Central cities (14 percent of the state’s
population, 4 communities): As a group, Connecticut’s central cities are severely stressed.
These places must provide for their great social needs with tax resources less
than half the statewide average and growing at one-eighth of the average rate.
Their school poverty rates—measured by eligibility for the federal free-lunch
program in elementary schools—are nearly three times the statewide average of
28 percent. Three of every four elementary students in the central cities are
eligible. These factors dramatically hurt the prospects of these cities,
discouraging investment and dramatically limiting the opportunities of
residents.
Despite these troubling traits, cities also have strengths—among them colleges and universities, historic buildings, arts and entertainment venues and attractive public spaces—that help them survive despite their difficulties. Although slipping slightly, the state’s large cities continue to have by far the greatest density of jobs of any community type, and they also have an above-average concentration of jobs to residents. Because cities have relatively high densities and central locations, residents have the highest rate of mass transit use of any community type and among the shortest average commute times.
From CT
Metropatterns, p.2
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