Fabulous article. Trying to protect views from high speed roads and highways is ridiculous, and honestly, probably all the CVCs are pointless. But the highway ones are the most absurd, and definitely need to go.
It’s interesting. I’m not a big fan of the CVCs and I agree that prioritizing views from the highway isn’t ideal.
At the same time I’m more ambivalent about height limits in general. One of the problems that makes it really hard to develop good urban infill is that the absolute maximum potential development is already priced into the land. So, ironically, even where there are no limits, the financial ambition of the surface parking lot owner ends up being the hardest limit of all. (I wrote about this earlier this year: https://postsuburban.substack.com/p/the-case-for-incrementalism)
I think the ideal — but not current practice anywhere that I know of — would be to have a general height limit tapering out from the city center but automatically increasing over time, either on a timeline or when some development milestones are hit. The reason is, that would actually suppress the value of the land in the short term, so that you could redevelop more of it from surface parking or single story buildings, to lots of 3-5 story buildings, creating a complete neighborhood. Instead what happens is you go from a big sea of surface parking to one skyscraper and a big sea of surface parking, leaving the overall area underdeveloped for much longer.
Of course in reality we almost always over-restrict development so I’d rather have no limits than harmful limits. But it’s tough because the global optimum for the city economy is for “thicker” development spread more evenly over a larger area, but there’s a lot of friction working against that outcome that’s not easy to circumvent.
I think this is where land value tax could be so helpful, again in the ideal world where we get these things, to apply financial pressure to act against speculative holdouts.
Meanwhile assuming this massive I-35 redo goes forward and takes those CVCs with it, will the increase in development be credited to the freeway expansion or the removal of the height limits? :)
Thanks—this is thoughtful and thought-provoking, as always.
Of course, here in Austin, it would be politically impossible to implement a taper from downtown (and I'm skeptical planners would get it "right" anyway), or to achieve a market-driven global optimum, because downtown is ringed by neighborhoods zoned for single-family with a max height of 35' (excepting corridors, which are usually zoned for MF and higher heights). So, in the span of a few blocks, you go from unlimited height to tree-level.
While a land value tax might help, there would be no political will to implement one for the same reason that there's no appetite to meaningfully upzone single-family homes in the urban core. So, I think the more immediately binding constraint is land use regulation, and that will have to be removed first before any serious tax reform could take place.
How to build that will? I'm not sure there's a way to solve this other than to wait out further densification downtown and along the corridors, until rising pressure on land values begins to reshape the politics of the inner single-family neighborhoods.
As for I-35, they're already tearing up downtown. I'm not sure who will get the credit for any future development, but it's the highway burial that necessitates the CVC change!
You would think more buildings = more people = substantially more views AND foot traffic…everywhere. But I’m sure the highway view is nice if you catch it quick enough on your way out of town.
I visited Austin in the 70s and I was a guest at a house on a hill south of a new section of the loop. Our host drove us around, pointing out the views of the capitol and took pride in local policy that made these views possible. One side of his house on the hilltop was oriented to downtown, and the bedroom window offered a clear view of the capitol. That was so cool.
Still, having enough housing accessible to jobs, goods, and services is more important than a view of the rotunda from a distance.
I could not find any, but here is a link to a photo collection from the Austin Public Library Collection just in case you are not already familiar with it.
1. the capital view corridors protecting the views from (checks notes..) the elevated highway... seem silly and I think there's already movement afoot to remove them (Based on articles I've read, it isn't like I'm plugged into those conversations. ) Is that also what you're hearing?
2. The notion of capital view corridors existing at all - you point out the hidden city that can't be built. the question is whether necessity being the mother of invention - some constraints - have also spurred development. e.g. the 6xGuadalupe developer said that they maxed out their building b/c they didn't want to have any regrets about their unconstrained lot - even revised his initial plans. If the capital view corridors didn't exist, would this thought process have happened? Are properties that can see the capital (thanks to the view corridors that aren't pointing at a highway) higher value than those that cannot? is there a premium? I don't know. Is there a public good? debatable.
