Pictures of Westlake, West Austin, and the Hill Country (Spring: lawyers, homes)

[love roses]

No, not that I've noticed (I'm using just West of downtown Austin as my starting point). Once you get around Lake Buchanan it's more undeveloped. No McMansions and Concrete covering the hills out there. Well, at least not yet . Well, I guess Marble Falls area isn't totally developed yet.

I'm just sort of an enjoyer of how unpopulated the hills were not even 10 yrs. ago and how much more public the land was. Now a whole lot of it is private and unaccesable (sp?).

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by lwjones

Its seems that this may be a very unpopular opinion here, but I like how the hills around Austin in those photos look alive. A neat combination of built environment and natural landscape. Could you drive 30 mins or so west and be in undeveloped hill country?

Hey, even when there are no human constructions on them, the hills are alive and look so. (Perhaps moreso then, in fact.) They're FULL of life!

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by lwjones

Its seems that this may be a very unpopular opinion here, but I like how the hills around Austin in those photos look alive. A neat combination of built environment and natural landscape. Could you drive 30 mins or so west and be in undeveloped hill country?

When you consider that development and impervious cover are bad for the aquifer...and that we're in the middle of a drought...then maybe you'll reconsider. Just a thought.

[lwjones]

Didn't mean to imply that the development is 100% good. I just personally think it's physically attractive. Positano Italy is another example of, where I think, the development complemented the natural beauty. ie:





But don't worry. I'm not a developer, planner, or politician.

[TexasHorseLady]

Clearly we have vastly different tastes in what complements natural beauty!

For example, also in Italy (I'm posting links to avoid breaking the City-Data TOS - and copyright law - against posting copyrighted images, which is pretty much all of them, without permission from the copyright holder):

The Coastline from Chia to Teulada

And in Texas:

Hill Country State Natural Area

West Texas

Caddo Lake (just pick one - I couldn't choose)

Hamilton Pool

Hill Country in Spring

[lwjones]

Beautiful pictures THL. Don't take me wrong, a landscape doesn't have to be developed for me to find beauty in it. One of the most beautiful areas I have seen is the undeveloped area of Big Sur in Northern CA. I guess I just have a broader range of what I find beautiful.

[Alatex]

I'm just sort of an enjoyer of how unpopulated the hills were not even 10 yrs. ago and how much more public the land was. Now a whole lot of it is private

I can't really comment on how things used to be, but I do think any fast-growing area has to be careful to preserve some land and keep the best parts from all being "fenced off" for just private development, or else the area loses some of the charm that made it fast-growing in the first place.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by lwjones

Beautiful pictures THL. Don't take me wrong, a landscape doesn't have to be developed for me to find beauty in it. One of the most beautiful areas I have seen is the undeveloped area of Big Sur in Northern CA. I guess I just have a broader range of what I find beautiful.

Oh, I find some populated areas beautiful, too. It's just that it is critical to truly value and preserve the very things that make people want to move to areas of great natural beauty.

For example, if I had a piece of property that had a beautiful vista from the top of a hill, I would not build on that hilltop. I'd build my house somewhere tucked in below, and perhaps have a picnic area or small pavilion tucked into trees at the top of the hill, both so that I could enjoy the view and so that I would not intrude upon the view of others. I don't see a lot of that happening - people decide that they want to live in this beautiful place and proceed to ruin it for everyone else. Or some (note that "some") developers, who think that nothing is so beautiful as green, but not the kind of green I'm talking about but the kind that lives in the bank vault, realize that people love natural beauty and proceed to buy it up and destroy it in the process of marketing it.

So, no, I don't think that natural beauty is more beautiful if it's got a lot of houses on it. I've learned otherwise in the process of watching the above happen to some breathtakingly beautiful areas around Austin that are now fancy subdivisions. (The drive out 2222 and out 620 comes most immediately to mind, and anyone who lived here before 2222 was widened with the excuse of making it "safer" - read, more easy to develop - will know what I'm talking about.)

[lwjones]

In all fairness I have not lived in Austin yet and probably don't have the best frame of reference. It certainly would be a shame if the hills were so developed that the green was lost entirely and and non-property owners had no places to go and enjoy the hills. I will have to revist this post and comment from a more educated standpoint once we have moved to Austin. This picture from the OP looks like there is still a lot of green undeveloped land relatively close to downtown Austin. Is this a deceptive photo?

[jdevelop2]

My guess is that the people who live in these homes pay an enormous amount in property taxes. A portion of that should be used to fund parks and undeveloped greenspaces in the hills that everyone can enjoy.