Texas Capitol Views

[Tex1899]

Found this in the Houston Chronicle...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4435571.html

Preservationists tout laws protecting the sight lines of a pre-eminent Texas symbol, but developers say some are costing more than they're worth
Easing restrictions: a Capitol offense?


By LISA FALKENBERG
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN — It is a blushing canvas in the sunset. A loyal companion to the UT tower. A guiding star to lost motorists. A vigil bathed in moon glow.

The pink-domed Texas Capitol, viewed from dozens of points across the capital city, is one of the most powerful symbols of Texas heritage. But for all its permanence on the ground, the Capitol's place in the sky appears to be up in the air.

The view of the 1888 state Capitol, from Congress Avenue and from two dozen other locations, has been protected since the 1980s by state-mandated "view corridors."

But with Austin downtown developers clamoring for bigger pieces of sky, the City Council has asked a committee to evaluate the protected viewpoints, for the first time since they were created, to determine whether they are still worthy of protection.

Though the view from South Congress, the tower and other sacred vantage points isn't at risk, other corridors such as the upper deck of Interstate 35 or streets where trees have grown to obstruct the view may be vulnerable if the city finds they're preventing lucrative developments from taking root.

Preservationists strongly oppose the study, saying that modifying or removing even a few more viewpoints would erode the enjoyment of one of the state's precious treasures.

"We don't want Austin to turn into Chicago," said Julian Read, an executive committee member of the half-century-old Heritage Society of Austin. "The thing that has made Austin what it is is its openness, its charm. We don't want it to become a cold canyon of high-rises. We have high-rises popping up like weeds."

Robert Knight, chair of the downtown-development committee studying the issue, said that preserving everything isn't an option in fast-growing Austin, which hopes to quadruple its downtown population over the next decade.

"A city is a growing organism, and if you preserve everything you stop all growth," Knight said. "The best way to do it is to strike a balance and to preserve the most important things."

The committee will take several months to study the issue, he said, touring the city and evaluating the views, grading each and determining how much each costs the city to preserve.

Knight said that one example of a questionable view corridor is the upper deck of southbound I-35. It's a stunning view, but he said highway-construction projects may eventually eliminate the upper deck.

"There are people out there who are wringing their hands and thinking, 'Oh, these people are going to destroy our heritage,' and that's not true. All we're going to do is collect the information and pass it to the council and start the discussion," Knight said. "We, of course, expect this will be, like anything else in Austin, a lively discussion."

He noted that the city can't eliminate a protected view unilaterally; any change ordered by the council would have to be approved by the Texas Legislature.

Though the granite and limestone Capitol was completed in 1888, views of it across Austin weren't protected by state law until the 1980s, when former Houston state Sen. Craig Washington passed a bill establishing building-height restrictions that protected certain view corridors.


Added protections
During the 2001 legislative session, the protections were added to the government code, which dictates the longitude and latitude of Capitol views just as it does the design of the Texas flag.

Washington, now practicing law in Houston, said he was moved to protect Capitol views after a controversy over construction of a tall bank building in the 1980s.

"It was money against beauty, and I thought it was wrong," said Washington, also a former congressman. "I wanted to preserve it for future generations so you wouldn't have to stand a block away from the Capitol to be able to see it."

He went so far as to sponsor a bill that would have created a "District of Travis," similar to the District of Columbia that encompasses the nation's Capitol. Needless to say, the bill didn't get far.

But Washington said it made a point: "It's not just the city of Austin and its citizens who are harmed by the unbridled growth and development of buildings that obscure and obliterate the majestic view of the Capitol. That view belongs to all Texans."

Washington said Austin officials have been good stewards of the Capitol views so far, but he's suspicious of any plan that weighs the value of views against development.

"It sounds like the argument they made before," he said. "What price do you put on it? It's priceless. And if they're doing it for money, shame on them. One day people will look back and say, 'Why didn't somebody stand up and do something about it?' when all the views of the Capitol are blocked, one by one, rationalization after rationalization."

