Watersheds In The Physical And Cultural Evolution Of Houston

[Reefmonkey]

Reading threads and looking at old pictures on this site has gotten me thinking about watershed times in the evolution of Houston as a city, both culturally and physically, so I put my thoughts here for you to add to, disagree with, pick apart, etc. This is a partial list, really only covering the latter part of the 20th century, and some of them may be less significant with time.

Late 1950s - the first suburban boom, with the rise of large new neighborhoods of middle-class housing for commuters into town being built significantly outside the traditional pre-war boundaries of the city, in areas such as the Spring Branch-Memorial Area

Early 1970s - The oil boom during this time brought a massive influx of new residents to the city from other parts of the United States. I believe this is what really turned Texas from a culturally Texan city into a culturally nondescript American city (I know that sentence is going to be controversial). This period was also the rise of the remote suburb - former little outlying independent farming communities like the Klein area suddenly became Houston suburbs filled with brand-new subdivisions.

Mid 1980s -The oil bust really killed off "Old Houston", the distinct, homegrown Houston culture that had been heavily diluted during the previous decade's oil boom influx of residents. It was the end not just of the independent "wildcatter"-style oilman (most of whom were retirement age anyway) with "corporate oil" totally taking over, but also the demise of many old local Houston institutions - Sakowitz, for instance. The void would be filled not by new Houston merchants, but national chains.

Late 1990s - Though Houston recovered in the early 90s, it was the move to revitalize downtown, regentrify midtown, etc that was really significant in changing the face and feel of Houston. The Houston I talk about from my childhood, even my teenage years (I graduated from high school in 1994) is alien to my new friends who first moved to houston after college graduation in the late 90s.

[westguy76]

I thought this was going to be about the impact on watersheds in the Houston area as in drainage districts. ha-ha

[Subdude]

First decade of the 20th century - the first oil boom after Spindletop, and shortly thereafter digging of the ship channel. In a short time Houston went from just another small town to the largest city in Texas.

[memebag]

I'd add the construction of JSC as a significant event. That brought in a lot of tech jobs and fueled the development of the southeast areas.

[Reefmonkey]

First decade of the 20th century - the first oil boom after Spindletop, and shortly thereafter digging of the ship channel. In a short time Houston went from just another small town to the largest city in Texas.

That will probably always be the most significant time period in Houston's history in terms of setting it the trajectory it is still on.

I'd add the construction of JSC as a significant event. That brought in a lot of tech jobs and fueled the development of the southeast areas.

Good one. Also really made Houston an international name. Led to our city's name being the first word spoken on the moon.

[marmer]

We forget how small and regional Houston was until 1960 or so. There was a trifecta that contributed to Houston's boom, coincidentally about the time JSC was ramping up:

1. Air conditioning became practical on a large scale.

2. Suburban living became practical and affordable.

3. Cheap oil and cheap cars made auto-commute-based living nearly effortless.

Those things made it practical for large companies to locate large percentages of their workforces in the area, near where manufacturing, refining, and transportation could occur. JSC was the most visible and exciting symbol of this, but they were not the biggest job creator by far.

As far as earlier: the 1900 hurricane killed Galveston for about five years, and the 1915 hurricane set them back substantially, too. That allowed Houston to take the lead and helped them to really become a transportation hub..

[memebag]

And we can't forget the arrival of

[Don Julio]

Here's a few highlights...

January 10, 1901 - Spindletop erupts

1912 - Rice Institute opens

1913 - Houston Symphony formed

1914 - Ship channel dredged to 25 feet; navigation district established

1924 - Museum of Fine Arts opens in its current location

1927 - Houston Junior College (later U of H) opens

1939 - Eldorado Ballroom opens

1945 - Texas Medical Center established

1946 - Lightnin' Hopkins makes his first records

1947 - TSU opens

Late 40s/early 50s - zydeco music invented in Frenchtown

1955 - Houston Grand Opera formed

1962 - Colt .45s usher in the beginning of major league sports in Texas

1963 - Johnson Space Center opens

1965 - Astrodome opens

1999 - Enron field opens

[TheNiche]

Here's a debate for us: why Houston instead of Beaumont? The seminal events are each very similar.

