Jump to content

Cypress Village Station Developments


mrfootball

Recommended Posts

Okay, you got me Niche. I'm just a naive 25 year old, so what do I know.

Houston has an overpopulation problem that you can't ignore. Whether natural or not, it gets on people's nerves to have long commutes and be immersed in traffic in suburban streets and roads. Cities and suburbs weren't meant to be this way (they just are because we tolerate it).

There are too many transients. I have no clue where anyone comes from anymore. It's hard to feel a sense of belonging to a city when there are virtually no native Houstonians, and they are very hard to find in my daily routine. There are too many imcompetent people, and I blame that on the low-skill jobs that are rampant around this city. Everywhere I go from retail stores, to fast food restaurants, to sit down restaurants, to the university, to the grocery store, I encounter embarassingly incompetent people who possess the kind of incompetency that would never be tolerated in the 1960s. My grandparents generation would be shocked at what we tolerate these days as acceptable communication with customers and ability to do what you're supposed to do and do it correctly. It's just our society's fault for accepting incompetent workers and doing nothing to hold them or their employers accountable. I realize this is a big and sprawling metrpolis where people are basically anonymous, and that most people under 25 were not raised well enough to properly communicate and competently perform their job, but I have the right to demand some degree of standards and to feel like I'm a human being with a name (ie. speaking to me in English at the drive-thru at Wendys-- not asking too much am I?) I've just encountered way too much incompetence and ridiculously bad customer service in Houston in the last 3 years. Basically what happens is I just quit going to places and/or write their company a letter scolding them for the people they hire.

While I used to love the idea of progress, I almost would like to revert back to the 1960s when most people (seemingly) were middle class or upper middle class and native Houstonian, and consequently there was a higher degree of civility, and uncoincidentally, a higher degree of optimism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Interesting that the flood control laws and dirt removal/grading have such an impact on whether or not trees can be retained. Oddly enough, it seems rather counter-intuitive that they'd advocate so much clear-cutting in the name of flood control. Don't trees help mitigate erosion and suck up a lot of H20?

In Longwood, they used the dirt removed for grading and the detention in building and sculpting the nice golf course that runs through it. This was a creative solution and really adds to the quality of the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many imcompetent people...

:lol:

Sorry, but I just couldn't help it...

There are too many transients. I have no clue where anyone comes from anymore. It's hard to feel a sense of belonging to a city when there are virtually no native Houstonians, and they are very hard to find in my daily routine. There are too many imcompetent people, and I blame that on the low-skill jobs that are rampant around this city. Everywhere I go from retail stores, to fast food restaurants, to sit down restaurants, to the university, to the grocery store, I encounter embarassingly incompetent people who possess the kind of incompetency that would never be tolerated in the 1960s. My grandparents generation would be shocked at what we tolerate these days as acceptable communication with customers and ability to do what you're supposed to do and do it correctly. It's just our society's fault for accepting incompetent workers and doing nothing to hold them or their employers accountable. I realize this is a big and sprawling metrpolis where people are basically anonymous, and that most people under 25 were not raised well enough to properly communicate and competently perform their job, but I have the right to demand some degree of standards and to feel like I'm a human being with a name (ie. speaking to me in English at the drive-thru at Wendys-- not asking too much am I?) I've just encountered way too much incompetence and ridiculously bad customer service in Houston in the last 3 years. Basically what happens is I just quit going to places and/or write their company a letter scolding them for the people they hire.

While I used to love the idea of progress, I almost would like to revert back to the 1960s when most people (seemingly) were middle class or upper middle class and native Houstonian, and consequently there was a higher degree of civility, and uncoincidentally, a higher degree of optimism.

Houston has almost always been like this, though. Starting in the early 20th century, our growth rate has resulted in a very transient population. Post-WW2, we and most other American cities experienced a massive in-migration from the rural areas. And for us, except for a very brief period in the late 80's, the growth never stopped.

And as hunky-dory as the 50's and 60's seem in retrospect, don't forget that there was still a very large population of socioeconomically disenfranchised people, commonly refered to at the time as n******. Every era has the poor...every era has its dark side. But the fact of the matter is that if you look at per capita wealth in real terms in 1955 and compare it to 2005, it has gone up. Way up!

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the inflation-adjusted per capita disposable income has risen from $9,177/yr in 1955 to $27,318/yr in 2005. And the poor never got poorer...the perception of more widespread poverty is caused by an ever-increasing spectrum between the common poor man and the common wealthy man. But in real terms, every class of people is at least somewhat better off in the United States today than they were 50 years ago.