Point being, the idea of some view corridors itself isn't necessarily wrong - but it does have a cost trade-off to the community. Not every parcel must be built out to its highest best use possible.
An example of this - Zilker park could clearly be dense development instead of a park. no doubt it would be valuable land as well. But the land around the park would decrease in value as a result, and the city would lose an important feature that makes the whole city more desirable as a place to live. Another example would be the various churches downtown that aren't built to their maximum height/density. clearly not highest/best use from a tax/ economy point of view, but maybe it's okay to have them? and they don't pay any property taxes! :)
so... I guess my point is I'm pro-growth but there are tradeoffs to these policies. I think they should review the capital corridors and decide if any of them are meeting the desired outcome - or not - and if not remove them, but don't just remove or keep all of them in one stroke of the pen.
i think so :) i don’t consider capital corridors as all bad - but the ones pointing at highways feel particularly bad. also now that we have vertical downtown is it the capitol people want to see or “skyline”? not sure but it is a good discussion.
So, legislative preemption may not always be the way to go?
I have somehow missed Austin in my travels, so I have no visual image of this, but I wonder what would happen if the people of Austin were given a bottom-up opportunity to discuss and act on these CVCs? That would be consistent with good community planning.
BTW, I'll ask folks when I'm there in August, but I am 90% sure that the population of Denver would keep the protected mountain views (which may have less impact than what you're describing). You describe this as being about providing homes, and I get that. It would. But my guess is that a lot of folks would describe eliminating the CVCs as a loss to them (minor, but a loss), for which they will not be compensated, but from which some private corporation will profit.
And I also guess, that the answer that everyone will benefit from the development will fall flat in a lot of (but not all) cases. Not because it isn't true on some plane, but again because the immediate, obvious gains that would come from development would accrue to a handful of people, while the benefits to ordinary citizens will be long-term and very diffuse. This is the problem capitalism refuses to solve, making restrictions like the CVCs inevitable (but arguing for an LVT as Andrew says in his comment).
It is also one of the reasons why legislative preemption is a poor alternative to persuading people. Ignorance is bliss in this case, but I'd be surprised if there aren't neighborhoods that would give up the CVCs IF they were convinced they'd see some tangible benefit.
1) This isn’t state preemption—it’s state coercion. Repealing them wouldn’t override local decisions—it would enable them. Austin's code mirrors state law here but the city can’t act unless the state acts first.
2) Democratic support doesn’t make a policy just. Aesthetic preferences don’t justify suppressing land value or limiting what others can do with their property—especially when the public cost is real and ongoing. When “the community” is empowered to control land use, it often wields that power to exclude—that's the story of zoning in America! The diffuse benefits argument is exactly why this kind of coercion shouldn’t exist at the local or neighborhood level—and why preemption that removes it is justified.
3) This isn’t a failure of capitalism—it’s a failure to allow it. Nobody has a right to a view—especially not when it comes at the expense of someone else’s right to build, live, or work in the city. The “problem” here isn’t markets; it’s that we’ve put arbitrary limits on how land can be used, often to protect aesthetic preferences.
I accept 1) as a clarification. There is a distinction between "coercion" and preemption, though the results on the ground are the same.
Your other statements may clarify your opinion, but don't answer my question about the people of Austin would do. And that, honestly, was what I was most interested in. You also fail to acknowledge that there might be a different perspective.
If democratic support doesn't make a policy just, what does? Well, it would be the assertion of rights. But here you are stating that "aesthetic preferences" don't justify land use regulation. The SCOTUS has consistently held otherwise, though I suppose that is "on the block" now. But you surely are not going to deny that people have property rights, and a right to act to protect them. I don't know how much a view of the capitol "costs" in Austin, but I can assure you that views of mountains, lakes, etc, can be quite substantial in determining property values in other situations. And I will bet that, if the federal government wanted to block someone's view with a new building, and that someone could demonstrate that the view was part of their property value, you'd be on their side. Hmm? Or would you stand by "no one has a right to a view" regardless and deny the affected landowners proper compensation
Whether you would or not, our aesthetic sense - as the highest expression of our humanity - merits protection. Not absolute protection - no more than any other part of the trade-offs we face in making land-use decisions - but arbitrarily eliminating it from discussion is doing what you accuse the CVCs of. The CVCs take possibilities out of the discussion (or off the market, if you prefer, same difference). Failing to account for aesthetic values would do the same; arbitrarily end what ought to be a conversation about the best way to proceed.
