HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 12:14 AM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Are Lubbock and Amarillo more or less the same culturally/overall feel? They seemed almost interchangeable.
I'd guess so, I've only been to Lubbock once and that was during college for a girl who went to the public university out there. I believe Lubbock is the "hub" of the panhandle of Texas with Amarillo being next. You'd see a lot of wind farms now driving out there from the Texas core.
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

"Such then is the human condition , that to wish greatness for one's country is to wish harm to one's neighbor" Voltaire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 12:43 AM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 3,309
I want 1836 back. What Texas would be like now if they didn't have to give up part of their land to settle their debt.

The Republic of Texas
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 12:49 AM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 3,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
This was a idea that came to mind after going through the Florida thread.

To state my case, is it possible that everyone here and even outside this discussion can fully agree that Texas is “Southwestern” in the purest sense, without argument?

Texas seems to embody both Southern and Western influences.

It was a part of the Confederacy, was the last state to give up slavery, and has very strong historical ties to the rest of the South via the Gulf. Houston’s culture seems to be greatly influenced by New Orleans and there is a very strong Southern presence in Eastern Texas. Even that area geographically is filled with swamps and wetlands, no different from the Louisiana bayous.

However, Texas was once a part of Spain/Mexico. It was the frontier for American settlers headed westward in search for a new start of life. El Paso is pretty much in an arid climate and it’s in Western Texas that one is reminded of the cowboy culture.

Texas seems to be a transitional place, a place that invokes both characteristics of the South and the West in equal proportions.

Am I wrong or right in this assumption? Texan forumers are strongly encouraged to share their views.
Pretty much sums up Texas. Texas as a whole cannot be classified as just 1 area, but rather several different types of areas and ecosystems. El Paso has more in common with New Mexico and Arizona than it does with Dallas, or Houston. Same goes for Amarillo which is a world different than McAllen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 12:57 AM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX View Post
I want 1836 back. What Texas would be like now if they didn't have to give up part of their land to settle their debt.

The Republic of Texas
Thems our mountains!
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

"Such then is the human condition , that to wish greatness for one's country is to wish harm to one's neighbor" Voltaire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 1:04 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX View Post
I want 1836 back. What Texas would be like now if they didn't have to give up part of their land to settle their debt.

The Republic of Texas
The Republic of Texas was doomed to failure from the get go. I don't think it would resemble an "independent" State of Texas but a developing economy sandwiched between two larger countries. And totally dependent on them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 1:23 AM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
The Republic of Texas was doomed to failure from the get go. I don't think it would resemble an "independent" State of Texas but a developing economy sandwiched between two larger countries. And totally dependent on them.
Actually I think Texas could be fairly self sufficient, it has several natural ports, natural energy resources, flat land that could focus much more on wheat and corn production than it currently does.

Texas' biggest concern as a nation would be that it has a giant flat virtually un-encumbered border with the United States and much like countries in eastern Europe, its physical security from this giant Neighbor would be its primary national trouble.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 1:44 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,254
I wouldn't put it past roaming bands of Oklahomans to randomly attack Texas if it became an independent nation. A minor annoyance in places like the Metroplex but eventually they seize Amarillo. I don't think Texas would mind it much?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 2:10 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,203
I think if Texas had remained independent it would become like Argentina.

No question that European settlement would have continued with tons of Italians and Irish and Germans pouring in through Galveston (just as they really did in the real time line), which have become a massive subtropical port city surrounded by swamp and grassland just like Buenos Aires. We'd have been joined somewhat more with Mexico(absent Santa Anna later on maybe ties would improve). Texas wouldn't have been as unfriendly to non-WASPS in the late 19th/early 20th century so we'd get a Latin flavor no doubt.

However without the US we wouldn't have industrialized as quickly nor would it have access to a ton of capital and we wouldn't have had modern, liberal(in a classic sense) laws enabling an advanced capitalist society. At best we'd have developed a big network of gauge-incompatible railways and tons of industry in one city.

It's entirely likely that a big rural country full of cowboys and ranchers would have turned into an oligarchy. Given the state's populist tendencies I could totally see us picking out a Peron type of guy in the 1930s.

Surely the oil industry here would have taken off and would be important, but absent some of the sophistication and leadership in the 20th century its hard to know if we'd have supermajors headquartered here and all the tech and all the refining and chemical manufacturing too.

The end result would be a moderately large country that would be comparatively poorer than the US or Western Europe despite being mostly white, English speaking, and being relatively stable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 2:14 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Galveston is destroyed by hurricanes and has its growth stunted in any timeline. Geology limits Galveston to about 100,000 no matter what.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 3:10 AM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
I think if Texas had remained independent it would become like Argentina.

