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 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.
Housing stock is what makes a city seem urban or suburban not give it character. It adds but it's not the end all be all.
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.
1)
Economic development is important to comparing cities, yes.
No, not all history is an economic history. I've never said that. We are comparing cities. Some goof from Houston claimed Houston was bigger because it always has been and it much more historic. Thats wrong. Dallas and Houston have similar urban footprints as has been beaten to death.
The period when Houston was "More Important" than Dallas it wasn't a major mover or shaker in Texas politics either. At that point almost all of the population of Texas was rural. Houston has never dominated the political landscape of Texas. Neither has Dallas.
When Houston was 3k-9k people in the middle of the 1800s Texas was a very rural state and not industrialized. You had over 600k people in the state in 1860 and less than 5K of them were in Houston.
So no, Houston was not all that important prior to industrialization, which came late in Texas.
2)
No, it is a bad comparison. The American revolution was a political and economic revolution of British people Breaking away from Briton. The Texas Revolution was nothing like that.
Besides, when the events of the Texas Revolution happened Houston didn't even exist. Next thing you are going to say is because San Jacinto happened near modern Houston, Houston somehow gets credit for that as well?
Yes, most of the population of Texas was in Eastern and Southern Texas at the time, east of the tree line. Yeah maybe today you can count San Felipe as part of Metro Houston, but back in the day that was a couple day's journey. Travel time is like modern day Denver to Dallas.
I already said the Texas revolution was important for the US. Most of what happened after the Mexican American War until oil is over all not that important or remarkable in the greater US history. It is similar to the rest of Western History and part of a broader trend.
I don't know if you are aware, but lots of states have pretty interesting histories and many are important ( or less so) in their own way.
Local history can be perfectly interesting especially when you have a personal connection to it, but that doesn't make it over all that important.
Housing stock is what makes a city seem urban or suburban not give it character. It adds but it's not the end all be all.
It is to deciding how big or urban a city feels and is the most important factor in what we were previously discussing, the claim that Houston is a much bigger or more urban city.
It is to deciding how big or urban a city feels and is the most important factor in what we were previously discussing, the claim that Houston is a much bigger or more urban city.
Yeah but umm my post that you initially responded to had nothing to do with a claim of Houston being a bigger or more urban city. That wasn’t my stance at all. I stated, Because Houston is a little bit older and Black ppl have contributed to the building of Houston since it’s inception I find their neighborhoods in the city core generally having more character than what I find in Dallas core. Mainly because Houston having more of a history with inclusion on some level in the core than Dallas interest ME moreso than what Dallas communities have to offer.
Economic development is important to comparing cities, yes.
No, not all history is an economic history. I've never said that. We are comparing cities. Some goof from Houston claimed Houston was bigger because it always has been and it much more historic. Thats wrong. Dallas and Houston have similar urban footprints as has been beaten to death.
The period when Houston was "More Important" than Dallas it wasn't a major mover or shaker in Texas politics either. At that point almost all of the population of Texas was rural. Houston has never dominated the political landscape of Texas. Neither has Dallas.
When Houston was 3k-9k people in the middle of the 1800s Texas was a very rural state and not industrialized. You had over 600k people in the state in 1860 and less than 5K of them were in Houston.
So no, Houston was not all that important prior to industrialization, which came late in Texas.
2)
No, it is a bad comparison. The American revolution was a political and economic revolution of British people Breaking away from Briton. The Texas Revolution was nothing like that.
Besides, when the events of the Texas Revolution happened Houston didn't even exist. Next thing you are going to say is because San Jacinto happened near modern Houston, Houston somehow gets credit for that as well?
Yes, most of the population of Texas was in Eastern and Southern Texas at the time, east of the tree line. Yeah maybe today you can count San Felipe as part of Metro Houston, but back in the day that was a couple day's journey. Travel time is like modern day Denver to Dallas.
I already said the Texas revolution was important for the US. Most of what happened after the Mexican American War until oil is over all not that important or remarkable in the greater US history. It is similar to the rest of Western History and part of a broader trend.
I don't know if you are aware, but lots of states have pretty interesting histories and many are important ( or less so) in their own way.
Local history can be perfectly interesting especially when you have a personal connection to it, but that doesn't make it over all that important.
No the city of Houston did not exist at the time of the Battle of San Jacinto but Harrisburg did, Morgans point did , Anahuac did, Galveston did as well, and it was because of the Battle that Houston was founded where it was, so yes that is historically significant , and the man it was named for was actually invested in the city that bore his name . Houston actually lived in Houston. There is a street in DT Houston named Capital st because that is where the Capital of the state was. The Lynchburg ferry even operated during that time.
Yes Texas was an agrarian society , but so was the US when it was founded. There was no dominate political and commercial center for the US, if there was the Constitution would not have been so difficult to ratify. But some of those cities are more historically significant than others merely for events that happened in and around them.
Your distinction between the American revolution being different because of the ethnicity of the participants is specious to say the least. Most Texians were Mexican citizens and separated from Mexico for very similar reasons. Have you ever read the Texas declaration of independence. It list many of the same grievances that the US DOI does ?
On thing Dallas region has going for it is little mentioned in this thread? That is FT WORTH next door. A completely different vibe and even more western.
