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 think the height limit should be modified soon (next 15 years) to accommodate growth in the core area.
This. I really think increasing the height limit substantially outside of the downtown area is a mistake. But downtown the heights can go up. The problem is the examples shown are always I'll representative of cities with taller buildings.
This. I really think increasing the height limit substantially outside of the downtown area is a mistake. But downtown the heights can go up. The problem is the examples shown are always I'll representative of cities with taller buildings.
Agreed. The core area is where height can be accommodated the best - (i.e. it is already dense, has good transit, and is the most desirable for development).
For instance, I would be supportive of the DC government seeking to expand the boundaries of the C-5 zone (160 foot building heights, up to 12 FAR). It already exists, so let's expand that. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here.
This. I really think increasing the height limit substantially outside of the downtown area is a mistake. But downtown the heights can go up. The problem is the examples shown are always I'll representative of cities with taller buildings.
I think 20-30 stories is a happy medium. Still short enough for a good view of the mall, Washington Monument and Capital building. Yet, still tall enough to double or triple the usable office and residential space downtown.
Agreed. The core area is where height can be accommodated the best - (i.e. it is already dense, has good transit, and is the most desirable for development).
For instance, I would be supportive of the DC government seeking to expand the boundaries of the C-5 zone (160 foot building heights, up to 12 FAR). It already exists, so let's expand that. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here.
I think they should find a way to drop the price of rent by furthering development 15 miles outside the White House, and provide tax break for suburban area developments.
Even in NYC, there is no way I would pay $3,200 for a 500 sq ft studio and $200 per month in underground parking. I mean, you can get those rich parent's of Georgetown to thank for all the hype in the price, because they all live there.
DC should look into this. Not only is this costing more for the government for hiring employees, but it's costing more for the companies supporting the government to pay more for the employees.
Additionally, telework is great, but nobody visited telework police in detail enough it's good now. It's just good enough.
Getting rid of the height limit is about the only way to reduce housing prices (or at least keep them steady), sans a local economic collapse. There is incredible pent up demand for housing in DC as can be seen by increasing prices and low vacancy rates. Being able to build 20-30 floor buildings instead of 9-13 would greatly help the supply constraints that exist. It would also help reduce the cost per unit of construction making projects financially viable that aren't currently, particularly those which aren't luxury buildings.
From a livability point of view, having taller buildings in downtown DC would concentrate commercial uses in fewer buildings, which would allow for more downtown residential. This would make the area more vibrant 24/7 instead of just during working hours.
The other major consideration is that taller buildings could provide the incremental tax financing needed to build another metro line through the core. This is an expensive proposition, but allowing building density could provide the needed funding to get such a project off the ground, along with the additional demand to pay for on-going operations and maintenance of a new line.
Yes, increase the height limit. But not too much. Downtown, with block after block of squat boxy office buildings, all the exact same height, is boring as hell, and not an efficient use of the city core.
Do you think the height limit should stay in place? Should they relax it a little to accommodate growth? Or should they completely get rid of it?
I love the fact we have so much sunlight in DC compared to cities with skyscrapers. However, I do think the height limit should allow for taller buildings but not too much taller.
Raise the limits in the Downtown core to at least 30 stories, that would most likely be a major economic benefit for the City and may even slow down price increases in the rental market. I doubt it'll compromise DC's low-rise character significantly as well as the amounts of beautiful open sunlight it receives, if anything, it'll be like a miniature Philly where you have a large cluster of taller buildings in a certain section of town while the majority of the city is still largely human-scaled.
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.
