Land West Of Katy

[TheNiche]

GOOD ONE THOU Trae and Others

The Grand Parkway will be the final loop

As considering building more as the city gets bigger

Having more future freeway loops after the GPkwy won't really be go around the whole area because houston is on the edge of the GULF COAST it will just consider being a 3 quarter loop to be only from south i-45 all around to east i-10

But houston's metro could get 2 more after the Grand Parkway.

PICTURE sorry it came out so small the real size was much bigger than this.

I don't know where you got this image from, but FYI the red stripe of the Texas flag (upper right hand corner) should be below the white stripe. Otherwise, the star would need to be upside down; if so, the upside down flag would be a symbol of distress.

I can envision the fourth loop - the fifth is kind of surreal. The fourth would simply connect the towns of Texas City (via Palmer Hwy), Angleton (via SH 35), Rosenberg (via Spur 10), Brookshire (via Westpark connector), Prairieview (via Westpark connector), Conroe, Cleveland (via SH 105), Libery/Dayton, and Anahuac. From the standpoint of providing additional evacuation routes, I think that such a roadway would be feasible...in fact, a few of these segments already exist as roadways or would fit into plans relatively well. I would prefer it if they built such a facility as more of a true Parkway.

[Gary]

Look out LA, here comes Houston. I hope this never happens. The last thing we need here is for our loops to continue further and further out. It encourages development which would destroy the few remaining rural area's we have.

[TheNiche]

Look out LA, here comes Houston. I hope this never happens. The last thing we need here is for our loops to continue further and further out. It encourages development which would destroy the few remaining rural area's we have.

God forbid people have the option of living where they want to...

[N Judah]

God forbid people have the option of living where they want to...

Live wherever they want to, just not on my dime.

[desirous]

God forbid people have the option of living where they want to...

They won't want to until we build roads that let them. Invention is the mother of necessity; how about refrain from inventing Pandora's Box?

[nmainguy]

God forbid people have the option of living where they want to...

People can live anywhere they want. All they need to do is figure out how to do it without spending my tax dollars on wastefull and environmentally damaging road projects-like the Grand Parkway.

BTW, there is nothing "Grand" nor "Parkway" about it. It is merely another scar on the landscape eating up acerage in order to allow more pave-over developement of some of our last remaining natural landscapes.

[Guest danax]

The Atkins Prairie Chicken Memorial Parkway

Or maybe the Grand Poobah.

Maybe by the end of this century when we have 40 million people here, if the next plague doesn't stop us, there might be loops out that far, assuming vehicles in 2100 would still want to use them or their right-of ways. As Gary mentioned, LA is already there. They've got people commuting from the High-Desert, which is hellishly far.

Buy those inner-parkway properties now before they get too expensive.

[TheNiche]

Live wherever they want to, just not on my dime.

They pay taxes too. In fact, as far as road construction is concerned, they'll pay more than you will because they'll use more gasoline, thus paying a sort of incremental tax.

They won't want to until we build roads that let them. Invention is the mother of necessity; how about refrain from inventing Pandora's Box?

No, they won't want to until it is convenient enough because time-savings are perceived as a benefit in addition to the perceived benefits of living further out. If these are the things that they value, and they are willing to pay for them, then as long as there is sufficient demand to warrant new highway construction, let us build more highways.

[TheNiche]

People can live anywhere they want. All they need to do is figure out how to do it without spending my tax dollars on wastefull and environmentally damaging road projects-like the Grand Parkway.

BTW, there is nothing "Grand" nor "Parkway" about it. It is merely another scar on the landscape eating up acerage in order to allow more pave-over developement of some of our last remaining natural landscapes.

As with N Judah, you need to realize that you aren't the only taxpayer on the planet.

Btw, can you explain the logic of the Grand Pkwy as "merely another scar on the landscape eating up acerage in order to allow more pave-over developement of some of our last remaining natural landscapes"? It just seems odd to me that ANYBODY would want to pave over landscape in order to allow more people to pave over landscape. In your mind, is everybody that doesn't agree with you just out to ruin your day?

I see the Grand Parkway (and other highway improvements) as granting a greater number of choices to the people. Highways are a democratizing force: you live wherever you want to, and by opening up so much land, prices are kept low so that socioeconomic barriers are also very low. Perhaps you have romantic ideals, and you can stick to those guns...but I just want people to be as happy as possible. And the best indicator that we have of happiness is how people go about their lives if they're unconstrained by rules and regulation. They'll vote with their feet...but can't do that if you don't let them.

