I would add that Austin is not unusual as a state capital that is dwarfed in size of population by other metros within the same state. The vast majority of state capitols in the US are relatively small cities. The founders of new states seem to have consistently made the decision to not establish the state capitol in a big city. This is very different from the rest of the world where national capitals are typically the largest cities and regional capitols are the largest city of the region.
I have never seen a systematic study of the phenomena, but my guess is that political leaders did not want to be captured by economic or urban interests.
Thanks! With respect to Texas's history, almost every place that called itself a city in 1836 was tiny. That the state chose any of the seven places it inhabited before Austin gives a sense of how conceptually interchangeable these places were back then. Houston, though but a scratch in the mud, at least had some economic and geographic rationale to it. Dallas and Fort Worth didn't exist yet. So in the early decades, they were all small, but I get the sense Austin was expected to be a more important city than it turned out to be until much later on.
After and in response to Reconstruction, Texas neutered its state government, vastly reducing executive power and limiting the legislature to biannual meetings, which certainly hampered the growth of the capital from that point. If the University of Texas hadn't been founded here, with nothing else going for it economically, I doubt anybody would be talking about Austin today, and the city would still rate as a backwater government town while its principal cities continued to grow.
Of course, today, as the local government attempts to make no-longer-a-dwarf Austin a modern city reflective of its size and stature, we urban interests are somewhat stifled by the state government—which is itself captured by economic and political interests from other parts of the state. I'm not sure what it all amounts to, other than to imagine what things might be like if Lamar hadn't gone on his hunting trip!
Interesting approach to the history. I've been an Austinite for 60+ years. Our elementary school origin story included Early Austin boosters stealing the State records from Houston in the middle of the night and taking them to Austin by wagon. There were guns involved (as always in Texas). I've often thought that Austin didn't have much natural going for it. It did have the State government, which provided stable bureaucratic government jobs, and it had the University. (Most US states deliberately separated the state land grant university and state capital and put them in separate cities to spread out the wealth.). I think the key element to hyper charging Austin's growth was the creative element and the creative class. The University brought talent to Austin. The creatives, in art, music and business liked the creative freedoms (and for many years lower costs of living) and many of them stayed. Talent attracts more talent.
Thanks for reading/commenting! I think you're right: without UT, Austin would not have grown into what's it become today. It would likely be as memorable as most of the other random state capitals nobody knows anything about. But having it, and having invested in it becoming a top tier university, it created a flywheel effect. What I enjoy most about the history, though, is that in a very fundamental way, the story of Austin is one of audacious and literal placemaking. They wanted a city here, so they built one.
I'm curious, in your 60+ years here, what you think of the city's evolution?
I've had a lucky and interesting life. My wife and children were always in Austin, but I worked all over t he globe, experiencing a lot of cities. Austin's population when I arrived at 7yrs old, was 80,000. It was much, much smaller than San Antonio, or Houston or Dallas. The airport had four gates and no jet bridges. This was before MoPac, so the only divided highway in Austin was I35. At that time it was a yellow dog democrat town. Segregation was still in place. Drive in movie theaters and bowling alleys were the major entertainments outside UT sports. Over the next 50 years, Austin matured. UT brought in a lot of foreign students. Many stayed. Music, in the 1970s and later became a driving force in the culture of Austin, and created some national recognition. SXSW broadened Austin music, and Austin to an international audience. Over this same period, politics rolled over from Democratic to Republican, and somewhat conservative to very conservative. Austin seemed to go the other way, actually becoming more liberal and more inclusive. The city has always had an antagonistic relationship with the State government and I think that relationship has deteriorated over time. Texas, much more than most US States, has its own identity and that identity clings to its citizens. Most Texans don't want to leave Texas, for whatever reason. Those that don't, but prefer a more liberal social environment find Austin a better place to call home. In many ways, the city has grown in spite of itself. The "Save our Springs" org is a clear long running example of a consistent attempt to stifle Austin's growth. I think Austin grew because Texas needed it to grow.
Wow, 80,000–that’s incredible. Hard to imagine witnessing the growth trajectory over all those years! I’m glad it found a way to evolve and grow…I likely wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t! Thank you for sharing your personal history and perspective.
Interesting article.
