Jump to content

Bridgeland Will Bring 65,000 Residents To Northwest Area


mrfootball

Recommended Posts

Also, just because you do not like it or do not want it, doesn't mean nobody else gets to. How much housing do you think there is inside the loop? Definitely not enough to shove all of the suburbanites into it. Plus, just because you live in the Houston area, does not mean you work downtown. And, as others have said many a time, those of us with kids appreciate the value of a good, quality education and are willing to "sacrifice" to give our kids every advantage possible.

I have never understood opponents of sprawl given our countries history of western expansion and free choice/will. Without it, we would all be living 3 miles up on a little island in NYC. No thank you, I like my backyard, my fence, my trees and my freedom to choose to do whatever it is I want.

So where will your kids go? Where is your evidence for detrimental effects on society?

That's fine. To each his own. I realize that people in Houston (and Texas for that matter) are used to having a yard and driving to get anywhere. Moreover, I realize that not everyone works in DT Houston (I don't either). And if one indeed works near one of these sprawled developments then I can understand the preference to live close to work. But, you can't deny that sprawl does have a negative impact on the environment (clear cutting; creation of more ground level ozone; flooding; heat islands). And the biggest issue that I have with sprawl: it creates an incentive for more and more sprawl!

My first child is due in May. He will attend private school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, you can't deny that sprawl does have a negative impact on the environment (clear cutting; creation of more ground level ozone; flooding; heat islands). And the biggest issue that I have with sprawl: it creates an incentive for more and more sprawl!

For the most part, I sure can't. [shrug]

Although, for the record, as we've discussed in several previous threads, clear-cutting is all-too-often caused by overly-strict flood control regulations more than by development, itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Bridgelands just on flat, treeless prairie? If it is, and the developers end up making it look like Sugar Land or Katy, then it won't be too bad. That is one good thing about these developments. Developers turn the flat prairie land into flat land full of trees.

Post 1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Bridgelands just on flat, treeless prairie? If it is, and the developers end up making it look like Sugar Land or Katy, then it won't be too bad. That is one good thing about these developments. Developers turn the flat prairie land into flat land full of trees.

Post 1000

There are a few scattered stands of trees, and of course it is pretty densely forested along Cypress Creek, but otherwise it is unremarkable. The many lakes and trees will be an improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually quite beautiful along Cypress Creek there. I believe that will all be part of the natural preserve. They're using lots and lots of lakes to add interest to the landscape. There are still scattered groves of trees, but it is mostly prairie over there.

Blackhorse next door seems to have more trees, and it too is very pretty along the creek.

301713159_71ef2d0883_o.jpg

301713160_d60ae78e46_o.jpg

Map of 'the Shores', one of the first communities in Bridgeland.

301713162_22d6edac41_o.jpg

Conceptual plan

Edited by mrfootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Bridgelands just on flat, treeless prairie? If it is, and the developers end up making it look like Sugar Land or Katy, then it won't be too bad. That is one good thing about these developments. Developers turn the flat prairie land into flat land full of trees.

Post 1000

Yeah when I visit friends in Cypress I can always tell how old the nighborhood is by the heigth of the 2 or 3 trees transplanted into the front yard.

And there are natural trees in Sugarland. My aunt lives in Greatwood and they have a ton of trees. My grandparents live down the road in Richmond and they have a good 20 trees on their lot.

Edited by Mom22Blessings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two distinct geographies in Cypress, the woods to the North of 290 and the prairie to the South of 290. I'm not sure if the prairie side was once wooded or not. I do know it used to be used for ranching and rice farming.

Yes there are trees in Sugar Land...but its not really known for that, and you have to go past Sugar Land to Crab River Rd. towards Richmond. I like that area, too. My cousin used to live in Greatwood and bought a 10-acre estate close to Richmond covered in trees.

Edited by mrfootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what's on the other side of the creek (in that Bridgeland photo above) over in Blackhorse. Cypress Creek makes a nice backdrop for each of these communities, including Cypress Creek Lakes across the street.

