Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously it does. DC's low density nature in its core means housing is much more limited than a normal city its geographic size and lots of people get priced out. They have to live in the suburbs and commute by car to either their workplace or a Metro stop. Imagine if people could live in and commute to skyscrapers in Metro Center or Chinatown. You'd have far less cars on the road.
It is not obvious at all. DC used to have a much larger population than it does now. The traffic is worse now than then. It's not the height that forces people to the suburbs. It's the combination of lousy schools and too much crime. Couple those with the high cost of housing and you get sprawling suburbs. Now, I can imagine it the way you want it, but I know that simply raising the height limits will not be enough.
If you want to add more offices, put them in places that need the bump in the economy. DC is already saturated with offices and employees. Why not place other offices throughout the metro area...
Better yet, companies looking for headquarters should consider placing them where there is a shortage of jobs and a surplus of professionals and job-seekers. Spread it out a little more and DC traffic and congestion wouldn't be such a nightmare. Take them to cities that need the jobs. They are desperate.
Of course, wishful thinking.
That's not entirely true We tried spreading it out and the result was among the worst traffic in the country in the suburban areas. If you spread things out, you have to provide the infrastructure and density for people to get there other than the car if they choose or can't afford a car. Silver Spring has worked well as a satellite office / cultural district in that regard. Tysons has been a disaster in that regard.
DC would be way better off if it did not have its archaic height restrictions on buildings. I understand they want the Washington Monument to stand out but it is a leading cause of the horrible traffic and will get worse once DC is filled to its capacity. I'd support lifting it outside a general zone surrounding the Washington Monument. I understand how difficult it would be since its a federal law passed by Congress and DC has no Congressional representation, but ideally would you support repeal of the law?
That makes no sense what so ever. Taller buildings = greater congestion. The vast majority of buildings in DC are far shorter than the height restrictions we have. There is no problem.
I for one don't enjoy the urban canyons of some other cities. Paris and London do fine without skyscrapers. So can DC.
That makes no sense what so ever. Taller buildings = greater congestion. The vast majority of buildings in DC are far shorter than the height restrictions we have. There is no problem.
No but the metro area, it gets worse. Since agencies, companies and businesses can't go further up due to the height restrictions and limited space, they have to go out into MD and VA where there are none. This leads to urban sprawl which then leads to massive traffic jams that the whole area now faces. It would be much better if the majority of the jobs (which is the federal government) were focused on 1 particular area than having it go around other places where they are now choked with traffic.
I think the height restriction can be a maximum of 20 stories in some parts of the DC, well away from the monuments and memorials.
DC looks very unique and identifiable among American cities. I wouldn't want that uniqueness to ever change and look like every other city out there.
Thomas Jefferson wanted DC to be the "American Paris".
The Eiffel Tower is basically the symbol of Paris and all of France. I'm pretty sure there are height restrictions in Paris but then again the size of Paris is much bigger than DC and has been around much longer than the US. Those skyscrapers you see behind is an area called "La Defense" which has all the French companies and agencies there. It's not going to spoil the look of DC but it should be well away from it.
No but the metro area, it gets worse. Since agencies, companies and businesses can't go further up due to the height restrictions and limited space, they have to go out into MD and VA where there are none. This leads to urban sprawl which then leads to massive traffic jams that the whole area now faces. It would be much better if the majority of the jobs (which is the federal government) were focused on 1 particular area than having it go around other places where they are now choked with traffic.
That just not true. Suburban development is driven by acquiring land at lower cost and the individual jurisdictions desire for economic development. If you have less congestion, your so called "urban sprawl", you have less traffic congestion. The commuter suburbs are what cause most of the traffic congestion. People living close to work and close to mass transit is the solution to traffic congestion.
That just not true. Suburban development is driven by acquiring land at lower cost and the individual jurisdictions desire for economic development. If you have less congestion, your so called "urban sprawl", you have less traffic congestion. The commuter suburbs are what cause most of the traffic congestion. People living close to work and close to mass transit is the solution to traffic congestion.
I guess we can agree on the same thing but there is also very little affordable housing here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.