February 6, 2007
Such Great Heights
What would D.C. look like if Congress took away the restrictions on building height?
We’ve pondered this question before, and so have a lot of others. It’s one of the favorite parlor games of D.C.’s professional (and amateur) urban planners.
The subject arose again in yesterday’s Post, when business columnist Dana Hedgpeth noted the recent comments of a land use expert questioning the wisdom and necessity of D.C.'s height limit. The expert cautioned that the city's restrictions throw away significant income potential and continue to push development to the Tyson's hinterlands.
The immediate response of most Washingtonians to such a proposal is defensive, and with good reason. The height limit is credited with helping D.C. avoid the dreary tower-in-a-parking-lot renewal that deadened so many downtowns in the last half-century. The low crouch of downtown buildings protects views of the Capitol, the Washington Monument, National Cathedral, and other civic silhouettes from all over the city, and provides a local character unlike any other place in the U.S. Our streets remain, as Thomas Jefferson insisted, “light and airy”, avoiding the dark canyons of skyscraper cities like New York and Chicago.
And so goes the knee-jerk response, and those seeking to maximize the city's income potential for its residents fail to gain any traction. In the meantime, the cost of doing business in the city remains artificially inflated by the physical constraints placed on building construction, and the cost of living remains out of reach for many of our own citizens. The discussion never gets beyond an oversimplified choice between cashing in and destroying the city’s architectural character.
For the discussion to get past the starting line, it’s important to keep perspective. We're talking about relatively few 20 and 25 story buildings, not the Manhattanization of Washington. It also helps to do away with some persistent myths about the height limit, starting with the basics:
Photo of Rosslyn by Sager!!!
>>The height limit is set by the Capitol Building, and building taller will block it from view.
Somehow, this rumor persists. The top of the Dome is 288 feet tall – more than double the height limit in the majority of the city. And even those pushing to ease the limits aren’t suggesting we surround the Capitol Dome with 40-story towers, like poor William Penn in Philadelphia. Preserving the character of the historic core is paramount; the Capitol and the 555-foot Washington Monument will always dominate the skyline of the historic core and glorify the city’s identity as the seat of the federal government, just as the Eiffel Tower looms over historic Paris.
>>Eliminating the height limit will make D.C. look like Crystal City.
The quality of architecture has very little to do with the height of the buildings. Crystal City looks the way it does because it was mostly developed in an era of questionable priorities for urban buildings. Bad design can occur just as easily in lower buildings. In fact, many claim that the height limit is detrimental to design. When developers are forced to maximize density under the height ceiling, buildings get boxier and less articulated, leading to many unfortunate designs like those on K Street or on Massachusetts Avenue. On the other hand, good urban design – with meaningful oversight – can produce wonderful places of any height.
>>Developers are already overbuilding in the District, and we’re going to be stuck with a bunch of empty speculative buildings blighting the city. We already have way more new residential units than we need.
Despite anecdotal evidence trotted out by doom sayers, most evidence indicates that the city’s growth remains very healthy, especially compared to the rest of the country. The office market continues to boom, with tons of new construction and one of the country’s highest absorption rates. Yes, the condo market has cooled from the scorching pace of the last few years. But it’s normalizing after a historic boom market, and the overall residential market continues to roll along. The softened condo market has been offset by the tightening rental market. Developers change their delivery method, but just keep building new units to meet high demand for housing in the District.
Yes, we may be adequately supplied with $500,000 studio “lofts”. But there remains a serious need for affordable dwellings in a city that employs thousands of cops, teachers, and service industry workers, but has a drastically limited capacity to house them.
>>The height limit caps an oversupply of speculative building and pushes new construction to underdeveloped areas of the city.