My hypothesis: 1) superior access to cotton-growing areas and 2) fewer and weaker labor unions.

[marmer]

Here's a debate for us: why Houston instead of Beaumont? The seminal events are each very similar.

My hypothesis: 1) superior access to cotton-growing areas and 2) fewer and weaker labor unions.

Great question! I've wondered that myself, though not as concisely framed as you did. That's going to make for some interesting discussion, I'll bet.

[InTheLoop]

Wrong debate:

Why Galveston/Houston instead of Beaumont?

Track the parallel histories of the former leading city in Texas and Beaumont, then toss in 1900 and 1915 (as noted) and the answer should be self-evident. Houston grew from Galveston's vulnerability. Beaumont was never in Galveston's class in the 19th C., so it was a natural progression.

Closer to cotton, further from Spindletop, I'd call that a wash and not causative.

The Battle of San Jacinto in 1836 and a stint as the Capitol didn't hurt G/Harrisburg either; then there is the proximity to Stephen F. Austin's "originals"

and Austin, the "new" Capitol. We got the railroads.

We can't forget get the Allen brothers' marketing skills. either.

Mostly, it's because Galveston kicked Beaumont's butt from the get-go, and "we" benefitted.

I'll still tip my cap to Dick Dowling, though (for his bartending and fighting skills only).

[TheNiche]

Wrong debate:

Why Galveston/Houston instead of Beaumont?

Track the parallel histories of the former leading city in Texas and Beaumont, then toss in 1900 and 1915 (as noted) and the answer should be self-evident. Houston grew from Galveston's vulnerability. Beaumont was never in Galveston's class in the 19th C., so it was a natural progression.

Closer to cotton, further from Spindletop, I'd call that a wash and not causative.

The Battle of San Jacinto in 1836 and a stint as the Capitol didn't hurt G/Harrisburg either; then there is the proximity to Stephen F. Austin's "originals"

and Austin, the "new" Capitol. We got the railroads.

We can't forget get the Allen brothers' marketing skills. either.

Mostly, it's because Galveston kicked Beaumont's butt from the get-go, and "we" benefitted.

I'll still tip my cap to Dick Dowling, though (for his bartending and fighting skills only).

Up until 1900, Galveston outclassed every other city in Texas. At the time, there was absolutely no consideration of Galveston or Houston as being part of the same region. Getting around just wasn't as easy without freeways or even an Interurban route. I don't think that it's stretching it to compare getting from Houston to Galveston and back in 1900 to a modern-day trip between Houston and Austin. It's a round trip that can be done in a day, but these cities were by no means part of a region.

I'm surprised that you'd go back to the revolution. By 1900, just about anybody who had taken part in the revolution or the transitioning of the capitol city was dead. And the Allen brothers' marketing may have been a seminal event in 1837, but by 1900, it just wasn't there. If you are going to go back to early colonizing, the debate might be better posed between Galveston and Sabine Pass.

Houston did grow from Galveston's vulnerability, that's clearly the case. But it didn't have to be Houston. Beaumont and Port Arthur were close enough to consider them an actual region, and they were better ports than Houston at the time that Galveston was destroyed. Both Houston and Beaumont had rail service by that time, and although Houston was somewhat larger, the difference in populations wasn't staggering.

I also think you're underestimating the continued importance of cotton into the early 20th century. The next time you happen to look through the 1920's Sanborn maps at the Julia Ideson branch of the Houston Public Library, look around near the port. Look at what kind of industry populates the Port of Houston near the relatively new Turning Basin. It's all about cotton exporting. And I think that that is the kind of activity that drew a professional class; it worked for Galveston before us.

