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.
well the development isn't scheduled to be finished until 2020, so you might want to stretch your prediction out just a tad.
And it will probably extend longer than that, as largescale development projects nearly always do.
That said, if all of the development plans along the Waterfront come to fruition, SW DC will indeed become quite the destination. It has taken a lot of work to overcome the destruction wrought by the horrid 1950s-style urban planning.
Location: Standing outside of heaven, wating for God to come and get me.
1,382 posts, read 3,714,913 times
Reputation: 537
I currently rent in the area and would like to actually buy a place in SW before prices get to high. I am just debating on where exactly to buy. I like the 4th street corridor and I am thinking that eventually they will tear down Channel Square and replace those with high end apartments or condos. I wouldn't mind getting something in that spot. If I had the money, I would buy at harbor square.
I'm really not sure where you get your information, but this is simply incorrect.
There's nothing that would prevent the construction of taller buildings in southwest DC other than Congress. Congress is responsible for DC's height restriction, which was put in place in the early 20th century for largely aesthetic purposes (although the justification given at the time was because fires in buildings higher than 100 feet were difficult to extinguish). Certainly in the federal center and ballpark areas, there's nothing regarding the composition of the ground or soil that would preclude 30, 04 or 50 story buildings. As it is, DC office buildings are already some of the deepest in the country, due to the height restriction and the need to extend the building as far underground as possible in order to maximize square footage.
You might be interested in considering the history of another dense, built-out urban neighborhood--Chicago's Streeterville, which is built almost entirely upon reclaimed land created from a landfill. It happens to be home to some of Chicago's most iconic skyscrapers, including the Hancock Tower.
I think they need more acreage and trees for it to be Central Park.
But I wish DC doesn't become like NYC (not that it could). I wish it could be unique as Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Boston, and all the other places in US. If all the states were the same here, I'm moving to France or Italy for sure (even South Africa or Asia).
I think they need more acreage and trees for it to be Central Park.
But I wish DC doesn't become like NYC (not that it could). I wish it could be unique as Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Boston, and all the other places in US. If all the states were the same here, I'm moving to France or Italy for sure (even South Africa or Asia).
Just me.
No worries, DC could never become NYC. There are similarities, for example, a lot of people move to them, a lot of ambitious people aspire to be something in them, etc. But, I think outside of that, the two cities seem quite a bit different to me in way too many ways.
Good point about Central Park being way too different. A person can easily get lost in Central Park, and just a massive massive place. Whereas the little National Mall, you pretty much know where you are at all times. Central Park has thousands of niches and crannies, that even when you think you are familiar with many of them, you'll discover more and more everytime in. Plus, trying to find the same place in Central park, takes a lot of careful navigating.
You all need to spend more time in Rock Creek. Granted, it doesn't have the open vistas to become the city's gathering area like Central Park, but between it, the Mall (if they re-do it to make it more user friendly), and Fort Dupont Park, we've got a pretty healthy pile of open space to get lost in.
Nor was it designed to. Central Park was an Olmstead creation, very carefully and intentionally planned and sculpted. RCP, on the other hand, isn't planned at all--it's a National Park, and functions more as a wilderness preserve inside the city than an urban park.
Question, instead of trying to imitate other cities, shouldn't we try to be original as possible. I don't want anything in this city being compared to anywhere else. We should aim HIGH and try to be the best out here and f*** the rest.
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.
