DCist: Should D.C. Repeal Its Height Restriction?

DRG

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:24:13 -0500

My opinion is that as part of the District's new Master Plan that they rezone and plan out SE DC (the one on the "far" side of the river) to allow an gradual increase in building height the further out one goes. This would allow for a nice river front area for recreation, residential units, and small businesses- perhaps a non-profit district. Next a "ring" of medium sized buildings. Perhaps stone and glass. Then the high rise towers. This wall of glass would have a couple of "valleys" between them to preserve views between DC and MD. Taxes/fees/amenities levied against the developers would fund Metro expansion and maybe a form of light rail (get Lyle Lanley on the phone). Think of it as a smart and hip Rosslyn instead of squeezing everything around a Metro stop.

Krisa

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:44:25 -0500

Yes, somegirl, you're missing that people in DC want to keep the status quo for no better reason than that's the way they like it. 14thandU, no one said we should just build office space for no reason and flood the market, but the rules should be such that when bull markets come along, we should be able to accomodate. And I still think the biggest reason this is important is because of proximity to metro. Yes, there are many parcels of land in DC that could be developed, but how many are public transit accessible? Because metro is not just nice to have, it is an incentive on its own for employees, and also reduces the number of cars on the streets. The more sprawl we induce inside DC limits, the more we will start to look like the sprawling suburbs that many of us moved to DC to avoid in the first place. At the end of the day, cheaper real estate is a good thing for everybody. Anyone who argues otherwise has some other interests besides the greater good in mind. This can be done with appropriate controls, only in certain areas, etc. Maybe IMGoph is right about the board (despite how much I hate preservation boards). Keep your precious downtown and Federal areas restricted, and locate some other land farther out to ease restrictions, provide public transit, and provide tax incentives to support businesses, and watch the benefits roll in. Every time I see a new building in Rosslyn, or think of the huge resort complex down in PG county, I cringe over DC's failed ability to cash in and adequately leverage its own importance in this country and central location is a highly-populated, traffic-clogged metro area. Come on, this should be like shooting fish in a barrel!

somegirl

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:59:26 -0500

"Spread the same land cost over 4x number of condo units and see what happen to the asking price of new condos -- developers will lower their prices because their costs have gone down." Yes, it would be just TERRIBLE if more people could afford to live close to their jobs! Such a tragedy if more than just a privileged few could live within walking distance of a Metro stop! Am I missing something here?

IMGoph

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:47:32 -0500

i say we say "adios" to the height restrictions with the caveat that we require a board to review any construction that would go higher than what is currently permitted. we need to account for ugly. and yes, my opinion should count more than anyone else's!

NPGMBR

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:27:27 -0500

On point that seems to be missing from this discussion is that easing height restrictions in DC to allow developers to add office space would only bring more of those dreaded NOVA and MD drivers to DC streets.

14thandYou

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:33:10 -0500

"So instead of some empty 8 story buildings, we can have empty 40 story buildings so that bloggers don't have to feel inferior to their friends who live in New York." Hah, no inferiority complex here. Actually, my own personal preference is that I would ten times rather be in DC than NYC. There's no realistic comparison between the two cities at all, other than the fact that they both occupy land along the eastern seaboard. Both have unique qualities that some people find attractive and others don't. Put me squarely in the DC camp, thank you.

14thandYou

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:30:36 -0500

"The more people doing business and living in a city, the more incentive there is for others to do the same. The more spread out and diffuse the business districts are (and in DC area we are talking over hundreds of square miles), business is negatively impacted by geographic distance, not to mention the urban planning nightmare that it creates. Just because K street offices would go higher does not mean that other parts of the city would remain undeveloped." Krisa, perhaps at some point in the future development would have made its way up to the "Swampoodle" area even with no height restrictions in place. But your point that it took "this long" for development to reach NoMa actually serves to support my point. The demand for office space is only now reaching the point where development has been pushed into once-forlorn areas such as Southwest and NoMa. If you had doubled or tripled the amount of office space available in the conventional DC business district via a relaxation of the height restriction, the demand simply wouldn't be there--or would be significantly less. Doubling the average height of existing downtown buildings wouldn't artificially generate demand; either the demand exists or it does not.