There's actually a great deal of truth to this, especially with the construction market booming as it did over the past decade. But it's not necessarily an either/or decision. Not allowing a developer to grow taller than 130 feet downtown doesn't mean that developer is just as likely to find a second plot of land in Southeast to revitalize. In fact, developers are probably more likely to build on that less desirable parcel if enticed by meaningful density and height bonuses. Combined with the proper growth controls to curb over speculation, savvy use of the height restrictions could actually be an even more effective tool for spreading development around the city.
Many of those opposing the height limits make incredibly valid points about missed economic opportunities for the city. Much of Arlington and Bethesda’s economic success is owed to the more profitable development pushed over from D.C., partly due to the height limitation and its effect on land costs. While few residents shed tears for the plight of those developers, D.C. ends up losing when those dollars go to Arlington and Montgomery County tax bases, and more new jobs are created in the surrounding counties instead of the District.
It’s not all soulless speculative development out there, either. Many Washingtonians who have long looked down on Rosslyn as a less urbane neighbor would be surprised to venture across the river to find a maturing city with all the comforts of city living – transit, jobs, restaurants, and lively streets, not to mention increasingly refined hi-rise development sprouting from the Virginia soil. What would be wrong with similarly urban development emerging on the banks of the Anacostia across from the new ballpark, or terminating East Capitol Street on the site of RFK? What about following Montgomery County’s lead in truly capitalizing on the benefits of smart growth, by placing a critical mass of development on the city’s transit corridors, such as along Connecticut, Georgia, or New York Avenues? Such development could add hundreds of affordable units, thousands of jobs, and a significant increase in tax revenue for the city, with minimal effect on the historic character of the city’s core.
Indeed, there is something precious and valuable preserved in the neighborhoods in the original L’Enfant plan, and the height limit is part of maintaining that character. Congress is prudent to not allow for towers in the core. But limiting other parts of the city that are miles away to the same restrictions doesn’t seem to make much sense either. Perhaps it’s time the city asked Congress to amend the Height of Buildings Act from an oversimplified and arbitrary standard to a smarter set of regulations designed to make D.C. a beautiful and more prosperous place.
|
Extremely well stated. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to send that along as a letter to the DC Office of Planning and to the offices of Adrian Fenty and Eleanor Norton-Holmes.
I agree with Jeff Beam. Many enter this argument with an all-or-nothing approach. Either we have a height restriction or we don't. Why does it have to be so oversimplified? Some that are against lifting the height restriction may not be taking into account that propronents are not asking for the wholesale lifting of the height restriction, but instead they are asking for the height limitation to be readjusted. Additionally, most proponents agree that it should only be readjusted in certain areas of the city, preferably away from the monumental core. DC is big enough to allow that! Adjusting the height limit in some areas of DC to allow 20 or 25-storey buildings could be quite attractive. But make no mistake, there still would be a height limitation. Paris may be a good guide in this aspect. Paris allows taller buildings in certain areas of the city, and it looks quite attractive (to me) from above and on ground level. I think what hurts the whole argument is the all-or-nothing approach. I think we can be more forward-looking in that aspect.
"The low crouch of downtown buildings protects views of the Capitol, the Washington Monument, National Cathedral, and other civic silhouettes from all over the city.."
I've never really bought this. I think it's the street layout that maintains the views. You'll still see the Capitol if you're on Penn., no matter how tall the buildings on the side of the street are. Similarly, you'll always see the Capitol coming southbound on N. Capitol St. (or vice-versa), unless they start putting buildings in the middle of the road.
What about all the underutilized spaces in the city? Wouldn't prudent development of these areas fulfill the needs of the city deftly laid out in your piece, while still maintianing the character that many present day residents and the city planners appreciate? As a recent transplant from NY, I have a lot of qualms about DC, but the lack of skscrapers is not one of them.
It would look like Rosslyn. Anyone who says that it would look like NYC or Chicago is an idiot. The geology in only a few cities (like parts of NYC) are able to support really tall buildiings.
One would expect the local developer community to be in the vanguard of abolishing the height restriction. Is there any active lobbying being done on their part? I'm guessing that VA/MD legislators would be against any removal on the height restriction as that would create more competition for office space in their districts.