Houston by far .... likes to promote it becoming a true Urban city. It is lucky the Inner Loop area had so many small bungalow/ranch/shot-gun type old housing seen as throw-away. Bought up by developers for new mostly multi-residential housing.
The is seen as Houston Urbanizing. Add high-rise-living added downtown .... but separate parking-garages lessen urban a bit. Both or all three cities ..... are adding infill. But vast areas of nice large ranch homes to McMansions. Are going nowhere soon.
Which city wins the metro population battle? Really is more local rivalry them National prominence. Both metros still highly rely on relocations of Corporate America steering Northerner and Western migrations. But more seem to be less from the North and more from the far West Coast today. So it seems (hopefully to me) the Northern bleed will begin its slowdown after decades. Texas Debt and Texas cities. Have caught up to the North. Big incentives will slow. Taxes rising.
The Sunbelt has plenty to expand now on its own might and weight. It's more a Urban-lite then older dense pre-auto build. Land still plentiful isn't slowing suburban sprawl though. Despite claims of more urbanization in multiple CBD's and around the Cores.
Economic development is important to comparing cities, yes.
No, not all history is an economic history. I've never said that. We are comparing cities. Some goof from Houston claimed Houston was bigger because it always has been and it much more historic. Thats wrong. Dallas and Houston have similar urban footprints as has been beaten to death.
The period when Houston was "More Important" than Dallas it wasn't a major mover or shaker in Texas politics either. At that point almost all of the population of Texas was rural. Houston has never dominated the political landscape of Texas. Neither has Dallas.
When Houston was 3k-9k people in the middle of the 1800s Texas was a very rural state and not industrialized. You had over 600k people in the state in 1860 and less than 5K of them were in Houston.
So no, Houston was not all that important prior to industrialization, which came late in Texas.
2)
No, it is a bad comparison. The American revolution was a political and economic revolution of British people Breaking away from Briton. The Texas Revolution was nothing like that.
Besides, when the events of the Texas Revolution happened Houston didn't even exist. Next thing you are going to say is because San Jacinto happened near modern Houston, Houston somehow gets credit for that as well?
Yes, most of the population of Texas was in Eastern and Southern Texas at the time, east of the tree line. Yeah maybe today you can count San Felipe as part of Metro Houston, but back in the day that was a couple day's journey. Travel time is like modern day Denver to Dallas.
I already said the Texas revolution was important for the US. Most of what happened after the Mexican American War until oil is over all not that important or remarkable in the greater US history. It is similar to the rest of Western History and part of a broader trend.
I don't know if you are aware, but lots of states have pretty interesting histories and many are important ( or less so) in their own way.
Local history can be perfectly interesting especially when you have a personal connection to it, but that doesn't make it over all that important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lance
No the city of Houston did not exist at the time of the Battle of San Jacinto but Harrisburg did, Morgans point did , Anahuac did, Galveston did as well, and it was because of the Battle that Houston was founded where it was, so yes that is historically significant , and the man it was named for was actually invested in the city that bore his name . Houston actually lived in Houston. There is a street in DT Houston named Capital st because that is where the Capital of the state was. The Lynchburg ferry even operated during that time.
Yes Texas was an agrarian society , but so was the US when it was founded. There was no dominate political and commercial center for the US, if there was the Constitution would not have been so difficult to ratify. But some of those cities are more historically significant than others merely for events that happened in and around them.
Your distinction between the American revolution being different because of the ethnicity of the participants is specious to say the least. Most Texians were Mexican citizens and separated from Mexico for very similar reasons. Have you ever read the Texas declaration of independence. It list many of the same grievances that the US DOI does ?
At the end of the day, it's not really arguable that Houston and southeast Texas in general was more influential to early Texas history than Dallas and north Texas was. Nearly all of the major battles of the Texas Revolution happened in southern and southeast Texas and the early capitals and "population centers" were all in that region (including Houston). The city had a port on Buffalo Bayou, multiple rail lines, and had already had a Congressional Convention within its borders by the time Dallas was even really a line on a map. Even though the urban form today may be similar between the two, the history in Houston does go back further. Those are just facts - Houston was unquestionably the larger, more influential city of the two from the time it was founded until the late 19th century.
With that said, Texas was indeed much less important than it is today, and was extremely rural. Houston was a tiny fish in an extremely tiny pond, but bigger than most of the other fishes (besides San Antonio) even then. I'm not really sure what the argument is about - that neither Houston nor Dallas is very historic so it doesn't matter, I guess?
Where were these passovers located at? We'll get someone out there to paint them for you. I'll call 311 We wouldn't want anyone to get a bad impression of the City. I've heard stories of people who called 311 about all kinds of things and many times the Ciry will get out within days to take care of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallasboi
Why are all the passovers and bridge walkways in Houston all Rusted?
I noticed them driving back to Dallas here recently.
Why are all the passovers and bridge walkways in Houston all Rusted?
I noticed them driving back to Dallas here recently.
It’s due to frequent flooding my brother. It doesn’t take much to rain to flood Houston these days.
Last edited by Exult.Q36; 12-02-2019 at 05:19 PM..
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.
Next time please take note of the location