Since the view protections were created, the Legislature has allowed three exceptions, including the upper deck of the Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, street redevelopment in East Austin and redevelopment of a municipal airport, according to Julie Fields, public information coordinator at the state Preservation Board.

And that's quite enough, said Read, the preservationist, who remembers "the most magnificent view you could imagine" of the Capitol when coming over the hill from San Antonio onto Riverside years ago.

"You drive that drive today and you are confronted with an ugly blob of concrete," he said. Read also argues that modifying view corridors now would punish the developers who played by the past rules.

Any corridor changes would likely affect East Austin, where the pink dome overlooks restaurants, small frame houses and public playgrounds.


Eastside bragging rights
Brian Perkins, 39, who has lived in a 1940s bungalow in the area for nine years, before a wave of gentrification brought a construction boom to the historically black neighborhood, said the view of the Capitol has always been "one of the bragging rights" of East Austin.

"I always thought it was like engraved in granite," he said of the view.

His brother-in-law, Jeff Plowman, 42, who can see the Capitol from the front lawn of his 1918 Victorian house fitted with burglar bars, said replacing Capitol views with high-rises of $300,000 condos would be sheer waste.

"I'd much rather see some of the state's history than some yahoo's big profit there," he said.

lisa.falkenberg@chron.com

[bluedogok]

"It was money against beauty, and I thought it was wrong," said Washington, also a former congressman.
I guess that is the reason why he is a former congressman, something was more important to him than money....isn't that considered a sin in Houston :D

It wouldn't bother me to see some (but not all) of the corridors modified to allow some more height.

[KevinFromTexas]

I would like to see the view corridors be left alone as much as possible. There are a few, though, that are a bit redundant.

Here's a PDF file with a map of the corridors.
http://www.planning.unc.edu/pdf/DpaineMP.pdf

Also, I'm noticing a lot of talk by people who are complaining about the new proposed buildings saying that they will block views of the Capitol. Most of these will not block any views of the Capitol and none of them would be allowed to be built within the view corridors either. I dislike all this talk since most of it is coming from people who are misinformed on the subject. This just helps to create more wrong information to be floating around about it and creates more opponents to development which is actually not hurting the views since they're being built outside of the view corridors.

Here's an Austin Chronicle article that talks a little, (not in favor), of these projects and also has a map of the corridors. I had seen a better one once that listed them all and showed where they were, but I can't find that one now.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A378608

[CentralAustin]

I had seen a better one once that listed them all and showed where they were, but I can't find that one now.

Kevin, there's a page on Urban Austin about the corridors. Was this what you were thinking about?

http://www.urbanaustin.org/index.php/Capitol_View_Corridors

[KevinFromTexas]

^ Thanks. That's it, although, I originally saw it on another site.

By the way, Happy New Year!

[Complex01]

What's the view worth?

Web Posted: 01/15/2007 01:07 AM CST

Lisa Falkenberg
Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — It is a blushing canvas in the sunset. A loyal companion to the University of Texas tower. A guiding star to lost motorists. A vigil bathed in moon glow.

The pink-domed Texas Capitol, viewed from dozens of points around the capital city, is one of the most powerful symbols of Texas heritage. But for all its permanence on the ground, the Capitol's place in the sky appears to be up in the air.


The view of the 1888 Capitol, from Congress Avenue and from two dozen other locations, has been protected since the 1980s by state-required "view corridors."

But with Austin's downtown developers clamoring for bigger pieces of sky, the City Council has asked a committee to evaluate the protected viewpoints for the first time since they were created to determine if they are still worthy of protection.

Though the view from South Congress, the tower and other sacred vantage points aren't at risk, other corridors such as the upper deck of Interstate 35 or streets where trees have grown up to obstruct the view may be vulnerable if the city finds they're preventing lucrative developments from taking root.

Preservationists strongly oppose the study, saying that modifying or removing even a few more viewpoints would erode the enjoyment of one of the state's precious treasures.

