You must log in or register to comment.

No-Ant9517 t1_jd803rl wrote

What does “luxury rental” even mean anymore it seems like the “luxury” is that it’s new construction and not run down


namastayhom33 t1_jd82wao wrote

Cheap parts that look expensive so they can jack up the price.


DiabolicalGooseHonk t1_jdazg3q wrote

My old apartment complex in Newington advertises their apartments as “luxury.” Carpets and linoleum, white appliances, Formica countertops. They re-stained and polyurethaned the doors without cleaning them so there were long strands of hair sealed onto the door surfaces.



welcomebackjelly t1_jd85jb9 wrote

Luxury actually does have standards for construction, it’s anything above builder grade. The reason we have so many luxury apartments is that you can’t charge high enough rent on builder grade build outs to make a profit


ioncloud9 t1_jd934yk wrote

Builder grade is boob lights, no fans, Home Depot cabinets, uneven tile floors, flat white paint, the cheapest carpet imaginable, laminated counter tops.


IsThatYourBed t1_jd9e8o0 wrote

Which is exactly what was in my last "luxury" apartment. It had black appliances instead of white though so it was "upgraded" according to the leasing office


mkt853 t1_jd83fut wrote

It means it has nice new shiny appliances.


shnu t1_jd9fh6j wrote

Run down was the luxury of yesterday.

That's what wear and tear and regular use does.


Justagreewithme t1_jdb9u3t wrote

I’ve done work with toll brothers and their stuff seemed pretty decent. I’d buy from them.


Miles_vel_Day t1_jd8g462 wrote

Another 100 of these and we'll be on our way to being a state where renters don't have to shovel half their income to their landlords...

Yes, there are only 37 "affordable units," according to whatever stupid regulation that gets them their tax break for shoe-horning them in, but every unit of housing that gets built ultimately works toward making housing more affordable for everybody. (My wife and I make six times the poverty level and would still appreciate cheaper housing!)

It's in a great walkable area, accessible to transit... really you couldn't ask for a better new development than this - at least under the current status quo of all development being undertaken by private enterprise.


johnsonutah t1_jd8ujg4 wrote

Agree it’s exactly what ct need. There’s no excuse not develop around transit oriented areas like Norwalk


Miles_vel_Day t1_jd8z3gm wrote

I'm an easterner so I always get sticker shock whenever I look anywhere in the 203, but it's always seemed like a great place to live from the train.


jgjgleason t1_jdbczuc wrote

Noroton heights needs to be turned into a series of mid rises.


Luis__FIGO t1_jda2keg wrote

Would be nice of some of the tax revenue from these develoent went to improving public transportation, making sidewalks better, working on traffic flow etc.

Property developers are getting rich while everyone who lives in the area deals with way to many people for what the roads were built for. Not just norwalk either obviously


Itsmoney05 t1_jdbypu2 wrote

Tax break? It's called incusionary zoning. Requires developers to deem 10% of building as affordable housing. Otherwise they can pay the city a fee so the city can invest in affordable housing as they please, give it to nonprofits, etc.


Miles_vel_Day t1_jdcn2sd wrote

Thanks for the explanation, certainly more specific than my "whatever."


tantrumbicycle t1_jd8d5rf wrote

Fairfield County does not need more “luxury” anything. I’d like some halfway decent middle class rentals, please.


gorpee t1_jd90rvy wrote

If the people of Fairfield county who can afford luxury rentals don't have any available, they are just going to take the "halfway decent middle class rentals" and raise the prices. More housing is always good.


Irishhammer t1_jdaoiy3 wrote

There’s a ton of that already. How about less apartments in general?


_xXmyusernameXx_ t1_jd8r2sy wrote

More unaffordable housing in CT.


shnu t1_jd9f9k4 wrote

The thing about increasing supply is that it puts downward pressure on prices.

If this is unaffordable to you, it'll make another, older apartment more affordable. That's how this works.


jgjgleason t1_jdbd58t wrote

Seriously I don’t get how we’re still having to explain this to people. If there are no “luxury” homes available then the people with money will go rent the cheaper shit. They’re willing to pay more so suddenly Middle shit ain’t so middle. As a country, we have aggressively under built housing for decades.


SirKnightRyan t1_jdblys2 wrote

Supply demand curve only works for like goods. A $1200 apartment vs a $2200 luxury unit isn’t the same product and if there isn’t demand for the high end it won’t easily affect pricing on the low end. There’s also the issue of tax credits, these apartments get millions of dollars of credits, paid for by property owners (and their tenants), so it isn’t a clear win, it totally depends on the specifics of the town and the development.


shnu t1_jdcj9xd wrote

If there are no luxury units available, the non-luxury units’ rents will rise to what the market can bear.