I would add that Austin is not unusual as a state capital that is dwarfed in size of population by other metros within the same state. The vast majority of state capitols in the US are relatively small cities. The founders of new states seem to have consistently made the decision to not establish the state capitol in a big city. This is very different from the rest of the world where national capitals are typically the largest cities and regional capitols are the largest city of the region.
I have never seen a systematic study of the phenomena, but my guess is that political leaders did not want to be captured by economic or urban interests.
Thanks! With respect to Texas's history, almost every place that called itself a city in 1836 was tiny. That the state chose any of the seven places it inhabited before Austin gives a sense of how conceptually interchangeable these places were back then. Houston, though but a scratch in the mud, at least had some economic and geographic rationale to it. Dallas and Fort Worth didn't exist yet. So in the early decades, they were all small, but I get the sense Austin was expected to be a more important city than it turned out to be until much later on.
After and in response to Reconstruction, Texas neutered its state government, vastly reducing executive power and limiting the legislature to biannual meetings, which certainly hampered the growth of the capital from that point. If the University of Texas hadn't been founded here, with nothing else going for it economically, I doubt anybody would be talking about Austin today, and the city would still rate as a backwater government town while its principal cities continued to grow.
Of course, today, as the local government attempts to make no-longer-a-dwarf Austin a modern city reflective of its size and stature, we urban interests are somewhat stifled by the state government—which is itself captured by economic and political interests from other parts of the state. I'm not sure what it all amounts to, other than to imagine what things might be like if Lamar hadn't gone on his hunting trip!
Ryan,
Interesting approach to the history. I've been an Austinite for 60+ years. Our elementary school origin story included Early Austin boosters stealing the State records from Houston in the middle of the night and taking them to Austin by wagon. There were guns involved (as always in Texas). I've often thought that Austin didn't have much natural going for it. It did have the State government, which provided stable bureaucratic government jobs, and it had the University. (Most US states deliberately separated the state land grant university and state capital and put them in separate cities to spread out the wealth.). I think the key element to hyper charging Austin's growth was the creative element and the creative class. The University brought talent to Austin. The creatives, in art, music and business liked the creative freedoms (and for many years lower costs of living) and many of them stayed. Talent attracts more talent.
Thanks for reading/commenting! I think you're right: without UT, Austin would not have grown into what's it become today. It would likely be as memorable as most of the other random state capitals nobody knows anything about. But having it, and having invested in it becoming a top tier university, it created a flywheel effect. What I enjoy most about the history, though, is that in a very fundamental way, the story of Austin is one of audacious and literal placemaking. They wanted a city here, so they built one.
I'm curious, in your 60+ years here, what you think of the city's evolution?
I've had a lucky and interesting life. My wife and children were always in Austin, but I worked all over t he globe, experiencing a lot of cities. Austin's population when I arrived at 7yrs old, was 80,000. It was much, much smaller than San Antonio, or Houston or Dallas. The airport had four gates and no jet bridges. This was before MoPac, so the only divided highway in Austin was I35. At that time it was a yellow dog democrat town. Segregation was still in place. Drive in movie theaters and bowling alleys were the major entertainments outside UT sports. Over the next 50 years, Austin matured. UT brought in a lot of foreign students. Many stayed. Music, in the 1970s and later became a driving force in the culture of Austin, and created some national recognition. SXSW broadened Austin music, and Austin to an international audience. Over this same period, politics rolled over from Democratic to Republican, and somewhat conservative to very conservative. Austin seemed to go the other way, actually becoming more liberal and more inclusive. The city has always had an antagonistic relationship with the State government and I think that relationship has deteriorated over time. Texas, much more than most US States, has its own identity and that identity clings to its citizens. Most Texans don't want to leave Texas, for whatever reason. Those that don't, but prefer a more liberal social environment find Austin a better place to call home. In many ways, the city has grown in spite of itself. The "Save our Springs" org is a clear long running example of a consistent attempt to stifle Austin's growth. I think Austin grew because Texas needed it to grow.
Wow, 80,000–that’s incredible. Hard to imagine witnessing the growth trajectory over all those years! I’m glad it found a way to evolve and grow…I likely wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t! Thank you for sharing your personal history and perspective.