Carlton Woods, Creekside, The Woodlands

[bachanon]

Progress Continues in Carlton Woods-Creekside

Special to The Villager 11/17/2004

The gated community of Carlton Woods in The Woodlands shows a 50 percent increase for new home sales along with a 36 percent increase in new homesite sales through the week ending Sept. 30, 2004 compared to the same period last year, according to Tim Welbes, senior vice president of residential for The Woodlands Operating Company.

The gated community of Carlton Woods in The Woodlands shows a 50 percent increase for new home sales along with a 36 percent increase in new homesite sales through the week ending Sept. 30, 2004 compared to the same period last year, according to Tim Welbes, senior vice president of residential for The Woodlands Operating Company.

Through the third quarter of 2004, 12 new inventory homes have sold for a total dollar volume of $14,565,600 compared to six new homes in 2003 for a total amount of $4,480,950. Lot sales have reached 56 with a total dollar volume of $21,262,547 compared with the same period last year of 36 homesites for a total of $15,455,650.

The successful year is due in part to the introduction of Carlton Woods-Creekside, the 500-acre expansion to Carlton Woods in The Woodlands' newest village of Creekside Park, located south of Spring Creek. The development of the Tom Fazio 18-hole Championship golf course in Carlton Woods-Creekside is also a powerful incentive for prospective lot purchasers, Welbes said.

Carlton Woods-Creekside will feature 260 homesites, with approximately 150 offering views of the Fazio golf course, lake or greenbelt. Custom and estate lots are available now in the new gated community surrounding the Fazio course. The development will be phased over a period of several years.

"Carlton Woods-Creekside recently welcomed its first property owners, Mark and G.K. Merrill," Welbes said. "The Merrill's future residence will overlook the fourth fairway on the new Fazio golf course."

Sales and marketing of the new Carlton Woods gated community are being handled by IMI Resort Marketing of Greenville, S.C.

"IMI has been involved in the success of the Carlton Woods community since it opened in 2000," Welbes said. "Andrew Whitacre was recently named the IMI director of sales for Carlton Woods."

The Fazio Championship course will be The Woodlands' seventh golf course. Fazio joins Jack Nickalus who designed a Signature course that opened in 2001 in Carlton Woods. Both the Fazio course and the Jack Nicklaus Signature golf course in Carlton Woods will be for play by members of The Club at Carlton Woods. All members of the Club at Carlton Woods will have access to the Italian villa-styled clubhouse plus the tennis and fitness center near the Nicklaus course.

Renowned golf architect Tom Fazio recently visited The Woodlands to review the course and was pleased with its progress, according to Andrew Whitacre.

"The new Fazio course captures the brilliant rolling terrain of Carlton Woods-Creekside," Whitacre said. "The Championship course will be a magnificent expansion to the amenities that Carlton Woods offers its residents."

Fazio has been named "Best Modern Day Golf Course Architect" three times in polls of his peers in Golf Digest, and was selected among all of the world's premier designers to revamp the fabled Augusta National course. He has approximately 120 courses to his credit, most of them in the U.S., including three at Pinehurst, Dallas National, Barton Creek in Austin, Berkeley Hall in Hilton Head, S.C., and Shadow Creek in Las Vegas.

With the opening of the Fazio course, Carlton Woods will be the only gated community in the country with a private Nicklaus/Fazio combination.

"Carlton Woods will offer 36-holes of premier golf that you simply will not find anywhere else," Whitacre said. "As to which course is better, the Nicklaus or the Fazio, let the locker room debate begin."

[f95kai]

Gated communities are just wrong. Even calling them communities is a euphemism, since they are effectively shutting themselves off from the community. Upscale ghetto is more like it. Mitchell would have never stood for it.

[gwilson]

I'm building one house there now and have two in design review.

Nothing wrong with gated communities. People with the worth required to purchase homes in these areas have more to worry about than us little folk as they are much bigger targets. It is no different than a lock on the front door, but safer. Carlton Woods, for example, is a large and open community. People run, walk their dogs, join each other at parks and the club house. It is a quite communal environment even with so much construction still going on.

