Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBloggsUSA
As a Chicagoan (currently stuck in Dallas) who was in Houston a few days after the floods hit, I can vouch for this...other than a few closed turnarounds, the flooding was a non-issue. I'm new to Texas and don't know about the major weather history in the past, but based on the nationwide hype about those floods, no way does flooding ever affect Houston long-term.
|
Yes, you are right. I was in Houston for tropical storm Alison. I remember it quite well. It was interesting to watch it on tv and then take a step outside.
Back ground:
Alison was a tropical storm; not a hurricane. People keep going on about hurricanes but only one Hurricane gave Houston a bit of a rattling in the last 30 years and that was Ike. Anyway, Alison came over Houston and it sat there pouring rain. Then it drifted back over the gulf picked up some more juice and came back on shore and dropped even more.
It created a 500 year flood. The bayous flooded their banks and the homes that were in the 500 year flood plain.
Downtown and the medical center have tunnels connecting certain buildings. These got flooded too.
There were the usual unwarranted deaths. By that I mean, every time these things happen most of the deaths are caused by not thinking. Many people drove into low spots on the road and drowned. There was one that was told the underground parking lot was flooding so she decided to go move the car. She took the elevator down and as soon as the doors opened, the elevator filled with water and she drowned.
Now if I had not been watching the news and you had asked me what happened during Alison I would have honestly said "Well it rained a couple times"
To be honest the biggest problem during storms to most is being inconvenienced. Especially if you have to travel east. The roads fill up with water.
People were talking earlier about ignoring the water front, and some Houston supporters were trying to counter the claim about moving further inland and some other stuff.
Both sides were incorrect. Houston's downtown is the same distance from downtown that it has always been. It's location was chosen to be capital of Texas. There were many small towns surrounding Houston, which at the time was less than 140 acres. Houston was not built on the coat because there were already cities on the coast. Galveston had a thriving port before the Allen Brothers secured the land to build Houston.
So no, Houston did not turn it's back on the coast, nor did it move away from it because of hurricanes. In Fact, it did the opposite on both counts. Houston was founded 50 miles from the coast but gradually moved it's city limits closer to it until it got as far as the bay of galveston.
A major misconception I often hear is Houston overtook Galveston because of the hurricane. That is 95% wrong. The 1st Anglo settlements in Texas were between the Brazos river and San Jacinto River (basically where Houston sits). Two things grew Houston:
1. A good publicity campaign.
2. Liberal annexation laws
It's incorrect to say that Houston would never have passed galveston had it not been for the hurricane because the area around Houston was always more populated than the area around galveston (which is basically just water). What people are confusing is the growth of the port. The Port of Houston grew because of the port of Galvestons misfortune. But the city did not.
Houston was advertised as the place to be. It was advertised as the place where 17 railroads met the sea (a major exaggeration as Houston at that time was 50 miles from the gulf). The in Flux of people allowed Houston to annex everything around it in every direction. Even settlements older than it were annexed in. The original capital, Harrisburg was annexed into Houston city limits.
So if the hurricane had not happened, Houston would still have been attracting tons of people, would still have been annexing it's neighbors and still have passed Galveston in population. The Port however might not have been what it is today.
Keep in mind too that The Port of Houston was only dredged 14 years after the devastating hurricane. 13 years prior to that Oil was struck near Beaumont and oil Derricks began sprouting up. That makes one wonder, did Houston get bigger because of the port or did the Port grow because Houston was getting big.
I would go for the second line of thinking. Here's a timeline:
1816: Galveston is settled
1825: Port of Galveston created
1832: Allen Brothers scouted land to build a city
1836: Sam Houston defeated Santa Anna and Houston was founded
1836: Galveston served as one of the Capitols of the Republic
1837: Capital of the new Republic moved to Houston
1839: Capital moved to Waterloo/Austin
1850: Galveston population: 4177, Houston: 2396
1900: Galveston population: 37,789, Houston: 44,633
1900: Galveston devastated by Hurricane
1901: Oil struck at Spindle top
1914: Port of Houston is dredged and widened just in time for WWI.
1920: Galveston population: 44,255, Houston: 138,276
1923: Houston started vigorous annexation
As you can see, by the time of the Hurricane, Houston was already larger than Galveston, which stagnated from that point while Houston boomed.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I too say there is no city like Chicago.....
