[KevinFromTexas]

Debate the Capitol view corridors here. Please don't get off topic in other threads and let it go to arguing. Keep it civil folks.

I've assembled a few Capitol View Corridor maps here. Click on each thumbnail to view the larger version, (image opens in new window).

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3322/austinmapscapitolviewcodn9.th.jpg (http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=austinmapscapitolviewcodn9.jpg)

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/6416/austincapitolviewcorridpa9.th.jpg (http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=austincapitolviewcorridpa9.jpg)

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8049/austincapitolviewcorridmj8.th.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=austincapitolviewcorridmj8.jpg)

[JACKinBeantown]

Gotta protect the view corridors! Once they're gone, they're gone forever. This building rates about a 5 out of 10. I'd give the capitol building a 10.

[KevinFromTexas]

^ I agree. I doubt any highrise, no matter how good or tall could compete for the greatness of the Capitol. I get peeved at the people who would even slightly suggest that the view corridors should go away. Now there are some that aren't really needed or some that are already blocked because of tree growth. But I'm fully against doing away with any of them until they're determined to really not be necessary, such as some that are already blocked, or redundant ones like along I-35 that will eventaully go away anyway because of reconstruction of I-35. The view corridors are also a way of promoting density by forcing developers to put more density into their projects, (more height), and to push architects to come up with more innovative designs.

[LoneStarMike]

But I'm fully against doing away with any of them until they're determined to really not be necessary, such as some that are already blocked, or redundant ones like along I-35 that will eventaully go away anyway because of reconstruction of I-35.

As a matter of fact, the view corridors are being discussed today.

Downtown Commission

Downtown Development Committee

Wednesday, March 7, 2007
12:00 noon
City Hall – Board & Commission Room (Room 1101)
301 W. Second St.

— AGENDA — (http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/agenda/2007/do_dodev_030707.htm)

12:00 1. Call to Order

12:01 2. Downtown Development – Capitol View Corridors

review of view corridor information


discussion and action on recommendations

1:30 3. Adjourn

[JACKinBeantown]

Someone in Austin should go represent the corridors! Please.

[Gallup]

LoneStarMike please let us know what happens if you happen to find out. Any CVC that is to be seen from a car should be eliminated. Excluding Congress of course. We don't have enough land in our CBD. Many will disagree with me today, in time they might not.

[JACKinBeantown]

I disagree with you today. In time if the corridors are taken away it won't matter, will it?

[rad707]

It seems that the discussion around corridors is all or nothing. They will never be removed entirely. It is a matter of keeping the right ones and doing away with those that are frivolous.

If you notice on the map, almost an 1/8 of downtown is restricted to provide good views of the capitol from the upper decks. This is rediculous. Protecting views from a highway is not as important as densification and, ultimately, a more lively downtown Austin. This would be one i would remove, but there are plenty of others I would insist on keeping. Enfield. Lamar. And on. And on.

[greenbelt]

My favorite capitol view will never be taken away, and that's Congress Avenue.
You can see the dome for miles away, and this folks will never change.

:cheers:

[JACKinBeantown]

Protecting views from a highway is not as important as densification and, ultimately, a more lively downtown Austin.

Again, I disagree. A couple hundred thousand people drive on that highway every day and have a nice view of the capitol that they might not otherwise have because they can't afford to live in the buildings that would block those views. The government (and its many beautiful buildings) are supposed to be for the people... not the select few. Although that hasn't seemed the case the last few years.

And a more lively downtown doesn't happen because of densification. That will just create more traffic. A lively downtown is the result of thoughtful planning/zoning and subsequent resulting businesses such as restaurants, bars, stores and other people friendly storefronts and businesses, as well as pedestrian friendly planning, at the street level.

[KevinFromTexas]

I agree that some of the views from I-35 could be taken away, but I'm only talking about 1 or 2 at the very most. Generally, I'm opposed to removing any that aren't similar to another one. What I mean is, get rid of one or two of the redundant ones, and leave the rest. I also disagree that all the views should be removed from I-35. I-35 is the busiest interstate highway in the United States with thousands of travelers on it every day. Some of those views should be kept simply because they provide a view to such a large amount of people. Even aboard a Capital Metro bus on I-35 you'd have a view of the dome. It should stay that way.

