East Downtown (EaDo) Promenade & Houston Dynamo Stadium (Bastrop, Howe: homes, to live)

[AmberAzeneth]

Originally Posted by A&M Bulldawg

I'm not hoping for anything. I'm just going against what you are saying. Developers and whomever knew what kind of economic boost this stadium will have; that's one reason why it's getting built.

I like the way you are thinking A&M. I do want this to help spur the renaissance as I said earlier. I also really hope the mainstream public does embrace what is planned to be developed. I would like to see a mixture of South American/Asian themed developments there. Kind of like a little wordly/international culture there. I think that would be cool.

[Fillmont]

I know I'm looking forward to making an annual trip to see FC Dallas beat the Dynamo.

And hey, nothing better than watching your team lose in your nice new stadium.

[TheEconomist]

The point is that an area has to be self-sustaining. The developers of course see this as an opportunity to make money. If the city spends billions and the developers make millions, then the net result is major inefficiency. But, the developers will support this type of economic "development."

Here, the developers are merely working at capturing a government subsidy and not truly partaking in a risk-taking venture. The subsidy is the billion dollar stadium built in the backyard of previously less desirable lots.

However, subsidy capturing "businessmen" generally create poor products. They will not do the necessary planning to ensure that this area is a good place to live. They will simply sell as much buildings (commercial and residential) as they can while the place is hot and then they will leave. When the place is no longer trendy, the structural defects will become apparent and property values will depress and the area will see no additional development. The people who wanted to see the area grow and who bought homes or businesses there will be left dissapointed. Dissapointment is the result virtually every time there is a well meaning government policy.

Five years from now, we will be debating why the soccer stadium failed to spur development. Everyone will have some idea like, "they needed bigger townhome lots", "the streets were too small," there wasn't a grocery store nearby," the "individual builder of the townhomes used inferior products," etc., etc. However, what people will likely not understand is that the poor quality and poor planning will have resulted from the subsidy. Without the subsidy, the developers would have been forced to build quality products or they would fail, as it should be.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

The point is that an area has to be self-sustaining. The developers of course see this as an opportunity to make money. If the city spends billions and the developers make millions, then the net result is major inefficiency. But, the developers will support this type of economic "development."

Here, the developers are merely working at capturing a government subsidy and not truly partaking in a risk-taking venture. The subsidy is the billion dollar stadium built in the backyard of previously less desirable lots.

However, subsidy capturing "businessmen" generally create poor products. They will not do the necessary planning to ensure that this area is a good place to live. They will simply sell as much buildings (commercial and residential) as they can while the place is hot and then they will leave. When the place is no longer trendy, the structural defects will become apparent and property values will depress and the area will see no additional development. The people who wanted to see the area grow and who bought homes or businesses there will be left dissapointed. Dissapointment is the result virtually every time there is a well meaning government policy.

Five years from now, we will be debating why the soccer stadium failed to spur development. Everyone will have some idea like, "they needed bigger townhome lots", "the streets were too small," there wasn't a grocery store nearby," the "individual builder of the townhomes used inferior products," etc., etc. However, what people will likely not understand is that the poor quality and poor planning will have resulted from the subsidy. Without the subsidy, the developers would have been forced to build quality products or they would fail, as it should be.

you are making more than enough sense, but being such a Debbie Downer

[TheEconomist]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

you are making more than enough sense, but being such a Debbie Downer

But once you understand economics, you can make informed, rational decisions Unless your goal is to be like Aggie Bulldog, of course.

[AmberAzeneth]

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

The point is that an area has to be self-sustaining. The developers of course see this as an opportunity to make money. If the city spends billions and the developers make millions, then the net result is major inefficiency. But, the developers will support this type of economic "development."

Here, the developers are merely working at capturing a government subsidy and not truly partaking in a risk-taking venture. The subsidy is the billion dollar stadium built in the backyard of previously less desirable lots.

However, subsidy capturing "businessmen" generally create poor products. They will not do the necessary planning to ensure that this area is a good place to live. They will simply sell as much buildings (commercial and residential) as they can while the place is hot and then they will leave. When the place is no longer trendy, the structural defects will become apparent and property values will depress and the area will see no additional development. The people who wanted to see the area grow and who bought homes or businesses there will be left dissapointed. Dissapointment is the result virtually every time there is a well meaning government policy.

Five years from now, we will be debating why the soccer stadium failed to spur development. Everyone will have some idea like, "they needed bigger townhome lots", "the streets were too small," there wasn't a grocery store nearby," the "individual builder of the townhomes used inferior products," etc., etc. However, what people will likely not understand is that the poor quality and poor planning will have resulted from the subsidy. Without the subsidy, the developers would have been forced to build quality products or they would fail, as it should be.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent point.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

But once you understand economics, you can make informed, rational decisions Unless your goal is to be like Aggie Bulldog, of course.

oh, I understand what you are saying. Just saying that you are a downer man.

just busting our little bubbles.

This area is gonna be the best ares on Earth Every body and their cousin are gonna wanna move their.

Restaurants are gonna pop up all over the place, and shopping areas. Its jut gonna be marvelous..

Wait and see.

LET ME LIVE IN MY LA LA LAND

[AmberAzeneth]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

oh, I understand what you are saying. Just saying that you are a downer man.

just busting our little bubbles.

This area is gonna be the best ares on Earth Every body and their cousin are gonna wanna move their.

Restaurants are gonna pop up all over the place, and shopping areas. Its jut gonna be marvelous..

Wait and see.

LET ME LIVE IN MY LA LA LAND

I think we are all in your LA LA LAND!!!!!!LOL

[TheEconomist]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

just busting our little bubbles.

Bubbles always burst. The trick is to recognize them and not be left holding the bag.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

Bubbles always burst. The trick is to recognize them and not be left holding the bag.

Oh don't worry, I don't carry my bubbles in a bag.