Hillman

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:24:21 -0500

"And who cares if all the skyscrapers are on the other side of the Potomac? I kind of like it that way. " It's a tax revenue issue. Those Virginia office buildings represent massive tax revenue lost. And encouraging those to be built in, say, Anacostia means massive jobs for DC residents, large tax income for DC, and encourages people to buy houses close to the new offices. Or so it works in theory. But you are right about the large swaths of undeveloped land in DC. It sometimes astonishes me to hear people say DC is nearly fully developed. Almost always those people never leave their Georgetown/Dupont/U Street enclave, and couldn't find, say, the Anacostia if it bit them on the ass. The problem with a lot of this undeveloped area is that it doesn't have as good of metro access, and generally it's got lots of crime.

Virginia is for Losers

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:08:49 -0500

I don't understand the concerns for lack of available land in the District. There are large swaths of undeveloped or underutilized land in NE and SE that are just a few miles from downtown. The newly-developing area around the new ballpark is a good example. And who cares if all the skyscrapers are on the other side of the Potomac? I kind of like it that way. Better yet, let's take Arlington County and Alexandria back from Virginia. Forcefully, if need be. I'd be willing to fight for that.

stmove

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:57:43 -0500

Now, now, hillvada. No need to drag NYC envy into this, no one is going there. In fact NYC does not even rank in the 'tallest building' fight anymore, when you look at the list most of the height is in places where I would not drink the water. Besides any long time DC resident has long ago given up the "size matters" argument, here we swallowed the myth that power matters long ago (see the nationalization of Wall Street). Sort of like how we dress like shit, because we spend all our money on grad courses no one needs. As for that one guy out there hatin; DC is a beautiful city, the fact that it is beautiful is one of it's few redeeming qualities. As McCain said- "this is the devil's city." Well, at least it is a looker. To say otherwise, you are obviously a serious architecture critic and not some intern who likes tall shit because it makes you feel like you really left the suburbs, oh yea- no your not. Running out of room? What about east of the river? Isn't there still quite a bit of space over there? Anacostia could use a 15 story tower with retail on the bottom? When your done laughing, remember there is plenty of room. Once all commercial space is really filled, then build up on the edges. That just makes sense. I do think that areas like North of Mass, Friendship Heights, could stand some 30 story buildings- it would make for richer neighborhoods in general. The blanket restriction is pretty stupid, and it should be applied on a sight line basis, not blanket across the entire city plan.

hillvada

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:01:00 -0500

There simply isn't the demand for office space in DC to warrant any change in the height restrictions. The SE Ballpark district has been a total bust from an office standpoint. In fact, if not for the Navy bringing in tons of jobs and contractors, all of those buildings would be totally empty. As it stands now, the Lerners nice new building on M St has exactly 1 tenant. A retail bank that hasn't opened yet. So instead of some empty 8 story buildings, we can have empty 40 story buildings so that bloggers don't have to feel inferior to their friends who live in New York.

Bethesdaist

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:44:58 -0500

Does anyone think the "NoMa" area (I hate that name but don't know what else to call it) Call it by its original (and fabulous) name: Swampoodle. Historic Swampoodle. As for the OP, I like the height restrictions. Being able to see the sky while downtown is a good thing, and I think it makes the city prettier and more liveable.

Krisa

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:46:17 -0500

"Does anyone think the "NoMa" area (I hate that name but don't know what else to call it) would be seeing the explosion in development currently going on if buildings along the K St. corridor could be 3-4 times their current height?" Yes, I do. The more people doing business and living in a city, the more incentive there is for others to do the same. The more spread out and diffuse the business districts are (and in DC area we are talking over hundreds of square miles), business is negatively impacted by geographic distance, not to mention the urban planning nightmare that it creates. Just because K street offices would go higher does not mean that other parts of the city would remain undeveloped. I mean, NoMa sat undeveloped for so many years with the restriction in place, so I'm not sure how you can relate one to the other. That was more a case of jumping on the bandwagon and developers being bullish on the neighborhood, which is the same thing that happens with business. The change also might take away all of the excuses and highlight how poor zoning and business development support is, which is the real underlying cause as to why these neighborhoods sit unused and wasted for so long. Penn Quarter/Gallery worked because of a combination of issues, but most importantly that it sits on top of three different subway lines. What is DC going to do to support rapid public transit to other parts of the city that it wants to redevelop, since with a height restriction there are no other metro-accessible places to build?

14thandYou

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:25:49 -0500

"I mean, really, the shortest distance and all that... who cares what it looks like or what it does to the neighborhoods?" The 1950s-1970s say hello.

