InTheLoop

ReefMonkey (and others):

I couldn't agree more. If you check an unnamed poster's posting history, I think you'll see a pattern. I'll admit I have little tolerance for those

who can't stifle verbosity and effectively ignore others' valid points (or invalid points, for that matter), except to counterattack...quoting out of

context, burying those who would disagree under a blizzard of extraneous "info", and counting on sheer spare time and stamina to outlast

many who disagree. Hey, though bizzarre to me, it must be satisfying for this unnamed poster. Given the sheer volume of paragraphs posted, it must fill a need. I'll add: It is, I suppose, this poster's right to use this site in the way most helpful to himself.

Here's my mea culpa: I decided to blast/bait this poster because of some condescending remarks the poster directed at me and others on other threads. To all here but this unnamed poster, I do apologize. It is tedious to read; I know, because over the past year or so, I've read many such "debates" involving others and this poster that have degenerated to this level. No need to believe me - check the record ("other posts by..."). I'm just among the latest to "bite". Sorry about the vitriol. This site is too good for such diversions; I'm here (mostly lurking) to learn, share, and occasionally offer some minimal wisdom owing to my many Houston addresses and long history in the field. Again, my mistake. In the interest of harmony, I hope to....just back away slowly from said poster and behave.

Finally, I want emphasize that any speculation above simply represents my (only my) opinion.

Heights2Bastrop-

I couldn't agree more...but unnamed poster threw you a bone, later. Grab it! (If you want)

TheNiche:

Thanks for quoting me.

KB-

I admittedly have a bias toward areas that are closer to Loop 610 (our "inner loop") than Beltway 8 (or "Sam Houston Tollway", our "outer loop").

Mission Bend boomed in the late 1970s/early 80s. Shell Oil had it on their "suggested" list for new hires. I went a couple of parties out there and knew many Shell folks who lived there. I also discovered that many left as soon as they could afford it. I guess it was considered "entry-level" for young professionals. I was last out there about 5 years ago, and was pleasantly surprised. It did not suffer the fate of much of Alief, etc.. In fact, it looked quite well-tended. I'm sure it is quite diverse. I would carefully evaluate and inspect any indiv. home because MB's growth came during a huge boom

when a lot of hastily built homes were thrown up. That's about all I have on Mission Bend. I'd be a bit cautious because MB is IMO, a bit of an "island" of tranquility. Judge for yourself, and check memebag's suggestion above.

If it were me, I'd live closer to town. Consider the better parts of Westbury (5000! homes), Willowbend, or Braeburn Valley (also adjacent 'hoods). There is a renaissance going on w/young families, gays, single professionals, etc. moving into to avoid commutes. I believe there is a neighborhood called "Westwood" adjacent to Willowbend that features smaller, less expensive homes. Bear in mind that these homes are vintage 1950s-60s...

Some zips: 77035, 77096...

Best of luck, and thanks for helping with our refugee issues.

Niche-

Your cotton argument is weak.

My facts are straight. Your effort to selectively misunderstand is noted, and typical, in my experience.

I believe that an EXTREMELY strong argument can be made for the Galveston destruction "model", at least as strong as any other posited by you. I recognize that myriad factors contributed. I join many who find 1900 "seminal" and more influential than your hypotheses. There are many of us; deal with it.

You didn't think of it first on this thread; so, as usual, it simply can't be. <------(the real bottom line, IMHO)

Houston was founded, in part, because of its proximity to GALVESTON BAY - regardless of how much the Allen Bros. "fudged" on the early navigatability

of Buffalo Bayou.

San Jacinto (right down the bayou from H-town) was obviously the battle known world-wide that brought Houston prominence. Thanks for uselessly pointing out that Harrisburg was burned. (you are so eager to exhibit knowledge-apparently almost any knowledge). So what? That helps your cotton thesis? It successfully tears down my statement about Houston and/or Harrisburg's growth in notoriety due to the stunning victory @ San Jac? No.

