Steeplechase- Jersey Move In

[Guest Plastic]

As you all might know I'm looking into buying a new house. My first choice is Katy, my 2nd 290.

I'm thinking 290 off od Jones Rd or Eldridge. I'm looking for nice new neighborhoods, a liberal population,

parties, and diversity. I was olso considering 1960 around Champions Forest, but that's a little far from the freeway. I've also heard that crime has gone up in that area.

I need to know, is traffic bad on 290 coming to and leaving work? Although it's not Jersey Village I hear the cops are bad there. The areea seems cool, cept there is no mall around 290 and 1960.

[Guest Marty]

As you all might know I'm looking into buying a new house. My first choice is Katy, my 2nd 290.

I'm thinking 290 off od Jones Rd or Eldridge. I'm looking for nice new neighborhoods, a liberal population,

parties, and diversity. I was olso considering 1960 around Champions Forest, but that's a little far from the freeway. I've also heard that crime has gone up in that area.

I need to know, is traffic bad on 290 coming to and leaving work? Although it's not Jersey Village I hear the cops are bad there. The areea seems cool, cept there is no mall around 290 and 1960.

I would go with Katy, But i am a Right Winger what do i know?

Edited September 11, 2006 by Marty

[mrfootball]

NW Harris County is not going to be very liberal, nor is it going to be as diverse as say, the SW side of town.

I would recommend Sugar Land or Alief.

Edited September 11, 2006 by mrfootball

[PureAuteur]

You already seem to be pretty open minded, which is good. The area of Houston which is the most diverse is the SW side, which is actually a dump, so definitely don't live in Alief. Sharpstown proper, if you don't mind tons of riff raff, has some great mod-style homes.

Now, back to west/NW side. I'd avoid Katy at all costs. It's very very very conservative, lacking in culture, and most of the people just commute their lives away and then return to their McMansions and do pretty much the same things every day. I-10 is a joke. I would never even think of using it past loop 610, much less actually living in Katy.

290/1960 is very very very conservative, with only a tad bit more trees and slightly more elevated (land) than Katy. If you want to live in this area, you must learn to like cookie-cutter houses, visually displeasing development, chain restaurants, and an overall lack of community feel.

Champion Forest/Champions area is great. Lots of wonderful trees, established neighborhoods with pleasant architecture. The people are intelligent, educated, and generally nice. Quite a few northerners. Many of the people have lived in that area for decades, which gives the area that nice established feel that you get inside the loop. Only downside is the traffic on 1960 and the fact that there are 2 Wal-Marts, one going west and one going east. The crime isn't that bad, and what little crime filters over from 1960 close to I-45 gets contained pretty easily. That area doesn't tolerate riff raff, and the police presence in the area is solid, mainly because of the night life.

[Guest Plastic]

NW is conservative, tell me something. When I think conservative I think Humble or The Woodlands.

[PureAuteur]

The Woodlands is not nearly as conservative as Katy. Totally different demographics. I'm still not sure exactly what you're looking for.

[mrfootball]

Actually The Woodlands is very much ultra-conservative. They don't even attempt to run Democrats in Montgomery County. They've decided its not worth the effort.

This is true for most outlying suburbs, whether it be anywhere on the far Northeast (Kingwood), North (Spring/The Woodlands), Northwest (Klein/Cypress), or West sides (Memorial/Katy/Cinco).

The Southwest side will be getting a new Congressman, by virtue of the Delay fiasco, likely to be a Democrat due to the ballot decision which leaves Tom Delay on the ballot. The Southwest side is going to be the place for you if you're looking for the rare mix of racial diversity in an upscale middle/upper middle class community. Otherwise, I would suggest finding a place closer in.

Edited September 12, 2006 by mrfootball

[PureAuteur]

Well, the Woodlands is certainly more progressive than Katy. I would expect their residents to be environmentally conscious, considering their hometown is all about preserving nature. I guess many of them could be ultra-conservative, but they have their own unique demographics. Oh, they also seem to value a sense of community, parks, the fine arts, and they are against sprawl. These aren't exactly things I'd associate with the Bush campaign, but then again, Bush isn't exactly your traditional conservative.

[Guest Plastic]

I'd think the suburbs have alot of liberals. SUburbs are the new thing sprawling up in a different way from the old ways of the 20th century.

I'd assume alot of young people are moving to the suburbs. WItht hat liberalism. And when you say conservative you're counting the people who pay for the homes? The kids and teens whom live in the homes are as odds say liberal.

I wouldn't say it's liberal or conservative in any suburb but a mix. SUre in Texas conservatives have the upper hand but it's not like that all over the country. And it also depends on what you call suburb. Sure Sugarland, The Woodlands, and Katy are suburbs but Stafford,MIssion Bend, Champions FOrest,and Northshore also qualify as suburbs.

[Guest Plastic]

Of course the suburb concept isn't new but suburbs are new.

The houses just before the suburbs are a normal part of the city while they were suburbs 20 years back.

This is the case with say West Alief and Mission Bend. the area just beyond the belt started developing..........in the 1970s and yest it was a suburb. eventually development got all the way out to highway 6.