[N Judah]

They pay taxes too. In fact, as far as road construction is concerned, they'll pay more than you will because they'll use more gasoline, thus paying a sort of incremental tax.

Huh? Are you assuming they'll all commute to downtown or what?

They'll vote with their feet...but can't do that if you don't let them.

They've already got the choice. No one's got a gun to anyone's head saying "don't move to Brookshire." Why coddle them?

[TheNiche]

Huh? Are you assuming they'll all commute to downtown or what?

They've already got the choice. No one's got a gun to anyone's head saying "don't move to Brookshire." Why coddle them?

On average, those that opt to live further out have longer commutes; if you want quantitative evidence, use Census 2000 data. At last count, only about 7% of employees in the Houston MSA worked downtown, so of course I don't make that assumption.

"Why coddle them?" Well perhaps we should provide a fair and equitable level of transportation services to that segment of taxpayers that would opt to live so far out. How would you like it if they posed the question "Why coddle you?" in reference to inner-city transportation projects? And please bear in mind that according to the Institute for Regional Forecasting, about eight new households are created outside of Beltway 8 for every one created within Beltway 8.

[Orikal]

And please bear in mind that according to the Institute for Regional Forecasting, about eight new households are created outside of Beltway 8 for every one created within Beltway 8.

Just playing devil's advocate, but couldn't that be related to the fact there's at least 8 times more available land outside the Belt than in? Using that as a reference point, then of course we should cater to that segment of the population. But at what point do we decide to stop moving outward and start building upward (and all the transportation options that entails)? Looking toward the future, there should be a balance between what homebuyers want and what is good for the metro area as a whole.

[TheNiche]

Looking toward the future, there should be a balance between what homebuyers want and what is good for the metro area as a whole.

Of course they're moving further out; that's where land (aka cheap housing) is. They want to save a buck. Is that so wrong?

My key point here is this: homebuyers are members of the metro area. Regardless of their reasoning for moving further out, shouldn't we provide these taxpayers (that demonstrate that they WANT to live where they live by paying for their residence) with public goods in a dollar value commensurate with what the homebuyers bring to the taxable table? Is that not fair and equitable to these members of our society?

[dbigtex56]

They'll vote with their feet.

No wonder people keep pushing the wrong levers.

Now, if only they'd learn to walk with their feet, we woudn't need all these damn highways.

[Orikal]

No wonder people keep pushing the wrong levers.

Now, if only they'd learn to walk with their feet, we woudn't need all these damn highways.

And that's the point. Just because someone wants cheap land in Fulshear, it shouldn't affect my neighborhood because a new freeway needs to be built to make their commute 10 minutes faster. What's fair and equitable for them, may not be for me. There has to be a balance.

[The Great Hizzy!]

How about "The Landgrab Parkway"?

The DeLay-Culberson Turnpike.

And I actually agree with the Niche on this. I've always said that transportation options are a good thing. Nevertheless, the bigger issue in the Houston area is finding ways to encourage more infill development. It's one thing to live 25-miles from work. It's another to live 25 miles from work when you have three or four stretches where there is no discernible development for more than a mile. That's wasteful and inefficient development.

Freeways don't cause that as much as poor land use restrictions do. THAT, IMO, is the bigger problem.

[TheNiche]

And that's the point. Just because someone wants cheap land in Fulshear, it shouldn't affect my neighborhood because a new freeway needs to be built to make their commute 10 minutes faster. What's fair and equitable for them, may not be for me. There has to be a balance.

You are correct: balance is of primary concern. There are winners and losers in most public projects. Economists that would undertake impartial cost-benefit studies would utilize the notion of Pareto efficiency, where it doesn't matter WHO wins or loses, so long as the number of winners outnumbers or outweighs the number of losers. (btw, the word 'outweigh' is used in the sense that a project may help one person in a value of $5,000 but may hurt another person by the value of $2,500)

In an ideal world, everyone can be made to come out ahead by then taxing the individual that came out $5,000 ahead by $2,500 and giving that amount to the person that was hurt as full compensation. Realistically, such a setup is rarely possible. Still, just because there are winners and losers doesn't mean that a project should not be undertaken.