The term "region" as used by you is clearly whatever you want it to be - as I suspected above. How handy. For the record, few over the age of, say,

puberty fail to understand that 19th century travel was a grind with major obstacles and delays around every bend. Of course! It is not as hard as you imply to understand this. What you fail to grasp, IMO, is that everything from social mores to transportation logistics was attuned

to that reality. IOW, Texans (from 19th c. Harrisburg, Houston, near San Jac b'ground, Galveston, etc.) would likely be quite unimpressed with your emphasis on the distance from Houston to San Jac as some limiting factor! What a joke. Think about the whole (earlier) concept of "Manifest Destiny", the hardships these folks (and/or their ancestors) suffered to GET to SE Texas, not to mention immigrants dying left and right on 50 day journeys

across the Atlantic. Yeah, you bet, our ancestors were really daunted by that nightmarish HOU-SAN JAC-H'BURG-GALVESTON proximity you hang your hat on! Brother.

Your Austin/San Antonio paragraph was useless to the discussion IMO. Was it happy hour?

Please get your facts straight.

I understand why you'd "hate to say it" since it is simply wrong.

Woodlands - exurb

Memorial - (w/in Houston) - suburb of Houston

Pasadena - city adjacent to Houston

Strike three! You're out!

Niche-

First, my family farmed cotton in the Wharton area 1920s-1950s. I farm cotton in Ark. today. I'm not underestimating king cotton.

You contradicted yourself by claiming that Houston wasn't in the same region as Galveston in 1900 (..."no consideration of..."). Do tell - it is/was 50 miles away, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself by saying that. No? Then give the exact dimensions of a REGION. You can't. Are you REALLY going to claim there was some chance that the Andersons, Moodys, Claytons, Sealys, Hutchings, et al were going to pick up and relocate 90 miles up the coast? Pourquoi? That's (approx.) 2 regions over by your (self-defined) math!

Galveston "relocated" by NECESSITY to the nearest feasible inland, relatively safe community, one that even today sits adjacent to GALVESTON BAY.

Houston. As you clarify (your math) the Triangle was a TWO day overland roundtrip, so why there?

I went back to the revolution, capitol, Austin's 300, etc. to emphasize that, by 1900, Harrisburg-Houston was already well known as a former seat of

government, the approx. site of the greatest military victory in the war for Texas Independence, and namesake of our greatest general/best-known politician. I'll add that Austin County is 100 miles closer to Big H than the triangle. Surely, you can follow my logic without explanation on that one.

...and in 1900, Houston was closer to Austin, San Antonio, and DFW. (The Allen Bros. was a joke, bro, though I'm unaware of a similar marketing effort in NYC on behalf of Beaumont...). The point was to establish Houston as not only extant, but viable and logical as a complement, then a successor to the ruins of our beloved port city.

Your point is irrelevant about B-Pt.A. having better ports in 1900 than Houston. Obviously, there was an urgency to get back to business (and rebuild Galveston) and Houston was the logical place to do it. Most would argue B-PtA STILL has a better natural port than Houston - -it doesn't matter.

My point is simple. Houston won out because of Galveston's destruction. BTW, I need not hang out at Ideson to understand the importance of cotton - or energy- in Houston's growth at any given period. The point is, what was the seminal event that led to Houston leaving the Triangle far behind? The destruction of Galveston in 1900...more important than access to anything, it was an enormous economic and human crisis and Houston was front and center to take advantage of the economic relocation (and rebuilding of its regional neighbor).

Wrong debate:

Why Galveston/Houston instead of Beaumont?

Track the parallel histories of the former leading city in Texas and Beaumont, then toss in 1900 and 1915 (as noted) and the answer should be self-evident. Houston grew from Galveston's vulnerability. Beaumont was never in Galveston's class in the 19th C., so it was a natural progression.

Closer to cotton, further from Spindletop, I'd call that a wash and not causative.

The Battle of San Jacinto in 1836 and a stint as the Capitol didn't hurt G/Harrisburg either; then there is the proximity to Stephen F. Austin's "originals"

and Austin, the "new" Capitol. We got the railroads.

We can't forget get the Allen brothers' marketing skills. either.

Mostly, it's because Galveston kicked Beaumont's butt from the get-go, and "we" benefitted.

