Jump to content

Market Street In The Woodlands


bachanon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are you responding to my post? Who said anything about the "true enemy"? Did I even mention Christianity? Did I suggest reverting to Puritan tactics - would this be the same as concern about how children are understanding sexuality? Did I say anything at all about "Negros" and females? Or "failure as a country"?

In my post, I wrote "Were people who questioned the decency of [how certain girls are dressing] treated as Nazis or KKK members?" And in responding, you of course have treated me exactly like I was a KKK member. You lumped me in a bunch of categories, including racism, that I don't belong in. Apparently to you there is no difference between simply having morals and being a witch judge in Salem (you probably won't believe this, but when I was writing the post, I actually considered using "Puritan witch judges" as my example of how people with values are treated instead of "Nazis or KKK members" - amazing how you reacted exactly as I expected).

I teach rhetoric to college students, and one of the things we talk about is the "straw man" argument. This is where a person who doesn't feel that he can rationally deal with an opponent's stated position instead chooses to dress that person up with a bunch of things that he or she didn't say, so that he can have something more manageable to take down. He creates a "straw man" since he cannot handle the real man's argument, and carries on a shadow fight against the straw man that he has created. This is what you have done to me, and for any person trained in rational debate, it shows poorly on you.

People who do not obey the moral law that is inside everyone - people who put sensual craving in front of moral reason - harm themselves more than anyone else can ever harm them. You may or may not believe this statement, but it wasn't a Christian who said it first - it was a guy named Plato. I don't worry about what other people, especially children, are doing because I want to oppress them. I worry because I don't think they know where their actions lead. I don't force anything on people, but I do worry. Certain things make me concerned.

dbigtex, your comments might win over some likeminded sympathizers on this forum, but logically they are a mess, and I am offended by what you have insinuated of me. And for what - posing a few questions? Why not just answer the questions? If this is the kind of behavior I can expect from a moderator, this forum is in poor hands. In the past you and I have been able to respectfully agree and disagree about things, without making things up or slandering each other. When did you become so nasty?

Interesting that you are so offended by bigtex' insinuations, given that you are the one who insinuated that anyone who questions you is treating you as a Nazi or KKK member. You also have mastered the straw man technique, as well. I might suggest that one so easily offended by these techniques should not first use them himself.

As to your suggestion that all of these kids are disobeying moral law, whose moral law are we talking about here? Yours? If wearing hip-huggers is such a violation, do we go back to the tight jeans of the 80s? The hot pants of the 70s? Knee skirts of the 50s? How about not showing ankles? Would that bring your moral compass back to True North?

It is fine to opine that contemporary morals are not where you would like to see them. To suggest that those who disagree with your views are depraved perverts or otherwise idiots is to attempt to disguise your opinions as facts...another well known debating tactic.

KatieDidIt suggested a fine way to enforce her sence of morality and decency in her own home. You on the other hand, are trying to enforce your version of morality and decency in everyone else's. I wouldn't describe that as Nazism...although I would mutter that you sound like the Morality Police.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you are so offended by bigtex' insinuations, given that you are the one who insinuated that anyone who questions you is treating you as a Nazi or KKK member. You also have mastered the straw man technique, as well. I might suggest that one so easily offended by these techniques should not first use them himself.

As to your suggestion that all of these kids are disobeying moral law, whose moral law are we talking about here? Yours? If wearing hip-huggers is such a violation, do we go back to the tight jeans of the 80s? The hot pants of the 70s? Knee skirts of the 50s? How about not showing ankles? Would that bring your moral compass back to True North?

It is fine to opine that contemporary morals are not where you would like to see them. To suggest that those who disagree with your views are depraved perverts or otherwise idiots is to attempt to disguise your opinions as facts...another well known debating tactic.

KatieDidIt suggested a fine way to enforce her sence of morality and decency in her own home. You on the other hand, are trying to enforce your version of morality and decency in everyone else's. I wouldn't describe that as Nazism...although I would mutter that you sound like the Morality Police.

You need to reread the posts, RedScare. In my first post, I simply pointed out that people in the U.S. who worry about morals are often treated like they are Nazis or KKK members. I did not accuse anyone on this forum on that. So I don't see how I am using the "straw man" fallacy.

dbigtex, on the other hand, assumed that because I thought there were problems with how some teenagers are behaving, that I must also be racist against black people... and against women's rights... and in favor of enforcing my morality with stones a la the Puritans. dbigtex employed a classic technique of liberal anti-moralism - he lumped me with every bad example he could think of in history of people who have possessed something similar to my views, and assumed that I held all the views that they profess. Notice that he didn't simply question me as to these other views, or specifically debate the points that I had made - a fact which shows that he is probably not interested in rational debate, and probably is incapable of respecting an opponent who disagrees with him.

As for your arguments concerning "which morality"... I did not have any particular period or style in mind. My point is simply that, by how they dress, young people seem increasingly to make themselves objects of sensual craving, and I don't think that this bodes well for them. Whose morality? When I wrote my last response, I had Plato in mind - see his "Gorgias," especially - but the same principles are held by almost every philosophy and religion. Again, it is more about caring for the person than it is oppressing him or her, and I would at any rate never impose my views on anyone (but I won't hesitate to express them). I think that you, like dbigtex, are mixing my arguments with other people you have heard, and responding to those people's arguments and pointing out their inconsistencies instead of mine (what, for instance, do my views have in common with Nazism, of all things?). You both need to read what I say more carefully.