[Orikal]

You are correct: balance is of primary concern. There are winners and losers in most public projects. Economists that would undertake impartial cost-benefit studies would utilize the notion of Pareto efficiency, where it doesn't matter WHO wins or loses, so long as the number of winners outnumbers or outweighs the number of losers. (btw, the word 'outweigh' is used in the sense that a project may help one person in a value of $5,000 but may hurt another person by the value of $2,500)

In an ideal world, everyone can be made to come out ahead by then taxing the individual that came out $5,000 ahead by $2,500 and giving that amount to the person that was hurt as full compensation. Realistically, such a setup is rarely possible. Still, just because there are winners and losers doesn't mean that a project should not be undertaken.

Sure, in the real world public projects always have winners and losers. This isn't utopia. But rhetorically speaking: Do we REALLY want to become "the L.A. of the South"? Do we want to have congested freeways at all hours of the day? Do we want 2 hour one-way commutes? Do we want to build 32 lane highways (of course I'm exaggerating)? Wouldn't the huge amounts of money spent on freeway expansion be better utilized elsewhere?

We have many other cities to cite as examples that massive suburban/exurban development, while maintaining a focus on freeways as the main transporation arteries, doesn't work. These projects may allow the economy to surge for a bit, but more often than not, quality of life ultimately suffers as a result. If you build more freeways to accomodate said development, developers will continue to move even farther out, overbuild, and in 10 years we'll be back at square one.

[TheNiche]

Sure, in the real world public projects always have winners and losers. This isn't utopia. But rhetorically speaking: Do we REALLY want to become "the L.A. of the South"? Do we want to have congested freeways at all hours of the day? Do we want 2 hour one-way commutes? Do we want to build 32 lane highways (of course I'm exaggerating)? Wouldn't the huge amounts of money spent on freeway expansion be better utilized elsewhere?

We have many other cities to cite as examples that massive suburban/exurban development, while maintaining a focus on freeways as the main transporation arteries, doesn't work. These projects may allow the economy to surge for a bit, but more often than not, quality of life ultimately suffers as a result. If you build more freeways to accomodate said development, developers will continue to move even farther out, overbuild, and in 10 years we'll be back at square one.

Question 1: "Do we want to have congested freeways all hours of the day?" Answer: No; that's why we build more and expand existing ones.

Question 2: "Do we want 2-hour one-way commutes?" Answer: Perhaps a few people do. I can't speak for them, but if they're willing then more power to them.

Question 3: "Wouldn't it be better to spent the money elsewhere?" Answer: Possibly. The universe of possible alternatives is very large. I'd suggest that the appropriate expenditure would be to mix freeway construction along with mass transit. Its about finding the right balance. I'm all in favor of park and ride lots, for instance.

Lastly, you are correct that freeway congestion will eventually come back. That doesn't mean that the investment was worthless. If the growth is going to happen, then it WILL happen, whether you accomodate it or not...sure a small fraction of the development is discouraged, but the bulk of it will still be built. Austin is a pretty good example of that principle. So its still better to have two hours per day of future congestion on a given road with an expansion than it is to have four hours per day of future congestion without the expansion.

[N Judah]

On average, those that opt to live further out have longer commutes; if you want quantitative evidence, use Census 2000 data.

It's not about them v. me. I'd still be paying gas taxes for a freeway I'd never use. And they'd still be paying less than their fair share of the cost of the brand-new freeway (built by the gas taxes taken from everyone else).

"Why coddle them?" Well perhaps we should provide a fair and equitable level of transportation services to that segment of taxpayers that would opt to live so far out.

You don't seem to understand that these people only opt to live so far out after the transportation services are provided, and not before.

How would you like it if they posed the question "Why coddle you?" in reference to inner-city transportation projects?

Inner-city transportation projects are a counterbalance to freeway subsidies (though right now the balance is way out of whack - so the inner city is hardly being coddled, no mattter what you try to tell yourself). If the suburban lifestyle weren't so heavily subsidized I'd definitely be opposed to subsidizing the inner-city lifestyle.

And please bear in mind that according to the Institute for Regional Forecasting, about eight new households are created outside of Beltway 8 for every one created within Beltway 8.

Irrelevant. Sneaky, but still irrelevant.

[N Judah]

If the growth is going to happen, then it WILL happen, whether you accomodate it or not...sure a small fraction of the development is discouraged, but the bulk of it will still be built. Austin is a pretty good example of that principle.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that for sure.

[TheNiche]

You don't seem to understand that these people only opt to live so far out after the transportation services are provided, and not before.

