A Colvin

So you don't believe in using common sense? It has often been said that economic stagnation is the friend of historic buildings. Galveston has had virtually no economy for over 100 years. Accordingly, there was no incentive to tear down their buildings. Houston, on the other hand, has added 6.2 million people in the last 113 years. We need the space. Where you seem upset that Houston grew into an economic juggernaut, but had to bulldoze a few old buildings to do it, I am impressed with Houston's stature as the best economy in the country right now.

 

Of course, if we were being fair, we would also be complaining about why New York, Chicago and LA tore down so much of their history as well. But, we are not fair. Some people look only at Houston and complain, while ignoring the fact that Houston has grown just like other cities have, only faster.

This mean-spirited answer is both obnoxious and wrong. Galveston's economy is dervided largely from its tourists trade, and your snobbish attitude against preservation  has nothing to do with why it occus in Galveston. Galveston has an economic incentive to keep its historic buildings preserved  for the same reason every other tourist city such as Austin --6th street anyone? --  does: because of their  economic role  in the citiy's fiscal health  which is also tied to its history, and so the tourists come and spend money and take pictures, and eat and sleep, etc.  Bragging about a  city like Houston with its massive urban sprawl, crime rate, pollution, povery rate, homelessness, and every other major urban issue that plagues as compared  to a small tourst island town like Galveston with regard to their respective approaches to preservation is hopelessly misinformed. Houston has no economic incentive to keep them, and uses the excuse of "development" to eliminate them, (usually citing economic groth or population explosion fuigures, which are just projections.) Plus it has a very soft  pro-preservation community, (they of course disagree,)  who pay a great deal of lip service to preservation but do very little as the city basically steam rolls over them. But the city loves big developers, so its pretty much a crappy situation.  For all its boasts about "population growth, " the city  rarely mentions the number of empty office and residentail spaces downtown or the high buiness turnover which pockmark the innercity landscape during these so-called booms. Houston does not need "space." -- unless you count the double lots needed for the grotesque McMansions, ruining old neighborhoods everywhere or the antique buildings it likes to knock down for some New Ubanist "multi-use" travesty complete with a Starbucks just like the other Starbucks a block away which also accounts for the schizophrenic appearence of many, many neighborhoods.   It has plenty of space which is why it keeps sprawling outward. Suburbs?  Tons of them with no end in sight. Cities that need space build more verically, than horizonatally because they have no choice. See New York., which has to make space by knocking down buildings whereas  Houston just spreads because it has more space than it knows what to do with and uses the lame "population growth"  argument to continue its urban blight and sprawl,  despite the very serious issue with subsidence and flooding which will continue to  worsen as the population continues to  add pressures to dwindling resources. Finally, Obviously, econiomic stagnation is NOT  a friend to historic buildings, if you look at, gee I don't know..DETROIT.  Unless preservation (like  environmental protection) is incentivised to make it part of your working economy (See: tourism) than old  buildings,  like environmental issues,  tend to get neglected in favor of more "profitable" ideas.  Houston is a very profit-centerd, service oriented oil and banking city with lots of heavy industry. thrown in. It likes its bling, so Old buildings kind of get in the way of   its  concept  of free-market enterprise and "progress."  which your post clearly refects.   You'll hear Houstonians scream a lot about taxes when it comes to preservation, but they don't mind poisening each other when comes to their air or water, nor a  high crime rate so long as they can live behind iron gates in their condos and McMansions. Go figure.

Part of the answer to that question is tourism. Galveston is largely a tourist-driven economy and so giving all the tourists things to do, includes letting them ooh and ahh at all they great old buildings which include shops, meusems and places tourists love. You will find this to be the case in most cities that have strong preservation ordinances. Most of Galveston's later history is bound up in the tourist trade. Its early history was as the nation's 2nd largest seaport. it wasn't quite so well groomed then, and parts today are still shaggy.  Essentially, places like Galveston are incentivised to keep themselves in shape --including their older buildings -- because doing so helps capture tourist dollars. You will also notice that those cities tend to be cleaner and prettier because they want tourists to continue coming back. Galveston has two things going for it which make it a tourist destination: a seaside location, (yes, I know it is a gulf-coast city,) and size. I come from a city very much like Galveston and it is kept very neat and tidy in the conspicuous touristy areas where historic preservation is a very big part of the civic/commerce dynamic. Other parts of the city are sort of left to fend for themselves.  Austin is another great tourist destination, becuase of not only its history, but its topography (oooh hills and a river!) and also because of UT as well as   pockets of Bohehim flair such as 6th Strteet. (Ohhh we can walk around in the streets and its all so open-air -- cool!) Houston has neither of these two; it is big, sprawling, and doesn't really care about tourists although "conventioners" and trade shows are important. But that is a different market than tourism. You will notice, for example, that the Galleria area is quite nice. It gets  a huge amount of tourist traffic moreso than say the Houston Ship Channel which is kind of an industrial armpit, but necessary.  But Houston is not a tourist city, which may help explain the difference. I'm sure there are other reasons, which others may contribute or even refine my ideas but this is what comes first to mind.