[sevfiv]

^True, there were quite a few cotton compresses/warehouses around the terminus of Harrisburg Blvd./Broadway and going north to the turning basin (looks like "Ship Channel Compress Co., Inc." was a big one). Iron/steel was pretty big, too.

[InTheLoop]

Niche-

First, my family farmed cotton in the Wharton area 1920s-1950s. I farm cotton in Ark. today. I'm not underestimating king cotton.

You contradicted yourself by claiming that Houston wasn't in the same region as Galveston in 1900 (..."no consideration of..."). Do tell - it is/was 50 miles away, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself by saying that. No? Then give the exact dimensions of a REGION. You can't. Are you REALLY going to claim there was some chance that the Andersons, Moodys, Claytons, Sealys, Hutchings, et al were going to pick up and relocate 90 miles up the coast? Pourquoi? That's (approx.) 2 regions over by your (self-defined) math!

Galveston "relocated" by NECESSITY to the nearest feasible inland, relatively safe community, one that even today sits adjacent to GALVESTON BAY.

Houston. As you clarify (your math) the Triangle was a TWO day overland roundtrip, so why there?

I went back to the revolution, capitol, Austin's 300, etc. to emphasize that, by 1900, Harrisburg-Houston was already well known as a former seat of

government, the approx. site of the greatest military victory in the war for Texas Independence, and namesake of our greatest general/best-known politician. I'll add that Austin County is 100 miles closer to Big H than the triangle. Surely, you can follow my logic without explanation on that one.

...and in 1900, Houston was closer to Austin, San Antonio, and DFW. (The Allen Bros. was a joke, bro, though I'm unaware of a similar marketing effort in NYC on behalf of Beaumont...). The point was to establish Houston as not only extant, but viable and logical as a complement, then a successor to the ruins of our beloved port city.

Your point is irrelevant about B-Pt.A. having better ports in 1900 than Houston. Obviously, there was an urgency to get back to business (and rebuild Galveston) and Houston was the logical place to do it. Most would argue B-PtA STILL has a better natural port than Houston - -it doesn't matter.

My point is simple. Houston won out because of Galveston's destruction. BTW, I need not hang out at Ideson to understand the importance of cotton - or energy- in Houston's growth at any given period. The point is, what was the seminal event that led to Houston leaving the Triangle far behind? The destruction of Galveston in 1900...more important than access to anything, it was an enormous economic and human crisis and Houston was front and center to take advantage of the economic relocation (and rebuilding of its regional neighbor).

[TheNiche]

Niche-

First, my family farmed cotton in the Wharton area 1920s-1950s. I farm cotton in Ark. today. I'm not underestimating king cotton.

You contradicted yourself by claiming that Houston wasn't in the same region as Galveston in 1900 (..."no consideration of..."). Do tell - it is/was 50 miles away, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself by saying that. No? Then give the exact dimensions of a REGION. You can't. Are you REALLY going to claim there was some chance that the Andersons, Moodys, Claytons, Sealys, Hutchings, et al were going to pick up and relocate 90 miles up the coast? Pourquoi? That's (approx.) 2 regions over by your (self-defined) math!

Galveston "relocated" by NECESSITY to the nearest feasible inland, relatively safe community, one that even today sits adjacent to GALVESTON BAY.

Houston. As you clarify (your math) the Triangle was a TWO day overland roundtrip, so why there?

I went back to the revolution, capitol, Austin's 300, etc. to emphasize that, by 1900, Harrisburg-Houston was already well known as a former seat of

government, the approx. site of the greatest military victory in the war for Texas Independence, and namesake of our greatest general/best-known politician. I'll add that Austin County is 100 miles closer to Big H than the triangle. Surely, you can follow my logic without explanation on that one.

...and in 1900, Houston was closer to Austin, San Antonio, and DFW. (The Allen Bros. was a joke, bro, though I'm unaware of a similar marketing effort in NYC on behalf of Beaumont...). The point was to establish Houston as not only extant, but viable and logical as a complement, then a successor to the ruins of our beloved port city.

