TheNiche

Klineberg's surveys are far better, but even then, they only offer excessively general answers. So people favor better planning. What does that mean? Who gets to be the planner? What jurisdictions are planned? What infrastructure is off limits or influenced by other entities? What is the planning philosophy? Is there any social engineering going on or are there checks and balances to prevent that kind of thing? Even try to scratch the surface with questions like those and that 80% figure falls apart. The only way you'll ever see that kind of approval rating again is if the planning body only very slightly tweaks the status quo, for instance with signage requirements or something relatively benign like that. Zoning commissions in many cities are notorious for that way of doing things.

The UH campus is serving a very large area, most of which is beyond the Sugar Land city limits. It is an asset, sure, but it sits on land that will not be populated, so in some ways it is more of a hinderance to Sugar Land's residential expansion than a boon. Bechtel's large office is not relevant to long term growth in any part of the region. Are you familiar by any chance with the large development that'll be just west of Bay Colony Town Center? Big stuff, and its far from the only land in currently in play, but the land that it takes is only a fraction of what is available in LC. Do you realize that the LC city limits stretch from SH 146 to Alvin city limits (within about 3/4 mile of SH 35)? Lots of land. Texas City is pretty well positioned in terms of land, as well. And just to be clear, I'm talking about municipalities, not general market areas that encompass huge parts of counties or entire school districts the way that Musicmen usually label "cities". And by the way, I'm not saying that the future for any city is not bright or remarking on the quality of life of these areas. I'm just talking about population counts, vacant developable land, and city limits. It is assumed, I think properly so, that these areas will continue to grow.

Yep, and those neighborhoods that you mentioned (Village of Oak Lake, Pheasant Creek, Summerfield, Orchard Lakes, Chelsea Harbor, New Territory, Riverpark, & Greatwood) are rapidly filling in that area. But they aren't very high density, and the land area that we're talking about is large, but it isn't really all that enormous. Right now, Pasadena is Houston's second city (2005 pop. = 143,852). Sugar Land is a little more than half that, at 75,754. I don't see sweeping demographic change in Sugar Land's forseeable future, major annexations (even where possible) are highly questionable, and apartment development isn't quite that rapid. So that's that. Honestly, I forsee a situation in which League City (2005 pop. = 61,490) comes from behind and tops Sugar Land for population. They've got plenty of land west of I-45 that's still vacant and for which many plans are in the works. Once the Grand Parkway is run through there, and especially if HCTRA is able to build a tollway from Spur 5 to Alvin, League City's fate is sealed. They're it. In the very long term, they may be able to overtake Pasadena. ...but in the very long term, lots of things are possible.

To the north is the City of Houston and its ETJ. They can go west, but at some point, they and Richmond will come up against each other, and that area is really ramping up anyway, especially with Aliana now under development. In the long term (if they decide to go with large-scale annexation) they'll be hemmed in...except to the south, across the Brazos River and down toward Thompsons.

Finite resources and mutually exclusive proposals. In most situations, we just can't have it both ways. The arguments that come to the surface in media and that seem to frame discussions are from the far extremes, so it does get posed as an all/nothing, but the real debate in most circumstances, especially where resource allocation is concerned, should be over "to what extent".

Crossley doesn't want zoning, but that's only because zoning policies 1) apply only to cities, and the barriers to development that they represent actually increase sprawl beyond the municipal boundary, and 2) because the seperation of uses that often occur under traditional zoning is counter to his agenda. Tory doesn't want zoning for obvious reasons, including those that turn off Crossley to zoning. What Crossley does want is some form of growth or use controls at the regional level so as to contain density to the inner city, and ensure that what is presently rural remains either rural or allocated to very large lot communities with a lesser impact on the environment. Of course, this is an ideal case. He knows (I think) that it'll never actually come about, and it seems that he is supporting more winnable battles, such as in the area of transportation, as well as those matters that you had mentioned as having more support. As for the Blueprint meetings, I was there, and they were a crock of ****. Their attendence was not comprised of anything approximating a representative body of the populous of the areas that they claim to represent. You may as well ask a group of sign-weilding political protestors about their stance on a variety of issues and see how diverse the range of thought is, then publicly claim that this is somehow representative of a body of people other than those that are similar to those sampled.

Not really. Sugar Land propper is only so large and all but a few infill tracts have already been developed or are being developed. Once this and Telfair are built out, there's just not all that much room for Sugar Land to grow, except up...but for the most part, I'd think that Richmond/Rosenberg/Pleak will just become the next in line.

No politician in their right mind would publicly support a subsidy targeted so overtly at rich people. It has been tried many times by different developers, and I've been privy to the matter on a couple of these attempts, but it just hasn't gotten anywhere.

Nope, I can confirm that it doesn't work that way. Houston politicians don't much like exposing themselves to the very real political risk entailed by subsidizing new-construction housing that will be sold to and used by the city's most affluent residents...even if it is cool-looking. They'll do it for retail in some cases and will do it for adaptive reuse in most cases, but new residential is a no-go.

.

I think I know what you're talking about, and I'm pretty sure that it's just a large architectural ornament.

