City Council to vote on Urban living outside the loop. (Houston: renting, condos)

[GIS_Gordon]

Interesting article:

Urban Living Outside the Loop?

[theSUBlime]

My comments:

Inner Loop, expensive? By Houstonian standards, I guess. It's really only if you're trying to BUY into the areas that are already popular, but there's plenty of land left to be developed inside the Inner Loop. If renting is so expensive in the Inner Loop, then I don't get the Houstonian stigma associated with it.

"Neighborhoods over 50 years old." WOW, just about as old as my mom.
I don't even like Boston that much, but I think it's charming. Houston (for the most part)--not.

I get the feeling most people would prefer a Waffle House next to their home than condos.

Anywho, I would vote to make the Inner Loop and Galleria the city and then just let the rest of the city be annexed to the surrounding suburbs. I think residents should have a say, but does anyone think it's pretty bogus that a CITY (the 4th largest one) has so much trouble getting urban development off the ground?

[Spade]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

My comments

Inner Loop, expensive? Buy Houstonian standards I guess and ifif you're trying to buy into the areas that are already popular, but there's plenty of land left to be developed inside the Inner Loop?

"Neighborhoods over 50 years old." WOW, just about as old as my mom.
I don't even like Boston that much, but I think it's charming. Houston (for the most part)--not.

I get the feeling most people would prefer a Waffle House next to their home than condos.

I would vote to make the Inner Loop and Galleria the city and then just let the rest of the city be annexed to the surrounding suburbs. It's pretty bogus that a CITY (the 4th largest one) has so much trouble getting urban development off the ground.

Glad I'm not the only one that believes this. I know that will drop Houston status as the 4th largest city. But the metro matters anyway.

[Truth713]

Originally Posted by Spade

Glad I'm not the only one that believes this. I know that will drop Houston status as the 4th largest city. But the metro matters anyway.

The problem is not houston it is the fact that many who sit on the city conuel do not even live in houston proper they live in the annex areas, and their only concern is too insulate those areas.. this quote somes that up perfectly"We feel the integrity of our neighborhoods will be compromised. Our neighborhoods are over 50 years old and are quite charming and we want to keep them as they are. To alter or change deed restrictions would take at least two years. It's our understanding that the director of planning wants the city council to pass this proposal by the end of this year. This is not enough time for us to prepare ourselves for our neighborhoods." These are the same people who fought aginst extending the rail to their neigherhoods becasue it would A) interfer with the traffic abd damage business do to the construction and B) lea to increase crime. The truth they what their perfect little oasis

[Dopo]

And here comes evil big government to protect the suburbs from the "urban" part of the city.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

My comments:

Inner Loop, expensive? By Houstonian standards, I guess. It's really only if you're trying to BUY into the areas that are already popular, but there's plenty of land left to be developed inside the Inner Loop. If renting is so expensive in the Inner Loop, then I don't get the Houstonian stigma associated with it.

"Neighborhoods over 50 years old." WOW, just about as old as my mom.
I don't even like Boston that much, but I think it's charming. Houston (for the most part)--not.

I get the feeling most people would prefer a Waffle House next to their home than condos.

Anywho, I would vote to make the Inner Loop and Galleria the city and then just let the rest of the city be annexed to the surrounding suburbs. I think residents should have a say, but does anyone think it's pretty bogus that a CITY (the 4th largest one) has so much trouble getting urban development off the ground?

Originally Posted by Spade

Glad I'm not the only one that believes this. I know that will drop Houston status as the 4th largest city. But the metro matters anyway.

Agree on both accounts. Lose the 4th place status and focus on what's really important which is leading the city to thrive and become successful. The city encompasses too much land which leads to conflicting views and ideas [Suburbanites vs urbanites]. It's only holding the city back from reaching its full potential.

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

My comments:

Inner Loop, expensive? By Houstonian standards, I guess. It's really only if you're trying to BUY into the areas that are already popular, but there's plenty of land left to be developed inside the Inner Loop. If renting is so expensive in the Inner Loop, then I don't get the Houstonian stigma associated with it.

"Neighborhoods over 50 years old." WOW, just about as old as my mom.
I don't even like Boston that much, but I think it's charming. Houston (for the most part)--not.

I get the feeling most people would prefer a Waffle House next to their home than condos.

Anywho, I would vote to make the Inner Loop and Galleria the city and then just let the rest of the city be annexed to the surrounding suburbs. I think residents should have a say, but does anyone think it's pretty bogus that a CITY (the 4th largest one) has so much trouble getting urban development off the ground?

I never thought of it that way, but that's a great idea. The city really is only Uptown and the inner loop when one really thinks about it.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

Anywho, I would vote to make the Inner Loop and Galleria the city and then just let the rest of the city be annexed to the surrounding suburbs. I think residents should have a say, but does anyone think it's pretty bogus that a CITY (the 4th largest one) has so much trouble getting urban development off the ground?

no offense but that is BS. Most of Houston's tax base would disappear if you were to do that.

In fact Houston would probably just shrivel up and die and the suburbs would flourish. That is the opposite of your desired outcome would happen.

Lets see what is outside the loop. 1.5M tax payers.
Huge tax bases such as the Port of Houston, All three airports, numerous businesses and head quarters.

There was an article some time ago that said that large sunbelt cities would have been the poorest cities in the US if they had kept pre 1940's boundaries. I don't mind getting rid of some poorly used areas, but limiting the city to the loop??? Seriously??? the east half of the loop is worse that anything out of it.

just because you make the city limits smaller doesn't mean the narrower area would densify. People would just leave.

and we don't have a problem getting 'urban' anything off the ground. People had been voting them down for a reason: PREVIOUS GENERATIONS DID NOT WANT THEM.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by blkgiraffe

Agree on both accounts. Lose the 4th place status and focus on what's really important which is leading the city to thrive and become successful. The city encompasses too much land which leads to conflicting views and ideas [Suburbanites vs urbanites]. It's only holding the city back from reaching its full potential.

do you guys even realize that federal funding is dependent on population??? The city limits have nothing to do with being successful. Why would what people think of the city be more important than funding

you all are happy go luckily chopping out areas like losing population only kills bragging rights.

Give up billions of dollars just because north-easterners prefer it that way?
The northeasterners would be laughing at us in the end. Any NE city official would be more than delighted to have land area. It increases their tax bases and federal funding. what does a smaller land area get you??? Absolutely nothing.

[Vicman]

Source?

That doesn't make sense. When an area is annexed, it is NOW a part of the city limits.

Originally Posted by Truth713

The problem is not houston it is the fact that many who sit on the city conuel do not even live in houston proper they live in the annex areas, and their only concern is too insulate those areas.. this quote somes that up perfectly"We feel the integrity of our neighborhoods will be compromised. Our neighborhoods are over 50 years old and are quite charming and we want to keep them as they are. To alter or change deed restrictions would take at least two years. It's our understanding that the director of planning wants the city council to pass this proposal by the end of this year. This is not enough time for us to prepare ourselves for our neighborhoods." These are the same people who fought aginst extending the rail to their neigherhoods becasue it would A) interfer with the traffic abd damage business do to the construction and B) lea to increase crime. The truth they what their perfect little oasis

Uhm, things are starting to change, BUT if Houston was only limited to the 610 Loop, you would be right, as the city would have developed differently

Originally Posted by HtownLove

the east half of the loop is worse that anything out of it.