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.
You’ve been wrong from the very start and you keep deflecting to other cities outside of Texas to do some mental gymnastics to disprove a point you think I was trying to make. But continue to move that goal post.
There’s no side. I’m honest about my observations, sometimes it’s in Favor of Houston sometime in Dallas. I’m not from either city and even if I were I wouldn’t show some blind alliance on a message board. Not that serious lol
You went to Fort Worth public school? Reread my post and see where I spoke on Houston pre Civil War. Spoke on Houston during the Antebellum period. Point me to where I stated Houston being more important than any city in 1870. Than you bring up Ft.Worth. Man we’re discussing Dallas and Houston. Even though I could care less about Ft.Worth history I clearly know the importance of Ft.Worth role via cattle. Are you feeling left out of the convo? Awwwww wittle Ft.Worth can get some attention too. Lol@homer. I’m not from Houston so sorry no home Mr.817
Your whole post wasn’t a bunch b.s... You tried to and horribly failed I might add at trying paint Houston as being responsible for Dallas growth via rail road. North Texas economy in the 1800’s was largely based on farming and ranching early on before Dallas started heavily industrializing staring in 1874. If you guys are going to bring Galveston into the conversation then Fort Worth is fair game. But carry on with your completely made up history.
Last edited by Exult.Q36; 11-30-2019 at 10:04 PM..
You seem to research more of a Anglo Texas history. I mean, earlier you said you read Lone Star which is nothing but a romanticized revisionist history of Texas. I suggest reading Seeds of an Empire: Cotton, Slavery and the Transformation of Texas Borderlands 1800-1850 and a few other books on Texas history to fully understand the complicated history of Texas and a city like Houston that you considered on equal footing with Dallas in that time period.
Yeah interesting book. In no way does the book make the argument that Houston was a major city before Dallas was. Dallas was, by the way the largest inland cotton market in the US.
Lone Star is a classic Texas history book. I think it is actually pretty fair, they don't over romanticize the Anglo invasion of Texas at all, unlike lots of real life Texans who do/ and or think it was a real revolution.
I mean yes it has some factual errors like every history book does...but while it doesn't really focus on it because it is a broad survey history it hits on the general thesis of Seeds, just not in detail and doesn't make it the main focus. Difference between a survey history and a more focused one.
This whole discussion began when someone claimed that Houston was bigger in the present because it has always been bigger. They also argued it has a larger urban core because it is historically larger with more old neighborhoods and is an "Older City"
These are both wrong. Dallas was bigger in the late 1800s and first 3rd of the 20th century when both cities were becoming actual cities instead of small towns. For the discussion going on it doesn't matter if Houston was a larger back water village in the 1850s and 1860s. It didn't leave behind a collection of buildings and the population of people with any real connection to those times is extremely small. This isn't NOLA where a sizable population can trace their family tree in the city for Hundreds of years.
My whole point was that hasn't always been the case and both cities were a similar pre war size which is the best way to size up a historical urban core in US urban history. In this regard they are similar in size and have grown at a similar rate since the war. Both Cities annexed huge suburban areas but Houston did much more of that.
Dallas and Houston are contemporary cities, pure and simple. The fact that Houstonians want to argue about how being less than a decade older and being a bigger village for a couple decades is some big distinction between the two really shows how they are more alike than not.
Both have a very similar "Real City" area even if Houston has a much larger population within city limits.
Yeah interesting book. In no way does the book make the argument that Houston was a major city before Dallas was. Dallas was, by the way the largest inland cotton market in the US.
Lone Star is a classic Texas history book. I think it is actually pretty fair, they don't over romanticize the Anglo invasion of Texas at all, unlike lots of real life Texans who do/ and or think it was a real revolution.
I mean yes it has some factual errors like every history book does...but while it doesn't really focus on it because it is a broad survey history it hits on the general thesis of Seeds, just not in detail and doesn't make it the main focus. Difference between a survey history and a more focused one.