No question that European settlement would have continued with tons of Italians and Irish and Germans pouring in through Galveston (just as they really did in the real time line), which have become a massive subtropical port city surrounded by swamp and grassland just like Buenos Aires. We'd have been joined somewhat more with Mexico(absent Santa Anna later on maybe ties would improve). Texas wouldn't have been as unfriendly to non-WASPS in the late 19th/early 20th century so we'd get a Latin flavor no doubt.

However without the US we wouldn't have industrialized as quickly nor would it have access to a ton of capital and we wouldn't have had modern, liberal(in a classic sense) laws enabling an advanced capitalist society. At best we'd have developed a big network of gauge-incompatible railways and tons of industry in one city.

It's entirely likely that a big rural country full of cowboys and ranchers would have turned into an oligarchy. Given the state's populist tendencies I could totally see us picking out a Peron type of guy in the 1930s.

Surely the oil industry here would have taken off and would be important, but absent some of the sophistication and leadership in the 20th century its hard to know if we'd have supermajors headquartered here and all the tech and all the refining and chemical manufacturing too.

The end result would be a moderately large country that would be comparatively poorer than the US or Western Europe despite being mostly white, English speaking, and being relatively stable.
I picture a weak central government and city states that carve up the land into their respective economic regions. Cotton was king until around 1890 when pests destroyed crops on a biblical level.

A glimpse into an alternate reality:
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

"Such then is the human condition , that to wish greatness for one's country is to wish harm to one's neighbor" Voltaire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 3:13 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,254
You mean to tell me that King of the Hill wasn't a documentary!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 3:38 AM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
I think if Texas had remained independent it would become like Argentina.

No question that European settlement would have continued with tons of Italians and Irish and Germans pouring in through Galveston (just as they really did in the real time line), which have become a massive subtropical port city surrounded by swamp and grassland just like Buenos Aires. We'd have been joined somewhat more with Mexico(absent Santa Anna later on maybe ties would improve). Texas wouldn't have been as unfriendly to non-WASPS in the late 19th/early 20th century so we'd get a Latin flavor no doubt.

However without the US we wouldn't have industrialized as quickly nor would it have access to a ton of capital and we wouldn't have had modern, liberal(in a classic sense) laws enabling an advanced capitalist society. At best we'd have developed a big network of gauge-incompatible railways and tons of industry in one city.

It's entirely likely that a big rural country full of cowboys and ranchers would have turned into an oligarchy. Given the state's populist tendencies I could totally see us picking out a Peron type of guy in the 1930s.

Surely the oil industry here would have taken off and would be important, but absent some of the sophistication and leadership in the 20th century its hard to know if we'd have supermajors headquartered here and all the tech and all the refining and chemical manufacturing too.

The end result would be a moderately large country that would be comparatively poorer than the US or Western Europe despite being mostly white, English speaking, and being relatively stable.
The Argentina comparison is actually quite apt. However allow me to express that without having the US federal government Texas would have been forced to develop its own financial and political class to a much more serious degree.

I dont think there is any reason to think Texas would be less sophisticated than in our version, if anything they probably would need to become more sophisticated earlier because of the pressure of being an independent nation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 3:52 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,530
a better comparison is that independent texas would have been north america's uruguay or europe's belgium.

wedged between two larger rival countries and keeping them at bay from each other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 4:05 AM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
I think if Texas had remained independent it would become like Argentina.

No question that European settlement would have continued with tons of Italians and Irish and Germans pouring in through Galveston (just as they really did in the real time line), which have become a massive subtropical port city surrounded by swamp and grassland just like Buenos Aires. We'd have been joined somewhat more with Mexico(absent Santa Anna later on maybe ties would improve). Texas wouldn't have been as unfriendly to non-WASPS in the late 19th/early 20th century so we'd get a Latin flavor no doubt.

However without the US we wouldn't have industrialized as quickly nor would it have access to a ton of capital and we wouldn't have had modern, liberal(in a classic sense) laws enabling an advanced capitalist society. At best we'd have developed a big network of gauge-incompatible railways and tons of industry in one city.

It's entirely likely that a big rural country full of cowboys and ranchers would have turned into an oligarchy. Given the state's populist tendencies I could totally see us picking out a Peron type of guy in the 1930s.

Surely the oil industry here would have taken off and would be important, but absent some of the sophistication and leadership in the 20th century its hard to know if we'd have supermajors headquartered here and all the tech and all the refining and chemical manufacturing too.

