Jump to content

Sugar Land as a regional 'destination' city


Recommended Posts

Trying to be positive, but to me Sugarland will always be that little country town with the big sugar factory on the edge of the RR tracks. I rather remember it as that. :)

Its "gone city" in a too fast and scary way. :(

and Dynamo still sounds like a 70's toilet bowl cleaner... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's an example of "trying to be positive", I'd hate to see you try to be negative :blink: !

We live in Sugar Land and are thrilled about the possibility of having the Dynamo stadium nearby. Thousands of Sugar Land kids are playing soccer and would love to have the Dynamo as our "home town team".

After driving to/from UofH's stadium to watch them play I would welcome NOT seeing bullet-ridden bus stops along the way! Good luck to Mayor Wallace in pulling this off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

After driving to/from UofH's stadium to watch them play I would welcome NOT seeing bullet-ridden bus stops along the way! Good luck to Mayor Wallace in pulling this off!

While I'm sure your reply was not meant to be mean spirited (or was it?) I am sure there are hundreds of residents out there that oppose this thing/stadium being built near them. About as welcome as another huge mall or Walmart. Town hall meetings will divulge the true sentiment.

Actually Houston is glad that snobs from the burbs dont come here, since all they do is knock Houston, but yes they conveniently forget if it werent for the almighty big city, places like Sugarland wouldn't even exist. What is even more hilarious is Sugarland's crime rate is becoming more known since more families are moving in.

I imagine you guys will blame Houston/Katrina for that too. Never thought a bullet hole could frighten anyone that easily? Houston is a real scary place, lions and tigers and bears.... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
After driving to/from UofH's stadium to watch them play I would welcome NOT seeing bullet-ridden bus stops along the way! Good luck to Mayor Wallace in pulling this off!

While I'm sure your reply was not meant to be mean spirited (or was it?) I am sure there are hundreds of residents out there that oppose this thing/stadium being built near them. About as welcome as another huge mall or Walmart. Town hall meetings will divulge the true sentiment.

Actually Houston is glad that snobs from the burbs dont come here, since all they do is knock Houston, but yes they conveniently forget if it werent for the almighty big city, places like Sugarland wouldn't even exist. What is even more hilarious is Sugarland's crime rate is becoming more known since more families are moving in.

I imagine you guys will blame Houston/Katrina for that too. Never thought a bullet hole could frighten anyone that easily? Houston is a real scary place, lions and tigers and bears.... :lol:

See the attached 2006 crime report for Sugar Land. Crime is actually declining while remaining over half the Texas average. Violent crime is declining as well and a mere 1/4 of the Texas average.

2006 Sugar Land Crime Report

Link to post
Share on other sites
After driving to/from UofH's stadium to watch them play I would welcome NOT seeing bullet-ridden bus stops along the way!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You probably live in a gated community too, right?

Edited by Ian Rees
Link to post
Share on other sites
This article in the Fort Bend Herald discusses the possibilites of using the current proposals regarding the Brazos River Park, the potential Dynamo stadium and creating new districts for business and entertainment in the process.

Although I'm leary of the "If we build it, they will come" I agree. My destination of choice would be a mosquito infested BRP over any number of museums, Jones Hall, Wortham Center, Alley Theatre, Shephard Hall, Hobby Center, Hermann and Memorial Parks, Reliant Center, Toyota Center, or Minute Maid Park-to name a few.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Houston is glad that snobs from the burbs dont come here, since all they do is knock Houston, but yes they conveniently forget if it werent for the almighty big city, places like Sugarland wouldn't even exist. What is even more hilarious is Sugarland's crime rate is becoming more known since more families are moving in.
I'm one of those snobs, and I enjoy both towns. You act like Sugar Land is some abomination of a sprawled suburb, dependent upon Houston to sustain life. I guess you didn't know that it was pioneered only two years after Houston in 1838 and that its sugar mill has more than established its roots for the last 100 years. Theres a pretty significant reason the main line of the Union Pacific, along with Highway 90 run right through the heart of old SL. Sure there is a large percentage of SL residents that work in Houston today, but you also have to realize that if Sugar Land was so dependant on Houston, then commercial developments like Town Centre should be an obvious failure - which it is not. Also try not to forget Sugar Land's industrial park which also employs thousands - some of which live in Houston. So the relationship goes both ways.