I'll give you this, though...optimism does seem to have gone by the wayside. Just my take, not that I was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just drove through Longwood today. Excellent neighborhood. You were right, the golf course was done creatively and really maximizes the use of space. They could have bought some separate land and built their golf course way off by itself, but their method makes the community so much nicer. Too bad I'm not the type of guy who plays golf. I still love the neighborhood. I actually stopped today at the Bake Shoppe and Cafe in the Lakewood Town Center on Grant for a bite to eat. It's a little overpriced, but it was a nice day outside and I felt like eating outdoors on the patio and enjoying the ambiance. I felt a sense of belonging with the people around me.

I also drove by the new Cy-Woods H.S. I wasn't impressed with the architecture, the campus grounds, or the proximity to 290. I was expecting it to be more nestled in trees, but I guess they like building all the high schools right on or within a mile of 290. Only Langham Creek is offset from a freeway (Cy-Creek is 1/2 mile from 249).

MrFootball- is Longwood zoned to Cy-Creek or Cy-Woods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Harvard.

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/...s-Sep7-2005.pdf

Scroll down to Table 1 on Page 53 of the document. The furthest back that this study goes is to 1963 and the furthest forward it goes is to 2003.

Those who were the worst off, needless to say, were those that had less than a full high school education. Over that 40 year span, their mean log real weekly wages rose by 5.4%. Not much, and unlike the wealthier folks, these drop-outs have the lowest marginal propensity to save, and thus have much less income coming from sources other than their job. Fortunately, these folks don't comprise a huge portion of the population...or at least our legal citizenry.

The next most pathetic category are those that have attained 12 years of education. In comparsion to the drop-outs, they've done very well for themselves, with a 20.2% increase in wages. Those with a 4-year degree have had a 43.6% increase. Those with 18 or more years of education (Masters and above) have seen a 58.0% increase in wages.

And I want to stress that the data that you're looking at in this study is only wages. It doesn't include income from investments or from other sources.

EDIT: The paper is an interesting read, too, if you have the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flawed.

This completely ignores the never ending stream of Latin America's poorest and least educated pouring into our city and state creating a permanent underclass. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of thousands in the Houston area alone.

As far as being "better off", I think that's highly subjective. There are many, many other factors to consider that this article completely ignores.

It's a scattershot generalization with very little real world relevance. Kind of like you, Niche. But you weren't educated at Harvard...so nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flawed.

This completely ignores the never ending stream of Latin America's poorest and least educated pouring into our city and state creating a permanent underclass. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of thousands in the Houston area alone.

As far as being "better off", I think that's highly subjective. There are many, many other factors to consider that this article completely ignores.

It's a scattershot generalization with very little real world relevance. Kind of like you, Niche. But you weren't educated at Harvard...so nevermind.

Actually, the wage levels are an endogenous variable in this study. So even though the supply of labor is something that is not explained by the wage level, the effects are accounted for completely. Also, even though the drop-outs of the Houston area have probably experienced below-average wage growth as a result of regional differences, you've also got to take into account that urban wages have grown much faster than have rural wages, and that this paper encompasses both urban and rural workers. So if you factor that in, the regional issue and the urban issue may be a wash. In any case, I think that it'd be pretty intuitive at this point that even the least well off have at least maintained a somewhat stable real wage level over the decades.

Well, you're right that there's more that goes into being "better off" than income alone. I would think that various items such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 would factor in, wouldn't you? How about the end of the Cold War and the accompanying nuclear paranoia? I mean, terrorism is one thing, but the apocalypse is another...IMHO, at least. I guess we may have traded Vietnam for Iraq, but I'll take the latter over the former any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOD's (Transit Oriented Development) are fairly common. This project will support METRO Ridership by ensuring that a location which they want to put a transit center on will also have commercial activities to support it. So I think that this is nothing but a good thing. I think mrfootball had some good points about things we could do for better development standards and TheNiche had some good points about the laws in place.

..but are zoning laws and tree preservation violating our freedoms? If developers are working for the people then they must build high quality development. These laws are what developers should be doing anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..but are zoning laws and tree preservation violating our freedoms? If developers are working for the people then they must build high quality development. These laws are what developers should be doing anyways.

Developers work for their tenants. The tenants work for their respective customer bases, which are comprised of segments of the people, but not all of the people.

