Texas Capitol Views

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by bluedogok

There are no guaranteed views from a piece of private property, those views can be changed at anytime by an adjacent property owner. Laws and rules are always subject to change so nothing is guaranteed. If you are paying a premium for a "view" then if you want to maintain it then you should be prepared to buy what can get in the way. To me that is akin to someone in Chicago protesting a tower going up between them and Lake Michigan, if that view is worth that much to you then spend more to buy where it won't be blocked.

I personally feel the downtown views are more important than capitol view corridors, but then I am not, nor will I ever consider myself a Texan. So if they stay or don't it isn't that big of a concern to me and those that who are more passionate on both sides of the issue should make those decisions.

Commercially, I agree with you.... but the Capitol views are more akin to buying on a city park..... or on the water. Those are views you should be able, to some reasonable sense, rely on.

And I am not native here, but have been here quite a while. The capitol, to me , is only partially about Texas ( I actually vomit at most of what goes on there!) It is also about a beautiful historic landmark of a building that helps define the image of a city. It still makes me stop and take note each day I see it.

[bluedogok]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

The capitol, to me , is only partially about Texas ( I actually vomit at most of what goes on there!) It is also about a beautiful historic landmark of a building that helps define the image of a city. It still makes me stop and take note each day I see it.

I have been here just shy of 4 years, while I like Austin and really have no desire to live anywhere else in Texas it is not where I envision living my life out, I see a few more years here at the most before moving to Colorado. but I will always be interested in what goes on here just like I am about OKC and Dallas.

Originally Posted by MichaelB

The capitol, to me , is only partially about Texas ( I actually vomit at most of what goes on there!) It is also about a beautiful historic landmark of a building that helps define the image of a city. It still makes me stop and take note each day I see it.

I agree that what goes on there is pretty bad most of the time. I do think the majority of the views should be preserved, it would be terrible if all of them went away but looking at the map some of them just seem like overkill. I think if a few go away for the advancement of the city, that is not much of a loss for the positive impact they could have but in no way should they all be lost, a balance is the key.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

...A lot of people forget that even with corridors you can still develope there to a certain height and make it dense. As alexjon mentioned, they've done it in places like DC, Paris, London, etc. Look up the town of Victoria, BC, Canada. It has nothing over 300 feet but it's a wonderfully dense and vibrant city...

I would LOVE to see Austin employ the principals of modern urbanism which have long been established in DC, Paris and London. And, I too, think Victoria, BC is a beautiful and well planned city. Nonetheless, it is one-quarter the size of Austin and DC, Paris, and London are ~4.5-times, ~7.5-times and ~8.5-times bigger, respectively. Thus, it’s difficult to compare them directly.

When it comes to urban development, each of the aforementioned cities has approached and embraced urban development (e.g., height and density issues) differently. Focusing on the larger cities of DC, Paris & London; all had their original plans laid out before Austin was even a twinkle in a Texan’s eye (e.g., DC: 1790AD; Paris: ~50BC; and London: 47AD). Additionally, both Paris and London conducted a major modernization of their cities in the 1840s & 1850s – in which block after block of older commercial and residential buildings were raised for the denser, urban structures you see today.

Austin, on the other hand, was in its infancy. Modern urbanism was not in the vocabulary of anyone who lived around here at that time. And even now, in order to remotely emulate the type of density we see in DC, Paris, or London; we’re going to ALL have to embrace the idea of modern urbanism. In our immediate future, this will be a tall order, considering the stance in which neighborhoods surrounding central Austin have taken recently. They’re very much against dense, urban growth, especially when it encroaches upon their homes – even though they live less than 1 mile from the State Capitol.

In DC, one must travel several miles out from the U.S. Capitol to even get a hint of single-family, “suburban-like” residences with actual front and back yards. And in Paris or London, yards are pretty much an extinct amenity. There, one must travel at least 15 miles out from their respective centers to see any homes with actual yards. Suburban-like homes are truly an American “invention.”

Modern urbanism was born in European cities roughly 170 years ago and is only recently catching-on here in the States, especially in cities west of the Mississippi River. It is my belief that dense urban developments somewhat similar to what is seen in Paris or London can and will be constructed in Austin. However, to obtain the type of urbanism one sees in these European cities, it will require sound planning and many years of educating (and/or re-educating) citizens on why this type of development is advantageous for the community as a whole.

It will happen, eventually. I have faith and am eagerly awaiting the day!