EMES Place- Inner Loop Condos Development On Frasier St.

[j_cuevas713]

Wtf is everyone talking about, let me see some damn pics or info on the project!? Too much bs and politics in half of these forums.

[RedScare]

Ok. So there is a little house on part of that parcel. I would hardly call that "developed", but it was there. By 1980, it is completely gone and the land has been in a state of nature for over thirty years. Certainly, the new development should have to do drainage detention if they are doing more than an acre of impervious cover. And anyone in the neighborhood should look into hiring a hydrologist to look at the sheet flow of rainfall to see whether the proposed improvements to the gully will be sufficient to handle all the water that will be diverted.

Actually, if you look at the 1953 aerial, you'll see that virtually the entire usable portion of the parcel had been cleared, and it stayed that way for decades.

Here is what the petition says...

This property has been located between the ravine and the railroad bed in its natural state since the early 1800’s.

That is an absolute falsehood, since the property was developed. What remains there today is scrub brush. Hardly historic, and hardly worth violating someone's property rights over. But, then you have never shown any concern for anyone's property rights, whether it be your neighbors, developers or corporations. I don't think you are even an American. Your view of civil and property rights is foreign.

I won't even get into the comedy of claiming that building over a gulley with a 20 foot dropoff will cause flooding. The ignorance of that remark is too blatant to waste the effort.

[RedScare]

Well, the original post states that it was set for final approval yesterday, and I see no posts crowing about defeating the evil developers, so I can only assume that it passed. Can we hope that the opponents have learned from RUDH's spectacular failure, and will engage the developer to design the project to enhance the neighborhood?

Probably not. The art of compromise is a lost one.

[s3mh]

Well, the original post states that it was set for final approval yesterday, and I see no posts crowing about defeating the evil developers, so I can only assume that it passed. Can we hope that the opponents have learned from RUDH's spectacular failure, and will engage the developer to design the project to enhance the neighborhood?

Probably not. The art of compromise is a lost one.

Engage the developer to do what? The City claimed to engage the developer to get a better project built. What happened? The developer took down a stand of 30 year old live oaks on Yale and replaced them with dying and dead bald cypress trees on the back side of stip pads where no one walks. Wider sidewalks, walkable development? No dice. After they chopped down all the live oaks on Yale to widen the street for a left turn lane, they got rid of the sidewalk along San Jacinto stone. Anyone living west of Yale who wants to walk to the Walmart development who is either in a wheel chair or not sure footed enough to walk on the grass will have to cross Yale twice to get to the development. When everyone else in Houston puts shovel to dirt, they have to build sidewalks. With 6 mil in hand, the City engaged the developer and did not even get all the sidewalks built. So what in the world are a bunch of neighbors who do not have a 6 mil tax gift package supposed to expect to get from a developer? The answer is obvious. They aren't going to get squat. The developer is going to build whatever they want and doesn't give a crap what the neighbors think. The only leverage neighbors have is to fight like hell so politicians and the public know that people are not happy with having no say in land use decisions in the city. It sounds like a nice idea to be friendly and have a nice chat with the developer to try to find common ground. But it is really just code for saying that democratic rights to try to petition your government to protect your neighborhood are illegitimate and the right to make a fast buck at the expense of the neighborhood is absolute.

[s3mh]

Well, the original post states that it was set for final approval yesterday, and I see no posts crowing about defeating the evil developers, so I can only assume that it passed. Can we hope that the opponents have learned from RUDH's spectacular failure, and will engage the developer to design the project to enhance the neighborhood?

Probably not. The art of compromise is a lost one.

