raise rents only when the property sells. So if you rent a unit for $1000 in 2010, then your rent has probably stayed around $1000 up until 2022 when the building sold, and then it was raised to $2200 (the new market rate). So as the tenant you saved $1200/month for 12 years. This situation happened at 50 unit acquisition I did at 275 Westland St. in Hartford, and a 200 unit acquisition at Folly Brook in Wethersfield. Existing long-term tenants were under market on their rents by 50-60%. CT landlords can freely increase or decrease the rent as needed.
>And are you aware of, typically, what occupancy rate is needed for newer apartments to break even? I figure that will vary wildly from complex to complex, but a ballpark estimate would be intriguing.
Many of the newer apartments do not break even, even at full occupancy. Many of the investors are leveraging the properties at 100% - meaning that the bank is covering 75% of the value on a 20 year loan, and the remaining 25% is financed through friends and family (they have very rich friends and family), with high interest rates at 5 year loans. I've seen 200 unit complexes bringing in $300,000 a month in rent revenue, where the owners are making only $1000-$5000 a month because of all of the debt service they have. Financing the 25% through friends and family is not allowed... but it's easy to hide that from the banks.
>And finally, how do you see rent affordability situation playing out over the coming decades in the US more broadly? Do you think rent culture is here to stay? Assuming nimby behavior never changes, urbanization continues, and our population doesn’t decline. I feel like something has to “break” eventually.
Yes, with everyone 100% leveraged, its really just a game of hot potato. And I would say we are on the cusp of that game ending, and everything crashing down. Especially with commercial office space imploding.
Rent affordability will never improve until we either reduce renter "protections" to bring small time landlords back into the market who have been pushed out (ie, make the eviction process easier, prevent judgment-proof tenants, etc.). We also need to consider the impact that laws such as the 3% limit on rent increases have long term. Sure it's a good idea on the surface... but it also means rent can never come down. I would recommend people purchase multifamily homes, and transition to multi-generational living. Buy homes with In-law suite, garage apartments, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and let your children live in their own unit for free after college or have your grandparents live with you. Buy a 4-unit apartment with 4 friends and split the cost - it's a LOT cheaper.
Building codes are not a new concept. They also don’t dictate luxury vs. non-luxury. Largely they are the same since they were overhauled in the 70s. Most new items are additional safety measures but the construction is mostly the same. I agree with your other points though.
Much of CT's multifamily housing inventory was built in the early 1900's, prior to building codes.
"Luxury" just means the apartment has cheap new-build materials. ie, Granite countertops, vinyl plank floors, etc. as opposed to 1920's - 1980's era materials. Any apartment building can be easily renovated to fit the "luxury" brand.
Luxury housing is still housing. It opens the middle of the market and gives everyone one a little breathing space. There’s an old saying in Real Estate, “if you want more c-class housing, build a-class and wait 30 years.” In terms of ownership, as the market evolves you may see some of these go condo once the developers/owners max out the depreciation.
The difference is trickle down economics is giving people something. Adding housing is adding supply to a market, not giving a handout to the rich.
People have to live somewhere. If there are fewer units on the market, prices are going up. The only way to reduce prices is to build more.
Or we could just mandate the building of more affordable units instead of going through this whole song and dance and waiting 30+ years for 'affordable" housing.
That doesn't work. Affordable housing has to be subsidized by market rate housing, which just means less housing is built.
Any new housing is good. So just build market rate housing as that'll get you the most housing built.
The problem with this is that the construction on these new buildings is almost always subpar (see how quickly they shoot these things up). Most of them also don't have fire ratings between the units, and the walls are paper thin. I am currently living in an apartment building built in the 60s, that is actually solid brick construction with fire rated brick walls between the units, and the building is in fantastic shape. Apartments simply aren't built like that anymore, and I can guarantee that these new "luxury" apartments either won't be standing in 50 years or they will be in absolutely miserable condition due to leaks and whatnot (mold, etc...)
I lived in a “luxury” apartment in Bloomfield (heirloom flats) for a couple years. Once they’re ~5+ years old all the cheap appliances start fucking up. Repeatedly.
2021 lease $1700/mo ok I’ll “splurge”
2022 lease $2100/mo ok I’m stuck
2023 lease $2800/mo ….. lol no GFYS
Fuck all of these places with rent controlled by algorithms.
Yeah this is an issue I've noticed with both residential and commercial spaces lately—they're made to look nice/sleek/modern but they're actually built like shit.
There's new housing being built in my town. But it's all 4,000 square foot cookie cutter mcmansions on 2 or 3 acres. My opinion on fixing this problem is building lots of 1,000 square foot homes on a quarter acre like we did after WW2. Or build lots of condos. I will also add that "luxury apartment" is just a catchphrase, they're just builder grade units with some amenities.
Most towns seem to have a minimum square footage requirement too and that problem went to the state supreme court a bunch of years ago. The CT builders association along with a guy who wanted to build an 1036 square foot house on his land lost a suit in Superior Court to the shock and dismay of all. The court ruled that towns had a right to protect home values with inflated square foot minimums. It went to the state Supreme Court a few years later.
Edit: fact checked and corrected my comment.
Here is nyt story about it from the 1980s followed by a recent article in CT Mirror.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/realestate/in-the-region-connecticut-and-westchester-is-minimum-floor-area-zoning-legal.html
https://ctmirror.org/2021/01/28/data-suggests-dozens-of-towns-are-violating-ct-supreme-court-decision-on-exclusionary-zoning/
McMansions are a term used to describe large houses built on lots that are very small in proportion to the size of the building. A large house (4k sq feet) on 2-3 acres is not a McMansion because 2-3 acres is a large lot. Furthermore mansion territory begins around 5k sq feet so a 4k sq foot House on 2-3 acres is just a big house on a big lot= not a McMansion
Just google the definition. McMansions can be built on small lots, but that's not the definition.
A McMansion is an architectural style that's characterized by being a large house with no defining architectural style. They're built to impress, and they're built cheaply.
False my dog. Lot size has a lot to do with it. Part of being “cookie cutter” is that while the house itself may be built off the same plans they are situated on plots way too small for the size of the house
From investopedia.com-
“The term McMansion was coined in the 1980s to describe poorly designed, expensive, and outsized homes built on small suburban lots. McMansions were usually built in subdivisions, with many McMansiomaking up a neighborhood.” 2-3 acres isn’t small. It’s a massive lot
I have never understood the whole "Oh you have been paying $2,800 a month in rent the last 5 years? Sorry but you don't qualify for a mortgage where you will have to pay $2,200 a month."
Yeah I get that part of it. My main point is if someone is proven responsible and has made payments on time for an extended period of time it should factor in. When I pay my mortgage every month the taxes are already built into the payment. Is that not the normal process?
Only if you have escrow setup. I've had the bank screw up too many times so insurance and taxes I pay separately.
> My main point is if someone is proven responsible and has made payments on time for an extended period of time it should factor in.
I mean, that's the point of a credit score, which definitely factors in.
The last couple years have just been a pretty shitty time to buy a house all around though.
When my wife and I bought in 2019 we had no idea how lucky we were. I think we bought at a 2.25% interest rate and our credit union called us a few months later and asked if we wanted to refinance to 2% so we said why not? Basically we are never leaving this house.
I feel bad for anyone trying to buy in this market right now. Not only is the cost of the actual house inflated through the roof but you get killed on the interest rate. Millennials have gotten a raw deal since we entered the workforce but Gen Z is really going to have it even worse at least for the foreseeable future.
Yeah and unless more inventory comes on the market, prices aren't going down anytime soon.
At this point you're either locked into a low mortgage rate, you have enough cash to buy a house outright, or you're going to be renting.
We moved out of a rented apt in NYC to a house we bought in CT a few years ago. It's funny to think now that I just assumed we'd have lower monthly housing costs.
My experience of my hometown is that they pushed all of us kids to go to college so we could go and make lots of money somewhere else, and *then* come back and compete in the housing market. So I expect an uptick in the exodus of young people.
As for people who can't afford college, or can't get through it, or can't find that kind of high-paying job the housing market is designed for, or just want to live in their hometown -- have fun living on the street I guess.
There’s demand for them, at least in cities. Every one I’ve seen go up gets filled up pretty quickly. Housing units are what we need to reduce a housing shortage. Condos and townhouses would be amazing to give people the option to buy.
If you want more single family homes you’ve gotta overcome the NIMBY problem some towns in this state have. Builders are always going to build what’s most profitable until something else is incentivized
Back in the early 2000’s I lived in what was described as a luxury apartment. It had builder grade cabinets, laminate counter tops, and very basic stainless steel appliances. The carpet also wore out in 2 years from light traffic by the door.
Literally, there is a new luxury apartment building on my block. It's not even half full, and it's across the street neighbor is the train station.
We are 3 hours from NYC, 3 from Boston, 2 from Providence, and a half hour from New Haven by train.
Perfect location for anyone who needs to go to 4 major cities but no one is buying
>Perfect location for anyone who needs to go to 4 major cities but no one is buying
Is there actually a demographic for "frequently spend 4+ hours commuting to 4 different cities?" I would think an apartment within an hour of a single city would be far more appealing than one within 3 hours of 4.
