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 have been wondering this. Any other descent size or big size city has them, why cant we! I feel like the monument is important, but people can go to Georgetown to see it. I do not think they need to widen buildings in DC just because they can't be tall enough. Plus, DC would be so lovely if it has sky scrapers
The question is, besides aesthetics, would it be commercially viable to build skyscrapers? And as for aesthetics, I think because of the way the city is designed, we would lose a lot of the natural lighting.
But I am not a zone master as others are so I won't get too involved in this one.
The counterargument to your argument is that people can just go to Rosslyn to see skyscrapers. I dont know how tall you consider a skyscraper but the 35ish story ones in Rosslyn are the biggest in the area. Considering that the tallest skyscraper in the DC area has sat vacant for like a year probably means there isnt demand for much higher right now. I dont see why DC cant approve slightly taller buildings like up to 20 stories outside of the core so it doesnt interfere with the National Mall, but I wouldnt hold my breath on that.
FYI, when the building under construction in Rosslyn right now is finished, it will have an obsersevation deck and I think a restaurant which will be a first in the DC area.
I'm glad we don't have skyscrapers. I enjoy that I can see the sky and live in a neighborhood where the tops of mature trees are taller than many residences. Skyscrapers block light and create pockets of heat and pollution.
I'd also hate to see DC start building up now. There are plenty of neighborhoods that would benefit from increased density resulting from rehabbing the numerous investor-owned vacant and blighted properties that drag down streets and neighborhoods. Many sources also predict that living in dense urban downtowns may become less important to some people as working remotely becomes more common. I don't think it's a good time to invest in skyscrapers.
I think the mall area should be preserved, but once you get far enough away there should be no height limit. Areas like Columbia Heights and Adams Morgan don't need a height limit for instance.
I don't believe in building skyscrapers for the sake of it. But if we run out of land area (which seems to be happening) and it makes logical sense to build taller then it should happen.
I have been wondering this. Any other descent size or big size city has them, why cant we! I feel like the monument is important, but people can go to Georgetown to see it. I do not think they need to widen buildings in DC just because they can't be tall enough. Plus, DC would be so lovely if it has sky scrapers
DC does NOT need skyscrapers. There is something to be said for the density and uniformity of the height of the buildings. Just beautiful, and you don't have to make your neck sore looking for the top of those buildings.
In fact I would love to see other cities replicate the uniformity of height in buildings. I would really like to see a height limit of 20 floors in Hampton Roads. Currently we have a lot mid-rises that only go up 6 floors. That is okay, but you don't get any parking garages with 6 floors, and you waste a lot of land with ugly parking lots. I don't want any more high rises here, the area simply does not have the foot traffic, nor the money, to adequately support it. Not enough jobs, just not enough economic activity to justify it. Give me a few blocks of 20 floor mixed/use buildings here and there in the urban core and it would make a major difference. Pack it all in a few city blocks here and there and allow the rest of the area to remain either suburban, or less urban, than those tight/dense areas. Then everyone can be happy, and the NIMBY can shut up for a change.
If all of Virginia Beach was nothing but a sea of 20 floor structures it could house the entire metro and it would also create a true urban area and the rest of the cities could act as suburbs in the truest sense. I know that would never happen in reality but it is cool to think of what the possibilities (and ramifications) of this would be.
Lovers of skyscrapers and of cities with tall skylines can change their mindset by striving to appreciate that cities without either appear more European. I was a skyscraper and tall skyline junkie who left DC in 1983 partly because of what I perceived to a monotony of all of the largest buildings being boxy and of the same height, but I now appreciate DC's aesthetic.
I have been wondering this. Any other descent size or big size city has them, why cant we! I feel like the monument is important, but people can go to Georgetown to see it. I do not think they need to widen buildings in DC just because they can't be tall enough. Plus, DC would be so lovely if it has sky scrapers
I agree, I would love for DC to have skyscrapers and the Show Minority Report has shown us how it can be done.
DC does NOT need skyscrapers. There is something to be said for the density and uniformity of the height of the buildings. Just beautiful, and you don't have to make your neck sore looking for the top of those buildings.
In fact I would love to see other cities replicate the uniformity of height in buildings. I would really like to see a height limit of 20 floors in Hampton Roads. Currently we have a lot mid-rises that only go up 6 floors. That is okay, but you don't get any parking garages with 6 floors, and you waste a lot of land with ugly parking lots. I don't want any more high rises here, the area simply does not have the foot traffic, nor the money, to adequately support it. Not enough jobs, just not enough economic activity to justify it. Give me a few blocks of 20 floor mixed/use buildings here and there in the urban core and it would make a major difference. Pack it all in a few city blocks here and there and allow the rest of the area to remain either suburban, or less urban, than those tight/dense areas. Then everyone can be happy, and the NIMBY can shut up for a change.
If all of Virginia Beach was nothing but a sea of 20 floor structures it could house the entire metro and it would also create a true urban area and the rest of the cities could act as suburbs in the truest sense. I know that would never happen in reality but it is cool to think of what the possibilities (and ramifications) of this would be.
I've never understood the "aesthetic" argument for keeping the height limit in DC. I don't see the connection between beauty and the height of buildings at all. I don't find it makes a city any better or worse looking. Low buildings just for the sake of it is just as stupid as skyscrapers just for the sake of it.
I believe in doing what makes sense and what allows the city to function properly.
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.