We can only guess what the people of Austin might decide—but if history is any guide, the people who show up to public hearings won’t represent the broader population. That’s the pattern with most land use decisions. More importantly, what the public might decide doesn’t make it right. Land use rules should rest on objective law, not popularity contests.
Just law is grounded in rights. Aesthetic values matter, but whose preferences justify coercive power? Enforcing one aesthetic over another is itself arbitrary. As for views: if neighbors want to “buy the view,” they can purchase air rights and create a deeded property interest. That’s a contract—a voluntary arrangement under law. That’s the difference.
So, why would you even assume that I meant or that there would be public hearings? What if Austin (if it could) set up a values jury by sortition and let that body debate the CVCs? In a smaller place, a well-facilitated process of discussion might be sufficient.
As for aesthetics, what we find if we inquire instead of just assuming, is that community preferences are highly consistent and amazingly reasonable in most places at most times. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
I don’t know if I agree about the law (I suspect that a just law is grounded in mercy), but what I know is that a just society is grounded in making sure that everyone who will be affected by a decision has agency. That includes those who enjoy the view.
I assumed public hearings because that’s the standard mechanism for land use decisions in virtually every American city. Sortition is an academic idea with little real-world application—especially in a city of a million people.
A just society gives everyone a voice, not a veto.
Fabulous article. Trying to protect views from high speed roads and highways is ridiculous, and honestly, probably all the CVCs are pointless. But the highway ones are the most absurd, and definitely need to go.
Thanks, Kim! Hopefully this will go somewhere int he next Lege session.
Let’s hope so!
It’s interesting. I’m not a big fan of the CVCs and I agree that prioritizing views from the highway isn’t ideal.
At the same time I’m more ambivalent about height limits in general. One of the problems that makes it really hard to develop good urban infill is that the absolute maximum potential development is already priced into the land. So, ironically, even where there are no limits, the financial ambition of the surface parking lot owner ends up being the hardest limit of all. (I wrote about this earlier this year: https://postsuburban.substack.com/p/the-case-for-incrementalism)
I think the ideal — but not current practice anywhere that I know of — would be to have a general height limit tapering out from the city center but automatically increasing over time, either on a timeline or when some development milestones are hit. The reason is, that would actually suppress the value of the land in the short term, so that you could redevelop more of it from surface parking or single story buildings, to lots of 3-5 story buildings, creating a complete neighborhood. Instead what happens is you go from a big sea of surface parking to one skyscraper and a big sea of surface parking, leaving the overall area underdeveloped for much longer.
Of course in reality we almost always over-restrict development so I’d rather have no limits than harmful limits. But it’s tough because the global optimum for the city economy is for “thicker” development spread more evenly over a larger area, but there’s a lot of friction working against that outcome that’s not easy to circumvent.
I think this is where land value tax could be so helpful, again in the ideal world where we get these things, to apply financial pressure to act against speculative holdouts.
Meanwhile assuming this massive I-35 redo goes forward and takes those CVCs with it, will the increase in development be credited to the freeway expansion or the removal of the height limits? :)
Good article, lots of food for thought!
Thanks—this is thoughtful and thought-provoking, as always.
Of course, here in Austin, it would be politically impossible to implement a taper from downtown (and I'm skeptical planners would get it "right" anyway), or to achieve a market-driven global optimum, because downtown is ringed by neighborhoods zoned for single-family with a max height of 35' (excepting corridors, which are usually zoned for MF and higher heights). So, in the span of a few blocks, you go from unlimited height to tree-level.
