D.C. Height Restriction - Leading Cause of High Housing Prices/Sprawl? (Washington: real estate, apartments) - City-Data Forum

tenken627 · 02-26-2008, 10:29 PM

I came across this interesting article in the Washington Post not too long ago:

D.C.'s Fear of Heights

But as you enjoy the fireworks on Tuesday, you should realize that the D.C. height restriction has also promoted suburban sprawl, boxified the city's architecture and deadened Washington's downtown. It has inflated office rents, deflated the municipal tax base, limited affordable housing, contributed to the region's hideous traffic jams and generally helped keep Washington a second-tier city despite the unrelenting growth of its major industry -- the government.

Here's another, more recent article:

High-Level Debate On Future of D.C. - washingtonpost.com

But Leinberger, who renewed debate over the law after a February talk at the National Building Museum, contends that the height restriction drives up real estate prices and deprives the government of tax revenue.

City officials have broached the subject, although carefully. In 2003, the administration of then-Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) commissioned a study that concluded that the District could generate an additional $10 billion in tax revenue over 20 years if it raised the height limit to 160 feet.

Do you guys agree that the height limit on buildings contributed to skyrocketing housing prices and sprawl?

Should DC get rid of the height limit or put up a higher limit? Would that decrease housing costs and traffic, or increase city vitality?

Would that kill DC's charm like many preservationists think?

pcity · 02-26-2008, 11:26 PM

I think the key is to preserve the areas around the parks and monuments. Once you get away from those, the height limit shouldn't apply.

Bluefly · 02-26-2008, 11:35 PM

Paris has a height restriction - it's doing fine.

I've thought about this, and I'm not sure I totally agree. I mean, imagine downtown if it never had height restrictions - it'd probably be a lot smaller downtown that hardly extends anywhere near where it goes now with a few skyscrapers that generate little in the way culture or pedestrian energy. I mean, Rosslyn would be a good example of what DC could have to look forward to. Rosslyn's pretty brutal.

One thing I've always liked about DC is that it's not playing the "who has the biggest penis" game like so many other cities. It has an understated power. That said, I hate sprawl and if the height restriction truly is generating sprawl, then maybe I'd relinquish my stance. I don't buy it, though. It's not like all those tech companies would have moved downtown instead of out in the hinterlands of Tysons if there weren't height restrictions.

an aside: one time I went to a party out in Virginia and got in the elevator and was perplexed. It'd been so long since I'd seen an elevator go higher than 13, for a moment I didn't know what to do :/

Moth · 02-27-2008, 07:45 AM

Its an inane premise. LA, Dallas, Phoenix and others have no height restrictions, at least not like in DC, and they all have tons of sprawl.

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

tenken627 · 02-27-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Paris has a height restriction - it's doing fine.

I've thought about this, and I'm not sure I totally agree. I mean, imagine downtown if it never had height restrictions - it'd probably be a lot smaller downtown that hardly extends anywhere near where it goes now with a few skyscrapers that generate little in the way culture or pedestrian energy. I mean, Rosslyn would be a good example of what DC could have to look forward to. Rosslyn's pretty brutal.

One thing I've always liked about DC is that it's not playing the "who has the biggest penis" game like so many other cities. It has an understated power. That said, I hate sprawl and if the height restriction truly is generating sprawl, then maybe I'd relinquish my stance. I don't buy it, though. It's not like all those tech companies would have moved downtown instead of out in the hinterlands of Tysons if there weren't height restrictions.

an aside: one time I went to a party out in Virginia and got in the elevator and was perplexed. It'd been so long since I'd seen an elevator go higher than 13, for a moment I didn't know what to do :/

I don't know. If you had skyscrapers in D.C., and get corporations to move into them instead of building 40+ acre monstrosities in the suburbs, wouldn't that help ease congestion a little? Maybe the thousands of workers at each corporation could use the metro instead of everyone bringing their cars?

And there would be much more housing. They most likely will be high-rise condos, but at least there would be a great number of them. More people would be able to live in the city itself, and housing prices could go down across the board.

tenken627 · 02-27-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moth

Its an inane premise. LA, Dallas, Phoenix and others have no height restrictions, at least not like in DC, and they all have tons of sprawl.

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

What about housing prices?

McOctopus · 02-27-2008, 08:10 AM

Well last time I checked, Rosslyn was no affordable housing paradise. A height restriction would allow more condos/apartments to be built, but right now supply of multi-family units doesn't seem to be a problem--we're drowning in them in fact, and you are starting to see prices come down. I believe in the end there are other things, including building regulations and developers themselves always aiming for the high-end market, that push up the price of housing more.

tenken627 · 02-27-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McOctopus

Well last time I checked, Rosslyn was no affordable housing paradise. A height restriction would allow more condos/apartments to be built, but right now supply of multi-family units doesn't seem to be a problem--we're drowning in them in fact, and you are starting to see prices come down. I believe in the end there are other things, including building regulations and developers themselves always aiming for the high-end market, that push up the price of housing more.

I agree. Most of the developers do not wish to pursue affordable housing developments. And I do agree about Rosslyn not being an affordable housing paradise.

But, with America's renewed interest in coming back to live in urban environments (D.C. itself has enjoyed a revival), might it be a good time to ease height restriction from the mandated 130 feet? Not many people wish to live in Rosslyn when relocating to D.C. Many wish to live in the city of D.C. itself.

Paris itself is currently looking at taking away its height restriction.

Height Restrictions May Be Lifted In Paris | Planetizen

Moth · 02-27-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

I don't know. If you had skyscrapers in D.C., and get corporations to move into them instead of building 40+ acre monstrosities in the suburbs, wouldn't that help ease congestion a little? Maybe the thousands of workers at each corporation could use the metro instead of everyone bringing their cars?

Funny how that does not work in LA. Tons of traffic jams every day. Yet there sits an eastern-style downtown with plenty of room for more corporations.

PenguinSix · 02-27-2008, 09:04 AM

We shouldn't kid ourselves--lifting the height requirement is not going to mean more affordable housing. It will be offices at $45 a sq foot minimum. Maybe a few condos (just what we need in DC--more condos) but for those folks who want a more affordable 3-5 br place to live, going up is not the answer.