Texas Capitol view corridor debate

KevinFromTexas · #1 Posted: **Feb 14, 2007, 3:37 PM**

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).

JACKinBeantown · #2 Posted: **Mar 6, 2007, 5:35 AM**

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 · #3 Posted: **Mar 7, 2007, 5:02 AM**

^ 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 · #4 Posted: **Mar 7, 2007, 10:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

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 �

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 · #5 Posted: **Mar 7, 2007, 1:09 PM**

Someone in Austin should go represent the corridors! Please.

Gallup · #6 Posted: **Mar 7, 2007, 6:56 PM**

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 · #7 Posted: **Mar 8, 2007, 3:22 AM**

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

rad707 · #8 Posted: **Mar 8, 2007, 3:23 PM**

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 · #9 Posted: **Mar 8, 2007, 4:11 PM**

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.

JACKinBeantown · #10 Posted: **Mar 9, 2007, 3:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rad707

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 · #11 Posted: **Mar 9, 2007, 4:45 AM**

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 · #12 Posted: **Mar 9, 2007, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #13 Posted: **Mar 9, 2007, 7:13 PM**

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 · #14 Posted: **Mar 10, 2007, 1:52 AM**

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 · #15 Posted: **Mar 10, 2007, 3:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinNYC

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 · #16 Posted: **Mar 11, 2007, 5:19 AM**

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 · #17 Posted: **Mar 13, 2007, 1:05 PM**

I refer to this quote:

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 · #18 Posted: **Mar 13, 2007, 1:51 PM**

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 · #19 Posted: **Mar 13, 2007, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinNYC

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 · #20 Posted: **Mar 14, 2007, 1:26 AM**

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.