I'll still tip my cap to Dick Dowling, though (for his bartending and fighting skills only).

Thanks, Jax. I love aerials!

Med Ctr. looks just as cramped and chaotic as it is at ground level...oh to have those d'town blocks @TMC...

Nice work.

REDSTONE IS KILLING "MY" BUILDING!

Until our mandatory Nov. move-out, I had a corner office with a beautiful view of Post Oak - our "Rodeo Drive", for seven years.

This was a good building - it thrived when there was little else but the strip mall across the street as The Post Oak Bank Building (circa 1965)

There was SERIOUS net worth officing there: 3 or 4 big family trusts had space (names you've probably heard), probably several million $ inventory of watches/jewelry for sale at 3-4 businesses. I saw George Foreman and Elvin Hayes visiting their estate planners up the hall.

My favorite memory is probably helping innumerable blond, blue-eyed baffled folks find their country's Houston embassy up on 6.

That would be the Dutch embassy; the travelers were always worried, and grateful for the guide.

Yes, that land is far too valuable for a 7 story building with a giant drive-thru bank eating up space. Yes, the bank was robbed at gunpoint in daylight,

and yes, 2" of rain caused ankle+ deep water in the motley garage, but it was well-built and I thought the sidewalks and interior were very attractive.

Even the exterior was mildly attractive, in my view.

I will miss it. It was just too well-located for its survival.

Yes +1 to Finn - many keepers

Klamrath also often stellar.

InfiniteJim - checked out D. Adjaye's latest major US commission?

It's Denver's "MOMA"...VERY tough site (shoehorned-in). It's not gaudy, but remains appealing day or night and "fits" the hood.

(it's not to be confused w/the higher-profile Liebskind(sp?) museum commission, which is cool in a very different way.)

I reverse commute to Missouri City from inside the loop via 90-A.

I'm done by 8-8:30 so can't speak to later (or pre-7 am) commutes, but in my experience 90-A is the best way to head out to the Med Center. NEVER take S. Post Oak to the 610 Loop. Why mingle w/the Galleria gang? You probably already knew that...

I agree w/LF: 90A/Main @ 610 can be a mess. If it is a catastrophe, consider a small "backtrack"...exit Willowbend/Stella Link and follow

Stella Link north. You may either then approach 610/Main via the feeder heading east or just stay on Stella Link to one of the Braeswoods (N. is

less beat up, but has more traffic., S. Braeswood in that area is little more than a series of craters ). Both Braeswoods will get you to S. Main. Another option is SL straight up to Holcombe. This route is heavy on school zones and there is still some Holcombe construction.

Many folks on your side of town prefer a less-frenetic commute. If you're not like me (always almost late), just take Hillcroft (or any N-S route) to N.

Braeswood. You just stay on it for miles, then turn left on Main. It's not blazing fast, but is predictable. Not much road rage compared to our highway system.

From Westbury, you have a very reasonable commute relative to most drivers, and loads of alternative surface streets. It's entirely bearable!

In closing, congrats on your excellent taste in academic institutions, and THANK YOU for becoming a nurse. That makes you an invaluable asset to our community. Here's to smooth commutes for our valued nurses!

Hi-

I lived in Camp Logan for 5 years (2000-2005)....my t'home was <100 yards from mempark.

I grew up on Nantucket, though that's not too helpful because it's unrecognizable as my childhood home (teardowns).

This one is easy, unless you work on the far west side (or as l'hornguy correctly noted, have school issues).

Camp Logan is the better choice.

Flooding: I was in CL during Tropical Storm Allison. No flooding whatsoever. Why? I-10 was our "bayou". (You may recall the

photos of truckers sitting atop their semi-cabs in/on I-10 - that was <1 mi. from CL.) Water flows downhill to I-10 and is absorbed

by the vast unpaved areas w/in Memorial Park. I've not seen actual home flooding in W'haven, but street flooding is pretty common.

