Michael Moore on GM

York99 · Post by **York99** » June 8th, 2009, 11:58 am

Miggy wrote:UT's football stadium. I would gladly agree with you, though, if you were to argue that that structure should be torn down and returned to uses consistent with a University.

Does the stadium block the view of the Capitol? And how is it not used consistently with a University?

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » June 8th, 2009, 1:07 pm

York99 wrote: Does the stadium block the view of the Capitol?

The capitol view corridors were passed by the state back in 1982 in response to the bank of america building being built straight up at 6th & congress and crowding the view of the capitol building. Seen here:

In response, they drafted up 36 view corridors - now 35 because the Memorial Stadium expansion cut into one so the Texas legislature unanimously repealed it. The corridors are 3 dimensional zoning cones that shoot out from the top of the dome. Some are short, some go as far out as Loop 360. One goes down Congress avenue and cuts right through the Bank of America Building which is why the Frost Bank Tower and the Austonian and any other building recently constructed has set backs from the street built in about 5 stories up. The supposition is that even though it doesn't preserve a view today - if the BofA were to ever be torn down - it would. Until then, it'll look a little lopsided. A map of them are here:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/dow ... ensity.pdf

I completely support the view corridor down congress - lots of places do that including Vancouver which preserves views of mountain and ocean by not bookending any streets for example. The problem is that the CVC's restrict density downtown and in other central neighbrohoods and so it has become a proxy for density rather than a real discussion about views of the capitol building. One corridor was written incorrectly and requires negative height (get out your shovel I guess), several have trees that have grown into the corridor and obscure the view (with no one wanting to cut down the trees) and (for me the biggest issue) large swaths of downtown are relegated to 1-2 story buildings for which there is little economically viable use besides drive through banks or surface parking lots which hardly makes for an inviting area around the capitol that this legislation was meant to enhance.

Unfortunately this is such a knee jerk issue that most people don't want to discuss the topic seriously and just shut down whenever anyone raises the spectre of adjusting these. :-/

Anyways - if you're interested in learning more about the capitol view corridors, check out this 2007 comprehensive report:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/dow ... _Final.pdf.

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » June 8th, 2009, 1:22 pm

York99 wrote: And how is it not used consistently with a University?

That's a topic for a different thread. I realize I'm a lone wolf on this one - but I don't believe that intercollegiate sports has a place in a University's mission. I have a snow-ball's chance in hell of making any impact on this issue - but it doesn't stop me from holding a principled position on it.

If you actively disagree with that position - let me know. I've been wanting to get this as a topic for a dionysium debate and would love to do a showdown over it.

Pdyx · Post by **Pdyx** » June 8th, 2009, 2:26 pm

Miggy wrote:I don't believe that intercollegiate sports has a place in a University's mission.

Actually, you're not a lone wolf. I agree. Perhaps for different reasons, who knows, but I agree.

apiaryist · Post by **apiaryist** » June 9th, 2009, 2:56 pm

Pdyx wrote:
Miggy wrote:I don't believe that intercollegiate sports has a place in a University's mission.
Actually, you're not a lone wolf. I agree. Perhaps for different reasons, who knows, but I agree.

I'm with both of you on this, as well.

York99 · Post by **York99** » June 10th, 2009, 12:35 am

apiaryist wrote:
Pdyx wrote:
Miggy wrote:I don't believe that intercollegiate sports has a place in a University's mission.
Actually, you're not a lone wolf. I agree. Perhaps for different reasons, who knows, but I agree.
I'm with both of you on this, as well.

I do very respectfully disagree. My main argument is that student activities do and should play a large part in the development of kids before, through and past the collegiate level. The participants learn a lot about teamwork, accepting defeat, being humble in victory, leadership, hard work, sacrifice, etc. and, in some cases more tangible lessons like marketing, networking, other social skills, etc. The fans learn some of those lessons to varying degrees, and it gives them school spirit and teaches them how to sneak an entire fifth of Jim Beam into a stadium by pouring it into a ziplock baggie and putting it down the back of your pants and securing with a belt buckle (or in your Red Wing boots, as is the case at UT).