[PureAuteur]

I agree with f95kai. They want the location, but don't want anyone coming into their little section. Might as well just put a "stay away" or "keep out" sign on the gates. What are they honestly so worried about that they need a gated community? Are they afraid all the crackhead Woodlands residents will storm into their houses with pistols and shotguns and tie up the kids while ransacking their house? If my neighborhood, which sits literally right up against the Beltway 8 is safe for residents and their kids, I'd say Carlton Woods is as well.

That's the one section of the Woodlands that I was never quite fond of. It's trying to be all Republican-like with the golf course and gated community; very old school capitalism. I thought the Woodlands was very futuristic and progressive?

It's just overall bad for interaction amongst residents from other sections and residents of Carlton Woods when the other residents can't get in. Also, it just gives a bad vibe of wanting to be separated from the rest. I can understand people who live off Chimney Rock in their gated Tanglewood patio home communities, but not anywhere in the Woodlands.

[mrfootball]

Many of these folks are Energy execs and speculators. They're going to need the gates when people realize what's truly going on with energy prices skyrocketing out of sight

[gwilson]

There is nothing wrong with "republican-like" "old school capitalism". That is what the country was built on.

There is nothing un-progressive about gated communities. it is a matter of security (more a sense of security) for people who are much larger targets than the average person. They want to make sure no one is going to go whizzing by at 80mph while their kids are riding bikes, and that no one is going to swipe one of their kids or break in to their homes.

There is more a sense of "community" in areas like Carlton Woods, than there are in most non-gated communities.

[RedScare]

There is nothing wrong with "republican-like" "old school capitalism". That is what the country was built on.

There is nothing un-progressive about gated communities. it is a matter of security (more a sense of security) for people who are much larger targets than the average person. They want to make sure no one is going to go whizzing by at 80mph while their kids are riding bikes, and that no one is going to swipe one of their kids or break in to their homes.

There is more a sense of "community" in areas like Carlton Woods, than there are in most non-gated communities.

Wow, I never realized that the Woodlands was such a hellhole. Burglars, kidnappers, reckless drivers...makes me glad I moved into town.

[new major on the block]

I think gated communities are just symbols of status. It is the same as the guy who buys the Ferarri and drives it around town. It is just showing off money. That is it. Gated communities have a reputation as being prestigious. Only the people with the cash can afford it. They are no more safer than any other community. If a crimminal wants it bad enough, he will get it. No gates or guards will stop a pro. Not even the coalition of the rich, snobby, and nosy housewife watchers could stop it. But if they, the rich, enjoy the "community" feeling then let them. Whatever floats their boat. :closedeyes:

[gwilson]

Your sarcasm is noted and dismissed. =)

If people want to live behind gates, let them. It doesn't affect you or anyone else for that matter.

[bachanon]

from a person who admires the original vision of the woodlands, i was disappointed that carlton woods was created. however, i believe the vision of the woodlands has been duly noted here in the states and internationally. as a fan of the built environment, i cannot help but drool upon hearing that a 25,000 (or maybe it was 40,000) square foot house is under construction in carlton woods. after 10,000 square feet, my eyes cross. so 25k or 40k.........doesn't matter. it's still GINORMOUS! it ghastly and amazing all at the same time. as andrew mcarthy's character said in the movie "class"...."I've never seen such a vulgar display of wealth." (or something like that).

[KatieDidIt]

I find this post very interesting on many levels.

The Woodlands is changing, Eastshore is evidence. The economic classes really aren't being mixed there as they have in all the other villages in the Woodlands. This means the home values in the area will go up and it will become the "desired," or in the Woodlands sense "envied," place to be. But true cities have areas like this, and hopefully there will be some sort of city government established soon to provide better services for all. I think other areas near courses and areas of higher priced homes will go up, and have about 20% in the past year, because they will become in demand, its the natural course of things. The mega million dollar home won't do well for a while, because for 2 million you can buy a great home in Houston..so you'd really have to want to be here to pay that.

