|
Did you know the city likely will grow in these directions?
|
For our ongoing coverage of the University of Houston-Victoria's expansion efforts, I recently read a 200-page feasibility study. The study, commissioned by local government last year, basically details why a new campus should be built near the airport.
Within the study, I found a few interesting paragraphs:
“Growth to the south and southwest is hampered by both the Guadalupe River and its associated and widespread floodplain. This has also hampered growth to the west and will eventually limit expansion in the northwestern part of the city."
and:
"Development to the north of the city is becoming limited by a natural highpoint in the terrain, which increases infrastructure costs for water and sewer. This makes development less financially feasible than in other areas in the city."
and:
"Essentially, growth to the east and northeast are the most viable directions the city can expand. Significant easterly development has occurred following the construction of Loop 463 and the planned overpasses and the extension of Airline Road will further development to the east and northeast."
I found all that interesting because I always figured growth in Victoria was focused to the north and northwest. New developments on North Navarro Street, near U.S. Highway 87 north and the general push north in most cities led me to that assessment.
What do you think of focused effort for growth in the northeast and east quadrants of the city?
I just recently talked to Mayor Will Armstrong, who noted that ample opportunities for growth exist in the north and northwest quadrants, too.
I still need to interview a number of folks. My story might end up looking at all the directions in which Victoria can grow, and which are most feasible.
Contact me in here, at gsemenza@vicad.com or 361-580-6519.
Thanks for the input,
Gabe Semenza, public service editor
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
9 Comments
- •
-
Flag
-
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Close
-
- •
Follow gabesemenza
Comments
This is ridiculous. This village will not grow in the current economy. I agree with Mr. Williams, "someone has an agenda" Mr Amstrong is probably gonna get rich. They are forcing people to build in the wrong areas!!
October 19, 2010 at 8:41 p.m.I wonder how old this report is. Does not make sense to this old codger why we would want to expand closer to the airport. Most larger cities are already regreting that mistake. It also does not make sense why we would convert more ricefield into housing areas. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the east and northeast side of town floods extensively when we have the tropical systems dump on us due to the flat terrain and Garcitas Creek backing up. Just ask the many people that live out Beck, Benbow, Midway, and FM 444 that have had water in the houses. I think VA should look up some more recent indicators, like the multiple housing additions going in out FM 236 and what land values are out that way compared to the rice fields they are talking about.
October 19, 2010 at 7:59 p.m.I'm calling BS on this report. "natural highpoint"?? So that is what all those truck runoffs are for on 77 southbound. Trucks are losing their brakes coming down off that "highpoint".
Sewer would run downhill from that "highpoint". Remember that land we recently bought. If I recall that land was the best because it was lower than the "other choices".
Would not the drainage infrastructure be less in the "highpoint" area. It would seem that all that flat farmland would have drainage issues.
"natural highpoints" sure have not stopped development in Austin or SA!!
Amazing that the great city leaders think we are all that stupid.
Still waiting on full disclosure from those parties pushing this.
October 19, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.Thanks for the information Gabe!
I have seen many times in the corporate world that the commissioning of a study indicates someone has an agenda they want supported. I hope this one was done with no pre-conceived ideas of what the outcome should be.
October 19, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.It makes me happy that Victoria is interested in the West especially upper and lower Mission Valley Road. This way we dont have to pay for that expansion and water and garbage. Notice that in that area we can have at least acre lots or more with more privacy.
October 19, 2010 at 3:47 p.m.Thanks!
October 19, 2010 at 1:41 p.m.We always report who the authors of such studies are -- who paid for the study and how much the study cost. We reported this particular story some time ago. For your quick reference: The feasibility study was done by CHA Inc. (Clough, Harbour & Associates). I have to verify the following part, but if I remember correctly the county commissioned the study, and the study cost about $3,000.
Gabe
October 19, 2010 at 1:33 p.m."Will you share with the readers who commissioned this report, who paid for it and what it cost?"
Thank you, Jeff Williams, my questions, too.
October 19, 2010 at 1 p.m.Gabe,
I find it interesting that the only area the city is currently considering to annex is north on 77 and west of 77, nothing east toward the airport.
I wonder what is being considered "significant easterly development", Home Depot, Kamins & Torin Bales? The newest residential developments are north and west, Ball Airport Road area by Steve Klien and Capstone by other local developers.
Will you share with the readers who commissioned this report, who paid for it and what it cost?
October 19, 2010 at 12:33 p.m.