Location: W'haven is near very little (plenty of retail strips), but access to major thoroughfares (freeways) is far more limited than

CL. CL has Westcott --->Memorial---->>>D'town w/relatively light traffic and 40-50 mph speed limits. CL is just a few hundred yards

from I-10 so there's more terrific E-W access.

Amenities: Groceries - edge to W'haven. CL has a giant green park w/swimming, weight room, 2.9 mi. soft track, golf, tennis, croquet(?),

softball/baseball, mountain biking, an Arbortetum, hiking, picnicking. I've seen rabbits, coyotes, raccoons, herons and more. The park is

wooded with very old, tall pines and hardwoods.

Crime: Probably a wash. No crime for me in my 5 years.

If you have a reason (proximity to something important to you) to be in the congested W'haven area, go for it. There are lots of good neighborhoods

around it and good shopping. Otherwise, Camp Logan is superior.

BTW, the Galleria area is about equally accessable from CL or W'haven, so that shouldn't be a factor.

Just my informed opinion

I agree w/VMT as well - the benefits are self-evident.

I'm way too familiar w/Denver Pavillions - it may have been an initial success, but it is now very unimpressive.

Turnover was high even prior to the recession.

I thought then, and now, that it was disjointed with panhandlers just on the periphery at all times.

They also just lost Virgin Megastore with more vacancies to come. (All VMs are history now)

Locals I know have no civic pride in the rapidly aging facility, and "improvements" are unimpressive. It's a mutt.

Hope HouPav sees the devolution of the Denver Pavillions and learns how not to reinvigorate D'town.

(of course D'town/LoDo Denver makes D'town Hou look like an evening ghost town, so...doesn't bode well for HouPav IMHO.)

That would be true IMO irrespective of recessions.

Renzo Piano - particularly his firm's smaller commissions.

Locally, I thought the Tom Wilson/Bill Anderson residential firm was stellar in its day, and I suspect they still do fine work independently.

(e.g., Westgate/Mid Lane 1980s, Ferndale Place, David Crockett subdiv. and customs in T'wood, etc.)

Creative, attractive and practical.

It will be a multi-use bike trail in 10, 20 years. Good observation, JLW.

You're crazy if you think that it'll be a rail line in twenty years. Not a chance.

CALM's rail-in-the-middle idea is superior to the Rube Goldberg-scheme posited as an alternative, though we'll likely not get it built.

I think the general public couldn't care less. To say The Woodlands, Sugar Land, Kingwood, Pasadena and others are not suburbs would make one look ignorant to the general public. The Heights, River Oaks and Bunker Hill suburbs? Really? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The only flaw with what I just said is that Kingwood would be considered a suburb but yet it is within the boundaries of Houston.

The most ridiculous thing you've EVER heard...but nevertheless, completely true.

TheNiche-

Thank you for your acknowledged tangent, although staying on point would have been appreciated.

Only you are "discussing" air quality in the suburbs. Notice?

I noted the irony apparent when TheNiche trumpets the cleaner air in the distant suburbs, given that commuters from these areas are often trapped on clogged, too narrow, insufficient routes into town, forcing them to ADD substantially to ozone and particulate pollution in their destination area - in this case, the already polluted city of Houston. That's indisputable. I noted the irony; I certainly did not challenge your assertion that the distant suburbs are less polluted. That really wasn't germane to our discussion (my orig. post); in fact, it's hardly a revelation.

You should start a thread regarding this topic (pollution) if it interests you. It won't however, require quoting my almost-completely distinct original post, which, as you know, was centered on hammering out a workable distinction between Houston's suburbs and exurbs - a subject addressed hundreds of times on this thread - and a subject reasonable people can disagree on and debate.

But tangents-acknowledged or not-are certainly your prerogative as a poster. Have at it, if that's what you choose...

Geewhiz.3

TheNiche:

Thanks for acknowledging my agreement with you. I'm just short of ecstatic.

