Height Limits on Downtown Buildings (children, offering, difference)

[Lookout Kid]

I've personally worked with developers on feasibility studies for office buildings on and near the Capitol Square, and the height restrictions often make the math difficult for developers. It's much harder to get a return on your investment when height is so severely restricted. And this definitely pushes businesses out to office parks on the periphery.

As far as aesthetics are concerned, it is nice to be able to see the Capitol building from so many vantage points around the city. But the height restrictions have created a sort of flat skyline without any taller protrusions to add points of interest.

[ComfortablyNumb]

The height restrictions have also created a density that makes Madison's downtown feel like a very miniature version of an actual big city's downtown. I don't know any other city of 250,000 that is like this. Even Des Moines - a city of pretty comparable size to Madison - doesn't feel like it has Madison's density or urbanity, even though it has a few taller buildings.

I equate this to the fact that in downtown Madison, land is too valuable for it to be used as a parking lot.

With that said, once E. Wash starts to develop, I hope to start seeing some taller buildings a ways out. The skyline, although flat, looks pretty good now. But I don't think that we want our Capitol area to get TOO densely built, as we need to retain some of the lakes presence, which is already pretty much gone sadly.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

I hear what you're saying and I agree that when zoning becomes too restrictive in one area, it can have adverse affects in another. However I don't think height restrictions would cause this. You can still have ample commercial space provided in a very walkable, dense environment without having to go over 8 stories. Washington, DC and many European cities come to mind in that buildings tend to be no taller than 8-10 stories, but the envirnonment is still walkable. Even if it causes development to encroach further out over a period of time, as long as it's done in a dense manner that encourages multi-modal transportation accessibility then it's fine.

Sprawl isn't merely rapidly expanding outward growth, but rather it's outward growth in addition to extremely low densities and inefficient land use patterns that is predemoniantly auto-oriented and barely walkable.

You're seriously using Washington as your model for development? While the city proper may meet your criteria, the metro area as a whole is a sprawling, gridlocked, snarled fustercluck. I doubt it's coincidence that it has among the worst traffic congestion in the country

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by Drover

You're seriously using Washington as your model for development? While the city proper may meet your criteria, the metro area as a whole is a sprawling, gridlocked, snarled fustercluck. I doubt it's coincidence that it has among the worst traffic congestion in the country

...and you can blame the lack of forsight among many of the county governments along and outside the Beltway for that mess. Although you can find some excellent examples of great development like Arlington, which has become a lot more dense and walkable over the past 15 years since the County embraced a policy that favored transit-oreinted development near Metro stations. Another great example, which is in Madison, is Middleton--a suburb that is walkable, has an active city center, and sustainable communities like Middleton Hills. And if notice, most of it is single-family housing.

Suburbs don't have to be sprawling, congested hellholes with strip-retail development--especially if local governments grow a pair to stand up to national chains and request that they alter their standard store model in order to meet local development standards. It's the officials who invoke panic by saying their community will miss an opportunity "so we must do as they please." If you're community has the density of households and the desired levels of household incomes--retailers and services will come; and they'll even go out of their way to accomodate the community instead of the other way around.

[Chelito23]

Also keep in mind that Madison's "skyline" when viewed from a far actually looks taller than it really is (and it doesn't look big) because the isthmus is actually the equivalent of about 5 stories from the lake level...so if the capitol were built on a low lying area, the skyline would be even less impressive.

I think that Madison wants the best of both worlds. There are too many restrictions on developers and projects become less profitable with excessive restrictions, neighborhood comittees and city ordinances. I think it is good that the city is involved and controls what goes on, but it meddles into too much in my opinion. I really think the other issue at hand is that downtown is government and university predominantly. Most of the private sector locates around the edges of town which is a shame, if they were al concentrated downtown, I think that area would be much more livelier as opposed to being soley dominated by the university and government.

[Drover]

Ah, it's that handy word again, "sustainable," plus extensive use of bold too. A double-whammy of persuasive technique that just can't be matched.

[gold*dust1]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

...and you can blame the lack of forsight among many of the county governments along and outside the Beltway for that mess. Although you can find some excellent examples of great development like Arlington, which has become a lot more dense and walkable over the past 15 years since the County embraced a policy that favored transit-oreinted development near Metro stations. Another great example, which is in Madison, is Middleton--a suburb that is walkable, has an active city center, and sustainable communities like Middleton Hills. And if notice, most of it is single-family housing.