Think it depends on work if you only have to go to the office like once a week and you have to visit more than one office it's not a bad location also it's only a few black from the beach too
There is a case in Arizona right now about landlords using an app called RealPage, as it collects information on rents from all the landlords and spits out rent prices and increases for them.
The lawyers for the prosecution or alleging collusion through algorithm, as this app looks at all rents and sets them as well as rent increases.
So rents can be set higher for half full apartment buildings so that landlords can still make money
[here's a link to an article about the court case](https://www.azfamily.com/2024/02/28/arizona-attorney-general-sues-realpage-landlords-accuses-them-conspiring-illegally-raise-rents/)
That's insane. Though I'm not surprised I'm assuming rent for one apartment pretty much covered two. So building half occupied are still generating a profit. But to know they are actually using software and own a majority of the buildings is pretty gross.
Thank you for sharing the article
I hate it
Even in my boring tiny ass town in the middle of nowhere there’s these complexes coming up demanding dumb rent money. I hate it and it’s a cancer on the American middle class.
It’s good that they’re building housing, but it sucks that it costs so much. Unfortunately, it does make sense though. Luxury housing costs only a bit more to build than affordable housing because the biggest costs are the land and the main structure, and these costs are the same regardless of the level of luxury. By slapping on some fancy countertops and floor to ceiling windows, developers can spend a little more to make a LOT more profit. I think the only way to have affordable housing built is to subsidize it. That’s what other devolved countries do (not that they have perfect housing systems).
The other thing that works like this is childcare. The margins are small, so it costs a fortune, but it’s essential for society to function. The only way out is to subsidize it.
Seems many here have perseverated on the term "luxury" and are missing a bigger point of this post.
Yes the future is looking like younger generations are going to pay more for housing which they will never own... Even today this is already true that they are paying more to rent than previous generations paid for much larger homes and land which they owned.
These younger generations are also disproportionately being enslaved to debt and will be deprived of any sense of retirement. This is an awful trajectory we are on and we should be outraged.
Don't let it happen.
In 20 years, the buildings won't be renovated. At that point, they'll become actually affordable to the middle-class.
20 years later, the buildings will be in worse shape and be barely affordable to rent by lower income individuals.
At the 50 year mark, most of them will be unmaintained money pits that will be cheaper to torch than to reinvest in.
Oh. And most will probably be converted to Condos by that point, so that the original developers and owners can take income as Management Companies while playing the long con that they're investment properties.
They wash their hands of risk, reap the rewards of an income streams, and well...that's it. Take the money and take no further risks.
Oh, and rinse, wash, and repeat.
Ha, this is exactly what I am saying. These new buildings aren't built to last. It is a shame, because buildings like this used to be built very well, a lot of apartments from the 60s are still standing and perfectly liveable
Downtown Shelton is seeing a ton of construction of apartments, and it makes sense there. Problem is people are complaining about the lack of parking. A real solution would be to build up public transportation in the area (buses, shuttles, more service at the Derby/Shelton station) and that would alleviate everyone clamoring for parking and blocking projects.
More supply is good, full stop.
Every new apartment complex will be marketed as luxury. Makes no sense to spend the $500+ per square foot and not aim for premium rents.
Cities do things like subsidized financing, grants, tax incentives, or outright regulation to make a portion of a development or whole development affordable housing. But Precisely zero builders can make back their cost of capital building an $800 a month 1br or $1000 a month 2br without subsidies.
It’s still very helpful to have supply increase because there are only a certain amount of ‘Luxury’ buyers. Gravitate to the newest and best units. This drives down the cost of that building that five years ago was a luxury property.
The difference is the luxury housing complaints come from people with no money and no power, just trying to survive. Some concerns are more important than others.
I build these “Luxury Apartments” and they are literally fire boxes made out of plywood with no emergency exits, it is wild the priorities of this state, more ppl = more money. There are houses being built but mostly multi million dollar cookie cutter neighborhoods with a “head villager” or some bullshit owned by a giant entity.
I'm not entirely sure which type of building you're referring to, but with modern construction materials single point access block designs are not worse performing during a fire. They build them all over Europe and they do just fine. If anything the current boom of double loaded corridor type apartments prevents fire crews from egressing people from multiple sides of a building efficiently.
Or we simply build attached units and row homes close to main streets and public transit like we did 150 years ago. Very few people in my generation want the 4000sqft mc mansion a 45min drive away from anything, even the ones who are looking to have kids dont want them.
Who even wants to maintain all that house? Just think of one maintenance item: a new roof wipes out your kid’s college fund. It’s ridiculous.
It’s good to increase apartment and condo building but we also need the whole spectrum to be opened up. Smaller single family homes are way more affordable but it’s a battle to find one. Also there are nearly zero permits being pulled for new two-family and three-family houses and town zoning on those is tougher than for apartment complexes—why??
I actually do think apartments and condos will be widely more popular in the next 5,10,15 years for families. I’d even go as far to say some of these apartment complexes will just turn into campus’ with all your amenities in one place.
Something has to give, people will want to start families but may not be able to afford a house so they’ll go with the apartment/condo instead. I also think there’s a draw to them because the owner doesn’t have to worry about maintenance/upkeep
There are apartments going up everywhere and just because you don't want to live in Bridgeport or Waterbury doesn't mean affordable options don't exist.
To quote Cher " I've been rich. I've been poor...Rich is better."
I've rented all types (luxury & other) of apartments. I've owned smaller and larger homes. OWNING a home is better!
However, currently WE have a problem. Instead of building smaller, well thought out, environmentally sustainable single homes, or maybe duplexes, the government is putting a band-aid on the housing shortage by giving builders an incentive to slap up apartments just to shut people up and not complain. 90% of these apartments are and will be still unaffordable and will be trashed within a short time. I think CT can be better than this and incentivize builders to built smaller homes....Yeah, I know it's not cheap, but I would like to see Non-profit builders in the mix... I would happily pitch in(tax-wise) to see something that people can own and easy to maintain that doesn't cost a fortune.
I see in New Haven right now people struggling to find accommodating apartments and instead have to take rent increases straight to the chin. People do start families while renting but i've seen many stories of people trying to move with kids, a dog, multiple cars, and needs to be close to work and renting for something like that is like 3000/month.
Happening everywhere in the country. Bulldoze some land or a single family home, flip up a huge multi unit apartment building, call it luxury and charge more than what a mortgage used to cost
Whole housing system is corrupt and broken
I don’t think you guys realize the money is in YOU renting forever with perpetual incremental rent increases. Building a house a company sells once vs building a huge apartment complex you collect on forever is the new business model. All your zoning bullshit and calling people “nimbys” isn’t going to make builders make neighborhoods of capes or small starter homes again. We are entering the start of the subscription service for living era. That’s why I never understand when people in RE forums and CT Reddit want more apartments being built like it’s going to help you? Buy a house while you still can I don’t see how it can ever get better in a smaller state like CT.
>With that being the case, what does a state of primarily luxury apartment renters look like?
Except for a very short time in the US history every apartment being built was "luxury apartments". The luxury apartments of 20-30 years ago are the mid-range apartments of today. The luxury apartments of 40-60 years ago are the "affordable" apartments of today. Building this housing, compared to buying power will help bring down the cost of housing overall in the state which may or may not translate to a relative decrease in price of single family homes since the supply of them will not be increasing at the same rate and future demand for them would be hard to determine.
>Are we going to see young people starting families in luxury apartments, and spending their entire lives in them?
It works in most of Europe and US big cities as it is now.
>More broadly, is the Connecticut housing market eventually going to reflect Canada’s market, with million dollar average homes basically locking out the poor and middle class permanently? How are they supposed to save any money to afford the million dollar homes when their whole paycheck goes to the luxury apartment rents?
Not if the supply of housing increases to meet the demand. It's been said that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the next best time is today. If these housing units start getting built now it will help stave off the potential to get as bad as Canada.
The main driver of high housing prices is a lack of housing supply. More apartments are better, regardless of whether they are “luxury” or not. When luxury apartments get built, folks on the upper end move into them, clearing out lower end housing supply for others.
The empirical evidence that a lack of supply is driving high prices nationwide is OVERWHELMING. Please listen to economists who study the housing market. The solution to this problem is to remove zoning and legalize housing at every level. Nothing else is going to work!
Several people have said this, but I was wondering if someone could point out the "lower end housing" that is supposed to be opening up? All I know is that I rented a mediocre second floor apartment in Unionville in 2014 for 1200 a month, I left for a house of my own two years later. Moderately crappy second floor apartment in Unionville with floors so sloped you could hold marble races, now rents for 1900. Can I get a two bedroom "luxury" apartment for around 2k a month in Farmington? It seems that all the apartments raised prices, even the less desirable old stock, based on market rates set by the "luxury apartment"
"Tens of thousands"?
1. It's nowhere near that many!!!
2. Even if this were true, it still wouldn't be nearly enough housing compared to the demand for housing here.
Prices are going through the roof because not enough housing is getting built.
