IronTiger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Unfortunately, the area will keep growing as long as things continue the way they are now, barring some sort of economical disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Why do you think you can control sprawl? Why would you want to?No I don't think I can contain sprawl, I just think it's unreasonable and in not environmentally friendly living so far away from the city. If everyone lived in the suburbs and drove everywhere the world would be a storm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I just think it's unreasonable and in not environmentally friendly living so far away from the city. Part of the thing about Houston is it's not downtown that's the only main force. People living in Cypress may actually work in say, the Energy Corridor or Memorial City. I know a couple in Pearland (okay, it's my cousin and his wife) who live in the "suburbs" but don't commute to Houston (their work is mostly on computers). When they do go to Houston, it's usually an excursion to go to shops or restaurants (and their car is a hybrid) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 For sure.. You can look at it both ways. My mother is one of those people. She does consulting work for a company in Houston, but does almost all of her work from home.. (granted she does commute all the way from Lake Jackson once a week for meetings). It would just be nice if more people could be served by mass transit, to relieve traffic on our highways and provide timely/efficient/environmentally friendly alternate modes of transit, but it gets harder and harder to serve the population the further we continue to sprawl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Mass transit unfortunately won't control sprawl or provide very much traffic relief. The only way to move a lot of people is to add more highways in developed areas...unfortunately NIMBYism will likely make any effort near impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Mass transit unfortunately won't control sprawl or provide very much traffic relief. The only way to move a lot of people is to add more highways in developed areas...unfortunately NIMBYism will likely make any effort near impossible.i agree it wont control sprawl, or provice much traffic relief, but it will provide an alternate mode of transit when traffic is crappy from so many people commuting due to the sprawl.and yeah.. good luck with that. ha.. im not saying i wouldnt love to see certain highways and spurs be extended through new parts of the city, but even an impoverished/minority area like the East End managed to stop 225 from coming through.. imagine what a neighborhood like the heights would do if they tried to extend 290 into the city, or something else to those effects. its easier to build rail through dense regions then it is to build highways taking up huge ROW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 When said cousin lived on the Houston-Pearland border in 2009-2010 (single at the time), he often commented how Pearland needed a new highway basically going from 288 to 45 (or something along those lines), since the major roads were crowded commercial surface streets. Of course, since all of the area was relatively new single family homes, it wouldn't happen. 290 IS expanding, sort of, they took out a number of structures (including a few warehouses, old Malibu Grand Prix, most of Northwest Mall's parking lot etc.) to basically build a parallel highway connecting directly with Interstate 10). Hardy Toll Road is also extending as well. No one wants to lose their home or business to highway construction. It sucks. It really does. But it's also hard to demand almost nothing changes as the world changes around them. Neighborhoods rise and decline. As for the burial ground at Grand Parkway, just wait--it could be an architectural treasure years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Why do you think you can control sprawl? Why would you want to?It's unsustainable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 It's unsustainable Since Cypress is, as I mentioned before, unincorporated and cannot annex without Houston's permission, it will probably become part of Houston, therefore, any conflict you have with the "suburbanites" will become petty neighborhood bickering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Since Cypress is, as I mentioned before, unincorporated and cannot annex without Houston's permission, it will probably become part of Houston, therefore, any conflict you have with the "suburbanites" will become petty neighborhood bickering.Houston will never annex the residential areas of Cypress or Katy. These places will just be without proper representation because the Houston etj is way too spread out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purpledevil Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 They used to say the same thing about Kingwood, Trae. If Houston wants to annex Katy or Cypress, they will. I would not be surprised at all if Cypress gets taken before the end of the decade. Katy is a little less likely, as Houston could simply leap frog the actual city limits and start building up out there by Pedersen Rd, towards Igloo, as the metro progresses westward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 It's unsustainable Keep dreaming. When people live and work in the suburbs it's just as sustainable as the city core. Perhaps moreso as the suburbs are closer to surrounding farms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 They used to say the same thing about Kingwood, Trae. If Houston wants to annex Katy or Cypress, they will. I would not be surprised at all if Cypress gets taken before the end of the decade. Katy is a little less likely, as Houston could simply leap frog the actual city limits and start building up out there by Pedersen Rd, towards Igloo, as the metro progresses westward.What would be the benefit for the COH to annex all of these residential areas and have to provide city services to them? Not to mention it would sway the city from moderate/slightly left leaning to the right. I believe igloo is in the Katy etj, but I'm not sure. I