Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The Music & Urbanism Conflict

Wherever you lived in Texas at the time, you heard about the closing of Liberty Lunch. The iconic music venue had to close because of a redevelopment project which had taken the land. Ultimately the downtown area has boomed in part because of those developments but at what point do the new residents moving downtown have the ability to complain about noise that existed before their new residences?

For now, Austin is efforting in its drive to keep music venues downtown with a loan program that would soundproof the music rooms that made the city what it is today.  Personally, I have no sympathy for folks that decided to move right next to a music venue that plays until 2am.  To me, its just like moving next to a railroad track and complaining when they want to run more trains.  Ultimately I hope that Austin keeps its live music heritage.  With the closing of Emo's, I fear that more dominos will fall.  We shouldn't have to choose between a vibrant urban scene at night and a vibrant scene in the day.  There should be room for both.


Bob Davis said...

"efforting"?? When did effort become a verb? That quibble aside, I can relate to the problem of late music vs. "day people". One of my favorite live music bars had to discontinue its shows after either the city of Sierra Madre (near Pasadena CA) or the Alcoholic Beverage Control agency thought that night life did not belong in a sleepy suburb.

Rock on! (but not here)

M1EK said...

Please don't fall for this. Most of the complaints come from the same people they always came from - longtime single-family homeowners in neighborhoods like Zilker, Barton Hills, and Eastwoods.

Remember when Shady Grove shut down for a while - everybody thought it was a condo dweller, but it was the Zilker resident that the ANC put on the live music task force who was to blame.