Your point is irrelevant about B-Pt.A. having better ports in 1900 than Houston. Obviously, there was an urgency to get back to business (and rebuild Galveston) and Houston was the logical place to do it. Most would argue B-PtA STILL has a better natural port than Houston - -it doesn't matter.

My point is simple. Houston won out because of Galveston's destruction. BTW, I need not hang out at Ideson to understand the importance of cotton - or energy- in Houston's growth at any given period. The point is, what was the seminal event that led to Houston leaving the Triangle far behind? The destruction of Galveston in 1900...more important than access to anything, it was an enormous economic and human crisis and Houston was front and center to take advantage of the economic relocation (and rebuilding of its regional neighbor).

My family had farmed cotton and had a general store in present-day Grimes County from about the 1840's through about the 1920's. For the longest time, the cotton was brought to Houston over land, then transloaded onto a shallow-draft vessel, sent to Galveston for transloading onto larger vessels in deep water, and then exported. All these transloading points are critical in 19th-century urban development. Transportation was extremely labor intensive.

Austin and San Antonio are regions next door to one another, and in time they will undoubtedly become one in the same. But for the time being, when someone decides to relocate, say, from San Antonio to either Austin or Houston, I'd think that the two would be on a fairly level playing field where the person makes the decision based on their employment prospects. Basically, if you're switching regions anyway, it doesn't matter especially much whether it is 50 miles or 90 miles from your point of origin. Your day-to-day business isn't going to be impacted one way or the other.

As far as defining a region, the definition is constantly changing based primarily upon mobility. You can only discuss regions in the context of their era...not ours.

Houston is not adjacent to Galveston Bay. And Harrisburg was the site of a revolutionary defeat. Santa Ana burned it to the ground. I had family there, too, from before it was burned. The victory was way off to the east...not in Harrisburg or Houston. ...and in 1900, it didn't matter anyway. Please get your facts straight.

[marmer]

For that matter, why not the Freeport area? Excellent natural harbor and near cotton farming. Also home to the important 19th century settlement Velasco and beginning to be served by railroads. My guess would be the lessons of Galveston and Indianola; too close to the coast, and maybe too small to have critical mass in the early 1900s.

[TheNiche]

For that matter, why not the Freeport area? Excellent natural harbor and near cotton farming. Also home to the important 19th century settlement Velasco and beginning to be served by railroads. My guess would be the lessons of Galveston and Indianola; too close to the coast, and maybe too small to have critical mass in the early 1900s.

Velasco was too far from what were then proven oil reserves, was hit extremely hard by the same 1900 storm that destroyed Galveston, and was much, much smaller than any of the other cities we're talking about in 1900. And Freeport wasn't even incorporated until 1912.

[Heights2Bastrop]

My top three would be the 1900 Galveston Storm and Spindletop for reasons already stated. But one overlooked milestone was when Jesse Jones decided to make Houston his home.

I was going to specify his bringing the 1928 Democratic National Convention to Houston. People today don

[TheNiche]

My top three would be the 1900 Galveston Storm and Spindletop for reasons already stated. But one overlooked milestone was when Jesse Jones decided to make Houston his home.

I was going to specify his bringing the 1928 Democratic National Convention to Houston. People today don

[Heights2Bastrop]

Ah, but what brought him to Houston?

I have on tape a program done by/for PBS on Jones called,

[TheNiche]

I have on tape a program done by/for PBS on Jones called,

[strickn]

I'm reading this now that the bush has been firmly beat to all sides of, I think.

Michael Halbouty (v. interesting web search: http://www.google.com/search?q=halbouty ) said that the seminal event was, quite simply, when when the old Beaumont families (remember, these places were all much less distinct from New Orleans culture a century ago than they have always seemed to our generation) made up their minds that they enjoyed the city the way it was, and would have the oil shipped westward. Within a year of that decision, according to Douglas Milburn, fifty plants here had converted to oil fuel and the Heights became host to a refinery. It was not until some time later that the Humble field, much less the headquarters, would follow in train. So I think we more or less have the answer to which all others are subsidiary bullet points.