Engage the developer to do what? The City claimed to engage the developer to get a better project built. What happened? The developer took down a stand of 30 year old live oaks on Yale and replaced them with dying and dead bald cypress trees on the back side of stip pads where no one walks. Wider sidewalks, walkable development? No dice. After they chopped down all the live oaks on Yale to widen the street for a left turn lane, they got rid of the sidewalk along San Jacinto stone. Anyone living west of Yale who wants to walk to the Walmart development who is either in a wheel chair or not sure footed enough to walk on the grass will have to cross Yale twice to get to the development. When everyone else in Houston puts shovel to dirt, they have to build sidewalks. With 6 mil in hand, the City engaged the developer and did not even get all the sidewalks built. So what in the world are a bunch of neighbors who do not have a 6 mil tax gift package supposed to expect to get from a developer? The answer is obvious. They aren't going to get squat. The developer is going to build whatever they want and doesn't give a crap what the neighbors think. The only leverage neighbors have is to fight like hell so politicians and the public know that people are not happy with having no say in land use decisions in the city. It sounds like a nice idea to be friendly and have a nice chat with the developer to try to find common ground. But it is really just code for saying that democratic rights to try to petition your government to protect your neighborhood are illegitimate and the right to make a fast buck at the expense of the neighborhood is absolute.

[s3mh]

Well, the original post states that it was set for final approval yesterday, and I see no posts crowing about defeating the evil developers, so I can only assume that it passed. Can we hope that the opponents have learned from RUDH's spectacular failure, and will engage the developer to design the project to enhance the neighborhood?

Probably not. The art of compromise is a lost one.

Engage the developer to do what? The City claimed to engage the developer to get a better project built. What happened? The developer took down a stand of 30 year old live oaks on Yale and replaced them with dying and dead bald cypress trees on the back side of stip pads where no one walks. Wider sidewalks, walkable development? No dice. After they chopped down all the live oaks on Yale to widen the street for a left turn lane, they got rid of the sidewalk along San Jacinto stone. Anyone living west of Yale who wants to walk to the Walmart development who is either in a wheel chair or not sure footed enough to walk on the grass will have to cross Yale twice to get to the development. When everyone else in Houston puts shovel to dirt, they have to build sidewalks. With 6 mil in hand, the City engaged the developer and did not even get all the sidewalks built. So what in the world are a bunch of neighbors who do not have a 6 mil tax gift package supposed to expect to get from a developer? The answer is obvious. They aren't going to get squat. The developer is going to build whatever they want and doesn't give a crap what the neighbors think. The only leverage neighbors have is to fight like hell so politicians and the public know that people are not happy with having no say in land use decisions in the city. It sounds like a nice idea to be friendly and have a nice chat with the developer to try to find common ground. But it is really just code for saying that democratic rights to try to petition your government to protect your neighborhood are illegitimate and the right to make a fast buck at the expense of the neighborhood is absolute.

[SilverJK]

your content still has no facts behind it, despite being posted 3 times. Keep on latching on to your distorted utopian views though, it makes for a good laugh. I like how you see where this space was cleared and buildings were on it previously and your are like "it was just one house not really developed blah blah blah" but you see the removal of what 18 or so 30 yr old/young live oaks as the coming of the rapture. Still speaking out of both sides of your head... and neither are compelling.

[RedScare]

I guess that answered my question. Not that I expected anything other than manufactured outrage from that crowd.

[samagon]

I guess that answered my question. Not that I expected anything other than manufactured outrage from that crowd.

But the caliper inches, man!

I did just do some digging, and apparently, some of the people who will run this Inner Loop Condo development have children, they are a mom and pop establishment! Good News!

[JJxvi]

The trees on yale were planted in the 90's. Also I understand being able to voice concerns over whether or not to keep trees and beautification and that kind of thing, but I hardly think its realistic to villify the city for cutting down trees that basically someone else planted on city property.

I am mildly surprised that we havent seen bitching about those horrific (historic?) planter boxes made of landscaping bricks along I-10 currently being torn out.

[s3mh]

The trees on yale were planted in the 90's. Also I understand being able to voice concerns over whether or not to keep trees and beautification and that kind of thing, but I hardly think its realistic to villify the city for cutting down trees that basically someone else planted on city property.

I am mildly surprised that we havent seen bitching about those horrific (historic?) planter boxes made of landscaping bricks along I-10 currently being torn out.

The trees weren't seedlings when they were planted. The City has a tree ordinance that requires mitigation when taking down mature trees in order to preserve the City's tree canopy regardless of who planted them or where they were planted. The developer did their mitigation by putting trees where no one goes. If we were really getting something for our 6 mi, they should have been required to eminent domain a few feet of SJ Stone's property, push the fence back, build a sidewalk and replant trees along the sidewalk. But, the big developers just do what they want to do. Thus, there is no point trying to make friends.