As to your Method/Madness explanation, yes, you spelled out the how the entire "white flight" phenomenon evolves - continuously. (In admirable detail)

Given the thesis of my post, I wonder why, though. I'm seeking a viable distinction between the suburbs and the exurbs; my assertion is that however they evolved, these non-suburban "buffers" (in my view) offer an opportunity to draw the geographical distinction people have grappled with for ten pages now. I tend to read your posts; your argumentative nature gets my attention and respect, in general. Perhaps I'm surprised you missed my point - if you didn't, you chose not to meaningfully entertain the notion. That's OK-your perogative.

Finally, you offered a bouquet to those who choose to live the exurban life. I've stated almost the same thing in other posts. There are some excellent reasons for some to live the exurban life (schools, econ, kidspace). I try to make that clear, but since you felt compelled to "celebrate the individuality, etc"....ditto. (yawn). Your pollution assertion was a bit ironic, given the jammed freeways delivering the exurbanites contributes heavily to the problem, but not especially relevant point taken.

My post was made IN RESPONSE to numerous vehement assertions that the five (5) Houston suburbs I've lived in (3 inside the loop, 2 just outside) and many others somehow lost their status as suburbs because, in short, they wound up "compacted" (your term) by the "messy" (my term) growth that followed. I have run a business in the "buffer" areas for decades. Why? It's cheap! So even ugly buffers offer benefits to my beloved H-town.

Anyway, I would have enjoyed a responsive post...not required, though. Your prerogative.

Houston suburbs are suburbs. Others disagree. I find their evidence unpersuasive, and offered a model. I think it has merit.

"There's a lot in there that I disagree with or I think is overstated, but I'm I'm glad you essentially agree with my argument..." ROTFLMAO ! I smell a new signature line for InTheLoop...making people glad.

Gee whiz.2

If there are folks who swear that inclusion into a city equals exclusion from a suburb(an status)...

If they believe Kingwood is not a suburb and Conroe (founded 19th century as a town now a city) IS, then, please:

Do some research.

...cause that's a cry for homework....maybe an Urban/Regional Planning course?

There are real-life definable SUBURBS less than a 10 minute drive from DOWNTOWN HOUSTON...and then there's Cornroe, a CITY that in fact has its OWN SUBURBS. See the problem with your analysis? Guessing not.

Also, after the refresher course, please advise: What's an exurb? Does Greater Houston include any? (Centerville? La Grange? Victoria? Hint: no.).

Gee whiz.

Given Houston's uniqueness, I agree w/TheNiche:

There is no one-size-fits-all answer, particularly since our developer/demigods hopscotched all over several geographically large COUNTIES

in order to benefit themselves and their short-term profit maximization - a "vision" that has left vast swaths of poorly/underdeveloped and/or semirural

land between Houston's center city/suburbs and exurbs like S'Land, W'lands, Katy, et al, in a checkerboard fashion. It's our uniquely Houston,

short-term cost-containing (hell w/the future) way of growth...and we've grown! We've also seen the future - and it is gridlock and rising asthma rates among chidren...it's also MUDs in the sticks with no backup generators and people sitting through 4+ traffic light changes in order to get to the next intersection and repeat, only to eventually reach to a backed-up freeway a dozen or two miles from work! (note: thanks so much, former Mayor

Lanier, for fighting Metro expansion for all those years! Who would have guessed a former Texas Hwy Dept. Board Chair and developer of distant lands would be hostile to rail options-ha!).

Given this messy reality, some common distinctions just naturally blur....therefore semantic sniping, battling dictionary definitions, and people protecting (understandably) their "largest-ever purchase" -wherever it is- just muddies things further.

My bias is in protecting the identity of Houston's original suburbs, assuming they still function as designed and platted. Despite the lack of zoning,

many or most survive as suburbs. They are not "inner-city" as traditionally defined ( I rarely see "inner-city" without it modifying something nasty,

e.g., "inner city crime", "inner-city drug wars".). They were planned as Houston's 'burbs and never strayed. Because of unregulated growth,

there are often "buffers" of many miles between these original 'burbs and the much-later developed 'urbs. IMHO, these "buffers" are often some of the most unsightly and disappointing failures resulting from developer-driven vs. "smart" growth. Infill will be difficult in these areas, which is a transit tragedy. These "buffers" vary in size. They are huge on the N/NE/NW side, very large on the SW and S, and almost non-existent on the west

side. For example, if you take San Felipe/Woodway/Memorial west from Memorial Park (inside the loop) there will be no "non-suburban" stretch all the way to the beltway,even beyond. On the other hand, take Bissonnet SW and you hit this "buffer" shortly after Bellaire/Sharpstown - and it extends for many miles. One caveat: the major street through a suburban area may look misleadingly "buffer-like" (e.g. W'heimer around Briargrove)...