As for the crime, the furtherest south I hear reports of violent crime taking place is around the Beltway. The only crime problem Sugar Land seems to have is a rash of home invasions and robberies. However, I sincerely doubt one affluent neighbor is robbing someone three blocks down. The criminal element is most likely coming from the adjoining southwest side of your very own Houston. Sure you'll get the occasional crazy person who tries to kill his family or lover, but in a metropolis of over five million people, its strictly a numbers game as to which affluent community they'll pop up in next. Just two days ago it was Houston's own Woodway. Go figure

I imagine you guys will blame Houston/Katrina for that too. Never thought a bullet hole could frighten anyone that easily? Houston is a real scary place, lions and tigers and bears.... :lol:
Take a drive down Bissonnet, Beechnut, Antoine, Gulf Bank, Lyons, Scott, MLK, Belfort, or Fondren after dark and you'll see that Houston really is a scary place - with real gangs who shoot real bullets, that leave those same bullet holes you think are funny. I doubt that the pizza guy that was shot in the face just a few months ago on Bissonnet as he was getting carjacked thought it was funny. Probably no more than the three kids that were walking down Beechnut who were victims of a rival gang's drive-by shooting just about a month ago. I don't think its funny when I turn on the 5am news every morning to watch a different live report from another overnight shooting in Houston. I see the same neighborhood & street names over and over and over - on ALL sides of Houston. My long winded point is that I couldn't tell you the name of the last street or location a violent crime was reported on in Sugar Land.

...

Attempting to stay on topic, I'm glad to see Sugar Land taking greater strides to keep its pant up around its waist, so to speak. You have communites like the ever so popular "Cypress" that are a mess of collector roads, gated subdivision entrances, and strip malls to service - all with no local government. At least Sugar Land is making a decent effort to build itself up as an independent neighbor to Houston, verus just settling for being another "by-the-numbers" unicorporated suburban sprawl of a neighbor - ultimately dependent upon deed-restrictions, an absent county for representation, and lack of a dedicated police force to boot.

I doubt they'll get the stadium, but you don't have to look any farther north than to our sister Dallas to see that established edge cities can in fact support major league sport venues on their own.

Edited by Jeebus
Link to post
Share on other sites
You act like Sugar Land is some abomination of a sprawled suburb, dependent upon Houston to sustain life.

it isn't?

if Sugar Land was so dependant on Houston, then commercial developments like Town Centre should be an obvious failure - which it is not. Also try not to forget Sugar Land's industrial park which also employs thousands - some of which live in Houston. So the relationship goes both ways.

it's an outdoor shopping mall; hooray!

My long winded point is that I couldn't tell you the name of the last street or location a violent crime was reported on in Sugar Land.

give it 10 or 15 years. you know how these things work, right? the outer suburbs become the inner suburbs. the inner suburbs become the inner city.

but I do think your fear is a bit irrational and overstated. Most of that type of crime is poverty related. It just means Sugar Land and the other 'burbs are exceptionally good at locking out opportunity for anyone who doesn't fit their demographic profile. It's the American dream, to live in a subdivision full of people exactly like yourself. What did you think the "Master Plan" was?

Edited by Ian Rees
Link to post
Share on other sites
it isn't? it's an outdoor shopping mall; hooray!
Ummm... No, La Centerra is just an outdoor shopping map. SL's Town Centre is so much more. It's mixed use commercial retail with residential on top. Its the location of their new city hall, and its pedestrian friendly development. That's a huge leap over other locations like the Willowbrook Mall, or even Memorial City at this point. You say it so negatively as if there is something better that should have obviously been built in its place. What do you suggest?
give it 10 or 15 years. you know how these things work, right? the outer suburbs become the inner suburbs. the inner suburbs become the inner city.
Sugar Land is quickly seperating itself (by a great margin mind you) from the other "suburbs". Unlike most, its virtually independent already. The building of Town Centre helped establish that identity even further by relocating their city hall to a town square, adding a hotel conference center, and a centralized shopping district with expansion plans to tie in to the existing 30 year old mall. I can only imagine that in 10 or 15 years Sugar Land will have further pulled away from the stigma of being just another suburb like Cypress, and will be considered a leading edge city of 100k+ population.
but I do think your fear is a bit irrational and overstated. Most of that type of crime is poverty related. It just means Sugar Land and the other 'burbs are exceptionally good at locking out opportunity for anyone who doesn't fit their demographic profile. It's the American dream, to live in a subdivision full of people exactly like yourself. What did you think the "Master Plan" was?
Am I really being irrational and overstated? I'm not the least bit worried about getting shot because no one in my neighborhood is in a gang (that I know of). However, I am very careful because there have been home invasions in my neighborhood and surround hoods because people from those same H-town ghettos I avoid know that unlike their apartment neighbor, I'm more likely to have the plasma tv, laptop, jewelry, etc etc. The only people that are locked out of SL are people that don't want to work hard to be successful. The same people are also locked out of every neighborhood along Memorial Drive from downtown to highway 6, the Villages of I-10, Champions, Clearlake, Friendswood, or Rice Village. So how does that make Sugar Land anymore of a villain? At least of all these listed neighborhoods & communities, SL can brag that it is by far one of the most diverse areas of the metro for successful people of ALL color to live. I currently don't live in SL proper, but I hope to one day, and yes I do hope my neighbors are EXACTLY like me: successful, middle-class, responsible citizens. I could care less what color they are. And if this isn't the American Dream, then let me ask you, what is? What is so much better than living in a clean town, that has pride, and all its citizens share the same goal as you: to live quietly, comfortably, successfully, but most importantly: IN PEACE?

