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.
Now that the region officially has the nation's second-worst traffic congestion stemming from a sprawling low-density population that can't be effectively serviced by mass transit because people are either too far dispersed from one another or because the new systems would be "too expensive", is it time for the District to consider relaxing its height limitations for new construction at least somewhat to encourage higher density and a better centralization of employers and residences alike? Many of us who currently live in Northern Virginia or Maryland in areas not serviced by effective mass transit only live here because we can't afford to live any closer due to the lack of available affordable housing in the District (that isn't in the type of "hood rat" slum where you get shot in the head for looking at someone the wrong way, like what happened recently to that poor PepCo bystander or many others).
I've read the reasoning behind the height limitations, and I must say I don't quite understand it. Supposedly the height restrictions are in place so that the views of the National Mall will be unobstructed, but from all of my journeys around the District the ONLY landmarks you can easily see from a relative distance are the Washington Monument and the U.S. Capitol dome. When you emerge from the Smithsonian Metrorail station and look around you while standing in the middle of the National Mall, the views are overwhelming, but I don't think having a backdrop of some tasteful high-rises would necessarily detract from the overall experience of the city. I was just in Midtown Manhattan, and important historic structures like Carnegie Hall and Radio City Music Hall look just as prominent as ever, even as they are surrounded by a jungle of super-tall skyscrapers. New York City has a very impressive mix of late-1800s architecture interspersed amongst ultra-modern designs. Can't we update the height restrictions in Washington to reflect, perhaps, a maximum structure height no taller than 50' below the crest of the Washington Monument? I agree that as the city's focal point and namesake that the monument should never be permitted to be overshadowed, but as of right now there are NO buildings in Washington that even come marginally close to detracting from the monument's appeal and grandeur.
Eventually the region has to start building UP instead of just OUT. We now have people commuting into the area from as far away as Pennsylvania and West Virginia (the latter of whom I'm noticing more of during my daily commutes), and the inner suburban areas between these exurbs and the District are now becoming horribly congested (i.e. Fairfax and Montgomery Counties). I don't believe it's a good idea to designate a place like Rosslyn as being Washington's official "skyline" because who wants that credit to go to Virginia instead of DC? Washington's overall urban design, in my opinion, is amongst the best in the nation, but in an era in which Washington will likely soon topple NYC in becoming the nation's most powerful city (if it hasn't done so already given the current recession), attracting thousands of new residents annually, do we really want to keep on tearing down trees all over the region for new single-family McMansions because the housing stock in DC is so limited due to height restrictions that nobody but the government-subsidized or the upper-middle-class can afford to comfortably live there?
Think about it. The more housing units built and available in DC, the lower the prices will eventually be overall as eventually the entire "upper-crust" market is absorbed, leading to a price reduction steep enough for the middle-class to afford. Right now the only way people like me---earning middle-class salaries---could afford to live in the District would be to get two roommates, and who wants the hassle of trying to live with two others in an apartment that lacks privacy when you're involved in a romantic endeavor?
To those of you opposed to ever relaxing the height restrictions, what are your alternative suggestions on how to mitigate this region's horrific urban sprawl issues? Eventually if the traffic becomes so congested and housing prices become so unattainable in the region that many start viewing the region as having a diminished quality-of-life, then employers may have a hard time attracting fresh talent here to fill their ranks.
Relaxing the height restrictions are not in DC's hands. Its in the hands of Congress, so it will likely never be relaxed.
Truthfully, I would love to see skyscrapers in downtown. But not for the reasons you suggest.
I just think its time for the city to evolve and become a major mecca of commerce, tech, media in addition to govt., law, non-profits and think tanks.
Unfortunately, the knuckleheads in the 19th Century whined about the height of the Cairo Hotel in Dupont Circle and now the city is doomed to not be the modern metropolis it should be.
I still think DC is an awesome city in its own right without high-rise development, but I fear in the long-term the city may eventually be overshadowed by numerous "edge cities" filled with high-rises (Arlington's Orange Line corridor, Reston post-Silver Line completion, Bethesda, Silver Spring, Tyson's post-transformation, etc.) DC will resemble less and less the center of the metropolitan area's influence and power and will shed a lot of that to these "nodes" that will all have their own mini-skylines.
The problem? Instead of having one dense employment/nightlife/retail center we'll have numerous ones, none of which are very convenient to one another, and it will only cost that much more tax dollars in order to effectively link them to each other and to the widely-dispersed suburban areas where these people will all be living. I've already seen firsthand the results of exurban/suburban congestion on Route 7 earlier this week. On Thursday I stopped on my way into work in Tyson's from my home in Reston when the car in front of me rear-ended the truck in front of her (no injuries, thankfully, but the car was a total loss). On Friday morning I saw another car accident, this time right in Tyson's Corner. I have seen, on average, one accident per week since I've moved here, and most of them have been caused due to congestion with people having no choice other than to drive because of our transportation crisis in the region.