[tennreb]

I agree that some of the views from I-35 could be taken away, but I'm only talking about 1 or 2 at the very most. Generally, I'm opposed to removing any that aren't similar to another one. What I mean is, get rid of one or two of the redundant ones, and leave the rest. I also disagree that all the views should be removed from I-35. I-35 is the busiest interstate highway in the United States with thousands of travelers on it every day. Some of those views should be kept simply because they provide a view to such a large amount of people. Even aboard a Capital Metro bus on I-35 you'd have a view of the dome. It should stay that way.

I-35 hopefully will eventually be trenched with cantilevered frontage roads. You won't be able to see anything then. Austin should go ahead and start building some height along the interstate so that you can actually see buildings when the road is trenched.

[Jdawgboy]

I agree only to an extent about I-35 because eventually it will be rebuilt but at the same time, it wont be re-built for quite awhile still. They are just now beggining to expand the freeway on the northside from Yager toward Round Rock. And even when I-35 is rebuilt there will be sections that will still be raised so they should keep careful mind of what they build along the northeast section along the freeway.

[JACKinBeantown]

Donald Trump was supposed to rebuild the Westside Highway underground in exchange for the rights to build his 13 building complex between 59th and 72nd streets. That never happened. I would bet money that the outcome in Austin will be similar. And even if it does happen, it wil be decades from now. Keep the view corridors.

[rad707]

And a more lively downtown doesn't happen because of densification. That will just create more traffic. A lively downtown is the result of thoughtful planning/zoning and subsequent resulting businesses such as restaurants, bars, stores and other people friendly storefronts and businesses, as well as pedestrian friendly planning, at the street level.

You're contradicting yourself. Population densification does not create more traffic in and of itself. If anything, your idea of blindly building more storefronts without population densification will do just that. Drive by the corner of 6th & Red River on a Thursday night. Now drive by that same corner on a Friday morning. You may get an idea of what storefronts without residents results in.

You don't go downtown much, do you? And if you do, it's at night, right? Austin is anything but lively during the day - perhaps with the exception of Congress - and I would argue that it's downtown already has more storefronts than any other downtown West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies.

Your insistance on maintaining corridors that come at such a large expense leads me to believe that the closest you often get to downtown is on the very same road you insist needs protection. If I were to view the corridors from that same populist/socialist perspective, I would argue that densifying downtown Austin will come as a benefit to public housing, our city's crumbling infrastructure of utilities, our city's tax base, and our city's promise to become more sensitive to environmental concerns such as water quality and carbon emmissions.

Or yes, we could keep the I-35 corridors and status quo.

[JACKinBeantown]

Rad... peace out, man.
Kevin, thanks for pointing out the obvious that apparently needed to be pointed out.

And instead of driving by the corner of 6th & Red River and creating more traffic... try walking. It's easier to walk into a store on foot. :)

Come to NYC sometime and see how nice it is to have storefronts with restaurants, bars, stores, cafes, etc. everywhere. More people-friendly stuff at the street level is always better in urban areas. Always.

[M1EK]

I refer to this quote:

Come to NYC sometime and see how nice it is to have storefronts with restaurants, bars, stores, cafes, etc. everywhere. More people-friendly stuff at the street level is always better in urban areas. Always

Again, Austin's requiring that all new construction downtown have streetfront retail and has been doing so for at least 15 years.

[JACKinBeantown]

Good. I'm glad to hear it. That's proof that Austin as a city cares about the people's quality of life. Now, if they can preserve the view corridors as they've done for at least two or three times that long, then the views of the capitol building will be preserved for those not fortunate enough to be able to afford to live in downtown highrises.

[M1EK]

Good. I'm glad to hear it. That's proof that Austin as a city cares about the people's quality of life. Now, if they can preserve the view corridors as they've done for at least two or three times that long, then the views of the capitol building will be preserved for those not fortunate enough to be able to afford to live in downtown highrises.

Another way to look at it is that if New York leaders had insisted on "Statue of Liberty view corridors", Manhattan would have wide swaths of low-density development right in the middle just like Austin does, and the vibrant street-level culture you (and I) love would be nowhere near as good as it is today.

