HOUSTON? We have a Problem

[JManc]

^ is it me or is the Transco beacon not as bright as it used to be where it was a huge spotlight beam that rotated around.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ is it me or is the Transco beacon not as bright as it used to be where it was a huge spotlight beam that rotated around.

Maybe. I don't see it often enough. And I think it was turned off a couple of times when I was in town last year.

When the beacon was new, they had the beam aimed lower, until residents of those two condo towers in Greenway complained about the giant spotlight flashing into their apartments.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

In the 1960 metro definitions and population, Dallas and Fort Worth were separate metropolitan areas at 1.08 and .57 million, respectively.

Dallas alone was comparable to Cincy, New Orleans, Denver, Atlanta, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, Milwaukee, San Diego, Buffalo, and Seattle (all in the roughly 900k-1.3m range). Dallas was a major and large metropolitan area by the standards of that time, not a minor large or even middling city. Dallas is in the middle of the pack here in 1960, but today the Dallas metropolitan division (5.4m) is substantially larger than all but Atlanta, Houston, and Miami.

Fort Worth alone was comparable to Birmingham, Columbus, Dayton, Memphis, Louisville, Norfolk, Phoenix, Providence, Rochester, Sacramento, Riverside, San Antonio, San Jose, Syracuse, Tampa, and Toledo (all roughly 500k to 900k) and most of these were considered large, if secondary, metropolitan areas. Fort Worth is in the low to middle end of the pack here, and was also appreciably larger any southern metropolitan area not listed anywhere in this post. Today, however, the Fort Worth metro division (2.7m) is significantly larger than all but Phoenix and Riverside (which it is smaller than) and Sacramento, Tampa, and San Antonio (to which it is comparable).

Both of them were larger than Tulsa (418k).

Dallas+Fort Worth (y’all are talking about the 1960s, so I feel comfortable combining them since the 1960s is the decade development overflow from Dallas changed the population dynamics enough that the metropolitan area merger was done in 1973) combined is comparable to Minneapolis, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. (all between 1.4m and 2.0m).

The only metropolitan areas that were larger than that last tier listed above at the time were:
1. New York (10.7m)
2. Los Angeles (6.7m) and Chicago (6.2m)
3. Philadelphia (4.3m) and Detroit (3.8m)
4. San Francisco (2.7m), Boston (2.5m) and Pittsburgh (2.4m)

A combined DFW would have been the 11th largest metropolitan area at the time.

https://www2.census.gov/library/publ...ts/pc-s1-1.pdf

On the flip side, to show Fort Worth’s importance:
than and the Fort Worth division (2.7m)

This is why the feds made the area cooperate to build DFW Airport because at the time it was already pretty sizeable.

Originally Posted by JManc

Part of the UT System, yes but in no way connected to UT Austin.

Lol well I didn't say UT-Austin but maybe should have added "system" after uni for clarity. Didn't know that about Baylor. Houston really dropped the ball with UT's attempt at creating a UT-Houston on the sw side. That would have brought more research development long term but the city caved to UH.