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.
I would be in favor of a slight increase in height limitations. I don't think allowing another 5-10 stories on buildings would mar the appearance of the city. A slight increase in the skyline might even be an improvement.
dc has fat bulidings that are short. they're really no different in volume
than a tall building that is skinny, except for it takes up more land and
it is closer to the ground.
Raising the height limit may hurt foreign real estate investment in DC. Foreign investors (pension funds etc) love DC for capping the heights of buildings because they can invest here and know that a competitor won't add 1M ft of commercial space next door and drive down rents.
All the reason to build it out. Families paying high prices so you can keep rent and aesthetics? No thanks! Raise the roof.
For selfish reasons, I would prefer the Height Restrictions stay in place. I'm living in a semi-high rise in the inner core burbs with great views of the City, monument and capitol dome. Areas such as the OC Arlington, Crystal City, Shirlington, Silver Spring, Carlyle in Alexandria have sprung up to be very urban mini-cities full of buildings you can't find in DC. Because of this, I feel as though people pay a premium for that real estate (especially higher up with good views). If, all of the sudden, there were fifty 40 story buildings being build in SW, I think you'd see the bottom fall out of these urban mini edge cities and those areas would lose many of their perceived advantages.
So , for selfish reasons of someone who has recently purchased in a semi-high rise, I would prefer to keep all of that development out of the city..
I think you're trapped in the very mindset identified in this article in which people assume that since some density is good more must be inherently better. I guess i just don't think Georgetown, Capitol Hill or Mt Pleasant would be well served by tearing down all the rowhomes and turning them into Ballston style. There's a place for everything and creating multiple economic hubs is smarter than trying to force everybody to commute to the same center. We just need to make sure transit it's adequate for each area. That's a better way to affordable housing.
A. The height limit is not what protects the rowhouses in those neighborhoods - its the zoning. Relaxing the height limit would enable somewhat taller office buildings downtown. Thats what the debate is about, not about tearing down rowhouses.
B. There are already multiple economic hubs, and there will continue to be. Its about how much activity is going to be in downtown DC, vs how much elsewhere
C. Its not economically feasible to provide every peripheral employment center with the level of transit access downtown DC now has. Heavy rail lines in particular are expensive, and funding for them is limited.
That post was in response to BrooklynBornDad who was talking about Paris being uniform density and suggesting we should revamp all of our core neighborhoods like Georgetown and Capitol Hill to reach maximum density. I think it's great Navy Yard, NoMa, EOTR, etc. are increasing density and re-purposing industrial lands.
That's kind of my point - we have a number of in-fill places right now that have yet to max out. I'm not really that passionate about height restrictions - like I said I think there's a way to loosen them sensibly. I'm not a fan of the squat buildings downtown but I do think the sunlight and broad roads with parks and medians create a much more inviting and sustainable experience than what you find in downtown Philly, NYC, or Seattle.
You have misread me - I am not suggesting we be like Paris. I was merely pointing out that we are NOT like Paris - and that arguments supporting the current height limit, that assert that one can get high density without increasing height, because Paris does, are not relevant to DC.
You have misread me - I am not suggesting we be like Paris. I was merely pointing out that we are NOT like Paris - and that arguments supporting the current height limit, that assert that one can get high density without increasing height, because Paris does, are not relevant to DC.
I was only talking about the CBD, not the surrounding neighborhoods, so in that context of the commercial center Paris and DC are similar. Anyway, I'm not sure our goal in DC is high density and I never said we should make every peripheral commercial center the same size as DC. They can be the appropriate size for the transit we can provide to their areas. I'd say Rosslyn, for example, is pretty adequately sized. The Dulles corridor, in contrast, is already far larger than its transportation capacity.
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.
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.
