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.