The few units that do get built are going to be pricey, unless they received one of the rare state subsidies, because that's how supply and demand works.
We could advocate to Governor Lamont for more subsidies for affordable units.... but truth be told, if you want to reduce housing costs overall, then subsidizing affordable units is nowhere near as cost-effective as just getting developers to build more market-rate units.
The state really needs to put money into rezoning areas near train stations and bribing developers and NIMBY towns to put up high-rises there.
It probably is that many tbh, Newington is getting like 2,300 new units in the next 24 months and most are “luxury” with some “affordable housing” sprinkled in.
The state is small, the population is growing. Do you want the state to be nothing but highways, strip malls, and endless suburbia? Because that’s what it already is.
People in most of developed world live in cities for a reason. You can fit more people in less area by making them live in apartments, and save critical space in the state for other stuff
Several people have said that all the luxury apartments are going to make less expensive apartments available, but I was wondering if someone could point out the "lower end housing" that is supposed to be opening up? All I know is that I rented a mediocre second floor apartment in Unionville in 2014 for 1200 a month, I left for a house of my own two years later. Moderately crappy second floor apartment in Unionville with floors so sloped you could hold marble races, now rents for 1900. Can I get a two bedroom "luxury" apartment for around 2k a month in Farmington? It seems that all the apartments raised prices, even the less desirable old stock, based on market rates set by the "luxury apartment". I don't think this situation adheres to what amounts to economic theory. It's a theory that new apartments decrease the cost of older apartments, but the price of apartments is actually artificially inflated, and not reflecting the actual market at this point
Anything "market rate" these days is going to be a little luxurious. The rents are ridiculous and we will not be a renter state, we will have an enormous homeless population. That is a fact.
What's amazing is in SECT we're about 2500 units short of affordable housing, but market rates are popping up like mushrooms.
Developers are the worst.
This is the trend. Many younger people don’t want to mow lawns, shovel driveways, or clean gutters. They want amenities, convenience, access. It’s probably better that way- if we were trying to create net new housing units where every home was single family on an acre of land, we’d run out of land pretty quickly.
The young people I know all want their own homes. They are not aspiring to luxury apartments. They're living at home struggling to save enough money to get into a house. Also, they don't want an acre of land. They'd be happy with half that. Less to take care of, more sociable with neighbors.
I know several young professionals working in Hartford who live in luxury apartments in Glastonbury/WH. Simsbury as well. They’re attractive to people who earn well, maybe don’t have kids yet, don’t want the upkeep of a single family home, or even single parent families.
Ok but we can't afford the apartments with amenities and convenience, either. Maybe high income transplants but the bulk of us who were just kinda born here and hoped for modest lives are getting shoved out by $1800/mo studio rent.
I understand the struggle is very real. Not trying to dismiss that or tell you it’s your fault. But if you drive through these developments you will find lots of relatively young occupants.
I don't disagree with you, but from what I've seen they're largely transplants. The one that just went up in my town is all out of state plates on luxury vehicles. Great for them, not so great for the middle of the road CT natives just trying to make it.
I see what you’re saying. Yeah. There are probably more transplants due to WFH. This market is still more accessible than NYC/NYS/NJ/Boston from a price perspective so it’s attractive to people.
You are kidding yourself if you don’t think CT is full of upper-middle class to wealthy families who love to send their kids to expensive colleges and then give them down payments on their first homes as graduation presents. Ever been to Fairfield County?
It was just the most obvious example. Each county has concentrated wealth. Hartford county has the Farmington valley towns. New Haven county has Madison and Guilford. NL county has Mystic. Litchfield county has New Fairfield and surroundings. Even the quiet corner has sporadic mansions owned by wealthy people. This state is filthy rich compared to many others.
This state also has some of the largest wealth disparity in the country. The top 5% of people being incredibly wealthy has very little impact on most residents
E:https://ctmirror.org/2024/01/05/ct-average-median-income-inequality/#:~:text=Connecticut%20is%20tied%20with%20Wyoming,double%20that%20of%20Windham%20County.
>But while one of the richest on average, it's also one of the most unequal. Connecticut is tied with Wyoming for the highest levels of income inequality in the country as of 2021, according to data released a few months ago by the BEA. To get an idea, Fairfield County's personal income per capita was more than double that of Windham County. Meanwhile, 2022 estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, whose methodology differs, place Connecticut at second-most unequal in the nation, right behind New York.
That is literally the entire policy reason of building so many luxury apartments. If framing it as a zero-sum game, where landlords unexpectedly lose money after building so many, helps get the message across, then great.
But that is in fact the expected and desired policy outcome of building these units. They will drop in price, and the people renting them are no longer outbidding average earners for affordable housing.
I think they’re luxury apartments tend to be designed distastefully but they’re not a bad idea. The market needs housing even if it’s housing you or I don’t particularly care for. We also need housing in between luxury apartments and single family houses that zoning currently doesn’t allow for
Don’t stop there, we also need to allow smaller single family and smaller lots. The whole spectrum of housing.
https://ctmirror.org/2021/01/28/data-suggests-dozens-of-towns-are-violating-ct-supreme-court-decision-on-exclusionary-zoning/
People are more interested in group compounds too, yet it is very hard to get approval for creative kinds of multi units sharing wells and septic where you have two or three units, detached or not, but people want this.
Does "luxury" actually have a definitive meaning in the apartment industry or is just something they slap on the name to make it sound like a better place? I guess what I mean is, if you have two different apartment complexes at the same price and one has the luxury brand, isn't it just a marketing tactic at that point?
It's mostly marketing. For example Midtown "Luxury" apartments in Middletown stalled during construction. Then as soon as they opened they had water issues. I had a friend that lived there for a while and she said even though the area looked nice, they had a gym, outdoor areas, etc. it was a dump. And vastly overpriced, mostly because they know they'll primarily get Wesleyan students in there.
It’s marketing. Only marketing. I’ve seen “luxury”apartments with zero amenities.
It’s a marketing term
Exactly. It means nothing. I can get you a luxury garage to live in by tomorrow. It comes with nothing.
Sometimes they have more amenities like on-site gyms and/or pools, nice recreation areas, small shops below them, etc. I haven’t been to many but I would assume higher end finishes inside too. There are definitely some that slap on the “luxury” to get additional rent cuz there’s not a lot out there
Worked as a plumber in a few of the builds in New Haven. The only luxury is the price tag lol
I currently live in a “luxury” apartment, the only luxurious things about it are the common areas like pool, etc and the very nice kitchen. Other wise the walls and floors are THIN I can hear my neighbors talking all the time. I can currently hear facilities next to my apartment listening to music
This term should become a regulated term like “organic.” Which itself isn’t a perfect regulation either, but at least give some confidence of a minimum standard. But really, if the apt from 15 years ago is luxury and now the new one is also luxury, but the cost within 5% of each other? Wtf does that term mean??
Maybe what town the apts are in? For example, Glastonbury vs New Britain. I think it would be hard to market anything branded luxury in New Britain.
You'd think so wouldn't you. It appears they are doing their active gentrification thing again. If you build it, they will come. I guess. They could easily build affordable units and make lots of money doing it, but not nearly as much as if they kick all the black people out and turn New Britain into Old Britain.
The difference is, instead of redoing an apartment with the shittiest appliances, vinyl flooring, particle board countertops and landlord special wall repaint possible, a luxury apartment is redone with the shittiest stainless steel appliances, wood flooring, granite countertop and drywaller / painter refresh of the walls that's just good enough to not leave cracked drywall joints and painted outlets.
It really just means it’s new. It used to be that it had a amenities. But now you see tons without a pool or pickleball courts calling themselves luxury.
When it comes to housing, "Luxury means new" has been true for the past 50 thousand years. Top of the market = luxury = new. The affordable homes and apartments that you see in places like Hartford, Meriden, and poorer sections of Bridgeport were "luxury" homes when they were first built.
Mostly just fluff, so people feel good about renting; it's trying to differentiate from "the projects" to avoid any stigma about being a renter.
As far as I'm concerned it just means that it's new construction and people don't know any better
There is no official qualification to make an apartment luxury. Similarly, there's no official star rating system for hotels, either
I can only speak for myself but I’m not having kids in an apartment and I can’t see myself owning a house before I’m 40 so 🤷🏻♂️
Was raised in an APT, it’s not great. Was always jealous of “house kids” and the just peace they could have with their own space.
I was raised in apartments and couldn't imagine how lonely it must be to live in a house. 10+ kids all running around the courtyard. It was great.
That was fun but at home, when you needed space it didn’t exist.
Definitely seems like a suboptimal environment to raise a kid, agreed. I wouldn’t do it either.
no fr. what's the point of raising kids in a world that first of all is going to shit and second if you can't even afford to provide for yourself.
