D.C. Height Restriction - Leading Cause of High Housing Prices/Sprawl? (apartment, lease)
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.
Anyone who has ever been to Paris knows that although there is a height restriction in parts of town, the La Defense, which is the city's main corporate downtown has dozens of skyscrapers, many exceeding 40 stories. Obviously it is a good idea to keep height restrictions around the monuments however I see no problem with having dense clusters of high rises around metro stations in other parts of the city.
Funny how that does not work in LA. Tons of traffic jams every day. Yet there sits an eastern-style downtown with plenty of room for more corporations.
True, maybe its part of our city culture now. Maybe our companies and residents, like Los Angelans, do not wish to live in taller buildings or steer away from their cars.
We do have a better mass transit infrastructure though, and a population willing to use it.
Last edited by tenken627; 02-27-2008 at 09:25 AM..
We shouldn't kid ourselves--lifting the height requirement is not going to mean more affordable housing. It will be offices at $45 a sq foot minimum. Maybe a few condos (just what we need in DC--more condos) but for those folks who want a more affordable 3-5 br place to live, going up is not the answer.
Oh no doubt. The article was trying to argue that the height restriction already caused high housing prices.
I'm not sure that taking off the restriction will realistically cause the prices to drop.
I guess people still want their 3-5 bedroom single family home with a 2 car garage and acre of land. But, people are indeed moving into DC, where finding a place like that is almost nonexistent.
People are not moving into DC looking for a large single family house. People are moving into DC to be near the shops, museums, attractions, nightlife. You just won't find that as easily in the suburbs.
If people indeed are willing to move into DC, would their be more supply of single family homes in the suburbs?
I recently bought a house in Maryland and I asked my realtor why DC area housing prices are so high.
His response- "Because the federal government isn't going anywhere."
So, great demand, low supply?
Actually, it's not about low supply per se.
Honestly, what is the first question we ask people when they are moving to the D.C. area? Job location. It's all about traffic and commute. The closer in an area is, the more expensive. The closer an area is to a highway or metro stop, the more expensive. Huge demand for these areas.
People wanting affordable housing are moving more and more outwards. The more our metro grows outward, the greater our traffic congestion. This in turn caused housing prices to rise even more (at least before the housing bust), and stimulated growth even more outwards. It became a vicious cycle.
Last edited by tenken627; 02-27-2008 at 09:40 AM..
Well sort of. The government, last time I looked, is not getting smaller or thriftier.
Quote:
People wanting affordable housing are moving more and more outwards. The more our metro grows outward, the greater our traffic congestion. This in turn caused housing prices to rise even more (at least before the housing bust), and stimulated growth even more outwards. It became a vicious cycle.
Indeed true. But what you describe is happening almost everywhere. Been to Denver lately? And they say Metro Dallas will eventually hit the Oklahoma border.
On one hand its good as an increase in homeowners (not subprime ones) is a sign of growing prosperity. On the other hand, you get the sprawl and traffic you describe.
Well sort of. The government, last time I looked, is not getting smaller or thriftier.
Indeed true. But what you describe is happening almost everywhere. Been to Denver lately? And they say Metro Dallas will eventually hit the Oklahoma border.
On one hand its good as an increase in homeowners (not subprime ones) is a sign of growing prosperity. On the other hand, you get the sprawl and traffic you describe.
I agree with you. Sprawl and growth is indeed the new American culture.
Do you think easing height restrictions in D.C. would help alleviate at least some of the problems in the area though?
Or at least give the city more benefits than detriments?
There's an interesting article in this month's Atlantic Monthly by an urban planner who has analyzed the data and argues that there has been a fundamental shift in the lifestyle values of Americans.
They are en mass toward walkable, urban centers in much the way their predessors abandoned them for the suburbs. Only 1/3 of current auto-dependent suburban residents want to be living that lifestyle. He says that the abandonment of cities, increase in crime, and fracturing of large homes into rental units that afflicted urban centers from the 60s-90s will afflict the outer ring cul-de-sac suburbs that are not located near walkable or transit centers. He cites that some of these McMansion neighborhoods have already begun to turn into suburban ghettos of sorts.
DC is lightyears ahead of other cities in this regard and I think that this well planned and well utilized infrastructure (including the planned layout - what a concept! - and the strategic public investments to build neighborhoods around transit) is a large reason for the city's sudden success in attracting and retaining financially stable residents that have increased prices. It seems to have little to do with the height restriction (what percentage of people in any city actually live higher than the 13th story, anyway?). If they're just looking to attract businesses, I think an emerging industry in the region would have to be identified.
One also has to consider the fact that the federal government has exponentiallly expanded under the Bush administration, making 11 of the top 25 wealthiest counties in the country in the DC area (including the top 3). So, it would be interesting if a more fiscally responsible administration came in whether the housing prices would remain high.
Anyone who has ever been to Paris knows that although there is a height restriction in parts of town, the La Defense, which is the city's main corporate downtown has dozens of skyscrapers, many exceeding 40 stories. Obviously it is a good idea to keep height restrictions around the monuments however I see no problem with having dense clusters of high rises around metro stations in other parts of the city.
I think that is a great idea!
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.