Freeport's harbor, incidentally, is not natural; although heavily used a hundred years ago, it was made much more viable by the construction of a new river channel, and Brazosport High School sits just south of the earth fill dam. Velasco and even Quintana were places much more thriving than anybody talks about: mansions lined Quintana Beach until 1900, the Rothschilds of Europe had land to construct a world trade seaport - remember that the plantations between the Brazos and the San Bernard, especially in Brazoria County but on up past Richmond, were the best-cultivated in the Southwest, and while well-watered were poorly served by roads and rail as a consequence of early prohibitions on bridge-building at all of those streams (would impede navigation on the aquatic highways). While there has always been more going on down there than inlanders are interested to acknowledge (how many of you would guess that this scene was shot on the coastal plain?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_co...57603671370361/ ), the watersheds were actually *too much* for Freeport to manage to evolve under - when a river as big as the Brazos got heavy rains upstream, the flood currents at the mouth made steamship travel very dangerous.

On Sunday I was sitting and talking with a new friend who had enlisted in the service six months before Pearl Harbor, so that the day after the attacks he was trucked from San Antonio to Rosenberg to Brazoria and posted on the bridge to Freeport in order to keep passing fishing boats from stopping underneath and dynamiting it. So there was still considerable traffic with the watershed even before they began to have the largest basic chemical complex around. Nowadays most of the traffic is in coolant water - the river itself.

Then again, Halbouty was an Aggie; so say what you will.

[Heights2Bastrop]

Looks like he only moved to Houston to manage his deceased uncle's estate, which included a lumber business. How easily it could've been Beaumont!

I don

[InTheLoop]

Niche-

Your cotton argument is weak.

My facts are straight. Your effort to selectively misunderstand is noted, and typical, in my experience.

I believe that an EXTREMELY strong argument can be made for the Galveston destruction "model", at least as strong as any other posited by you. I recognize that myriad factors contributed. I join many who find 1900 "seminal" and more influential than your hypotheses. There are many of us; deal with it.

You didn't think of it first on this thread; so, as usual, it simply can't be. <------(the real bottom line, IMHO)

Houston was founded, in part, because of its proximity to GALVESTON BAY - regardless of how much the Allen Bros. "fudged" on the early navigatability

of Buffalo Bayou.

San Jacinto (right down the bayou from H-town) was obviously the battle known world-wide that brought Houston prominence. Thanks for uselessly pointing out that Harrisburg was burned. (you are so eager to exhibit knowledge-apparently almost any knowledge). So what? That helps your cotton thesis? It successfully tears down my statement about Houston and/or Harrisburg's growth in notoriety due to the stunning victory @ San Jac? No.

The term "region" as used by you is clearly whatever you want it to be - as I suspected above. How handy. For the record, few over the age of, say,

puberty fail to understand that 19th century travel was a grind with major obstacles and delays around every bend. Of course! It is not as hard as you imply to understand this. What you fail to grasp, IMO, is that everything from social mores to transportation logistics was attuned

to that reality. IOW, Texans (from 19th c. Harrisburg, Houston, near San Jac b'ground, Galveston, etc.) would likely be quite unimpressed with your emphasis on the distance from Houston to San Jac as some limiting factor! What a joke. Think about the whole (earlier) concept of "Manifest Destiny", the hardships these folks (and/or their ancestors) suffered to GET to SE Texas, not to mention immigrants dying left and right on 50 day journeys

across the Atlantic. Yeah, you bet, our ancestors were really daunted by that nightmarish HOU-SAN JAC-H'BURG-GALVESTON proximity you hang your hat on! Brother.

Your Austin/San Antonio paragraph was useless to the discussion IMO. Was it happy hour?

Please get your facts straight.

