Submitted by Both-Level-6493 t3_1140r78 in StamfordCT
Comments
Both-Level-6493 OP t1_j8ugzb3 wrote
You’re right! But I need a one bedroom that’s not going to cost me over $3000 a month (all inclusive). Any recommendations?
Pinkumb t1_j8wvn6j wrote
Look outside of downtown. Classic channels: Facebook marketplace, craigslist, flyers in grocery stores. There is a lot of apartment inventory north of Hoyt Street but you'll never find it by googling "apartments in Stamford." All the big companies dominate search engines. Woodside Green is a good example, but there are many more.
doggyloggy100 t1_j94nxat wrote
Sorry to necro this sub, but I just went through the apartment search in Stamford. Check out Village on Bedford St. They were running a great deal on 1 bed apartments. One unit had a price for under $2,000 after all amenity fees and such. Stamford corners had well priced 2 bed units. Parallel 44 had good units and prices too.
Now you’re right, after utilities and other bills, they’re all going to add a few hundred to your monthly ticket, but to say they’re all $3k+ means you’re looking at Summer House or Urby (both of which were great, I just couldn’t stomach the prices lol)
Alex3917 t1_j8u3fat wrote
> Additionally, the luxury apartments naturally attract high-performing, highly mobile, high-earners early in their career.
I get that for the 20-somethings, but how is it that even though more luxury buildings are built every year, the poverty rate is also going up every year? The public schools are now up to 57% FRPL the last time I checked. This is the only city I've ever seen that seems to be both gentrifying and getting poorer at the same time.
The-Magic-Sword t1_j8uctt5 wrote
The inequality is increasing if I had to guess, with some families still in homes they actually own outright but without the income that would now be required to back it up.
Pinkumb t1_j8wwy8e wrote
Yes, exactly.
Pinkumb t1_j8wwuam wrote
The increase in value is the result of property prices going up. If you don't own property (like a home), you're not capturing any of that new wealth. Even if you do own property, you're not capturing the increase until you sell your home. If you purchased a home 10 years ago, then the increase of your property value has resulted in a much higher property tax every 3-4 years (whenever the citywide evaluation is done). So your costs have gone up and you're feeling the squeeze. Unless you sell, which most people don't want to do if they have a life here already. Of course, I would guess most families using FRPL are renting and don't own property.
This is another reason why anti-development is counterintuitive but it's specifically for an argument that rich people don't like. If you build more housing, then property values won't be artificially inflated due to a shortage. This means property values... won't go up as much. Of course, if you're already wealthy and you're living within your means you want property to increase in value so you can get a return on your investment (owning property).
One thing you could do is build more of the "missing middle." Condos and multifamily homes. This is property that renters could reasonably afford without necessarily impacting the property value of homes because people who want homes — outside the city, big yard, away from downtown — don't want a condo. But the city doesn't build those units because they change the "character of the neighborhood." They'll say they care about parking and water/drought, but it just so happens it prevents "poor people" (i.e. someone who is not rich) to move into the neighborhood.
Also minor point, Stamford doesn't fit the definition of gentrification. All of the new housing is built on dilapidated land, brownfields, or formerly industrial zoning. With the exception of the Smith which replaced affordable housing, but that's because the owners sold it since they couldn't maintain it anymore. To the extent people are getting "priced out of their neighborhood" it's because of the lack of housing being built, not because old housing is being replaced with expensive housing.
heutral t1_j8xd9gd wrote
the high schools free and reduced is a bit higher too cuz a lot of families with the means pull their kids out of the public schools for high school bc they have a not so good reputation
heutral t1_j8x968u wrote
the stamford lowest crime rate is a myth. 2/5 of stamford geographically and 1/10 population wise is north stamford (north of the merrit), which is basically a very wealthy neighborhood with 0 crime and poverty. When you factor in Westover and Shippan (neighborhoods of the same character that are pretty much isolated from the rest of stamford and have 0 crime 0 poverty), and just consider Stamford to be downtown, its inner city, and its working and middle class suburbs, it's just as dangerous as anywhere else. Before the south end started gentrifying it was even worse. it's not NYC by any means but in parts it might as well be.