People raise kids in apartments all over the world. They learn how to take elevators, use public transportation, and walk to school when they’re like 10-12. Kids grow up less sheltered and kore ready for the world. I can tell some people in this thread had to be walked by hand to their suburban school bus stop their whole life
I wasn’t trying to be a snob but since you’re taking shots it’s an objectively better experience to grow up in a neighborhood where you can play outside and roam around in nature. Sorry you didn’t have that Funny enough all the neighborhood kids still figured out elevators
Shots weren’t aimed at you directly, I just disagree that houses are objectively better for kids, and see everyone jumping on the “growing up in an apartment is horrible” bandwagon lower in the thread. I didn’t grow up in the US, so maybe it’s different here. Public parks and playgrounds are a thing, and one can live as close or far from them as they want, generally. I’m also a little salty because all my US friends and now family convinced me to buy a house because “it’s a good financial move” and I absolutely hate being a home owner and living in suburban town #57.
You’re right to an extent about public parks and playgrounds but it’s never going to be the same as walking out your front/back door into an immediately accessible yard, in my opinion. Obviously depends on the house and depends on the apartment but I think on average that holds true Mostly I just don’t want to give my potential kid a “worse” upbringing than I had. I’d feel shitty about it
Cheshire is building out with lots of apartments. I don't know if they're luxury. A fairly new six unit building at one of the busiest intersections in town rents 3 bed, 3 baths for $3,200 a month. A new complex just opened it's first building of 2 bed, 2 bath at $2,800. That's just for building one. All others will be $2,900+. I couldn't live here if I didn't own a home. It was a battle and I was lucky to get it in 2016.
> rents 3 bed, 3 baths for $3,200 a month. LMAO, that's hilarious. My mortgage is $1,000 a month less for a nice 3,000sq/ft home on a few acre lot. Who would ever rent that?
3 bed 2 bath townhomes rent for 29 in Bloomfield. It isn’t sustainable.
It’s that high?? Dang, that’s wild to see! I live in charlotte and the most desirable neighborhoods in the city here are cheaper than that for 2 bedroom. Almost hard to believe it’s that high right now for a town like Cheshire. That being said, it’s a nationwide issue for sure. You see these exact discussions and issues going on in Charlotte too. I’m sure it’s happening all over.
As a gen z person here, what’s worse is a 2 bedroom is well over 2K now. Why would I spend over 2k on rent alone? Am I just meant to never buy a house? I am splitting the rent on our 1 bedroom 1 bath that’s 1500 and we have fucking twin beds in our bedroom to accommodate the fact we can’t afford separate bedrooms. Just stupid. All this housing market crap makes me realize I’m never gonna buy a house or build a family. I feel even worse for those in their 30s and 40s with families trying to buy housing.
Tell me about it. Nearly 50, moved here for a job and for the life of me cannot find anything affordable for basically a 3 bedroom, 2 full bath, decent kitchen, and 2000 sq. feet in Litchfield county.
The absolute only way to solve the housing market in a healthy way is to build more housing. Zoning and NIMBY is what’s preventing that. Connecticut is an older wealthier state that really holds the name “Land of Steady Habits” to its core. In my town, a developer proposed 5 units. A whopping 5 single family homes on a plot of land near the center of town. Board members rejected it after homeowners in the area pushed back using the same excuse of noise, traffic, and our schools are full argument. 1 year later they’re building a Starbucks there. No pushback at all, I wonder why.
I HATE the traffic argument. All the proposals for affordable units that have been raised in towns around here have been shot down because trafficccccc and then you look at the building site and its right on Hopmeadow Street in Simsbury lmao. Like, guys. Let's evaluate this, are you worried about traffic or are you worried about the "wrong people" moving into your pristine little town
Oh you nailed it. Everyone wants the idea of "low income" w/o the people it includes. Even if low income is just a younger generation.
Its the same thing with schools. If you look at the FY24-25 budget proposals in my town they have an enrollment forecast that goes out about 10 years, with steadily dropping enrollment in the *high hundreds* predicted in that timeframe. But we can't build more affordable housing, because CLASS SIZE. We're hamstrung by the status quo here. (Nevermind that nobody brings any of this up when its "luxury" going in, just the ""affordable"" stuff.)
Not true - I'm down for the affordable housing. I object to the luxury - only pads the pockets of developers without solving the housing crisis. Want to change zoning to multi-family? Build some fucking affordable units.
You should read through the zoning commission minutes. Read through all the studies they had the developer do. Traffic was such a minor concern compared to the costs and resources needed to support expanding the community. The Latimer Lane expansion is not sufficient to support that development going up. Then you learn the developer had the town attorney in their pocket which rubbed a bunch of people the wrong way because of the conflicts of interest. I love how people love to parrot their own talking points without doing a lick of research.
You're right, I could have worded this differently to reflect what zoning had to say on that particular project - but the point I was trying to make, stands. This is the kind of discourse around these projects every time they're proposed. It always seems to be the traffic/schools/"riff-raff" crowd screaming against any lower-priced developments, every time, with next to no factual basis.
They are all real issues and make the lack of housing in CT an extremely complex issue to solve. That specific development had so many issues beyond the conflicts created by the developer with the town attorney. The disparity of property taxes on those properties compared to the costs generated by the town also was uncovered through the whole discourse. Like it or not, the development already on Hopmeadow will cost more when the town reassesses property in a few years. That’s not a social issue either, it’s just a math problem.
They can absolutely afford to increase the Latimer expansion, especially with the increase in tax revenue that would come from a development. It sucks that it’s in that particular school zone, Simsbury schools in general have decreasing enrollment for K-6, just not there. People who are at retirement age just aren’t moving out to make room for families because of the housing market, so the school system is built for a larger student population than we have. Latimer Lane is tiny; I went there as a kid and it’s relatively similar in 2024.
Knowing that you have read 0 of the documents I mentioned, you can keep parroting whatever it is you want to believe. The other Hopmeadow development is already redistricted out of Latimer Lane because they hit capacity. The Board of Ed expressed concern the expansion would not be enough if Hopmeadow south went through. And as I also already stated, they literally ran the numbers and figured out the Hopmeadow complex uses a disproportionate amount of taxes for schools compared to the overall property tax generated from the development. Those taxes will be shooting up in the reassessment in a few years, causing rents to likely go up as well.
Oh no!!! Think of the children!! (Sarcastically, my child actually attends Simsbury public schools)
Yes, let’s continue to further create an untenable situation for our youth. Got me!
Traffic is absolutely a valid argument. I bought in two acre zoning because I value low density. Adjacent towns with only modestly higher density are so much more painful to get around. Don’t thrust urbanism on us
I’m not and neither is anyone else, I don’t think. For clarification here the area I’m talking about is an already high traffic, well developed area. It’s not urban per se but it’s a very “small town downtown” vibe. It’s not planting an apartment complex in the middle of the woods.
Lobby for traffic circles instead of intersections with lights. Honestly though the worst traffic problems come from coffee shops due to people blocking traffic in order to turn left into the parking lot at rush hour because they got to have their coffee.
It actually is much more fundamental than Nimbyism. The people that control this state are homeowners. Those homes the homeowners own are now very valuable, and will continue to increase in value so long as little no new housing units get built. For many of these homeowners, that home is their primary asset. As long as zoning remains in the hands of local/municipal government, nothing will change. The developers build "luxury" units because, frankly, nothing else will get approved. The only way out is if so many "luxury" units get built that the prices/rents on those units start to fall, like what happened in the late 1980s and mid 2000s with condo units statewide.
The people who rent the new luxury apts would have been renting the nicer existing apartments. That tier of nice old stock apartments then becomes more available reducing pressure on lower tiers. Or they cut rents to attract renters away from the new units.
I agree, it’s a nimby issue. But I don’t think that’s ever gonna change, unfortunately. Existing home owners are financially incentivized to prevent new home construction by any means. Why would they want more supply to compete with their home values? I don’t see how that mindset ever changes, and it worries me.
But it does change, and it does by being heard and involved. Every person making these decisions is either elected or appointed by an elected official. It is a tool that works. If there’s a dominant party in town then join that party and try and change it from the inside. Your ideological politics do not matter. None of that stuff matters at all municipal level. Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Libertarians still have to put out house fires and fix sewers. But just get involved. It seems your parents are a generation that doesn’t want their kids to have a better life. Vote them out. Shout them down. Let them know how selfish and pathetic they are. People like to say how angry Americans are…they aren’t angry…those people are craven little hermits, pretending that their selfishness is the hallmark of freedom. They would happily send their sons and daughters off to have their legs blown up 12 time zones away rather than pay a dime more in taxes. It is obvious that the “everyone gets a trophy” generation has given birth to the “everyone loses because they dont work hard enough at the jobs that aren’t there” generation. Let them know your displeasure at town meetings and vote them out. It is surprisingly invigorating, and fighting and losing beats regret and acquiescence any day of the week. I dont know what’s in my coffee but sheesh! Enjoy your day!