Certain areas of downtown are a disaster area because of these things - like the spots around Republic Square. Land is too expensive to be used at the heights that the view corridors mandate, but nobody can make a profit on a development at those heights - so we end up with surface parking lots and semi-abandoned 1-and-2-story buildings right in the heart of downtown. Just mindbogglingly stupid.

[JACKinBeantown]

Actually, NYC has many neighborhoods (Greenwich Village, Hell's Kitchen for example) which are historic districts with new building height restrictions. Those neighborhoods virtually have no buildings higher than 7 floors. They are some of the most people friendly, vibrant neighborhoods in the city. The low buildings also allow for great views of the city from the Westside Highway and other places. That's a great thing. It's not all about money. :)

[BrianSac]

Actually, NYC has many neighborhoods (Greenwich Village, Hell's Kitchen for example) which are historic districts with new building height restrictions. Those neighborhoods virtually have no buildings higher than 7 floors. They are some of the most people friendly, vibrant neighborhoods in the city. The low buildings also allow for great views of the city from the Westside Highway and other places. That's a great thing. It's not all about money. :)

Many european cities are at the 5 to 10 story height which make for great neighborhoods. I agree Jack.

[BrianSac]

Another way to look at it is that if New York leaders had insisted on "Statue of Liberty view corridors", Manhattan would have wide swaths of low-density development right in the middle just like Austin does, and the vibrant street-level culture you (and I) love would be nowhere near as good as it is today.

Certain areas of downtown are a disaster area because of these things - like the spots around Republic Square. Land is too expensive to be used at the heights that the view corridors mandate, but nobody can make a profit on a development at those heights - so we end up with surface parking lots and semi-abandoned 1-and-2-story buildings right in the heart of downtown. Just mindbogglingly stupid.

Actually, my original point was about preserving the capitol view corridors. So who should check facts? :)

yes, i agree

[M1EK]

Many european cities are at the 5 to 10 story height which make for great neighborhoods. I agree Jack.

I love those neighborhoods in NYC too, but many of the Capitol View Corridors here mandate not a 5-10 story height, but a 1-2 story height. How about reading, first, before you guys respond next time?

[KevinFromTexas]

Bump.

[alexjon]

But don't you think that keeping a downtown exclusive and low-rise keeps rents high because of limited units, Jack?

[tennreb]

Low income people should be able to enjoy the Capitol from beautiful downtown parks and trails. They shouldn't be staring at it while driving 70 mph on the interstate. I can't imagine why anyone advocates views from an interstate. Should we put an interstate next to the US Capitol so more people can enjoy its majesty? What if the Vatican built an interstate at the steps of St. Peters? They could charge a toll and pay for all those lawsuits. How about an interstate at the foot of Mount Rushmore? I'm sure a whole lot more people would see it if they didn't have to waste time and money on the viewing platform. Wouldn't an interstate on the Grand Canyon Rim be beautiful? How about an interstate straight through downtown Boston? Tunneling it was such a mistake. How are people supposed to see the city?

[JACKinBeantown]

But don't you think that keeping a downtown exclusive and low-rise keeps rents high because of limited units, Jack?

Think of it this way... for those of us who love skyscrapers, having certain areas where they're not allowed will bring about the need for more dwelling units in locations where they are allowed. That, in turn, will bring about a demand for taller buildings in those locations. Thus, taller skyscrapers.

And yes, I do think having a certain number of shorter buildings help retain a human quality of urban neighborhoods. In NYC, I'd much rather live in Greenwich Village, Tribeca, Hell's Kitchen, or even the Upper West Side than midtown or the financial district.

[MichaelB]

Think of it this way... for those of us who love skyscrapers, having certain areas where they're not allowed will bring about the need for more dwelling units in locations where they are allowed. That, in turn, will bring about a demand for taller buildings in those locations. Thus, taller skyscrapers.

And yes, I do think having a certain number of shorter buildings help retain a human quality of urban neighborhoods. In NYC, I'd much rather live in Greenwich Village, Tribeca, Hell's Kitchen, or even the Upper West Side than midtown or the financial district.

It is an interesting dynamic you point out. Those of us who have chosen to stay in Austin, but love highrises... have been starved for movement. But when I am in NY.... I always stay out in the neighborhoods for exactly the reasons you state. So, I agree, I think the mix of high and low in far more interesting. I never thought of the VC's as forcing this. Hum.