[marmer]

I don

[strickn]

You're welcome, marmer. And don't count the Golden Triangle out just yet - tonight, or some other time, some fellow in the shadow of the bleachers at Lamar is going to be throwing a switch like Fermi under the bleachers at University of Chicago, and Beaumont will become the fusion center of the globe and a Big B to our Gulf Coast Tarrant County.

Since my post, I have some other information, regardless of its relationship to what I have written: I checked out the county census counts from 1900-1910. Dallas, Harris, Tarrant, and far Southeast Texas each received forty to fifty thousand net new residents over that decade (Galveston County, which had grown from 31 to 44 thousand in the nineties, did not lose any population on net). Houston city already before the hurricane enjoyed a population slightly greater than did Galveston County with the Wall Street of the South.

Cotton leadership and money, and famous families' leadership and money, can each have sustained and developed Houston without either of them accounting for the bifurcation between us and Beaumont. Memphis, I recall, had quite a start in both of those domains, but it has been on nobody's list of wellsprings of productive labor to watch for a long time, and it's not just that we had more clever architects of commerce, no matter whether they came from Western Tennessee (Jones) or from the Great Storm. Remember that North Texas, even Dallas by itself, was more central in cotton and population until just about the Great Depression. The industries, and attendant transportation, built on cotton put both Houston and Dallas in a position that was necessary but not sufficient to become what they were postwar; in 1900, even Grayson County outside Dallas had a population the same as the more expansive Harris County. What actually made our leading cities look so different from Beaumont in later years were the status choices that local wildcatter Michel Halbouty of Beaumont recalled, and the following:

Even when the Industrial Revolution made something more than muscle power available to accomplish some tasks, its 'fossil' fuel work was only as portable as your boiler room. The steamboat was good, but the locomotive was the most powerful force in Nineteenth Century economic geography because if you review it it was the absolute minimum granular size that could use this concentrated power and make it portable* - it was the point where the best fuel system could fit down most closely into the pores of active life. When a select few regions - never forgetting Tulsa, but also don't forget California, or the first oil skyscraper in Pittsburgh - brought petroleum and modern fuel oil into national life, a whole different level of lightweightness and portability was achieved, and with it, a new order of magnitude in lowering the stakes to get productive work done. This was great, and it really diffused the Industrial Revolution as never before, yet it did not make as permanent a strategic difference for Texas as you'd think from looking at Houston and the Metroplex now - but by making them the epicenters of population, this made them and their professional economies stand to benefit far more from workforce changes in the postwar era when they really set themselves apart: Ted Goranson wrote, "Building a knowledge-based economy using oil wealth is clearly possible. For example, Texas, like most southern US states, was once economically poor and declining. Although it had oil revenue, the flow of dollars into an economy, by itself, does not boost prosperity as much as one might think. So Texas decided to devote its oil money to an educational endowment. Today, that endowment is [already] equal to that of Harvard University and spread over 15 universities. The effect has been staggering: aerospace manufacturing has almost disappeared from California, but is booming in Texas. Telecom research centers and consortia have flocked to Texas, even from the Canadian telecommunications giant Nortel. Although manufacturing in the US is in crisis, Texas has one of the strongest manufacturing economies in the world." Does this make sense?

* - in fact, much of the energy the railroad has ever burned has been to make coal portable to the fixed furnaces in the labor centers, and much of the decline of inland labor centers like Parkersburg has been because having people producing in proximity to the coal source stopped being the cost advantage with which nothing else was able to compete... funny that it was Western Pennsylvania where they first opened up that oilcan of worms, even before Spindletop.

Edited March 19, 2009 by strickn

[Reefmonkey]

Niche-

Your cotton argument is weak.

My facts are straight. Your effort to selectively misunderstand is noted, and typical, in my experience.

I believe that an EXTREMELY strong argument can be made for the Galveston destruction "model", at least as strong as any other posited by you. I recognize that myriad factors contributed. I join many who find 1900 "seminal" and more influential than your hypotheses. There are many of us; deal with it.