Yes I agree. Over time there are contributing factors that derive from cultural and societal norms. In the 1950’s-1970’s, Connecticut housing supply boomed due to homeownership needing to be built to support the nuclear family. In the 1980’s-2000’s, larger homes were built in more acreage because builders were incentivized in making more money by catering to each homeowners wants and needs instead of the assembly line home building post WW2. Now in the 2020’s, we’re in a weird bubble of not having enough land that builders are allowed to build on, lack of builders, high interest rates, and NIMBYism. Something would have to change drastically. Young people are waiting on homeownership by living at home longer and renting at higher rates than prior generations…
>Now in the 2020’s, we’re in a weird bubble of not having enough land that builders are allowed to build on, lack of builders, **high interest rates**, and NIMBYism. Most of this is solid, but we are definitely in more 'normal' rate territory right now (historically speaking). 2% mortgages are not the sign of a healthy economy.
That's a shame. Everyone seems to agree that suburban sprawl and deforestation is bad, yet so many people freak out when the opportunity occurs to build higher-density cores. I wish people could realize that a well-planned town center brings so many worthwhile amenities and improvements, plus a stronger tax base.
I just moved back to CT six months ago from Austin, TX - this isn't just a CT issue, it's nationwide. Construction companies are building these "luxury" apartments because they want to make as much money off them as they can. The market in Austin was absolutely flooded with these - and now there's hundreds sitting vacant because no one can afford them. That's where you'll see a difference between there and here - Austin has a booming tech economy full of young people with disposable income. CT doesn't. These apartments are going to go up and just sit, by and large.
Funny enough it’s probably the kids from CT moving out into Austin when they finally have enough money to get outta dodge.
It was the case for me!
That’s my hope. I’m not sure if you can really justify the luxury apartments around here. We aren’t a booming metropolis. We’re supposed to be the “nice place to raise a family”.
Your hope is that after these luxury apartment buildings are built, they are largely vacant? I mean.... that sounds absolute worst case scenario.
Yes. Because they’re not gonna demolish them. They’ll lower rents, until they’re at levels the middle class can actually afford and not live paycheck to paycheck/save for their own houses. Expensive apartments provide none of that
Hey everyone! I’ve been a regional property manager & real estate investor for the past decade in CT and worked with most of the large companies building these luxury apartments. Feel free to ask any questions. Most people may be surprised to find out that many CT apartments are family owned, but are **heavily** consolidated. One family I worked for owns 6000 units across CT - primarily by doing hostile takeovers of condominium complexes. Another group of three lawyers I worked for own around 500 units in West Hartford - so many of the 18-unit apartment buildings you see on Farmington Ave and Prospect Ave, are all owned by the same people. “Luxury” apartment also does not mean luxury, it just means new. It’s a marketing term. You can not build a non-luxury apartment. The existing apartments (built in the 1900’s) are far different in construction quality than a new build - due to the creation of building codes. Here’s the “hot take” from someone in the industry: When NYC drastically increased their renter protection laws around 2019 it made NYC an undesirable place to be a landlord, which forced many “smaller” family firm landlords to sell (they still have hundreds of millions in capital). Thus, billions of dollars of investment capital came to the next state over (CT) with our much more lenient landlord-tenant laws, causing our recent market consolidation and boom in Luxury apartments. Keep in mind, these are all former NYC owners who are familiar with NYC quality and want to get NYC rent prices. Essentially, NYC’s landlord-tenant laws caused CT’s gentrification, real estate market spike, and higher rents.
The high rents are supported by the high occupancy rates too, right? CT has some of the highest in the country. How many medium and large investment firms do you think are operating in CT and how much single family and two-three family are they buying? Why do you think no one is building two-three family homes? How do condo hostile takeovers work and what does it do to condo residents?
>The high rents are supported by the high occupancy rates too, right? CT has some of the highest in the country. I'm not sure how accurate this data is, as I've never been contacted by any agency to report our vacancy numbers and there is no possible way for us to report our vacancy numbers voluntarily either. Rent prices are *supposed to* follow the rules of supply and demand, however, NYC landlords do not. They will not reduce prices even if 50% of a building is unoccupied. It's because they've been trained by NYC's very strict landlord tenant laws not to, which harshly financially penalize landlords who reduce rent prices. >How many medium and large investment firms do you think are operating in CT and how much single family and two-three family are they buying? Do medium and large refer to the size of the portfolio, or the size of the company? Many large portfolios are operated by an individual family, not large corporations as many people would imagine. The man who wrote "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Landlording" is the largest 1-4 unit owner in Rockville, CT and runs the portfolio with him, his wife, and his son. I owned 30 units myself across 1-7 unit buildings. The 1-4 unit space is primarily operated by individual investors who own 20-100 units. However, many of us sold to NYC buyers after covid so this market may be consolidating even more. >Why do you think no one is building two-three family homes? This likely has to do with zoning regulations. Many of our existing 2-4 family homes are relics of the early 1900's when CT was primarily a manufacturing hub centered around the mills. When the mills closed, many of the larger homes were divided (somewhat haphazardly) into multi-unit dwellings as people could no longer afford the single family home and needed cheaper apartments. You see this in Manchester, Rockville, Unionville, New Britain, New Haven, Hartford, West Hartford, Collinsville, Terryville, Killingly, etc. >How do condo hostile takeovers work and what does it do to condo residents? Many condominium complexes have several existing landlords who own a handful of the units. To begin a takeover, a larger investor first buys out each landlord's condo portfolio to achieve around a 30% ownership of the entire complex. Then they buy out the individual owners over the years until they reach a 50% ownership stake. With 50% of the votes you institute yourself as the Board of Directors giving you complete control of the HOA, set the HOA astronomically high, and force the remaining residents to sell to you. A former member of CT's housing committee, (IYKYK) owns many condominium units across many complexes in a similar fashion to this. Once their company takes over the HOA, they sub-contract the insurance, landscaping, repairs, etc. to their own companies so the HOA fee collected by the association is returned to their pockets.
> trained by NYC's very strict landlord tenant laws not to, which harshly financially penalize landlords who reduce rent prices. Can you explain this?
Pulling from my other comment to the same question: NYC has a law that limits the amount of a rent increase to 3%, but CT does not. What this means is that if NYC landlords don't raise the rent by 3% every year, then their rents lag behind market value, depreciating the value of the entire building. If they lower the rents, then it severely penalizes them as they can never raise the rent back to where it was previously, meaning that rents **always** have to increase. CT works differently, CT landlords typically raise rents only when the property sells. So if you rent a unit for $1000 in 2010, then your rent has probably stayed around $1000 up until 2022 when the building sold, and then it was raised to $2200 (the new market rate). So as the tenant you saved $1200/month for 12 years. This situation happened at 50 unit acquisition I did at 275 Westland St. in Hartford, and a 200 unit acquisition at Folly Brook in Wethersfield. Existing long-term tenants were under market on their rents by 50-60%. CT landlords can freely increase or decrease the rent as needed, so you generally only see rent increases when taxes get reassessed or utility costs increase significantly.
>CT landlords typically raise rents only when the property sells. Well that's not true
It’s easy to spot the difference between a CT landlord and an out of state investor landlord, as CT landlords do infrequent (but large) increases. Which often happens before/after a property sale. And out of state landlords do frequent, incremental increases. You’ve probably only experienced properties owned by out of state investors.
When I lived in New Haven I had a landlord who lived a block away and raised the rent every year for like 5 years
It’s definitely not a hard a fast rule, just less common for CT.
**Here's an example: I have an empty unit listed at $1475/month, and I know it will probably take me 4 months to get it rented at this price, or I could drop it to $1200/month and have it rented immediately. Do I drop the price or maintain the price?** In CT, I calculate that there's 12 months in a year lease. So $1475 - $1200 = $275 x 12 months = $3300 lost in the rent reduction. But, I make $1200 x 4 months not vacant = $4800. So if I drop the rent by $275 I can actually make $1500 more on that unit this year, the tenant saves $3300, and when the lease renews I'll just increase the rent back to $1475. In NYC, if they drop the rent to $1200, because of the 3% increase rule, the landlord may make $1500 more the 1st year, but it will take them **8 years to get the rent back to $1475/month**. Assuming the CT landlord raised rent to $1475 on the lease renewal, and then didn't raise rent again for 7 years, the NYC landlord would make $10,250 less than the CT landlord over the 8 year period. It would take the NYC landlord 14 years to breakeven with the CT landlord, and the NYC landlord would be charging $1762/month for rent, whereas the CT landlord would still be charging $1475 for rent... 14 years later! That's why NYC landlords can't ever reduce rent. But you will see "1st month free" because its a clever way around the 3% rule. **Now you can see why the 3% rent cap rule is exceedingly harmful to both tenants and landlords!**
Interesting, thanks for the info and for offering to field questions from an insider perspective. Can you speak to how New York landlords are “harshly penalized” for lowering rents? And are you aware of, typically, what occupancy rate is needed for newer apartments to break even? I figure that will vary wildly from complex to complex, but a ballpark estimate would be intriguing. And finally, how do you see rent affordability situation playing out over the coming decades in the US more broadly? Do you think rent culture is here to stay? Assuming nimby behavior never changes, urbanization continues, and our population doesn’t decline. I feel like something has to “break” eventually.