Capitol trivia
Completed: 1888
Architect: Elijah E. Myers, architect of the Michigan and Colorado capitols

Cost: Zero dollars. Texas paid in land: 3 million acres in the Panhandle that would become the XIT Ranch.

Some protected view corridors: University of Texas' South Mall, Waterloo Park, Lamar Bridge, South Congress at East Live Oak, Barton Creek Pedestrian Bridge, several spots on Interstate 35, Zilker Clubhouse, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library

Source: State Preservation Board, Texas Government Code


"We don't want Austin to turn into Chicago," said Julian Read, an executive committee member of the half-century-old Heritage Society of Austin. "The thing that has made Austin what it is, is its openness, its charm. We don't want it to become a cold canyon of high-rises. We have high-rises popping up like weeds."

Robert Knight, chairman of the downtown development committee studying the issue, said preserving everything isn't an option in fast-growing Austin, which hopes to quadruple its downtown population over the next decade.

"A city is a growing organism, and if you preserve everything you stop all growth," Knight said. "The best way to do it is to strike a balance and to preserve the most important things."


The committee will take several months to study the issue, he said, touring the city and evaluating the views, grading each one and determining how much each costs the city to preserve.

Knight said one example of a questionable view corridor is the upper deck of southbound I-35. It's a stunning view, but he said highway construction projects may eventually eliminate the upper deck, so Austin has to decide if it needs to keep protecting a view that may not exist in another decade.

"There are people out there who are wringing their hands and thinking, 'Oh, these people are going to destroy our heritage,' and that's not true. All we're going to do is collect the information and pass it to the council and start the discussion," Knight said. "We of course expect this will be, like anything else in Austin, a lively discussion."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/D_IMAGE.10fe4f5d140.93.88.fa.d0.3f77b826.jpg

He noted the city can't eliminate a protected view unilaterally; any change ordered by the council would have to be approved by the Legislature.

Views get protection


Though the granite and limestone Capitol was completed in 1888, views of it around Austin weren't protected by state law until the 1980s, when former state Sen. Craig Washington of Houston got a bill passed establishing building height restrictions that protected certain view corridors.
During the 2001 Legislature, the protections were added to the government code, which dictates the longitude and latitude of Capitol views just as it does the design of the Texas flag.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/D_IMAGE.10fe4f5d140.93.88.fa.d0.3f9dec7b.jpg



Washington, now practicing law in Houston, said he was moved to protect Capitol views after a controversy over construction of a tall bank building in the 1980s. Washington said that his news conference announcing the legislation featured a picture of the Capitol smothered in dollar bills.

"It was money against beauty, and I thought it was wrong," said Washington, also a former congressman. "I wanted to preserve it for future generations so you wouldn't have to stand a block away from the Capitol to be able to see it."

He even went so far as to sponsor a bill that would have created a "District of Travis," similar to the District of Columbia that encompasses the nation's Capitol. The bill didn't get far.

But Washington said it made a point: "It's not just the city of Austin and its citizens who are harmed by the unbridled growth and development of buildings that obscure and obliterate the majestic view of the Capitol. That view belongs to all Texans."

He said city officials have been good stewards of the Capitol views so far, but he's suspicious of any plan that weighs the value of views against development.

"It sounds like the argument they made before," he said. "What price do you put on it? It's priceless. And if they're doing it for money, shame on them. One day people will look back and say, 'Why didn't somebody stand up and do something about it?' when all the views of the Capitol are blocked, one by one, rationalization after rationalization."

Since the view protections were created, the Legislature has allowed three exceptions, including the upper deck of the Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, street redevelopment in East Austin and redevelopment of a municipal airport, according to Julie Fields, public information coordinator at the state Preservation Board.

'Bragging rights'


And that's quite enough, said Read, the preservationist, who remembers "the most magnificent view you could imagine" of the Capitol when coming over the hill from San Antonio onto Riverside years ago.
"You drive that drive today and you are confronted with an ugly blob of concrete," he said. He also argues that modifying view corridors now would punish the developers and owners of other buildings who played by the past rules.