The end result would be a moderately large country that would be comparatively poorer than the US or Western Europe despite being mostly white, English speaking, and being relatively stable.
If Texas continued as its own country, it would have existed with more English influence than Latin. In fact, this is the entire reason Texas left Mexico. Texas, all the way to California, was filled with American settlers and Mexico knew this. That is why Mexico cut off Texas from trade with America. Which cut off Texas entire economy and spurred the entire Texas revolution. That is why the Republic of Texas paid homage to America so much during its existence. Including a flag similar to America’s and a constitution similar to America’s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 4:32 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,258
Delete
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 4:33 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,258
IMHO:

Dallas: Southern (Great Plains)
Waco/Killeen: Southern (Upland South)
Houston: Deep Southern (New South)
East Texas: Deep Southern (Old South)
Beaumont: Deep Southern (Texas Creole)
Galveston & Corpus Christi: Deep Southern (Gulf Coast)
San Antonio & Corpus Christi: Southwestern (Tejano)
Rio Grande Valley: Southwestern (Mexican-American)
El Paso: Southwestern (Border)
Big Bend: Southwestern (Frontier)
Fort Worth: Western (Railroad)
Panhandle: Western (Frontier)

These two carry no real cultural attachments to the rest of the country and are really their own identities altogether:

Austin: Gentrifying Texan Appalachia
Hill Country: German Napa Valley

Yes, I listed Corpus twice. Anyone who knows the city knows that it, of all places, is the city that most straddles the line between southern and southwestern here in Texas.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 7:02 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
An independent Texas may have resulted in the US Southwest/ Northern Mexico looking very differently as Texas's admission to the US in 1845 more or less kicked off the Mexican American War. The US as a power could have been reduced; lack of a west Coast and Mexico could have been a bigger player.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 2:37 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
disneypilled verhoevenist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: saint louis
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcexpress69 View Post
KC probably feels western if you're from the rustbelt, and even though both cities are in the same state, it shares nothing in common with St. Louis. Living here most of my life, I can acknowledge that it definitely is or was a cowtown, but it doesn't feel western like say Denver, Albuquerque, or Phoenix.:

having lived in both, kansas city and st. louis share a certain era of urban development, sort of at the fringe of st louis city and more in the inner pre-war suburbs...tile roofing, spanish revival influence (a house from my st louis suburb is a top search result) in even commercial architecture (theres bits and pieces of plaza-like architecture scattered around)...i don’t see as much of that east of st. louis.

older core areas of st louis are much less like kansas city/dallas/okc and the newer suburbs are different...kc really has the suburban square mile grid thing down on the kansas side combined with other subtle metroplex features. way more good mexican food, even tex-mex thats almost like the kc varient of tex-mex.
__________________
You may Think you are vaccinated but are you Maxx-Vaxxed ™!? Find out how you can “Maxx” your Covid-36 Vaxxination today!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2020, 6:52 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,818
Texas is at the intersection of the South, Southwest and possibly Midwest.

While it may not represent all of Texas, SXSW (south by southwest), held in Austin is named because Austin sits directly at the transition point between south and southwest from a geologic and climate perspective. If you ask the founders they would say there is a culture mix as well.

The eastern half of the metro is "Southern" coastal plains with clay based soil, pine and oak trees that run right up to the Balcones fault line. On the west side of the fault line the metro is "Southwest" where the soil is rocky, terrain extreme, and vegetation consisting mainly of cedar/juniper, cactus and scrub.

The climate sits right at the intersection of sub-tropical "Gulf" patterns typical of Houston, and semi-arid "Chihuahuan Desert" patterns typical of west texas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2020, 1:52 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
I think if Texas had remained independent it would become like Argentina.

No question that European settlement would have continued with tons of Italians and Irish and Germans pouring in through Galveston (just as they really did in the real time line), which have become a massive subtropical port city surrounded by swamp and grassland just like Buenos Aires. We'd have been joined somewhat more with Mexico(absent Santa Anna later on maybe ties would improve). Texas wouldn't have been as unfriendly to non-WASPS in the late 19th/early 20th century so we'd get a Latin flavor no doubt.

However without the US we wouldn't have industrialized as quickly nor would it have access to a ton of capital and we wouldn't have had modern, liberal(in a classic sense) laws enabling an advanced capitalist society. At best we'd have developed a big network of gauge-incompatible railways and tons of industry in one city.

It's entirely likely that a big rural country full of cowboys and ranchers would have turned into an oligarchy. Given the state's populist tendencies I could totally see us picking out a Peron type of guy in the 1930s.

Surely the oil industry here would have taken off and would be important, but absent some of the sophistication and leadership in the 20th century its hard to know if we'd have supermajors headquartered here and all the tech and all the refining and chemical manufacturing too.

The end result would be a moderately large country that would be comparatively poorer than the US or Western Europe despite being mostly white, English speaking, and being relatively stable.
The US being the US, Texas wouldn't have been independent long. The US would have eventually annexed it, especially once oil was discovered. American settlers were already in Texas, and American businessmen would have pushed for annexation. Look what the US did with Hawaii; the US basically overthrew an internationally recognized sovereign nation purely in the name of capitalism. It's sad what happened to Hawaii.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:13 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.