Inner-city transportation projects are a counterbalance to freeway subsidies (though right now the balance is way out of whack - so the inner city is hardly being coddled, no mattter what you try to tell yourself). If the suburban lifestyle weren't so heavily subsidized I'd definitely be opposed to subsidizing the inner-city lifestyle.

Irrelevant.

1) On the contrary...growth cannot be stopped by ignoring transportation issues. Austin is a good example of that. Besides, to the extent that growth is supported, the transportation investment is making life BETTER for those that would like to purchase homes further out. As long as those folks' benefits outweight the initial costs and ongoing maintenance to the transportation infrastructure, what is wrong with a highway?

2) Perhaps if the inner city were growing as quickly as the suburbs were, a whole lot more new infrastructure could be justified. But the transportation dollars need to go where the people are or will be...and more often than not, that's outside of Beltway 8.

3) If growth patterns are irrelevent, then I'd take it that you really could care less about suburbanites and you're really much more interested in the tax dollars going into your own neighborhood? That's what seems to be coming across.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that for sure.

You are correct; in fact, uncertainty is the only certainty that we've got in this universe.

That said, other cities's experiences provide a fairly good indicator of general trends that can be built into projections. If you really want something that applies directly to Houston as an example, then witness the insane amount of development that has already occurred along freeways that were already at or above capacity. The congestion of the Katy didn't seem to hinder Cinco Ranch. The congestion of the North Freeway hasn't hindered The Woodlands. Neither did the congestion of the Southwest Freeway hinder Sugar Land.

They all grew in spite of congestion. Perhaps they didn't grow as quickly, but they never stopped growing.

[N Judah]

1) On the contrary...growth cannot be stopped by ignoring transportation issues.

Who's ignoring transportation issues?

Austin is a good example of that.

Well, our perception obviously differs. I think the highway construction Austin has expereicned in the last 15 years is encouraging easy access to cheap land and encouraging growth along those particular corridors.

As long as those folks' benefits outweight the initial costs and ongoing maintenance to the transportation infrastructure, what is wrong with a highway?

There's nothing wrong with a highway per se, it's paying for it that's the problem. As nice as I'm sure these folks are, I think it's important people realize that they're not the only taxpayers that exist. Believe me, I'm all about people benefitting -- as long as they don't make anyone else worse off.

2) Perhaps if the inner city were growing as quickly as the suburbs were, a whole lot more new infrastructure could be justified. But the transportation dollars need to go where the people are or will be...and more often than not, that's outside of Beltway 8.

Subsidies come first, and then the growth.

3) If growth patterns are irrelevent, then I'd take it that you really could care less about suburbanites and you're really much more interested in the tax dollars going into your own neighborhood? That's what seems to be coming across.

Growth patterns are not irrelevant, and I have never said anything like that. I just happen to think it's worthwhile to look at what drives the growth and understand how "growth" is man-made and how it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you really want something that applies directly to Houston as an example, then witness the insane amount of development that has already occurred along freeways that were already at or above capacity. The congestion of the Katy didn't seem to hinder Cinco Ranch. The congestion of the North Freeway hasn't hindered The Woodlands. Neither did the congestion of the Southwest Freeway hinder Sugar Land.

Cinco Ranch wouldn't exist without the Katy. The Woodlands wouldn't exist without i-45. Sugar Land would be Richmond if it weren't for 59. Houston in general wouldn't exist without the ship channel or the railroads.

They all grew in spite of congestion. Perhaps they didn't grow as quickly, but they never stopped growing.

They initially grew because they were near freeways. Then once they had gotten the ball rolling, they were able to achieve growth despite congestion. Like you said, perhaps not growing as quickly as if there were no congestion, and at the same time if 59 between sugarland and houston were torn down I wouldn't be surprised to see negative growth and a population loss along the corridor.

[Orikal]

Inner-city transportation projects are a counterbalance to freeway subsidies (though right now the balance is way out of whack - so the inner city is hardly being coddled, no mattter what you try to tell yourself). If the suburban lifestyle weren't so heavily subsidized I'd definitely be opposed to subsidizing the inner-city lifestyle.

Exactly what I was attempting to convey. Thanks.

[TheNiche]

Who's ignoring transportation issues?

Well, our perception obviously differs. I think the highway construction Austin has expereicned in the last 15 years is encouraging easy access to cheap land and encouraging growth along those particular corridors.

