Posted on 12/28/2005 7:16:38 PM PST by Lorianne
Over the next 30 years, most of Harris County's remaining open space will succumb to subdivisions, office buildings and shopping centers where millions of new residents will live and work, projections by local planners show.
The spread of development, particularly west and northwest of Houston, is among the more striking trends shown in preliminary population and job growth projections developed by the Houston-Gal- veston Area Council for the eight-county Houston region.
The potential loss of open space alarms conservationists and others concerned about suburban sprawl. It is among the factors driving an effort by business and civic leaders to find different ways to accommodate the region's anticipated growth.
While continuing to support the economic benefits of new development, local leaders increasingly are seeking strategies to protect the environment and reserve land for parks and recreational use.
If development continues at current low-density levels — roughly 3,500 people per square mile — as many as 1,000 square miles of open space could be lost throughout the Houston area by 2035, said John Jacob, a coastal community development and environmental quality specialist at Texas A&M University. The city of Houston encompasses about 650 square miles. "The implications," Jacob said, "are probably catastrophic."
Throughout the region, the H-GAC's experts are forecasting a population increase from 5.3 million to 8.8 million by 2035. In Harris County alone, the forecasts predict growth from 3.8 million to 5.8 million residents. All of those people will need schools, office buildings and places to shop. Houses and businesses will spring up on prairies and rice fields.
"If we continue at our current densities and patterns of development, this is what's going to happen," said Diane Schenke, executive director of the Park People, referring to the loss of open space. "Is this really where we want to head?"
To develop alternatives, the H-GAC and the nonprofit Blueprint Houston organization are collaborating on an initiative known as "Envision Houston Region," which sponsored a series of public workshops last fall to seek ideas about how the region should grow.
The hundreds of people who attended the workshops generally expressed support for a linear park system along bayous with no development in flood plains; more "town center" style development with housing close to jobs and shops; and a combination of transportation services to improve mobility and reduce commuting times, said Heidi Sweetnam, executive director of Blueprint Houston.
Results of the Envision Houston Region process, expected early next year, will influence the next Regional Transportation Plan, a list of highway and transit projects for which local governments intend to seek federal funds.
Developers and public officials agree that transportation investments are the most effective way to influence the form and direction of local growth.
A good example is the Grand Parkway, a planned third loop around the Houston area that is expected to bisect the 10,000-acre Bridgeland master-planned community being developed off U.S. 290 in northwest Harris County. The highway will be a key access point for buyers of the 20,000 homes planned in the development over the next 15 to 20 years.
"It matters where and how you spend that (transportation) money," said Robin Holzer, chairwoman of the Citizens Transportation Coalition, which was critical of the way the most recent transportation plan was developed.
"This new process has made improving the quality of life an essential part of the transportation plan, which was just unheard of before."
Debates about urban growth often break down along ideological lines. Advocates of "smart growth," who support more compact development patterns, square off against those who believe that traditional suburban development — large houses on large lots — represents the fulfillment of the American Dream.
Local conservationists say their mission is complicated by the absence of forests or mountains in the immediate Houston area, leading some to question the value of preserving land that often seems like little more than bare dirt.
"People think forests are majestic, and they don't necessarily understand the subtle beauty of the prairie," said Mary Anne Piacentini, executive director of the Katy Prairie Conservancy.
The Katy Prairie, which includes the land where Bridgeland and other housing developments are planned, is an important refuge for resident and migratory birds. Scientists say prairies and the wetlands found on them improve water quality and absorb rainwater that might otherwise cause flooding.
Executives with General Growth Properties, the company developing Bridgeland, said their plan reflects an understanding of these concerns.
About 3,000 acres — almost a third of the project — will be preserved as open space, said Joseph Necker Jr., the project's general manager.
A site plan provided by Necker shows water features scattered around the project and a number of good-sized tracts preserved as open space.
Jacob of Texas A&M said the developers deserve credit for setting aside more open space than is typical.
"But from an ecological point of view, this is still a major problem — whatever open space is preserved is totally fragmented," Jacob said.
I suppose that Ms. Schenke has already given up her home for use as open space.....
LOL! No Ms. Schenke wants to take your land and use it as she sees fit for you and your neighbors.
Some thoughts on this post...........
What percentage of this growth is going to be illegal aliens.
"Houston area has a lack of forests"...What planet is this writer on? The northern half of the County and some of the Southern half is wooded. (S.W. extension of the East Texas Piney Woods).
Much of the growth in the Houston area will take place in the Counties surrounding Harris County.
Is this writer a Liberal Social Planner?
I love sprawl. It diminishes the power of central-city liberals, gives the common person a chance to buy more reasonably-priced real estate, and confuses profesional demographers. What's not to like?
I'm not sure what's so great about open space - unless you go and look at it every day, what value is it giving you?
I do wish developers had better taste. I think they're improving, slowly, but not as much as I would like. But the alternative to those housing developments is fewer bigger and uglier ones. I don't like that, either.
To see what your future might hold if you give Houston to the planners, see Randal O'Toole's tour of his town and the changes developers hope to impose on it.
I'm hoping that my resident Texan friend Dog Gone will be able to comment on this issue.
