girluknow Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Would anyone mind explaining to me why brownstones are considered attractive? I've run into several folks today that are hot on brownstones...I just don't get it.Original brownstones, like those built in turn-of-the-century NYC, are beautiful and have a charm and personality that you seldom see in architecture today. The stuff being built in The Woodlands is a thrown-together shadow of the real thing, without the quality, detail, or durability of genuine brownstones. But then, most, if not all, of the construction in The Woodlands is uninspired and built with no real care or attention to detail by builders who hire the cheapest labor they can find, i.e. workers who know how to hammer in a nail and can do it quick. I'm sure the same can be said for neighborhoods all over the country, but having lived in this area for thirty years now and witnessed a lot of it up close and personal, I know that here it is true. Builders these days are more concerned with stuffing their pockets with cash than with creating a lasting work of architectural art. And what are we left with? Crappy, ugly junk buildings that all look the same and will be candidates for a wrecking ball within twenty years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 If anyone (and I'm sure some of you have) has read any of the "Millionaire Next Door" books they would realize that rich people simply live BELOW their means. Its as simple as that. I'm not surprised that residents of TW shop there at all.And as a future millionaire myself I can say I shop in there also. WHy would I spend $4.00 on a box of cereal at Randall's when I can get it at Walmart for $2? It just doesn't make economical sense. I don't think I've ever seen a cereal $2 less at Wal-Mart than anywhere else? Even still, gas is almost $3.00 a gallon--if your Randall's is right next door and your Wal-Mart is two miles away, how long will it take before that $2.00 is sucked up? Here is what I found when I shopped at Wal-Mart for groceries: Wal-Mart's meat SUCKS, so I ended up going to Randall's/Kroger/HEB anyway. Kinda defeats the purpose. Good luck though on being a millionaire, I'll be right there with you hopefully, as soon as we pay off our house. Is this that neighborhood that they mowed down every single tree on the lake? I thought I was going to cry/vomit/scream when I saw all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electracw Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 I agree w/ what a lot of you are saying. If you're going to spend half a mil on a tiny brownstone, or $2-3M on an urban, packed-in house, why don't you move into a rea city, like, say, Houston? or New York? or LA? Or you could put your millions into a nice heavily wooded acre or two in Grogan's Point or Carlton Woods. What is up with these developers? Is this what George Mitchell intended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 no, i don't think it is. the woodlands was a utopian experiment. market forces are the rule of the day now. the primary ideology that created the woodlands is dead. there are elements of it that exist, but the sensitivity to diversity and mixed incomes is definitely over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureAuteur Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 TheNiche, are you paying attention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.