By the way, I think that there are other people on this forum who agree with me, but are afraid to say it. People generally scatter when the topic of morality comes up. A quote from W.B. Yeats is relevant here: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate sincerity." Society has told us for so long that anyone who expresses moral beliefs is either Puritanical, a Nazi, or simply uncool, that people are afraid to voice their beliefs. That's pretty sad, especially for those who haven't discovered those principles yet, and only hear the voices that preach indulgence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I think that there are other people on this forum who agree with me, but are afraid to say it. People generally scatter when the topic of morality comes up. A quote from W.B. Yeats is relevant here: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate sincerity." Society has told us for so long that anyone who expresses moral beliefs is either Puritanical, a Nazi, or simply uncool, that people are afraid to voice their beliefs. That's pretty sad, especially for those who haven't discovered those principles yet, and only hear the voices that preach indulgence.

I love it when you use the "oppressed minority" angle. Imagine. A religious conservative in Houston, Texas is oppressed. Alert the media! Why would someone be afraid to stick up for morality? Because the evil, perverted RedScare might laugh at them (insert diabolical laugh here)?

I'm thoroughly amused at your belief that sex kills. However, there is nothing wrong with members of one sex preening for members of the opposite sex. It is human nature. It is the way we are hardwired. I recognize that you might not agree with me on the Darwinism thing, but that is how the species survives and prospers.

By the way, for all of your pontificating about the evils of teenage preening, you have not produced one fact to support your conclusion. Could it be that teenage preening does not automatically lead to sex, as you suggest? Would it surprise you to find teen pregnancy levels are down from the 80s and 90s? Holy Cow! Is it possible that how these kids dress is not as important as straight talk about teen sex by their parents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it when you use the "oppressed minority" angle. Imagine. A religious conservative in Houston, Texas is oppressed. Alert the media! Why would someone be afraid to stick up for morality? Because the evil, perverted RedScare might laugh at them (insert diabolical laugh here)?

I'm thoroughly amused at your belief that sex kills. However, there is nothing wrong with members of one sex preening for members of the opposite sex. It is human nature. It is the way we are hardwired. I recognize that you might not agree with me on the Darwinism thing, but that is how the species survives and prospers.

By the way, for all of your pontificating about the evils of teenage preening, you have not produced one fact to support your conclusion. Could it be that teenage preening does not automatically lead to sex, as you suggest? Would it surprise you to find teen pregnancy levels are down from the 80s and 90s? Holy Cow! Is it possible that how these kids dress is not as important as straight talk about teen sex by their parents?

Again: you label me with a bunch of things I didn't say. It's almost like you're incapable of handling a rational argument. I do not consider myself oppressed. I really wouldn't call myself a religious conservative - haven't I talked more about Plato than about Christianity? Is this common among religious conservatives? I didn't call you evil or perverted. I have not even used the word evil. I did not say that teenage "preening" automatically leads to sex. I certainly don't believe that "sex kills." And I'm not surprised about teen pregnancy levels being down. Why do you assume all these things of me? Does your mind only contain one category for people who hold moral viewpoints, and you shove all of them indiscriminately into that same category?

This whole thing began when you compared the United States with the Taliban, and I merely pointed out that it wasn't common under the Taliban for women to dress the way they often do here (not that I would want us to adopt the Taliban's oppressive rules) - nor was it common for people who found something wrong with brazen sexuality among thirteen year olds to be castigated and equated with Nazis or KKK members. Neither of these points have so far been answered, and I am still waiting for you to do so.

Instead, I have been hit with childish insults, I have had my words misinterpreted in bizarre, inexplicable fashion, I have been compared with Salem witch judges, I have been told that I am "pontificating" and that my views sound like "Nazism," and at least one person on this forum is under the serious impression that I think that he is an "evil pervert." If anyone has reason to be angry about what people have said in this thread, it is me.

I ask you again, RedScare: Are you capable of talking to me in a coherent, rational fashion? Without putting words in my mouth or assuming things about my character? Are you capable, in other words, of reading what I write and responding to it?

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will also respond to your point about sexuality and Darwinism. You may be surprised to know that I don't take the Bible creation story literally, and I do believe in a form of evolution (and that Darwinism should be taught in schools). I also believe that sex and procreation are among the greatest things in human life. But I think that there is a healthy approach to sex, and an unhealthy one. One is beautiful and life-giving, the other is harmful and destructive. I would not agree with you that all uses of the sexual urge are unconditionally good, simply because it is "hardwired" into us - see Plato, for starters, on that one.