[RedScare]

If we were really getting something for our 6 mi, they should have been required to eminent domain a few feet of SJ Stone's property, push the fence back, build a sidewalk and replant trees along the sidewalk. But, the big developers just do what they want to do. Thus, there is no point trying to make friends.

So, your complaint is that the City should have spent even more money than the $6 million?

Got it.

The developer did their mitigation by putting trees where no one goes.

That is perfect mitigation, since no one walked down that block of Yale, either.

[s3mh]

your content still has no facts behind it, despite being posted 3 times. Keep on latching on to your distorted utopian views though, it makes for a good laugh. I like how you see where this space was cleared and buildings were on it previously and your are like "it was just one house not really developed blah blah blah" but you see the removal of what 18 or so 30 yr old/young live oaks as the coming of the rapture. Still speaking out of both sides of your head... and neither are compelling.

Fact: Before the development there was a sidewalk and a stand of 8-9 live oaks along the west side of Yale St.

Fact: After the development the trees are gone and there is no longer a sidewalk along SJ Stone. I drove past it this morning. You can do so and see for yourself.

Fact: The City of Houston promised that the 6 mil they gave the developer would give the City control over the development to make sure that we would get a development that exceeded minimum standards.

Fact: All we got were sidewalks that were 1 ft wider (mostly because they eliminated planting strips and put the sidewalks right up to the edge of the roadway) and trees that exceeded minimum caliper (which they had to do anyway to satisfy their mitigation obligation)

Fact: The definition of a distorted utopian view is the idea that you will get better development for your neighborhood by "engaging" a developer than by organizing opposition and doing everything you can to achieve your goals.

[JJxvi]

I assume you live in the neighborhood and travel these roads? Sometimes its hard for me to tell. I drive down Yale daily, and I cannot recall ever seeing a single person walking under tree shaded canopy along the sidewalks south of 10. There has never been anywhere that anyone would want to go between Washington and I-10 until now (besides dirt which generated no daytime traffic of any kind). Maybe you drive by yourself to look at trees, I dunno, but I imagine that trees within the shopping center will shade far more people in a year than those south of I-10 on Yale ever did their entire lifetimes. I guess it would be good to have trees there, but those trees were not needed nor were they particularly memorable.

[JJxvi]

In any event, the Yale tree thing doesnt really compare to removing the endangered scrub brush thicket prairie that has filled a crucial ecological niche in human cleared land next to one of the gulf coast's pristine channelized bayous for the last 30 or 40 or whatever years. Losing this beautiful natural wonder would be a tragedy.

[RedScare]

Anyone living west of Yale who wants to walk to the Walmart development who is either in a wheel chair or not sure footed enough to walk on the grass will have to cross Yale twice to get to the development.

A quick glance at Google Maps reveals that the sidewalk on the west side was replaced with a sidewalk on the east side. Further perusal of Google maps reveals that there are no residences on the west side of Yale until you reach 6th Street...a distance of half a mile. The wheelchair bound residents on Koehler, behind the stone yard, will likely just roll across the street to Walmart. Those on Bass and Bonner will likewise roll down those streets to Walmart. NO ONE will use Yale, as it is too far out of the way.

Note that everyone west of Yale will be forced to walk or roll in the street. Why? Because...with the exception of the Walmart property...virtually the ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD is devoid of sidewalks!

Just another misleading statement by a Walmart hater. They never seem to realize the hit to their credibility when making things up.

[fwki]

Just drove down Yale today for the first time in months, and it looks GREAT already. What total PoS Yale was down that way before this development. Why did they even have sidewalks then? To serve as rape magnets? And I guess the trees were creature comforts for the criminals since the only other shade was I-10. Out with the bad, in with the good, and I am proud of Houston once again.

[RedScare]

Yeah, this development looks FAR better than the Target shopping center. In order to criticize it, one must overlook that simple fact, as well as the fact that this stretch of Yale was a blight on the area prior to its rebuilding. The steel mill, Knights of Pytheus Hall, Dirt Bar, and the old apartments were not much to look at. Walmart has a privacy wall behind it, and I noticed yesterday that the entire block behind it has been cleared. There will soon be a buffer of wall to wall townhomes behind Walmart to further hide Walmart from the supposed character laden Cottage Grove.

