Our little corner of the world has a certain charm – the picturesque avenues and the historic structures give it a somewhat timeless feeling. Perhaps then, it’s fitting that we adhere to laws which reference to somewhat-antiquated 20th century guidelines. It’s part of our local character, and something that we’re always subject to navigate – for instance, the rules requiring parking spaces in new developments that don’t necessarily need or want them.

That said, it isn’t the first time that we’ve had this discussion: but with this AP report hitting the wires yesterday claiming that “within 15 years…no more space will be available in a 3.5-mile stretch from Georgetown to Capitol Hill,” we figured it was a good time to revisit the topic of D.C.’s building height restrictions. The wire story cites Brookings fellow Christopher Leinberger, who believes that the incredibly high commercial real estate prices in D.C. – which already rank second in the United States, behind only Manhattan – would reach uncharted heights (no pun intended) without a lifting of the upward restrictions that have been in place since 1910.

Many organizations already feel the pinch of the artificial space cap – various sources tell us that smaller nonprofit agencies are struggling to deal with the hefty inflation of real estate costs combined with the District’s notoriously high property taxes in prominent office neighborhoods like the West End. One could argue that the loss of such jobs to cheaper areas in Northern Virginia would constitute a similar loss of one of the city’s well-known characteristics – its reputation as a landing place for so many people who want to work in something they feel passionate about.

The planners that would benefit most from the law’s disintegration believe that the loss of such restrictions must be handled with discretion. For example, many European cities like London and Paris have “high-rise” districts like Canary Wharf which balance old and new structures – but then again, London and Paris aren’t working under the space constraints which we have here. On the other hand, consider a city like Philadelphia. For years, the city of Brotherly Love had an informal rule regarding the height of buildings compared to City Hall – but since it’s reversal, it’s seen incredible buildings (like the new Comcast Center) go up in the last twenty years. The city center there has taken on a new rejuvenated feeling, partially because of such developments. Personally, if we’re going to compromise old and new in such a way, we’d like to see the District’s height restriction loosened near Metro stations, in order to encourage intelligent transit development.

So what say you – is the space situation in the District desperate enough for you to reconsider your thoughts on the height restriction? Or is the rule something sacred, a vital tool which helps carve Washington’s truly unique character?

Photo by philliefan99.