wheresmylife t1_j8yxock wrote
Wow what a brilliant take. So basically, if you remove the safe parts of somewhere the crime statistics look worse? Who would have thought! I mean, it’s not like every city has safe and dangerous parts, this is totally just a Stamford phenomenon.
heutral t1_j9qsvvo wrote
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Pinkumb t1_j8xb6h1 wrote
Nothing you've said suggests the fact Stamford has the lowest violent crime per capita is a "myth." You have discovered the concept of geography and population centers — concepts that exist everywhere else too — but they don't impact the data.
On average, in general, Stamford is safer than other cities in New England with a population above 100k. In fact, it is the safest. This does not mean crime doesn't exist. It means if you're looking to buy a house, Stamford is very attractive compared to alternatives (NYC, Bridgeport, New Haven, Norwalk).
CiforDayZServer t1_j8tlzkr wrote
Because investment companies own all the buildings. They raise rents consistently every year regardless of the market.
In addition, banks and investment companies bought up TONS of houses and just sit on them waiting for peak market, even then, tons of them don’t ever get put on the market. They’ve realized that holding the depreciated asset can be worth more than booking the loss by selling houses that have fallen into disrepair while being sat on.
I looked at a 2 family split in cove 8 years ago that popped into the market for a week, then they pulled it. I live near there now and last time I checked it was still empty.
Then, just to top it off, there are thousands of illegal rentals in Stamford, where someone owns a house and rents out a room or each level, or every room on every level of a house that was meant for a single family.
Artificial scarcity and proximity to job markets that pay VERY well… great recipe for endlessly appreciating property values.
Pinkumb t1_j8tp8t1 wrote
>Then, just to top it off, there are thousands of illegal rentals in Stamford, where someone owns a house and rents out a room or each level, or every room on every level of a house that was meant for a single family.
You are describing a symptom of high cost of housing, not a cause of it.
CiforDayZServer t1_j8tvjj9 wrote
Yes that one item is a symptom, the rest are very real reasons behind the high rents.
PowerfulStrings t1_j8tkfrb wrote
Tell me about it. I’m about to move to North Carolina. I can get a luxury 2br for 1k less than my 1br in Stamford. It’s madness and Stamford is not so special to be asking for this much in rent.
Jimalo69 t1_j8tpf2r wrote
Ur not actually paying for stamford tho. Ur paying for nyc, and stamford is still awesome
PowerfulStrings t1_j8tq0jx wrote
I like Stamford, but it’s way too overpriced. If it was decently priced I’d rather stay here. But the fact that I’m making 80k+ and would have to live in a tiny studio on my own in order for me to afford it is ridiculous.
Evolving_Dore t1_j8udh4u wrote
Can I ask where in Stamford you've been living? I'm moving there in a few months for a job that pays...substantially less than that. I've been looking at housing options and I'm certainly going to have to downsize, but I haven't been unable to find 1 br apartments totally outside my price range. A studio really isn't an option for me, so I'd get a roommate before I had a studio, but I think I'm going to be able to manage a 1 br.
PowerfulStrings t1_j8uf6b6 wrote
I live in harbor landing, it’s right across the water from harbor point. To give you some insight, when I first moved here the absolute cheapest I could find was a 350sqft studio for $1,250 on the tail end of lockdown. That same studio goes for almost $1,500 now. You can probably find a non luxury 1br for around $1,800 at best. Atleast in Stamford.
Evolving_Dore t1_j8ufsbb wrote
I'm mostly looking on the outskirts of Stamford, and in communities like Norwalk and Greenwich, maybe as far as White Plains or Bedford Hills. I'm certainly not looking for a luxury apartment, and $1800 is a realistic target for my budget.
I'm excited to move to the community! I know it's going to be expensive, but fortunately I've saved up enough that month-to-month won't be a problem.