I'd be willing to bet that San Jacinto Stone is not long for this world. The land is appraised at $3.7 million, and the tax bill is $11,000 per year. It is also currently delinquent. Between the stone company and the houses behind it, there is an entire block of 4.5 acres available. San Jacinto could easily sell the land, move the company to Hempstead Highway with the other stone companies, and we'll be discussing the newest shopping center on Yale & Koehler...all of which makes the City's $6 million investment in infrastructure improvements more forward thinking. They took a non-revenue producing area and are turning it into tax revenue juggernaut. Non-elected residents who are not responsible for city budgets don't care about these things. They just want to complain about caliper inches.

[RedScare]

For those who are curious what a piece of land that has been "in a state of nature for over 30 years" (as opposed to "located between the ravine and the railroad bed in its natural state since the early 1800’s") looks like, here is a photo of the property.

I am not sure if the cattails have been there since the early 1800s or not, but if so, we should demand that they be preserved.

[LTAWACS]

Cool... so this is like another Ashby Highrise, eh? Awesome.

For those who are curious what a piece of land that has been "in a state of nature for over 30 years" (as opposed to "located between the ravine and the railroad bed in its natural state since the early 1800’s") looks like, here is a photo of the property.

I am not sure if the cattails have been there since the early 1800s or not, but if so, we should demand that they be preserved.

Please post the image. Thnx.

[fwki]

Ok, I was bored, so I read the comments for this petition posted on ipetition.com, some are priceless, my comments in italics:

• 168 cars going and coming down narrow streets that already have full capacity form the occupants who cannot even park on their streets, which are narrow and have open ditches alongside them……..I have never, ever seen a car on Frasier, so I guess the capacity is zero.
  

• this is a terrible and unsafe idea……..The future residents will be unsafe from the radical preservationists.
  

• please preserve the history that Houston has! ……especially all the weed-choked ditches along the freeway
  

• If we don't preserve these areas, who will? …….Ortho Brush-B-Gone
  

• This gorgeous natural habitat is an obvious extension of Stude Park………Obviously. In the 1800’s it was known as Stude Park West.
  

• I vote NO for any changes to the Heights Hike and Bike Trail……Whilst everyone was trying to find this lost piece of Yellowstone, the Heights annexed the Hike and Bike Trail and will place toll booths throughout Timbergrove.
  

• Only through respecting the past will we not make the same mistakes in the future……take our past voting laws for example.
  

• The long term effects on our historic neighborhood are being ignored, presumably for profit. My property taxes have gone up every year while other neighborhood values are lowering. If you are going to tax me to the hilt, the least you can do is preserve the quality and character of my expensive neighborhood………Translated: My profit good, your profit bad.
  

• allow the birds to maintain their natural state. the hike and bike trail is heavily used. It should be left along and more people should be encouraged to use it…..Except for the bums, they have to use the natural state along with the birds for shanty town ingress / egress.
  

• I'm paying my drainage fee, but not so additional projects can be built that increase flooding……….Instead let’s build 84 houses and see what that does to drainage.
  

• When is the City of Houston going to recognize that the White Oak bayou cannot sustain unchecked development? More hardscape along it's banks without drainage detention is just creating more problems in this already most flood-prone area of the city!........Dang, my real estate agent told me the Heights was the least flood-prone. Luckily the Corp of Engineers cemented both banks along its entire length decades ago to eliminate the annual flooding caused by its natural state.
  

• They should not mess with the safety of the bike trail. There is no other good way to get south to Washington Ave……Ah yes, the pedestrian haven of Washington Ave where hipster joggers and bikers can safely cruise the strip day or night.
  

• I bike for health and peace of mind in nature, after work. What are the politicians thinking. Maybe i should be working more in order to pay higher taxes. I guess i will be forced to mpve out to another county……….Please don’t stop there.
  

• There's not much in this city preserved from the 1800's. The city needs to save this area…………If you tell a lie often enough…….
  

• One of the reasons that I have chosen to live in the heights is because of the wonderful scenery and undisturbed greenspace around White Oak Bayou…….especially the historical cave paintings left along its rocky banks by the nomadic Houstones, in the 1800’s of course.
  