While a land value tax might help, there would be no political will to implement one for the same reason that there's no appetite to meaningfully upzone single-family homes in the urban core. So, I think the more immediately binding constraint is land use regulation, and that will have to be removed first before any serious tax reform could take place.
How to build that will? I'm not sure there's a way to solve this other than to wait out further densification downtown and along the corridors, until rising pressure on land values begins to reshape the politics of the inner single-family neighborhoods.
As for I-35, they're already tearing up downtown. I'm not sure who will get the credit for any future development, but it's the highway burial that necessitates the CVC change!
You would think more buildings = more people = substantially more views AND foot traffic…everywhere. But I’m sure the highway view is nice if you catch it quick enough on your way out of town.
100%! Some of the best views of the Capitol are from buildings that nobody could have imagined going up 40 years ago!
I visited Austin in the 70s and I was a guest at a house on a hill south of a new section of the loop. Our host drove us around, pointing out the views of the capitol and took pride in local policy that made these views possible. One side of his house on the hilltop was oriented to downtown, and the bedroom window offered a clear view of the capitol. That was so cool.
Still, having enough housing accessible to jobs, goods, and services is more important than a view of the rotunda from a distance.
I'd love to see photos from back then!
I could not find any, but here is a link to a photo collection from the Austin Public Library Collection just in case you are not already familiar with it.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/AHCP/
Thanks!
I think we're conflating a few things...
1. the capital view corridors protecting the views from (checks notes..) the elevated highway... seem silly and I think there's already movement afoot to remove them (Based on articles I've read, it isn't like I'm plugged into those conversations. ) Is that also what you're hearing?
2. The notion of capital view corridors existing at all - you point out the hidden city that can't be built. the question is whether necessity being the mother of invention - some constraints - have also spurred development. e.g. the 6xGuadalupe developer said that they maxed out their building b/c they didn't want to have any regrets about their unconstrained lot - even revised his initial plans. If the capital view corridors didn't exist, would this thought process have happened? Are properties that can see the capital (thanks to the view corridors that aren't pointing at a highway) higher value than those that cannot? is there a premium? I don't know. Is there a public good? debatable.
Point being, the idea of some view corridors itself isn't necessarily wrong - but it does have a cost trade-off to the community. Not every parcel must be built out to its highest best use possible.
An example of this - Zilker park could clearly be dense development instead of a park. no doubt it would be valuable land as well. But the land around the park would decrease in value as a result, and the city would lose an important feature that makes the whole city more desirable as a place to live. Another example would be the various churches downtown that aren't built to their maximum height/density. clearly not highest/best use from a tax/ economy point of view, but maybe it's okay to have them? and they don't pay any property taxes! :)
so... I guess my point is I'm pro-growth but there are tradeoffs to these policies. I think they should review the capital corridors and decide if any of them are meeting the desired outcome - or not - and if not remove them, but don't just remove or keep all of them in one stroke of the pen.
It sounds like we are in agreement, at least with respect to your final point...?
i think so :) i don’t consider capital corridors as all bad - but the ones pointing at highways feel particularly bad. also now that we have vertical downtown is it the capitol people want to see or “skyline”? not sure but it is a good discussion.
So, legislative preemption may not always be the way to go?
I have somehow missed Austin in my travels, so I have no visual image of this, but I wonder what would happen if the people of Austin were given a bottom-up opportunity to discuss and act on these CVCs? That would be consistent with good community planning.
BTW, I'll ask folks when I'm there in August, but I am 90% sure that the population of Denver would keep the protected mountain views (which may have less impact than what you're describing). You describe this as being about providing homes, and I get that. It would. But my guess is that a lot of folks would describe eliminating the CVCs as a loss to them (minor, but a loss), for which they will not be compensated, but from which some private corporation will profit.
And I also guess, that the answer that everyone will benefit from the development will fall flat in a lot of (but not all) cases. Not because it isn't true on some plane, but again because the immediate, obvious gains that would come from development would accrue to a handful of people, while the benefits to ordinary citizens will be long-term and very diffuse. This is the problem capitalism refuses to solve, making restrictions like the CVCs inevitable (but arguing for an LVT as Andrew says in his comment).