The Woodlands is now building to attract Houstonians that are moving for schooling, to use the profit from their 1960's ranch houses, and to avoid the growing crime since Katrina. Our builder told me the other day he is building more traditional, inside the loop designs because that's what he being asked to build. And if those people want to move some place they think is safer and has better schooling because they can afford it, let them. If they want to be behind a gate because they are used to gates, let them. Most people try to live in as nice a place as they can and can afford, just because they can afford more doesn't mean they are egomaniacle heathens. Personally, I miss the gate across my driveway. It was a nice of a way of saying, I'm home now but too busy to be attacked by neighbors the minute I open my car door.

Carlton Woods. While I think having a huge walled space is a little silly up here, at this point-maybe not in 10 years, I think they have established something that The Woodlands has not, better service for those who pay more association fees. The club is walled off from the public and has all the club ammentities in one central location. This is the characteristic of the traditional country club. The Woodlands Club has no large central family gathering place- they use the associations tennis courts,the WAC's kids programs, the resort's pool and the Palmer wading pool area is so small you can't have huge club gathering. But its fine as a golf club, but there is no family "club" feel to it.

Now the giganormous house is funny, money doesn't equal taste. But you know what, maybe that guy worked his butt off his whole life and that was his dream, so good for him. Bill Gates did it, so why not him/her?

Richy, snobby, nosey, housewife- LOL. The really rich ones aren't nosey. They won't even pay attention to you unless you are in their group, and they are too busy "playing" to care about your business. What people do or don't do with there income isn't anyone's business but their own.

The fact that anyone owns a home in The Woodlands or elsewhere, whether its 80k or 2 million, and can pay the taxes and fees to live in it, puts them ahead of the majority of America. So some spend a little more, big whoop.

There is something screwy in the attitude towards the wealthier residents up here. Without the Top 1 percent, their companies/corporations, inventions and consumption habits, most of America wouldn't have a job. In my son's school, in The Woodlands, having wealthy parents is a bad thing and you should be embarassed.......therefore working hard, being lucky or successful in this world should be frowned upon. Frankly, that's messed up.

Let my bashing begin..........

[Mom22Blessings]

I think that was very well stated!!!

What school in TW would look down upon your parents having $$? All of the schools are in high income areas.

[TheNiche]

Let my bashing begin..........

I thought it was well put, myself.

Who knows...you might even get away with it.

[PureAuteur]

There is nothing wrong with "republican-like" "old school capitalism". That is what the country was built on.

There is nothing un-progressive about gated communities. it is a matter of security (more a sense of security) for people who are much larger targets than the average person. They want to make sure no one is going to go whizzing by at 80mph while their kids are riding bikes, and that no one is going to swipe one of their kids or break in to their homes.

There is more a sense of "community" in areas like Carlton Woods, than there are in most non-gated communities.

Like I said before, it's the WOODLANDS! You have moderate-high income surrounded by other moderate-high income and very high income. That type of spatial correlation makes the worries about crime and theft almost unnecessary. The Woodlands is just a safe area, because all the people that live there are law-abiding and what would be considered "desirable". San Marcos, Tx has a very low crime rate, just like the Woodlands, and they have no gated communities, nor do they need any. The difference is that the people in San Marcos do not live in fear like these oil execs, who I would not call true Woodlands residents.

Another reason I feel that Carlton Woods/gated community factor is a bad choice is because they need to be visioning the future. Gen-Xers who will be getting older and will make up the majority of homeowners 15-20 years down the road. Do you think this generation likes country clubs and gated communities? That's why I used the term "old-school capitalism", although "republican-like" was a poor choice of words to describe what I meant there. Carlton Woods does not fit with the vision, the aesthetic, the culture, or the progress of any American edge city, and most certainly not the Woodlands. The era of old money from big oil i.e. Highland Park in Dallas will soon come to an end in America, so it's really sad that those kind of homes are being built in those kind of "gated communities". This is not to say that I hate that sort of thing. I admire Memorial and River Oaks (not gated btw), but they fit a certain time period (1960s-1990s), and a certain type of local economic system where you have extremely affluent areas and lots of working class suburban poor in a city with an extremely large population.

