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.
I believe it can. Paris has height limits and its city limits are smaller than DC, yet its population is more than 1 million. But I do believe that easing the height limits in the future (I'm not in favor of eliminating them outright) could be a good thing in the long term possibly.
Virginia fully supports your plan. They will continue to build hi rises and aborb jobs and tax dollars, its a little difficult to run a real business out of a row home.
The commercial rowhomes on King Street seem to be doing a really good job, even in incredibly expensive Georgetown on M Street and Wisconsin Avenue.
The commercial rowhomes on King Street seem to be doing a really good job, even in incredibly expensive Georgetown on M Street and Wisconsin Avenue.
Agreed, but I think there is a difference between corporations and what you find on M street (as far as tax revenue). I think they are doing a great job over there, but DC needs to get serious about attracting corporations -- NOVA sure as heck is....
Agreed, but I think there is a difference between corporations and what you find on M street (as far as tax revenue). I think they are doing a great job over there, but DC needs to get serious about attracting corporations -- NOVA sure as heck is....
True. I believe outside of G-Town, most of the corporations in DC are setup in Friendship Heights which is also one of those special taxation districts. I could definitely picture more corporations eying the likes of NoMa, the up-in-coming Southwest Eco-District, Connecticut Avenue, etc. It could definitely increase DC's economic profile and economic diversity even more.
If you limit apt/condos to currently zoned areas for such residential development, I don't see how you get to 1M without raising the height limit as household sizes have decreased significantly in the past 30 years. Even raising the height limit to 20 stories would probably make it hard to get to 1M short of razing every current building and re-building upward; an unlikely event. To get to 1M you'll need to start building 30 story and up buildings that and limit setbacks.
I think D.C. will be a better city with tons of dense neighborhoods across the whole 61 square miles. Building up area's outside the core of D.C. to resemble the core of D.C. will do wonders for this city. Thoughts?[/font][/color]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcave360
I believe it can. Paris has height limits and its city limits are smaller than DC, yet its population is more than 1 million.
I take it both of you wish to bulldoze every single rowhouse and single-family neighborhood? Good luck with that.
Yes, there are some emerging neighborhoods that aren't fully built out. Yes, plenty of dowdy streetcar corridors like Rhode Island Avenue need attention. No, you're kidding yourselves if you think that those alone can fit ~400,000 new residents, and their jobs.
There's a reason why most other growing cities (and I mean central cities that are growing, from London and Singapore to New York, Toronto, and San Francisco) have gone the Vancouver route and rezoned central industrial land for high-rises: this allows them to add new housing, and new jobs, while keeping voters' single family houses intact. Mid-rise Paris is beautiful, but it was not built by a democracy.
There's no need to open up the height limit. There's also no need to get to 1 million population. DC is one of the most prosperous cities in the world. It's also one of the rare cities where people can easily live within a mile or two of where they work. It's not broke. Let Virginia build ugly high rises.
DC's population topped out at about 800,000 in the 1950s. And that's with less high rises than there are now. DC should be able to handle a million residents without becoming another Manhattan. But having said that I don't think it would ruin the city to raise the height limit slightly in a few areas like downtown.
Why do you want a million people here anyway? Bragging rights? I guess its great if you want, more taxes, less space, less parking, more expensive housing, and bigger local government.
Why do you want a million people here anyway? Bragging rights? I guess its great if you want, more taxes, less space, less parking, more expensive housing, and bigger local government.
I say, its fine the way it is.
uh... young one, it's not IF you want it, the original poster is asking, what IF in the future, there are too many people in DC, and how will DC accommodate all of those population increase without a skyscraper.
I think, eventually, they'll over-build VA and MD to accommodate more people who doesn't want to shell out $3500 a month for a 500 sq ft apartment, like NYC in the 80's.
VA and MD can go high as they want, but I honestly think that height limitation is an important one, not just to make sure you can see the capitol, white house, etc, but for military reasons (which I always thought it was a vice versa sort of thing, because of the exposure). That and I just can't see the White House or the Capitol shadowed by some giant 200 floor buildings.
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.