If developers' tenants cannot afford high quality development, then the development will not be built to the highest possible standards. If it were, then tenants could not afford the space and retailers' customers would go underserved. So there is a tradeoff. And you may prefer quality, but I may prefer quantity and lower prices. Each of us have individual preferences. Rather than taking a one-sided approach to legislating the issue, I am more inclined to seek the compromising balance that the marketplace provides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are no financial problems to zoning laws (location of building) and tree preservation. That is my standard, are there financial problems? These are things that developers should be doing anyways. Create a setback of trees and space off the main roads and then keep commercial developments in some districts that have the most traffic capacity and homes in other areas. This deals with development location and not expenses such as quality of material. So therefore I believe that it is fair financially.

...and the developers are providing a service to the people, because they will use the developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way back about 10 years ago during the end of the industrial age, Houston was still a fairly decent city to look at. Now that our economy has adapted from the end of the industrial revolution into the service industry and information era, it allows for a seemingly infinite amount of jobs all over the city, especially in the suburban areas.

way back? the industrial age was over considerably more than ten years ago. did you mean "100 years ago?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MrFootball- is Longwood zoned to Cy-Creek or Cy-Woods?

Longwood is zoned to Cypress Woods High School. Previously zoned to Cy-Fair. Kids who are Juniors & Seniors will finish up at Cy-Fair, while the Longwood kids who are Freshman & Sophomores are now going to Cy-Woods.

Another smart thing about that golf course is that it is built to mitigate any possible flooding, keeping any overflow from the creek contained by channeling it. The course is really pretty. At dusk, I'll sometimes jog or ride my bike around on the cart paths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the Industrial Revolution ended over 100 years ago, but the 20th century was all a by-product of the industrial revolution. We are slowly moving away from that era, and the America that was once full of wealth and predominantly middle class is now becoming mostly lower class, because we're in the information/service/globalization era now. I hate to sound pessimistic, but America will never be what it once was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the Industrial Revolution ended over 100 years ago, but the 20th century was all a by-product of the industrial revolution. We are slowly moving away from that era, and the America that was once full of wealth and predominantly middle class is now becoming mostly lower class, because we're in the information/service/globalization era now. I hate to sound pessimistic, but America will never be what it once was.

The single concern that I have is primarily a short-term phenomenon. And that is that up until 2005, the average American household tended to save more than they borrowed. And savings simply results in more money being available to capital markets. But in 2005, for the first time in at least 50 years (as far back as I looked into the data), we borrowed more than we saved (invested). So the result is that other countries' are financing not only our capital investments but also our consumption. This is not a good way to preserve our nation's wealth. The only upside seems to be that it is a temporary trend, spurred in large part by the Fed's having kept interest rates low throughout 2005 and also as a result of China's keeping the prices of their exported goods artificially low by pegging the yuan to the dollar. As China slowly allows the yuan more freedom to float on its own, we will have less incentive to borrow as a means of financing consumption of imported goods because those goods will be priced at a more reasonable level. Barring the possibility that some major bloc of developing countries will attempt to copycat China's policies, I doubt that this could be a long-term trend.

In the mean time, what we need to be focused on is the attempt to assimilate our immigrant population into a productive labor force. We clearly can't get rid of them (and wouldn't necessarily want to), but we need to ensure that the next couple of generations are raised so as to have cultural mobility. The only big danger to long-term political stability would seem to be if the U.S. becomes distinctly bicultural, with insulated communities that don't interact with one another. Cultural barriers to trade are very destructive, especially if they're the result of linguistic disparity...results in what would effectively be a 'culture of poverty'. It happened to blacks to a large extent throughout the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries; we need to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

America changes constantly. I personally prefer to live for the future rather than for the past.

The one thing that seems to be a constant, though (aside from change), is that if a person is motivated, self-disciplined, and well-balanced enough, they can become very prosperous...or at least happy and comfortable. I knew a guy in high school that had a severe speech impediment and some motor control problems that prevented him from writing effectively. He'll never be a millionaire, however much he might want to be. For that matter, he couldn't even be accepted into the military, as he truely wanted. And most professions just aren't going to be open to him. But that didn't keep him from going to the local community college. If you can get over the communication problems, he's actually a very trustworthy and well-intentioned individual. Last I heard, he's working as a janitor and manages to save up a fair bit of money from every paycheck...has very little in the way of an entertainment budget. His goals are modest, but he knows his limits, strives to make the best of them, and seems happy with the results. He wants to buy a home; I have little doubt that he will eventually succeed. I've got a friend who started hiring a fresh immigrant from Mexico to do his yard work seven years ago. Today, that person still has that small business doing yardwork and his annual income is still fairly low, but considering his frugality, it has afforded him the opportunity to own three rental properties in Houston and nine in Mexico.