292043308_1aa2f948a8_o.jpg

Edited by mrfootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

273114645_6151dca554_b.jpg

Current 'main drive' through Bridgeland

273114643_607fa2651c_b.jpg

Nature trails, etc.

273114637_94691dccbf_b.jpg

Nice variety of trees along the creek

273114630_04f89cf9a8_b.jpg

New homes springing up

273114625_22df05da28_b.jpg

one of the (soon to be) many bridges of 'Bridgeland'

273115753_3294866f47_b.jpg

Future areas of growth for Bridgeland...who will be the lucky homeowner with the pumpjack?

274575696_a9e7832923_b.jpg

A blank canvas?

278250831_8fda4e6120_b.jpg

Grand Opening weekend

278250833_13c5fc8335_b.jpg

Model Custom home in Bridgeland

278251537_4221ece4c3_b.jpg

Interesting dual sidewalks?

266984945_257b9475bd_b.jpg

Big sky country

254935732_28302ea873_b.jpg

Bridgeland

Edited by mrfootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part, I sure can't. [shrug]

Although, for the record, as we've discussed in several previous threads, clear-cutting is all-too-often caused by overly-strict flood control regulations more than by development, itself.

I know, it's easier to just let it go than to actually care (you don't work for a developer do you?). "Overly strict?" I guess flippancy and a penchant for calling any regulation "Draconian" is what got Houston in the predicament it's been in for the last 15 years or so (e.g., Allison, roadways flooding when it rains an inch or so). That attitude (which seems to be very "Texan") is quite glib don't ya' think?

On another note, developers should be made to re-plant some of what must be clear cut due to flood control. Yes, that's a cost that would be passed on to homeowners. I can just hear it now, "Oh no, Houston's not 'dirt cheap' anymore." Frankly, I'd rather live in a place that is truly functional, moderately inexpensive and conscientiously developed (and with decent aesthetics for God's sake) rather than a place that's just a money-mongerer's paradise with no perceivable value other than an easy outlet for turning a quick buck. The irony of it all: if I didn't love my job...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, it's easier to just let it go than to actually care (you don't work for a developer do you?). "Overly strict?" I guess flippancy and a penchant for calling any regulation "Draconian" is what got Houston in the predicament it's been in for the last 15 years or so (e.g., Allison, roadways flooding when it rains an inch or so). That attitude (which seems to be very "Texan") is quite glib don't ya' think?

I do not work for a developer, and despite what you may think, a disproportionate number of the projects that I deal in are urban infill. I can't give you any details because I'd reveal my identity and breach confidentiality. Not worth the risk. But right now, lets just say that if you knew what I was up to, you'd be extremely supportive. You have no idea. Just trust me. ;)

My problem with regulation is that enabling it empowers stupid people. Perhaps the current set of politicians aren't stupid, but what about the next set? I don't trust them not to screw up, whether it is by taking them too far or by creating a wasteful and entrenched bureaucracy that is more harmful to society than the problem that they seek to cure. There's just way too much historical precedent for me to believe that they won't screw it up.

So given the choice between regulation and pollution (which really is a marginal issue compared with so many others), I'll just live with the pollution.

If it is "Texan" to mistrust the government, then slap me silly and call me Haas, you yellow-bellied Yankee.

On another note, developers should be made to re-plant some of what must be clear cut due to flood control. Yes, that's a cost that would be passed on to homeowners. I can just hear it now, "Oh no, Houston's not 'dirt cheap' anymore." Frankly, I'd rather live in a place that is truly functional, moderately inexpensive and conscientiously developed (and with decent aesthetics for God's sake) rather than a place that's just a money-mongerer's paradise with no perceivable value other than an easy outlet for turning a quick buck. The irony of it all: if I didn't love my job...

How about the developer leave the tree choice to the HOA in inexpensive communities? That way, the middle- and lower-classes get to choose between having nice big trees after 20 years and having the money to spend on support of their families today. That's functionality. Who are you to make the choice for everybody?

