AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[H2O]

If I'm not mistaken, the Little Shoal Creek Tunnel still runs diagonally under that block, roughly parallel to the CVCs. It was partially realigned into the ROW when IBC Bank was built, but I believe it still exists close to where that large tree in the middle of the block is located. I wasn't able to find any drawings with a quick Google search.

[Urbannizer]

Juan Pelota’s still open, I stop by every other week.

The eastern side of the block is smothered by the CVC from what I can tell. My source only mentioned LZR but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more than one building involved.

[We vs us]

Has Nate Paul ever actually built anything? We know he owns a lot . . . but has he ever developed?

[enragedcamel]

What would it take to get the CVC abolished?

[KevinFromTexas]

I really wish people would stop suggesting getting rid of the CVCs. They aren't exactly that much of an encumbrance to density or the connective tissues of urbanity. That's much more on developers and architects than a policy. A good example of that is cheap developments being built under them like drive through banks or generic retail. And it's not like there aren't still a ton of places to develop/redevelop in downtown (there are). We also pretty much owe many of our tall buildings to them. I doubt we'd have near the number of the tall buildings we do without them since it's forced many of the towers to be more slender and have setbacks that ultimately forced them to be taller. Furthermore, for the most part, Texas politics is garbage, but I never get tired of seeing the dome through those corridors. It makes downtown feel more unique and also creates some unique opportunities for residential developments to have views that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

[valhalla]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I really wish people would stop suggesting getting rid of the CVCs. They aren't exactly that much of an encumbrance to density or the connective tissues of urbanity. That's much more on developers and architects than a policy. A good example of that is cheap developments being built under them like drive through banks or generic retail. And it's not like there aren't still a ton of places to develop/redevelop in downtown (there are). We also pretty much owe many of our tall buildings to them. I doubt we'd have near the number of the tall buildings we do without them since it's forced many of the towers to be more slender and have setbacks that ultimately forced them to be taller. Furthermore, for the most part, Texas politics is garbage, but I never get tired of seeing the dome through those corridors. It makes downtown feel more unique and also creates some unique opportunities for residential developments to have views that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

I think it's gaslighting to suggest that 35 CVCs in the city's central business district aren't "that much of an encumbrance" to downtown development and density. Sure there are some lots that manage to build around the CVCs but there are other important lots where development is prevented entirely--specifically, the I-35 corridor that covers a vast swath of east downtown. After the recent building boom, we're already starting to run out of places for new development.

You can support the CVCs and believe that the trading development and density for views of the Capitol is worthwhile. But trying to suggest that there aren't significant tradeoffs is simply untrue.

[mercury6]

encumbered views of the capitol isn't that important, certainly not important enough to restrict tower elevations. You want to see the capitol, go to the capitol

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by valhalla

I think it's gaslighting to suggest that 35 CVCs in the city's central business district aren't "that much of an encumbrance" to downtown development and density. Sure there are some lots that manage to build around the CVCs but there are other important lots where development is prevented entirely--specifically, the I-35 corridor that covers a vast swath of east downtown. After the recent building boom, we're already starting to run out of places for new development.

You can support the CVCs and believe that the trading development and density for views of the Capitol is worthwhile. But trying to suggest that there aren't significant tradeoffs is simply untrue.

Sure, there are some that could go, as I've said before, but to get rid of them all seems premature and pointless if we're not already utilizing the land we already have and maximizing its usefulness in and around downtown (we aren't).

My biggest gripe with them is the little things. Such as trees not being maintained that grow into them so that they become pointless to have. And, yes, I-35. I-35 despite being old and stubborn is not permanent. I think the best idea there is to allow the I-35 CVCs to go away, save maybe for one that placed atop one of the "cut and cap" parks above I-35 that will most likely be happening.

Austin has density issues, but it's not because of the capitol view corridors. There are way more areas we could work on that would increase density where we want it.

Again, I'm no fan of what happens in the biggest pink building in the state (laughing at that irony) but I do feel that it's important and special enough to be protected in views in at least *some* of the view corridors. It's also really less about the Capitol itself and more about creating some kind of interesting place within some of those corridors. Certainly, any protected views from a park should be off limits to getting the axe or even the street views as long as it's not dangerous, which brings me back to I-35, which never made sense to me. Sure, Texas, put up your fancy electronic billboards reminding people to not text and drive on your phone, but hey, let's create a view corridor so you can gawk at a building for a few seconds as you whiz past, assuming the traffic is actually moving.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I really wish people would stop suggesting getting rid of the CVCs. They aren't exactly that much of an encumbrance to density or the connective tissues of urbanity. That's much more on developers and architects than a policy. A good example of that is cheap developments being built under them like drive through banks or generic retail. And it's not like there aren't still a ton of places to develop/redevelop in downtown (there are). We also pretty much owe many of our tall buildings to them. I doubt we'd have near the number of the tall buildings we do without them since it's forced many of the towers to be more slender and have setbacks that ultimately forced them to be taller. Furthermore, for the most part, Texas politics is garbage, but I never get tired of seeing the dome through those corridors. It makes downtown feel more unique and also creates some unique opportunities for residential developments to have views that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