LiliMoon

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:43:07 -0500

And while we're at it, please re-route I-395 through the city as was originally planned rather than making a weird jog around and under. I mean, really, the shortest distance and all that... who cares what it looks like or what it does to the neighborhoods?

run_for_the_hills

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:01:52 -0500

No, that is what Virginia is for.

dank

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:01:13 -0500

A downside to the current restrictions that hasn't been mentioned is that they keep densities down, which reduces the number of pedestrians on any given street. Retailers see less foot traffic, and are less able to invest resources. The height restrictions lead directly to a less crowded, vibrant downtown. And on the flipside, development is constantly pushed outward rather than up, which has been a large factor in our horrific suburban sprawl and traffic problems. So, yes, it's a beautiful city at the core, but we pay for that with long commutes, traffic, inconvenient retail, and lack of housing downtown (since more lucrative office space pushes it out). Building taller, at least in some areas, would be an economic boon and would increase our quality of life (although we'll feel more crowded and urban).

alewis

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:30:13 -0500

I think people are missing some central points here. The main reason behind lifting the height restriction in some areas would be to increase the amount of commercial office space. We're not talking about allowing developers to (over)build 50-story condo buildings in Dupont at the expense of revitalizing older neighborhoods. Indeed, in 1950, we managed to fit over 800,000 residents in the District, and we can probably do so again without building skyscrapers. However, allowing developers to add a few additional floors to a new commercial development could potentially add millions of square feet of office space to the city, without seriously changing the skyline or character of the city. Just a few additional floors to keep down commercial rents may encourage organizations and businesses to maintain their presence (and tax money) in the District. Who knows? Maybe if the Discovery Channel had been allowed to build a few additional floors that they could rent out to other businesses, they wouldn't have fled to their new building Silver Spring? I just think stubbornly keeping this archaic restriction in force for the entire city without any regard for the city's continuing growth and development just throws common sense out the window.

blockski

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:04:20 -0500

Ed, The height limit exempts steeples, bell towers, elevator penthouses, and the like. Even if not explicitly exempt, I don't think the Cathedral would have been subject to the limits.

EdTheRed

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:00:56 -0500

Also, minor quibble with the article, but I don't believe there was ever an exception to the limit made for the National Cathedral. Construction began in 1907, 3 years before the Height Act of 1910 was passed, so I'm pretty sure it was grandfathered in. Anyone know the details on that?

EdTheRed

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:57:17 -0500

Oh noes! Developers might have to go to Ward 8! (Yeah, what JonboyDC said.)

Hillman

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:52:05 -0500

"The city should allow some graduated height restriction easing in exchange for permenant lower rent offerings for non-profits." Sure. Right after non-profits agree to let the city artificially cap the salaries non-profits pay their directors, employees, etc. After all, we see how well giving Fannie and Freddie special sweetheart land deals went, and how they used those savings to make sure their directors weren't paid sky-high salaries.

Hillman

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:45:01 -0500

Fabs: There's plenty of affordable office space for nonprofits. It's just not downtown. Ditto for affordable housing.

JonboyDC

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:56:43 -0500

"The height limit has indeed spread development around, but aside from NoMa, where else is it going to go? NoMa and the Ballpark district are really the only major places left to build, and there are significant plans for both." Poplar Point is already on the drawing boards, and is supposed to include significant office space. And there's definitely room further out in SE and NE. DC combines areas of incredibly dense development with areas that are virtually devoid of any commercial enterprise -- we still have a way we can go to spread the development wealth around the District.

fabs

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:43:23 -0500

I like the idea of more mixed use projects, but there is a real problem with the expensive commercial real estate making it impossible for small non-profits to stay in the city. I think it is important to have a mix in the city, not only of lawyers and lobbyists, but of non-profits and smaller associations. The city should allow some graduated height restriction easing in exchange for permenant lower rent offerings for non-profits. Additionally neighborhoods targeted for redevelopment, such as the SE and SW waterfront, need similar inclusionary zoning for residential housing. We need to ensure that mixed income housing is readily available in the city through concrete intensives, not loose promises and PUD compromises that exist today. Developers will only provide the affordable space that the District needs when the City makes it feasible through much needed policy changes. If height restrictions are eased, affordability and availability must be the reason for the expansion.

14thandYou

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:12:36 -0500

"But why not ease restrictions in the business districts?" Because frequently the business districts in DC are entertwined with the federal and monumental core, and tall buildings there would significantly detract from the unique sightlines currently presented by the height restriction. Constructing tall buildings for tall buildings sake is not a very good reason to destroy DC's interesting cityscape. Instead of bemoaning the fact that the tall buildings are in Rosslyn and not DC, how about pointing out the fact that the Capitol and White House are in DC, not Rosslyn?