Maybe the Mies van der Rohe fanclub can chime in here. Is there anything preventing a 20-story underground building? I mean, if they can dig a Wheaton Metro tunnel where you can almost hear the molemen and hollow earth creatures under the escalator, I'm sure they can pull that off.
Whether for sale or for rent, those condos are still empty. More condos won't change much as it might help stabalize the costs, but it won't make them go down.
And in the end, people who own actual buildings have to be surrounded by giant shadows.
Good question, ME. Morton Bender (he of much infamy) has bragged about talking to Stephen Joel Trachtenburg about this very thing.
This article misses the points that: 1- there is alot of affordable housing in this city. Just not in places where people who bitch about the lack of it are willing to live. 2- boxy square buildings are driven by a desire to maximize rate of return. We'll get our share of these no matter what limit there is on height because only the charitable leave FAR on the table.
Hey mokeyerotica. Let me know, but it sounds like you are taking the all-or-nothing approach. Most proponents are asking the height limit to be readjusted, not abolished. If we could just think about this in a logical way without oversimplifying it, many would find that allowing taller buildings (but not too tall), would actually make DC even more beautiful and prosperous. Let me know if I am wrong in my assumption about your comment.
Most of the views would not be effected, either by the river boundary or because of the street layout. However, some individuals would be effected from their uptown offices and domiciles, but that's not as significant to the city as the alternative growth. I think this piece by Jeff is excellent, and right on. Development should be more rigidly controlled near the mall, but we need to adjust these rules to allow denser development in other areas of the city if DC is serious about maintaining growth, staying competitive with VA, providing affordable housing that is also safe, and combatting sprawl. And as Jeff illustrates, it can be done without sacrificing the charm of the city by finding a happy medium.
I have no basis for this but it is my impression that tall buildings are more likely to be office than residential. Is there a shortage of office space in the city? I'm not being snarky, I'm asking since I have no idea.
Also, aren't most of the areas that would be targeted for these looser height limits already built out? I avoided the real estate classes in planning school but I have to guess that it would require a serious expectation of profit to pull down the relatively recently built buildings to put up a building with 10 extra stories.
As for views. None of the state street views would be affected but the views from the escarpment east of the river might be affected if height restrictions were lifted in southwest.
The commercial real estate market in Washington is often called the most expensive in the country. I haven't looked at the data.
Well, I'm not making an argument either way. I'm just trying to see what compelling interest Congress would have in changing the height restriction. Laws like these are like salt, it's easy to get it in the soup but just try getting it out. And they don't have a really good track record on listening to District residents' grievances.
Anybody remember downtown in the '70s and '80s, when the place became a ghosttown after 7pm? Everybody packed into their cars or Metro and got the hell out of Dodge. Before MCI Center, all there was to do was the old 9:30 Club and DC Space and Mcdonalds the hookers on 14th Street. We need more shops and restaurants and bars and people living downtown, not 5-10 more stories of sterile, mirrored cubes that are vacant half the time.
As for this improving local prosperity, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the District really needs to collect more money when it's been logging consistent surpluses for years now. Where's that money gone? Inept six-figure-a-year administrators? Sweetheart real-estate and contractor deals? Cops who couldn't catch a cold? Didn't the homicide case closure rate drop below 40%? As someone who hates DC as only someone born in DC can, I have to say that the local economy is booming in spite of the DC Government, not because of it.
Hey Jesse,
Taller building could be for office or residential. There is no shortage of office space in DC, but there is definitely not a glut. Having more development and denser development in DC would help keep sprawl in check in the outer suburbs of DC.
"Also, aren't most of the areas that would be targeted for these looser height limits already built out?"
No. The areas that could be prime targets for looser height limits would be in the new Baseball district, Hill East, New York Avenue (east of Downtown). None of these areas are even close to being built out.