You didn't think of it first on this thread; so, as usual, it simply can't be. <------(the real bottom line, IMHO)

Houston was founded, in part, because of its proximity to GALVESTON BAY - regardless of how much the Allen Bros. "fudged" on the early navigatability

of Buffalo Bayou.

San Jacinto (right down the bayou from H-town) was obviously the battle known world-wide that brought Houston prominence. Thanks for uselessly pointing out that Harrisburg was burned. (you are so eager to exhibit knowledge-apparently almost any knowledge). So what? That helps your cotton thesis? It successfully tears down my statement about Houston and/or Harrisburg's growth in notoriety due to the stunning victory @ San Jac? No.

The term "region" as used by you is clearly whatever you want it to be - as I suspected above. How handy. For the record, few over the age of, say,

puberty fail to understand that 19th century travel was a grind with major obstacles and delays around every bend. Of course! It is not as hard as you imply to understand this. What you fail to grasp, IMO, is that everything from social mores to transportation logistics was attuned

to that reality. IOW, Texans (from 19th c. Harrisburg, Houston, near San Jac b'ground, Galveston, etc.) would likely be quite unimpressed with your emphasis on the distance from Houston to San Jac as some limiting factor! What a joke. Think about the whole (earlier) concept of "Manifest Destiny", the hardships these folks (and/or their ancestors) suffered to GET to SE Texas, not to mention immigrants dying left and right on 50 day journeys

across the Atlantic. Yeah, you bet, our ancestors were really daunted by that nightmarish HOU-SAN JAC-H'BURG-GALVESTON proximity you hang your hat on! Brother.

Your Austin/San Antonio paragraph was useless to the discussion IMO. Was it happy hour?

Please get your facts straight.

Guys, we're just having a friendly discussion, there are no right or wrong answers here. No need for anyone to be "right" or "wrong"; everyone's opinion of what was important to Houston's growth is their own opinion and completely valid. It's all good.

[TheNiche]

I don

[TheNiche]

Niche-

Your cotton argument is weak.

My facts are straight. Your effort to selectively misunderstand is noted, and typical, in my experience.

I believe that an EXTREMELY strong argument can be made for the Galveston destruction "model", at least as strong as any other posited by you. I recognize that myriad factors contributed. I join many who find 1900 "seminal" and more influential than your hypotheses. There are many of us; deal with it.

You didn't think of it first on this thread; so, as usual, it simply can't be. <------(the real bottom line, IMHO)

I don't deny that the destruction of Galveston in 1900 proved to be a seminal event in the development of Houston. I don't know where you got that from. Please point to where there's been a miscommunication.

As for the cotton argument, you say it is weak, but you do not say why. How am I supposed to respond to that?

Houston was founded, in part, because of its proximity to GALVESTON BAY - regardless of how much the Allen Bros. "fudged" on the early navigatability

of Buffalo Bayou.

The Allen brothers had first wanted to purchase and expand the original township of Harrisburg, but it was tied up in probate. Houston was Plan B, the direct result of an unclear title.

I would argue that Houston's proximity to Galveston Bay (as though the bay itself were a destination ) was far less critical than that it was at situated at the furthest extent of inland navigability along a waterway. New towns just like it were founded at the same points along rivers throughout Texas and the United States (Washington D.C., Hartford, CT, Philadelphia, Wilmington, DE, Albany, Fayetteville, NC, Columbia, SC, Louisville, KY, Minneapolis) as they were colonized, and it all comes down to pre-20th century transportation economics as I discussed earlier. That is why the concept of Houston made sense in 1837--however it was certainly not unique either at the time or certainly by 1900. The important factors pertaining to its geography are similar to those of Beaumont, and are in some ways inferior. This is why I brought up the "why not Beaumont" historical debate in the first place.

