wxman Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 What is the 2007 estimated population of The Woodlands? If I had to guess I'd say 90,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 I'd heard it was closer to 70,000 (which seems low to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Last I heard, it was at 83,000, about the same as Pearland. It is expected to go over 100,000 by 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 According to Wikipedia it's only 55,000 ... we're both wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodlands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 From the link:As of the 2005 census, the CDP had a total population of 80,951.I am betting that at least three thousands moved into TW since 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 From the link:As of the 2005 census, the CDP had a total population of 80,951.I am betting that at least three thousands moved into TW since 2005.Right you are ... didn't scroll properly. That first figure noted a year 2000 figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 I went ahead and put a nice photo of the Woodlands up there, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 interfaith visits every new resident in the woodlands and surveys the people who dwell in each residence. according to interfaith figures and the woodlands development co. we were at 80K plus january 1, 2006. there were over 1200 new home sales in 2006. estimated figures i've seen floating around are close to 84,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Nice pictures Trae! That's just what wikipedia needed! I was wondering when somebody would do that. Now all we need is a picture of Market Street and we will match the article on Sugar Land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 I think you guys need to start a new topic. You guys are on a totally different subject. However I did stumble across two arcticles on The Woodlands on Wikipedia. One is The Woodlands and the other is The Woodlands, TX. Strange... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 c'mon the woodlands population and the nature of interfaith are totally related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I think you guys need to start a new topic. You guys are on a totally different subject.Fair enough. The religion posts were moved here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Interesting that my assessment is unfair, but being subjected to someone else's belief system on my own front porch is not. By the way, I did not become agnostic from attending Catholic school. Catholic church and school bored me, but it did not turn me against religion. Since you bring it up, I will tell you that it was the particular brand of fire and brimstone, intolerant Christianity that is practiced by many in Texas that caused me to question religion. In North Carolina, even though they are very religious, they were a kinder, gentler religious (at least when I lived here). Once I moved to Texas, the in your face style was revolting to me. I questioned it, read up on it, and, unlike woody's theory, as an adult, rejected it.I am very comfortable in my agnostic skin, with the exception that I, like millenica, tire of those who feel the urge to push THEIR religion in my face. Common courtesy, as dictated by the 90% majority, says you do not tell the religious to keep their "blessed day" comments to themselves. Therefore, I did not respond to the 2 emails and one voicemail I received JUST TODAY, wishing me a "blessed day". Like I said before, I really have better things to do.I suppose you could call me prejudiced against religion, though prejudice generally refers to a class of people, not an institution. Not sure what it proves, but if that's the term you like, so be it. Having been raised Catholic, I liken my situation as more akin to a reformed smoker. But, if you REALLY want an example of prejudice, why not look at the percentage of Christians who would not vote for an atheist for president.Red I certainly understand if a fruitcake is at your front door, you'll reject him or her just as I would. Also, your not the only one that can't stand religious nuts pushing there belief and doctrine, in fact it's an automatic rejection for most of us. Quite frankly I'm not sure what I beleive half the time, but I do know that to broad brush religion as has been done here, is simply wrong and unfounded. I don't want to end up in a war here, in fact my bet is that if we were discussing this over a beer, we would probably have a lot more in common with this subject than you might think. I just have a problem with the broad brushing of all religion (specifically Christianity), and making it out as only the stupid people believe.Let's just agree to dissagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.