The above anecdotes illustrate a couple of key points to me. Firstly, many people choose to be lower class...for whatever reason, they don't see the path to success (or at least material wealth) as paying off enough to justify the cost of their efforts and savings. To the extent that those folks have made that choice, can you really count them as poor? Take our own RedScare for instance: he's certainly not poor, but he is a competent lawyer with the opportunity to be raking in a lot more cash than he presently is. From my limited perspective, I'd consider him upper middle class...but he could almost certainly attain an upper-class status if he so chose...not ultra-rich most likely, but certainly in that upper strata. He is content; and contentment is not at all a bad thing. Still, insofar as the Census is concerned, that's one less solidly-upper-class person. And as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't indicate a problem.

The second thing is that some people are asset-rich and cash-poor, completely by choice. For the moment, I'm one of those folks. An obsessive compulsive saver/investor that worked so much through college that during that time I managed to not take out any student loans, added funds to the stock account that I started up during high school, bought a majority stake of my condo, and still managed to maintain a certain level of basic health and comfort as only I could define it for myself. But initially, when I started working, even as a one-person household, I was on the cusp of living in 'poverty' as defined by the feds. But the Census doesn't ask a person for an estimate of their net assets. Now does that mean that anybody can do what I did? No...not everybody has the mental capacity. [EDIT: Or, to be fair, parental support. Mine was still relatively minimal, though. They gave me a car during high school that I brought to Houston and also paid my phone bill (and still do) because they know that if they didn't, I'd just go without. I also mooch on their AOL dialup service.] But nobody ever said that poor folks necessarily have to be disgruntled about it. I sometimes wonder whether the wealthy are more concerned for the poor than the poor are for themselves.

So what does all this mean? To sum it all up in a bottom line: America is what individuals make of it. As a matter of policy, the only thing we need to be very watchful of is that barriers are not placed in front of individuals so that they have the power to choose their own destiny. The worst thing that we can do is breed a culture of poverty, dependence, and the notion that anybody that isn't "keeping up with the Jones'" is somehow not 'well off' enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody post the Cliff's Notes version of Niche's last post?

I believe it was titled "A Pompous 'Free-Marketer' Mooches Car, Phone and AOL off his Parents while Preaching His Self-Sufficiency Mantra to Others" but it was discontinued for total lack of interest. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how people can look at Houston and prescribe more of the same. It's great, sure, but you have to agree that it has its flaws. There are too many people in Houston who fear change because they are worried it will make things worse. I think there has to be an elegant solution lying around somewhere that can increase the city's overall vivaciousness while still protecting workers and industry.

Zoning can't be all bad. It doesn't even have to be for the whole city. I was thinking about it last night and came up with the idea that Metro could come up with a prescriptive plan for each of the areas where it has eminent domain and we can vote on whether we like each plan or not, with the stipulation that 10-15 years out a sunset rule will apply and we have to re-vote on whether or not to keep the plan or replace it, or get rid of it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't mean to say that development in the Houston metroplex should look exactly like that in Wimberley. A Wimberley shopping center in suburban Houston would look out of place (but at least wouldn't be as hideous as NewQuest's mess). My point is that it should be built with the same amount of care and concern for the community it markets to. Residents should be proud of their shopping areas.

You are right that the kind of development I value wouldn't sustain a large and sprawling metroplex, which is why we first need to limit sprawl. The older commercial developments in Houston that are aesthetically pleasing (IMO) were designed and constructed before sprawl got out of hand. I'm thinking 60s-early 90s here.

Some examples of suburban development that meet my standards: the Cypress Creek Country Store convenience stores seen throughout the Great Northwest, the strip centers on Cutten Rd between Cypresswood and 1960 (the ones directly across from the County Line BBQ restaurant most notably), the shopping center in Jersey Village @ 290 and Jones Rd, everything developed at the intersection of Hollister/Tidwell and 290, and the Champions Village @ 1960 between Champion Forest Dr. and Glen Erica.

All you need is some careful planning (most people don't want to waste time on this now days because it "wastes" money), unique architectural styling, character, and charm. The development doesn't have to be upscale, it just needs a pleasant overall look and feel when absorbed into the surrounding community.

Give us some photos.