In conclusion, Carlton Woods doesn't belong in the Woodlands, nor does that 40,000 sq foot home. You can't get any more pompous than that. Take that kind of flaunting to Sugarland's Olympia Lakes or wherever the athletes build their big mansions far away from the rest of the public.

[KatieDidIt]

"Do you think this generation likes country clubs and gated communities"

uhhhh, I would be in the Gen-X age range, as most of my friends are. Granted its on the high side of the spectrum. We all belong to clubs, some are behind walls. Maybe its the anarchist Gen-Xer you are referring too? Our generation will be one of the wealthiest due to the massive inheritance that will occur from the boomers, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion on how we will live 20 years from now.

As to big oil money drying up...have you not been observing oil prices? This is the biggest boom for oil money in 20 years. The stock market and all its futures speculation is driving the industry at full steam. Many of our Gen-Xers friends are inthe industry as well as those furtures speculators, and they are making a killing...

Walled communities probably are the way of the future for certain populations. The Woodlands seems sleepy now, but things can change quickly and most likely will over the next ten years. And I think the average income level of the typical resident will certainly be higher in the years to come. Just look at who the custom builder and commercial development is trying to attract.

As to the uber large house....I still say live and let live. How people spend their money really doesn't effect anyone on any level, except for creating some jobs. I can't imagine being offended by someone' else's good fortune. It really is a symbol of how the American Dream and American Freedom works. Granted, I'm glad there aren't hundreds of them around, but a few Hotelhomes won't hurt anyone. If the Woodlands ok'ed the plans, then who is to tell the owner where he can or cannot build.

This is a country built on capitalism, not communism...thank god.

[PureAuteur]

Have you seen Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights"? I want that kind of civic life in a bustling city to be present in a city once again. I just don't think that can occur when people are hiding behind gates. I hate the way society in general, especially in Houston, has become so self-absorbed and private. I was hoping the Woodlands would be a return to civic life, but then I see stuff like Carlton Woods and I'm not so sure anymore.

I guess I just have this vision for how I want things to be. I told you before that one day I will help to form a true body of governance in the Woodlands, and hold some kind of position on it. That's my dream, because then I can fulfill my vision.

I know big oil is doing great right now. The whole industry is a joke. The corporate-controlled govt in Washington has ways of causing "geo-political tension" to drive up the price of oil. The companies know oil will be scarce in the near future, so they want to make as much money as they can now so they can have the resources needed to transform themselves into alternative energy companies when that time comes.

Hmm, maybe some things never change. I guess we'll always see exclusive mansions behind gates.

Maybe one gigantic house is okay, especially if it's hidden, and not the first home you see as you drive from I-45 onto Woodlands Pkwy. I definitely wouldn't want to see lots of those gigantic houses, because then you might as well change the name to Beverly Hills. It's supposed to be an edge city, a fresh beginning from the deterioration of Houston, which was once a great city in the 1940s and 1950s. I guess I feel like a house that big is a waste of space and ruins the aesthetic with its look of intidimidation. So, I have to disagree with you that how people spend their money won't affect anyone else. It affects me when I'm consciously thinking about how all that land used for the 40,000 sq foot home could have been rationed to about 10-20 residential dwellings, allowing more people to move to the Woodlands and enjoy what a great place it is, rather than possibly just one rich fat cat.

[gwilson]

Like I said before, it's the WOODLANDS! You have moderate-high income surrounded by other moderate-high income and very high income. That type of spatial correlation makes the worries about crime and theft almost unnecessary. The Woodlands is just a safe area, because all the people that live there are law-abiding and what would be considered "desirable". San Marcos, Tx has a very low crime rate, just like the Woodlands, and they have no gated communities, nor do they need any. The difference is that the people in San Marcos do not live in fear like these oil execs, who I would not call true Woodlands residents.