Question: If these subdivisions have no perceivable value, then why do people buy homes there? Without a gun being pointed at their head? To me, that seems to indicate that somebody values them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...you two...get a thread. Don't hijack mine.

So basically, in these photos you can kind of see a) what the landscape looked life before and B) what it will eventually look like. I've read that they're working with the Katy Prairie conservationists to preserve/restore parts of the land that were once grassy prairies and then turned into rice farms. They want to encourage bird habitat, etc.

Edited by mrfootball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd seriously look there for my next home but I just don't understand how people are going to be able to get around in that area. The shopping centers, roads and schools are literally on top of each other. I went to the Home Depot on 290 one Saturday and people were driving all over the place in random patterns. I'm sure once you get in subdivision it's beautiful.

For people that need to commute downtown or to the Galleria, would it be better to take Fry to I-10 as an alternative to 290? When is the Grand Parkway going to be completed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Longwood so I've got the option of taking either 249 or 290 depending on the traffic. I don't work downtown though, so it doesn't really matter as much for me. I think most people who live out here either work off 290, the Galleria, I-10 Energy Corridor, the Beltway, Greenspoint or FM1960 so its not that terrible of a commute....but until they widen 290, open the new Tollway on Old Hempstead Hwy and kickoff the commuter rail, downtown commuters are SOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: If these subdivisions have no perceivable value, then why do people buy homes there? Without a gun being pointed at their head? To me, that seems to indicate that somebody values them.

Not to take sides in the debate going on (which I'm not following), I just wanted to focus on the particular sentence quoted above, because it touches upon a philosophical point which has been on my mind from another thread.

Let's say a community gets built which is just plain senseless and would poorly suit anyone who could afford to live there. Would there be any demand for this community?

1. People have to live somewhere. There are only so many houses. In theory, if all the builders in a town made crummy houses (like the Model T Fords all painted black), people would still have to buy them.

2. There are only so many houses on the market at any given time. If all the good ones get snapped up, that leaves only the bad ones for the late birds. If you buy in the late summer or early fall, for example, you may be looking at the "scraps" that have been "picked over".

3. If you're in the market to buy a home, you usually have a narrow window of opportunity before you're forced to make a decision. If that window closes, you're forced to sign a 12-month contract on a rental unit and put your stuff into storage.

4. If a real estate can "sell" it, that doesn't mean that it actually provides any value to the buyer. It just means that the buyer perceived value at the time of purchase. The buyer and his family may have been better off living in a cardboard box under a freeway overpass. There is no eOpinions.Com for the real estate market (of which I am aware). From my experience, real estate agents aren't always exactly honest.

5. Sellers have cost margins that must be covered or they simply can't sell. If you haven't built much equity in your house, or if you have unpaid home equity loans, you can't sell for much less than you owe on the house. Or you have to reach into your pocket at closing ("upside down"). If you don't have savings or convertible assets, you'll let the house sit on the market for as long as it takes until a buyer comes along who will pay the break-even amount.

6. Once you buy a home, you can't return it. And you usually can't sell it someone else for at least a few years. So you learn to live with it the best you can. It's amazing what people will put up with if they have no choice.

7. When people shop around for a house, they don't exhaust all options. There is always something potentially better that remains unseen. No one has the time to look at hundreds or thousands of houses. People are lazy. Many buyers look at fewer than a couple dozen houses, all in the same couple neighborhoods, before they decide to buy. Many buyers don't even use the Internet. Some buyers buy on homes that they've seen on the Internet...without ever actually looking at them in person.

8. Homebuyers aren't always that smart. The criteria they use to buy homes often has no bearing on what value the home would actually provide them in real life. Some buyers must have a fireplace. Or must have a white house with columns. A lot of it is emotion. Emotion is the strongest influence in making any decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take sides in the debate going on (which I'm not following), I just wanted to focus on the particular sentence quoted above, because it touches upon a philosophical point which has been on my mind from another thread.

Let's say a community gets built which is just plain senseless and would poorly suit anyone who could afford to live there. Would there be any demand for this community?

No. Not in a competitive market.

