Bringing Back Nature To Houston.

[Guest danax]

Here's an email newsletter that I received from the Buffalo Bayou Partnership. I can't link to it so I'm posting it verbatim. I don't think they'll mind but I don't want to set a bad example so Editor, remove if you think that's best.

This project, and the Project Brays are including in each of them meticulous re-establishment of native habitats (the freshwater tidal marsh in Mason Park (East end) is coming along nicely). These environments should re-attract old species that have either left completely or are barely hanging around.

I remember reading in the Central Library's microfiche of an old 1910ish Post about the abundance of owls on the East End. I want to hear the hooting of owls, not just the booming of bass, the honking of horns and the trumpeting of trains.

Let's face it, high-density housing is trendy/chic right now but the downside of density is noise, less greenery and fewer nearby areas to escape to. We need to invest more in buying our precious inner-city lands while we still can to counterbalance density with space. Our lawns and back yards are disappearing and we're voluntarily buying into an mostly indoor lifestyle. When the honeymoon is over, will we miss cutting the grass? While we're experiencing a great up-cycle in cities, without a good balance, will we begin another down-cycle as people start to become more anxious and want to flee but can't, because their job is there and there's nowhere left to go anyway?

" There is a voracious appetite for parks that are vigorous, robust places, that provide the kind of complexity that only nature gives you.

[RedScare]

"Middle and fringe understories of such plants as mulberry, elderberry possum haw holly, cherry laurel, parsley hawthorn, wax myrtle and upper canopy saplings"

Mmmm...elderberry

[kjb434]

A faint mention of Monty Python humor?

I've received this email from the BBP also. Good article. As much as peopl complain about this city and how it horrible for the environment, too much is being done in planting trees and re-establishing naturef to really complain.

[MidtownCoog]

too much is being done in planting trees and re-establishing naturef to really complain

True, but you should see the destruction where the "Piney Woods Meet the City".

The clear cutting in Atoscocita looks like something out of the rain forest.

[RedScare]

A faint mention of Monty Python humor?

I've received this email from the BBP also.  Good article.  As much as peopl complain about this city and how it horrible for the environment, too much is being done in planting trees and re-establishing naturef to really complain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A delightful blend of Python and Homer Simpson, filling, yet pleasing to the palate

[Lowbrow]

True, but you should see the destruction where the "Piney Woods Meet the City".

The clear cutting in Atoscocita looks like something out of the rain forest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know exactly what you mean about Atoscocita. First time I saw that I just about flipped.

[MidtownCoog]

Dead deer are everywhere. It's pretty sad.

But that's what happens in unincorporated Harris County.

It's a free for all.

[brijonmang]

A faint mention of Monty Python humor?

I've received this email from the BBP also.  Good article.  As much as peopl complain about this city and how it horrible for the environment, too much is being done in planting trees and re-establishing naturef to really complain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

come out to the northwest side...the exact opposite is going on

[westguy]

For every tree planted, there must be like ten others destroyed - even on the "treeless" side over here everything gets leveled to an open field until a parking lot can be built over it. I don't think we're making any progress to reestablish natural habitats around the city.

[bachanon]

a friend of mine who worked in the new home industry in recent years explained that current EPA requirements on preserving greenspace and watershed issues is cost prohibitive. it's actually easier to meet the requirements by clear cutting and giving everybody trees (the result is a "two-tree" neighborhood), and the now requisite dry ponds we see everywhere. i've heard discussion that a development like the woodlands would be impossible under current conditions.

anyone know more on this subject?

but, back to the original thread.....

the reclamation of our bayous/watershed/greenspace will change the face of our city. designed properly this should reduce flooding, increase our number of parks, increase greenspace and reduce pollution. success with buffalo bayou at downtown through allen parkway is imperative.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I live inside the Loop, across 288 from the Med Center. It's a small-lot subdivision (50x100 lots) developed in the 1940's, so of course it's full of mature trees.

We see red-shouldered hawks every day (2 of them), yellow-crested night herons feed in the roadside ditches on our street for much of the year, red-headed woodpeckers bang away on the trees, and we've also got cardinals right now, not to mention all the typical blue jays, mockingbirds, doves, grackles, etc.

For those that live in the suburbs, ask yourself why you bought in the suburbs. Was it the price of the home? If so, then thank the developer that clear-cut your subdivision. It's not possible to develop "small lots" (the typical 1/4-acre sized and less) today without clear-cutting.

-Regulations requiring storm water detention generates a lot of dirt that must be placed somewhere. If you place more than 6 inches over the roots of trees, they'll die.

-FHA lot grading regulations require that lots be graded to drain, which also requires either cut or fill. Cut or fill more than 6 inches and you'll kill the trees.

