I'm not sure I completely understand you (your use of punctuation is rather creative), but I would venture a guess that Houston would likely be named Houston provided it was named about the same time (compare to Austin, also named after a prominent early Texan) and, more importantly, would likely develop along the same lines up to the 1960s. The main driver of Houston's growth has been its position as a port, which is somewhat inevitable (Galveston being supplanted due to hurricane exposure, as OTL, is going to happen eventually, and Houston happens to be located in virtually the same place. Very convenient), and the oil industry, which again is rather inevitable (without a POD millions of years ago, at least). While you could fiddle things around so that it was more or less important, it's likely to end up an important port and oil industry center on the upper Texas coast eventually.