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!!!