Jump to content

DNAguy

Full Member
  • Content Count

    327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

DNAguy last won the day on May 23 2014

DNAguy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

383 Excellent

About DNAguy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2940 profile views
  1. I guess that's why my argument is that in a climate like this.... maybe having these areas represented by a more local / more accountable municipality could hold this decline off or incentivize the developers to stem the tide. My original argument here, which I think is being lost, is that a development like the grid would not have happened at its location in an area surrounded by the housing stock / tax base around it without the fact that it was in a different city than the COH. That's it. Stafford wanted this for the sales tax $... even if it is a little out of place. It's still close enough to Sugar Land in their estimations (developers) to make this work. I looked at Dallas / the metroplex and its development to see if that might be a better model. Somehow I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about.
  2. Because that's the reality. There is a huge gulf of development and decay between 610 and the Beltway almost 360 degrees around Houston. I didn't make this up. That's what the reality is. The only area where this is not the case is along I10... where it just so happens that there a small, mostly wealthy cities abut. Is that an accident? The city of Houston is very large. The out parts of Houston are not growing. My argument is that regionally southeast Texas might be better served by smaller Houston with more mid-sized cities surrounding it. Cities competing against one another would help to invest in areas that might not get investment if they were all in one large city. It's about equity and distribution of investment. Having large areas of stagnant growth is bad. The grid is good because it is actually working against an area that is trendy downwards. That's all I'm trying to say here. Have you never driven along 59 south, 59 north, 45 south and north, 288, I10 east, etc between 610 and the Beltway? There's almost nothing new.
  3. If it's so obvious I don't understand why you can't give an example. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Look, the parts of Stafford / Meadows Place / Houston that is close by this development aren't all that nice. Heck, you're a 5 minute drive from Beachnut …. where you see actual street walking ladies of night. It's across the street from a Walmart where people have been shot in the parking lot. Maybe I'm way off, but if this area was in Houston I just think don't think there would have been the incentives in place to develop this plot in the manner they are. Again, I could just be way off base.
  4. And I stand by my statement. What is your argument? That because of this one development at the Beltway (actually outside but close enough) that there is not an expanding area between 610 and the suburbs that is in need of re-investment / revitalization? This development also doesn't happen without City Centre which I referenced above. Outside of this one development, please list all the other ones between 610 and @/around the Beltway. I'll wait.
  5. Maybe within 610. Every other major redevelopment is within 610... or at least immediately adjacent to 610. What are examples of anything other than that? Town and Country mall? Memorial City Mall area? both of which seem to be one-offs due to the fact that they are adjacent to super wealthy municipalities themselves. This. What once was the 'donut hole' has now become a 'ring' in the city where older neighborhoods are on the decline w/ minimal development. That's all I was trying to point out. I have a hard time believing this project would have gone forward if this was Houston as Stafford could provide the incentives to make completely redeveloping a corporate campus into a mix-use development.
  6. A nice upgrade for an area that's on the battle line between suburban and the 'ring of decay' around Houston. El Tiempo's addition to the Fountains, the Grid, and hopefully the Sugar Refinery develop will create a bulwark against any further progression of the 'decay'. On another aside, thank god the TI site was in another municipality and not in Houston. If this was Houston proper, the site would have just decayed and the whole area would have suffered. If this particular example and Dallas [ducks!] can teach us anything, it might be that a dominate world class city w/ larger surrounding suburban cities might be a better for development than just Huge city + mostly unincorporated county + only 2-3 major suburban cities + more unincorporated further out county land.
  7. Well maybe we just be really fair about it and eliminate all other university systems and just absorb them into Texas system and separately into the A&M system. The you can lose all control of UH and it'll just be A&M Houston or UT-Houston. Go full California. Would you like that? My guess is not. The PUF was set up as part of the land grant federal bill that was specifically set up to establish a flagship university and a mechanical/agricultural college. That's it. If you want to talk about fair, maybe you can look at it in this way: The UT system has a mandate to be pan-Texas. It's in every corner of the state. That's why it's funded w/ a large land endowment that was forked over to it by the feds/state. UH does not have that mandate. It is a regional city college. A much smaller mandate. There's no UH Laredo or UH San Angelo or UH Texarkana. They should not be entitled to that money unless the state legislature decides that they need to revisit each system's mandate. But if they were to do that, my guess is they would probably streamline the systems and UH might actually be a big loser in that scrum.
  8. As town? 😉 Stros-berg? I like Stros-berg.
  9. Sorry if the tone came across aggressive. In my head it was more snarky than the plain text. Now get off my lawn.
  10. Yeah.... I'm going to have to call foul. Scapegoating the youngest generation for the failings of previous generations is tired trope. As a millennial, you're just falling into the trap now that a new kid is on the block. Tisk, tisk. Like you said, boomers have been blaming Millennials for 10+ years now for pretty much all the stuff they've done. The real reason is tax $ and government policy of at least the last two decades. Plain and simple: As more and more states have reduced education spending and support for universities, the cost of education has gone up to make up the difference. The ability to take out essentially endless amounts of $ to fund your education has led to no downward pressure on university prices. And to attract this seemingly endless supply of students, an arms race of facilities / amenities took off.... which then caused education to further rise and creating a sort of synergism on rising prices. In addition, universities (and especially smaller, private ones) began to rely on foreign students who paid the full price tag to cover their increased costs. Globalism and a rising India & China seem to produce an endless supply of these students willing (or at least their governments were) to pay full freight. More and more people have kept taking out larger and larger loans.... more and more students from around the world came.... until recently. The debt burden has grown so large that the return on the investment doesn't make sense to people anymore… especially for smaller, private liberal arts schools. Recent government policies around immigration and the rise in credible educational institutions around the world (like in the gulf and China) has had a chilling effect on foreign students willing to come here …. and pay full way. That's why St. Thomas has to reduce costs. They've incurred large amounts of debt w/ the investment of new facilities. More and more people are asking whether going there makes sense when it cost so much. Less people paying full sticker price. If they don't start getting ahead of this, they will cease to exist.
  11. The exact thing happened in Sugar Land. The angry mob won (mostly) and they'll likely win again. The dog whistles are blaring just as they were back then in Sugar Land... 1.) Linda, the city council is there to increase revenue for the city. Sorry hun. That is a primary function of cities. Grow the tax base = a growing, vibrant city. If they don't grow it from development... that means more taxes to you.... which I'm sure you'd then get up there and give a sob story about being taxed out of your home. 2.) Safety? OHHHHH I forgot. Apartments = Crime (you know.... [wink]..... because of all the [looks behind and side to side] urban folks
  12. Am I missing something? Can't there be multiple phases to this property? I mean there is significant surface lot space that can one day be turned into multi-story residential / office / hotel, etc. I know it's not in the plan now, and a KBR-site-like complete redesign would be nice.... but what's being proposed is actually WAYYYYYY better than post office.
×
×
  • Create New...