• More building on the banks of White Oak Bayou - WTF?........Yes, just wtf were those Allen Brothers thinking when they founded our city on the banks of the bayou instead of the Katy Prairie.
  

• Isn't it bad enough that green spaces have been taken to build condos, a Target, a Walmart………..I used to picnic at the ole steel mill, and I met my wife under the derrick on the banks of the laminates plant.
  

• The city can't become all concrete. And if you build on the bayou, the structure will flood……..Most assuredly it will.
  

• This undeveloped land serves as an important eco-system and has been located between the ravine and the railbed forever……….I was under the impression that the parcel was originally from Michigan and migrated here in the Seventies along with all those other black taggers.
  

[s3mh]

For those who are curious what a piece of land that has been "in a state of nature for over 30 years" (as opposed to "located between the ravine and the railroad bed in its natural state since the early 1800’s") looks like, here is a photo of the property.

I am not sure if the cattails have been there since the early 1800s or not, but if so, we should demand that they be preserved.

Those are not cattails. That is giant reed (arundo donax). It is an invasive species that has been used for errosion control in the past. It has filled in part of the portion that was cleared when they built the trail. Behind it are old growth hard wooks (mostly oaks) which are very valuable to birds when paired with or in close proximity to waterways. If done right, the cain should be removed and replaced with more trees to fill out the tree canopy.

[SilverJK]

Fact: Before the development there was a sidewalk and a stand of 8-9 live oaks along the west side of Yale St.

Fact: After the development the trees are gone and there is no longer a sidewalk along SJ Stone. I drove past it this morning. You can do so and see for yourself.

Fact: The City of Houston promised that the 6 mil they gave the developer would give the City control over the development to make sure that we would get a development that exceeded minimum standards.

Fact: All we got were sidewalks that were 1 ft wider (mostly because they eliminated planting strips and put the sidewalks right up to the edge of the roadway) and trees that exceeded minimum caliper (which they had to do anyway to satisfy their mitigation obligation)

Fact: The definition of a distorted utopian view is the idea that you will get better development for your neighborhood by "engaging" a developer than by organizing opposition and doing everything you can to achieve your goals.

So its even less trees than I thought... on a section of sidewalk that wasn't being used, the city still has some control on the development (you see they actually like what has been done unlike you), we got 1ft wider sidewalks (improvement!), and your last point is just your opinion again. So I say it again... How can you say 8-9 live oaks is a travesty, while saying a house and a driveway is "hardly development". You pick and choose your exaggerations at such a rate it is mind boggling.

Opinion: This is going to be a very succesful development

Opinion: This will greatly increase the tax base for this area within the next 3 years.

Opinion: The prior two opinions apply to both the condos and wal-mart

Fact: More people agree with my opinions than yours... (at least on this website.... which is frequented by those who appreciate architecture....)

[s3mh]

When is the City of Houston going to recognize that the White Oak bayou cannot sustain unchecked development? More hardscape along it's banks without drainage detention is just creating more problems in this already most flood-prone area of the city!........Dang, my real estate agent told me the Heights was the least flood-prone. Luckily the Corp of Engineers cemented both banks along its entire length decades ago to eliminate the annual flooding caused by its natural state.

The 500 and 100 year flood plain do reach up into Woodland Heights. The Heights is way beyond hurricane storm surge and bayou overflow (that was what your realtor was talking about), but when the sewers fill up, there are plenty of roadways and yards in the Heights that go under water.

Also, it is now widely accepted that cementing White Oak Bayou did nothing to eliminate flooding and probably made it worse. All the cement did was make water move faster down the bayou. The problem is that it still does not drain fast enough and will go over its banks in major rain/tropical events. Bayous actually do a better job in their natural state managing flood waters than cemented over because the vegetation on the bayous act like a giant sponge, storing rain water and gradually releasing it after the rain event subsides. Any benefit from moving water faster down stream by cementing is offset by the loss of storage capacity along the bayou.

Putting in buildings and parking lots along the bayou in areas that were previously permeable greenspace reduces storage capacity along the bayou (where you need it the most).

