RedScare Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3547824.html"If development continues at current low-density levels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 Although I'm no environmental expert, I can tell you that this article is not prophetic. I live in the Katy area (99 and I-10) and see constant development everywhere, and It's amazing how quickly the prarie has changed in this short time. Since moving here 2 1/2 years ago the traffic noise alone has risen dramatically. I don't mind the development to a degree, but there seeems to be no method to the way it's being designed and implemented, with the exception of Cinco Ranch.As far as the invironmental impact? I remember the first Winter here and taking a drive down Clay road past Katy/Hockley. I had never seen the amount of Geese over a three mile stretch like I experienced that day, there must have been at least 50,000. No exageration!Development of this area is obviously inevitable, but we have got to plan this growth with a little common sense, a little caring for the community and of course the migration of these birds in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 If no annexing takes place that will be something. I doubt if counties annex anyway. Do they? What is it with these rediculously large city limits Houston has been claiming lately? I have heard everything from 550 to 600 to now 650 in the past couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dp2 Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 "If development continues at current low-density levels — roughly 3,500 people per square mile — as many as 1,000 square miles of open space could be lost throughout the Houston area by 2035, said John Jacob, a coastal community development and environmental quality specialist at Texas A&M University. The city of Houston encompasses about 650 square miles. "The implications," Jacob said, "are probably catastrophic."Idiot drama queen. No, not potentially problematic, or negative, or with a high cost, but CATASTROPHIC. As in thousands will die, or be maimed, or be made homeless? Words do have certain meanings.If he can't state his point without grossly exaggerating, odds are that he is dishonest in other areas, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 Idiot drama queen. No, not potentially problematic, or negative, or with a high cost, but CATASTROPHIC. As in thousands will die, or be maimed, or be made homeless? Words do have certain meanings.If he can't state his point without grossly exaggerating, odds are that he is dishonest in other areas, too.Yeah I didn't comment on that but was thinking it was a little (a lot) over the top.I still believe it's true that there needs to be more planning in this area though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talbot Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 I thought the city limits have been 620 sq. miles(still a lot) since after the city stopped annexing? Did it change to 650? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 Although I'm no environmental expert, I can tell you that this article is not prophetic. I live in the Katy area (99 and I-10) and see constant development everywhere, and It's amazing how quickly the prarie has changed in this short time. Since moving here 2 1/2 years ago the traffic noise alone has risen dramatically. I don't mind the development to a degree, but there seeems to be no method to the way it's being designed and implemented, with the exception of Cinco Ranch.As far as the invironmental impact? I remember the first Winter here and taking a drive down Clay road past Katy/Hockley. I had never seen the amount of Geese over a three mile stretch like I experienced that day, there must have been at least 50,000. No exageration!Development of this area is obviously inevitable, but we have got to plan this growth with a little common sense, a little caring for the community and of course the migration of these birds in mind.I have thought that the development looked pretty tacky along the Grand Parkway past Cinco Ranch. I came in from Sugar Land for a Christmas party yeasturday, and a group of us there decided to go to the neighborhood of Williamsburg Parish north of IH-10 to visit on of our cousins with a new house. Anyway, the development along 99 looked really tacky, and I remember telling my wife thay this place looks pretty tacky compared to Sugar Land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talbot Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 I think the taller mid-rises they're building along Grand Parkway will look kind of funny in all of the open land. But gotta start somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 27, 2005 Author Share Posted December 27, 2005 If no annexing takes place that will be something. I doubt if counties annex anyway. Do they? What is it with these rediculously large city limits Houston has been claiming lately? I have heard everything from 550 to 600 to now 650 in the past couple of years.The city of Houston was 581 square miles in 1990, 618 square miles in 2000, 633.63 square miles in 2003, and 636.12 square miles currently. The city will not annex any areas not requesting it until at least 2008. However, the city may, and does annex those areas requesting annexation.Approximately 22 square miles of Houston is water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I thought it has been a while since the city's last annexation. I am not feeling this on a personal level. Too much responsibilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Wow! I'd didn't know that Harris County is the size of Dallas and Tarrant Counties combined. That's pretty damn big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsGuy Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Idiot drama queen. No, not potentially problematic, or negative, or with a high cost, but CATASTROPHIC. As in thousands will die, or be maimed, or be made homeless? Words do have certain meanings.If he can't state his point without grossly exaggerating, odds are that he is dishonest in other areas, too.Actually, catastrophic may not be too far off. It doesn't take that much imagination the see the potential flooding impact of paving over 1000 sq miles of open land in Harris County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 I have thought that the development looked pretty tacky along the Grand Parkway past Cinco Ranch. I came in from Sugar Land for a Christmas party yeasturday, and a group of us there decided to go to the neighborhood of Williamsburg Parish north of IH-10 to visit on of our cousins with a new house. Anyway, the development along 99 looked really tacky, and I remember telling my wife thay this place looks pretty tacky compared to Sugar Land.Yeah, Katy doesn't hold a candle to Sugarland where planning is concerned. In fact, I'm becoming increasingly worried about my property value with all of the misplaced crap there putting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownKid Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Does that mean Houston will get some major densification? The city needs to be planned better its to suburban looking ...To many old cheap stripmall developments allowed no building standards which is a major problem. Houston needs more beautification projects like a Palm tree lined median down westhimer out to Hwy 99. You think with a city thats land mass could fit too NYC inside it be more urban. Im not asking for nyc density but it def. needs to be worked on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.