-The clear space around a house today doesn't leave room for trees. Water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and electric/gas/cable easements must be cleared of trees. If you do have a tree left after clearing the easements and placing the house, they're likely to die from the stress of all the activity going on over their roots.

-If you are able to save a tree, after all the above, the odds are that the tree you save will be ugly anyways (like the pine trees that are barren of limbs except for one little "puffball" 100 feet up.)

The alternative to clear-cutting is to develop larger lots. Even on 1/2-acre lots it's difficult to save a lot of trees. The majority of a development will be cleared for road ROW's, utility easements and house pads. Now, I don't know about you, but I can't afford a home on a 1/2-acre lot in the burbs.

The only way you can build on small lots is to clear-cut the trees. I've seen a 40-acre subdivision where the developer tried to save trees. After the subdivision was developed (prior to homebuilding), there were about 10 trees left. After the homes were built out, 2 original trees remained on the 40 acres. And let me tell you, those were two UGLY trees!

About 10 years later the oaks that were planted by the developer really looked good. I'm sure in another 10 the place will look like Main Street in front of Rice U.

[kjb434]

Good point.

If you dig detention which is required to control flooding, you have to do something with the dirt. Keeping it on site will cost you about $2-3 a cubic yard. If you hall it offiste because you are saving trees, it'll cost you about $8 a cubic yard.

When you are dealling with detention basins that have 300,000 cubic yards to excavate, it's lot of money to hall offsite.

The Woodlands is acchieving the majority of there development with trees by not providing detention. Kingwood is the same way.

[MidtownCoog]

For those that live in the suburbs, ask yourself why you bought in the suburbs.

Becuase my hood blows yours away, that's why. And my kids can go to a normal school. I have done the inner loop, but wanted something better for my kids.

It's the cheapie "Trophy Homes, etc." who clear cut for their $90K homes. Fall Creek, Summer Wood and Kingwood have done an excellent job keeping the trees.

[westguy]

You don't live in Midtown?

[MidtownCoog]

Not any more, but I have been MidtownCoog since 1998 on the Web, so no need to change it now.

[bachanon]

If you dig detention which is required to control flooding, you have to do something with the dirt. Keeping it on site will cost you about $2-3 a cubic yard. If you hall it offiste because you are saving trees, it'll cost you about $8 a cubic yard.

kjb, this sounds like a contradiction. could you elaborate?

[Lowbrow]

I went to a parks board meeting once and it was stated there that in Houston to keep up with clear cutting and death from old age, we would need to plant 2 million trees a year.

Since 1983 "Trees for Houston" has planted 178,000.

[HeightsGuy]

To all of you making interesting, but uneducated comments about housing and native habitates and how you can't combine the two, please read up on the subject a little, you might be suprised that the two really can live in harmony. I highly recommend the following book:

Suburban Safari

Timmy, it takes about 60 years for Live Oaks to do that thing they do in the Rice U area as they grow painfully slow. Nobody plants those anymore in new 'burbs, they don't provide bang for the buck since they take forever to mature. Developers plant the cheapest and fastest growing trees, most of the time non-native varieties.

[bachanon]

maybe heightsguy should get out more...... every new neighborhood i've been in in the woodlands area, spring, klein each home has one or two live oaks in the front yard. east shore on lake woodlands will have streets lined with live oaks.

in addition, i don't believe that anyone has suggested that the two (nature and human habitats) can't live in harmony. the discussion is about whether it is or is not financially feasible for developers.

[HeightsGuy]

Bachanon, you call clear-cutting land to buld homes because it's the economical way to develop housing living in harmony?

[bachanon]

no i do not. have you read the entire thread? no one is supporting clear cutting.

the discussion has been an attempt to see how to incorporate or preserve more greenspace. by examining why developers do what they do, perhaps we can see ways to implement regulations or provide incentives for these clear cutters to not do so.

[MidtownCoog]

Belive it or not, the Wal-Mart, Lowes and HEB in Atoscocita did an excellent job of keeping the trees.

Again, it's the $90K new homes who practice slash and burn architecture.

[Guest danax]

We're on our way to becoming a flat concrete patch with street trees, parks and bayous. At least places like Los Angeles have the Santa Monica Mtns and the beach to give some relief.

I would like to see Mayor White sell the land that the abandoned houses are on and put it into a pool to buy larger inner-city parcels to convert into some sort of hybrid natural greenspace/public park instead of building more cheap housing. Every neighborhood should have at least one. It's the least we can do since we really aren't going to stop the clear cutting and building.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Again, it's the $90K new homes who practice slash and burn architecture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, with regulations being what they are today, it's also the new $150K and $200K and $250K homes as well. The operative phrase is "NEW HOMES". Unless you're building a new custom home on a 1/2 acre or larger lot, you're probably not going to see any trees saved on the lots.