I understand all of you who are pro-Houston, and pro-pedestrian friendly urban development, but we always come back to the age old debate: "Even if we could fit all of Houston inside the loop, would we really want to live like that?" I agree that there are horribly irresponsible sprawled out subdivsions all over the area. They are all served by single collector feeder roads, cul-de-sacs, non-walkable compound schools, and parkling lot dominated strip malls. You have to admit however, that Sugar Land is at least making efforts to make itself independent of all Houston's other unicorporated (and even most incorporated for that matter) areas as what it is: a legitimate neighboring edge city.

Again, trying to stay on topic. Sugar Land is a great place to live, work, and play. This article proves that the SL administration wants to improve that further by adding a sports venue. I'll say again what I said above as well: I doubt they'll get the stadium, but you don't have to look any farther north than to our sister Dallas to see that established edge cities can in fact support major league sport venues on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got an early taste of Bart Smith's May Symposium yesterday. Fort Bend County is now on track to have 1+ million persons living there by 2025. With that in mind, I think that it is entirely plausible that Sugar Land will develop into a sort of edge city.

However, the scary thing is what could happen to infrastructure...especially major and secondary thoroughfares. Remember, for instance, that much of the inner loop was designed for an era when households had larger families, each family unit put more pressure on roads and infrastructure, and cities were built with greater density to accomodate a lower level of technology. Suburbs have been designed by very different assumptions.

Bart figures that Sugar Land has about 10 or 15 years before things get hellish.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites
However, the scary thing is what could happen to infrastructure...especially major and secondary thoroughfares. Remember, for instance, that much of the inner loop was designed for an era when households had larger families, each family unit put more pressure on roads and infrastructure, and cities were built with greater density to accomodate a lower level of technology. Suburbs have been designed by very different assumptions.

Lower level of energy use, not as much is directly technology related.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the mere fact that you typed out such a long extensive response proves the snobbery atttitude of where you live. Proving a point only takes a line or two after that its rebuttal. Actually your past responses have been pleasant so I was surprised to see your temper flare up.

In any case, Sugarland will be headed in the same direction of fast urban sprawl and crime you bet. Maybe not now but with 10-15 years. Most importantly your fellow residents will blame it on the high rate of minorities moving in from Houston. Same as we have seen in numerous other topics. Its a known fact that people flee of the mere presence of different people moving in. Nothing new. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just the mere fact that you typed out such a long extensive response proves the snobbery atttitude of where you live. Proving a point only takes a line or two after that its rebuttal. Actually your past responses have been pleasant so I was surprised to see your temper flare up.

In any case, Sugarland will be headed in the same direction of fast urban sprawl and crime you bet. Maybe not now but with 10-15 years. Most importantly your fellow residents will blame it on the high rate of minorities moving in from Houston. Same as we have seen in numerous other topics. Its a known fact that people flee of the mere presence of different people moving in. Nothing new. :)

There is some very legitimate concern about this happening in the northern parts of Missouri City. Retail is suffering, and it is a red flag to a lot of the residents there.

