Second Round Of Meetings On Proposal To Eliminate Height Limit Taking Place

[DrSloan]

Yuck! Who wants to sleep with the fishes?
You might as well sleep in the sewers of DC

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by TyBrGr

You are missing my point. Very few skyscrapers are built as residential buildings, most skyscrapers are built as corporate towers. Just look at NYC, almost all of their skyscrapers are office buildings. Building higher only allows for more office space in the city, and creates even more traffic congestion in and out of the city, making it harder for you to commute back to the suburbs to see your family. What really needs to be done, is increase density by creating smaller apartments and having smart growth. Washington DC has a population density of 10,000 people per square mile, Barcelona (also with height limits) has a population density of 40,000 people per square mile. The reason why DC isn't increasing density, is because the DC region is very wealthy, so developers are building huge apartments trying to lure the wealthy back into the city. But if you don't have a lot of money, DC law requires developers to set aside 20% of the building's apartment units as ADU, allowing the poor and middle class to still live in the city.

Now we are in agreement. This is a complete reversal of what you said before, with keeping people in the suburbs and out of DC. I can never cosign with restricting human movement.

[TyBrGr]

Originally Posted by vicnice

Now we are in agreement. This is a complete reversal of what you said before, with keeping people in the suburbs and out of DC. I can never cosign with restricting human movement.

I wouldn't say it's a reversal of what I've said, I have always said that density is key, not skyscrapers. But I'm glad we found even ground

[Octa]

Originally Posted by TyBrGr

What my friends were saying is that there is so much demand, you couldn't provide the supply quick enough to lower prices. It would take decades before there were enough skyscrapers to meet demand. Also, the height limits are creating a citywide revitalization, unlike other US cities where revitalization is only happening in the core. The only people who really want to raise DC height limits are the transplants from the north who are so used to seeing skyscrapers, they think that any city without skyscrapers are "weak". Even if height limits were eliminated, skyscrapers would go up slowly because of how built out DC already is, and then people would make fun of DC for having weak skyscrapers. Washingtonians don't want the private sector building skyscrapers that would compete with the monuments in the skyline. It's the federal capital, it should be about the government, not about the corporations. DC will always be in demand because of it's stable job market, skyscrapers are a temporary solution, but eventually we would max out of room for skyscrapers and then what? Let's look for long term solutions and not short term.

While I agree with you that in the short run, there won't be enough buildings to satisfy demand, I don't think that's a good reason to not to respond to increased demand. In other countries, it's a lot easier for developers to build housing units which is why it has a high number of renters. Also, at some point in the future, most likely as the economy improves, the DC growth will begin to slow down. People are coming here first and foremost because the job market is good. Increasing the housing supply is a long term solution because these people aren't going to continue coming here forever. There is nothing inherent about cities that make them more expensive than other places or else Detroit or Pittsburgh would be outrageously expensive. If you took the housing stock from NYC and placed in DC, rents would probably be $400 instead of $2000 because it would then be a renters market and DC wouldn't have anywhere near the economic diversity to fill up those units so the rents would remain stable.

But I'm interested....what do you propose as an alternative for stabilizing rents?

[TyBrGr]

Originally Posted by Octa

While I agree with you that in the short run, there won't be enough buildings to satisfy demand, I don't think that's a good reason to not to respond to increased demand. In other countries, it's a lot easier for developers to build housing units which is why it has a high number of renters. Also, at some point in the future, most likely as the economy improves, the DC growth will begin to slow down. People are coming here first and foremost because the job market is good. Increasing the housing supply is a long term solution because these people aren't going to continue coming here forever. There is nothing inherent about cities that make them more expensive than other places or else Detroit or Pittsburgh would be outrageously expensive. If you took the housing stock from NYC and placed in DC, rents would probably be $400 instead of $2000 because it would then be a renters market and DC wouldn't have anywhere near the economic diversity to fill up those units so the rents would remain stable.

But I'm interested....what do you propose as an alternative for stabilizing rents?

Like I said in other posts, most skyscrapers are corporate towers, not residential buildings. The only way to satisfy demand is to increase density, the problem is, DC is a wealthy area, and people want space and are willing to pay for it. Developers need to focus more on density than attracting the wealthy

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by Plokivos

I think DC should have underground housing. For $1,000 a each unit, you can live in 1000 sq ft apartment, underground. No windows, no sunlight, but it's big enough, and cheap enough.

Is that a bad idea?

I'm sorry, I went through hell for the last decade to make it. Two months after my gradation was hosted by the grand 9-11-01 event.

So, what makes you deserve any better than my colleagues and I, who also worked (probably) harder than you - young Gen Y, who went to Rave parties and screwed around for a bit for 4 years. Yeh, those who complains the most are the one that has the least (talent, promise, drive, but **** load of bull **** and complaints about why the world sucks because they're not getting their own way like how their daddy let them like before).

Stop it, and it exists, and good for you your family has money, but that honestly doesn't mean you have money (trust me, this isn't an option, but a personal decision).

Like an underground 'megacity' of sorts similar to the one in Montreal?

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by TyBrGr

You are missing my point. Very few skyscrapers are built as residential buildings, most skyscrapers are built as corporate towers. Just look at NYC, almost all of their skyscrapers are office buildings. Building higher only allows for more office space in the city, and creates even more traffic congestion in and out of the city, making it harder for you to commute back to the suburbs to see your family. What really needs to be done, is increase density by creating smaller apartments and having smart growth. Washington DC has a population density of 10,000 people per square mile, Barcelona (also with height limits) has a population density of 40,000 people per square mile. The reason why DC isn't increasing density, is because the DC region is very wealthy, so developers are building huge apartments trying to lure the wealthy back into the city. But if you don't have a lot of money, DC law requires developers to set aside 20% of the building's apartment units as ADU, allowing the poor and middle class to still live in the city.

+2 This. Plus, once those office/corporate towers' employees leave the premises, the skyscraper grounds are often void of street life with the exception of skyscraper gawkers like how it is in the Financial District and some parts of Battery Park City at the crack of Dust in Lower Manhattan.

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by DrSloan

Yuck! Who wants to sleep with the fishes?
You might as well sleep in the sewers of DC

You will if you don't keep your mouth shut, capisce? LOL J/K Sorry, couldn't resist.