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.
The height restriction is fine as it is. Fun fact: Paris fits more people into its historical core with a lower height restriction (I believe six stories, but it has to do with the block on which a building is located and so forth) despite the fact that it is in fact smaller than the District proper.
I think the primary reasons of sprawl are the following:
1) Metro accessibility:
The fact of the matter is that people in the DC area don't want to drive, so they'll ideally pick a place close to the Metro. The problem is that nearly all land in desirable areas that is Metro-accessible has been developed or is in the process of development. This does not include areas in the eastern quadrants of the city apart from Capitol Hill because they are perceived as dangerous. Further compounding this is the branding of Fairfax and Montgomery as ideal, with Loudoun now being more acceptable for commuting despite being so far out.
The District needs to have infill rail transit, whether it be streetcar or Metro. I bet that far more people would move to neighbourhoods such as Adams Morgan, slightly more northern Capitol Hill, or Cathedral Heights if they could reliably live without a car. Because buses have an attached stigma and can be quite unreliable, especially because they aren't physically tied to the urban landscape, their presence is still questionable to many potential residents.
2) Poor suburban planning:
DC can only control so much how suburban counties plan their urban areas. While Arlington and parts of MoCo have been thought-out quite well, others such as Loudoun are disaster areas and need to be fixed.
^ Well that and La' Defense has taller buildings than Rosslyn because its too close to the airport to allow skyscrapers. Silver Spring and Bethesda aren't really doing anything, Tysons Corner is our last hope, hopefully skyscrapers can go there.
DC can only control so much how suburban counties plan their urban areas. While Arlington and parts of MoCo have been thought-out quite well, others such as Loudoun are disaster areas and need to be fixed.
You forgot PG, that county is still very much under developed and rural in some parts.
Tysons Corner is our last hope, hopefully skyscrapers can go there.
I really couldn't care less about Tysons, it's so far off my radar screen. They could stick a 100 story tower there, and I don't see how it would have an appreciable impact on anything in the District.
I really couldn't care less about Tysons, it's so far off my radar screen. They could stick a 100 story tower there, and I don't see how it would have an appreciable impact on anything in the District.
100 story tower would be visible from DC........
I agree and disagree though. Where could a 100 story tower go closer to D.C.
Imagine having all of the historical monuments buried under some ugly ass buildings. Now, imagine 10 years from now with all those buildings being built and outdated.
No. People smarter than us actually put that restriction for a reason.
I would take the White House, Washington Monument and other historical buildings over big ugly building with "FOX", "CNN", "Northrup Grumman", "FedEx", and any other ****ty business signs any day. I could always go to NYC for all that stuff.
Imagine having all of the historical monuments buried under some ugly ass buildings. Now, imagine 10 years from now with all those buildings being built and outdated.
No. People smarter than us actually put that restriction for a reason.
I would take the White House, Washington Monument and other historical buildings over big ugly building with "FOX", "CNN", "Northrup Grumman", "FedEx", and any other ****ty business signs any day. I could always go to NYC for all that stuff.
Having no skyline you could pass D.C. and wouldn't even notice it.
Why do cities like Atlanta and Miami look bigger than D.C.?
I mean for fuks sake Des Moines, Iowa looks bigger
Having no skyline you could pass D.C. and wouldn't even notice it.
Why do cities like Atlanta and Miami look bigger than D.C.?
I mean for fuks sake Des Moines, Iowa looks bigger
Where can you actually pass D.C and not notice it? How dumb do you have to be to not notice where DC is in this time and age? I mean, according to you, DC should become like Vegas, so nobody goes without not noticing it, and I think that's rather annoying.
Atlanta and Miami look bigger because they have taller building due to not having a height restriction. They're also not the nations capitol. And frankly, half of the tall buildings in Atlanta are hotels.
Where can you actually pass D.C and not notice it? How dumb do you have to be to not notice where DC is in this time and age? I mean, according to you, DC should become like Vegas, so nobody goes without not noticing it, and I think that's rather annoying.
Atlanta and Miami look bigger because they have taller building due to not having a height restriction. They're also not the nations capitol. And frankly, half of the tall buildings in Atlanta are hotels.
You have to get fairly close to D.C. to see the Monument and the other buildings that stand out unless your from a high elevation in the suburbs.
The height limit is wack...
I absolutely agree with the post quoted below, It's not height as much as mix that stops sprawl. If you have a 100 story tower with nothing but offices that is a huge sprawl creator as it houses a lot of workers that HAVE to live somewhere else. If you have a twelve story mixed use building that has offices, residents, retail, etc. that is a sprawl reducer as people have the ability to live, work, shop, play, etc without using a car to get from place to place. Especially if there are many other such buildings nearby.
I don't think D.C. needs more height, although it might not be bad away from the mall area. What it and EVERY city and town across this country needs is more mixed use development. It's time to stop the separation of uses and mix it up to create more livable and greener communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11
DC already is fairly dense at 8,000 per, and has some of the most densely populated close-in suburbs in the country. And without any skyscrapers, it's also got more office space than any jurisdiction in the country except NYC, LA, and the City of Chicago, not to mention the 2nd most ridden subway.
When Philadelphia had its height restriction, it had close to 15,000 people per sq mile. Its density has actually dropped since it started allowing buildings above the William Penn statue.
Houston, on the other hand, has tons of skyscrapers, but just 3,500 people per square mile, and just a single light rail line that carries 1/10th the number of passengers as metro. Atlanta also has plenty of skyscrapers, and its core city has the same density as Fairfax County.
Height restriction does not reduce density unless you've got the economy to support 50,000 people per square mile, or 50 million sq ft of office space per sq mile. Shorter buildings do the job just fine at 10-15k per. Tall buildings go up in Tyson's, Houston, and Atlanta because they work best economically, but that does not mean they're enough to create a real urban density and stop regional sprawl.
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.