San Jacinto (right down the bayou from H-town) was obviously the battle known world-wide that brought Houston prominence. Thanks for uselessly pointing out that Harrisburg was burned. (you are so eager to exhibit knowledge-apparently almost any knowledge). So what? That helps your cotton thesis? It successfully tears down my statement about Houston and/or Harrisburg's growth in notoriety due to the stunning victory @ San Jac? No.

Do you really think that the mere existence of a marshy battlefield 20 miles distant continued to be a notable factor contributing to the economic development of Houston 74 years after the fact!? I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

As for tearing down your factually incorrect statement...I make a habit of doing that for personal enjoyment. Texas history is already rife with poorly-substantiated "facts" accepted as doctrine, rumors, and tall tales. It doesn't need your errors gunking it up any further.

The term "region" as used by you is clearly whatever you want it to be - as I suspected above. How handy. For the record, few over the age of, say, puberty fail to understand that 19th century travel was a grind with major obstacles and delays around every bend. Of course! It is not as hard as you imply to understand this. What you fail to grasp, IMO, is that everything from social mores to transportation logistics was attuned to that reality.

I thought I'd been the guy continually discussing historical contexts, here. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd forget about something that I keep making a big deal out of.

Defining regions is an art, not a science. In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau expanded our "region" to include Austin and San Jacinto Counties. Only a few years before that, they had only finally added Brazoria and Galveston Counties, which used to be counted as their own region. I, myself, don't endorse the timing or the substance of the Census Bureau's methods as they pertain to Houston and quite a few other metro areas, but their goal is very useful and they have to stick to a reasonably consistent methodology throughout the entire United States. Just because I can nitpick their definitions doesn't mean that their definitions aren't useful or at least reasonable on some level.

A region defining a metropolitan area changes with technology. A Houston experienced on foot or horseback is a completely different beast from a Houston with fixed-route passenger railroads from a Houston experienced from the driver's seat.

IOW, Texans (from 19th c. Harrisburg, Houston, near San Jac b'ground, Galveston, etc.) would likely be quite unimpressed with your emphasis on the distance from Houston to San Jac as some limiting factor! What a joke.

I think that they'd be unimpressed with the notion that a battlefield is a notable determining factor in their economic well-being. I myself am unimpressed with you putting words in my mouth. Distance to the battlefield is not a limiting factor; the battlefield itself is a non-factor in 1900.

Think about the whole (earlier) concept of "Manifest Destiny", the hardships these folks (and/or their ancestors) suffered to GET to SE Texas, not to mention immigrants dying left and right on 50 day journeys across the Atlantic. Yeah, you bet, our ancestors were really daunted by that nightmarish HOU-SAN JAC-H'BURG-GALVESTON proximity you hang your hat on! Brother.

Yes, think about the great distances they'd traverse and the hardships that they'd readily endure when they decided to relocate between cities. One of your earlier points is that Beaumont wasn't as well suited as Houston to capture Galveston's out-migration (a one-way trip) because it was an additional 40 miles further from Galveston than is Houston, but what you just said here indicates that people had a tolerance for relocating long distances.

I'm not sure how that furthers your point if you're going to discuss the proximity of San Jacinto battlefield as a factor in Houston's economic development. The San Jacinto battlefield is a 40-mile round-trip from Houston, after all, which on foot or on horseback between Houston and San Jacinto was a two-day affair. I just can't imagine that many Houstonians ever going there, or associating it with Houston at that time if 40 additional miles over land was sufficient to deter them from relocating in Beaumont.

Your Austin/San Antonio paragraph was useless to the discussion IMO. Was it happy hour?

If the best you can do to counter an argument is to make a personal attack, then you just lost.

Edited March 20, 2009 by TheNiche

[missmsry]

I think the second boom was after WWII when Garden Oaks and Oak Forest were built, Bellaire was probably before that.

The house I live in now was built in the late 20s or 30s. So it might have been built right before or after the Depression. But definitley after WWI, Walter Cronkite lived in the neighborhood and attended Jr. High at Madison.

And Niche, are you the same person who comments on Curbed L.A..?

Edited March 20, 2009 by missmsry