I also feel some of the cooridors are not necessary..... but by and large I think most should be kept.

At one point, I asked the following question on one of the threads, but no one took it on. It requires empathy. Lets say you were a homeowner who had purchased a piece of property that was had a view protected by a VC. You did your homework, knew no one could build to block your view, knew part of the premium you paid was due to the view..... and now the rule might be changed..... you loose the view and your property is devalued. A: How would you feel ( and don't dodge the question)? B: Do you think you should be compensated for your devalued property if the law is changed?

Please answer this truly with your feet firmly planted in the shoes of others..... even folks on the east side of I-35!

[JACKinBeantown]

That's a perfect example of how big businesses have been getting rights of eminent domain when it's supposed to be reserved specifically for projects that are necessary for the greater good (e.g. - roads that need to be widened, etc.). But recent governmental figures and judiciary appointees ahve seen fit to take people's land and give rights to businesses when that's not the intention of the law. They've also chosen to rezone properties in favor of big business with ties to members of the government (think of Brooklyn and the Nets). The homeowner who did his/her homework to have that view has every right to keep that view, because that was the law that existed. And if the government decided to take it away to give to a business, that business should have to pay that homeowner big... even though it should never have happened in the first place.

[M1EK]

Think of it this way... for those of us who love skyscrapers, having certain areas where they're not allowed will bring about the need for more dwelling units in locations where they are allowed.

In Austin, there are very very few places where tall buildings are allowed. But even if there were many such places, the logic is fundamentally flawed - as alexjon said, you'll raise the price of housing higher than it would be if the view corridors did not exist - if you just shift that demand to allowable plots, you've still removed some potential supply; you haven't added any.

[KevinFromTexas]

Think of it this way... for those of us who love skyscrapers, having certain areas where they're not allowed will bring about the need for more dwelling units in locations where they are allowed. That, in turn, will bring about a demand for taller buildings in those locations. Thus, taller skyscrapers.

That's what I had been talking about. It's what I meant when I said that having the Capitol view corridors will promote density, creativity of projects and height.

If a developer is limited to building tall buildings in only a few places, then they'll build really tall in those few places to reach a level of density that is needed to reach the city's goal of 25,000 people downtown, while in the other places projects will be more moderate in height.

It also forces architects to be creative with their designs since part of the block they're designing a tower on might include a view corridor. Imagine a building that is built on that block and has to curve or angle away so that it lies just outside of the view. That could end up creating some interesting designs rather than just boxy buildings that cover the entire block.

Besides preserving the views of the State Capitol, our first and oldest skyscraper, (the first 300+ foot tall building to be built in Texas), it also promotes creativity and height. That's why I'm generally for the view corridors. It basically forces density, creativity and height.

In Austin, there are very very few places where tall buildings are allowed. But even if there were many such places, the logic is fundamentally flawed - as alexjon said, you'll raise the price of housing higher than it would be if the view corridors did not exist - if you just shift that demand to allowable plots, you've still removed some potential supply; you haven't added any.

I see your point. If developers are having to spend more time and money paying architects for those creative designs and taller buildings I spoke of, then it would make sense that prices for units would go up since the cost and perhaps even the time frame for the project's construction may go up.

[chancla]

Hey guys...long time lurker...first time poster. It looks like there's new info today on the view corridors. As much as I like all the new projects in the pipeline...I really look forward to all of the chances I get to see the Capitol from I-35 since I don't live in Austin anymore. Also, everytime I ever returned home through ABIA, I always looked forward to the drive back, being able to see glimpses of that pink dome from the Eastside.


Changes suggested to 12 Capitol view corridors
Austin council advisory board's report sparks dispute over recommendation for area in East Austin.

By Suzannah Gonzales
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, May 10, 2007

Of the 30 city views of the Capitol evaluated by an Austin City Council advisory board, a dozen are being recommended for change.

The Downtown Commission characterizes the changes as mostly technical in nature, accommodating the reality of already restricted views because of development or other obstructions.

But some critics dispute the commission's evaluation, including one recommendation they interpret as eliminating a view from East Austin.

Last fall, the City Council requested that the commission look at Capitol view corridors: planes of sight that extend from various vantage points to the base of the Capitol dome. One goal was to help provide a guide for future downtown development.

