h2obuff

I've never understood why, but for some reason cul-de-sacs and curvy roads are supposed to deter crime. I've lived in a few cities where through streets were turned into dead-ends as a crime prevention measure.

Cul-de-sacs have less traffic (no through traffic). In many markets, especially in Houston, home buyers, especially those with children love it! New urbabnist's hate it, they feel (and rightfully so) that it reduces vehicular connectivity and new urbanist would prefer a more grid pattern, mostly to give a driver more than one option to get from point A to point B, therefor not reducing overall traffic counts, but not putting all of the cars on one or two main roads.

But, again, in Houston, cul's rule and that is what buyers want, so that is what buyers get. I live in one, and I always seem to notice when a car that doesn't live there comes into it, usually a lost driver. i notice because traffic is so low, less than 20 cars a day, so nice and quite, especially for those of us with families.

Check at this recent aerial photo of Bridgeland. . .

Looks inviting huh. . .

Okay, I kid, just a random development in California that went bankrupt, but who can tell the difference.

Glad to see you still have no idea what you are talking about. Will you ever learn to have some actual, true, practical, relevant and useful knowledge about anything before commenting.

I believe they actually don't pay a nickel for the clearcutting, instead they use the timber for barter. The more trees are cleared, the more $$$ for the tree cutters.

NewQuest strip mines communities.

They actually pay a lot of clear cutting. The lumber is not sold, it is cut down, stumps removed, sol is brought in to fill in the ground where the stumps were and all of the trees are either incenerated on site in a burn pit or are mulched and practically given away.

Based on current rules for development, many controlled/created by TCEq for development, it is much more cost benificial to clear cut than keep trees, and money alwasy winds over tress in this market.

You sure because this map shows otherwise. Also, there is more than just the Bridgelands up there being in Katy I.S.D., so another high school is going to be needed up there.

Yes, there is more than just Bridgeland up in that part of Katy, but the acerage in Bridgeland that is in Katy ISD is not enough to support a new HS on its own based on current ISD measures.

The Bridgelands will eventually be a part of Katy I.S.D. Not sure about Waller. The Bridgelands is almost twice the size of Cinco Ranch, too. Cy-Fair has already purchased a size in the middle of Bridgelands (off of the proposed Grand Parkway), for a three-school site (high, junior high, and elementary schools.). Depending on how fast Bridgelands grows, Katy I.S.D. will probably construct its seventh high school up that way.

The growth in both of these school districts are amazing. By 2008, Cy-Fair will have 750,000 residents, and Katy will have 250,000-300,000 (from 175,000 now).

There are currently no school sites in Bridgeland. Across the street from Bridgeland is a 3 school site (HS, MS and elem) that was purchased from Misher. I know CF has talked to Bridgeland about an elementary site, but that is it so far.

Also, Bridgeland will have three (3) school districts - Cy-Fair, Waller and Katy. Cy-fair extends pretty much to the Grand Parkway and is about half of the project. Waller has the majority of the rest, with Katy receiving the remainder on the south. I still think the Katy part is 1000+ acres, so still good, but not large enough to support a HS on its own accord.

No, but it might've been the Rouse Companies, which General Growth acquired a couple years back.

No, the Stone Gate developments are in no way connect with Bridgeland. Land Tejas is the developer for the Stone Gate's, canyon Gates, etc. The first Rouse/GGP residential project in town is Bridgeland, outside of its mall developments and purchase of the Woodlands a couple of years ago.

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.

It nice that your kid will get to go to a private school, but not every inner-looper has that luxury. And just so you know, my kids will go to a public school and receive just as good of an education with just as many, if not more opportunities than the sheltered private school kids.

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

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...

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.

Your response is funny, actually. No, I wouldn't expect people to want to send their kids to public school (within or outside of Houston for that matter. I know that I won't). I believe that promoting this type of sprawl has a detrimental effect on society (social, environmental, political, etc.).

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