i really don't put much stock in those posts. that opinion is only popular on here and commercial real estate boardrooms. average austinite loves the cvc (once you tell them what it is)

we haven't even gotten to the good part yet either, once the density develops in the gaps of the cvc it will create something truly unique that will have been 50 years in the making

however it is obviously a little excessive on the east half of the capitol. won't be sad to see a few of those lifted in the coming decade or two. which i think is fairly likely. maybe if they bury 35 and create a truly walking focused district on top it will be worth preserving the whole eastern view corridor

[enragedcamel]

Austin is not the only city in North America that has imposed artificial constraints on development due to completely misguided reasons. Vancouver BC, for example, has "view corridors" that were implemented to protect views of the mountains that serve as a backdrop for the city when viewed from certain angles. Similarly, Portland OR has a 450 ft height limit across their entire downtown to preserve views of Mount Hood and the West Hills.

At the end of the day, the effect of such limitations is the same: they limit supply and increase costs of new developments. This greatly favors existing tenants (whose properties appreciate, while they get to also continue to enjoy nice views) while making it more difficult for incoming ones to be able to afford living here.

If our state capitol was some kind of world renowned building or architectural wonder, I'd be more included to say, yes let's keep the CVCs. But it is one of dozens of its kind across the continent. One does not need to constantly see it to be reminded that Austin is the state capital.

[KevinFromTexas]

Worrying about this is silly, though, because downtown encompasses a tiny fraction of the total housing stock in Austin. Even if the view corridors could be done away with it still wouldn't be significantly more. I also suspect that most of the people concerning themselves with it do not live in downtown, which makes them not unlike the nimbies who complain about any development there. There's also the issue of gobbling downtown land with residential when there is also office, hotel, and other uses to consider.

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Worrying about this is silly, though, because downtown encompasses a tiny fraction of the total housing stock in Austin. Even if the view corridors could be done away with it still wouldn't be significantly more.

It is misleading to think in terms of total housing stock, though. Downtown may encompass a tiny fraction of the total housing stock in Austin, but it's also the most valuable land in the city. That means the opportunity cost imposed by CVCs are enormous, not just in terms of additional housing and office spaces that could be built, but also property taxes that would be levied on those units,t he sales taxes they would generate, and so on. What do we get in return? Views of a generic state capitol from some angles and frankly not much else.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I also suspect that most of the people concerning themselves with it do not live in downtown, which makes them not unlike the nimbies who complain about any development there.

Sorry, I don't buy this "reverse NIMBY" argument. People said the same thing when I dared criticize Mueller: that my opinion didn't matter because I don't live there. However, that's a really discriminatory and alienating mindset. Several hundred thousand people interact with downtown Austin every day one way or another. One doesn't have to be one of the 12,000 or so people living there for their opinions to count.

[IluvATX]

.

[KevinFromTexas]

It's just that there are way more frivolous properties in downtown to be redeveloped, so it's premature and even a bit counterintuitive to focus on the view corridors when those properties remain vacant or underdeveloped. I also have no problem with getting rid of some of the corridors that make no sense, but it also makes no sense to remove them all, particularly when they could enhance the experience in a park.

And ironically, doing away with the view corridors would likely make those properties worth more, but people are kidding themselves if they believe that'll automatically mean a reduction in housing costs in those areas as I'm sure they'd be redeveloped with tons of condos. If anything, they'll be more expensive not less. All the fugly developments in downtown hiding under those view corridors are the most affordable places in downtown.

Anyway, there are more people who live outside of downtown than in and most would like the views of the dome to stay, at least where it makes the most sense. And I wouldn't exactly say that our capitol isn't significant.

[Urbannizer]

I live Downtown and don’t care for the CVC’s. I say get rid of them.

There’s enough property hindered by the Capitol View Corridors to believe more housing would come out of it if they weren’t. Given our poor development code to build higher density throughout the city I think at some point it will affect Downtown.

[The ATX]

The only CVCs I care about are on Congress Ave itself on the south side of the Capitol, which will not be blocked and from the north side from the U/C mall. Those two views are not even included in the defined CVCs.

[IluvATX]

That Lamar bridge CVC though…

[J78704]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

That Lamar bridge CVC though…

I agree! I like that CVC view on the Lamar bridge, and I like a few more. But a lot of the rest need to go (state and city) especially east-facing as 35 is gonna go down.

[KevinFromTexas]

Judging by the sad effort shown you'd think street level retail violated them. It's just that there are more things to worry about. And, hey, if they do go away there's always our awesome 14-story parking garages which are bound to afford a view of the dome.

[SproutingTowers]

The upper deck I-35 view may go away.