There ARE thousands upon thousands of people clamoring to live in the District right now, but living in the District is reserved, as I said earlier, for those dependent upon the government for handouts, the upper-middle-class, or people who don't mind sharing close quarters with several strangers. This is why Fairfax County alone is twice the size of the District and growing each day; people are "priced out" and are stuck driving everywhere to everything in transit-barren Virginia. I read with alacrity today a story in the Washington Post real estate section about people downsizing with one gentleman thinking he's getting a "bargain" to pay $1,200 a month for a 450-square-foot studio in the District (and not in a "trendy" neighborhood even). I make over $40,000 annually (a respectable salary by national standards), and not even I could comfortably afford a place like that. If I can't even afford a small studio on what SHOULD be a comfortable middle-class salary, then you know the city has affordable housing issues and needs to build UP to create more housing units to meet this growing residential demand. Increase the housing supply, and housing prices will eventually drop to a price point where more people who want to live a walkable lifestyle will be able to call the city home.
DC has near-NYC residential prices, but it isn't NYC. Considering $1,200/month for a 450-square-foot studio "a good deal" does sound reminiscent of New York City, and do we really want our region's housing prices to spike to that point when incomes lag behind NYC?
The only compelling argument against lifting the height restrictions would indeed be to "preserve views." As I said unless you are right on top of the District you can really only see the Capitol dome or the Washington Monument. You can create thousands of new housing units and locate thousands of new jobs into the District in new buildings that would be just low enough to still showcase the monument. This nation, as a whole, has to turn to increasing density and urbanization in the long-term unless we develop a way to drive our cars on something other than a natural resource that will be running out in the next century.
I have no problem with skyscrapers in any other city, but NOT Wash. Its beautiful urban landscape should continue to be protected by the height restriction laws, as it has been for decades.
ScranBarre nice post. I couldn't have said it better myself.
In theory DC could easily be a city of 2 mil without relaxing the height limits. Big European cities like Paris and Berlin manage to pack in millions of people without skyscrapers. They do it through miles upon miles of 5-6 midrise apartments. Even parts of DC that mix dense row houses w/ midrise apartments manage densities of over 30k/sqm.
Of course in practice, that is never going to happen. The age of city building is over. DC missed the boat. The region has primarily grown up with the rise of big government in the past 50 years. Had that occurred earlier, it's likely DC would have grown in to a world class city with millions of people. Sleepy neighborhoods would have been redeveloped at higher densities, with apt replacing rowhouses as happened in NYC.
Unfortunately, the most realistic scenario is as you laid out. Sprawl and lots of it, with some micro pockets of urbanism thrown in (Reston/Rockville TCs). It possible that in 20-30 yrs DC's burbs will grow to rival Chicago's, but without anything approaching its urban core.
The city will continue to see some infill development, but even that will be a tough sell. The areas that are most desirable from a residential perspective tend to fight development tooth and nail. Witness the battle over the Wisconsin Ave Giant. As a result, residential development frequently gets pushed into marginal areas like the Ballpark district or NOMA. These areas suffer from the chicken and egg conundrum, Nobody wants to live there because there is nothing around, meanwhile nothing wants to open there because nobody lives there.
All that being said, I would support relaxing the height limit to its original limit of the height of the Capitol Dome (18 stories or so) for DT, with some variation (shorter limits around the national mall and taller buildings in the outlying areas.)
I have no problem with skyscrapers in any other city, but NOT Wash. Its beautiful urban landscape should continue to be protected by the height restriction laws, as it has been for decades.
Amen. Why should DC have to look like every other city. Bo-o-o-ring. I like having a distinctive look. And I like being able to drive around in DC. Traffic is bad enough as it is (especially near the mall, where streets have been closed or restricted for security measures). If we choked the town up with a bunch ugly box skyscrapers, all those employees would create traffic that would be truly unbearable. And DC could develop pollution problems from tall buildings constricting the airflow. You'd have block after block of tall buildings trapping the exhaust from all those cars that would be added to traffic because of all the companies in those towers. No thanks.
I like being able to walk around in the CBD without skyscrapers looming over me.
And DC residential prices are not even close to NYC unless you are talking about the outter boroughs vs the best DC has to offer. It's like Tech2enable poisoned the water and you all drank from the retard well. I'm being nice here. Stop with that DC is as expensive as NYC crap. WTF.
I have to agree with Normie. One of the reasons I was so attracted to DC is because its not like NYC. The lower buildings gives the area more character. I get tired of going in and out of the gray high rises and navigating the crazy traffic that comes with them. While other towns/smaller cities have developed in the area, it seems pretty clear that DC is at the heart of it all.
Also, NYC with its all its highrises still has people commuting from all parts of PA and other states just like DC. Ultimately, people will follow the money even if its 2+ hours each way.
Location: Far Northeast, D.C. and Montgomery County, MD
220 posts, read 704,498 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstreetqb
it's like tech2enable poisoned the water and you all drank from the retard well. I'm being nice here. Stop with that dc is as expensive as nyc crap. Wtf.
rofl!!!!!!
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.
Washington's overall urban design, in my opinion, is amongst the best in the nation, but in an era in which Washington will likely soon topple NYC in becoming the nation's most powerful city (if it hasn't done so already given the current recession), attracting thousands of new residents annually, do we really want to keep on tearing down trees all over the region for new single-family McMansions because the housing stock in DC is so limited due to height restrictions that nobody but the government-subsidized or the upper-middle-class can afford to comfortably live there? 