1. People have to live somewhere. There are only so many houses. In theory, if all the builders in a town made crummy houses (like the Model T Fords all painted black), people would still have to buy them.

In a monopoly, this is true. In reality, however, the big production homebuilders are very similar to car manufacturers. In order to keep costs down, they only produce so many models. If they feel that they can capture a sufficiently larger market share by introducing a new model, that's what they'll do, right up to the point that the costs of providing new models fail to result in greater benefits [Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost].

2. There are only so many houses on the market at any given time. If all the good ones get snapped up, that leaves only the bad ones for the late birds. If you buy in the late summer or early fall, for example, you may be looking at the "scraps" that have been "picked over".

In competitive markets with no barriers to entry, builders will 1) research their market to determine consumer preferences, and 2) always have something either available or in the pipeline.

3. If you're in the market to buy a home, you usually have a narrow window of opportunity before you're forced to make a decision. If that window closes, you're forced to sign a 12-month contract on a rental unit and put your stuff into storage.

No. Go month-to-month on the lease. That's very common.

4. If a real estate can "sell" it, that doesn't mean that it actually provides any value to the buyer. It just means that the buyer perceived value at the time of purchase.

There's no accounting for stupid buyers. Fortunately for the stupid, what might be objectively expected to make someone happy isn't always the case. If they were stupid enough to buy it, they might just be stupid enough to appreciate and value it. Who are you to tell them that they aren't happy with their purchase? Or maybe they aren't stupid at all and just have a different set of preferences.

5. Sellers have cost margins that must be covered or they simply can't sell. If you haven't built much equity in your house, or if you have unpaid home equity loans, you can't sell for much less than you owe on the house. Or you have to reach into your pocket at closing ("upside down"). If you don't have savings or convertible assets, you'll let the house sit on the market for as long as it takes until a buyer comes along who will pay the break-even amount.

Yep, well that's a problem that plagues most categories of investment. Doesn't matter whether it is production housing, classic cars, expensive art, or an architectural masterpeice. Poor investment skills often result in financial distress. Is that the builders' fault?

6. Once you buy a home, you can't return it. And you usually can't sell it someone else for at least a few years. So you learn to live with it the best you can. It's amazing what people will put up with if they have no choice.

They did have a choice. They could've rented or financed it with a lender that would allow for the mortgage to be retired early. This is another case where poor investment skills often result in financial distress. Is that the builders' fault?

7. When people shop around for a house, they don't exhaust all options. There is always something potentially better that remains unseen. No one has the time to look at hundreds or thousands of houses. People are lazy. Many buyers look at fewer than a couple dozen houses, all in the same couple neighborhoods, before they decide to buy. Many buyers don't even use the Internet. Some buyers buy on homes that they've seen on the Internet...without ever actually looking at them in person.

Again, is this somehow the builders' fault?

8. Homebuyers aren't always that smart. The criteria they use to buy homes often has no bearing on what value the home would actually provide them in real life. Some buyers must have a fireplace. Or must have a white house with columns. A lot of it is emotion. Emotion is the strongest influence in making any decision.

If they feel good about their purchase, what's the problem? See response to #4.

It never ceases to amaze me that as a society, we try to teach high schoolers chemistry, physics, calculus, and literature, but we fail to teach them basic skills for living, like personal finance.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I needed to catch up on this thread...

99.2% of homes in The Woodlands are the same types of homes you'll find in the other Houston suburbs (ie. Spring, Klein, Cypress, Katy, Kingwood, etc).

Is this true about the older sections of The Woodlands as well as the newer sections? In the older sections, there's all kinds of Life Forms Homes and Jerry Kirkpatrick homes and all kinds of other custom-built homes.

My God, that's disgusting!! More banal crap even further from the core of the city. I might understand a decision to live in such mediocrity if one works in that area (within 2-3 miles from home). But, otherwise, why perpetuate this type of sickening sprawl??

I'm sure the type of person that will actually want to live in this will drive their "SUV" (please say with a strong southern drawl to get maximum effect) spitting "chewin 'backy" out of the window as they suck gallon upon gallon of fuel and spew ozone-causing pollutants into the beautiful 290 corridor! I'm gonna go throw up...