I would submit to you that a demographic transition in Sugar Land could be a very long time in coming, and that their relatively large taxable commercial base coupled with municipal intervention might keep at least the city proper from going downhill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sugarland.jpg

Circles are 1/2 mile and 1 mile radius from town center. In 1/2 mile there is only part of 1 multifamily unit and no single family. I'd love to see them build pedestrian friendly, multifamily units on all of that surface parking, but it's not going to happen.

From this view, looks pretty much like the typical cul de sac suburb (maybe I just can't see the street grid.) Maybe it has a few open air shopping malls. My favorite part is all of the fake lakes and "waterfront" homes. And the fact there are only two bridges to connect about 1/3rd of the homes.

Of course, there is no transit either. Amenities for walking and biking are marginal at best. Look at the streets around Town Square. Almost all of them have NO sidewalks.

So I think it's safe to say that SLTC really is "faux-urbanism."

Edited by Ian Rees
Link to post
Share on other sites
The availability and expense of privately-owned vehicles is entirely technology-related.

The rise of the automobile had more to do with availability of fuel than any advance in technology.

Edited by Ian Rees
Link to post
Share on other sites
So I think it's safe to say that SLTC really is "faux-urbanism."

Concur. That is my greatest criticism of them, is that they're so disjointed with the surrouding community.

%7Boption%7D

Circles are 1/2 mile and 1 mile radius from town center. In 1/2 mile there is only part of 1 multifamily unit and no single family. I'd love to see them build pedestrian friendly, multifamily units on all of that surface parking, but it's not going to happen.

From this view, looks pretty much like the typical cul de sac suburb (maybe I just can't see the street grid.) Maybe it has a few open air shopping malls. My favorite part is all of the fake lakes and "waterfront" homes. And the fact there are only two bridges to connect about 1/3rd of the homes.

Of course, there is no transit either. Amenities for walking and biking are marginal at best. Look at the streets around Town Square. Almost all of them have NO sidewalks.

There are plans in the works to build a condominium tower as part of the Town Square project, but to my knowledge, it has thus far been a hard sell. More successful will be the mixed-use development at Lake Pointe, on the north wedge of 59 and Highway 6. And if I'm not mistaken, an effort is under way to better integrate First Colony Mall with the Town Square--not sure if any residential component is in the cards.

Btw, though, many of the lakes are natural oxbow lakes, and the waterway, Oyster Creek, is a yazoo river of the Brazos. The lakes with green water are fake, but most wouldn't be there if it weren't for flood control regulations. They're basically mandated by the government, so developers use them as amenities as best they can.

There are P&R lots for transit, but this group of folks wouldn't ride transit in sufficient numbers if it were given to them (even ignoring the problem that would be a lack of pedestrian infrastructure), so it makes no sense to make the investment.

The rise of the automobile had more to do with availability of fuel than any advance in technology.

Yes, and how does one make fuel available? ;)

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and how does one make fuel available? ;)

What I mean is, the suburbs have been developed based on a model of much higher energy usage per person. The technology for this mostly existed before the rise of the suburb... it didn't take any fundamental scientific or technological breakthroughs to extend car ownership to more people, especially when coupled by massive federal subsidy postwar to encourage this model. What made it possible is the availability of inexpensive fuels. The city is designed more as an energy minimization device than it is a technology minimization device. I suppose at this point it's "tomato/tomahto" though.

It's part of the reason I think the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable unless we're willing to make the commitment to radically change the sources of our fuels and electricity. It's only tenable in a CO2-sensitive world if we switch to mostly nuclear power and the "personal automobile" is powered by electricity or "carbon neutral" fuels (e.g. DME). But I find the lifestyle alienating and cold anyway, so I just advocate using the most effective tool for energy conservation we already have. Per capita CO2 emissions/primary energy use in dense cities is about 25% of the suburbs.

Edited by Ian Rees
Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is, the suburbs have been developed based on a model of much higher energy usage per person. The technology for this mostly existed before the rise of the suburb... it didn't take any fundamental scientific or technological breakthroughs to extend car ownership to more people, especially when coupled by massive federal subsidy postwar to encourage this model.

I and Henry Ford might beg to differ. Assembly lines, interchangable parts, and of course the grinding progress of technological advances that made the fabrication of those parts possible are all elements of technology without which private vehicles would not have been as readily available or as inexpensive as they became. The availability of fuel is also important, but it too has advanced from rudimentary methods to extremely high-tech ones in the course of a century.