PowerfulStrings t1_j8ugd4p wrote
That’s great, best of luck to you! Stamford is a really nice place, the rent is my only complaint. And wow $1,800 is out of my range personally, between my car payment, insurance and other bills $1,500 would be my upper limit to pay myself. Atleast while still trying to save and do an occasional outing.
Evolving_Dore t1_j8uif1c wrote
I mean, I'd definitely rather not pay $1800 a month, the price of groceries and stuff will definitely eat into my savings somewhat. Hopefully after the first year I'm either able to make more money, find some hidden nook that's a bit more affordable, or find someone with whom to share a 2 br. It's all uncharted territory from here, but I'm really excited to start working there.
Both-Level-6493 OP t1_j8ugr1k wrote
I’m new to Connecticut and have been staying at my grandmother’s in Greenwich. I’ve been trying to find my own place. Greenwich prices are actually higher than Manhattan. So I was advised to look into Stamford as it’s much cheaper. The minimum 1 bedroom is at $2500 excluding monthly amenities, trash, parking, and pet fees! Looked into downtown, harbor point, and other places. If you have recommendations, please share!
PowerfulStrings t1_j8uhus2 wrote
I just looked on apartments.com and set the filter to $1,500 or less and a couple private listings popped up. Those are probably your best bet.
Both-Level-6493 OP t1_j8uhzis wrote
Thank you!
Evolving_Dore t1_j8ui628 wrote
Might have to scratch Greenwich off the list, although it's all up to whatever place I happen to find that's within my budget. I've seen a few affordable places in Greenwich, but they certainly aren't luxury apartments.
Shortchange96 t1_j8tq2yc wrote
We’ve found Jimmy McMillan’s Reddit account
jay5627 t1_j8uch9o wrote
NYC has seen rents sky rocket as well. With a convenient train to get people into Midtown, and relative rents much cheaper in Stamford, a lot of NYC people are moving north and happily paying the prices
sventimal t1_j8wtdnj wrote
The people love Stamford
Witness_Original t1_j8xkxph wrote
I'm a lifer. Been here for most of my 39 years...until about three months ago.
I was living with my parents and helping them out a bit. They're looking to hopefully sell and make a move south within the next 6 months to a year, so I figured I'd look for my own place.
Even though I make $70K, for rent, I intentionally budgeted as if I made $10K less, +/- $100. I wanted to be able to have some kind of life outside of work and home...and perhaps be able to stash some money away.
It just wasn't happening here. I thought I'd be able to find something in my budget in maybe Norwalk, but nope, it's gotten just as bad there. One studio I looked at there was $1500/month!
I now live in Black Rock (Bridgeport). I found a nice little studio for like $1200 a month. I still work in Stamford, so, yeah, the commute isn't great. Even if I budget in another $100/month for gas, I'm still paying less than I would be if I stayed here.
My friends are still here as are my parents (at least for now), so I still spend a ton of time down here. I'm hoping the market will cool down eventually but unfortunately, I don't see it happening any time soon. Given the right opportunity, I'd totally move back.
[deleted] t1_j8wj1vc wrote
[deleted]
heutral t1_j8x8ffr wrote
all the fucking New Yorkers #yankeegohome
Pinkumb t1_j8tp1d0 wrote
Pretty straightforward answer
As a result, the market understands it can price a premium on a limited quantity. New luxury apartments go up and they are reliably more expensive than the previous luxury apartments. They're more expensive because they're "newer," but meanwhile the old inventory isn't having any problems filling up. This is an indication that the slow increase in supply cannot meet the rapid increase in demand.
Why do people want to live in Stamford?
Which is to say, the only way you can decrease the demand is to change these things. Crime goes up, parks become dilapidated, employers leave the area, and therefore people leave the area. None of that is going to happen because the momentum is too strong. Businesses have moved here in droves (more people commute into Stamford than leave), their workforce is coming with them, that increase in residents results in more tax dollars to spend on services like parks maintenance and police.
The only option is to build more housing. Your local board actively fights against that. They complain there's too many cars, too many people, drought problems, and changes to the "character of the neighborhood." They're your problem.