This whole discussion began when someone claimed that Houston was bigger in the present because it has always been bigger. They also argued it has a larger urban core because it is historically larger with more old neighborhoods and is an "Older City"
These are both wrong. Dallas was bigger in the late 1800s and first 3rd of the 20th century when both cities were becoming actual cities instead of small towns. For the discussion going on it doesn't matter if Houston was a larger back water village in the 1850s and 1860s. It didn't leave behind a collection of buildings and the population of people with any real connection to those times is extremely small. This isn't NOLA where a sizable population can trace their family tree in the city for Hundreds of years.
My whole point was that hasn't always been the case and both cities were a similar pre war size which is the best way to size up a historical urban core in US urban history. In this regard they are similar in size and have grown at a similar rate since the war. Both Cities annexed huge suburban areas but Houston did much more of that.
Dallas and Houston are contemporary cities, pure and simple. The fact that Houstonians want to argue about how being less than a decade older and being a bigger village for a couple decades is some big distinction between the two really shows how they are more alike than not.
Both have a very similar "Real City" area even if Houston has a much larger population within city limits.
No two large urban areas are more similar.
Houston's original street plan was laid down and surveyed by Gail Borden. Who the hell is Gail Borden you may rightfully ask ? Gail Borden on top of being a surveyor who planed both the original cities of Houston and Galveston, invented (sort of), condensed milk, and founded the Borden Milk company, you know the one with Elsie the cow on it. Gail Borden got rich supplying condensed milk to Union Soldiers during the Civil War (oxymoron BTW)
During the Texas "Revolution", he ran a newspaper that was confiscated by Santa Anna and his press was thrown into Buffalo Bayou. After the Texas Revolution, or land grab as some may call it, Sam Houston appointed him Customs collector in Galveston, he also started another newspaper in Houston after the war.
The kind of stuff that happened to this guy is fascinating reading and he was just one of many historical figures that operated in, and around Houston during those years. Is there anybody of this kind of historical significance that operated in North Texas during this time , can you name them, and give a brief explanation of why they were?
After all this posting treasure, the basic logic I get from you is, that what happened in Texas before the discovery of oil, was insignificant because Texas was such a economically insignificant place , which is the most ludicrous argument, historical or otherwise, I have ever read or heard. That's like saying George Washington and the American revolution, or elitist separation, as some may call it, was insignificant to World history, and nothing that happened in Philadelphia was of any historical import because the US was such a third rate economy at the time.
If you think this is a incorrect assessment of your line of historical logic please also include the proper characterization..?
....This is getting boring guys....lets change the subject.
Kinda old but still relevant.
I've tried to change the subject by posting about a new Hotel in Downtown Houston twice, but you ignored it both times. Whats the matter dallas are you mad at me ?
I've tried to change the subject by posting about a new Hotel in Downtown Houston twice, but you ignored it both times. Whats the matter dallas are you mad at me ?
Houston's original street plan was laid down and surveyed by Gail Borden. Who the hell is Gail Borden you may rightfully ask ? Gail Borden on top of being a surveyor who planed both the original cities of Houston and Galveston, invented (sort of), condensed milk, and founded the Borden Milk company, you know the one with Elsie the cow on it. Gail Borden got rich supplying condensed milk to Union Soldiers during the Civil War (oxymoron BTW)
During the Texas "Revolution", he ran a newspaper that was confiscated by Santa Anna and his press was thrown into Buffalo Bayou. After the Texas Revolution, or land grab as some may call it, Sam Houston appointed him Customs collector in Galveston, he also started another newspaper in Houston after the war.
The kind of stuff that happened to this guy is fascinating reading and he was just one of many historical figures that operated in, and around Houston during those years. Is there anybody of this kind of historical significance that operated in North Texas during this time , can you name them, and give a brief explanation of why they were?
After all this posting treasure, the basic logic I get from you is, that what happened in Texas before the discovery of oil, was insignificant because Texas was such a economically insignificant place , which is the most ludicrous argument, historical or otherwise, I have ever read or heard. That's like saying George Washington and the American revolution, or elitist separation, as some may call it, was insignificant to World history, and nothing that happened in Philadelphia was of any historical import because the US was such a third rate economy at the time.
If you think this is a incorrect assessment of your line of historical logic please also include the proper characterization..?
