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.
All three of these cities are close to the same level for economic prosperity and represent three of the 6 most urban cities in the nation. Many people say San Fran is the most urban, others say Boston, and most consider D.C. to be behind both. Today, for the first time in U.S. history, D.C.'s mayor is pushing forward a plan to eliminate height limits in the District.
How do you think D.C. will stack up to San Fran or Boston if/when height limits are eliminated?
As Ive stated in the past, once we get to this level of city, saying which is more urban is like comparing 99.995% to 99.994% to 99.993%
As far as DC and it's height limit, maybe DC could have a highrise district like La Defense? Maybe multiple high rise districts but leave the capitol mall area as is. My 2 cents.
Personally, I like the height limit in DC. When you travel enough you realize that all cities, even the cities with small populations and low employment prospects, have high rises it makes them less exciting unless you’re in NYC of course.
The height limit gives DC a unique feel and look but we’ll see.
As Ive stated in the past, once we get to this level of city, saying which is more urban is like comparing 99.995% to 99.994% to 99.993%
As far as DC and it's height limit, maybe DC could have a highrise district like La Defense? Maybe multiple high rise districts but leave the capitol mall area as is. My 2 cents.
Agreed. The urban core should remain the same, however, the Hilleast/RFK campus and Poplar Point land both have the ability to become massive high rise waterfront districts. Both of them have a larger footprint than Seaport in Boston.
Agreed. The urban core should remain the same, however, the Hilleast/RFK campus and Poplar Point land both have the ability to become massive high rise waterfront districts. Both of them have a larger footprint than Seaport in Boston.
I actually think the urban core should get a modest height increase, maybe 225ft, and outside of that you let it rip.
I actually think the urban core should get a modest height increase, maybe 225ft, and outside of that you let it rip.
I think let the urban core build completely out with no change to the height limit and allow all outer areas to reach 500-1,000 feet. That would include Poplar Point land, Old Soldiers Home land, Hill East/RFK, St. Elizabeth, and Brentwood Shopping Center/BET Campus land.
I think let the urban core build completely out with no change to the height limit and allow all outer areas to reach 500-1,000 feet. That would include Poplar Point land, Old Soldiers Home land, Hill East/RFK, St. Elizabeth, and Brentwood Shopping Center/BET Campus land.
Alas 500-1000ft would never happen. I wouldn’t mind it though!
The area of Downtown in Chinatown/Penn Quarter doesn't look bad with the height limit, but I personally think K Street (and the surrounding blocks of offices) from around 14th all the way to Georgetown just looks terrible solely because of the height limit. It's like one continuous flat roof. At least getting rid of the height limit would get some contrasting views when you look up.
If DC is going to do any high rises it’s going to be on the west side away from the Airport. But I honestly like the “low-rise” look of DC it makes it unique
Maybe DC should take back Arlington and consolidate the old city again 100 sq mi. And I agree that like Paris there should be a skyscraper district at least 2 miles away from the Washington Monument. Arlington would be great for this.
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.