Fighting over where this "ring" is placed precisely is fruitless; it waxes/wanes and overlaps a bit It not even a real "ring". It is necessarily vague; however I believe it is possible to use the Justice Brennan/pornography analogy: "You know it when you see it".

I'm belaboring the "buffer" theory, because I believe that it offers as clear a distinction as we can dredge up to differentiate two DISTINCT residential models: suburbs and exurbs. (I can also live with inner- and outer- suburbs if that proves more palatable). It is not precise, because this is Houston/Greater Houston!

There is truly not a one-size-fits-all answer, but Westbury, Garden Oaks, Briargrove, Maplewood, and Southampton are all vibrant, growing suburbs in Houston near the central core (or "inner city"). They should not be disparagingly mislabelled, intentionally or otherwise. With one MAJOR exception - the west side - (and, I'm sure, some minor exceptions), outside these suburbs is a "buffer" (non-platted hodgepodge of svc. businesses, apartments, office/whses, etc. w/o residential character, possible undeveloped land, generally higher crime) followed then, by our distant suburbs (or exurbs)characterized by greenbelts, SF, golf, water features and growing, thriving school districts.

Sure it's imprecise, but Greatwood and Linkwood have so little in common (residential ,yes...sigh) that folks need labels to differentiate them so even the casual observer (or British expat looking to relocate via the net) can understand the stark difference, regardless of which lifestyle we prefer.

I won't argue specific zip codes, but fire away at my premise!

Liam - it is denotatively and connotatively a suburb!

I enjoyed the dialogue, but the final anticipated response from the RO resident "clangs" a bit...

I suspect the savvy RO resident says: "The suburbs, no. THE suburb, perhaps."

RO denotes suburb, RO also connotes suburb - just a super-rich one.

I'm calling a TKO for memebag!

Westbury, River Oaks, Heights (the), Tanglewood, Montrose - all Houston suburbs. They were at birth, and they are today.

Just because somebody threw up homes in distant rice fields, swamps, and former prison lands doesn't give those folks

(or anyone else) the right to mislabel Houston's original SUBURBS. What are they suburbs of, you ask? They are suburbs

of the city of Houston, which began downtown. The question of whether they are "suburban" vs. "in suburbs" is silly in this case:

they are BOTH! A suburb, by definition, is suburban - duh. On the other hand, a house may look "suburban" but not be in the

suburbs - look at Heritage Park in the middle of downtown (extreme example!)! Or, more to the point: Look at every single home in The Woodlands and greater Sugarland; they are suburban homes located in the exurbs!

If this is snobbery, so be it. The alternative view seems to feel that, e.g., 75 years as suburb, with no meaningful change in character, qualifies

a neighborhood for the disparaging "inner city" label, applied only because of what haphazardly followed. Not a chance, in my book. Exurbs are

the relative latecomers, and their developers/homeowners don't get to grab the label just because "suburb" sounds more appealing to most

than "exurb". The only possible fair alternative is to call exurbs "the distant suburbs" while waiting for more exurbs to be built. I could live with that. Houston's suburbs will remain...fewer foreclosures, for the most part, and less hampered by things like national recessions, as property values adhere to that boring, fundamental first rule of real estate: Location, location, etc.

Come on, does anyone really deny that River Oaks is a suburb?

Sorry, Montrose was and is, a SUBURB. I, too, lived there (for 6 yrs., 2000-2006)

I believe that once a suburb, always a suburb, unless the original intent, i.e., homes on platted lots, is destroyed. Not so in Montrose, an overwhelmingly RESIDENTIAL suburb of downtown Houston. If they had built the 69th Street Sludge Plant on Montrose Blvd. in 1985 and tore

down 90% of the housing stock (and did NOT replace with more housing), then some of you may have an argument. It was designed, platted and

laid out as a suburb, and it remains so today. A freaky, cool, slightly dirty suburb, BUT A SUBURB.