I do not intend to force these ideas on anybody, but they are my beliefs. I entered this argument not to assert these beliefs, but simply to defend America against the charge that it was comparable to the Taliban. I only explain these beliefs now because it has been said that I believe something else, and I wish to set the record straight. These beliefs, by the way, have nothing in common with Puritanism (which saw sex as a necessary evil), racism, anti-feminism, or Nazism (still can't figure out how that came up). I can happily say that I have not vilified anyone else or accused them of views they do not profess, and so unless someone offers me an apology and agrees to adopt a rational method of discussion, I will leave this argument with my conscience clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H-town, I'll be brief and polite, because bachanon is having panic attacks over us hijacking his beloved Woodlands thread.

Morals are neither defined by a singular statement, nor universal in belief. One man's immoral behavior is another man's normal behavior. Some may consider sex outside of marriage immoral. I consider it normal. Your gripe with bigtex and myself is not so much our lack of morals, but the difference in how we define morality.

The choice of clothing worn by teens, in my opinion, is not even a moral issue. It is a matter of taste, or perhaps class, or even modesty. If one lacks taste or class, are they immoral? If one lacks modesty, are they immoral?

Morals inevitably relate to religion, as religion is where most of what we believe to be moral is defined. Morality therefore, will differ amongst different religions. I happen to be agnostic. As an agnostic, why should I be burdened with a religion's definition of morality, when I don't even believe in the definition of the religion?

If you choose to make manner of dress a moral issue, so be it. If I choose to think it is not, that is my opinion. If you believe my responses are offensive to you, that is a personal issue. I have learned to grow thicker skin, since I enjoy a good debate.

Now, to return bachanon's topic to him, I think a big lawn with some corporate art on it is just what Town Center needs. The teens will be so impressed that they will stop loitering and become contributing members of Woodlands society.

Can someone explain what "loitering" is anyway. Is that what you call someone who isn't spending money fast enough? If the point of Town Center was to get the "urban" feel, where neighbors gather to talk, why is everyone upset when (young) neighbors gather and talk? I think some people aren't as "urban" as they claim to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedScare, I thank you for your politeness, and since you have been polite, I will briefly reply to what you have said. The notion that morality is relative and related to personal taste is a common philosophical view, but by no means the only one, nor the accepted one. There is also a philosophical basis for morality outside religion - in fact, I would say that much of philosophy and most religions are actually pretty much in agreement on morals. Plato, in particular, attacks the argument that morality is not universal - see his dialogues "Protagoras," "Meno," and my favorite, "Gorgias." His views are echoed by Aristotle and most other ancient philosophers, and in modern times the idea of a morality that is universal and separate from religion has been promulgated by Kant. So I don't think morality is "inevitably related to religion." Notice also that I never vilified you and dbigtex for not sharing my morals, but you both vilified me for having and expressing moral views, which seems a bit strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the infamous Mount Houston, the only mountain on the Gulf Coast?

http://www.johnbridge.com/mount_houston.htm

Well, I think that web site isn't correct. It's probably nothing more than a pile of fill dirt. Here is what the Handbook of Texas says about Mt. Houston, nowhere near this place:

MOUNT HOUSTON, TEXAS. Mount Houston is east of U.S. Highway 59 near the Dyersdale oilfield in north central Harris County. It was founded on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway ten miles from Houston. A post office operated there from 1910 until 1918. In 1914 Mount Houston had two churches, a sawmill, a lumber company, numerous market gardeners, and a population of 100. By the 1980s three churches and three schools were within a mile of the townsite, but the community had not significantly increased in size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think that web site isn't correct. It's probably nothing more than a pile of fill dirt. Here is what the Handbook of Texas says about Mt. Houston, nowhere near this place:

MOUNT HOUSTON, TEXAS. Mount Houston is east of U.S. Highway 59 near the Dyersdale oilfield in north central Harris County. It was founded on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway ten miles from Houston. A post office operated there from 1910 until 1918. In 1914 Mount Houston had two churches, a sawmill, a lumber company, numerous market gardeners, and a population of 100. By the 1980s three churches and three schools were within a mile of the townsite, but the community had not significantly increased in size.

:lol:

I agree. I think this dude was joking around. The Handbook sounded more researched and correct, especially in light of the salt mounds that are prevalent in that neck of the woods.

I still thought it was amusing, though.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems that market street is the place to be for bored woodlands' teenagers. hundreds of them are flocking there to linger after most of the upscale businesses close. the mounted police are trying to move them out, but it's kind of a kick in the ass. market street was created to be a place to be, to linger. but these fiesty, pot smoking (i've smelled it) teenagers are making it the place to loiter, run in to friends from school and continue their snooty lifestyles, long after school is out. this was not in the "master plan" :lol:

i'll admit, i adore these kids, but hell, parents. do you know where your kids are at 10PM on a friday night. sorry folks, but 15 year olds have no business "lingering" with tons of other minors in a public place late at night. just because the streets of market street are lined with limos, porsches and mercedes does not mean it's ok for kids to run amok. some of you woodlands' residents have 250K home theaters and back yard theme parks for god's sake. make them have a curfew and keep 'em home. there are fun thing to do there, with your supervision.

fine, good, ok. just say it...........bach gets real.

I just re-read the opening post of this thread.