Yeah, I think you are purposely misrepresenting my position.
Thats a goofy thing to take away. The American Revolution is so much more important than the Texas revolution it isn't even funny. The Texas "Revolution" is another chapter in American Expansion like the California "Revolution" and "Republic." Texas history is important to American history, but for most of the Pre Oil history it is mostly a regional history, like Kansas or Nebraska.
The American Revolution, unimportant as it seemed to most of the world at the time put the US on the trajectory to become what it is today.
Before Oil Houston was about the size of Wichita Kansas and on a similar trajectory. Texas was like Oklahoma or Kansas and on that Trajectory. The Oil was the catalyst for changing that trajectory, pure luck for the most part. Without that Houston would have grown and been regional important as one of the few good ports on the Texas gulf, but without a navigable river inland to make it more than a regional hub. It would have likely been a regional city with rail heads to the port up to farm and ranch land. Dallas was on a similar trajectory, but as the inland cotton market. Fort Worth was regionally important for the stockyards.
Oil is what changed all their trajectory, forever.
The 6th Ward is by far the Oldest and most historic neighborhood in Houston and it wasn't even designated until 1874. Nothing there dates before the 1850, and most of what survived till today was built after the Civil War. About 300 structures from 1850-1880 remain in Houston.
Based on Houston's 782,009 current housing units, if you round up, .0004% of Houston's housing stock is from that era.
The Cedars in Dallas is a little younger, mostly built in the 1880, though La Réunion happened back in the 1850s.
Also, since this seems to matter so much to you, from a urban design stand point it really doesn't matter if the Houston Grid was laid out in 1836 or 1880. It's a simple grid on a flat place. The original plan was actually Re-Platted in 1859 because the streets didn't actually go true north.
All of this is to say Houston is not very old and not particularly historic. Sure you can say Houston was a bigger small town pre civil war and slightly more important, which isn't saying much. I mean fine, but who cares? Houston trippled in size between 1870 and 1890. 9k to 27k Dallas went form 3k to 38K during that period. This is where I would peg them going from small towns to small cities and puts them on, but near the bottom of the largest 100 cities list.
Once either of them mattered on a national stage they were similar in size and have grown at a similar rate the last 120 years in similar growth pasterns.
Both of them have very little pre 1900 buildings, a decent amount of Street Car Suburbs and a massive amount of post war sprawl.
I've tried to change the subject by posting about a new Hotel in Downtown Houston twice, but you ignored it both times. Whats the matter dallas are you mad at me ?
Yeah, I think you are purposely misrepresenting my position.
Thats a goofy thing to take away. The American Revolution is so much more important than the Texas revolution it isn't even funny. The Texas "Revolution" is another chapter in American Expansion like the California "Revolution" and "Republic." Texas history is important to American history, but for most of the Pre Oil history it is mostly a regional history, like Kansas or Nebraska.
The American Revolution, unimportant as it seemed to most of the world at the time put the US on the trajectory to become what it is today.
Before Oil Houston was about the size of Wichita Kansas and on a similar trajectory. Texas was like Oklahoma or Kansas and on that Trajectory. The Oil was the catalyst for changing that trajectory, pure luck for the most part. Without that Houston would have grown and been regional important as one of the few good ports on the Texas gulf, but without a navigable river inland to make it more than a regional hub. It would have likely been a regional city with rail heads to the port up to farm and ranch land. Dallas was on a similar trajectory, but as the inland cotton market. Fort Worth was regionally important for the stockyards.
Oil is what changed all their trajectory, forever.
The 6th Ward is by far the Oldest and most historic neighborhood in Houston and it wasn't even designated until 1874. Nothing there dates before the 1850, and most of what survived till today was built after the Civil War. About 300 structures from 1850-1880 remain in Houston.
Based on Houston's 782,009 current housing units, if you round up, .0004% of Houston's housing stock is from that era.
The Cedars in Dallas is a little younger, mostly built in the 1880, though La Réunion happened back in the 1850s.
Also, since this seems to matter so much to you, from a urban design stand point it really doesn't matter if the Houston Grid was laid out in 1836 or 1880. It's a simple grid on a flat place. The original plan was actually Re-Platted in 1859 because the streets didn't actually go true north.