The city is designed more as an energy minimization device than it is a technology minimization device. I suppose at this point it's "tomato/tomahto" though.

Huh? A city is neither an energy-minimizing device or technology-minimizing device. It is a device of consumer segmentation and fulfillment. Unencumbered by political barriers, a city is all things to all people. It morphs into a selection balancing what 1) people can afford with 2) what people want.

The greatest challenge in the 20th century and beyond has and will continue to be moving people rapidly. Our productive capacity is too great and is increasing at too great a pace for energy costs to be the driving factor. Time is the great driving factor. With more time spent at productive tasks, we can very easily make energy...even alternative energies at the point at which they become economically viable.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just the mere fact that you typed out such a long extensive response proves the snobbery atttitude of where you live. Proving a point only takes a line or two after that its rebuttal. Actually your past responses have been pleasant so I was surprised to see your temper flare up.

In any case, Sugarland will be headed in the same direction of fast urban sprawl and crime you bet. Maybe not now but with 10-15 years. Most importantly your fellow residents will blame it on the high rate of minorities moving in from Houston. Same as we have seen in numerous other topics. Its a known fact that people flee of the mere presence of different people moving in. Nothing new. :)

As Jeebus mentioned, Sugar Land is already the most diverse, affluent suburban area in the nation.

Great explanations Jeebus! Just because Houstonians want to turn Sugar Land into a city, doesn't mean we want to. People from Sugar Land are thrilled with the way it's designed and the type of people who live there. They don't want it to be a big city, I'm not sure why people who don't live there can't accept this.

Edited by ProHouston
Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I really being irrational and overstated? I'm not the least bit worried about getting shot because no one in my neighborhood is in a gang (that I know of). However, I am very careful because there have been home invasions in my neighborhood and surround hoods because people from those same H-town ghettos I avoid know that unlike their apartment neighbor, I'm more likely to have the plasma tv, laptop, jewelry, etc etc. The only people that are locked out of SL are people that don't want to work hard to be successful. The same people are also locked out of every neighborhood along Memorial Drive from downtown to highway 6, the Villages of I-10, Champions, Clearlake, Friendswood, or Rice Village. So how does that make Sugar Land anymore of a villain? At least of all these listed neighborhoods & communities, SL can brag that it is by far one of the most diverse areas of the metro for successful people of ALL color to live. I currently don't live in SL proper, but I hope to one day, and yes I do hope my neighbors are EXACTLY like me: successful, middle-class, responsible citizens. I could care less what color they are. And if this isn't the American Dream, then let me ask you, what is? What is so much better than living in a clean town, that has pride, and all its citizens share the same goal as you: to live quietly, comfortably, successfully, but most importantly: IN PEACE?

Uh, didn't "Bart" Whitaker just get the death penalty for participating in the murder of his own mother and brother? He and his roommate staged a robbery on his own parents' house and they killed 2 people and shot a third!

Didn't Bart grow up in SugarLand and work at a local country club? Didn't he attend Baylor and supposedly have an ideal life?

What about the teenagers from SugarLand Clements High who killed Ashton Glover just to see what killing felt like?

Didn't David Thurm just move to Houston from Fort Bend County (Missouri City right next door)? Didn't he just go on a rampage at an upscale apartment complex?

The point is, crime can and does happen everywhere. Building gated communities, living behind guarded entry ways, and paying hundreds of dollars a year to have an alarm service isn't working. We need to have real discussions about crime and violence and stop just trying to run from it. If SugarLand grows like predicted; watch out...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, didn't "Bart" Whitaker just get the death penalty for participating in the murder of his own mother and brother? He and his roommate staged a robbery on his own parents' house and they killed 2 people and shot a third!

Didn't Bart grow up in SugarLand and work at a local country club? Didn't he attend Baylor and supposedly have an ideal life?

What about the teenagers from SugarLand Clements High who killed Ashton Glover just to see what killing felt like?

Didn't David Thurm just move to Houston from Fort Bend County (Missouri City right next door)? Didn't he just go on a rampage at an upscale apartment complex?

The point is, crime can and does happen everywhere. Building gated communities, living behind guarded entry ways, and paying hundreds of dollars a year to have an alarm service isn't working. We need to have real discussions about crime and violence and stop just trying to run from it. If SugarLand grows like predicted; watch out...

Anecdotes are meaningless, Kinkaid. You know better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I think it's safe to say that SLTC really is "faux-urbanism."