"market street was created to be a place to be, to linger. but these fiesty, pot smoking (i've smelled it) teenagers are making it the place to loiter, run in to friends from school and continue their snooty lifestyles, long after school is out. this was not in the "master plan" "

I'm sure the "master plan" is more centered on making as much money as quickly as possible by catering to the least common denomenator; thus an assurance they have a willing audience of non-parenting parents with limitless credit cards.

I could care less for all the supposed "conservative" and/or "liberal" opinions in this thread.

I agree with Red's comment regarding teens throughout the 20th century and will take his comment one step forward. I suspect this clash between child and parent has been going on since biblical times (just read the Bible-there are some rather un-ruly kids in there).

All I can speak to is my own up-bringing. We didn't "loiter" anywhere but we could be fiesty all we wanted in the park. My Liberal parents were clear with the rules. They were consistant for all of us. Now look what happened: they raised 4 hard working, tax-paying Liberal children. Their Conservative friends did the same with their kids. Guess what? We're all still friends. Bizarre.

If you want children then you need to become a parent. Don't count on some tacky, "urban", contrived playground like Market Street to do the job for you. It won't teach your kids morals or good taste. Quite the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly interesting discussion. Teens are not any different than adults. The first person that tries to make me leave because I am an adult will not like my response, nor any required subsequent responses. I have been with my children as they mingled with the "loitering" crowds, where they sipped a cup of coffee and talked to friends and then maybe went to say hi to someone they know and then maybe to the ice cream place. So what is this hullaboo all about anyway? Yes, a crowd it is on weekends, and as with crowds, there may be some things happen that we do not want to happen. I have heard of people afraid of teen crowds and aggravation by some of their energy and other issues. Geez .... The Woodlands is a family place. Take it up with the developer and the community. If people do not like family life, then maybe this is not the place for them. I noted some folks noting a need for public places for teens. That is exactly what my teens tell me. "Where else will we go?" Want us to be jailed in homes? If you have a teen, you know you do not want them in another home, where there are likely issues with supervision. I was a teenager once, as I well know all of you were also. I am on my 5th and 6th teenagers and have had excellent success, but the home was not ever the issue. It was always the outside and lack of interest and bad influences in the neighborhood. What goes on behind closed doors .. ugh! As a parent I much rather them be socializing outdoors or in a place where there are sure to be responsible adults. These are really nice kids. And sterotyping them by dress codes? Shameful! Styles continously change. Get over it and get aboard. Let's not make the same mistakes parents did in the 70's. How terrible long hair was and those beatniks and drug pushers who did not wear belts! Had to punish them severely and boot them out if they did not follow the parents dress codes. I could write all day on this subject, but it already is boring. Sorry. Teens need socializing. Some are nerds and can live without people. My adult children managed to get through it all as outstanding citizens. I would like something better for my current ones, but adults never change. TW is the worst of any community I have ever lived for providing them a safe haven to live. It certainly has not lived up to its advertised "family community".

Edited by woody_hawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, "family" meant together with your mother, father, siblings, etc. Not creating a Manson "family" mentality where it's "COOL" to smoke a "joint" out in public and dress like 2Pac, while having your group of "thugs" give a "beatdown" because some kid who is not as "cool" as them, may have looked at them wrong. Upbringing of children begins at home, children under the age of 18 have no business being out after midnight, they can do nothing but "get bored" and get into trouble. I bet if all these minors were hanging out in YOUR frontlawn and beatings and drug consuming were going on, you would feel differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, "family" meant together with your mother, father, siblings, etc. Not creating a Manson "family" mentality where it's "COOL" to smoke a "joint" out in public and dress like 2Pac, while having your group of "thugs" give a "beatdown" because some kid who is not as "cool" as them, may have looked at them wrong. Upbringing of children begins at home, children under the age of 18 have no business being out after midnight, they can do nothing but "get bored" and get into trouble. I bet if all these minors were hanging out in YOUR frontlawn and beatings and drug consuming were going on, you would feel differently.

Wow! Such assumptions and stereotypes and cultural narrow vision. Where did you get that definition of family? Check Webster. That would be a good place to learn what family means. It is a relationship, not a rope. Family life is how a family choses to define it. Maybe this is what you were alluding to. Yes, family begins, evolves and is based at home with parents, siblings and other relatives, but it certainly does not end there, nor is it confined to there. You have not lived with teenagers after midnight, I can telll. I might agree if you were to say that a teenager should not be in an unsupervised home late at night. The other statements are purely judgemental with your own assumptions applied.

In regard to drugs, there was no pot in the several times I have been at Market Street. . Geez ... go there and experience the place and the people. I was with the kids thispast Friday night at Market Street. What pot? Market Street is just like the mall. I would not be surprised if I searched around, maybe I would find some kid there smoking. It is very common everywhere. I have run acrros kids smoking in parking lots., on the trails and in their homes. You might find a 35 year old smoking if you smell it also. So far, I have not seen a 60 year old smoking pot, but I bet there are some.

PLease get off the kids cases and assuming there are a bunch of unconcerned parents allowing their children to go wild. This is not the case that I have seen and I experience the place regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Fascistoid Market Street Management Goes Rampant

OK, maybe I worded that a wee bit strongly, but it got your attention, didn't it?