All of this is to say Houston is not very old and not particularly historic. Sure you can say Houston was a bigger small town pre civil war and slightly more important, which isn't saying much. I mean fine, but who cares? Houston trippled in size between 1870 and 1890. 9k to 27k Dallas went form 3k to 38K during that period. This is where I would peg them going from small towns to small cities and puts them on, but near the bottom of the largest 100 cities list.
Once either of them mattered on a national stage they were similar in size and have grown at a similar rate the last 120 years in similar growth pasterns.
Both of them have very little pre 1900 buildings, a decent amount of Street Car Suburbs and a massive amount of post war sprawl.
Treasure you seem to be hung-up on the idea that economic development in and of itself is history and its not necessarily. I understand what your saying in that the 2 cities/metros developed on similar trajectories, but when it comes to the political development of Texas, Dallas was basically a bystander in Texas history until after the Civil War, when for the next half century or so, the economic development of the US was pretty much all that was going on in the country, until the Spanish American war, when the US signaled the world that it was becoming a player on the Global stage.
I would never claim that the Texas annexation was equal in importance to the American war of separation, but the analogy is clear and valid. What America became, focused more importance on its more humble beginnings. And as serendipitous as it was, oil was discovered in Texas, making the political events that by in large happened in Southern Texas vastly more important today than what they may have appeared to be at the time.
Your whole post wasn’t a bunch b.s... You tried to and horribly failed I might add at trying paint Houston as being responsible for Dallas growth via rail road. North Texas economy in the 1800’s was largely based on farming and ranching early on before Dallas started heavily industrializing staring in 1874. If you guys are going to bring Galveston into the conversation then Fort Worth is fair game. But carry on with your completely made up history.
Oh I've failed horribly according to Kdogg? LMAO OooooOOooo excuse me. If you don't think the railways had a major hand in increasing the population of Dallas than you sir are delusional as hell. The fact that you don't even put 2 and 2 together is mind boggling. As soon as the railways were built coincidently that's when the population boom happen. But oh well, at the end of the day I don't care about Fort Worth cattle history THEN and I definitely don't care about it NOW. Exactly what did you bring to the conversation again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92
All of this is to say Houston is not very old and not particularly historic. Sure you can say Houston was a bigger small town pre civil war and slightly more important, which isn't saying much. I mean fine, but who cares? Houston trippled in size between 1870 and 1890. 9k to 27k Dallas went form 3k to 38K during that period. This is where I would peg them going from small towns to small cities and puts them on, but near the bottom of the largest 100 cities list.
Who cares? I care and so do plenty of people in the city of Houston who can trace their family lineage back over a 100 years to the city care. It doesn't matter if TREASURE VALLEY doesn't cares. That's the beauty of it. No one is forcing anybody to care about the history of one's city. But the descendants of those enslaved Black people who help build the city and who contributed by creating customs and traditions that still exist worldwide to this day (Juneteenth for one) yeah it matters to them. Nobodies caring about if Louisville was more urban at that time or how many housing stocks still exist. That doesn't determine a communities character. It's the people.
Who cares? I care and so do plenty of people in the city of Houston who can trace their family lineage back over a 100 years to the city care. It doesn't matter if TREASURE VALLEY doesn't cares. That's the beauty of it. No one is forcing anybody to care about the history of one's city. But the descendants of those enslaved Black people who help build the city and who contributed by creating customs and traditions that still exist worldwide to this day (Juneteenth for one) yeah it matters to them. Nobodies caring about if Louisville was more urban at that time or how many housing stocks still exist. That doesn't determine a communities character. It's the people.
I didn't say I don't care about the early history of Houston or that you shouldn't.
Thats cool that you have a long time family connection. Some people in Dallas also have that long time connection. Most people in either city do not.
What I said I don't care that Houston was a bigger small town than Dallas at that point.
People do care that housing stock exists or not, though they would prob not phrase it like that. Housing stock is what makes a city seem urban or suburban.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
....This is getting boring guys....lets change the subject.
