Is it Time for Washington to Develop a Skyline? (low income, apartment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leave the skyscrapers to cities like New York and Baltimore, DC is unique and deserves to have a unique skyline. Any tall builings can be built in Arlington, Silver Spring, and Bethesda. It's the counties that need to become more urban and utilize smart growth (and in the case of Arlington and Montgomery, are). DC already has excellent transportation and density. It's density of 9,630/ sq. mi. is already greater than any city south of it (excluding FL).
I'll preface this in saying I'm a big fan of skyscrapers and high-rise architecture. That said, I am very much against lifting height restrictions. Pardon the oxymoron, but I think it adds a bit of humility to the city (not like Dubai or Miami where they're bankrupting themselves by creating a glut of new high-rises). Not to mention the city's design is truly fascinating and something that should be preserved as part of our nation's history. After all, DC WAS designed as a "New Rome" for our nation and isn't just another city.
I'll preface this in saying I'm a big fan of skyscrapers and high-rise architecture. That said, I am very much against lifting height restrictions. Pardon the oxymoron, but I think it adds a bit of humility to the city (not like Dubai or Miami where they're bankrupting themselves by creating a glut of new high-rises). Not to mention the city's design is truly fascinating and something that should be preserved as part of our nation's history. After all, DC WAS designed as a "New Rome" for our nation and isn't just another city.
Can you plase stop mentioning Chicago every other post? DC (city) already has 110 million square feet of office space right behind Chicago's 120 million. DC's commercial real estate prices rival Manhattan's. I didn't understand your comment about DC burbs being on par with Chicago is 20 to 30 years. DC has some of the most urban burbs in the US. They are certainly richer than Chicago's.
Leave the skyscrapers to cities like New York and Baltimore, DC is unique and deserves to have a unique skyline. Any tall builings can be built in Arlington, Silver Spring, and Bethesda. It's the counties that need to become more urban and utilize smart growth (and in the case of Arlington and Montgomery, are). DC already has excellent transportation and density. It's density of 9,630/ sq. mi. is already greater than any city south of it (excluding FL).
Funny thing. Alexandria is technically now denser than the District. Actually DC is somewhere around 8500/square mile (590,000 in 69 square miles) while Alexandria is 9000/square mile (140,000 in 15 square miles). Of course if you count land area only the District is still denser at indeed the aforementioned 9630 square miles. I didn't realize how dense Alexandria was though.
I have to rush out for some emergency car maintenance right now, but I just wanted to drop a quick line to thank you all for keeping this discussion mostly civil thus far. I have a few more thoughts I'd like to elaborate upon later this evening on this topic.
The truth is.. DC offers 'village' type of living reminiscent of West Village in Manhattan (and not incidentally one of the most popular and super expensive areas) where you can enjoy the privacy of your own home and still walk everywhere or take public transportation, basically, the best of both worlds, urban and suburban. People love this type of low density urban living if they can afford it and if they can, they wouldn't trade it for living in high-rise condos on top of each other and dealing with nonsense from neighbors. If you have bought in Dupont, or Logan, or Georgetown or foggy bottom a while ago or paid crazy money under current market to enjoy this type of luxury, would you really trade? Would you be a proponent to bulldozing your beautiful row-house and will you be willing to share drywall and ceiling with neighbors in some modern construction (quickly put together) high density building? I personally wouldn't.
So, that's why building highrises or replacing historical rowhomes by midrise apartment buildings in Dupont, Logan, Georgetown, some streets of foggy bottom isn't going to fly.. Same goes for some areas of Brooklyn which are now more expensive than Georgetown. Former Manhattanites tired of living in apartments and wanting their own homes but not wanting the suburban living are bidding up the prices there. What's the most expensive type of living in Manhattan? It's owning your own brownstone or a penthouse apartment. As much as urban living is awesome, enjoying it while you can also enjoy your privacy is what DC lower density urban development offers at much more reasonable price.
On another note, increasing density hasn't made Manhattan more affordable.. It's the most expensive place to live in the US and ironically the most dense.
Having said that, I am not against skyline where appropriate, there are places in DC where it makes sense to build tall buildings and I think this type of construction has already commenced all over the place around downtown, Navy yard, etc. I am not a proponent to ruin the quaint village feel of some neighborhoods or overall European type of feel to the city. It would be a shame if Georgetown would mirror its neighbor across the river.. New Yorkers would probably crucify you if you propose to build some highrises in West Village to make that area more affordable, West Village with highrises simply wouldn't be West Village.