Mathewf

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:51:43 -0500

Yes. Go up! It's probably worthwhile to still have a limit in some areas. But why not ease restrictions in the business districts? A friend was visiting me from out of town this weekend and he was struck by the fact that Rosslyn has all the tall buildings, not DC.

Hillman

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:23:58 -0500

Stanton Park raises some valid points about parkland. In particular, I believe RFK is actually Federal land, and has some sort of stipulation that any use must include recreational (ie a stadium). I think it's harder to say that a football stadium by itself is a good investment from a taxpayer standpoint..... hence the idea of incorporating it directly into a larger mixed use. As for parkland usage, the RFK parcel is really only a small part of the parkland we currently have along the Anacostia. In fact, the Anacostia is currently nearly all parkland (in particular on the East side). It's really rather remarkable how much parkland there is on the Anacostia. Yet, honestly, how many of us actually use it? My primary problem with Rosslyn (and beyond) isn't the ugly. It's the fact that Virginia gets all that tax revenue and DC, once again, loses out.

blockski

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:09:54 -0500

The height limit has indeed spread development around, but aside from NoMa, where else is it going to go? NoMa and the Ballpark district are really the only major places left to build, and there are significant plans for both. There are plenty of other, smaller scale infill development opportunities, but that's small fries compared to the big picture. I support keeping the height restriction within the core of the L'Enfant city (with a possible exception for the RFK site), but relaxing/removing it at a couple of key areas - designated zones that must be around Metro stops, with design review to preserve key vistas, etc. The main area that comes to mind is the Poplar Point development.

14thandYou

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:01:09 -0500

BTW, I wanted to add that I thought LoganGuy had a great point witht his: "the height restriction is one of the key reasons that economic redevelopment is spreading to all corners of D.C. Look at M Street SE, New York Avenue, Waterfront Mall -- none of these areas would have been reclaimed if developers could just tear down a building at, say, Connecticut and K and replace it with a 45-story tower" This is very true. Does anyone think the "NoMa" area (I hate that name but don't know what else to call it) would be seeing the explosion in development currently going on if buildings along the K St. corridor could be 3-4 times their current height? You could make a very strong argument that the heigh restriction has been very beneficial to a number of areas around the "central core" of the District who might not have otherwise seen such economic development.

Stanton Park

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:51:28 -0500

I don't want to discount the symbolic and aesthetic value of monumental vistas too much, but LoganGuy6 points out some of the most important reasons for keeping the height requirement.One of the detrimental effects of the height restriction that has not been pointed out is its challenges to architecture. New buildings tend to be built here with lower ceilings and smaller lobbies because developers cannot afford to reduce the net rentable space. Overall, however, I support the existing restrictions.I am not bothered much by Rosslyn, as I think it is kind of nice to see the tall buildings while walking along the Mall and other placed in DC without having to put up with the shaded, windy caverns they create. Maybe DC could learn from Arlington, however, and relax height restrictions south of the Anacostia near Metro stations (or streetcar stations, if the streetcar is ever built).The problem with building a mixed-use development at RFK is the stadium sits on park land. It is (wisely so) difficult to convert park land into privately-held developments. Not that this is a bad idea, especially if a new stadium there could house both American and regular football. It is also not unprecedented, as Baltimore's Inner Harbor sits on federal park land and Prince George's Boulevard at Capital Center mall sits on M-NCPPC park land.As a side note, income tax revenue from professional athletes is not really an issue for DC. Many professional athletes claim permanent residency in Florida, Tennessee, Texas, or Washington to avoid income tax and have only "temporary" homes where they play. Even if they did decide to make DC home, the "jock tax" they pay in many other states and cities would reduce the tax they pay in DC. Congress has blocked such a tax in DC.

Distantantennas

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:43:38 -0500

@Hillman Thankfully a lot of the horrible old 1970's era 'Ugly is a bold statement' buildings in Rosslyn are coming down. They finally finished taking down 1812 N. Moore, the old New Orleans Steak house is down and will be a new office tower. One might not like the new wave of International Style buildings coming into Rosslyn but at least it won't be as *hideous* as the stuff that was there before.

cminus

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:42:45 -0500

In principle, I agree with SeanR: we should repeal the height restriction, but only for areas that are well-removed from the monumental core and convenient to Metro. I'd also add protection for neighborhoods of real historic and/or architectural value. In practice, though, I'd be worried that developers would successfully lobby for increasingly expansive definitions of all of those terms, until we've got 60 story glass and steel boxes looming over the Smithsonian Castle.

