D.C. Height Restriction - Leading Cause of High Housing Prices/Sprawl? (rent, condos)

[smakawhat]

Originally Posted by Moth

Sprawl is the result of the collision between prosperity and poor planning.

Exactly! has nothing to do with height restrictions.

[TheseGoTo11]

The District has over 100 million leaseable square feet of office space, 4th in the country behind NYC, City of Chicago, and City of LA, and more than places like Boston and SF that have plenty of tall buildings.

Metro is the second most ridden subway after NY, with 750k daily riders, and 50% more than Chicago, whose metro area is nearly twice as big. So height restrictions haven't had much impact there.

DC's population density of 9,400 per sq mile is only slightly lower than Bos or Chi, which are both just over 12,000, but it's also got just 2.1 people per HH, compared to 2.6 in Chicago, so household density is almost the same, in spite of Chicago's massive skyscrapers. Seattle has very tall buildings downtown, including new 40 story condos, yet its density is still just 7,000 people per sq mi, less than Arlington's.

Really no evidence that the height restriction is creating sprawl in MD or VA. DC schools on the other hand...

[pwright1]

Seattle's density which is around 7000 per sq. mile is bigger in square miles, at least 20-30 sq miles than D.C. Plus it has many times more single family homes than D.C. so as far as people per square miles Seattle is looking pretty dense. As far as height restrictions I say build them taller in D.C. Its old architecture is absolutely beautiful. Its newer office buildings are low, boxy and down right hideous.

[saganista]

Some of the newer buildings in DC aren't much from the outside. Some of the older buildings in DC aren't much from the inside. It's a pretty common dilemma. The city has made an attempt to preserve at least the best of the old. There are several classic buildings where the facade was retained, but literally everything inside was disassembled and carted off with an entirely new building then constructed inside the outer shell. It's a little expensive though to do that

As for the height restriction, it's unquestionably what makes the city different from most, and it has been in the plan from the very beginning. No concrete canyons. With low buildings, broad avenues, and parks every couple of blocks, there is and has always been an airy, open feel to city, even in the heart of downtown. There is always a sunny side of the street. There is always something green no further than just around the corner. And of course the skyline ends up including -- if not being defined by -- the monuments. That's something that should certainly be preserved.

That said, there was a big row over Rosslyn when it was developed without a height restriction and with buildings that were tall enough to impact the take-off and landing patterns at National Airport. Opponents lost in that case, all the tall buildings were built, and it hasn't really mattered. Neither the city nor the airport was much affected in the long run. And there are some areas that DC has designated for development as commericial hubs, so maybe a compromise would be possible. The "old city" -- pretty much the stuff that L'Enfant actually laid out in the beginning -- extended out to about Florida Avenue. So maybe you could lift the restriction on everything east of Rock Creek and north of Florida Avenue. That would preserve all of downtown, Georgetown, and everything from Woodley Park out to Chevy Chase, while opening up the possibility of high-rise development in some of the NW and NE areas that might benefit from it, and in SE on the south side of the Anacostia as well. That might be the sort of compromise idea that would fit the future without subjugating either the past or present to it...

[Moth]

Is it necessary? I lived in one of those 60s highrises on Connecticut Ave NW and it and all the others around there have a perpetual surplus of empty apartments.

[Bluefly]

^^^
That's why I think there would have to be an emergence of some major new industry in the region that would make it clear that there's extraordinary demand for office space and it's all going to sprawl out to West Virginia unless more square footage can be created downtown.

As it is, one of the "quality of life" issues that makes DC so appealing is that it's built on a human scale and caters primarily to the human in all respects. There's a concept called vertical sprawl, at which point the buildings grow vertically to the point that humans feel like foreign objects in their own landscape, just as suburban sprawl's horizontal growth makes humans feel like foreign objects. I don't think Baltimore, for example, feels like a very appealing downtown. It's cold and dark with skyscrapers built just to impress others with little actual economic need for that much concentration in a relatively few buildings.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

^^^
I don't think Baltimore, for example, feels like a very appealing downtown.

I don't think of that as a downtown, more like a rest stop. The office space inventory in Baltimore City is less than 20 million square feet, which never mind DC, is less than Tyson's alone. It's a very depressed market economically with net job losses over the last year.

They can build up, down, out, or across if they want in Baltimore, none of it will make people want to work there.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

^^^
it's all going to sprawl out to West Virginia unless more square footage can be created downtown.

Route 15 in Central Loudoun and PW has become the metro area's de facto urban growth boundary, because no real estate developer will go past there, regardless of overall market conditions. There are no highways, and few sensible places to locate an office building with more than 20,000 sq feet.

At the same time, downtown DC is too expensive for many companies and inconvenient for large organizations recruiting a lot of outer suburban soccer moms. Taller buildings or more buildings won't change that.

[NOVAmtneer82]

I disagree, anybody who has been to the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia or out to Winchester knows that there is massive growth spillover from the DC area out there. I have friends in Charles Town and go out there quite often, there is new development EVERYWHERE, more residential than office but there are some pretty large retail projects going in as well. My friends who live there all work in Northern VA or the 270 corridor in MD, same with most people in their neighborhood, a few even make the trek into downtown DC.

These so called "smart growth" agendas that local counties are pushing have done absolutely nothing to stop sprawl, they have just pushed it out to the next development friendly area, making traffic worse and wiping out more greenspace.I get so annoyed when NIMBY people move to a rapidly developing area then want to slam the door on anybody else because THEY think it's getting too crowded, sounds a little hypocritical to me...

[vanyali]

Logically, if you increase available office space and living space in DC, prices for office and living space in DC have to go down. That's just supply and demand. So if sprawl is chiefly motivated by prices, then sprawl would have to be affected by an increase in supply inside the city.

However, it's not clear that price is the only (or even the main) factor in this. I think it's a big one, but really, you couldn't pay me enough to live inside DC the way it is now. The services just aren't there. Where would I send my kids to school? Lots of people flee the city because of the poor services. So, for there to really be a solid, lasting urban renaissance in DC, the government has to get its act together (something I don't think I'll see in my lifetime).

I think that it could be a good thing to relax the height restrictions in some parts of the city. Not right next to the Mall, or the monuments, or maybe in some other scenic parts, and I fully support protecting historic structures. But that still leaves a lot of other places to build up.

Density isn't all bad. More people = more money walking around = more support for local businesses = better and more vibrant city.