Another reason I feel that Carlton Woods/gated community factor is a bad choice is because they need to be visioning the future. Gen-Xers who will be getting older and will make up the majority of homeowners 15-20 years down the road. Do you think this generation likes country clubs and gated communities? That's why I used the term "old-school capitalism", although "republican-like" was a poor choice of words to describe what I meant there. Carlton Woods does not fit with the vision, the aesthetic, the culture, or the progress of any American edge city, and most certainly not the Woodlands. The era of old money from big oil i.e. Highland Park in Dallas will soon come to an end in America, so it's really sad that those kind of homes are being built in those kind of "gated communities". This is not to say that I hate that sort of thing. I admire Memorial and River Oaks (not gated btw), but they fit a certain time period (1960s-1990s), and a certain type of local economic system where you have extremely affluent areas and lots of working class suburban poor in a city with an extremely large population.

In conclusion, Carlton Woods doesn't belong in the Woodlands, nor does that 40,000 sq foot home. You can't get any more pompous than that. Take that kind of flaunting to Sugarland's Olympia Lakes or wherever the athletes build their big mansions far away from the rest of the public.

How much more pompous can you get than to say "it doesn't belong in the woodlands". I have yet to see this 40k sqft home, but I've heard about it.

Regardless, people will build what will sell. The woodlands is middle upper and upper class in general. Therefore, 10,000 square foot, multimillion dollar homes in gated communities will continue to sell there as they have been.

Thanks.

[TheNiche]

Like I said before, it's the WOODLANDS! You have moderate-high income surrounded by other moderate-high income and very high income. That type of spatial correlation makes the worries about crime and theft almost unnecessary. The Woodlands is just a safe area, because all the people that live there are law-abiding and what would be considered "desirable". San Marcos, Tx has a very low crime rate, just like the Woodlands, and they have no gated communities, nor do they need any. The difference is that the people in San Marcos do not live in fear like these oil execs, who I would not call true Woodlands residents.

Another reason I feel that Carlton Woods/gated community factor is a bad choice is because they need to be visioning the future. Gen-Xers who will be getting older and will make up the majority of homeowners 15-20 years down the road. Do you think this generation likes country clubs and gated communities? That's why I used the term "old-school capitalism", although "republican-like" was a poor choice of words to describe what I meant there. Carlton Woods does not fit with the vision, the aesthetic, the culture, or the progress of any American edge city, and most certainly not the Woodlands. The era of old money from big oil i.e. Highland Park in Dallas will soon come to an end in America, so it's really sad that those kind of homes are being built in those kind of "gated communities". This is not to say that I hate that sort of thing. I admire Memorial and River Oaks (not gated btw), but they fit a certain time period (1960s-1990s), and a certain type of local economic system where you have extremely affluent areas and lots of working class suburban poor in a city with an extremely large population.

In conclusion, Carlton Woods doesn't belong in the Woodlands, nor does that 40,000 sq foot home. You can't get any more pompous than that. Take that kind of flaunting to Sugarland's Olympia Lakes or wherever the athletes build their big mansions far away from the rest of the public.

San Marcos is also a small college town that has evolved over the course of a century with a university as its primary economic driver. Its wealthy elite are professors and administrators. The Woodlands is a bedroom community to corporate executives and is largely comprised of relatively recent construction. How can you possibly compare the two and arrive at a meaningful conclusion?

You want to build things today so that Gen Xers will like them 15 to 20 years from NOW? Sections in subdivisions typically sell out in 15 to 20 months...and that's as far into the future as the developer is planning. Besides, Generation X is otherwise known by demographers as the "Baby Bust" for a reason...there aren't all that many of them relative to the rest of the population. By the time they'd have a chance to reject Carlton Woods, Boomers will by dying off just as Gen Y (which is an echo of the Silent Generation, a.k.a. the "old school") will be just about ready to start moving in. Even if there was a demand gap in the interim, you can be assured that those homes will have fulfilled the purpose that Boomers purchased them for...to grow old and die in.

"In conclusion," developers build things to sell to consumers. Whatever consumers are willing to bid highest for relative to cost is what will get built, and that same product will be reproduced one after another until the market is satiated and price settles at an equillibreum.