Jesse - There's definitely a shortage of office space. Witness the massive office developments off K Street SE. I believe the vacancy rate is less than 5% downtown, hence the development and outrageous pricing. Clearly demand is there.
And any new construction in the downtown core is going to be almost exclusively office space, since they can charge a ridiculous premium. I don't recall the exact figures, but it was way more than residential and that was before the condo market cooled off.
The "mixed use" mantra always gets major airplay when developers want permits; then they "can't make the numbers work" so out goes the residential portion. Same with all that mandated percentage of affordable housing for new developments. It gets whittled down from 15% to 5% then to nothing. The DC Government doesn't give a fat rat's fart about affordable housing; big office space prices mean big tax revenues for their coffers.
I tried to post the URL of a 2003 article about how the height limit was set in 1894 because of the Cairo apartment building, but it won't let me. If anyone is interested, Google the terms "cairo washington history" and click on the High Times link at the top.
But of course, the term "shortage" can be highly subjective. The demand for more office and residential space in DC is definitely there! Although the condo market is softening, the rental market is tightening - a natural balancing act between supply and demand. I will stick my neck out to say that we will find a lot more residents living in DC come the 2010 Census.
Also, I agree that having even more dense development in DC would make it that much more competitive with NoVA.
"Is there anything preventing a 20-story underground building?"
I'm sure there is some limit that would be hit before 20 stories, but I think the real problem is no windows.
Let's start a new trend in urban development and still protect our views...build more underground. If they can't build 15-20 stories up...let's see if we can get some corporations to dig that far down for their offices. Imagine the sweet view from the -20 floor.
A couple thoughts:
"D.C. ends up losing when those dollars go to Arlington and Montgomery County tax bases, and more new jobs are created in the surrounding counties instead of the District"
But round these parts, isn't the issue more where the workers live? While DC gets some tax benefits from jobs being located in the District, to the extent those jobs are filled with non-DC residents, it severely limits that benefit.
"But there remains a serious need for affordable dwellings in a city that employs thousands of cops, teachers, and service industry workers, but has a drastically limited capacity to house them."
As Mark pointed out, there are plenty of affordable housing options for these people, it's just not in a place they want to live. I am always skeptical of new construction's ability to provide affordable housing. Affordable housing is much more likely to be provided by old buildings, not brand new ones.
I think the answer to the affordable housing question is not construction, but rather further reducing crime and improving schools. Maybe that's a quixotic quest, but I believe even marginal improvements would help a lot more than cataclysmic money. The building stock is already there, it's about encouraging the middle class workers to move there.
I think fundamentally you have to decide whether the waiver is for commercial or residential purposes. Personally, I think there are plenty of things DC can do to increase residential density and affordability without resorting to towers. If the purpose is to increase business density, I think the purpose to too hampered by the fact you're going to pretty much exempt the entire CBD. Do we really think that the grounds of RFK can be turned into La Defense or the Canary Warf? Personally I doubt it.
Higher density building would over time decrease the cost of running a business downtown. Increase the supply and the demand (price) will decline, while the increase in volume gives the city greater tax base and stability. And as long as you include provisions on street-level retail in certain neighborhoods, you shouldn't run into the glass canyon effect. And condos sit empty because they are too expensive, not because they aren't desirable. Increased volume of units beyond what the height-restricted development can bear is sure to bring down prices, as well as give rich people another means to splurge downtown. Who wouldn't want the 30th-floor penthouse overlooking the capitol building?
There is not a shortage of office space in DC, just a shortage of affordable office space. I work for a large think tank which had to move offices from downtown to Pentagon City a few years ago because it was growing and could not afford space for 400 employees downtown. It's a good idea to start moving into underused parts of the city, but this often tends to push out residents who cannot afford to live in the newly-redeveloped areas anymore (see: PG County) and often leads to gentrification. With this in mind, perhaps certain only neighborhoods need to have relaxed height restrictions?