My "favorite" quote from Dull is "The thing we're trying to get across is that we want everyone to come and spend money at Market Street, but what we do not want is inappropriate behavior," he said. "We've experienced inappropriate behavior from those 17 and under, who are believed to have been unsupervised."

Well, at least he's honest, spend money or f*** off is what Market Street, that plastic wannabe downtown is all about. My guess is that the "inappropriate behavior" consists mostly of - well, not spending money :D

Sure, those teens can be a pain in the butt, I've seen it myself and I vividly recall my own obnoxiousness at that age. But it's perfectly normal for kids in that phase to rebel and find their own way. Doing it in the sanitized Stepford Wives-Woodlands, where diversity (and I don't mean race) is just not welcome, must suck. I know I'll get the hell out of here as soon as my kids, who love the place right now, get to that age.

Edited by f95kai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the new "town green" park across the street from market street will be open until 11PM, starting in april. the park connects to the waterway. expect some more hand wringing (possibly me ;) ) over this same age group this summer. at least they'll have more places to hang out.

it will be interesting to see if these new regulations at market street effect the sales at starbucks, jamba juice, potbelly's and johnny rockets. there really aren't too many businesses at market street that cater to the under 17 crowd.

Edited by bachanon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These unescorted children will be required to remain with Market Street personnel until their transportation has arrived.

Who is the "presonnel"?

Rent-a-cops?

I'm not sure I would put my child in the hands of some security guard who may have a "history"...if you get my drift.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, most of the comments I see here reveal a lack of knowledge of The Woodlands. Let's take a look at it. The Woodlands is a master planned community of many varied incomes. (98% or more have comparable incomes as many parts of middle class Houston (lower to middle middle class). The teens here are very normal. I would classify many of them as better behaved and better dressed than most places. However the teens are sensitive to fashion. Adults who criticize them and call them names are simply a reflection of themselves in the past. There has never been a generation that I know of where the teens did not dress differently then the parents. Talk to one of these children and one will fnot find a prostitute in the clothing that stereotypes them in the mind of the adult. In fact, the adult as seen through the childs eyes, when criticizing their dress, might surprise many. Generally the children will congregate to talk to friends they see. This is a normal social behavior, one that I had, my children had, my parents had and generations afterwards and in between. What brings these kids to Market Street? One or two commentators in this thread has a pretty good handle on it. They need independence and social contact with their friends. If you go join a conversation in one of those groups "loitering" around the place, one finds conversations on who is doing what ... gossip and even deep thinking about current day topics. Now the pot .... yes there is some among the teens here. No different than anywhere else. Not to be condoned, but certainly nothing to differentiate the children here from anywhere else in America. This master planned community which is touted as one of the best in America, lacks teenager facilities and activities. What is so wrong with the teens hanging out in a "publc" place. Some say Market Square is not public because it is a private business place. But I beg to differ with that definition. A public place is where one is allowed to go for whatever reason. If it is for business, it is a public place, unless there are restrictions for heath or legal reasons. There is nothing wrong with closing the place after hours to all people. But the rules should apply universally, not to a certain age group nor to a certain race. Our maturing children here deserve to be treated as humans with the same dignity as adults. They are growing to adulthood and need to learn to be part of the community, not be rejected by the community in which they live. They must have places that do not cost much. For heavens sake, to break that bordom, many of them like to party at homes. There they will drink and do things that we do not wish for them to do. In these public places, on the most part, they are not hurting anyone or business. If enough of them are there, there will be a statisical issue because of mental issues with some, as in in any population. There will be occassional fights or other incidents. This is teenagehood, the same as I lived through and you at the local drve-in root beer stand, or the local coffee shop or the local arcades. They are at the mall and in the parking lots throughout the community, creating their own gathering places. It is much better to have supervised gathering places. I have been at Market Street many times with my own children and observed many children, some of whom I know and many others I do not know. They are our future and they will make up the backbone of America when many of us are gone. I feel ashamed of adults when they take a stand against our children, as if to say, "I am better than they", when in reality, when looking in the closets of the adults, there will often be hideous acts covered up as adults and as children. Those who throw the stones are often the ones who deserve the stones thrown at. Come see these "rich" juvenile delinquents in person. I bet you meet some really nice kids. You might meet one or two also who own their own cars and work to keep them up. Of course, these are older than 17. Under 17 kids will soon be restricted from the Market Street complex after 7PM. The ingredients are there for a disaster. Hopefully the store owner association there will discover the error of their decisions, to restrict access, but for me, this policy tells me that the management there have a problem of some sort which needs to be resolved. If they directed their energy to the pronblems instead of the age group, they might have more success. They could have a bigger problem if the children perceive the adults as stupid, which doesn't take much. They really do not want to give the children reason to retaliate. If they have reason, there is always one or two in a large crowd who will take some action on their behalf (brothers, sisters, even parents). Of all os this, it is hoped that new facilities will come along where teens can go and socialize without being criticized and without being threatened. They are children, not criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, most of the comments I see here reveal a lack of knowledge of The Woodlands.

I do.