At its best that is all it could ever be because it is not an organic development. The point I was trying to make was that as artificial as it is, it is still pedestrian friendly, and that is a huge opposite step away from the cul-de-sac heavy style neighborhoods your referenced that surround the Town Centre to the south. As for all those cul-de-sac heavy neighborhoods, well that just because First Colony was built as another typical suburb in the 1970's. Nothing much can be changed about that except how you commercially develop around it, a la Town Centre.

As for transit, there will probably never be a need for transit in SL, because to live in SL basically means you are fiscally capable of self-transit. That's the point of SL.

SL is also not going to build much in the way of multi-family residential because of existing ordinances in place in SL to prevent such disasters as the southwest side of Houston. All planners know that at some point multi-family developments will either prosper or fail. They will either look like Memorial Heights, or they will look like Forum Park. Just look at Westchase now. In an effort to save the neighborhood from becoming the next extension of southwest Houston, the Westchase Development District is working with apartment complexes to get them to keep the rent high, deed-restrictions tight, and security in force. They're trying to save that neighborhood before its too late. SL city planners passed the limited apartment ordinance to prevent that struggle from ever occurring.

As for walking & biking in SL. It is a very viable option for anyone that lives south of the Town Centre. The sidewalks may not be wide, but it is more than accessible to get to "downtown" SL on foot or more preferably bike without having to deal with arterial monsters like a Westheimer or a Richmond to cross.

Most importantly, it sounds by the reading of your post, that you are judging SL by just looking at a Google map. If that's the case, I want to encourage you to drive around some of the neighborhoods just south of Town Centre to see all the potential there. For comparison, then drive up to the FM1960/Champions area to see what a mess that is comparatively speaking.

My confusion comes from the few of you that seem to think that Sugar Land is on its way to having a crime problem in the future? Besides rhetoric and pure speculation that more people equals more crime, do you have any evidence that this is the trend that will occur?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just the mere fact that you typed out such a long extensive response proves the snobbery atttitude of where you live. Proving a point only takes a line or two after that its rebuttal. Actually your past responses have been pleasant so I was surprised to see your temper flare up.

In any case, Sugarland will be headed in the same direction of fast urban sprawl and crime you bet. Maybe not now but with 10-15 years. Most importantly your fellow residents will blame it on the high rate of minorities moving in from Houston. Same as we have seen in numerous other topics. Its a known fact that people flee of the mere presence of different people moving in. Nothing new. :)

Well considering that its already that its already one of the most diverse areas of the metro, I don't know who you could be referencing to as "minorities" moving in. Unless of course you're willing to state that since blacks make of the smallest percentage of citizens in Sugar Land (even though they make-up for it in a large number of bordering Missouri City neighborhoods) that they are the ones, once moved in, will ruin Sugar Land. But I'm willing to bet that now that I've called you out on it, you'll simply deny it, and somehow nine posts later I'll get quoted out of context, and subsequently: labeled a bigot.

I won't argue snobbery either, as I probably am being a snob for Sugar Land - I will however argue you that I am not a snob against Houston. I starting to wonder if you even know that much about Sugar Land. By the content of your posts, you seem to lack any definite boundaries of knowledge pertaining to the community. Google's free you know.

The point is, crime can and does happen everywhere. Building gated communities, living behind guarded entry ways, and paying hundreds of dollars a year to have an alarm service isn't working. We need to have real discussions about crime and violence and stop just trying to run from it. If SugarLand grows like predicted; watch out...

Yes, and I can't recall any Sugar Land neighborhoods that are gated. The alarm service works fine if the residents weren't being followed home and robbed in their driveways. Also, all your examples show nothing more that crazy people usually kill their friends & family members. How could you possibly prevent that kind of crime in ANY area of the world?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My confusion comes from the few of you that seem to think that Sugar Land is on its way to having a crime problem in the future? Besides rhetoric and pure speculation that more people equals more crime, do you have any evidence that this is the trend that will occur?

Evidence is plentiful that SL may one day face a problem. It can be seen all over the Houston area.