Wonderfully stated Jeff. I don't know why a common reaction to raising the height restriction is to proclaim the impending doom of turning DC into Rosslyn or Crystal City. The cluster of federal buildings south of the mall is pretty darn ugly, proof that bad design is bad design, no matter how tall you build. And I agree that a low height limit combined with increasing demand and high rents force developers to maximize the space in their buildings, which translates to a boxy design with little room for wasteful architectural flourishes.
I say DC should allow taller buildings in certain parts of the city, especially where revitalization is needed. I think it would be a great idea to allow for taller buildings in the area surrounding the new baseball stadium, both residential and commercial, to help differentiate the skyline and to entice people to live and work there. With careful planning, views of the DC's historic monuments and buildings can be preserved, and a modern skyline can emerge.
It is all or nothing--remember the radio tower that was just set up. It wasn't supposed to be that tall, but surprise. We challenged our limits and won. What, are you suggesting moderation? I don't think people think like that--yeah, this is fine, we're satisfied. We always push the limits--speed limit is 55, we do 90. I like how different DC is from other cities. I also know that buildings are changing--becoming green and environmentally conscious. Maybe we can develop there. I also know I don't like feeling like a rat--love NY but like seeing the sky too. And for those of you who love high rises, there are already places that exist for you. It's called NY and Chicago--move. DC has been fiscally irresponsible in the past--just ask METRO, who like the post office, is never going to balance their budget. Last I checked, Manhattan wasn't very affordable which I'm sure isn't a worry of developers.
One thing no one seems to address is that yes- the height restrictions make DC look nice from afar. And you can almost always see the monument, capitol, etc. BUT walking around certain areas, especially near the mall, involves walking whole blocks with nothing but a concrete wall and a massively guarded gate.
Since large government offices could not build UP, they built OUT. That is why those parts of the city are dead. That's why so many tourists complain there's nowhere to eat other than the museum cafeterias.
I personally don't spend a lot of my time looking up when I'm walking on the sidewalk. But I do spend my time fuming as I walk by the concrete fortresses that could otherwise be nice tall buildings.
Taller buildings = more offices.
More offices = new baseball stadiums
New baseball stadiums = profit
this really is a beautifully layed out city with wonderfully symmetrical architecture that took me several years to truly appreciate. Dotting it with a bunch of 50+ story glass and cement office towers is more likely to detract from that beauty than compliment it, whether they're built down near the mall or somewhere further away. finding ways to boost revenue and make the city more competitive is fine, but there are some things that can't be bought, including 200 years of architectural history. Its not just about the views of the monument or capital.
And I like the fact that the current height limits force developers to consider building in other parts of the city that would otherwise be completely neglected and forgotten -- many places that already have metro line access and the roads to handle the extra traffic. What's going on along M st SE is a good example, as well as some of the considerations for the area next to Anacostia park. There is a ton of unused space in this city that would be worthy of office development. Maybe not on k st. but it's there.
None of this speaks to either the fact that people as a rule seek to maximize rate of return or that demand for space, as a function of population and governance growth, will outpace any potential loosening of height and zoning ceilings. If we're worried about bland architecture (DCs not really known for that, btw), a dearth of streetlevel retail, or a dead downtown, there are less fundamental ways of addressing those things.
In the end, discussion of the height ceiling distracts in its unrealistic sophistry.
actually, just like billy penn, if dc decides to remove the height restriction, the nats will NEVER WIN A TITLE EVER. same goes for the rest of the sports. nothing like a curse to bring down gilbert.
its your buildings or your sports bragging rights, DC. you decide.
See, the all-or-nothing argument has already surfaced here. we want an adjustment of the height limit in certain areas of DC, and not height limit abolishment, which, by the way, does not include construction of 50- or 100-storey towers. If the government can set a height limit at around 130 to 160 ft, they can sure as well readjust that height limit to 220 feet. That law would have to be obeyed just as the current law is today. 20-storey buildings will not be casting great shadows upon the rest of the building stock in DC!