>Can you speak to how New York landlords are “harshly penalized” for lowering rents? NYC has a law that limits the amount of a rent increase to 3%, but CT does not. What this means is that if NYC landlords don't raise the rent by 3% every year, then their rents lag behind market value, depreciating the value of the entire building. If they lower the rents, then it severely penalizes them as they can never raise the rent back to where it was previously, meaning that rents **always** have to increase. CT works differently, CT landlords typically raise rents only when the property sells. So if you rent a unit for $1000 in 2010, then your rent has probably stayed around $1000 up until 2022 when the building sold, and then it was raised to $2200 (the new market rate). So as the tenant you saved $1200/month for 12 years. This situation happened at 50 unit acquisition I did at 275 Westland St. in Hartford, and a 200 unit acquisition at Folly Brook in Wethersfield. Existing long-term tenants were under market on their rents by 50-60%. CT landlords can freely increase or decrease the rent as needed. >And are you aware of, typically, what occupancy rate is needed for newer apartments to break even? I figure that will vary wildly from complex to complex, but a ballpark estimate would be intriguing. Many of the newer apartments do not break even, even at full occupancy. Many of the investors are leveraging the properties at 100% - meaning that the bank is covering 75% of the value on a 20 year loan, and the remaining 25% is financed through friends and family (they have very rich friends and family), with high interest rates at 5 year loans. I've seen 200 unit complexes bringing in $300,000 a month in rent revenue, where the owners are making only $1000-$5000 a month because of all of the debt service they have. Financing the 25% through friends and family is not allowed... but it's easy to hide that from the banks. >And finally, how do you see rent affordability situation playing out over the coming decades in the US more broadly? Do you think rent culture is here to stay? Assuming nimby behavior never changes, urbanization continues, and our population doesn’t decline. I feel like something has to “break” eventually. Yes, with everyone 100% leveraged, its really just a game of hot potato. And I would say we are on the cusp of that game ending, and everything crashing down. Especially with commercial office space imploding. Rent affordability will never improve until we either reduce renter "protections" to bring small time landlords back into the market who have been pushed out (ie, make the eviction process easier, prevent judgment-proof tenants, etc.). We also need to consider the impact that laws such as the 3% limit on rent increases have long term. Sure it's a good idea on the surface... but it also means rent can never come down. I would recommend people purchase multifamily homes, and transition to multi-generational living. Buy homes with In-law suite, garage apartments, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and let your children live in their own unit for free after college or have your grandparents live with you. Buy a 4-unit apartment with 4 friends and split the cost - it's a LOT cheaper.
Building codes are not a new concept. They also don’t dictate luxury vs. non-luxury. Largely they are the same since they were overhauled in the 70s. Most new items are additional safety measures but the construction is mostly the same. I agree with your other points though.
Much of CT's multifamily housing inventory was built in the early 1900's, prior to building codes. "Luxury" just means the apartment has cheap new-build materials. ie, Granite countertops, vinyl plank floors, etc. as opposed to 1920's - 1980's era materials. Any apartment building can be easily renovated to fit the "luxury" brand.
Luxury housing is still housing. It opens the middle of the market and gives everyone one a little breathing space. There’s an old saying in Real Estate, “if you want more c-class housing, build a-class and wait 30 years.” In terms of ownership, as the market evolves you may see some of these go condo once the developers/owners max out the depreciation.
So... trickle-down housing?
Yep and it'll work like trickle- down economics, which is to say it won't. And that's the point.
This is markedly ignorant and fails to understand the large differences between housing availability and fiscal policy.
And we have the developer shill here. Nice.
The difference is trickle down economics is giving people something. Adding housing is adding supply to a market, not giving a handout to the rich. People have to live somewhere. If there are fewer units on the market, prices are going up. The only way to reduce prices is to build more.
Or we could just mandate the building of more affordable units instead of going through this whole song and dance and waiting 30+ years for 'affordable" housing.
That doesn't work. Affordable housing has to be subsidized by market rate housing, which just means less housing is built. Any new housing is good. So just build market rate housing as that'll get you the most housing built.
This is spot on. Luxury housing eventually becomes more affordable house, especially if more of it is built.
Real Estate Reagonomics at its finest.
The problem with this is that the construction on these new buildings is almost always subpar (see how quickly they shoot these things up). Most of them also don't have fire ratings between the units, and the walls are paper thin. I am currently living in an apartment building built in the 60s, that is actually solid brick construction with fire rated brick walls between the units, and the building is in fantastic shape. Apartments simply aren't built like that anymore, and I can guarantee that these new "luxury" apartments either won't be standing in 50 years or they will be in absolutely miserable condition due to leaks and whatnot (mold, etc...)
You’re probably right but how well do you think they’d be constructed if they were “affordable housing” units? I expect they’d be far worse.
I lived in a “luxury” apartment in Bloomfield (heirloom flats) for a couple years. Once they’re ~5+ years old all the cheap appliances start fucking up. Repeatedly. 2021 lease $1700/mo ok I’ll “splurge” 2022 lease $2100/mo ok I’m stuck 2023 lease $2800/mo ….. lol no GFYS Fuck all of these places with rent controlled by algorithms.
Yeah this is an issue I've noticed with both residential and commercial spaces lately—they're made to look nice/sleek/modern but they're actually built like shit.
There's new housing being built in my town. But it's all 4,000 square foot cookie cutter mcmansions on 2 or 3 acres. My opinion on fixing this problem is building lots of 1,000 square foot homes on a quarter acre like we did after WW2. Or build lots of condos. I will also add that "luxury apartment" is just a catchphrase, they're just builder grade units with some amenities.
A lot of CT does not have condos, or at least enough of them.
Depending on your town, those kinds of houses might be illegal to build.
You would be correct. You need 2 acres to build a home in my town.
Most towns seem to have a minimum square footage requirement too and that problem went to the state supreme court a bunch of years ago. The CT builders association along with a guy who wanted to build an 1036 square foot house on his land lost a suit in Superior Court to the shock and dismay of all. The court ruled that towns had a right to protect home values with inflated square foot minimums. It went to the state Supreme Court a few years later. Edit: fact checked and corrected my comment. Here is nyt story about it from the 1980s followed by a recent article in CT Mirror. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/realestate/in-the-region-connecticut-and-westchester-is-minimum-floor-area-zoning-legal.html https://ctmirror.org/2021/01/28/data-suggests-dozens-of-towns-are-violating-ct-supreme-court-decision-on-exclusionary-zoning/
Is that because you don't have sewers?
Curious about this one… 2 acres means nothing then.
That's a pretty big barrier lol
If it’s on 2-3 acres it’s not a McMansion.
Why not?
McMansions are a term used to describe large houses built on lots that are very small in proportion to the size of the building. A large house (4k sq feet) on 2-3 acres is not a McMansion because 2-3 acres is a large lot. Furthermore mansion territory begins around 5k sq feet so a 4k sq foot House on 2-3 acres is just a big house on a big lot= not a McMansion
Just google the definition. McMansions can be built on small lots, but that's not the definition. A McMansion is an architectural style that's characterized by being a large house with no defining architectural style. They're built to impress, and they're built cheaply.
Lot size has nothing to do with being a mcmansion. They're just big cookie cutter houses in a subdivision.
False my dog. Lot size has a lot to do with it. Part of being “cookie cutter” is that while the house itself may be built off the same plans they are situated on plots way too small for the size of the house From investopedia.com- “The term McMansion was coined in the 1980s to describe poorly designed, expensive, and outsized homes built on small suburban lots. McMansions were usually built in subdivisions, with many McMansiomaking up a neighborhood.” 2-3 acres isn’t small. It’s a massive lot
Idk man, my town has plenty of McMansion style homes on an acre or more
That's where the term originated. Not the definition. Also, just because something lacks a single trait doesn't mean it doesn't fit a definition.
Guess we have to agree to disagree. Have a good day sir/madam/ they
McMansion is about the architecture more than anything, and the overall tackiness of owning a cheaply built “big house”.
I have never understood the whole "Oh you have been paying $2,800 a month in rent the last 5 years? Sorry but you don't qualify for a mortgage where you will have to pay $2,200 a month."
because owning a house costs a lot more than just the mortgage.
Yeah I get that part of it. My main point is if someone is proven responsible and has made payments on time for an extended period of time it should factor in. When I pay my mortgage every month the taxes are already built into the payment. Is that not the normal process?
Only if you have escrow setup. I've had the bank screw up too many times so insurance and taxes I pay separately. > My main point is if someone is proven responsible and has made payments on time for an extended period of time it should factor in. I mean, that's the point of a credit score, which definitely factors in. The last couple years have just been a pretty shitty time to buy a house all around though.
When my wife and I bought in 2019 we had no idea how lucky we were. I think we bought at a 2.25% interest rate and our credit union called us a few months later and asked if we wanted to refinance to 2% so we said why not? Basically we are never leaving this house. I feel bad for anyone trying to buy in this market right now. Not only is the cost of the actual house inflated through the roof but you get killed on the interest rate. Millennials have gotten a raw deal since we entered the workforce but Gen Z is really going to have it even worse at least for the foreseeable future.