And pomp sells. It'll probably rub you the wrong way to think of this, but Victorian architecture was all about the rich showing off their wealth, otherwise known as pompousness. Every bit of elaborate architecture costs a great deal of money to build. If it weren't for pompous and egotistical people, we wouldn't have many of our national treasures...not even our skyline.

[PureAuteur]

...not if you have laws that prohibit a single family residential home from being that big. That's the kind of problem that zoning and other land restrictive ordinances are supposed to fix. I respect your point of view, but I am indeed surprised that you support the gated communities and building of gigantic homes, even though you live in a town that believes in preserving the environment and creating dense, mixed-use areas for work and play. The two notions just don't seem to fit together in the way I see things, but keep in mind that I'm only 25 years old, and I've never owned a home in my life. So, naturally, there is a certain degree of logic missing from my idealistic point of view, but that doesn't mean I can't reasonably dislike the gigantic homes being there.

[TheNiche]

I guess I just have this vision for how I want things to be. I told you before that one day I will help to form a true body of governance in the Woodlands, and hold some kind of position on it. That's my dream, because then I can fulfill my vision.

That's a scary thought...

[PureAuteur]

After reading what TheNiche has said, I can say that there is hypocrisy in my opinions. I actually admired the pompousness of the decadent aristocracy in the Stanley Kubrick film Barry Lyndon, which is one of my favorites. So why is it that I hate the idea of a gigantic home being built in Carlton Woods so much? Maybe it's because I know the Woodlands has a finite amount of land, and I didn't want to see so much given to one home. I'd say that in admiring both the civic life of the cities in Chaplin movies and the perfection and discipline of the aristocratic society in the Kubrick movie, I may have developed a complicated and hypocritical point of view regarding the Carlton Woods sub-section.

[sevfiv]

Gated communities are just wrong. Even calling them communities is a euphemism, since they are effectively shutting themselves off from the community. Upscale ghetto is more like it. Mitchell would have never stood for it.

wrong, probably not - euphemism, perhaps.

of course when i hear "gated community" i just think of apartment complexes...

of course the gates in the "community" of this post only serve a purpose to delineate exclusivity: who is who and where.

[TheNiche]

...not if you have laws that prohibit a single family residential home from being that big. That's the kind of problem that zoning and other land restrictive ordinances are supposed to fix. I respect your point of view, but I am indeed surprised that you support the gated communities and building of gigantic homes, even though you live in a town that believes in preserving the environment and creating dense, mixed-use areas for work and play. The two notions just don't seem to fit together in the way I see things, but keep in mind that I'm only 25 years old, and I've never owned a home in my life. So, naturally, there is a certain degree of logic missing from my idealistic point of view, but that doesn't mean I can't reasonably dislike the gigantic homes being there.

Sounds like you want to outlaw wealthy people. If you do, they'll only move down the road to an unincorporated area and build their multimillion dollar home outside of your taxing jurisdiction.

Towns don't believe in anything. Individual people do.

I support and respect the rights of individuals over government. Any other design produces unintended consequences...like the whole of France, for instance.

After reading what TheNiche has said, I can say that there is hypocrisy in my opinions. I actually admired the pompousness of the decadent aristocracy in the Stanley Kubrick film Barry Lyndon, which is one of my favorites. So why is it that I hate the idea of a gigantic home being built in Carlton Woods so much? Maybe it's because I know the Woodlands has a finite amount of land, and I didn't want to see so much given to one home. I'd say that in admiring both the civic life of the cities in Chaplin movies and the perfection and discipline of the aristocratic society in the Kubrick movie, I may have developed a complicated and hypocritical point of view regarding the Carlton Woods sub-section.

Whew...you had me worried there for a second.

[PureAuteur]

Sounds like you want to outlaw wealthy people. If you do, they'll only move down the road to an unincorporated area and build their multimillion dollar home outside of your taxing jurisdiction.

Towns don't believe in anything. Individual people do.

I support and respect the rights of individuals over government. Any other design produces unintended consequences...like the whole of France, for instance.

Whew...you had me worried there for a second.

Haha, well yes, of course, there is plenty of land in Spring on both sides of 45 for that sort of thing.