This is incredibly basic stuff and I can’t believe we’re still debating this. Housing starts have lagged population growth for twenty years. Of course housing is expensive.


No-Ant9517 t1_jd8wdjt wrote

I agree, there should be less housing in Connecticut, and higher rents


stengbeng t1_jd8ai4p wrote

I'm fine with development in that area of town because we need more overall housing in Norwalk, but it needs to be affordable. 37 affordable units is a joke.

Also, the developer's spokesperson has no idea where they're even building:

"John McCullough, President of Toll Brothers Apartment Living, said, “As our second project to break ground in the economically dynamic southeastern Connecticut corridor, following Julius, our 356-unit community in Stamford, we are excited to add Piper to our growing portfolio of luxury rental communities across the northeast."

As a lifelong resident of Norwalk, I was shocked to learn we are actually located in Southeastern Connecticut!


slow_foxes33 t1_jd9lf4c wrote

I used to live in one of the "Luxury" rental units in downtown SONO, right on Washington Street. The only luxury thing about it was the covered garage, although anyone could use it if they paid for it. The rest of it was just horrible.


Blassbidet t1_jdb9b74 wrote

I don't care what they say if the bathrooms don't have bidets they ain't luxury. Only peasants wipe their ass with paper.


kaw027 t1_jd8hqt8 wrote

So I live in central CT so maybe it’s different along the shore, but WHO is out here paying $2000+ for a 500 sq ft 1br? Genuinely asking. Do these actually get rented or do they sit empty?


Petemarsh54 t1_jd8tugv wrote

Plenty of people, transplants from NYC and people who work in NY and want to be somewhat close


hamms30 t1_jdaga1y wrote

City commuters who can't afford Darien, Stamford, Greenwich


[deleted] t1_jd9n180 wrote



kaw027 t1_jd9nky3 wrote

I also have to be close to work. I’m sure it’s different along the shore. But seeing people charge $2k+ for a 1br in Hartford and even West Hartford is mind boggling


Pancakes4Dayzz t1_jd8o9j8 wrote

That’s what we need. More luxury units no one can afford.


gorpee t1_jd90xta wrote

If it gets 200 rich people currently living in normal places to move out, that's frees up space for middle class renters.


Luis__FIGO t1_jda26ww wrote

Isn't that a bad thing?

Replacing homeowners with people who rent the homes from someone else instead?


CiforDayZServer t1_jda4lac wrote

They meant rich people renting normal rentals. They move to fancy pants building and therefore gave both opened up more normal apartments available, and possibly reduced demand for normal rentals enough where rent stays the same or even drops if they can’t fill it at the requested rent.


Ok_Repair_92 t1_jd82yfw wrote

What Connecticut really needs. Another luxury apartment complex.


AlphaLypi t1_jd9amdy wrote

Omg more shitty, cheap, luxury apartments in CT that costs 1.5k a month to live in, so exciting 👍👍🖕🖕🖕


_DarkSeid_ t1_jd9aulj wrote

Toll Brothers has sites all over the state. Danbury, Glastonbury, Shelton, Avon, Middlebury, 2 in Bethel, Trumbull, 2 in Newtown, South Windsor.


maxanderson350 t1_jd9mscq wrote

Great to see. CT needs lots more of this in urban centers.


bobmcrobber t1_jda8zz5 wrote

toll brothers with their god awful build quality


Educational-Tomato58 t1_jd94ygo wrote

Fuck this. Give the people affordable housing now. How do we continue to let this go on?


skylitnoir t1_jdad5hh wrote

SoNo collection is struggling: let’s speed up the gentrification process!


2girthy t1_jd96a03 wrote

Who actually lives in these types of buildings


CiforDayZServer t1_jda6jzv wrote

People who make over 150k and don’t want to deal with ownership. We live within an hour of NYC there are tons and tons of people making big city salaries who see these apartments as cheap and convenient by comparison.

My sister and her husband live in the city. He’s had longer commutes than a train rider from CT and they paid WAY more money for a WAY smaller place in an insanely dated coop.


schlasara t1_jd9npcf wrote

The gentrification of Norwalk is getting out of hand


sixtyacrebeetfarm t1_jdajgna wrote

This site was a vacant commercial building prior, so who exactly is being displaced by this?


mynameisnotshamus t1_jd88g6h wrote

Oooh 37 affordable units.

I can’t imagine buying a Norwalk apartment for the price of a house other places. I get it you can walk to places but those places aren’t so appealing.


disydisy t1_jd84xcj wrote

I did not think it passed....will be just horrible it's already overcrowded in the area...


progress /s


1234nameuser t1_jd8jf70 wrote

Only way to build better infrastructure is to generate higher property taxes.