Nor 20-30 years later that area is just another part of the city that' s close to the Belt. further out past Dairy-Ashford and up to HWY 6 is still suburban technically.

Westburfy started around the same time as Sharpstown ................1950s? And it was the 1990s when that area started to be percieved as dangerous. Now it's the most crime-ridden part of the city. Inner city dwellers might be liberals but they're not the safest to stay around.

[Guest Marty]

^^^^^"Inner city dwellers may be liberals but they're not the safest to stay around" ^^^^^ They steal your stuff and take it to the pawn shop so thay can buy Pot. Maybe one day thay will make it to Rush's level.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Marty

[Guest Plastic]

I'm saying, usually those are characteristics we link with conservatives. Biased rel;igious freaks who torment people for their views or burn witches in thr sqaure..

[PureAuteur]

I'm having a hard time locating the central focus of this thread. Now we're talking about liberals/conservatives and "suburbs" and 20th century vs. 21st century in what started as a topic about "steeplechase-jersey".

I will say that suburbs are more a byproduct of the flaws of 20th century cities and remain a 20th century phenomenon. We have yet to see what types of urban communities the 21st century will bring. Suburbs do not stand alone as independent progressive communities, because they surround the older major city that has deteriorated, and continue to depend on it as satellites of that city. If we see concentrations of people develop in places that do not just surround a decaying major city, then we can look at possible communities of the future.

[Guest Plastic]

The suburbs are the city of tommorow.

And I said SHarpstown is the most crime-ridden part of the city, not Westbury.

[PureAuteur]

I don't think that suburbs are the cities of tomorrow, because they cannot function on their own. They do not have self-sustaining economies apart from big Wal-Mart trucks bringing in the goods.

Another problem is that suburbs form a giant ring around a central hub (Houston). This is not a natural shape for the development of towns or communities. Suburbs are a thing that will deteriorate over time, when the day comes when we as a society have to return to farming and alternative energy and basically recivilization. The 20th century America is dying out fast, and it shows everywhere you look. I don't mean to sound too pessimistic, because there is still hope for any area "that was once a suburb" (hypothetically). The area could adapt itself and become a town, no longer related in any way to the central hub (Houston). I'd say the Woodlands has done this, but then again, the Woodlands is still a 20th century phenomenon, unless they really were planning for the 21st century when they built it, which would surprise me.

[Guest Plastic]

You don't understand, what are now suburbs will eventually become another part of the city. Look at Sharpstown. The Heights was even once a suburb.

In other words you are gonna see thugs,gangs,and whorehouses in The Woodlands,Katy,and Sugarland in 30 years on our current pattern. They'll be talking about all the aprtments and rundown crackhouses in the area.

It's the idea of urban sprawl. People move out to ne areas, build them up and they become new pars of the city. WHile the outer city grows the inner city dies leaving it rundown and abandoned. SOme of the neighborhoods in Houston's outer rim were started this year. The ones in the very center the 1830s.

[Guest Marty]

You don't understand, what are now suburbs will eventually become another part of the city. Look at Sharpstown. The Heights was even once a suburb.

In other words you are gonna see thugs,gangs,and whorehouses in The Woodlands,Katy,and Sugarland in 30 years on our current pattern. They'll be talking about all the aprtments and rundown crackhouses in the area.

It's the idea of urban sprawl. People move out to ne areas, build them up and they become new pars of the city. WHile the outer city grows the inner city dies leaving it rundown and abandoned. SOme of the neighborhoods in Houston's outer rim were started this year. The ones in the very center the 1830s.

I would say in about 10 years. I lived in the Oakwilde subdivision, Aldine. From 1976 to 1994. Within ten years after i moved the subdivision went from 80% whitey to 90% Hispanic. The parents were good people but there children where getting in the gangs. If you ever been in the neighborhood you will know what i mean. They cut down almost 50% of the trees. Some trees my dad planted over 30 year ago. I rather have a big tree than a hibiscus plant any day. By the way I am not bashing hispanics.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Marty

[Guest Plastic]

No , today's suburbs will be tommorrow's innercity.

[Guest Plastic]

Round and round we go...

I suppose if you understand "suburbs" to mean "outskirts," then you have a point. Sort of. But, more broadly, "suburban" can also refer to low- or medium-density development, in which case it would be more accurate to differentiate between inner- and outer-ring suburbs. My neighborhood, Westbury, used to be on the edge of town, but now it's not: that doesn't mean I now live in the inner city.

Everything inside The Belt is Innercity.

[PureAuteur]

You don't understand, what are now suburbs will eventually become another part of the city. Look at Sharpstown. The Heights was even once a suburb.

In other words you are gonna see thugs,gangs,and whorehouses in The Woodlands,Katy,and Sugarland in 30 years on our current pattern. They'll be talking about all the aprtments and rundown crackhouses in the area.

It's the idea of urban sprawl. People move out to ne areas, build them up and they become new pars of the city. WHile the outer city grows the inner city dies leaving it rundown and abandoned. SOme of the neighborhoods in Houston's outer rim were started this year. The ones in the very center the 1830s.

