TAK Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I don't know where you heard that, but it is complete and utter b***s***.IIRCE, the estimate is that i-10 and Fry will be the county seat by 2012, so not center of Houston, but center of Harris County.who has a population density map!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I don't believe it. I think it's still at Chimney Rock. Check the back issues of Cite because I saw population density maps in there. There was a huge burgundy blob at Chimney Rock & Bellaire. The rest of the colors were paler as they got further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I think enforcement should be from the local government residence who want to preserve their way of living before the new neighborhood developers. Small towns have gotten rid of Wal-Marts before, why not this too.If the residents of Fulshear wanted to quash some of the new development, they'd have at least some recourse, given that they are an incorporated municipality. But they haven't exactly been raising a huge stink...which is strange in the same way that it is strange that Houston doesn't have zoning. After all, it is always in the existing owners' interests to have zoning because they and special interests can become oligopolists on land, which raises prices and keeps out the poor (and sometimes even middle class) people and creates anti-competitive pressures for commercial development. In every way conceivable, it is good for owners, bad for renters, and hurtful to society because there gets to be an effective quota on how many people can utilize finite resources.Btw, Wal-Mart is one of the best things that ever happened to po' folks.Poor people should live in duplexes and other types of moderate to high density buildings.Cheap home that destroy arable land and waster material resources is a bad investment, with only the developer coming out on top.We've got an enormous amount of arable land, but this tiny sliver of it has a higher and better use. Material resources aren't wasted when someone is willing to work hard, earn the right to those resources among others, and that person deems the use of those resources as their highest and best outlay given their finite claims. It is called revealed preference. The developer, builder, financier, and every single stakeholder (from stockholders to labor) all benefit from fulfilling the wants of that individual, and because they benefit, so do all the stakeholders that fulfill their preferences.It is my belief that poor people should live where they can afford and want to live, and that their lifestyle should reflect their needs and preferences. It is also my belief that you cannot accurately predict or dictate their needs and preferences because they vary among individuals within populations. Stalin failed at it, and he had the might of a nation, the protection of the KGB, and a horde of central planners; what makes you so qualified, Puma?IIRCE, the estimate is that i-10 and Fry will be the county seat by 2012, so not center of Houston, but center of Harris County.who has a population density map!?The center of Harris County is irrelevant.What is IIRCE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 We've got an enormous amount of arable land, but this tiny sliver of it has a higher and better use. Material resources aren't wasted when someone is willing to work hard, earn the right to those resources among others, and that person deems the use of those resources as their highest and best outlay given their finite claims. It is called revealed preference. The developer, builder, financier, and every single stakeholder (from stockholders to labor) all benefit from fulfilling the wants of that individual, and because they benefit, so do all the stakeholders that fulfill their preferences.It is my belief that poor people should live where they can afford and want to live, and that their lifestyle should reflect their needs and preferences. It is also my belief that you cannot accurately predict or dictate their needs and preferences because they vary among individuals within populations.I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I agree. So you agree with this? Glorious Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 So you agree with this? Glorious Wikipedia. Not that I disagree with it, but I mainly meant that last paragraph. We shouldn't be telling people where and what type of place they can live in. Although finances basically do that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Not that I disagree with it, but I mainly meant that last paragraph. We shouldn't be telling people where and what type of place they can live in. Although finances basically do that already.Topic Tangent coming below.Fast Food (in general sans salads okay!) is bad for people, but it is cheap and convenient and people with eat it for the short term and enjoy it, but the long term effects are disasterous.Just because it is offered doesn't mean you should flock to it.Switch the words around for cheap housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Topic Tangent coming below.Fast Food (in general sans salads okay!) is bad for people, but it is cheap and convenient and people with eat it for the short term and enjoy it, but the long term effects are disasterous.Just because it is offered doesn't mean you should flock to it.Switch the words around for cheap housing.It's cheap and convenient for some people, but not all. For some, there is no option. They have to live where the cheap houses/apts are. It seems that your analogy would be a better fit for someone of middle class, not lower class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 So you agree with this? Glorious Wikipedia. The beautiful thing about the United States, dear Puma, is that you and I are each free to believe as we will and live as we will. Where is it your right or mine to dictate what another can or cannot do, without recourse, based upon our own self-proclaimed sense of moral superiority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 It seems that your analogy would be a better fit for someone of middle class, not lower class.Lower class people (people of low income) should living in rentals in the city in my opinion, they should not be owning a home if there can't afford to maintain it.Buying is one thing, maintenance is key too.People in Fulshear, who have low income, can live on farms houses, ranch houses, and cottages blend with the landscape.Others can use small trailer homes and pre-fab homes. Those belong in rural areas do not create a permanent scars on the landscape and offer a reasonable home at a better value, and similar to a car, they can be upgraded or replaced easily.So-Called "Master Planned Communities" do not belong in the rural areas.Bring those back into the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Fast Food (in general sans salads okay!) is bad for people, but it is cheap and convenient and people with eat it for the short term and enjoy it, but the long term effects are disasterous.Just because it is offered doesn't mean you should flock to it.Of course people should not flock to something simply because it is