I'm going to start a new thread about sprawl for you.

Is that the builders' fault?

I wasn't thinking about the builders. But we can start a new thread under Real Estate if you want to continue this interesting discussion. You make a good point about the competition on the sellers' side, but I wonder just how efficient the real estate markets are in Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, just because you do not like it or do not want it, doesn't mean nobody else gets to. How much housing do you think there is inside the loop? Definitely not enough to shove all of the suburbanites into it. Plus, just because you live in the Houston area, does not mean you work downtown. And, as others have said many a time, those of us with kids appreciate the value of a good, quality education and are willing to "sacrifice" to give our kids every advantage possible.

I have never understood opponents of sprawl given our countries history of western expansion and free choice/will. Without it, we would all be living 3 miles up on a little island in NYC. No thank you, I like my backyard, my fence, my trees and my freedom to choose to do whatever it is I want.

So where will your kids go? Where is your evidence for detrimental effects on society?

The biggest problem with this country is overpopulation. It's unfortunate that Houston, where I live, is still growing at a fast pace, while it was already the 4th largest city in the U.S. If Bridgeland considered itself a neighborhood in Waller, TX, I wouldn't complain, but since its identity is that of an outer Houston suburb, it makes me cringe to think of all the people who reside along the 290 corridor now. That area was meant to be farmland. I'm sure all the residents of Hockley and Waller love how our city is creeping in on their peaceful towns. If things don't reverse in the next decade, pollution levels will be sky high and it will be easier to commute to Austin than to downtown Houston. Hopefully I'll be in another city or tucked inside loop 610 where I don't have to think about all the parasitic growth around what was once a truly great city. Bridgeland is one of the most over-hyped, marketed, corporate projects I have seen in Houston. There is nothing original or inspired about it, and there is no reason to want to move there other than to live in a new development. I hope nobody moves there. I mean come on, there are plenty of homes for sale inside the Beltway along 290. Just go find one and fix it up. It's so sad how intellectually stagnant our country is. Stop the economic growth, control the population, and keep cities at a moderate, functional size. The only homes that should exist around Grand Parkway are rural houses spaced 1/4 miles apart from each other on private land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, you've lost credibility now.

The biggest problem with this country is overpopulation. It's unfortunate that Houston, where I live, is still growing at a fast pace, while it was already the 4th largest city in the U.S.

The birth rate is now at or below 2.0 children per couple; without immigration, we would have zero population growth. As productivity and real wages continue to rise, expect to continue seeing decreasing birth rates. Look at Europe for an example of what is in store for us.

Houston is only growing because of immigration and because U.S. residents are relocating to urbanized areas with warmer climates and lower costs of living and doing business.

As has been covered multiple times on this forum, Houston is the 4th largest municipality, but that is irrelevant. It is the 7th largest metropolitan area. Bridgelands is within the ETJ of Houston, but is not within Houston. It will not contribute population. Most of the City of Houston's population growth will take place in the urban core by way of densification.

If Bridgeland considered itself a neighborhood in Waller, TX, I wouldn't complain, but since its identity is that of an outer Houston suburb, it makes me cringe to think of all the people who reside along the 290 corridor now.

Even if they did consider themselves more a part of Waller, TX, Bridgelanders would still commute into Houston. They'd still be part of the economic concept of Houston, even if not citizens of the legal municipality.

The 290 corridor will be expanded to accomodate this growth.

I'm sure all the residents of Hockley and Waller love how our city is creeping in on their peaceful towns.

I'm sure that those who own their homes and farms will make due. [$$$]

If things don't reverse in the next decade, pollution levels will be sky high and it will be easier to commute to Austin than to downtown Houston.

No. That's just false. Pollution levels will likely increase, but eh. [Niche shrugs] Not that big of a deal compared to the affordable housing problem.

Bridgeland is one of the most over-hyped, marketed, corporate projects I have seen in Houston. There is nothing original or inspired about it, and there is no reason to want to move there other than to live in a new development.