When you build a community, you must have some kind of framework and system of order for the design and overall aesthetic of your community, which cannot be accomplished by individuals alone. I'm just talking about overseeing the community's design here, not anything to do with government interfering in the daily lives of individuals, and in that sense I'm completely with you. I wouldn't call France an unintended consequence though when thousands of Americans enjoy visiting the country every year. Americans don't give France their money so they can vacation in a visual mess. It's a very nice country to visit.

Respecting the rights of individuals over government is what led to the zoning-less playground for inveseting that is Houston, TX. I believe there were unintended consequences from this lack of interference.

[RedScare]

Walled communities probably are the way of the future for certain populations.

That is probably true. In fact, it has probably always been true, only now, that segment of the population is growing. I don't have any particular objection to someone walling himself off from society. He probably would not have been a friendly neighbor anyway. It takes a certain personality to want to live that way. The gentrification of the Heights and East End suggests that there is a significant portion of the population that likes the opposite approach, as well. I rather enjoy being able to talk to 5 different neighbors from my front porch. Admittedly, others would not.

As for Pure Autuer's belief that this is somehow against the spirit of the Woodlands, he seems not to understand how the Woodlands grew in the first place. It grew as a refuge from the city, a place for those who wanted to escape the close proximity to their neighbors, "white flight", to use an ugly descriptive term. Gated communities in the Woodlands are just a natural extension of the phenomenon that created the Woodlands in the first place.

[SpringTX]

* I've never lived in a gated community, but I thought gated communities were a solution for moms who were fearful of their kids playing in the street. I like the notion of a whole neighborhood of kids playing in the street, safe from speeding drivers or wandering predators. I think too many kids these days watch too much TV instead of getting outside and playing.

* The notion of "community" in The Woodlands was sold out long ago. The Woodlands is all about making money now. The newer sections seem to be primarily targeted for upscale buyers, whereas the older sections were designed for economic diversity. The new sections might as well be Beverly Hills. That brings both good and bad aspects to the rest of us residents.

* Personally, I don't care whether the Carlton Woods residents have a gate or not. My kids won't be playing with them. In fact, many of those kids will be attending the John Cooper School or The Woodlands Christian Academy or other private schools. Most of the cul-de-sacs in The Woodlands are very hard-to-reach, hard-to-find, and therefore very private as it is, with or without gates.

* Rich people building 40,000 sq ft homes? Rich people building ugly homes? Rich people have never been known for their common sense. In fact, the very fact that they're rich...is usually a pretty good sign to me that they have no clue about what's important in life.

[KatieDidIt]

The Governance is rather a joke. Invite residents to participate, gather opinions.....then the WDC will do what it wants anyway. That's why its not going over so well.. and in the end Houston will take the Woodlands if it wants too.

The Mitchell idea for the Woodlands is over. Its now on the fringe of Houston and becoming part of Houston. Its 2006, not 1976. The balance of economic classes within the area will not be respected, I always found that very socialist anyway. The builders build to make money..so they build for those that have money.

As the the Woodlands being finite, did you know that the Woodlands Parkway will extend to 249 in the coming years? My guess is the WDC will snap up all the properties that will border that section. So, Ithink in the future, the Woodlands will be getting larger.

The Niche is dead on with this statement :

Besides, Generation X is otherwise known by demographers as the "Baby Bust" for a reason...there aren't all that many of them relative to the rest of the population. By the time they'd have a chance to reject Carlton Woods, Boomers will by dying off just as Gen Y (which is an echo of the Silent Generation, a.k.a. the "old school") will be just about ready to start moving in. Even if there was a demand gap in the interim, you can be assured that those homes will have fulfilled the purpose that Boomers purchased them for...to grow old and die in.

Spring, a lot of the very wealth families (even the ones behind THE WALL) have children that attend the CISD schools. So, your kids may end up playing with them. Its ok, they don't bite.