offered!But if you enjoy it and yet understand that it may have harmful consequences if consumed in excess (not a difficult concept to grasp), then isn't that your perrogrative? ...just as I will consume an enormous quantity of crawfish this evening as a belated response to Trae's temptation? You may think it imprudent, but I find them scrumptious, and so I eat them because it makes me happy. If I die a hedonist in 20 years, it shall have been a better life than a miserable 80-year-long series of chores. Life = Quantity x Quality. The trick to it is balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Lower class people (people of low income) should living in rentals in the city in my opinion, they should not be owning a home if there can't afford to maintain it.Buying is one thing, maintenance is key too.If they can't afford to maintain the home, then how does the landlord that is collecting rent manage to maintain the rental unit and still make a profit?People in Fulshear, who have low income, can live on farms houses, ranch houses, and cottages blend with the landscape.Uh, Puma??? Have you looked at any acreage listings lately? People who can afford to live on farms and ranches in that area are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. And given that the nubmer of cottages out there is in rather short supply, the prices of those things would skyrocket without any new construction acting as a release valve.Others can use small trailer homes and pre-fab homes. Those belong in rural areas do not create a permanent scars on the landscape and offer a reasonable home at a better value, and similar to a car, they can be upgraded or replaced easily.When was the last time you visited a trailer park or community of manufactured housing? 1) There is most certainly a scar on the landscape and it looks far worse than a MPC, and 2) why would you think that anyone would perfer to live in one over a community of single-family homes?So-Called "Master Planned Communities" do not belong in the rural areas.Bring those back into the city.There is no room in the city for any new MPCs. They require thousands of acres of contiguous land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 If they can't afford to maintain the home, then how does the landlord that is collecting rent manage to maintain the rental unit and still make a profit?Uh, Puma??? Have you looked at any acreage listings lately? People who can afford to live on farms and ranches in that area are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. And given that the nubmer of cottages out there is in rather short supply, the prices of those things would skyrocket without any new construction acting as a release valve.When was the last time you visited a trailer park or community of manufactured housing? 1) There is most certainly a scar on the landscape and it looks far worse than a MPC, and 2) why would you think that anyone would perfer to live in one over a community of single-family homes?There is no room in the city for any new MPCs. They require thousands of acres of contiguous land.That is where you go into neighborhoods that are depressed, like the 4th Ward, the East end etc. and redo the whole place. Master Planned Communities does not mean everyone has to have a huge backyard or an exotic water fountain gate entrance and not everyone needs a garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Lower class people (people of low income) should living in rentals in the city in my opinion, they should not be owning a home if there can't afford to maintain it.Buying is one thing, maintenance is key too.People who live in those poorly maintained homes out in the burbs can afford to maintain their homes for the most part, they're just lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Lower class people (people of low income) should living in rentals in the city in my opinion, they should not be owning a home if there can't afford to maintain it.Buying is one thing, maintenance is key too.People in Fulshear, who have low income, can live on farms houses, ranch houses, and cottages blend with the landscape.Others can use small trailer homes and pre-fab homes. Those belong in rural areas do not create a permanent scars on the landscape and offer a reasonable home at a better value, and similar to a car, they can be upgraded or replaced easily.So-Called "Master Planned Communities" do not belong in the rural areas.Bring those back into the city.So where do master-planned communities belong? Almost every neighborhood in Houston was rural at one time or another. In ten-twenty years, Fulshear will not be rural anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 That is where you go into neighborhoods that are depressed, like the 4th Ward, the East end etc. and redo the whole place. Master Planned Communities does not mean everyone has to have a huge backyard or an exotic water fountain gate entrance and not everyone needs a garage.Ownership in older parts of town is so divided that there cannot possibly be anything approaching a MPC.While you are correct that MPCs do not require strict uniformity of housing stock, one of the key attributes is that there is a semblance of order, consistency, scale, and restrictions as cannot be provided (and perhaps we should not want to provide) in an older urban area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduag Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Think of all the traffic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Fulshear should invent some really drastic zoning laws and turn it into a really upscale area. It will work for people who want to commute along Westpark to the Galleria but don't necessarily want to live in so close to town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 When is Fulshear expected to hit 20,000?I agree about the Fulshear zoning. It would be nice to see it turn into a Katy (farther) wst than a Rosenberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 When is Fulshear expected to hit 20,000?I agree about the Fulshear zoning. It would be nice to see it turn into a Katy (farther) west than a Rosenberg.Forget Katy, I was thinking something REALLY upscale. Like our own Houston version of, say, the nicest parts of Long Island...except it would be built from the ground up. We can support another high-end neighborhood -- look at the thread about how crazy things are getting in Memorial... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Well, the homes going up no in Fulshear are not "from the 80's" either. They are mostly acreage, or expensive home sites. I wouldn't mind Fulshear becoming a Memorial (farther) West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Another story on Fulshearhttp://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6048129.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Another story on Fulshearhttp://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6048129.htmlThey should leave well alone as it is, we already saw what happened to the Spring area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Nice to see they're trying to preserve their small town feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.