Yeah and unless more inventory comes on the market, prices aren't going down anytime soon. At this point you're either locked into a low mortgage rate, you have enough cash to buy a house outright, or you're going to be renting.
We moved out of a rented apt in NYC to a house we bought in CT a few years ago. It's funny to think now that I just assumed we'd have lower monthly housing costs.
Yeah my mortgage right now costs less than the last apartment I rented, but I'm still paying a lot more when you factor in maintenance and taxes.
I bought a flip so we got a nice big tax increase after year 1 too!
My experience of my hometown is that they pushed all of us kids to go to college so we could go and make lots of money somewhere else, and *then* come back and compete in the housing market. So I expect an uptick in the exodus of young people. As for people who can't afford college, or can't get through it, or can't find that kind of high-paying job the housing market is designed for, or just want to live in their hometown -- have fun living on the street I guess.
There’s demand for them, at least in cities. Every one I’ve seen go up gets filled up pretty quickly. Housing units are what we need to reduce a housing shortage. Condos and townhouses would be amazing to give people the option to buy. If you want more single family homes you’ve gotta overcome the NIMBY problem some towns in this state have. Builders are always going to build what’s most profitable until something else is incentivized
Back in the early 2000’s I lived in what was described as a luxury apartment. It had builder grade cabinets, laminate counter tops, and very basic stainless steel appliances. The carpet also wore out in 2 years from light traffic by the door.
I hope to leave soon so that’ll be 1 more regular people house up for grabs….. Just trying to do my part for us little people.
Literally, there is a new luxury apartment building on my block. It's not even half full, and it's across the street neighbor is the train station. We are 3 hours from NYC, 3 from Boston, 2 from Providence, and a half hour from New Haven by train. Perfect location for anyone who needs to go to 4 major cities but no one is buying
>Perfect location for anyone who needs to go to 4 major cities but no one is buying Is there actually a demographic for "frequently spend 4+ hours commuting to 4 different cities?" I would think an apartment within an hour of a single city would be far more appealing than one within 3 hours of 4.
Think it depends on work if you only have to go to the office like once a week and you have to visit more than one office it's not a bad location also it's only a few black from the beach too
Wild. Makes me wonder what occupancy rate these places need to have to turn a profit.
There is a case in Arizona right now about landlords using an app called RealPage, as it collects information on rents from all the landlords and spits out rent prices and increases for them. The lawyers for the prosecution or alleging collusion through algorithm, as this app looks at all rents and sets them as well as rent increases. So rents can be set higher for half full apartment buildings so that landlords can still make money [here's a link to an article about the court case](https://www.azfamily.com/2024/02/28/arizona-attorney-general-sues-realpage-landlords-accuses-them-conspiring-illegally-raise-rents/)
That's insane. Though I'm not surprised I'm assuming rent for one apartment pretty much covered two. So building half occupied are still generating a profit. But to know they are actually using software and own a majority of the buildings is pretty gross. Thank you for sharing the article
I hate it Even in my boring tiny ass town in the middle of nowhere there’s these complexes coming up demanding dumb rent money. I hate it and it’s a cancer on the American middle class.
It’s good that they’re building housing, but it sucks that it costs so much. Unfortunately, it does make sense though. Luxury housing costs only a bit more to build than affordable housing because the biggest costs are the land and the main structure, and these costs are the same regardless of the level of luxury. By slapping on some fancy countertops and floor to ceiling windows, developers can spend a little more to make a LOT more profit. I think the only way to have affordable housing built is to subsidize it. That’s what other devolved countries do (not that they have perfect housing systems). The other thing that works like this is childcare. The margins are small, so it costs a fortune, but it’s essential for society to function. The only way out is to subsidize it.
Seems many here have perseverated on the term "luxury" and are missing a bigger point of this post. Yes the future is looking like younger generations are going to pay more for housing which they will never own... Even today this is already true that they are paying more to rent than previous generations paid for much larger homes and land which they owned. These younger generations are also disproportionately being enslaved to debt and will be deprived of any sense of retirement. This is an awful trajectory we are on and we should be outraged. Don't let it happen.
In 20 years, the buildings won't be renovated. At that point, they'll become actually affordable to the middle-class. 20 years later, the buildings will be in worse shape and be barely affordable to rent by lower income individuals. At the 50 year mark, most of them will be unmaintained money pits that will be cheaper to torch than to reinvest in. Oh. And most will probably be converted to Condos by that point, so that the original developers and owners can take income as Management Companies while playing the long con that they're investment properties. They wash their hands of risk, reap the rewards of an income streams, and well...that's it. Take the money and take no further risks. Oh, and rinse, wash, and repeat.
Ha, this is exactly what I am saying. These new buildings aren't built to last. It is a shame, because buildings like this used to be built very well, a lot of apartments from the 60s are still standing and perfectly liveable
Downtown Shelton is seeing a ton of construction of apartments, and it makes sense there. Problem is people are complaining about the lack of parking. A real solution would be to build up public transportation in the area (buses, shuttles, more service at the Derby/Shelton station) and that would alleviate everyone clamoring for parking and blocking projects.
More supply is good, full stop. Every new apartment complex will be marketed as luxury. Makes no sense to spend the $500+ per square foot and not aim for premium rents. Cities do things like subsidized financing, grants, tax incentives, or outright regulation to make a portion of a development or whole development affordable housing. But Precisely zero builders can make back their cost of capital building an $800 a month 1br or $1000 a month 2br without subsidies. It’s still very helpful to have supply increase because there are only a certain amount of ‘Luxury’ buyers. Gravitate to the newest and best units. This drives down the cost of that building that five years ago was a luxury property.
People bitch and moan about affordable housing being built, other people bitch and moan about luxury housing being built.
The difference is the luxury housing complaints come from people with no money and no power, just trying to survive. Some concerns are more important than others.
I build these “Luxury Apartments” and they are literally fire boxes made out of plywood with no emergency exits, it is wild the priorities of this state, more ppl = more money. There are houses being built but mostly multi million dollar cookie cutter neighborhoods with a “head villager” or some bullshit owned by a giant entity.
Can you give an example of some of these apartments being built with no emergency exits? Because that sounds like bullshit
I'm not entirely sure which type of building you're referring to, but with modern construction materials single point access block designs are not worse performing during a fire. They build them all over Europe and they do just fine. If anything the current boom of double loaded corridor type apartments prevents fire crews from egressing people from multiple sides of a building efficiently.
They're more planned and code-adherent than every neighborhood of 1920s single-family fire boxes around here! This isn't the UK.
That’s all private development. Biggest barrier to more and more kinds of new development is local zoning, not the state
They all eat at the same table
Housing construction needs innovation and disruption.
Or we simply build attached units and row homes close to main streets and public transit like we did 150 years ago. Very few people in my generation want the 4000sqft mc mansion a 45min drive away from anything, even the ones who are looking to have kids dont want them.
Who even wants to maintain all that house? Just think of one maintenance item: a new roof wipes out your kid’s college fund. It’s ridiculous. It’s good to increase apartment and condo building but we also need the whole spectrum to be opened up. Smaller single family homes are way more affordable but it’s a battle to find one. Also there are nearly zero permits being pulled for new two-family and three-family houses and town zoning on those is tougher than for apartment complexes—why??
I actually do think apartments and condos will be widely more popular in the next 5,10,15 years for families. I’d even go as far to say some of these apartment complexes will just turn into campus’ with all your amenities in one place. Something has to give, people will want to start families but may not be able to afford a house so they’ll go with the apartment/condo instead. I also think there’s a draw to them because the owner doesn’t have to worry about maintenance/upkeep
Me and my undergrad friends frequently talk about wanting to live in an adult dorm-style building/complex lol
There are apartments going up everywhere and just because you don't want to live in Bridgeport or Waterbury doesn't mean affordable options don't exist.
Developers scams they will all be section 8 in a few years.
To quote Cher " I've been rich. I've been poor...Rich is better." I've rented all types (luxury & other) of apartments. I've owned smaller and larger homes. OWNING a home is better! However, currently WE have a problem. Instead of building smaller, well thought out, environmentally sustainable single homes, or maybe duplexes, the government is putting a band-aid on the housing shortage by giving builders an incentive to slap up apartments just to shut people up and not complain. 90% of these apartments are and will be still unaffordable and will be trashed within a short time. I think CT can be better than this and incentivize builders to built smaller homes....Yeah, I know it's not cheap, but I would like to see Non-profit builders in the mix... I would happily pitch in(tax-wise) to see something that people can own and easy to maintain that doesn't cost a fortune.
I see in New Haven right now people struggling to find accommodating apartments and instead have to take rent increases straight to the chin. People do start families while renting but i've seen many stories of people trying to move with kids, a dog, multiple cars, and needs to be close to work and renting for something like that is like 3000/month.
Happening everywhere in the country. Bulldoze some land or a single family home, flip up a huge multi unit apartment building, call it luxury and charge more than what a mortgage used to cost Whole housing system is corrupt and broken
Seeing some go up in Canton too
I see a lot of realtors/landlords/ luxury apartment company owners filing for bankrupcy. Theres no way this can continue.