Any corridor changes would likely affect East Austin, where the pink dome overlooks restaurants, small frame houses and public playgrounds.

Brian Perkins, 39, who has lived in a 1940s bungalow in the area for nine years, before a wave of gentrification brought a construction boom to the historically black neighborhood, said the view of the Capitol has always been "one of the bragging rights" of East Austin.

"I always thought it was like engraved in granite," he said of the view.

His brother-in-law, Jeff Plowman, 42, who can see the Capitol from the front lawn of his 1918 Victorian house fitted with burglar bars, said replacing Capitol views with $300,000 condo high-rises would be sheer waste.

"I'd much rather see some of the state's history than some yahoo's big profit there," he said.

[KevinFromTexas]

It's been talked about before on this forum with people saying some of the corridors should be eliminated. The map below is a good one by the way, Complex01, thanks.

Some of these views strike me as being redundant and a bit dumb. The ones that I could see getting rid of are: LBJ Library, DKR Stadium, UT Swim Center, (this one strikes me as the dumbest of all of them), the ones over Waterloo. Being able to see the dome from Waterloo Park is nice and all, but as that park isn't even fully utilized, it seems like a waste. The views there aren't even that good unless you're on east side of the park. And the E. 7th Street Railroad Bridge...I'm not even familiar with that one, but it doesn't sound very exciting.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/D_IMAGE.10fe4f5d140.93.88.fa.d0.3f77b826.jpg

[JACKinBeantown]

Big business will always want to do things that make them money regardless of how it effects the little guy or, in this case, the aesthetic of the community as a whole. Central Park in NYC would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars to real estate investors, but it's worth so much more to the citizens of the city in non-monetary value.

Keep the views, Austin. Keep Austin weird!

[rad707]

I think there is a big difference between parkland and views. Some are questionable; frankly, I don't want people looking at the capitol when they're trying to negotiate traffic on the upper decks of I-35.

I looked at the restrictions as they currently stand and it is difficult to determine if the current restrictions would prevent medium density buildings (<15 stories). It seems that it depends on the building's location in terms of height above sea level as well as the total footprint of the building proposed.

Frankly, I don't see a tremendous need to build 40+ buildings in Austin. What I would really like to see is medium density. The beauty of DC, Paris, London, etc. is that you don't feel like you are walking through a canyon when you are in the city. This is because of restraints the government puts on height, producing what many might argue a liveable level of density.

It would be nice if they rebuilt some of the view corridors to reflect a desire for at least medium density. Austin needs a thriving city more than truckers need views.

[alexjon]

Simply saying, "No, this is a protected view area" is enough

But making a big deal about it is practically writing a blank check for sprawl-fans.

[John R]

It is really interesting about the date of the view corridors because if you looked at the city in the 1970's, you would have thought there were height restrictions. I can remember when you could see the Capitol and the UT Tower from just about any point within close proximity of downtown. I used to love the hilltop view on the service road of I-35 just to the south of Riverside Drive where you could see the skyline of the city and the Capitol Building and the UT Tower rising above everything else.

[Complex01]

Hmm i didnt see the earlier post from the chronicle, sorry i posted the same story. My comp was just not working today, guess it was to cold for it to run properly...

:shrug:

[JACKinBeantown]

How about designate certain corridors as land for parks and give some others away to highrises. That way you get parkland mixed with rich real estate developers and everybody's happy.

[MichaelB]

Question: how would you feel if you had bought and home with a 'View" of the capitol....researched the corridor.... knew the premiuim you paid for the protected view..... played by the rules..... And now the rules may be changed and you will loose part of your investment? Truly, how would you feel? Some have suggested compensating land owners when development rules limit the value...... would you be in favor of compensating each homeowner who now suffers a loss of value due to a rule change? These are questions that have to be considered. Right or wrong the rules we have shaped a generation of homeowners (and investors).

