KB0679 |
Nov 28, 2019 12:10 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae
(Post 8760793)
DFW isn't known for higher education, but the University of Texas system has two large public universities in the metro area (UTA and UTD) which are both vastly improving, especially UTD. Then you also have UNT. Meanwhile, a metro of similar size in Houston only has the Univ. of Houston. UofH has had the hardest time getting into one of the better college conferences. It couldn't get into the Big 12 because state leaders at the time of its formation deliberately left it out. Texas A&M is I guess nearby at about 2-2.5 hours away.
|
I gotcha, but what needs to be kept in mind here is that universities are city-based and not really metro-based, at least when you consider the time when they were founded. Metro Houston truly does dominate its metro whereas the Metroplex has a handful of smaller cities besides Dallas and Fort Worth. But at least things are somewhat balanced out with Houston having Rice and the states's two public four-year HBCUs. It could be closer to the situation between Charlotte and the Triangle where the latter gets the most, the best, and the most variety in institutions of higher learning.
Quote:
DFW received a bunch of federal and state funding to construct multiple area lakes, which helped with flooding and protecting groundwater. Houston did not receive that same benefit and because of it has had big problems with subsidence.
|
I'm wondering if Houston's coastal location versus DFW's inland location played some sort of role there.
Quote:
For military, DFW has Carswell AFB (Naval Air Station Joint Reserve) in Fort Worth, Armed Forces Reserve Complex and Hensley Field are both in Grand Prairie. Houston's only installation (Ellington Field) closed a while ago. The Austin and San Antonio areas both have multiple large military bases/installations. Having those military bases helped transition some of these cities into new economies (like San Antonio with cyber security).
|
The military seems to be more consequential for San Antonio and the smaller Texas cities and truthfully, most cities whose economies are dominated/defined by the military don't tend to be the most dynamic or prosperous. While San Antonio is indeed growing at a rapid clip, it's not getting the same types of tech/corporate office development as the other large Texas cities. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic at work in places like Hampton Roads and Fayetteville, NC. I think Houston is a lot better off with NASA and the port being its recipients of government largesse.
Quote:
On top of all that, the governor of Texas seems to be leaving Houston out of current expansion in the state, unless it involves an energy company. Looking back at Texas history, most governors have been from the I-35 Corridor of the state, so maybe it shouldn't be a surprise the 35 Corridor is the area of Texas which has received the most economic help from the government, which has boosted the different economies.
|
Now that truly does suck, especially with Houston having a respectable higher education profile as well as the behemoth that is TMC. It's not uncommon for states to play favorites at times with its metropolitan areas for the purposes of economic development unfortunately, and a lot of times that's tied to a state's political history and the regions that traditionally held power. It sucks even more when you consider that Houston is arguably the critically most important city in the state due to its coastal location. It's impressive that it still continues to do relatively well considering the cyclical economic fluctuations it usually undergoes as well as the recent weather events it has experienced.
|