Leave the skyscrapers to cities like New York and Baltimore, DC is unique and deserves to have a unique skyline. Any tall builings can be built in Arlington, Silver Spring, and Bethesda. It's the counties that need to become more urban and utilize smart growth (and in the case of Arlington and Montgomery, are). DC already has excellent transportation and density. It's density of 9,630/ sq. mi. is already greater than any city south of it (excluding FL).
I agree. It's nice having a variety of "urban" living options in the area. If you want to live in a neighborhood of 19th century rowhouses, you've got Logan Circle or Capitol Hill. If you'd prefer something from the pre-Revolutioanry or Federal eras, there's Georgetown and Old Town. If you'd like a denser but more car-oriented urban area, there's Arlington and Silver Spring.
From a historic preservation standpoint, I'm not sure I like the idea of scrapping all height restrictions in the city. I think we'd lose some of our more historic neighborhoods because developers could make a ton of money demolishing a block of rowhouses from the 1870's and replacing them with a 20-story building with luxury condos. However, I don't see anything particularly historic or even attractive (a matter of personal taste) about the neighborhoods along the Red Line in Upper NW, so if the city wants to increase density by permitting Arlingtonian-style development and high rises there, more power to it.
I do find it funny that the area that looks the most like a traditional downtown is in VA, though.
Funny thing. Alexandria is technically now denser than the District. Actually DC is somewhere around 8500/square mile (590,000 in 69 square miles) while Alexandria is 9000/square mile (140,000 in 15 square miles). Of course if you count land area only the District is still denser at indeed the aforementioned 9630 square miles. I didn't realize how dense Alexandria was though.
I think density is normally calculated strictly by land area. It's not really surprising Alexandria is so dense though, since it doesn't have the height restriction.
"Fun" fact (lol): The densest CDP (census designated area) in the country is Friendship Heights (pop:4,512 as of 2000) right across the DC border in Montgomery along Wisconsin Ave. The density is 81,992/sq mi and the entire population lives in expensive high rises. Guttenberg, NJ (pop: 10,601) located across from Manhattan has a similar setup and is the densest incorporated (i.e. locally governed) area at 56,011.9/sq mi.
Can you plase stop mentioning Chicago every other post? DC (city) already has 110 million square feet of office space right behind Chicago's 120 million. DC's commercial real estate prices rival Manhattan's. I didn't understand your comment about DC burbs being on par with Chicago is 20 to 30 years. DC has some of the most urban burbs in the US. They are certainly richer than Chicago's.
Sorry if I seem like I have Chicago on my mind.
All I meant is that in another 20-30 years, DC will be closing in on Chicago in terms of both MSA and CBD office space.
DC is a huge MSA, but has relatively small residential core compared to other "urban cities" (Chi, SF, Philly, Bos, etc). Of course, it blows everybody else away.
I worked up some stats that I hope make my point. ( I actually posted this on another thread)
I put together a list of zip codes with densities over 15k/m. 15k is arbitrary but I read that is the density needed to sustain a local retail strip and make pub transit cost-effective. You can quibble with the threshold, but the results would be similar using a lower figure.
This is based on 2000 data, so DC has certainly closed the gap some. Since cities are arbitrary, I included adjoining towns (i.e. Arlington, Va , Brookline, Ma, etc). I used figures I found on City Ranks - Population Density Mashup (http://43topics.com/cityranks/ - broken link) Any mistakes are unintentional.
"Urban neighborhoods" over 15 k/mile
City - Population in .. Miles
Was DC - 110,207 in 4.84 miles
Bos - 456,698 in 23.09 miles
San Fran - 551,398 in 24.44 miles
Philly - 796,956 in 41.25 miles
Chi - 1,555,427 in 74.35 miles
Balt. - 57,370 in 3.02 miles
"Urban neighborhoods" as share of Census Urban Area (UA) population:
Was DC - 2.8%
Bos - 11.3%
San Fran - 17.1%
Philly - 15.4%
Chi - 18.7%
Balt. - 2.8% (using Balt UA)
Essentially, the DC area is roughly the size of Bos/Philly, but has a smaller share of its population living in "urban neighborhoods".
Granted their higher core pop. densities are entirely due to the fact that they grew up earlier.
Nonetheless, I think DC would be better off if it had more people living in the core.
As I stated previously, I would prefer it be done through Euro style 5-6 mid rises, but some more height in the outer neighborhoods may help things along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