Too many to choose from. I tried to come up with one epic anecdote, but its just not possible. What defines Houston's greatness cannot be summed up by any one measure, but by an amalgamation of little random epiphanies. Like the night before last, when I found myself eating a $2.50 meal consisting of a burger and fries at a seafood place in Pecan Park, surrounded by Mexicans, but watching a Chinese television station. Something about that situation blew me away. Where else could I have been but Houston? Thousands of these little moments, strung together, that is what defines and redefines Houston to me.

There are way too many entities competing over environmental causes IMO. Between the City of Houston, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), collecting information gets to be quite a chore. And they don't make it easy either--their websites are not laid out in a way that makes obtaining data easy unless you know exactly what you're looking for or are a knowledgable environmental consultant. Good luck.

Frankly, I'll probably be in the category of people that refuse to go to HP (if I can help it) regardless of whether or not there are tunnels because the tenants do not appeal or are less convenient to me in a downtown location than they are elsewhere. Besides, me and yuppie shoppers, well we just don't mix very well. I prefer a more simple down-home experience. Likewise, I'd prefer not to really care about the shape of my hair, but it's not something I can't very well help because there are other people out there than do. Btw, I really don't appreciate your high level of snarkiness on various threads just lately, Red. Might I ask what it was that crawled up your ass and died? Just as you are not advocating against extending tunnel access to HP, I am not advocating for extending tunnel access to HP. Like I said, I really don't have a good concept of the costs involved, and frankly, my response to HtownWxBoy wasn't in any way focused on HP, but more upon downtown as a district.

I have hair. I don't like gel. High winds are my enemy. Somehow I don't really buy that argument. And I know that you don't actually mean the literal application of the word "all", as though nobody would feel safe unless every last person were on the surface, but I've got to wonder what the threshold is before people start feeling safe. We may not have a whole lot of pedestrian movement on the surface, but there's enough that I don't think that most people would feel unsafe during daylight business hours. It only starts to feel unsafe after dark, and very few people are using the tunnels at that point...probably quite a few more on the street than underground, actually.

Nah, that just makes me more likely to run over one. Seriously though, I can't figure out what's so important about being able to see pedestrians walking around. It isn't as though the pedestrians don't exist, but given an option between using tunnels and using the streets, if they choose the tunnels, then that's clearly the preferred way to get around by foot. Now I don't know what it costs to build a tunnel, so I'm not really able to come up with a clear concept of the cost/benefit involved, but from where I stand, it seems pretty arrogant to actively discourage folks from doing things the way that they want to do them, all for some aesthetic ideal that would seem more important to downtown's visitors than to its users. When its hot, and I'm downtown and I'm able to, I use tunnels. When it rains, I use tunnels. If it's cloudy and dark, I use tunnels. Pretty much the whole month of June, I use tunnels. If its cold, I use tunnels. If it's windy, especially in downtown where tall buildings turn streets into wind tunnels, I use the underground tunnels. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to that when there's an alternative is what I and most other folks can't figure out. ...and I just am not willing to carry around rain gear, an umbrella, a jacket, a hat, and a comb with me everywhere I go. I carry a wallet, keys, and a pen. That's it. Nothing more.

LOL, no I never even made it home from the office. Still there.

Oh, I agree with you 100%. I'm just giving him what I've got, which isn't that much...but in all fairness, it does match up with anecdotal accounts that I've come across regarding school quality. Anyway, that's why I suggested that he look at the TEA stats, which provide greater depth.

I've explored just about every subdivision along Lake Conroe, which is just about built out btw, but I've only driven right past this one. From the entrance, it seemed like a solid middle-class kind of a place. It is in Willis ISD, though, which carries a lesser reputation. Being in the northern part of Conroe ISD isn't much better though because the stats below are weighted positively by The Woodlands. Sorry I don't have more in-depth or up-to-date stats (use the tools available from the TEA to get better ones), but this is from what was in my desk drawer: Conroe ISD - 28.5% Economically Disadvantaged (2004), 9.8% Limited-English Proficient (2004) Montgomery ISD - 22.8% ED (2004), 2.4% L-EP (2004) Willis ISD - 47.9% ED (2004), 10.1% L-EP (2004) Montgomery ISD is situated mostly on the west and to the southwest of Lake Conroe, and it takes in April Sound, Walden, Grand Harbor, and Bentwater. Accessibility is somewhat compromised, but once you're off of the roads around the lake, it gets very rural very quickly.

***NOT A SERIOUS PROPOSAL*** There are several very large contiguous parcels along I-45 at Cullen and Lockwood that would seem very well-suited for a stadium. Excellent skyline views, excellent visibility, excellent access (better than even Minutemaid, much less the opposite side of 59), right near the Eastwood Transit Center and probably the terminus for the Universities Line, and just a hop skip and a jump from where they're playing now. ***NOT A SERIOUS PROPOSAL***

Aww, you made pharoh robot cry!

I concur that Fountain Place is by far the shape-changing-est highrise that I'm aware of. ...and I know what moni is talking about, but I'm talking about something different--I'm talking about what you're talking about. So I stand by my post.

Nope. As I drive, I notice a change in perception of the buildings with such notables as Wells Fargo, Pennzoil Place, and Williams Tower.

UH-Clear Lake and UH-Downtown are each independent universities from UH-Central and have been created in the not-so-distant past. The Cinco Ranch campus is still aligned with UH-Central, and relatively few classes are offered there. I'm not sure about what category the Sugar Land campus falls into. And I'm pretty sure that several new universities have been created from scratch in recent times up in Dallas.