I think there are some cooridors are not necessary (especially the I-35 ones) but now that they are in place they have, as a by product, shaped some of the views from the east. One of the "rules" of real estate is "Location, Location, Location" ....yes? Part of location is "view".... so again, how would you feel if you location was, essentially, changed?

[GoldenBoot]

Big business will always want to do things that make them money regardless of how it effects the little guy or, in this case, the aesthetic of the community as a whole. Central Park in NYC would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars to real estate investors, but it's worth so much more to the citizens of the city in non-monetary value.

Keep the views, Austin. Keep Austin weird!

We're not talking about selling-off and developing the land the Capitol is sitting on! Therefore, I'm not quite clear as to why you are using your Central Park analogy.

I just wish non-residents would stay out of OUR business (and I'm NOT aiming this at you, JACKinNYC. It's just a generality). Why we should allow someone from Dallas, Houston, or even Tahoka, TX tell us how to run our city is beyond me!!! The legislature, for years, has bashed Austin and I'm not the only one who is quite sick of it. Maybe it is just pure jealousy of our economic and environmental success?!?

We have plenty of intelligent people who want to create a balance of development and preservation - and they could accomplish this feat if citizens from other Texas cities would stop medaling in our business!

On another note, I find it funny that some of the same people who are screaming for affordable housing in central Austin are the same ones who are fighting any decrease in Capitol View Corridors. Well, you can’t have everything. The corridors, as we know, are running up the cost of land and you know who pays for that…

Okay, I'm off my soapbox...sorry.

[GoldenBoot]

Please don’t get me wrong…I value and respect everyone’s opinion. I know that some, if not all of the non-residents in this forum are trying to look after the best interests and their favorite memories of Austin. However, I cannot say the same about the state’s lawmakers.

In any case, would you want (or allow) the guy living across town to tell you how to design, build, and/or landscape your own home? How to govern your own family? I sure don’t.

Hey, maybe we aught to campaign for Alamo View Corridors (oops, we’re too late). Hee, hee – just trying to lighten things up… :haha:

[KevinFromTexas]

There's only a few corridors that I think should be removed. Out of about 30 of them about 5 seem unnecessary. But don't get me wrong, I'm actually one that does ask for the views to be protected. I have fond memories of the Capitol. And yes, some of those views most certainly do need to be protected. As MichaelB pointed out, people research the views when they plan to buy or rent downtown. If those views go away it'll be another selling point for that property gone because views of the Capitol most certainly should be a selling point.

I even think a few of the views from I-35 should be kept. Why? Travelers. When I went to Colorado for the first time and went through Denver, I loved that you could easily see the Capitol even with a huge skyline next to it. We need to figure out something like that. 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. The owner of this website actually just moved there last month. Anyway, we can still have density within the view corridor as long as it doesn't block the views. Then outside the corridor have taller buildings.

[JACKinBeantown]

Maybe I should change my avatar name to JACKinNYCwhoSPENTsevenYEARSinAUSTIN. I understand Austin and the corridors. I think they are a great thing. Austin is cool and one of the reasons is because of planning that happened decades ago. Now that land has become more valuable, people want to cash in on it. Well too bad. Keep the rules in place that help make Austin the cool place it is.

Keep Austin weird. Keep Austin cool.

[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.

[KevinFromTexas]

I've also always thought that views of downtown should be kept open. We have some views of the skyline from our neighborhood and I would hate it if a wall of midrises popped up along Ben White Boulevard that blocked the views. Depending on the location along there a building could block the view if it was between 100 to 200 feet. The South Austin Hospital Tower which is 5 floors and around 90 feet or so blocks part of the view of One Congress Plaza in my neighborhood. Anything taller than that and wider would block the view completely. There's also some really nice views of Saint Edwards University from Ben White and there's a great skyline view a little bit further down on Ben White over the train tracks. I'm not saying all views should be kept, of course that's not possible, but I am saying I would hope that developers and architects and city leaders would recognize the benefits of views and design their buildings to allow for optimal views.

[MichaelB]

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]

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.

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]

...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! :)