Photo by BrianMKA

Although D.C. officials are strongly considering amending the city’s longstanding Heights of Buildings Act of 1910—a 100-year-old law that limits buildings in D.C. from being taller than 160 feet—many citizens are staunchly opposed to these changes. Yesterday, at a public hearing about the issue at the Wilson Building, they let the Council know that.

Nearly forty witnesses testified during yesterday’s hearing, which was led by Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and most of their testimonies were passionate arguments against proposed changes to the act. “These are simply the worst ideas since the freeway proposals,” said Nancy MacWood, a public witness. Her criticism was directed at Harriet Tregoning, director of the District of Columbia Office of Planning, who kicked off the hearing by laying out her office’s proposals for how to change the height act without upsetting too many of the naysayers. That proved unsuccessful.

Tregoning’s office’s proposal includes recommendations for altering the formula to determine the maximum heights of buildings, which is currently the width of the street plus 20 feet. The current regulations place a cap of 130 feet on commercial streets (except on a stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue) and 90 feet on residential streets. The Office of Planning’s proposal recommends that the new building-height-to-street-width ratio should be 1.25:1.

Tregoning explained how the 25 percent change would greatly help the capacity growth problem in D.C., which she says will run out “before 2030.” But the Office of Planning’s proposal would alleviate that number and help the city’s capacity expand well beyond 2030.

But most witnesses didn’t agree. “A 25 percent change in that proportion of street width type is not insignificant,” said Sally Berk, a public witness. “It will make a dramatic change that will result in possibly an end to the human scale of our city, and to the quiet, serene context of our city, that I hear other people say they love.” Nancy MacWood, chair of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, echoed Berk’s sentiments and called it a “disgraceful proposal.”

While the witness testimonies ranged from the rabble-rousing (“Even Donald Trump knows that there is much to be lost from building. Donald Trump himself,” said Dorn McGrath, a spirited witness) to the rational, Tregoning wasn’t alone in support of amending the height act. Roger Lewis, a professor of architecture at the University of Maryland, testified in support of the Office of Planning’s proposal, saying that their plan wouldn’t significantly change the city’s skyline, which is a major concern for most of the people against it.

Councilmember Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4) also chimed in on the issue, saying that “part of the argument for raising the height limit is that it would create more housing. More cheap housing, the prices would go down.” But said she hasn’t heard any solid evidence that supports that notion. “What we do with how we change our height act is going to affect generations of Washingtonians,” Bowser said, and later added that “it hasn’t been demonstrated that we need to increase the height limits.”