As structures depreciate, their well-to-do occupants have two choices: 1) repair and upkeep or 2) allow the depreciation to persist (note that I do not consider the possibility that they might move elsewhere because someone else will still be faced with these two decisions). The City and HOA cannot reasonably stop them in many cases from allowing depreciation of the improvements because the necessary repairs are not always apparent. All it takes is for some of the homeowners to be lax, and that is the seed of decline. When it comes time to sell, the price points will be lower to reflect the depreciated improvements. Even those homes that have been maintained well will be subject to a different demographic that is now able to move into an area that was previously demographically homogenous. From there, it is a snowball effect. ...and as long as there is reasonably inexpensive housing available at the suburban periphery, people will have the option to flee to newer areas considered more secure.

What is left behind is a different demographic, usually with more kids and less money. Now there is pressure placed upon the school district and the wider area that it serves. Neighborhoods on the cusp of decline may then get nudged in an unfortunate direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As Jeebus mentioned, Sugar Land is already the most diverse, affluent suburban area in the nation.

Great explanations Jeebus! Just because Houstonians want to turn Sugar Land into a city, doesn't mean we want to. People from Sugar Land are thrilled with the way it's designed and the type of people who live there. They don't want it to be a big city, I'm not sure why people who don't live there can't accept this.

I am glad you (and the others) are speaking up for your community. After giving it some thought I realized that if I put myself in your shoes I would feel the same. Being a born and raised Houstonian myself, I had to wake up and realize that all of us need to pull together as one. I will try to stick to that principal (hope it lasts) :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
when i'm asked "what are you doing this weekend?" i would never think to say "i'm going to Sugarland." i guess the phrase destination city means something different to me.

And if you lived anywhere else but Sugar Land, one of its adjoining communities, or in the "country" to the south or southwest - then you probably would never say this. Sugar Land is trying to make itself a self-sustaining community for those I just listed above - and not for Houstonians or anywhere else.

This is why I don't think the stadium will get built here. It wouldn't make sense to the team to select a location not centralized to the city, much less its potential customers. I think they will ultimately choose a location downtown. I still think its noble that SL is at least attempting to raise the bar for itself by throwing its name in the hat for these type of developments.

Everyone look at the thread topic title: Sugar Land As A Regional Destination City Is that not exactly what it is becoming to those who live around it - especially those to the more rural south & southwest? It is truly becoming its own destination, and in my opinion, a great example of what a successful "Edge-City" can be in a southern, automobile driven, sprawled out city like Houston. To all you that live to the north & northeast of Sugar Land - especially those with fragile egos in Houston: stop panicking. Sugar Land is not trying to take away your urbanity. It is simply trying to do for its residents and neighbors what Houston does for you.

Edited by Jeebus
Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you lived anywhere else but Sugar Land, one of its adjoining communities, or in the "country" to the south or southwest - then you probably would never say this. Sugar Land is trying to make itself a self-sustaining community for those I just listed above - and not for Houstonians or anywhere else.

Everyone look at the thread topic title: Sugar Land As A Regional Destination City Is that not exactly what it is becoming to those who live around it - especially those to the more rural south & southwest? It is truly becoming its own destination, and in my opinion, a great example of what a successful "Edge-City" can be in a southern, automobile driven, sprawled out city like Houston. To all you that live to the north & northeast of Sugar Land - especially those with fragile egos in Houston: stop panicking. Sugar Land is not trying to take away your urbanity. It is simply trying to do for its residents and neighbors what Houston does for you.

most suburbs (such as sugarland, clear lake, woodlands, kingwood, etc) are self-sustaining. you never have to leave unless you choose to leave. businesses of all types are already there so it isn't necessary to stray far from your home. i personally don't see it any differently than the other big burbs around houston, each is already its own entity. The label "destination city" is a misnomer to me. It almost sounds as if it is attempting to be touristy.

I work out in Clear Lake and it amazes me how many people rarely (even never) leave clear lake. it is a suburban nightmare to me, but I guess it would be a regional destination city too per your definition as would many other suburbs.

Edited by musicman
Link to post
Share on other sites
which leads us back to why sugarland isn't a destination city for most people.

No it doesn't. Downtown Houston isn't a destination for most people, but it is still very much a regional destination.

most suburbs (such as sugarland, clear lake, woodlands, kingwood, etc) are self-sustaining.

I wouldn't go that far...

Link to post
Share on other sites
No it doesn't. Downtown Houston isn't a destination for most people, but it is still very much a regional destination.