D
Bookmarking Bump! I expect the thousand acres across the street will be developed within the next ten yeqars.
This liberal propaganda about sprawl is everywhere and its
dangerous because these people and the media that spout their line have power.
Houston has planners????
Sure coulda fooled me!
It comes from the Downtown Business Alliance influenced Houston Comical. You have to ask?
High density living downtown (and inside the loop) makes it difficult to evacuate the city in times of crisis.
Hurricane Rita may have been a false alarm but a WMD (radioative dirty bomb, poisoned water supply, or biohazard) would FORCE evacuation. There is NO WAY to get people out of town on the Toonerville Trolley that goes from one stadium to another. And clenching the lifeblood into the city along I-10 (which serves other major cities like San Antonio and New Orleans) because Inner Loopers don't like hicks from the sticks coming in to town is NO solution.
Smart Growth is just an attempt at regulating construction by way of public policy where the lack of zoning stimies liberals.
It's all part of the revitalization of downtown that has been in progress for the last 15 years or so. It's why the city shoved the choo choo train of death down the throats of taxpayers even though it serves no major commute route. It's why they required us to build new stadiums for the Astros and Rockets downtown, and actually made us build a fancy new hotel.
It actually has increased the permanent population of downtown somewhat, and greatly increased property values of some blighted areas. However, it's mostly a real estate scam as the city planners used our tax dollars to increase the value of their real estate holdings. It's corrupt as hell, but it's hardly a novel idea in Texas.
But the reason why sprawl will continue and the high-density model will be limited is that Houston has no zoning ordinances. It's the only major city in America that doesn't. The city planners have tried to introduce it on several occasions, but it always gets voted down by the public. We're not willing to give them that tool.
As a consequence, you can build just about anything anywhere. That means that market forces dictate development, not liberal social planners.
If the market said that the people want to live in high-density housing downtown, that would be going up in large numbers without any social planning.
Instead, people want to live in big houses in neighborhoods with good schools, groomed greenways, and convenient shopping. That is why Houston is spreading west at a remarkably fast pace.
I was on the edge of Houston, essentially in an isolated development, 15 years ago. Now, housing, shopping, and a new major highway have been built west of my home. But it's all attractively done and while I don't see coyotes in my yard anymore, there's nothing ugly about this sprawl.
Houston isn't in the same situation as Southern California where new housing has to built further up the sides of hills and canyons, or way out in the desert.
There is essentially 200 miles of open land between Houston and San Antonio for the city to keep expanding. Not 200 square miles, but actual distance, so it's thousands of square miles of empty land that is suitable for development.
That's going to keep a lid on real estate prices because it's cheap and easy to add more, unlike in Southern California.
The libs are trying to assert that this is precious prarie and should be considered untouchable wilderness in order to get back to their desire that we all live downtown. But without zoning, and with a conservative statewide Republican base that is perfectly content with the way things are going, they are going to have a tough time achieving their liberal goals.
Well, cheer up. In Pittsburgh, the Powers that Be decided to build new stadia for the Steelers and Pirates, and apparently one for the Penguins is in the works.
Amazingly enough, there was a referendum on this question, and it was soundly defeated, but the stadia were still built.
Since the Pittsburgh identity is bound up in the Steelers, I think that decision to build them a stadium was at least somewhat defensible, but it seems absurd to subsidize the not particularly popular Pirates or Penguins. The Penguins have the second worst record in hockey, last time I looked.
At least Houston is growing and wealthy enough so that subsidizing the stadia and the choo choo is no huge deal. In Pittsburgh, it's said to have nearly bankrupted the city.
Now, of course every planner in the world says that Houston's non-zoning creates unfair situations where, for instance, a meat packing plant would spring up next to already existing residences. How much of an issue is this? I always assumed the meat packing plant would find good residential land too expensive to build on, but that might be a California thing.
How does that kind of situation play out in practice?
D
Actually, it works out quite well. You ought to come visit Houston some weekend and check it out.
We do have situations where tall skyscrapers are being built next to residential homes and housewives who used to sunbathe topless by the backyard pool aren't as comfortable doing it anymore, but what it really indicates is that the area is more valuable as a commercial district than a residential one. They'll sell out at a huge profit and move to another area or change their habits.
It's also created an alternative to zoning for new residential districts, the homeowners association. The restrictive covenants which attach to the land are even more restrictive than zoning, which can be changed with a single vote. Some land is set aside for commercial development, subject to very restrictive architectural requirements, and the rest is rigorously monitored. I can't hold a garage sale, for instance, and I'm limited in the number of pets. I can't even repaint my house the same color without approval, although I'll admit I did it anyway and nobody yelled.
There are complaints when a cement factory moves into an area of residential homes, but outside the area covered by the restrictive covenants. Residents will then try to employ statewide regulations on air quality, etc., to prevent construction with mixed outcomes. Nevertheless, the lack of zoning generally means that the land is used for its best capitalistic use. We essentially have two separate downtowns, and more could be in the works. It just depends on what happens.
In general, I'd have to say that no zoning is the way to go. It's hard to argue with success that Houston has had in growing. While cities in the north and northeast are actually losing population, Houston is exploding. Cheap housing, good pay, no zoning, and a population that is generally conservative.
However, the football team sucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.