Bedroom-developing (24
percent of population, 57 communities). Bedroom-developing communities are
what many would regard as prototypical suburbs—fast-growing communities of
mostly low-density residential development. Indeed, with their higher-achieving
schools, spacious new homes and low levels of congestion, these places appear to
offer an alternative to declining communities at the urban core.
But
the resulting growth can erode their advantages over time. Nearly half of the
land in Connecticut that urbanized during the 1980s and 1990s was in these
communities. This level of growth causes stress, as valued open space is lost to
development and traffic congestion makes getting around more and more difficult.
It also has serious fiscal implications. On average, property tax bases in this
group are above the state average, but growing slowly—slower, even, than in
the central cities and at-risk categories
From
CT Metropatterns, page 3
All types of communities are hurt by the way Connecticut is growing Nearly two-thirds of the state’s population—65 percent—lives in cities or suburbs struggling with social or fiscal stresses. Stressed suburbs have problems typically associated with large cities, including weak tax bases and significant and growing poverty in their schools. At-risk suburbs must cope with continuing population growth and increasing social needs with below average tax bases that are barely growing. Fringe-developing places have fewer social needs, but are facing growth-related costs with stagnant, below-average tax bases and modest household incomes.
Even middle-class, bedroom-developing suburbs struggle to provide needed schools and infrastructure with largely residential tax bases. Just a small share of the population lives in affluent suburbs with expensive housing and plentiful commercial development. But even these places are suffering from the loss of valued open space, growing traffic congestion resulting from inefficient development and the extra costs felt statewide as a result of highly concentrated poverty.
From CT Metropatterns, p. 3