It is also one of the reasons why legislative preemption is a poor alternative to persuading people. Ignorance is bliss in this case, but I'd be surprised if there aren't neighborhoods that would give up the CVCs IF they were convinced they'd see some tangible benefit.
Thanks for this. Three quick clarifications:
1) This isn’t state preemption—it’s state coercion. Repealing them wouldn’t override local decisions—it would enable them. Austin's code mirrors state law here but the city can’t act unless the state acts first.
2) Democratic support doesn’t make a policy just. Aesthetic preferences don’t justify suppressing land value or limiting what others can do with their property—especially when the public cost is real and ongoing. When “the community” is empowered to control land use, it often wields that power to exclude—that's the story of zoning in America! The diffuse benefits argument is exactly why this kind of coercion shouldn’t exist at the local or neighborhood level—and why preemption that removes it is justified.
3) This isn’t a failure of capitalism—it’s a failure to allow it. Nobody has a right to a view—especially not when it comes at the expense of someone else’s right to build, live, or work in the city. The “problem” here isn’t markets; it’s that we’ve put arbitrary limits on how land can be used, often to protect aesthetic preferences.
Wow.
I accept 1) as a clarification. There is a distinction between "coercion" and preemption, though the results on the ground are the same.
Your other statements may clarify your opinion, but don't answer my question about the people of Austin would do. And that, honestly, was what I was most interested in. You also fail to acknowledge that there might be a different perspective.
If democratic support doesn't make a policy just, what does? Well, it would be the assertion of rights. But here you are stating that "aesthetic preferences" don't justify land use regulation. The SCOTUS has consistently held otherwise, though I suppose that is "on the block" now. But you surely are not going to deny that people have property rights, and a right to act to protect them. I don't know how much a view of the capitol "costs" in Austin, but I can assure you that views of mountains, lakes, etc, can be quite substantial in determining property values in other situations. And I will bet that, if the federal government wanted to block someone's view with a new building, and that someone could demonstrate that the view was part of their property value, you'd be on their side. Hmm? Or would you stand by "no one has a right to a view" regardless and deny the affected landowners proper compensation
Whether you would or not, our aesthetic sense - as the highest expression of our humanity - merits protection. Not absolute protection - no more than any other part of the trade-offs we face in making land-use decisions - but arbitrarily eliminating it from discussion is doing what you accuse the CVCs of. The CVCs take possibilities out of the discussion (or off the market, if you prefer, same difference). Failing to account for aesthetic values would do the same; arbitrarily end what ought to be a conversation about the best way to proceed.
We can only guess what the people of Austin might decide—but if history is any guide, the people who show up to public hearings won’t represent the broader population. That’s the pattern with most land use decisions. More importantly, what the public might decide doesn’t make it right. Land use rules should rest on objective law, not popularity contests.
Just law is grounded in rights. Aesthetic values matter, but whose preferences justify coercive power? Enforcing one aesthetic over another is itself arbitrary. As for views: if neighbors want to “buy the view,” they can purchase air rights and create a deeded property interest. That’s a contract—a voluntary arrangement under law. That’s the difference.
So, why would you even assume that I meant or that there would be public hearings? What if Austin (if it could) set up a values jury by sortition and let that body debate the CVCs? In a smaller place, a well-facilitated process of discussion might be sufficient.
As for aesthetics, what we find if we inquire instead of just assuming, is that community preferences are highly consistent and amazingly reasonable in most places at most times. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
I don’t know if I agree about the law (I suspect that a just law is grounded in mercy), but what I know is that a just society is grounded in making sure that everyone who will be affected by a decision has agency. That includes those who enjoy the view.
I assumed public hearings because that’s the standard mechanism for land use decisions in virtually every American city. Sortition is an academic idea with little real-world application—especially in a city of a million people.
A just society gives everyone a voice, not a veto.