There's nothing wrong with a highway per se, it's paying for it that's the problem. As nice as I'm sure these folks are, I think it's important people realize that they're not the only taxpayers that exist. Believe me, I'm all about people benefitting -- as long as they don't make anyone else worse off.

Subsidies come first, and then the growth.

Growth patterns are not irrelevant, and I have never said anything like that. I just happen to think it's worthwhile to look at what drives the growth and understand how "growth" is man-made and how it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Cinco Ranch wouldn't exist without the Katy. The Woodlands wouldn't exist without i-45. Sugar Land would be Richmond if it weren't for 59. Houston in general wouldn't exist without the ship channel or the railroads.

They initially grew because they were near freeways. Then once they had gotten the ball rolling, they were able to achieve growth despite congestion. Like you said, perhaps not growing as quickly as if there were no congestion, and at the same time if 59 between sugarland and houston were torn down I wouldn't be surprised to see negative growth and a population loss along the corridor.

Who's ignoring transportation issues?

Rephrase: Growth cannot be stopped by intentionally cutting back on investments to infrastructure. It can be affected and can be guided, but it cannot be stopped. Only an economic collapse can do that.

Well, our perception obviously differs. I think the highway construction Austin has expereicned in the last 15 years is encouraging easy access to cheap land and encouraging growth along those particular corridors.

And I would argue that the growth occured along existing corridors because they initially provided the most convenient access, but then continued in spite of extremely heavy traffic. It took a fairly long while to provide adequate infrastructure to those in the northern suburbs, but growth didn't stop in the mean time. Also, Austin's east-west connectivity problems didn't seem to halt the construction of homes near Lake Travis. Granted, the Southwest Pkwy. helped out in the interim, but it is a far cry from direct or efficient access from the Lakeway area to the CBD.

I would agree with you, however, in noting that the new highway construction has fostered the development of less expensive land. That is a good thing. Low-cost and relatively high-quality housing is always a good thing.

Subsidies come first, and then the growth.

That's right. The important factor here would be the net present value of benefits added...just a simple financial calculation.

Growth patterns are not irrelevant, and I have never said anything like that. I just happen to think it's worthwhile to look at what drives the growth and understand how "growth" is man-made and how it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes you did. Your statement, made in reference to Houston's growth patterns outside of Beltway 8 is quoted as follows:

Irrelevant.

You are correct in that growth is induced by freeways. That much is clear. It is also impeded by the lack thereof. However, if I may use Houston's own history as an example, before the Gulf Freeway was built, Telephone Road was the primary thoroughfare serving the southeast part of town. According to an account that I'd read online a few years back and also to the oral accounts of my grandfather, Telephone Road was extraordinarily congested. That didn't mean that homes stopped being built to the southeast of town...just that everyone had to waste a really long part of their work days in traffic. When the Gulf Freeway was completed, an older coworker of mine that is generally against freeway construction even acknowledged that most people were very excited about it...it saved time. Of course it led to even further growth and the eventual need for widening...but what was the harm in that? More housing for taxpayers a problem?

One last thing. Inner-city areas are already pretty well linked up to roads and mass transit. There are rapidly-diminishing returns on dollars invested in the inner city that do not apply to the suburbs because transportation infrastructure is only minimally available on the suburban fringe. They'll get more bang for the transportation buck. Here again, there are winners and losers...but by providing cheaper transportation to cheaper land, fostering the construction of lots of cheaper housing, there is less demand for inner-city land. As such, those prefering to live in town have fewer economic barriers in their way, but retain access to the same or greater level of transit service as suburbanites.

[GettaClue]

I see the Grand Parkway (and other highway improvements) as granting a greater number of choices to the people. Highways are a democratizing force: you live wherever you want to, and by opening up so much land, prices are kept low so that socioeconomic barriers are also very low.

What kind of "choice" are we giving people merely by offering up oodles more acres of same-same-same. Does happiness equate with everyone being workerbees who spend absurd amounts of time playing "drive till you qualify" each day in choking heat, noise and pollution, only to finally get to one's tract home that looks much like the bazillions of others passed on the commute?? How does personal health, family wellbeing, etc., benefit from all of this? Quality of life has to include a lot more than sprawl and affordability. And it certainly has to include more than strip malls, franchise restaurants and pharmacies.