[fwki]

.....Also, it is now widely accepted that cementing White Oak Bayou did nothing to eliminate flooding and probably made it worse. All the cement did was make water move faster down the bayou. The problem is that it still does not drain fast enough and will go over its banks in major rain/tropical events. Bayous actually do a better job in their natural state managing flood waters than cemented over because the vegetation on the bayous act like a giant sponge, storing rain water and gradually releasing it after the rain event subsides. Any benefit from moving water faster down stream by cementing is offset by the loss of storage capacity along the bayou.

Putting in buildings and parking lots along the bayou in areas that were previously permeable greenspace reduces storage capacity along the bayou (where you need it the most).

Oh Omniscient One, can you please provide a source for your supposition of wide-acceptance. And by "wide-acceptance", I don't mean coffee-house revisionists but instead, employed hydrologists. This article was in the Chronicle when I first moved here:

Houston Chronicle 4/28/91:

"Near-Northwest Houston

In 1964, the Corps of Engineers finished lining 9.4 miles of lower White Oak Bayou with concrete. But flooding in subdivisions upstream of the concrete channel got progressively worse as urbanization north of Loop 610 increased.

In 1976, the Corps' Galveston office proposed channelizing another 9.6 miles of White Oak, beginning at the upper end of the concrete ditch and extending north. It was to be an earthen channel, with concrete applied only at erosion-prone bends.

The plan wasn't authorized by Congress until 1986. By that time, people along White Oak and the flood control district had grown tired of waiting. The Corps was told to keep its $69 million; the county, anticipating a windfall of bond money, would do its own project and even provide for retention.

Storey said the county intends to make good on its promise. But he has decided that 2 1/2 miles of the sandy-soiled bayou should be lined with concrete to prevent erosion.

Some homeowners who would be served by the project don't want it if it includes a concrete liner.

The Corps of Engineers, which must issue a permit before the channel can be lined, last winter received more than a dozen letters about the project.

"This stretch of White Oak Bayou has been severely altered by past flood control projects," wrote Larry McKinney, director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Resource Protection Division. "However, some fish and wildlife habitat remains. The placement of a cement channel within the bayou will result in a near complete loss of remaining habitat values."

But G.J. Raindl, a resident of the Arbor Oaks subdivision, wrote that his neighborhood "was flooded in 1970, 1972, 1981 and twice in 1989" and urged the Corps to "approve this permit application as soon as possible."

Storey said he is sensitive to environmental concerns, but believes the bayou would be a perpetual "maintenance burden" if it were not lined with concrete."

So I believe your revisionist engineering is a sympton of your politics. At least Larry McKinney told the truth about his no-liner rationale in the above article, and it had nothing to do with flooding.

[samagon]

More building on the banks of White Oak Bayou - WTF?........Yes, just wtf were those Allen Brothers thinking when they founded our city on the banks of the bayou instead of the Katy Prairie.

I think, if you read the unabridged Allen Bros. Biography, you'd find that the Katy Prairie was their first choice, but when they found all sorts of archaeological remains, they figured it would be too hard to get past all the red tape and cost of excavation, prior to development. They made the right choice here.

Bayous actually do a better job in their natural state managing flood waters than cemented over because the vegetation on the bayous act like a giant sponge, storing rain water and gradually releasing it after the rain event subsides. Any benefit from moving water faster down stream by cementing is offset by the loss of storage capacity along the bayou.

I must say this is one of your first posts that's actually very close to 100% accurate, not based on half truths, or an opinion that you think everyone holds the same as you, I'm pleased!

It's not just the vegetation that soaks in all the water, it's the ground and dirt that does it. we look at dirt and we see this solid barrier, cause it is hard and we can walk on it, but it's very porous and a lot of water can soak into the ground. when a gully, or bayou, or anything like that has concrete sides, it's just like your driveway instead of your front yard, the water cascades down it immediately and into the street, instead of the ground soaking up a lot of water and then either retaining it, or releasing it more slowly back into the water table.

For a Mr. Wizard moment, take your water hose and spray it on the concrete driveway, watch the water cascade down, then move it to your yard and watch it just soak into the dirt, you have to flood your yard before it will start to dribble out and into the street.