If that is true, the hype is big only because the community will be one of the largest. By virtue of its size, shouldn't you expect publicity?

I've driven through the Shores section, and the landscaping was surprisingly nice. Better than I thought it would be, and far and away, better than most of the other subdivisions in the area.

I hope nobody moves there.

They will anyway.

I mean come on, there are plenty of homes for sale inside the Beltway along 290. Just go find one and fix it up.

Yes, plenty of mostly-occupied homes. Gotta put people somewhere.

It's so sad how intellectually stagnant our country is.

Yes, it certainly is. <_<

Stop the economic growth, control the population, and keep cities at a moderate, functional size.

Good thing you don't hold public office. LULAC might have you assasinated. :P

Seriously though, these are things that cannot be stopped. Look at southern California. Look at their housing prices, look at their congestion, look at their cost of living, and look at their government waste. The best we can do is to accomodate and learn to live with it.

The only homes that should exist around Grand Parkway are rural houses spaced 1/4 miles apart from each other on private land.

Too late. Unrealistic expectation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop the economic growth, control the population, and keep cities at a moderate, functional size.

If we don't keep growing economically and population-wise, China will become the world's largest economy. As a nation, we don't want to be #2 in anything. So we got to keep cranking out the puppies and the profitable-but-poorly-made SUV's. It's a matter of national pride. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with this country is overpopulation. It's unfortunate that Houston, where I live, is still growing at a fast pace, while it was already the 4th largest city in the U.S.

You definitely need to get a better grasp on what qualifies for overpopulation. Our birth rate in this country is as low as it has ever been do to people marrying later in life and having fewer children. Also, people are living longer, causing there to be a greater number of people over all.

If Bridgeland considered itself a neighborhood in Waller, TX, I wouldn't complain, but since its identity is that of an outer Houston suburb, it makes me cringe to think of all the people who reside along the 290 corridor now. That area was meant to be farmland.

How was this land "meant" to be farmland? Who "meant" it to be farm land? Is all land zoned for only one type of use from a set point in history for all eternity? What about before it was all farmland, it was forest? And before that it was nature? Who gets to decide this? Luckily for most Americans, it is its people and land owners. Also, don't even get me started in what environmental impacts farming can have!

I'm sure all the residents of Hockley and Waller love how our city is creeping in on their peaceful towns. If things don't reverse in the next decade, pollution levels will be sky high and it will be easier to commute to Austin than to downtown Houston. Hopefully I'll be in another city or tucked inside loop 610 where I don't have to think about all the parasitic growth around what was once a truly great city. Bridgeland is one of the most over-hyped, marketed, corporate projects I have seen in Houston.

Have you seen advertising for other neighborhoods/developments in town? I have, for all of them, marketing is the name of the game in new home sales. It

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Informative post from H20Buff.

I think Bridgeland is going to be very nice for a tree-challenged community. I'm curious as to whether the developers have considered a tax-increment investment zone? Considering that the current mayor of Houston is amenable to making deals with far-flung suburbs in Houston's ETA, has the possibility of incorporation been discussed with regards to this community (granted there are only 100 or so residents thus far)...but it will eventually grow to 65,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

("Did you know Bridgeland has less density (number of houses per set amount of land) than any new development in town - this means that more land is set aside for open space, parks, recreation, etc. Also, the street layout to me is truly remarkable and invigorating. On the thoroughfares, no houses back up to it, leaving a huge row of ugly fences everywhere. Also, on the collector streets, houses are only one side of the street, and often on neither side, putting all of the houses in smaller groupings (of 20-40 lots) helping to make much more of the community feel that many (including yourself) often talk about.")

Excellent information, h2obuff, especially about Bridgeland. I didn't realize it was being planned that well. It definitely sounds like "The Woodlands but without all the trees". If I worked at HP/Compaq or thereabouts, I'd be first in line to buy in Bridgeland. Master-planned communities retain near absolute control over development within their boundaries, and with the wild and dangerous real estate game of Texas, that's the kind of protection other communities would kill for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...