[westguy76]

What kind of "choice" are we giving people merely by offering up oodles more acres of same-same-same. Does happiness equate with everyone being workerbees who spend absurd amounts of time playing "drive till you qualify" each day in choking heat, noise and pollution, only to finally get to one's tract home that looks much like the bazillions of others passed on the commute?? How does personal health, family wellbeing, etc., benefit from all of this? Quality of life has to include a lot more than sprawl and affordability. And it certainly has to include more than strip malls, franchise restaurants and pharmacies.

it's not all cookie cutter

examples a plenty, cinco ranch, the woodlands, tons in sugarland. educate yourself. have you heard of the energy cooridor? how about all the engineering work on the west side just outside the beltway on westheimer. people are not commuting for hours anymore so drop the same dumb rhetoric

[TheNiche]

What kind of "choice" are we giving people merely by offering up oodles more acres of same-same-same. Does happiness equate with everyone being workerbees who spend absurd amounts of time playing "drive till you qualify" each day in choking heat, noise and pollution, only to finally get to one's tract home that looks much like the bazillions of others passed on the commute?? How does personal health, family wellbeing, etc., benefit from all of this? Quality of life has to include a lot more than sprawl and affordability. And it certainly has to include more than strip malls, franchise restaurants and pharmacies.

Cheap land allows developers the option of developing what the market wants. You may not like what typically comes of it, but that just means that you're out of the mainstream. If a big chunk of the market wanted (and could afford) a subdivision of nothing but ultrasleek modern homes on expansive lots, a developer would provide it. That's the beauty of the profit motive. Who are you to dictate where and how people should live?

By the way, if you let people make their own choices, then they can decide as individuals how they want to spend their time and their limited resources. If you don't have a lot of money, then maybe it doesn't matter so much that you get to spend a lot of time with your family so long as you've assured them a good roof over their heads, good schools, and a yard in which the kids can play. Again, who are you to dictate what is best for people? They are their own best decision-makers.

Besides, as Westguy pointed out, if people don't necessarily follow jobs, jobs follow people.

Quality of life has to include a lot more than sprawl and affordability.

Perhaps, but affordability (fostered by sprawl) makes it a whole lot easier to get around to the things that make quality of life possible. Like Maslow hypothesized, self-actualization only occurs once the base needs have been fulfilled. Affordable housing makes that possible for a large segment of people.

[desirous]

Cheap land allows developers the option of developing what the market wants. You may not like what typically comes of it, but that just means that you're out of the mainstream. If a big chunk of the market wanted (and could afford) a subdivision of nothing but ultrasleek modern homes on expansive lots, a developer would provide it. That's the beauty of the profit motive. Who are you to dictate where and how people should live?

By the way, if you let people make their own choices, then they can decide as individuals how they want to spend their time and their limited resources. If you don't have a lot of money, then maybe it doesn't matter so much that you get to spend a lot of time with your family so long as you've assured them a good roof over their heads, good schools, and a yard in which the kids can play. Again, who are you to dictate what is best for people? They are their own best decision-makers.

Besides, as Westguy pointed out, if people don't necessarily follow jobs, jobs follow people.

Perhaps, but affordability (fostered by sprawl) makes it a whole lot easier to get around to the things that make quality of life possible. Like Maslow hypothesized, self-actualization only occurs once the base needs have been fulfilled. Affordable housing makes that possible for a large segment of people.

Affordable 4000 sqft pathetic mcmansions, yes. When was that ever a need?

[TheNiche]

Affordable 4000 sqft pathetic mcmansions, yes. When was that ever a need?

It became evident that there was a need for them when people began buying them. Evidently, the residents either have special considerations or don't care what you think. Ultimately, there's no accounting for taste (or the lack thereof).

Actually, I've got a good anecdote that supports the case that there is a need for such things. I have an aunt and uncle that decided that they'd rather take in my grandparents than see my grandparents go to a retirement home. Neither my grandparents' home or my aunt/uncle's home was large enough to comfortably accomodate four adults without significantly affecting everyone's quality of life. Their response was to jointly buy a 4,400-square-foot McMansion. My grandparents got the a downstairs living room, bedroom (w/attached full bath), and study; my aunt/uncle got the seperate upstairs living room, master bedroom, and a secondary bedroom (converted to study). There was still one room left over for guests. And they got the whole package on a full lakeside acre for somewhere in the low $400's. If it had been a home custom-built standing alone, the cost would have been much higher.

I don't pretend to believe that my family is a good representative sample of the general population, but this case does illustrate that there is legitimate demand for this product class of housing.