A commission subcommittee will meet today to discuss the public comments on the draft.

One concern among East Austin residents and the Heritage Society of Austin centers on the view from South Pleasant Valley Road at South Lakeshore Boulevard.

The recommendation mentions that the landscaping is blocking the view, but the Heritage Society contends that the wording suggests eliminating the corridor, rather than altering the landscaping.

When asked Wednesday about that specific proposal, commission Chairman Jeb Boyt said that the controversy is a misunderstanding and that there are no plans to eliminate the view.

In fact, enacting any recommendations in the report would require approval by the City Council or the Legislature, depending on which corridor it is.

John Donisi, president-elect of the Heritage Society, declined to comment Wednesday, referring to the preservation organization's report produced in response to the commission's draft.

Boyt noted that the commission is proposing to keep 18 view corridors intact and that of the dozen with recommended changes, only three are substantive: deleting or modifying a view corridor that includes Wooldridge Park to allow for redevelopment of nearby lots; adjusting the northern boundary of a view corridor from the MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) bridge, a change that might allow taller developments along West Fifth and Sixth streets; and realigning the view from Interstate 35 between East Seventh and 10th streets, to remove three blocks where the view is obstructed by buildings and where the view is perpendicular to traffic on I-35.

The report also recommends moving the vantage point of the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport view corridor to the former control deck of the tower to accommodate redevelopment and changing the vantage point of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum view corridor to exclude the part of the view that has been blocked by the expansion of the Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium.

The Heritage Society argues that the commission was not suited to evaluate the view corridors and says the input of neighborhood stakeholders was not sought, including in what they consider as the commission's move to eliminate the Pleasant Valley corridor, "the most substantial view corridor benefiting East Austin," the society's report said.

The commission's work has raised concerns in East Austin neighborhoods, said Lori Cervenak Renteria, a member of the East Cesar Chavez neighborhood. "First of all, it's an equity issue. And second, (the corridors offer) a little more protection from increased height, from the skyscrapers that are all wanting to come to the east side."

"I think everyone wants to keep the view corridors," she said. "I think each neighborhood wants to save their view."

Boyt agrees on the importance of the corridors.

"Corridors are very important to Austin and all people of Texas. That's very clear," Boyt said. "I think it's very good to take a look at how they're working."

The city previously studied Capitol views in 1983, when the planning department evaluated about 60 potential view corridors.

sgonzales@statesman.com; 445-3616


The Downtown Commission's draft report is available at www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/downloads/ CVC_Draft_Report_3-29-07.pdf.


More information about Capitol view corridors is available at www.capitolviews.info

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/10/10capitolviews.html

[arbeiter]

I would be fine with keeping it as long as they made extensive changes... like for example, allowing much much higher buildings in other parts of downtown or other parts of the city for that matter. I'd also be amenable to 5-10 story height limits but I imagine the economics wouldn't click for a city like Austin (CBD only mind you). I support a system where developers can 'pay' for the corridor, and that money can be used to subsidize lower-income efforts around downtown.

The capitol is beautiful but it's still largely obscured these days anyway, it's not like St. Paul's Cathedral or anything.

But I'm only okay with keeping it purely for aesthetics and design, all of this bullcrap about lower-income residents, blah blah blah, is total hogwash. The one corridor where you can always see the capitol is congress - and that'll never get paved over. Otherwise, Austin is too low rise for anyone else to really see it unless they're either at Barton Creek Mall, in the upper-income west side, or on the highway. And keep your eyes on the road.

[arbeiter]

One concern among East Austin residents and the Heritage Society of Austin centers on the view from South Pleasant Valley Road at South Lakeshore Boulevard.

The recommendation mentions that the landscaping is blocking the view, but the Heritage Society contends that the wording suggests eliminating the corridor, rather than altering the landscaping.

Oh god, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. That part of town has nothing historical attached to it, it's Austin's most embarassing neighborhood - one mile from downtown and you've got sprawling parking lots, ghetto 1960's apartments, and a 6-lane road which has empty land for an aborted freeway. What they should be doing is trying to lobby to get the neighborhood transformed... the few people who can see the capitol from that neighborhood are probably college students on the highest floors of their suburban dorms. Or if you happen to park your car above the Taco Cabana. Really special!