Also, many people include sports and student activities in their decision-making process of where to go to college.

Here's my story: I used to be a proficient water-skier and even went to camps for the sport. When it came down to The University of Georgia and UT for me, sports played a huge part. I thought that, like UT, UGA had a water-ski team (which, as it turned out, crumbled right before I got there and re-emerged as soon as I left). So, my decision to go to UGA over UT came down to the fact that I wanted to go to an SEC school because I find their athletics to be more interesting. However, had I known that UGA's ski team was defunct, I very likely would have gone to UT. Instead I've got a beer gut and no sponsorship deal with Ski Nautique. To be fair, the academics and all of the other factors involved were included in the decision-making process, but were basically even.

The other, ugly truth argument is that sports is a big money maker. At many schools, football (and other sports) funds much of the academics. Football brings in the alumni support. Football gives the school the recognition. And yes, football sometimes lends to the prestige.

To me, it comes down to being well-rounded. Without athletics, the arena of colleges would be a lot more dull. The brain can't survive without the heart. Sometimes even Lance needs a break from re-watching Citizen Kane for some Teen Wolf Too respite. That's why Val Kilmer was so successful in Real Genius: he wasn't "all brain and no penis."

I understand the position that academics should be rewarded and recognized as much or more than athletics, yet sadly don't come anywhere close. As someone who had a lot more success in the classroom than in the arena, I feel that pain. But I also think that athletics brings more to a university than it takes and adds a tremendous value--and not just in monetary metrics. Therefor, I think that athletics DO have a place in a university's mission.

Miggy · Post by **Miggy** » June 10th, 2009, 1:11 am

wonderful! Would you be interested in respectfully disagreeing with me on a stage at the alamo drafthouse? I would enjoy debating this topic in detail with you.

York99 · Post by **York99** » June 10th, 2009, 10:17 am

absolutely!

spantell · Post by **spantell** » June 10th, 2009, 6:56 pm

Miggy wrote: Would you be interested in respectfully disagreeing with me on a stage at the alamo drafthouse?

This needs to include a video of York water-skiing

Pdyx · Post by **Pdyx** » June 10th, 2009, 7:57 pm

York99 wrote: The other, ugly truth argument is that sports is a big money maker. At many schools, football (and other sports) funds much of the academics. Football brings in the alumni support. Football gives the school the recognition. And yes, football sometimes lends to the prestige.

This is actually where I base my argument for it not being a part of the university, or at least restructured. The athletes are the ones that are doing the work, bringing in this money, and they aren't being compensated. This then causes all sorts of underground problems with athletes getting 'gifts' and creating lots of shady things, and so on.

EmilyBee · Post by **EmilyBee** » June 10th, 2009, 10:38 pm

This is one advantage to going to a conservatory: no sports to debate. Just the relative merits of dodecaphony and whether or not Beethoven should be played on period pianofortes.

York99 · Post by **York99** » June 11th, 2009, 7:52 am

Pdyx wrote:
York99 wrote: The other, ugly truth argument is that sports is a big money maker. At many schools, football (and other sports) funds much of the academics. Football brings in the alumni support. Football gives the school the recognition. And yes, football sometimes lends to the prestige.
This is actually where I base my argument for it not being a part of the university, or at least restructured. The athletes are the ones that are doing the work, bringing in this money, and they aren't being compensated. This then causes all sorts of underground problems with athletes getting 'gifts' and creating lots of shady things, and so on.

Where there is big money, there is corruption. But you can't run away from it. You need to face it head on. This is a whole debate in itself, though. There are a lot of good points on both sides.

York99 · Post by **York99** » June 11th, 2009, 7:56 am

EmilyBee wrote:This is one advantage to going to a conservatory: no sports to debate. Just the relative merits of dodecaphony and whether or not Beethoven should be played on period pianofortes.

I think this is the perfect example for some exactly why athletics needs to be included at schools. Even the bandleader at that evil UT (University of Tennessee) could tell you that Beethoven should most certainly NOT be played on period pianofortes. How do you know? The crowd tells you.

[I have no idea what my ass is saying, but it's definitely the one speaking here.]