Some say Market Square is not public because it is a private business place.

People say that for exactly that reason: It is private-NOT public.

I have no problem with the corporation's rules. If they want to ban anyone under 17, they have the right.

Under Texas law, who they can ban is endless. If they are really serious on the ban, one might suggest they fence it in and charge admission as an amusement park might do.

I find it odd that people get all riled up when a private corporation instates certain bans on what can and cannot occur on their property.

My suggestion is don't go if you don't like the rules. If your children persist, be a parent.

As for myself, I would never go back there because it is a sterile, contrived environment that holds no appeal for me.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our maturing children here deserve to be treated as humans with the same dignity as adults. They are growing to adulthood and need to learn to be part of the community, not be rejected by the community in which they live.

Bingo! You just hit the nail on the head, Woody! We took another family out last night to P.F. Chang's last night, kids and all. When we had finished eating, the teens asked if they could go walk around outside and go shopping while the adults stayed at the table talking. We told them to go ahead, just stay away from the Market Street area. They just laughed and said they only liked going there at first because it was something "new", but it really didn't hold that much appeal to them. They'd rather stay at the Woodlands Mall and wander around the courtyard of outside shops like Anthropologie and Barnes & Noble. They won't be going back to Market Street, it just doesn't interest them that much and they didn't care for the attitude of Mr. Harold Dull, General Manager of Market Street. Mark my words, Mr. Dull's asinine "policy" will come back to bite him on the arse! Those rowdies he wanted kicked out after 7 p.m. were customers of those shops & restaurants. It's very insulting to have your kids painted with the same brush and punished unfairly, and I bet a fair number of "grown-ups" won't be patronizing those merchants either because of this. I'm just waiting for the Press Release announcing the departure of Mr. Dull (what a perfect name for him!)

Edited by pineda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last weekend my family was at Market Street and we received an information card outlining this policy. In the first paragaph, in italics, the policy clearly states that "This policy does not apply to those who may be working, dining, or shopping at Market Street." People keep talking about how this is going to adversely affect Market Street tenants but that is just not true. The policy doesn't target kids who are shopping at the stores. It targets all of the teens who stand around in the middle of the green, not spending money. Market Street, regardless of what it may look or feel like, is a shopping center. As such it has every right to control who has access to what is legally private property.

On top of that, I think that this is an excellent policy. Market Street is not a giant day care center. I look forward to going there without having to walk by gangs of kids screaming obsenities and yelling at one another. This is not mere socializing. That's what kids can do at school, or at home, or, if they insist on doing it at Market Street, they can socialize in a restaurant! These kids are not the victims that everyone seems to be making them out to be. They live in The Woodlands, for crying out loud. I don't think that banning them from an upscale shopping center, where they do no shopping themselves, for a small portion of the day will at all adversely affect their quality of life or their long term personal development! :angry:

I absolutly agree. It is a private development and that is why I suggest that it be fenced off with chain link and only those willing to pay the price of admittance be allowed in. That way you can enjoy your hard earned dollars behind a securely guarded, sterile and safe compound where those pesky teens will be kept a safe distance from you...or maybe it's the other way around?

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark my words, Mr. Dull's asinine "policy" will come back to bite him on the arse! Those rowdies he wanted kicked out after 7 p.m. were customers of those shops & restaurants. It's very insulting to have your kids painted with the same brush and punished unfairly, and I bet a fair number of "grown-ups" won't be patronizing those merchants either because of this. I'm just waiting for the Press Release announcing the departure of Mr. Dull (what a perfect name for him!)

Last weekend my family was at Market Street and we received an information card outlining this policy. In the first paragaph, in italics, the policy clearly states that "This policy does not apply to those who may be working, dining, or shopping at Market Street." People keep talking about how this is going to adversely affect Market Street tenants but that is just not true. The policy doesn't target kids who are shopping at the stores. It targets all of the teens who stand around in the middle of the green, not spending money. Market Street, regardless of what it may look or feel like, is a shopping center. As such it has every right to control who has access to what is legally private property.

On top of that, I think that this is an excellent policy. Market Street is not a giant day care center. I look forward to going there without having to walk by gangs of kids screaming obsenities and yelling at one another. This is not mere socializing. That's what kids can do at school, or at home, or, if they insist on doing it at Market Street, they can socialize in a restaurant! These kids are not the victims that everyone seems to be making them out to be. They live in The Woodlands, for crying out loud. I don't think that banning them from an upscale shopping center, where they do no shopping themselves, for a small portion of the day will at all adversely affect their quality of life or their long term personal development! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last weekend my family was at Market Street and we received an information card outlining this policy. In the first paragaph, in italics, the policy clearly states that "This policy does not apply to those who may be working, dining, or shopping at Market Street." People keep talking about how this is going to adversely affect Market Street tenants but that is just not true. The policy doesn't target kids who are shopping at the stores. It targets all of the teens who stand around in the middle of the green, not spending money. Market Street, regardless of what it may look or feel like, is a shopping center. As such it has every right to control who has access to what is legally private property.

