Would you support removing DC's building height restrictions? (apartment, house)

[DCforever]

Originally Posted by rsh56

I guess we can agree on the same thing but there is also very little affordable housing here.

If your salary doesn't match your housing costs, you have to find someplace else to work and live. Simple economic fact of life.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by rsh56

I guess we can agree on the same thing but there is also very little affordable housing here.

Well, you may have to look elsewhere than Bethesda. You may not realize it by living there. But it's one of the priciest suburbs in the DC area and the U.S.

Only nobility get to live in houses in Bethesda. lol.

[rsh56]

When I meant here, I mean the whole DC area which is suffering from lack of housing.

I live with my parents in a rented house .

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by DCforever

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.

DC has the 2nd largest metro rail system already, and DC is still ranked up there in traffic.

There are tons of people that live and work in Manhattan or Brooklyn and take a cap or a train a few stops. DC OTOH has a super housing shortage and tons of commuters that have to hoof it by car+rail.

Only so many people can live in DC, but far many more work here. Adding more highways will only lead to more homes (because there is so much pent up realestate demand in DC) and rail lines is only going to extend the problem out for the next few years.

The real solution is to build UP in DC. It will help get rid of beltway commuters, bring more real estate tax revenue into DC (that the city is sorely lacking) and create more office space. DC is already too small on a footprint, it should have the highest buildings in the nation lol.

Chicago, NYC, Frisco and others have already proven that this model works.

[dkf747]

How does building up solve the problems of high housing cost, crime, and lousy schools. You have to solve those for your dream to happen.

Chicago does not prove anything. Their traffic is awful too, despite having far more, and larger, roads and mass transit. The suburbs of Chicago are still growing further and further out. I'm not seeing it. New York also has sprawling suburbs.

[PhenomenalAJ]

Originally Posted by dkf747

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.

DC had a larger population (not by much) but the suburbs were FAR smaller. At the height of DC's population in 1960, even inner suburbs were rural in character. And I didn't say raising the height limits should be the only solution, but it would be an important one. DC doesn't have good schools but many young singles and couples would be perfectly happy living in a desirable area in DC. I don't even see what can be defended about continuing to have these height limits, its an archaic rule from 1899 when DC was a backwater government town. There is no other major US city that has such ridiculous restrictions. More density by the subway stations is the most obvious and logical solution to bringing traffic down, those people will have little need to drive and clog up roads.

[geoking66]

No. There is a ton of undeveloped land within the District. Instead of letting it stay vacant, DC needs to ensure that development occurs there rather than the suburbs through incentivising and better public transportation access and infrastructure as well as crime reduction and enforcement. We could easily get another 10,000 residential units through the infill potential in DC under the current restrictions as well as mixed-use, commercial, and retail growth.

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by dkf747

How does building up solve the problems of high housing cost, crime, and lousy schools. You have to solve those for your dream to happen.

Chicago does not prove anything. Their traffic is awful too, despite having far more, and larger, roads and mass transit. The suburbs of Chicago are still growing further and further out. I'm not seeing it. New York also has sprawling suburbs.

No one is talking about crime..... but with regards to supply and demand, more housing, less cost. Simple economics. I can buy a condo in the MIDDLE of chicago in a great neighborhood for around a quarter of the price of DC.

Chicagos traffic is bad, but again, they are not ranked higher than DC in traffic, and to add they dont have the size metro rail that we do, and their traffic is not worse than DCs. Bigger case in point that metro doesnt mean better traffic, thats the point, and I think Chicago proves that.

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by geoking66

No. There is a ton of undeveloped land within the District. Instead of letting it stay vacant, DC needs to ensure that development occurs there rather than the suburbs through incentivising and better public transportation access and infrastructure as well as crime reduction and enforcement. We could easily get another 10,000 residential units through the infill potential in DC under the current restrictions as well as mixed-use, commercial, and retail growth.

Agree, I dont understand why people have to commute. This is the entire problem with DC that hasnt been fixed yet. Sure, NYC and Chicago and others have sprawling suburbs, but percentage of working residents that live in the city are much higher than DC.

Anecdotally, people in NYC and Chicago that I know live downtown and jump a train a few stations to work. People OTOH in DC

1. Drive half an hour from some BFE suburb--> then -->
2. Jump some freaking commuter train/bus --> then -->
3. Transfer to metro --> then --> walk a few blocks to work

Or another DC genius commuter dream SLUGGING.....you KNOW something is wrong when you have the only specific program in the COUNTRY. :-(

DC has the 2nd highest commute time in the country (fact NHS), and more rail lines are not the answer. Let people live in DC....simple.

DCs rent is comparable to NYCs rent for a reason.

Also (fact) DC says that they dont get enough income from property taxes, and from businesses that reside in the area due to the Fed taking up so much space. Let people use property that is underutilized in DC, and also build skyscrapers away from the monument.

You cant even see any of the capital buildings from NE or sections of NW, why do they need to be low to the ground??? :-/

[BoomBoxing]

I voted no but I actually would be ok with it if a number of circumstances were met. Namely, that any skyscrapers be clustered together in the same area (like Paris). At the same time, think about the best urban neighborhoods you've ever been to, whether it's in NYC, Chicago, LA, or any other city and chances are they are the ones without any skyscrapers. I have a feeling any high rise district in DC would be exactly like Rosslyn. Souless, boring, and dead after 5pm.