My understanding is that the master plan for Bridgeland was extremely prescriptive in what could be built there... right down to the colours that could be used. Buildings also had to be concrete and a max of six stories. The economics barely worked in the first phases of The Bridges and stopped working all together in the later phases which is why development stalled out.On that note, it feels weird to me why Bridgeland is developing literally right now - as the local and global economy crumbles, a layman like myself would guess this would be a stressful time to start big projects, let a whole swathe of ones who all happen to be primed and well positioned to all start at the same time, all within within a few blocks of each other. I am curious on what people smarter than me think about if this is a coincidence or if there is something more to it.
Yep I totally agree and I should clarify - I use "complete" in quotations as it's more of subjective feeling (e.g. minimum vision of a high density active community achieved, with no giant holes or imaginary projects that will one day fill them). I could now live there and say I live in a neighbourhood with those urban characteristics, not that one day it will become a neighbourhood with those characteristics. It's an opinion, not a measurable fact. With these projects, Bridgeland officially meets my minimum characteristics of being a successful high density urban community.i was thinking in the context of 50, 75 or 100yrs as mentioned in the post. in that sense i dont think bridgeland has exhausted its growth potential.