14thandYou

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:40:34 -0500

"Yes, for the love of children, PLEASE lift this restriction. Despite it's many monuments and cherry blossoms, I would NOT describe Washington as anything like a "beautiful city."" Well Brian, I'd say you're entitled to your opinion, but many people would disagree with you. In spite of the fact that buildings like the Capitol, White House, Treasury, Archives, etc. are stunningly beautiful in their own right, their impressiveness is made all the more so by the fact that they're not dwarfed by 50 story concrete and steel towers. Tall buildings alone do not make for "beautiful cities". Places like Houston, Cleveland and Philadelphia are proof of that. A major component of the overall urban aesthetic beauty of DC is that we have such a unique skyline for an American city. The beauty of the city extends far beyond cherry blossoms and monuments, and I can only say that it's unfortunate that you're unable to see the city that way. I've spent time in Seattle, and found it to be a very attractive city--but in an entirely different way than DC. The same goes for cities like San Francisco, Boston and New York: beautiful cities all in their own right, but very different to DC. I think it would be a travesty to allow for the construction of towers in central DC the likes of which are found in practically every other U.S. city. That being said, I think relaxing the restriction in certain parts of the city (around SW and the ballpark district, around RFK, etc.) could be viable and make a lot of sense. But the District would lose a significant part of its character if skyscrapers were permitted to intrude amongst the streets, buildings and monuments that give the District its unique beauty.

G Lover Park

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:28:19 -0500

Darn it: Massysett, you beat me to it. If a majority of Washingtonians want it, you can bet your bippy Congress will do the opposite. @Monkey: True: those with the most to lose with a repeal of the height restriction would be downtown property owners. But they're not necessarly the same folks as the developers. Even with the housing market falling apart before our eyes---Location, Location, Location. And who better than America's best and brightest--its politicians, to dole out a massive favor to mega-moneyed-developers in exchange for campaign contributions and a stake in said development--held in a trust of course, so as to not violate ethical safeguards. Now, you put a green spin on this new development--build everything with recycled glass tile and organic bamboo floors while extolling the benefits of not contributing to sprawl, and hoo boy, the enviro-du-jour crowd will be lined up around the block--so long as they can get parking spots for their hybrids. Just wait for the day they tear down the block on which sits the Hawk and Dove to put up a 20 story LEED certified, stack-a-prole monstrosity, perhaps with a witty, tongue-in-cheek name like the "Le Corbusier."

massysett

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:01:38 -0500

You're forgetting the lack of DC sovereignty. Change headline to: "Should Congress Repeal D.C.'s height restriction?" Then, change article to make arguments as to why members of Congress from all over the country would want to change the character of D.C., bearing in mind that the main relationship these members and their constituents have to this city is as visitors, not residents.

Politburo

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:48:43 -0500

common_tater

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:36:51 -0500

Big thinking got us a baseball diamond surrounded by a food court, for a mere 2/3 billion, within spitting distance of the capitol. Who was insisting on good architecture there?

mhoek

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:16:47 -0500

Relieving the height restrictions for areas of the city that are starving for new development will help to make projects that are currently only borderline financially feasible a more sure reality. Also for residential projects this would help to alleviate the financial burden of inclusionary zoning on owners and developers by lowering the per unit land and construction costs which will result in an increase in the volume of quality affordable housing (on office developments this could mean more space set aside for non-profits and similar companies). The restrictions should not be lifted carte blanche across the city and careful planning would be required to ensure that the view corridors around the monumental core are not compromised. A total overhaul of the zoning regulations would be required to make this change successful (form based codes anyone?). Also an RFK redevelopment would not be the same economic engine that the Verizon Center has been for Chinatown. Events are simply not held there with high enough frequency. You can be sure that those condos would fetch top dollar though.

brian in dc

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:55:26 -0500

Yes, for the love of children, PLEASE lift this restriction. Despite it's many monuments and cherry blossoms, I would NOT describe Washington as anything like a "beautiful city." I'm from Seattle, very much a beautiful city, but this leveling of the District's skyline is downright atrocious. It makes Baltimore look attractive. BALTIMORE! With all the condo buildings and office space already cluttering the downtown area, what is this "old world" charm DC is pretending to cling to? I'm not saying tear down the Portrait Gallery, I'm just saying get over yourself Washington...and in this regard, join at least the 20th century.

darsal

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:30:55 -0500

If we need more space, can't we just take Alexandria back?

yonas

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:29:00 -0500

No.