There are neighborhoods inside Loop 610 that were built this year, and there were neighborhoods way out in Houston's north outer suburbs (Spring/Woodlands area) that were built in the early 1970s. What's your point?

The Woodlands will never become a slum with gangs and rundown apartments and thugs/crackhouses unless it completely lets go of its principles. It has almost a constitutional preservation of trees and adherence to a strict planning scheme in which only select developers and architects can come in. It was also built as an anecdote to sprawl, so I doubt it would just get easily sucked into the growing city monster.

The 21st century could bring about fundamental changes in human ecology, in which we have no idea what will happen. There is a chance that the 20th century trend of urban sprawl could change. Maybe there will be a massive population die-off? I can say that resources will be scarce someday, and the best way to prepare is to form self-sustaining communities, transportation systems that include walking, and methods of growing food and transporting goods that serve only that community, unlike the corporate, national agriculture system we have now, in which we use big trucks to ship goods all over America by way of interstate highways.

Edited September 20, 2006 by PureAuteur

[ChampionsAdam]

I decided yesterday to drive out to look at a new subdivision at 290 and Barker-Cypress, Canyon Lakes at Stone Gate, they had a floor plan that I saw online that I liked. The drive itself sucked going up there, then getting lost in the subdivision trying to find the model. What I didn't like was the fact that there are no trees, it is very sparse (I'm used to the tall pines and oaks). I was also surprised to see the telephone poles up and down the esplanades, why not bury them? It looked horrible. The lots were tiny and the homes did not have the same feeling as the ones in my neighborhood. I did love the model, but once I returned back home to Champion Forest and 1960 I realized I had it pretty good. I have the best of shopping in the area, close to both 249, 45, and the Beltway. I rarely have to leave 1960 to find what I want. The idea of a new home sounded nice, but after buying the house (and the $30,000 in upgrades) and the pool and the landscaping and the drapes, etc, etc.. I decided to stay right where I am.

[Guest Plastic]

There are neighborhoods inside Loop 610 that were built this year, and there were neighborhoods way out in Houston's north outer suburbs (Spring/Woodlands area) that were built in the early 1970s. What's your point?

The Woodlands will never become a slum with gangs and rundown apartments and thugs/crackhouses unless it completely lets go of its principles. It has almost a constitutional preservation of trees and adherence to a strict planning scheme in which only select developers and architects can come in. It was also built as an anecdote to sprawl, so I doubt it would just get easily sucked into the growing city monster.

The 21st century could bring about fundamental changes in human ecology, in which we have no idea what will happen. There is a chance that the 20th century trend of urban sprawl could change. Maybe there will be a massive population die-off? I can say that resources will be scarce someday, and the best way to prepare is to form self-sustaining communities, transportation systems that include walking, and methods of growing food and transporting goods that serve only that community, unlike the corporate, national agriculture system we have now, in which we use big trucks to ship goods all over America by way of interstate highways.

Most new homes are outside of The Belt. Most old homes are inside of The Belt.

You think that. I hear Sugarland is becoming the"new Alief". I've heard people in The Woodlands talk about how diverse The Woodlands has gottena nd how many businesses they've built in the last few years. That's the first step to urbanization. Today's $100,000 houses will be afforadable in 40 years. Then anybody can move in.

[Guest Marty]

Most new homes are outside of The Belt. Most old homes are inside of The Belt.

You think that. I hear Sugarland is becoming the"new Alief". I've heard people in The Woodlands talk about how diverse The Woodlands has gottena nd how many businesses they've built in the last few years. That's the first step to urbanization. Today's $100,000 houses will be afforadable in 40 years. Then anybody can move in.

I would say 20 years in certain areas.

[PureAuteur]

Most new homes are outside of The Belt. Most old homes are inside of The Belt.

You think that. I hear Sugarland is becoming the"new Alief". I've heard people in The Woodlands talk about how diverse The Woodlands has gottena nd how many businesses they've built in the last few years. That's the first step to urbanization. Today's $100,000 houses will be afforadable in 40 years. Then anybody can move in.

The Woodlands is definitely changing, but not in a bad way. I don't think it will ever be one of those places that starts out nice and then turns into a slum. It has certain things going for it like good geography and a solid residential community, many of whom have been there since the 1970s. The Woodlands is urbanizing, but not in the negative sense. It's urbanizaing into a modern edge city, in which all the ammenities previously exclusive to downtown Houston can now be offered in the Town Center, like business, leisure activity, and residential.

I wouldn't be worried about prices deflating and anyone being able to move in. It will always be a desirable place to live, but hopefully it won't ever become like Orange County, CA, where the prices are ridiculous.

[Guest Plastic]

but hopefully it won't ever become like Orange County, CA, where the prices are ridiculous.

Ridiculously high or low?

[PureAuteur]

Ridiculously high.

[Gary]

So let me get this right Plastic, your looking at the 290 corridor, Clear Lake, Katy, San Diego, LA, etc, etc? Your really keeping your options open.