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.
He goes by blocks, it's just a rough estimate- nothing more. That's why you wont be able to get any information on any buildings beyond a certain point- the site just says it "exists" without really existing.
For example, he goes with whats in the area. If there's a multitude number of 8 story buildings in a certain section of the city then he assumes every block will be the same way. He's not very accurate with his information which is constantly updated on a near daily basis (try using the database after 1 AM sometimes- it's down for maintenance) but it's still pretty far fetched from what actually exists. It's just relative, it's a good indication of what's there without having accurate numbers.
Plus Dylan doesn't have that kind of time anymore, he moved overseas for other ventures- he hardly cares about the database anymore to update it frequently or accurately.
Is there much green/LEED building going on DC among the taller buildings. It would seem impractical in DC given the height limitations and general higher sloor height of green building. For example the Comcast building (believe still the tallest LEED certified building) is only like 50 stories at nearly 1,000 ft
Never thought about it but would make for inefficient sq footage it would seem when you cant build up
All new buildings being built in the 10-14 story range in DC are LEED certified. It's the law. Thanks to the "Green Building Act of 2006" which requires public and private commercial buildings to meet certain green benchmarks.
DC has a 130 foot height cap, which comes out almost perfect that they would max out most buildings near this height, breaking the 10 story barrier. Where as LA could easily drop 4-5+ buildings in the same surface area. Not really a fair discussion, it would be better to just judge new office space and that is the normal state, not # of buildings.
That means due to space, virtually EVERY building will meet that heigh, where as LA might have 3 50 story buildings, then 15 5 story buildings...
"The law governing building heights in Washington is somewhat more complex than many people realize. It restricts buildings to 20 feet taller than the adjacent street, up to a maximum of 90 feet on residential streets, 130 feet on commercial streets, and 160 feet on Pennsylvania Avenue downtown. (In many neighborhoods, zoning is more restrictive.) The effect is that, in downtown and other highly-valued commercial areas, new buildings in the city generally rise to 10 or 11 stories; developers max out their allowance, with the result that most new buildings in the hottest commercial parts of the city have the same height."
Like others have said, in LA there is a huge cost savings for buildings to be under about 7 stories, so most of the new stuff is 7 or under. And then when they're over 7, it's usually by quite a bit. An 8 story building doesn't make any sense given how much more it would cost than a 7 story building. Similarly 9, 10, 11, etc are also hard to pencil out.
All that being what it is, the city limits of LA are so much larger than DC I'd have to assume that LA would eventually pull ahead based on size alone.
You'll say L.A. for what? Which question are you answering? Are you referring to the amount of total buildings over 10 stories or how many buildings L.A. will build that are over 20-70 stories in the future?
I say LA because of its size and its multiple job centers like downtown, Century City and Hollywood. And yes Hollywood is a section of Los Angeles and not its own city like many seem to think.
I say LA because of its size and its multiple job centers like downtown, Century City and Hollywood. And yes Hollywood is a section of Los Angeles and not its own city like many seem to think.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,822,981 times
Reputation: 14665
LA has almost maxed out its sprawl potential which means it has limitless potential for urban infall. There is no iota of doubt that LA will densify exponentially in the 21st century. I don't think the footprint of DC could possibly keep up with it. The 30/10 plan expanding light rail, heavy rail/subways will spawn a lot of TOD and densification for sure that will like include 10+ story buildings.
LA has almost maxed out its sprawl potential which means it has limitless potential for urban infall. There is no iota of doubt that LA will densify exponentially in the 21st century. I don't think the footprint of DC could possibly keep up with it. The 30/10 plan expanding light rail, heavy rail/subways will spawn a lot of TOD and densification for sure that will like include 10+ story buildings.
Didn't the 30/10 plan to built it faster fail this past election? I thought I read without the update passing, it would take decades for it to be built. Also, the question was only talking about 3 years from now. I am pretty sure L.A. will move past D.C. in the long run.
Didn't the 30/10 plan to built it faster fail this past election? I thought I read without the update passing, it would take decades for it to be built. Also, the question was only talking about 3 years from now. I am pretty sure L.A. will move past D.C. in the long run.
It "failed" with 66.1% of the vote. But there is still measure R - everything will be built in 30-ish years (supposed to take 30 exactly but you know with these kind of projects....). There is a push to modify Prop 13 to make transportation taxes only need 55% instead of the ridiculous 66.6% it needs. There is also a few back-up plans (including potential public/private funding) or it could be on the ballot again in 4 years (would take one election to get Prop 13 modified).
In the next 3 years DC may pull ahead. Long-run definitely Los Angeles.
It "failed" with 66.1% of the vote. But there is still measure R - everything will be built in 30-ish years (supposed to take 30 exactly but you know with these kind of projects....). There is a push to modify Prop 13 to make transportation taxes only need 55% instead of the ridiculous 66.6% it needs. There is also a few back-up plans (including potential public/private funding) or it could be on the ballot again in 4 years (would take one election to get Prop 13 modified).
In the next 3 years DC may pull ahead. Long-run definitely Los Angeles.
That 66.6% of the vote needed is retarded. They were trying to set that up for failure before it even got started. Transit is the red headed step child in this country.
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.