To shelley: I think the current height limit also pushes development out of the city.
christine, a height restriction by NO MEANS directly correlates to poor quality design. removing the height restriction will not promote a better, nicer design.
the reason you grit your teeth as you walk along goverment buildings is because the landscape architect was lazy.
and as far as 20 stories underground, Crystal city by no means is 20 stories underground, but that is a prime example of a sucessful mixed use development that utilized both above and below the ground surface.
Good point, j. I'm not the architectural type. But you are right. I don't see who would have ever thought concrete blocks were going to look good.
Actually, DC office rents are very high. The downtown area is the 2nd most expensive in the country after Midtown Manhattan. Downtown DC is slightly more expensive than Downtown Manhattan. This is according to CBRE, as of Nov 2006.
You can physically see the state of the downtown market since many buildings are being torn down and rebuilt, others are being renovated, and some are even being extended with additional floors.
This tidbit offers a nice snapshot:
"The Washington, DC market continued its healthy growth during the third quarter of 2006. Strong economic conditions, lack of large available vacant space, and escalating rents contributed momentum and inventory growth of over 970,000 square feet. During the third quarter, vacancy dropped to 5.8% from second quarter's 6.4%, due to mid- to large deals. Investors have seen strong returns despite the housing downturn. Overall net absorption reached 821,197 square feet, with over 1.8 million square feet year-to-date."
The architectural history of most of the PreWW2 federal buildings goes far beyond height restrictions. A lot has to do with the particular architectural style of the time which emphasized grandiose and imposing facades; which is expected when one is designing a national capital. Remember, DC architecture isn’t about representing those that live here, but a Nation’s values and beliefs, not just what local Joe Blow wants. IE: WWII Memorial designed created heated debate and produced many feeling mixed here in DC, but is overwhelming loved by the rest of country. I guess the reality is that DC architecture is shared with the locals and the expectations and traditions of all Americans
Rosslyn does look nice from downtown. If you want to keep the low-rise charm of the Mall and the central city, how about a second Rosslyn across the other river: lift the height restriction only on the South side of the Anancostia? There's Metro, a street-car, a new riverfront park, and the Nats new stadium. Sounds like the perfect opportunity. Skyscraper condos on the the waterfront all the way to the Wilson Bridge!
I think that the comparison to Paris is an interesting one. La Defense - Paris's sky-scraper district is outside of their beltway, while the only sky-scraper within the loop road is Monparnasse tower which is really an eyesore and pretty much despised by everyone.
I don't really see what is to be gained by altering the building height limit. The local economy is robust and there are plenty of parcels of land left to build on. There seems to be plenty of money in this place to support DC, Rosslyn and Tyson's without having to worry that one area is going to steal workers away from another.
I think that the height restrictions help to keep DC unique, and as much as I think that a skyline with beautiful skyscrapers can be breathtaking, I would never trade in our open skies and sweeping vistas for that.
What's wrong with pushing development out to places like Crystal City, Tyson's Corner, and Rosslyn? It's not like these places are 30 miles away from downtown. I kind of like the appearance of the high-rise buildings planted along the Potomac on the Virginia side of the river. That is the right place for them, not inside the District. Why does all development have to be downtown? People have to start thinking of the region as a whole, instead of along state/district boundary lines. Such short-sightedness is the reason why region-wide transportation is inadequately funded, among other things.
How about just lifting the height restriction for the south side of the Anacostia? Another Rosslyn, over the other river, but this time in the District.
Metro serves it, there's gonna be a riverfront park and a street-car, and the new stadium district will anchor the north side of the river. 25-40 story Water-front condo and office towers with views of the capital would go up in a heartbeat.
How about just lifting the height restriction for the south side of the Anacostia? Another Rosslyn, over the other river, but this time in the District.
