Bringing Back Nature To Houston.

[bachanon]

i understand now thanks. my last post was written b4 timmy chan's but posted after. gracias.

[Guest danax]

"Typically the trees are cute "

Except for pine trees. they're not cute, and they get pine needles everywhere, and the squirrels attack for those pine cones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he meant "cut", not "cute".

But some trees are cute too. I have cute little pecan trees sprouting up all over my yard, thanks to the large squirrel population here in Pecan Park. I think there's more squirrels than people over here, so at least we have that bit of "natural" habitat.

[H-Town Man]

Original Tommy Chan's, thank you for your posts. I found them extremely informative. I grew up in a neighborhood built in the 1970's in the Cypress Creek area that was full of mature trees - at least two dozen in my yard alone. Since then, as I have seen new neighborhoods going up, I have always been angered at the clearcutting of trees. I figured it was because people were lazy or just didn't care. But what you said about these new regulations coming out in the mid-1980's explains the problem perfectly.

There is one area where people seem to be building affordable homes on large lots with plenty of mature trees - that is the area north of Tomball going out towards Magnolia. It is a very interesting place to drive through - not only is everything forested, but it is much more individualistic than other places: instead of large corporate developments, a lot more people are buying their own piece of land. And the Texas insignia and architecture are everywhere. I imagine this is where Stephen F. Austin would live if he were alive today and living in Houston.

[Guest danax]

Original Tommy Chan's, thank you for your posts.  I found them extremely informative.  I grew up in a neighborhood built in the 1970's in the Cypress Creek area that was full of mature trees - at least two dozen in my yard alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I used to live in a subdivision near Aldine-Westfield and 1960 that was built in the 70s and there are several native Loblolly Pines in every yard. And, during Allison the place never flooded as all of the houses are built on little elevations. Looks to me like that area is doing fine without stormwater holding areas.

Is perhaps this recent law a little too generic? There's probably some wisdom here that I don't know but would it be too costly to evaluate each new plat as to if such storm retention infrastructure was really necessary? Or, is it just easier to pass a one-size-fits-all law that ends up causing our destruction of forests to rival Brazil's?

[pineda]

There is one area where people seem to be building affordable homes on large lots with plenty of mature trees - that is the area north of Tomball going out towards Magnolia.

Do you know the name of the area, H-Town?

[brijonmang]

the neighborhood i live in did a very good job preserving the trees and keeping them on the lots too...chuck watson was the developer. He has done some really good work out in this area lately with home developments keeping them in touch with the natural surroundings

[kjb434]

The areas north of Tomball vary. Some have more stately home, some are more everyday middle class homes. East of Lake Houston has lot of large lot rural appearing homes. The streets have no storm sewers and roadside ditches.

Storm water detention works in some cases and some cases aren't techincally needed. Usually trying to prove you don't needed takes lot of work and there is still the public policy and perception issue.

Harris County Flood Control District is very hesitant on approving projects that don't need detention. Actually, they'll never approve them again.

There is a technicall way around it, but it is not alway available. The use of Regional Detention can limit the need for digging onsite detention. Flood Control will dig regional detention facility to provide itself with improvements along the streams. Extra capacity would be sold off to developers on a first come-first serve basis.

Actually, I have one project coming up were Flood Control has designated a site for regional detention, but he excavation and analysis is a couple of years away. We as engineers along with our client (a developer) will perform the analysis with the intent providing detention for the stream itself to helf flooding and for our client. We have to prove to Flood Control first that they get the benefits, then the left overs we can use.

There aren't many areas in the county where this can still be done. Sims Bayou maybe on of the last. Some areas where buyouts of old homes after Allison may be turned into detention. A section near Westbury and Myerland is going to have then happen. A large buyout is occuring and regional detention/wetlands bank will be built.

As a general rule, detention works better for the upper half of a stream than the lower half. The lower have should cocentrate on have the channel push the water out fast waiting for the water coming upstream after. In Houston, much of the streams are very developed without detention (older section of the city). The upper ends is where most of the development is occuring.

[HeightsGuy]

KJB, what measures are good ideas for lower portions of storm channels that you mention in your last paragraph? I have read in places that the days of concrete lining of storm drainage (and other measures such as straightening channels) to facilitate faster movement of water is coming to a close.

[kjb434]

I wouldn't see more concrete channels being build anytime soon. You probably see more of what is being installed in Brays Bayou where it is pavers with holes in them to let grass grows. This option has its issues too.

The lower portions of bayous such as White Oak can primarily look to widening and straightening. Widening is difficult in many portions unless home owners are bought our. Straightening has it issues too with needing property to build. Just downstream of the confluence of Buffalo and White Oak Bayous a channel straightening measure is planned. The US Army Corps and Harris County Flood Control are in planning phases.

Solutions to the lower portions aren't as simple as providing more storage. The lower portions of these streams need to get there water quicking to the Ship Channel and Galveston Bay where rising water is only affected by tides and storm surges. And the Ship Channel is little immune to that also.

Bodies of water like the Ship Channel, Galveston, and Lake Houston have the ability to absorb a lot of storm water. Getting the water there without impacting someone is hard part.

[SpringTX]

I will amend someone's previous point about: "if you don't like clear-cutting, don't live in the suburbs" to: "if you don't like clear-cutting, don't live in the NEWER suburbs". The older suburbs (60's and 70's) are pretty lush and shady, in my opinion. The owls, hummingbirds, and woodpeckers sure seem to like it there too.

Regarding The Woodlands, apparently even they aren't immune from these newer regulations. The newer subdivisions in The Woodlands have decidely fewer trees than the older ones. In some of the newer Woodlands subdivisions, I almost question how they justify them being part of "The Woodlands" because of the paucity of trees in them.

Regarding urban parks, one of the problems is safety. We've all been to an urban park and come across empty beer cans, discarded rags, and other signs of homeless people "camping" there. We've all read stories of women jogging alone in urban parks...and being jumped by lone psychos lurking in the bushes. A truly lush and dense urban park is going to have safety concerns. A sparsely-vegetated urban park will be safer, but it's hardly very shady, and it's hardly very attractive, and it's hardly a back-to-nature type experience. There are plenty of golf courses around if you want to walk across acres and acres of green grass with no trees.

[RedScare]

A big part of the Woodlands problem with fewer trees is that when Crescent bought the Woodlands Operating Company from George Mitchell, they made the lots smaller to increase revenue per acre. They are now usually only 55 feet wide. Combine that with ever larger homes and there is not much room for the trees, so it does have more of a clear cut look and feel to it.

[Croberts]

For every tree planted, there must be like ten others destroyed - even on the "treeless" side over here everything gets leveled to an open field until a parking lot can be built over it. I don't think we're making any progress to reestablish natural habitats around the city.

Developers always say that. In Florida the growth management act ties development to natural area preservation, ie, for every X acres you develope, you have to preserve x acres or participate in some form of environmental mitigation. Native trees have to be preserved on properties, etc. Yet development here goes at such a rapid rate, it makes houston and austins growth rates in the 70s and 80s look like a depression.

[editor]

This is one of the best threads in a while. Lots of great information, and a bit of mythbusting. Nice to see so many well informed people in one place.

[MidtownCoog]

Not that it's real nature, but Chase Tower FINALLY finished planting a number of tress and a fountain.

That little corner of downtown is looking pretty green, all in the shadows of the big boy.