What the concrete lined walls of a bayou keep from getting out of the channel, it also keeps it from getting in though, except where the engineers want it to get in.

So it's also a positive as they have engineered them (and have to engineer them) not just to quickly evacuate water from your neighborhood, but those both upstream and downstream of your specific location, and they can't just let water enter it all willy nilly. It's all about control and ensuring that your house, and everyone else's house who decided to either buy, or build a house in a bird's sanctuary can do so without worry of flood.

If you were so concerned over animal's habitats, you'd demolish your house, and push the city to demolish everyone else's too. So, you can't really have your house, and expect others to as well, and preservation of animal habitat when the animal's habitat has already been scoured. the nature course is a BS answer. We don't live in a rural farmville, we live in a booming metropolis that's already been scoured clean of it's REAL wildlife.

[fwki]

I think, if you read the unabridged Allen Bros. Biography, you'd find that the Katy Prairie was their first choice, but when they found all sorts of archaeological remains, they figured it would be too hard to get past all the red tape and cost of excavation, prior to development. They made the right choice here.

I must say this is one of your first posts that's actually very close to 100% accurate, not based on half truths, or an opinion that you think everyone holds the same as you, I'm pleased!

It's not just the vegetation that soaks in all the water, it's the ground and dirt that does it. we look at dirt and we see this solid barrier, cause it is hard and we can walk on it, but it's very porous and a lot of water can soak into the ground. when a gully, or bayou, or anything like that has concrete sides, it's just like your driveway instead of your front yard, the water cascades down it immediately and into the street, instead of the ground soaking up a lot of water and then either retaining it, or releasing it more slowly back into the water table.

For a Mr. Wizard moment, take your water hose and spray it on the concrete driveway, watch the water cascade down, then move it to your yard and watch it just soak into the dirt, you have to flood your yard before it will start to dribble out and into the street.

What the concrete lined walls of a bayou keep from getting out of the channel, it also keeps it from getting in though, except where the engineers want it to get in.

So it's also a positive as they have engineered them (and have to engineer them) not just to quickly evacuate water from your neighborhood, but those both upstream and downstream of your specific location, and they can't just let water enter it all willy nilly.

Your experiment demonstrates that urbanization (cement slabs and buildings) removes water retention capacity and also proves that moving water to sea level is best accomplished via efficient channelization. Since we are not going to dig up the city, we must have the best channels possible to evacuate the runoff. However we live in a political world and channelization was combined with retention as the new environmentally-friendly policy by the late 60's. But in no way is the natural state better than channelization for urban flood control. And without cement and maintenance, erosion eventually would return the entire area to its natural state.

Here's a good history of the evolving politics of White Oak: http://www.hcfcd.org...ak/history.html

EDIT: This link is better with pics and old maps: http://www.hcfcd.org/downloads/historical/PresentationBuffaloWhiteOakHistory.pdf

[JJxvi]

Behind it are old growth hard wooks (mostly oaks)

There is nothing old growth about that site. Old growth implies really old, tree dominant forests. It's like you once read a flyer about an environmental cause and picked up a new term to throw around.

[TGM]

Behind it are old growth hard wooks (mostly oaks) which are very valuable to birds when paired with or in close proximity to waterways.

No, not the wooks, please!

[samagon]

Your experiment demonstrates that urbanization (cement slabs and buildings) removes water retention capacity and also proves that moving water to sea level is best accomplished via efficient channelization. Since we are not going to dig up the city, we must have the best channels possible to evacuate the runoff. However we live in a political world and channelization was combined with retention as the new environmentally-friendly policy by the late 60's. But in no way is the natural state better than channelization for urban flood control. And without cement and maintenance, erosion eventually would return the entire area to its natural state.

Here's a good history of the evolving politics of White Oak: http://www.hcfcd.org...ak/history.html

EDIT: This link is better with pics and old maps: http://www.hcfcd.org...eOakHistory.pdf

oh certainly, I understand the reasoning, I'm just saying, the information s3mh was mostly accurate and I'm going to say good job when I see it even though it was left out that the concrete was done for a very practical purpose.

There is nothing old growth about that site. Old growth implies really old, tree dominant forests. It's like you once read a flyer about an environmental cause and picked up a new term to throw around.

caliper inches!!!