HCE

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:07:20 -0500

No. Saying we would be more like Philly is an argument against, not an argument for. Philadelphia is an ugly, ugly city, and the tall buildings are definitely a part of that.

Hillman

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:44:37 -0500

LoganGuy makes some interesting points. But whether we like it or not massive development that could be going on in DC will simply move to Arlington. Eventually ugly-ass Rosslyn will be DC's downtown, for better or worse. And a crapton of condos are still going up in Rosslyn and surrounding areas. And all that tax money stays in Virginia. Yes, preserve historic neighborhoods pretty much as they are now. But it's simply stupid to restrict heights in undeveloped areas like the massive RFK lands.

Hillman

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:40:57 -0500

"Can you imagine if lobbying firms had office buildings close to downtown that were larger and more impressive than the Capitol itself? That is a bit of symbolism that should certainly be avoided." You mean like all the buildings that currently surround the White House on three sides?

LoganGuy6

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:11:30 -0500

The argument for lifting DC's height restriction is boneheaded at best and disingenuous at worst. Here's why: (1) the comparison with Paris is specious and proves too much: Paris has La Defense, Washington has Rosslyn -- 'ya wanna build a 45-story office tower? Stick it in Arlington. (2) the height restriction is one of the key reasons that economic redevelopment is spreading to all corners of D.C. Look at M Street SE, New York Avenue, Waterfront Mall -- none of these areas would have been reclaimed if developers could just tear down a building at, say, Connecticut and K and replace it with a 45-story tower (3) think the resale condo market in D.C. is bad now? Wait until developers can put a 40-story condo building on the same peiece of ground that now only allows a 10-story property! Spread the same land cost over 4x number of condo units and see what happen to the asking price of new condos -- developers will lower their prices because their costs have gone down. Bad, BAD idea!

seanr

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:35:27 -0500

I'd recommend keeping the restriction in the downtown area, but allowing islands of tall buildings around metro stops outside of that area, perhaps allowing them to be taller the farther they are from the Mall. I'd love to see some tall buildings here, but I think the immediate area around the mall should probably stay low-rise.

mbonness

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:04:18 -0500

In a word, no.

alewis

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:50:42 -0500

DC's height restriction is one of the most distinctive features of Washington and definitely gives it a different character from other cities. Having said that, building heights should be determined by zoning in particular sections of the city. A blanket rule that restricts building heights everywhere makes little sense when skyscrapers are being built in Rosslyn and Bethesda to the detriment of D.C. Having said that, the area around the city's "ceremonial core" (i.e. the Mall, Capitol, etc.) needs to be kept low. Can you imagine if lobbying firms had office buildings close to downtown that were larger and more impressive than the Capitol itself? That is a bit of symbolism that should certainly be avoided. I have faith that architects and urban planners could work with the city and federal government to make sure that needed space and capacity is added to the city business areas while staying true to the Washington's unique character.

monkeyrotica

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:46:22 -0500

If I'm following the money correctly, those with the most to lose with a repeal of the height restriction would be downtown property owners, yes? I can't imagine they'd be thrilled with more and cheaper properties entering the market. So I'd look forward to massive lobbying on the part of the Oliver Carr types, with plenty of halfassed pleas to preserve the "historic integrity" of lowrise buildings and scare quotes about dark, concrete canyons downtown. When you own an expensive resource, it's in your best interest to keep it finite. Just ask the de Beers family.

Hillman

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:35:47 -0500

We could build an entire new city around RFK if we wanted. It's got it's own metro stop, waterfront property, freeway access (with a few fixes). Relax the height restriction for that massive project. Up to, say, 25 stories next to the river, graduating down as it gets toward the? The impact on the neighborhood would be Mayor Fenty is saying he wants the Redskins back in DC. Fine. Rebuild RFK, but rebuild it as part of a mixed-use project, with retail, office, and residences incorporated into the actual stadium. Redskins dweebs would pay top dollar to live 'in' the stadium complex, and such multi-use would (perhaps) justify the cost. Heck, you may even get some of the grossly overpaid Skins players themselves, thus capturing that income tax that so often heads to the burbs. And insist on really good architecture and an real housing portion, so as to outshine the stunningly boring 'downtown' of Rosslyn. This is a massive opportunity, but we've got to think big if we are going to do it right.

gwgirl

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:25:11 -0500

philly has also had a curse on its sports teams since that law changed... you want to risk that for dc teams too? hah.

sharonc

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:18:24 -0500

Can we get philly's ugly crappy subway system too? Why do we have so many we wanna be like... people in this city?