So you bring up an excellent question: What criteria makes an area a region destination? It will certainly vary by region, but what are some constants?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of any reason I would ever need to visit Sugar Land. Is there something compelling I'm missing? Something I can't find in Houston -- even ITL? Even if I want to go experience unspoilt nature and was going to drive out of my way to go see the Brazos, I don't think SL would be my stop. So it's not a regional city to me. Maybe if you live in Rosenberg it'd be different. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
No it doesn't. Downtown Houston isn't a destination for most people, but it is still very much a regional destination.

I never said houston is a destination. i was speaking about sugarland.

as for the burbs not being self sustaining. for you and i they aren't, however most people are happy living there and really don't venture out to the "big city".

Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said houston is a destination. i was speaking about sugarland.

as for the burbs not being self sustaining. for you and i they aren't, however most people are happy living there and really don't venture out to the "big city".

And based upon the criterion you cited, I named another place that isn't a destination in order to provide a sense of comparison.

The burbs and the city are symboitic; neither is self-sustaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And based upon the criterion you cited, I named another place that isn't a destination in order to provide a sense of comparison.

The burbs and the city are symboitic; neither is self-sustaining.

what criteria did i cite specifically?

in general each is independant and while yes there is always symbiotic relationship with nearby communities, in most peoples' day to day lives, this relationship doesn't affect them at all. the SL resident doesn't have to drive to houston to get their cleaning, go out to eat, go to the movies, etc, they can stay in sugarland and get everything they need to live.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You were stuck on this line of reasoning that if you don't use it, then it isn't a destination city.

the way the article reads, mods to the Brazos River Park, the potential Dynamo stadium and creating new districts for business and entertainment with cause sugarland to become a destination city. when i think destination city, i would tend to think that someone would book a flight from another city just to go to sugarland to hang out for the weekend. if you live in a small town sw of Houston then perhaps you would go there for shopping etc out of necessity but i don't see it becoming touristy anytime soon. that is all.

Edited by musicman
Link to post
Share on other sites

i always thought that the term "destination city" specifically meant tourist destination. i've heard of san antonio described as a destination city. the woodlands wants to be a "destination city" and has created a visitor's and convention bureau. it seems to be the new hot term for areas that want to elevate themselves in significance, much like "town center". i cannot see SL as a tourist destination in its current state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the way the article reads, mods to the Brazos River Park, the potential Dynamo stadium and creating new districts for business and entertainment with cause sugarland to become a destination city. when i think destination city, i would tend to think that someone would book a flight from another city just to go to sugarland to hang out for the weekend. if you live in a small town sw of Houston then perhaps you would go there for shopping etc out of necessity but i don't see it becoming touristy anytime soon. that is all.

Folks that live south of the Brazos don't have to go to Sugar Land for shopping. They do because there's a better selection, and selection is a luxury sought after in destination cities.

Take McAllen for example: it sucks. But Mexicans still shop there in droves because it is the shopping destination of first resort. It is a sucky destination, but a destination nevertheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't think of any reason I would ever need to visit Sugar Land. Is there something compelling I'm missing? Something I can't find in Houston -- even ITL? Even if I want to go experience unspoilt nature and was going to drive out of my way to go see the Brazos, I don't think SL would be my stop. So it's not a regional city to me. Maybe if you live in Rosenberg it'd be different. :)

I agree, especially if you already live in Houston. However, if you live outside of Houston, and in this case, beyond Sugar Land, then what SL is doing would directly apply to you. They're not trying to replace anything of Houston that draws people in, but rather establish themselves as an independent destination - in particular to all those who live in unincorporated and unorganized suburban areas around Sugar Land.

Here is are two excerpts from the article itself which further clarify and best explain their collective goal:

Economic development director Joe Esch this week told city council he would like to make the city a "regional draw," with entertainment, education and business opportunities that could distinguish the city from other suburban areas and bring in outside visitors.

However, Esch said he has also developed goals to expand higher educational opportunities, cultural arts centers and possibly a regional employment center that would be a cluster of businesses like the Westchase District in Houston.

Sugar Land is simply trying to establish itself as the new destination versus one more area to pass through before getting to the existing destination (traditionally Houston). So if you're already living in the existing destination (Houston), then ANY edge city attempting to do this would have no bearing on you (be it the Woodlands, Sugar Land, Cinco Ranch, or Clear Lake), unless that new destination offered something your existing destination didn't. Which for a city the size of Houston, is rare.

An MLS soccer stadium however, could change that though.

Edited by Jeebus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...