CopyofDSCF1785.jpg

DSCF1776.jpg

DSCF1778.jpg

DSCF1781.jpg

DSCF1782.jpg

DSCF1784.jpg

DSCF1786.jpg

DSCF1788.jpg

DSCF1791.jpg

DSCF1794.jpg

DSCF1795.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of you need to get out of Cypress and the 1960 area and realize Houston is a lot more then what the local news shows. My parents moved out to Cypress to retire and it is the most boring, generic, redneck, soccer mom, community I've been to, even more then Katy. Mr. Football your assumption that only poor immigrants and Katrina victims are moving to the city, you need to get out a little more. The city has so much to offer, its beautiful wooded parks and many amenities. I travel around the city daily for my buisness and their is so much wealth here and new wealth moving in from all over the world. The people who actualy move to the city, love it here. The people who move to Katy, Cypress, etc... usualy are very unhappy. You really should come experience the city some time and get out of the Cypress area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post Ethanra, very insightful...obviously you were expecting a more fast-paced environment for your retiree parents...sorry for the letdown.

As one who moved from the city (after 6 years living in Midtown and a year in Afton Oaks)...I'll say that we're quite happy living in the boring suburbs with our big trees, low crime and miserable big green yards and golf courses. Of course, I hate having good schools, hike & bike trails, cleaner air and all of that sorry crap you get in the suburbs. Can't stand it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post Ethanra, very insightful...obviously you were expecting a more fast-paced environment for your retiree parents...sorry for the letdown.

As one who moved from the city (after 6 years living in Midtown and a year in Afton Oaks)...I'll say that we're quite happy living in the boring suburbs with our big trees, low crime and miserable big green yards and golf courses. Of course, I hate having good schools, hike & bike trails, cleaner air and all of that sorry crap you get in the suburbs. Can't stand it....

You can get all of that in the city. How much cleaner more cleaner is the air in the suburbs as opposed to the city? Not much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how we get hooked into having to explain this all of the time...but here goes:

Sure all of these things are available in the city (save for the clean air)...but at what price? I'll tell you that a new 3,000 sq. ft home with a 10,000 sq. ft lot and nice mature trees in an area with good schools and low crime in the city will cost you at least $600,000, whereas you can find something like this in the suburbs for less than half that. Realities. Most young families cannot afford a half million dollar home the first time out. Hell, most people cannot afford a quarter million dollar home the first time out either. You tend to get more for you money in the suburbs, they're designed to appeal to families.

I imagine there's quite a diverse array of demographic groups posting on this board. So there's likely going to be differing opinions shaped by what stage of life you're in. When I was a teenager I loved where I lived in the burbs. It was a great place to grow up. When I went off to college, I wouldn't dare think of moving to the burbs, it simply wasn't as cool as living in the city. After college, same deal. Being a young professional, working...the party scene...Midtown was where it was at.

Thirties...now married. Midtown can get real old fast when you have a 1 month old baby and the realities and responsibilities of family life, priorities tend to change. If you were kids who grew up in the burbs, your parents likely made a similar decision somewhere along the way (and you might too, someday).

I think what some of you fail to grasp is that a decision to live in Cypress, the Woodlands, Katy or Sugar Land is not an expression of hatred for the city. The city...will always be there. You can always get in your car...just like anyone 'in' the city and visit the same 'attractions'. Its more a lifestyle choice balanced by many factors including variables such as a) where were you raised B) where do you feel at home c) do you have children d) do you like old homes e) do you want to put your kids in good schools e) how important are family oriented surroundings f) how tolerant of crime are you g) do you want a bigger house h) do you want a bigger yard i) do you want to pay less taxes j) how far are you willing to commute k) do you enjoy nature l) where do you like to shop m) etc...etc...etc...

With all of that said (and I'll take this opportunity to segway back into the ORIGINAL TOPIC) many of the amenities of the city, are now moving into the suburbs with the movement back to creating Town Centers. This is a great thing as it addresses one of the suburbs primary needs. A sense of place. A 'center'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was titled "A Pompous 'Free-Marketer' Mooches Car, Phone and AOL off his Parents while Preaching His Self-Sufficiency Mantra to Others" but it was discontinued for total lack of interest. :P

It sure is funny how comments that I made for the sake of fairness (without having been prompted) are extracted and thrown back in my face, as though they're incriminating. I'm not preaching self-sufficiency so much as I am the idea of individual preferences. Different things make different people happy. People pursue those things, regardless of what others think should make them happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will always be free to pursue their individual preferences, just as local governments will always be able to create limitations which cause people to prefer other things. The government isn't *forcing* you to not shoot the guy who cut you off in traffic. They simply created a series of consequences that cause most people to decide that it just isn't worth it. If you wanted to really do it, you could. But you won't. And that's just part of living in a civilized society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...