Developers aren't anti-tree by any stretch of the imagination. Every one of them would save every attractive mature tree they could, because they are GREAT from a marketing standpoint, which affects their bottom line.

If you look at a "small lot" subdivision that was able to save trees, I bet you it was developed before 1990. A major reason behind that is that storm water detention and extreme event overland flow regulations (which help reduce flooding...a GOOD thing, right?) were introduced in Harris County in the mid-1980's. Of course there was a "grandfathering" period where previously planned subdivisions were allowed to be built without detention. But in general, most subdivisions built in the 1990's and beyond were required to construct storm water detention basins and streets and lot grades were implemented that required cut or fill on virtually every square inch of a property.

Here's an example...the minimum detention storage volume required for a subdivision is 0.55 acre-feet of storage per acre of development, which generates enough excavation to place AT LEAST 7 inches of fill over the entire development. However, you don't place fill on the detention pond area (of course), and you generally don't place fill over your street rights-of-way. The only remaining areas to place the fill are over the lots (which need to be graded to drain and elevate the house slabs anyways). So, generally speaking, you've got a MINIMUM of 1 foot of fill to place over every lot in the subdivision. As I said previously, the rule of thumb is that cutting or filling more than 6 inches over a tree's root zone will KILL the tree. Therefore the trees must go.

The alternative to placing fill on the lots is to haul the dirt off-site, as kjb described. This doubles or triples the cost of your dirt work, which is a major component of the cost of a finished lot. An additional concern is, where do you put all the dirt that's hauled off? There would be excess dirt to be hauled off of every single subdivision in Harris County, and there are only so many freeway embankments that need dirt.

Or, as I said, you can generally save a few trees on larger lot subdivisions, since the size of the house footprint doesn't impact the lot as much. But there is only so much demand for these 1- and 2-acre custom home lots around town.

There IS, however, a HUGE demand for the dreaded "$90K new homes" that Midtown describes. Where there's a demand, there will be developers and homebuilders willing to supply.

What's the alternative? Do you FORCE everyone to buy a "starter" home that costs $200,000 or $300,000 to save trees? You might as well move to California...

[Lowbrow]

We're on our way to becoming a flat concrete patch with street trees, parks and bayous. At least places like Los Angeles have the Santa Monica Mtns and the beach to give some relief.

I would like to see Mayor White sell the land that the abandoned houses are on and put it into a pool to buy larger inner-city parcels to convert into some sort of hybrid natural greenspace/public park instead of building more cheap housing. Every neighborhood should have at least one. It's the least we can do since we really aren't going to stop the clear cutting and building.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was another thing that came out of that park board meeting. Their goal was to have greenspace or a "park" within 5 minutes walking distance of every resident of Houston. They were really pushing the small park idea and also trying to connect some of the larger parks to make continuous greenspace.

[kjb434]

QUOTE

If you dig detention which is required to control flooding, you have to do something with the dirt. Keeping it on site will cost you about $2-3 a cubic yard. If you hall it offiste because you are saving trees, it'll cost you about $8 a cubic yard.

kjb, this sounds like a contradiction. could you elaborate? smile.gif

Check Timmy Chan's explanation.

Simply put, the cost goes to the trucks to haul the dirt.

To add to the sore, Harris County is building lots of regional detention facilities around the county. These places generate lots of fill material that needs to be placed some where.

Just look at Art Storey park and the regional pond by Eldridge and Brays Bayou. A lot of the dirt that was hauled off was sent right across the county line to Fort Bend.

Some land owners are building up there property to sell off to developers.

The county is selling the dirt off cheap.

I've worked with several developers that are committed to save trees on their project. They found people nearby that were will to take the dirt to try to reduce the haul cost. Most of the subdivision I've worked on in Montgomery County (not Woodlands) were tree saving projects. A low lying area became like a community dumping ground for dirt. Now it's like a mini-mountain. It's on Riley Fuzzel Road past Woodson's Gully.

[bachanon]

i'm still not clear on how there is an added expense to keep trees (not considering less lot space). what dirt has to be hauled in order to keep trees? sorry, but i'm missing something.

[kjb434]

The dirt from the detention site. Typically the trees are cute too make places for the dirt to be spread and build houses. You can't spread dirt around trees too high because it will kill them anyway.

So, all this dirt from the detention pond needs to be hauled off.

[NewMND]

what dirt has to be hauled in order to keep trees? sorry, but i'm missing something.

The way I'm understanding their explanation is that the dirt from newly built detention ponds have to be hauled, which is too expensive, so they spread it across the subdivision, but too much dirt above the roots kill the trees. Again, that's how I'm understanding it.

[NewMND]

"Typically the trees are cute "

Except for pine trees. they're not cute, and they get pine needles everywhere, and the squirrels attack for those pine cones.