It may be a suburb in an urban area, but I'm uncomfortable with the term urban suburb...almost a contradiction in terms, and an obfuscation.

Again, Montrose is a suburb, regardless of what impression it leaves on exurbanites using it as a cut-through or dining destination !

Westbury is, and remains a LARGE (not small) suburb - thousands of homes. Tanglewilde, Tanglewood, Maplewood North/South, Ayrshire,

Oak Forest, The Heights and many, many others - suburbs. In fact there a couple dozen legit SUBURBS well inside the Beltway - at least.

Further, I'll note that some on this thread seem to think being a stickler for accuracy represents an inner loop bias, and implies we are snobs

because some newer developments, which developers want to label as suburbs - misleadingly - are in fact EXURBS, being miles and miles (and miles)

from the Houston suburban ring, much less the core. The word exurb was coined specifically to label this follow-up/continuing pattern of growth. Exurbs are not intrinsically evil unless they are developed without transportation in mind (especially transport to/from the core). However, labelling them inaccurately is unfair to the folks living in Houston's suburbs, who regardless of SF, $, or "amenities" enjoy the benefits of the "first rule of real estate" - location, location, location (i.e., proximity to all the city has to offer).

If your goal is a master-planned community (golf courses, enormous commuity pools, greenbelts) or a distant less-expensive home, there's nothing in the world wrong with that: just know and acknowledge that the suburbs are between you and downtown, because, with few exceptions, you are enjoying the EXURBS ! Developers, of course, want to label it a suburb because they want to de-emphasize the great distance to the core. That is understandable, but nevertheless disingenuous and I think, a little dishonest. Mischer, Kickerillo, et al don't get to rewrite the dictionary just because it's in their financial interest!!!

I guess renaming the exurbs the "sub-suburbs" is out of the question

Traffic, traffic, traffic - suburbanites are always at the mercy of developers' future plans and the idiosyncracies of the road-building lobbies.

Exhibit A: Hwy 290's distant burbs. Disasterously slow commutes/access to city....worse daily.

Exhibit B: Hwy 288's rapid unsuitability for purpose...and it will be worse soon.

Inside the loop, you're never far from: e.g., the world's largest Med Center, stadiums, universities, our four large downtowns, by FAR the most

extensive restaurant options (tastiness is a personal, subjective matter!), museums, Metrorail, the best shopping, and much more. On the flip side,

while there are myriad reasons to spend time inside the loop, why would an inner looper EVER care to visit the exurbs? They have almost nothing inner loopers need! (MUD districts, golf ?)

I can see why parents on a budget would move out to snag a better school or a bigger house/yard for kids. Also, if you work in the exurbs or just

can't pull off the finances close-in, then OK. Otherwise, downsize, pollute less and move in! Further, once the nest is empty, move in!

BTW, there is a Wal-Mart maybe 300 yards from the loop where the 610 W becomes 610 S., FWIW...

P.S. - I have read Revolutionary Road twice - superb prose! I liken it to Updike (my favorite ever), but a more stripped-down, spare style. Yes, people have

noted the suburban dolor almost since Levittown! Oates and Updike are two authors who write extensively about the suburban effect on our national psyche.

RR is an outstanding, relatively early (set in '55, written in '61) exposition of suburban isolation and conflict. Good read.

T.Vines:

Since you quoted me, I'll clarify: L'hornguy suspected she was black "...as soon as (he) READ THE ARTICLE..." (emphasis added), and therefore, before any pictures were in play, e.g., MySpace.

Struck me as inappropriate stereotyping and unfair to black people in general.

I'm no supporter of scofflaws, and they can throw the book at her for all I care, but...let's not play stereotypes at HAIF.

That was my point...not sure why you quoted me, but I hope you now "get" my post.

..and post #5 was funny! Piece of work, that woman.