Why has SE Texas (Beaumont/Port Arthur/Orange) struggled? (Houston: apartments, living)

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by TheOverdog

Cities grow due to visionary city management and access to transport.

Cities grow when government invest in them (railroads, highways, ports, etc.)
Look at any map of the US and you'll see that almost every town/city at least in the Midwest has railroad tracks going through it.
Later on, the government build the national highway system.

The best example that I like to use is Las Vegas
before Hoover Dam was built, only 5000 people lived in Las Vegas in 1930.

[BobTex]

Concerning the Port of Beaumont:

"The Port of Beaumont is a deep-water port located in Beaumont, Texas near the mouth of the Neches River.
It is the fourth busiest port in the United States according to the American Association of Port Authorities and the thirty-fourth largest in the world in terms of tonnage. It is also the busiest military port in the U.S. and the second busiest military port in the world[1] and the headquarters of the United States Army's 842d Transportation Battalion, which specializes in port logistical activity."
Port of Beaumont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Port Arthur is #25 in tonnage .

Houston is #2

List of North American ports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[binkyman]

As best I can remember, this area has suffered all the way back ever since the demise of the dinosaurs. Think Houston being a little higher in elevation and having the better port so it got all the mammoth energy companies. This makes Houston more like Midland while Beaumont, Orange, and Port Arthur are all relegated more to the Odessa side. But then this Beaumont side is also way too close to the swamps of Louisiana. The lower you get in life, the more you tend to have to struggle just to keep all that grime and muck mopped up and swept out of your trailer homes. Next in line to all this poverty in Beaumont, heading even further down and east, is the slums of Lake Charles, further is dump land of Baton Rouge, and finally, totally off the chart, is the underworld of New Orleans.

Actually, the best people in the world live in the area I just mentioned. Blue collar workers who spit and cuss. The kinds who are despised in Houston and looked down upon and accused of being the homeless in Dallas. Real Americans who have real stories to tell in conversations in strip joints!

[binkyman]

Originally Posted by Dopo

Cities grow when government invest in them (railroads, highways, ports, etc.)
Look at any map of the US and you'll see that almost every town/city at least in the Midwest has railroad tracks going through it.
Later on, the government build the national highway system.

The best example that I like to use is Las Vegas
before Hoover Dam was built, only 5000 people lived in Las Vegas in 1930.

Indeed, while this nation use to stimulate the economy building things, now it just manufactures counterfeit money.

[binkyman]

Originally Posted by cBach

Okay, any TX history buffs here? I have some questions about the way things developed.

So oil was discovered at Spindletop in Beaumont and that caused a boom in the Beaumont area. Why then did Houston become the 4th largest city in America and Beaumont has struggled to grow? I realize that Houston has the port but Port Arthur is closer to the Gulf. Why was Beaumont/Port Arthur unable to capitalize on their mineral wealth and strategic position the way that Houston did?

I'm not meant to be bashing Beaumont/Port Arthur, just figuring out why SE TX has lagged other parts of the state. It feels like part of Louisiana, both in culture but also in economic development (or lack thereof).

Think Galveston. It was actually the wealthiest city in Texas having all the designations that Houston and Dallas now have as well as the second wealthiest in all the nation.
One day its wealthy strolled down to watch a hurricane come ashore and the rest is history.

So, really, the answer is quite obvious.

[binkyman]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Galveston has asked itself the same question, many times and the answer is similar. First, Beaumont is 18ft above sea level. That elevation makes Beaumont extremely vulnerable to storm surge. Houston at 50 ft at least is not vulnerable to that. Of course Houston being named after the guy who invented Texas probably helped as well. Not only was it named after Sam, but Sam actually lived here and was somewhat of a local booster, so Houston was more politically connected. Third Houston just made better decisions when it came to transportation infrastructure. One of the stories I read, said that Houston got the corporate offices because that's where the executive flew too when they visited the oil fields. They would fly into Houston, then drive to the fields 90 miles away. When it came time to decide where to office, they picked the place closer to the airport than the fields. Lastly the refineries that both places are known for are much more visible and prominent in the golden Triangle than they are in Houston, those towns literally grew up around them. Houston for the most part grew away from its industrial base.

I really think that Houston and Beaumont are connected to each other and for the most part should be considered the same part of S.E. Texas. I expect the two to grow together and combine into one market sometime in the not to distant future. A lot of people in Texas really dump on the Golden Triangle, not me, for I realize that many of the things that make Houston , Houston, are the same things that make the Triangle what it is as well.

Indeed, it can be said that Houston was first created to complement General Houston, but then later developed to insult him.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by binkyman

Think Galveston. It was actually the wealthiest city in Texas having all the designations that Houston and Dallas now have as well as the second wealthiest in all the nation.
One day its wealthy strolled down to watch a hurricane come ashore and the rest is history.

So, really, the answer is quite obvious.

I read somewhere that if the hurricane had not hit Galveston, Galveston Island would now be like a mini Manhattan island, and Galveston would be the 2nd largest city in America.

[AK123]

Originally Posted by cBach

I read somewhere that if the hurricane had not hit Galveston, Galveston Island would now be like a mini Manhattan island, and Galveston would be the 2nd largest city in America.

Because back at that time, it was considered the Manhattan of the South in many ways.

Whether or not it would now be the 2nd largest US city if there had been no great storm of 1900, who knows. But it does still have some great history and architecture, because of its past.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by AK123

Because back at that time, it was considered the Manhattan of the South in many ways.

Whether or not it would now be the 2nd largest US city if there had been no great storm of 1900, who knows. But it does still have some great history and architecture, because of its past.

I doubt that Galveston would have Industry enough to reach number two. All Texas major cities grew by annexation, that didn't help Galveston.

I think Galveston wood have been much bigger, but not anywhere near #2. I think it would have maxed out at less than half a million and declined.

If simply having a Port got you up there then Charleston, Richmond, New Orleans, Savannah etc would all be fighting for number two along with other traditional Port cities that made it big (Baltimore, Philly, Boston)

[An0nym0us88]

Originally Posted by cBach

I read somewhere that if the hurricane had not hit Galveston, Galveston Island would now be like a mini Manhattan island, and Galveston would be the 2nd largest city in America.

It might have been me. I think?

I believe Galveston would have grew from the island all the way to south Houston on I-45, if it weren't for the infamous hurricane. I'd imagine there would have been clusters of skyscrapers along the island. of course, it doesn't matter anyway.