[sakyle04]

At one point, I asked the following question on one of the threads, but no one took it on. It requires empathy. Lets say you were a homeowner who had purchased a piece of property that was had a view protected by a VC. You did your homework, knew no one could build to block your view, knew part of the premium you paid was due to the view..... and now the rule might be changed..... you loose the view and your property is devalued. A: How would you feel ( and don't dodge the question)? B: Do you think you should be compensated for your devalued property if the law is changed?

How would I feel? I might be disappointed. I'm a little non-traditional, though. Maybe my view is partially blocked by a very cool skyscraper. Then, I'd actually be happy.

Do I think I should be compensated? No. One, I don't think the value of my property is going to capsize anyway - and, two, if the value of the property is tied to the view of the Capitol that closely, I have bigger problems.

Moreso, I just don't think they are any sort of property right. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected (maybe they should maybe not). I just think that the idea that somehow we could quantify the value of seeing a building that is (potentially) miles away is preposturous.

If I buy a condo that has a Capitol view, unless it is in a contract that the view is a permanent fixture guaranteed forever, the condo developer owes me nothing if another condo come up and blocks my view during construction. It should be the same for other properties, neighborhoods.


And if the idea that fewer available parcels of land makes the remaining (non-VC) parcels even more special for creative projects, density, and height...wouldn't logic say that having fewer VCs would make the remaining ones (Congress Ave, etc...) even more special, more desirable, and potentially more ripe for investment and build-up?

[AusTex]

When CVCs were created, were property owners in the VC compensated for the "potential" reduction in property value? Does anyone have the right to a view from private property?

Has the state or city purchased or set aside property and preserved views for future generations? Property like: St. Eds; the hill at the top of Congress opposite the capital; Barton Creek Square; Mt. Barker [next to, and taller than, Mt. Bonnell]; or UT? The answer is no.

At this point I am not sure if any but three or four CVCs should be kept.

I hope we do a better job this generation than have previouse ones. Texans have done a poor job of planning for future generations if money or property rights are involved. Preserving the "public" view or benifit hasn't much mattered in the past.

[Creole_de_Louisiane]

I think that for any capital city it is important to keep views of the Capitol clear. If the views are not protected then it pretty much defeats the purpose of having such a grand scale building that is lost in skyscrapers. I think when city planners do it right, no views are interrupted and the denser developments are further away from the government complexes. Capitol buildings for the most part add great character to a city and when that's lost, the city seems to lose it's soul. So in closing I'm all for keeping capitol views for any capital city!

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm generally for keeping the view corridors also. Heck, I grew up running around the Capitol grounds as a kid chasing crickets on the great walk. I remember exploring the halls and learning about our state's history. I love the place and it holds a special place in my heart for that reason. And now days that I'm interested in architecture and skyscrapers, I've really come to appreciate it.

However, I think there are a few view corridors that either need to be repaired, (have obstructions removed, power poles/lines moved or trees trimmed. Or else eliminate those corridors. It really should be one or the other because as real estate becomes more valuable and scarce, it makes logical sense to either preserve those views and make them more attractive, or get rid of them and develope those parcels. Of course I'm sort of in the camp that would rather not see them go away except the ones that really make no sense.

I'm in favor of giving the boot to the LBJ Library view which isn't even there any more because of the stadium expansion. Also there are like 3 corridors along I-35, and while I'm in favor of keeping atleast one, maybe two max, it doesn't make sense to have three protected views that are so similar and might be eliminated with future highway projects anyway. Also as the article mentioned, they talked about removing the view from Mueller, and moving it to the old control tower observation deck. I really like that idea, turn that tower into a landmark itself complete with a view of the Capitol dome and atleast part of downtown, then Mueller could be a bit more vertical and urban like we had all hoped it would be.

They also talked about removing the view from Waterloo Park. I would normally be against that, but let's face it, that park isn't exactly some great urban oasis that people are clamoring to visit. I've only been there a handful of times, and even so the view of the dome isn't that great even though it's so nearby. There's a lot of squat state office buildings and what arborists would consider to be trash trees atleast threatening the view already.

[KevinFromTexas]

By the way, I added three corridor maps to the first page of this thread.