On top of that, I think that this is an excellent policy. Market Street is not a giant day care center. I look forward to going there without having to walk by gangs of kids screaming obsenities and yelling at one another. This is not mere socializing. That's what kids can do at school, or at home, or, if they insist on doing it at Market Street, they can socialize in a restaurant! These kids are not the victims that everyone seems to be making them out to be. They live in The Woodlands, for crying out loud. I don't think that banning them from an upscale shopping center, where they do no shopping themselves, for a small portion of the day will at all adversely affect their quality of life or their long term personal development!

Again with the broad brush? We'd been to Market Street plenty of times, in the evening, and never had the horrific experiences that you supposedly faced when you were there. They're teenagers, sometimes they laugh a little loudly, or talk a little animately, but they've presented no threat to us. Where does this policy end? Will the hired cops soon be handing out citations for those of us who are just there to window shop? Will we have to prove that we intend to dine, work, or shop when we're there? But of course, that's just crazy talk, because we won't be going there, until Mr. Dull's idiotic policy is rescinded. There's plenty of other places around that are much more welcoming and accomodating of people.

Edited by pineda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, The Woodlands may be treading very close to the line in excluding the teens. In Hudgens v. NLRB, the Supreme Court ruled that shopping centers, though "public places" in socialogical terms, only becomes a "public place" in legal terms if it takes on all of the attributes of a town. The Woodlands constantly markets these areas as the "Town Center", even naming part of it Town Center. If indeed it is intended to be a "Town Center", coupled with the Woodlands Operating Co.'s quasi-governmental control over all aspects of the Woodlands, a court could find this to be a public place, affording First Amendment protection to the non-shopping public.

While disturbing the peace is not protected speech, congregating to talk with one another, however trivial the conversation, is protected under the First Amendment.

However, these legal questions don't even address the incredibly intolerant and narrow-minded attitudes displayed by mall management and, apparently, many of the patrons, who think nothing of trampling on the rights of others so that they may practice their shallow consumerism without interference from lessers. I promise to do my part by never setting foot in your uber materialistic playground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red, I just love it when you use the word "uber"! :D

and then there' s this...

"Also, it tells us that our continuous marketing of the community as a whole extends beyond the new homes we offer. Excellence, education, outdoor recreation and quality of life, The Woodlands offers the whole package. We're community builders not just home builders."
Edited by pineda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red, I just love it when you use the word "uber"! :D

and then there' s this...

Yes, it does have that sexy, fascist sound to it, doesn't it? :P

A quote from the article:

"While The Woodlands is famous for being a great place to live, we at The Woodlands Development Company know that it's also a great place to work and operate a business. The Woodlands has reached critical mass in office, retail, residential and restaurant. It is becoming a very vibrant downtown that people want to come and experience."

Sure sounds like they are trying to make this a "public place", which would require them to honor 1st Amendment rights. Maybe I'll call my ACLU friends. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, The Woodlands may be treading very close to the line in excluding the teens. In Hudgens v. NLRB, the Supreme Court ruled that shopping centers, though "public places" in socialogical terms, only becomes a "public place" in legal terms if it takes on all of the attributes of a town. The Woodlands constantly markets these areas as the "Town Center", even naming part of it Town Center. If indeed it is intended to be a "Town Center", coupled with the Woodlands Operating Co.'s quasi-governmental control over all aspects of the Woodlands, a court could find this to be a public place, affording First Amendment protection to the non-shopping public.

While disturbing the peace is not protected speech, congregating to talk with one another, however trivial the conversation, is protected under the First Amendment.

However, these legal questions don't even address the incredibly intolerant and narrow-minded attitudes displayed by mall management and, apparently, many of the patrons, who think nothing of trampling on the rights of others so that they may practice their shallow consumerism without interference from lessers. I promise to do my part by never setting foot in your uber materialistic playground.

Here's my problem: dfinke posts on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006 @ 9:24pm. I respond at 10:12 PM.

dfinke then pastes their 9:24 PM post at 10:18 PM in a response to an 8:31pm post by pineda.

So I come back on...rejoin the thread and see that dfinke's 9:24 PM post has been removed from the thread completely but appears as a quote in pineda's 11:11 PM post. I challange you to weave backward through this HAIF maze.

Then I come upon Red's uber logic where once again the Trouble Maker...Oh just forget it...posts appear then dissapear...I've been on a lot of pain meds so perhaps the commie liberals have finally taken over my thought processes...but now that the plate has been removed from my head, I think I'll be up to speed soon enough to challange the dfinkes of the world and show them the errors of their ways!!!

:D

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was afraid that this new measure to "control" the kiddies might have been an overstep. redscare sheds light on the significance of this action by the management company of market street (not the woodlands' development company BTW).

i, myself, have felt like it was time to go home from market street when cliques of teenagers yell and seem to control the atmosphere in that part of town center. perhaps my hypocrisy is showing. if i were to experience the same events when exiting prive or baba yega's in montrose, i would simply think some kids were having fun. when it occurs at market street, i feel like an outsider. perhaps it's the fact that i fall into the "disney effect", if you will? i think that because i'm at market street in the woodlands i should have a relaxing, laid back, safe experience; anything that contradicts that is bothersome. on the other side of the same coin; when i'm in montrose, i expect the unexpected and it doesn't bother me. a bum, a prostitute, a transvestite, punk rock/goth kiddies yelling at someone who didn't give them change for the phone.......none of that bothers me. however, overprivileged youth dominating my supercilious sanctuary makes me uncomfortable. damn i feel shallow. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"youth dominating"

Bach, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. In Montorse and other parts of Houston you can go where the kids are not. There are choices, therefore Houstonians can let kids "have" places. But quite frankly I have never seen kids in packs, near upscale resturants at 11pm in Houston.