don't know why the city would annex cypress. There is way too much land in the city now and they can't maintain what they have. no need to expand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) What would be the benefit for the COH to annex all of these residential areas and have to provide city services to them? Not to mention it would sway the city from moderate/slightly left leaning to the right. I believe igloo is in the Katy etj, but I'm not sure. I don't know why the city would annex cypress. There is way too much land in the city now and they can't maintain what they have. no need to expand. Well, there's a pretty solid tax base in Cypress, room for more expansion (Bridgeland, Fairfield) with more $$$ taxes, they already consider the major commercial districts (Target, Kroger, et. al.) a functional part of Houston as far as commercial taxes go, and they did annex Kingwood. However, as you mentioned, I have a good feeling that the reason they aren't doing it now is just for political reasons. Edited January 11, 2014 by IronTiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Keep dreaming. When people live and work in the suburbs it's just as sustainable as the city core. Perhaps moreso as the suburbs are closer to surrounding farms.It's not sustainable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I just realized (from my friend mentioning something about construction in the area and me looking on the updated google maps) they are building overpasses on the grand parkway from Westpark, south to 69.. I had no idea they were (finally) building out that segment too. I thought they were just working on the segment from 290 to 45. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 It's not sustainable. Where do you suggest all the newcomers live? In tacky, small, highrise apartments in the city core? That's not exactly sustainable either. Or healthy. And, it ignores the fact that people buy houses because they want some room, a garage, and a yard. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I drove to The Woodlands today and saw that the overpass and ramps for the Grand Parkway interchange at I-45 are coming along. One thing I've noticed aesthetically is the interchanges at 290 and 45 are being constructed in the horizontal regional scheme even though they're located in parts of the district that call for the vertical regional scheme. It's not noticeable unless you're a road geek or a person who knows about the Green Ribbon project, but I thought that was kind of an interesting observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 What are these "schemes" of which you speak? Sounds interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 They did add a few bridges on 99 between Katy and I-69, but AFAIK, that gas station and Burger King in the right of way's path is still there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 The "Katy area" has about 300,000 people and includes much more than the City of Katy. Cypress is of similar size probably. I'm glad they built most of this thing without frontage roads. It will look much better once growth comes around it.I was attempting to point out the difference between katy and the katy area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Houston will never annex the residential areas of Cypress or Katy. These places will just be without proper representation because the Houston etj is way too spread out.What does Houston's etk being spread out have to do with whether or not an area is annexed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 What does Houston's etk being spread out have to do with whether or not an area is annexed? Katy, Waller, Hempstead, or any other incorporated entity that might want to annex these areas has to get Houston's permission, which isn't easy to do. Houston will not annex residential areas, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Houston will not annex residential areas, so...Indirect result of what happened to Kingwood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 What are these "schemes" of which you speak? Sounds interesting. They're design schemes used on TxDOT projects in the Houston District as part of the Houston District's Green Ribbon Project. They've been doing this since 2002-ish. The district is divided into three regions, northern, western, and southern. The northern region is north of I-10 and 290 and uses a vertical scheme to represent the piney woods. The western region is roughly south of I-10 and 290 and west of 288 and uses a horizontal scheme to represent open grasslands, and the southern region which is south of I-10 and east of 288 uses the wave scheme to represent the coast. You can see examples here: http://www.my290.com/environmental/82-environmental/132-green-ribbon-project-p3.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 And I was just noticing the "concrete tree" theme at 610 & Ella this weekend. Love the vertical/horizontal/wave scheme concepts. Just not sure how I feel about the cement likenesses of trees however. Maybe once it's completed...Thanks for the education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Indirect result of what happened to Kingwood? Yes, the legislature passed tougher requirements on the timing for providing services to annexed areas, plus extended the timeline. Details on the current annexation plan are at http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Annexation/annexation.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 So 18,000 cars per day is what TxDOT is reporting for the first few weeks of use. Is anyone surprised? Higher than you expected? Lower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Once the tolls kick in the numbers will go down the question is by how much 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 i figure traffic may drop initially when the tolls start, but once construction starts getting more severe along 290 i predict traffic will pick back up on the grand parkway. and by the time 290 construction is finished (and people stop taking GP as a detour) the areas along the grand parkway will be developed enough to sustain traffic on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.