Suburbs don't have to be sprawling, congested hellholes with strip-retail development--especially if local governments grow a pair to stand up to national chains and request that they alter their standard store model in order to meet local development standards. It's the officials who invoke panic by saying their community will miss an opportunity "so we must do as they please." If you're community has the density of households and the desired levels of household incomes--retailers and services will come; and they'll even go out of their way to accomodate the community instead of the other way around.

So you're saying Middleton Hills is a great example of giving relief in combating sprawl in Middleton? IDK, if you ask me these new urbanism neighborhoods are just a cleverly designed way (or not since we realized it) for developers to keep more money in their pockets, and I live in one. If there would have been more choices in my desired area I would have never chose the new urbanism model. The kids don't play in the greenspace anyhow, but in their own 10 foot yards, carriage lanes, or in the narrower streets.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

So you're saying Middleton Hills is a great example of giving relief in combating sprawl in Middleton? IDK, if you ask me these new urbanism neighborhoods are just a cleverly designed way (or not since we realized it) for developers to keep more money in their pockets, and I live in one. If there would have been more choices in my desired area I would have never chose the new urbanism model. The kids don't play in the greenspace anyhow, but in their own 10 foot yards, carriage lanes, or in the narrower streets.

Not to mention that a) most "new urban" developments are still car-oriented (notice how the retail areas still have plenty of parking spaces and the houses still have 2-car garages?) only they're more compact, and b) it still doesn't really stop sprawl. Compact, walkable downtown suburbs are nice in their own right and they're an attractive lifestyle choice for a lot of people, but those people are not going to just stay in their own little towns all the time. They're still going to want to go other places, and the means of getting from one suburb with a compact, walkable downtown to another is still frequently going to be by car.

Like I said upthread, the more centralized a metro area's employment hubs are, the easier it is to create a comprehensive mass transit system around it. Washington's height limit has undoubtedly spawned a great deal of sprawl that could otherwise have been more concentrated downtown. It's not for lack of mass transit options; the DC metro has one of the best mass transit systems in the country. In the latest Texas Transportation Institute study, DC was the only BosWash Corridor city to rank in the top 10 in congestion, ranking at #2, behind only Los Angeles. And I also doubt it's coincidence that L.A. also had height restrictions until the mid-1960s, by which time its transportation infrastructure was developed around the premise that everything was spread out.

[gold*dust1]

Originally Posted by Drover

Not to mention that a) most "new urban" developments are still car-oriented (notice how the retail areas still have plenty of parking spaces and the houses still have 2-car garages?) only they're more compact, and b) it still doesn't really stop sprawl. Compact, walkable downtown suburbs are nice in their own right and they're an attractive lifestyle choice for a lot of people, but those people are not going to just stay in their own little towns all the time. They're still going to want to go other places, and the means of getting from one suburb with a compact, walkable downtown to another is still frequently going to be by car.

Like I said upthread, the more centralized a metro area's employment hubs are, the easier it is to create a comprehensive mass transit system around it. Washington's height limit has undoubtedly spawned a great deal of sprawl that could otherwise have been more concentrated downtown. It's not for lack of mass transit options; the DC metro has one of the best mass transit systems in the country. In the latest Texas Transportation Institute study, DC was the only BosWash Corridor city to rank in the top 10 in congestion, ranking at #2, behind only Los Angeles. And I also doubt it's coincidence that L.A. also had height restrictions until the mid-1960s, by which time its transportation infrastructure was developed around the premise that everything was spread out.

Some of the build contracts in mine go with 3 car garages.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by Drover

Ah, it's that handy word again, "sustainable," plus extensive use of bold too. A double-whammy of persuasive technique that just can't be matched.

Why are you so angry? If the word sustainable angers you so much, I'd hate to see how you'd react to someone swearing at you. Let's face it, sustainable is a real word that can be defined objectively. I dunno--maybe you hate sustainability and prefer waste and obsolescence.

Seriously, it's absolutely hard to have a conversation with you. Either you need a vacation, a girlfriend, a drink, an enema...something to ease the rage. Or maybe you get bullied around out there in the real world and find a nice escape in the Internet where you can be a tough guy hidden behind an anonymous screen name. Whatever it is, I just want you to know that we're here for you, Drover; and we believe in you.