[PureAuteur]

That is probably true. In fact, it has probably always been true, only now, that segment of the population is growing. I don't have any particular objection to someone walling himself off from society. He probably would not have been a friendly neighbor anyway. It takes a certain personality to want to live that way. The gentrification of the Heights and East End suggests that there is a significant portion of the population that likes the opposite approach, as well. I rather enjoy being able to talk to 5 different neighbors from my front porch. Admittedly, others would not.

As for Pure Autuer's belief that this is somehow against the spirit of the Woodlands, he seems not to understand how the Woodlands grew in the first place. It grew as a refuge from the city, a place for those who wanted to escape the close proximity to their neighbors, "white flight", to use an ugly descriptive term. Gated communities in the Woodlands are just a natural extension of the phenomenon that created the Woodlands in the first place.

Well, maybe so, but I've heard people on other threads talk about how overly neighborly everyone is in their particular village of the Woodlands, so even though it was originally built as a safe refuge from the negatives of urban life, it took with it some of the positives of urban life as well.

[PureAuteur]

The Governance is rather a joke. Invite residents to participate, gather opinions.....then the WDC will do what it wants anyway. That's why its not going over so well.. and in the end Houston will take the Woodlands if it wants too.

The Mitchell idea for the Woodlands is over. Its now on the fringe of Houston and becoming part of Houston. Its 2006, not 1976. The balance of economic classes within the area will not be respected, I always found that very socialist anyway. The builders build to make money..so they build for those that have money.

As the the Woodlands being finite, did you know that the Woodlands Parkway will extend to 249 in the coming years? My guess is the WDC will snap up all the properties that will border that section. So, Ithink in the future, the Woodlands will be getting larger.

The Niche is dead on with this statement :

Besides, Generation X is otherwise known by demographers as the "Baby Bust" for a reason...there aren't all that many of them relative to the rest of the population. By the time they'd have a chance to reject Carlton Woods, Boomers will by dying off just as Gen Y (which is an echo of the Silent Generation, a.k.a. the "old school") will be just about ready to start moving in. Even if there was a demand gap in the interim, you can be assured that those homes will have fulfilled the purpose that Boomers purchased them for...to grow old and die in.

Spring, a lot of the very wealth families (even the ones behind THE WALL) have children that attend the CISD schools. So, your kids may end up playing with them. Its ok, they don't bite.

I thought 2978 was the definite western boundary separating the Woodlands from Magnolia. Even if they extend the Parkway, you'd still technically be in Magnolia by the time you get to 249.

I agree with you that the balance of classes is too socialist to work in 2006, but come on, you musn't embrace unrestrained capitalism without discipline. Then you'd end up with the intersection of Kuykendahl and 2920. If the Woodlands looked anything like that, I guarantee you you'd be complaining. I dare you to drive through that intersection and not instantly form a negative impression of it or have the desire to close your eyes. What made countries like France and old towns in America great was that everyone worked hard to build them, but they were concerned with the overall look of the community in addition to the money that could be made. The Woodlands, unlike Spring, still has an eye for planning, and even though Mitchell's vision is no longer applicable, the Woodlands still looks a heck of a lot better than most parts of Houston, even if it's all about the money now.

[KatieDidIt]

I thought 2978 was the definite western boundary separating the Woodlands from Magnolia. Even if they extend the Parkway, you'd still technically be in Magnolia by the time you get to 249.

I agree with you that the balance of classes is too socialist to work in 2006, but come on, you musn't embrace unrestrained capitalism without discipline. Then you'd end up with the intersection of Kuykendahl and 2920. If the Woodlands looked anything like that, I guarantee you you'd be complaining. I dare you to drive through that intersection and not instantly form a negative impression of it or have the desire to close your eyes. What made countries like France and old towns in America great was that everyone worked hard to build them, but they were concerned with the overall look of the community in addition to the money that could be made. The Woodlands, unlike Spring, still has an eye for planning, and even though Mitchell's vision is no longer applicable, the Woodlands still looks a heck of a lot better than most parts of Houston, even if it's all about the money now.

Well, once you hit Creekside, you are in Tomball. The WDC already has purchased land on the other side of 2978. ANd yes, if they see a buck, they will buy up more. Mitchell's vision was that it ended at 2978..this new company is completely different.