Just as kids need a place to be, so do adults. In the Wooldands your entire life is consumed by kids, that's basically what its about. That's fine, but sometimes you want to escape..without driving an hour, and be with adults.

Town Center, Market Center, Main Street Disney, what have you, made a huge mistake by not making a teen area. But to me Market Center was really was designed for the kids. You don't see Uptown Park with a JOhnny ROckets, Creamery, Jamba Juice etc etc. Uptown Park made its point clear from the getgo--ADULTS with MONEY. Market Street seems to want to change the rules now after the fact. While I think the kids should just have Town Center, I think for their safty there should be an 8pm curfew. The Woodlands is changing fast and its rather close to I-45.

We went to dinner ONCE up there on a Friday night for adult time. The kids can have the place. It gave me the creeps to have bland food at 30 bucks a plate while dining in a fish bowl.

So you can't have the bottle of wine and drive back when you go to HOuston, but at least you can have incredible food in a place with character... and in anonymity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both of you are correct, especially in critiquing Market Street's tenant mix. For The Woodlands to fill a retail center with shops attractive to youth and then complain that it attracts teenagers is myopic. It shows their lack of planning, or worse, their quest for rents clouding their common sense. San Antonio's Riverwalk largely features adult themed attractions, thereby attracting mainly adults. The Woodlands (apologies for not knowing the name of the mall developer) could have put a little thought into this, realizing that a separate retail area next door to the restaurant area would have provided some separation of the age groups. They could have also recognized that malls have attracted teens since their inception, and designed the theatre and teen area to accomodate the 'hanging out' that will inevitably occur, providing better supervision and/or security.

Instead, they lump them all together, advertising that all all welcome, then blaming the teens for acting like...well...teenagers. While I am unimpressed with the adults' selfish insistence on 'urbanity without being urban' expectations, I also cannot blame them for listening to the sales pitch of the Market Street management, and expecting them to live up to their promises.

Finally, there is the whole premise of 'family fun' as it is advertised. The nuclear family of 2 parents and their children is a shrinking demographic. The largest demographic in the US is single people, followed by single parent households. The Woodlands and many of it's residents further confuse matters by assuming the family is always comprised of 2 parents and their pre-teen children. By ignoring the reality of families with teens, and incorrectly assuming that single adults don't mind congregating with families with pre-teens, the result is the friction playing out at Market Square. Once their irrational utopian vision is exposed by reality, they react with predictable authoritarian policies that will likely have other unintended consequences.

I can't help but be amused when Idealism meets it's arch-enemy, Realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

move along, little doggies...

Coincidentally, the new policy will take effect on the same day a new park opens across from Market Street. Some residents believe the issue will soon move from Market Street to Town Green Park and The Woodlands Waterway. Town Green Park will close at 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends but has no restrictions on ages for patrons.
Edited by pineda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hate to make the comparison, but here goes. i remember at disneyworld florida, some years ago, that this same age group had places that they flocked to in the evenings and on weekends. many of these kids had season passes, lived nearby or had parents and relatives who worked in the park. there were always large groups of kids hanging out. kids hang out. i'll say it again, i think that the concentration of kids at market street would have eventually spread out with the opening of the park and other coming developments without the strong arm tactics of market street. although i started the thread and have been annoyed by the kiddies, i don't think that all the kids should be pushed out in one fell swoop.

btw, preliminary construction of waterway square is underway. it's location is across the street from tinseltown, connects by waterway to the the town green park and the mall. expect the kids to make waterway square a big deal when completed (at least for awhile).

market street's mr. dull states: "My policy will be enforced as needed as we observe the behavior.". i truly hope they tread softly on enforcement of this policy. there should be more going on (disruptive behavior, complaints, etc.) when asked to leave other than being 16 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Matt and I went to Tommy Bahama's at Market Street last night. We had a marvelous time and had a wonderful dinner. I really enjoyed it and never even noticed anything out-of-sorts. There were teenagers there, walking around, or at Starbucks, but they were all well-behaved.

It was nice--it actually felt like we were "out of town" in another part of the country, even. I am surprised at the closed-mindedness of the Inner Loop/Galleria attitudes, I guess because I can see the good things about this place and I used to live right by the Galleria (oh, yes, I used to say "I will NEVER move to the suburbs!").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware it was a school night, but it was still rather busy. I was there about three Friday nights ago, again at Tommy Bahama's, but I was with a large group and Phoebe was sick, so I really didn't pay much attention to my surroundings. I guess it wasn't that bad if I didn't notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Market Street In The Woodlands

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...