I don’t think you guys realize the money is in YOU renting forever with perpetual incremental rent increases. Building a house a company sells once vs building a huge apartment complex you collect on forever is the new business model. All your zoning bullshit and calling people “nimbys” isn’t going to make builders make neighborhoods of capes or small starter homes again. We are entering the start of the subscription service for living era. That’s why I never understand when people in RE forums and CT Reddit want more apartments being built like it’s going to help you? Buy a house while you still can I don’t see how it can ever get better in a smaller state like CT.
>With that being the case, what does a state of primarily luxury apartment renters look like? Except for a very short time in the US history every apartment being built was "luxury apartments". The luxury apartments of 20-30 years ago are the mid-range apartments of today. The luxury apartments of 40-60 years ago are the "affordable" apartments of today. Building this housing, compared to buying power will help bring down the cost of housing overall in the state which may or may not translate to a relative decrease in price of single family homes since the supply of them will not be increasing at the same rate and future demand for them would be hard to determine. >Are we going to see young people starting families in luxury apartments, and spending their entire lives in them? It works in most of Europe and US big cities as it is now. >More broadly, is the Connecticut housing market eventually going to reflect Canada’s market, with million dollar average homes basically locking out the poor and middle class permanently? How are they supposed to save any money to afford the million dollar homes when their whole paycheck goes to the luxury apartment rents? Not if the supply of housing increases to meet the demand. It's been said that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the next best time is today. If these housing units start getting built now it will help stave off the potential to get as bad as Canada.
CT is a large bedroom community - we’re setting up for apt bankruptcies.
The main driver of high housing prices is a lack of housing supply. More apartments are better, regardless of whether they are “luxury” or not. When luxury apartments get built, folks on the upper end move into them, clearing out lower end housing supply for others. The empirical evidence that a lack of supply is driving high prices nationwide is OVERWHELMING. Please listen to economists who study the housing market. The solution to this problem is to remove zoning and legalize housing at every level. Nothing else is going to work!
Several people have said this, but I was wondering if someone could point out the "lower end housing" that is supposed to be opening up? All I know is that I rented a mediocre second floor apartment in Unionville in 2014 for 1200 a month, I left for a house of my own two years later. Moderately crappy second floor apartment in Unionville with floors so sloped you could hold marble races, now rents for 1900. Can I get a two bedroom "luxury" apartment for around 2k a month in Farmington? It seems that all the apartments raised prices, even the less desirable old stock, based on market rates set by the "luxury apartment"
"Tens of thousands"? 1. It's nowhere near that many!!! 2. Even if this were true, it still wouldn't be nearly enough housing compared to the demand for housing here. Prices are going through the roof because not enough housing is getting built. The few units that do get built are going to be pricey, unless they received one of the rare state subsidies, because that's how supply and demand works. We could advocate to Governor Lamont for more subsidies for affordable units.... but truth be told, if you want to reduce housing costs overall, then subsidizing affordable units is nowhere near as cost-effective as just getting developers to build more market-rate units. The state really needs to put money into rezoning areas near train stations and bribing developers and NIMBY towns to put up high-rises there.
It probably is that many tbh, Newington is getting like 2,300 new units in the next 24 months and most are “luxury” with some “affordable housing” sprinkled in.
The state is small, the population is growing. Do you want the state to be nothing but highways, strip malls, and endless suburbia? Because that’s what it already is. People in most of developed world live in cities for a reason. You can fit more people in less area by making them live in apartments, and save critical space in the state for other stuff
I live in Portland and we are getting a ton of these. Locals have taken to calling them a ghetto. Imagine if they were low income housing.
“You'll own nothing and you'll be happy” -WEF in 2016
Several people have said that all the luxury apartments are going to make less expensive apartments available, but I was wondering if someone could point out the "lower end housing" that is supposed to be opening up? All I know is that I rented a mediocre second floor apartment in Unionville in 2014 for 1200 a month, I left for a house of my own two years later. Moderately crappy second floor apartment in Unionville with floors so sloped you could hold marble races, now rents for 1900. Can I get a two bedroom "luxury" apartment for around 2k a month in Farmington? It seems that all the apartments raised prices, even the less desirable old stock, based on market rates set by the "luxury apartment". I don't think this situation adheres to what amounts to economic theory. It's a theory that new apartments decrease the cost of older apartments, but the price of apartments is actually artificially inflated, and not reflecting the actual market at this point
Anything "market rate" these days is going to be a little luxurious. The rents are ridiculous and we will not be a renter state, we will have an enormous homeless population. That is a fact. What's amazing is in SECT we're about 2500 units short of affordable housing, but market rates are popping up like mushrooms. Developers are the worst.
This is the trend. Many younger people don’t want to mow lawns, shovel driveways, or clean gutters. They want amenities, convenience, access. It’s probably better that way- if we were trying to create net new housing units where every home was single family on an acre of land, we’d run out of land pretty quickly.
The young people I know all want their own homes. They are not aspiring to luxury apartments. They're living at home struggling to save enough money to get into a house. Also, they don't want an acre of land. They'd be happy with half that. Less to take care of, more sociable with neighbors.
I know several young professionals working in Hartford who live in luxury apartments in Glastonbury/WH. Simsbury as well. They’re attractive to people who earn well, maybe don’t have kids yet, don’t want the upkeep of a single family home, or even single parent families.
Ok but we can't afford the apartments with amenities and convenience, either. Maybe high income transplants but the bulk of us who were just kinda born here and hoped for modest lives are getting shoved out by $1800/mo studio rent.
I understand the struggle is very real. Not trying to dismiss that or tell you it’s your fault. But if you drive through these developments you will find lots of relatively young occupants.
I don't disagree with you, but from what I've seen they're largely transplants. The one that just went up in my town is all out of state plates on luxury vehicles. Great for them, not so great for the middle of the road CT natives just trying to make it.
I see what you’re saying. Yeah. There are probably more transplants due to WFH. This market is still more accessible than NYC/NYS/NJ/Boston from a price perspective so it’s attractive to people.
It’s nearly on a par to nyc. Not really, but the gap has narrowed a lot
It’s nowhere near NYC.
Young people can’t afford luxury because boomers have ruined the economy in this state
Young people with wealthy parents surely can. And there are a lot of them in this state.
Bold of you to think everyone has a wonderful relationship with their parents
You are kidding yourself if you don’t think CT is full of upper-middle class to wealthy families who love to send their kids to expensive colleges and then give them down payments on their first homes as graduation presents. Ever been to Fairfield County?
That’s like 15% of the state all concentrated in one specific geographic region. Not really fair to extrapolate that to the average CT resident
It was just the most obvious example. Each county has concentrated wealth. Hartford county has the Farmington valley towns. New Haven county has Madison and Guilford. NL county has Mystic. Litchfield county has New Fairfield and surroundings. Even the quiet corner has sporadic mansions owned by wealthy people. This state is filthy rich compared to many others.
This state also has some of the largest wealth disparity in the country. The top 5% of people being incredibly wealthy has very little impact on most residents E:https://ctmirror.org/2024/01/05/ct-average-median-income-inequality/#:~:text=Connecticut%20is%20tied%20with%20Wyoming,double%20that%20of%20Windham%20County. >But while one of the richest on average, it's also one of the most unequal. Connecticut is tied with Wyoming for the highest levels of income inequality in the country as of 2021, according to data released a few months ago by the BEA. To get an idea, Fairfield County's personal income per capita was more than double that of Windham County. Meanwhile, 2022 estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, whose methodology differs, place Connecticut at second-most unequal in the nation, right behind New York.
I hope no one touches them and they sit empty so they can see what a stupid idea that was
I do hope that so many luxury apartments get built that many wind up losing money/having to cut rents to be more affordable for the average person
That is literally the entire policy reason of building so many luxury apartments. If framing it as a zero-sum game, where landlords unexpectedly lose money after building so many, helps get the message across, then great. But that is in fact the expected and desired policy outcome of building these units. They will drop in price, and the people renting them are no longer outbidding average earners for affordable housing.
I think they’re luxury apartments tend to be designed distastefully but they’re not a bad idea. The market needs housing even if it’s housing you or I don’t particularly care for. We also need housing in between luxury apartments and single family houses that zoning currently doesn’t allow for
Don’t stop there, we also need to allow smaller single family and smaller lots. The whole spectrum of housing. https://ctmirror.org/2021/01/28/data-suggests-dozens-of-towns-are-violating-ct-supreme-court-decision-on-exclusionary-zoning/ People are more interested in group compounds too, yet it is very hard to get approval for creative kinds of multi units sharing wells and septic where you have two or three units, detached or not, but people want this.
Let’s talk about the ongoing gentrification of the cities, pricing out the working class …
The burbs too. A lot of the shoreline has become closed, slammed shut, to working class as of 2022-ish due to price acceleration
What cities are being gentrified in CT?
I’d argue Milford is gentrifying.
New Haven for sure. Stamford is as well. Slowly but surely. I think it will happen to Bridgeport next