Metro serves it, there's gonna be a riverfront park and a street-car, and the new stadium district will anchor the north side of the river. 25-40 story Water-front condo and office towers with views of the capital would go up in a heartbeat.
"How about just lifting the height restriction for the south side of the Anacostia? Another Rosslyn, over the other river, but this time in the District."
I think you'd find a ton of resistance from the residents of Wards 7 and 8. They're already raising a fuss over the DC United plans, and I can't imagine that a building spree of office space and residences that are outside the price range of a typical District-bound, middle-income earner would meet with a lot of favor.
It could work, in theory, but a lot of work would need to be done with the local ANCs and other citizens' groups to make sure that the potential wealth of such development would be enjoyed by the locals. Otherwise, you'll get into the gentrification argument in Wards 7 and 8 - two areas that have very strong and potent political machines.
You're right about Wards 7 and 8. They have long been controlled by the sort of people who are hellbent on keeping their neighborhoods poor, crime-ridden, and underserved.
"25-40 story Water-front condo and office towers with views of the capital would go up in a heartbeat."
You would think that, but I can only surmise that the demand is not that strong by the fact that there were ads in national newspapers for over a year for the Turberry Tower in Rosslyn. It's not quite water front, but I'm sure the views are going to be ridiculous. Maybe the ads were just for the few penthouse spots that were perposterously priced, but it is a little odd how much money they spent on selling apartments that you'd think would sell themselves. Have they even sold out yet?
Building higher would help us accomplish greater density-- a key factor contributing to vibrant street life, retail, and arts offerings. I know some readers with limited experience of more dense cities will protest, but in many ways, this is a very provincial capital by comparison.
If there's demand for at least some increased height- great. Even more important to me, I want some variety in building heights. There are whole blocks, especially downtown, where the buildings all have flat roofs almost exactly the same height.
Amen!
Having beautiful architectural design on the top of a 16-story building doesn't seem to me to be a more likely result than that on a building of 13 floors (nor more visible to the majority of residents - how many people know what The Cairo looks like at the top?).
I'm all for continued development that benefits DC, but bringing buildings to underdeveloped, non-residential areas of the city (as is happening near NY Ave/Florida Ave) before trying to add height to areas surrounding downtown seems a preferable strategy to me, and one that doesn't further remove the sky from the people below. A few stories this decade, a few more the next...
11 Stories is enough! All one has to do is look at the disaster that is downtown Philadelphia to see what happens when you eliminate height restrictions. The city made a horrendous mistake in 1987 in eliminating building height limits to appease developers, allowing its historic city hall to be boxed in by ugly glass towers. Height restrictions keep our city beautiful and unique and human in scale, and we should fight hard to keep it this way.
sorry about the repetitive posts - I kept getting errors on submission and the post didn't appear.
"the gentrification argument in Wards 7 and 8 - two areas that have very strong and potent political machines."
Homeowners would get the benefit of rising property values though, and that would help. Rising property values would be bad for renters if it pushed up rents or reduced the supply of housing through conversions and rennovations. But this would also bring jobs closer to Wards 7 and 8, which would have a great effect on those communities, and the local economic gains would allow for more provision of services to those areas, like police and transit.
The Philadelphia comparison is interesting, in that there was no formal or legal restriction on tall buildings, ever. The notion of not toppping William Penn's hat was a "gentleman's agreement" that persisted until market forces pushed past it. Truth be told, Philly's economy didn't support much downtown development until the 80's, so it was mostly a non-issue until the tradition was finally broken.
Also, as a clarification for the last few comments: I'm not proposing that the height restriction be lifted entirely or advocating for skyscrapers anywhere in the city. I am saying that the less valuable parcels in the city would be more attractive to development if they came with the incentive of getting to build taller. The city would get more revenue and more residential units or office space, and underdeveloped areas could be revitalized, all for the price of adjusting an arbitrarily set rule that's applied too broadly. Applied intelligently (i.e. in support of broader growth and transit goals), it would be win-win for the city.