RSS FeedShould Downtown Go Higher?
We point you to an informative and thought provoking architectural story in WaPo. Much of downtown is built out and some of the last area lots are already slated for projects such as The Dumont. For the few parcels left or for rehab projects, should 130 feet be the height cap for buildings? How high should DC go?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
In theory, if you could do it right (like Chicago) with beautiful architecture and real thought behind each skyscraper I’d say build them higher. I would love to live or work 30, 40, 50 stories up, or higher.
I’m just not sure we could ever trust the government or developers to put that kind of thought and beauty into these buildings.
I can think of two reasons not to build higher.
Security – Tall buildings are obviously attractive targets for terrorists especially in the Nation’s Capital.
Sense of Place – The washing skyline should be dominated by public buildings meant to invoke symbolic meaning. The monument, capitol, and cathedral all convey a feeling that Washington belongs to everyone.
No ma’am, that height limit ain’t goin’ anywhere! That is one of DC’s most special characteristics, and one that I can’t imagine it without.
Granted, some parts of DC, like near Silver Spring, could have an 80-story tower that’s not visible from anywhere downtown. But that’s not where I gather developers want to build skyscrapers in DC. Maybe DC should develop a La Defense east of the river to both keep those buildings away from the monumental core and build a professional economy over there.
The other option, of course, is running another subway line so that the under-developed areas elsewhere in the city can build up. But that requires a lot more vision — and federal funding — than either the city or metro region seems to be able to muster.
I think they should built to 20-25 stories. At that height architects can do some interesting things and the building will still be just a bit shorter than the Capitol. The height restrictions have actually damaged DC from an archtiecture point of view. Block after block of ugly sqaut office buildings give the city’s downtown a really boring, unispiring streetscape not to mention devleopers eliminating alleys, building non-retail friendly storefronts, etc. There could be zones where the buidling will be clustered without affecting the monument views or the integrity of the city. They do it in Paris and London, and those cities seem to be more dynamic because of it. Restricting our sklyine to 12 stories building and Capitol views, furthers along the notion that Washington is strictly a Goverment town and there is nothing else going on here.
On a somewhat related topic: It is interesting to see buildings that are in Rosslyn have basically topped out because the FAA won’t let them grow bigger. They’re concerned about obstructions with aircraft approaches to National airport.
Buildings in Rosslyn are restricted to a maximum of five hundred (500) feet above sea level.
You act as if that regulation would ever change and even if it did, that existing buildings wouldn’t be bought and raized to build skyscrapers in its place. It isn’t like available space is an issue – you give a developer the option to build a 50 story skyscraper in DC and you’ll see existing buildings bought and torn down to do this. The issue is the restriction as it exists, not availability.
Personally I’m fine with the restriction. There are several office buildings being built downtown that can’t find companies to pay to have an office there. I think its more logical that you’ll see taller and taller buildings go up in Tysons and Reston and parts of Arlington or Alexandria than you will to see them go up in DC. It costs less to build, that’s for sure.
Higher please. Higher=greater supply=lower prices. You can be against higher buildings and you can be for affordable housing but you can’t be for both.
I’m not sure I buy into the aesthetic argument. With more room to operate buildings can be more adventuresome architecturally.
Even if you accept it, however, is it worth the higher condo prices and rents we pay owing to the artificially restricted supply of housing?
That’s the trade-off folks.
Environmental considerations also argue in favor of increasing the height. Higher commercial rents push jobs out to the burbs. The more people that can enjoy short commutes to work the better!
the 130 feet is an approximation based on the DC regulations governing height. read the WaPo story…the origins of the reg date back to the late 1800s.
OK, I know why the 130 feet came about, but I’m wondering why that is such a great number that people here seem to agree with. Would 150 feet be somehow disastrous? Seems rather arbitrary to me.
I had guests in town from NYC (Connecticut countryside commuters) a few weekends back and while admiring the vistas looking down certain avenues, they seemed thrilled to point out there was so much sunlight on the streets — during the day(!). In NYC, pedestrians are often stuck in the shadows if they’re not on one of the main drags, and rarely does the sun kiss one’s face.
What’s great about this discussion is that the City has been revived so much in the last 10years that filling tall buildings downtown with apartments or offices doesn’t seem like such a bizarre notion any more
Actually I was a little disappointed by the backstory in the article as to the reason for the height restriction.
Back in the day before DC had home rule and was governed directly by Congress, which really micromanaged the city. They objected to the building of the Cairo, not because of any aethetic concerns, but because if buildings continued going higher (and this was the beginning of the skyscraper age), then Congress would continuously have to fund new fire equipment for the city. Nothing to do with aesthetics – everything to do with being parsimonious. They just couldn’t be bothered to have to spend the money.
Now that that sort of reason no longer exists, perhaps a debate should encouraged, so that something that so fundamentally affects land use and quality of life in DC will be debated for the proper reasons and not as an excuse for and by-product of Congressional stinginess. Either this is a world-class city or it isn’t.
On the plus side of the height restriction, I have occasion to visit Pittsburgh on business where they do have 30-40 story skyscrapers downtown. Picture, in DC, the small crowd of smokers gathered around the entrance of each office building doing their thing. Now multiply that by a factor of 3 or 4 as the size and occupancy of each building increases. That’s my memory of downtown Pittsburgh. Mobs of smokers blocking each building.. Attractive….
From an asthetics point of view, I do like the height limit. If I squint just right, I can pretend I’m in Europe for a moment.
From a more realistic economic standpoint, the height restriction makes NO sense. We are effectively “squashing” our city. Flattening it out pushing development out to the sides into VA and MD, letting all this tax revenue escape DC’s clutches. We’re also encouraging sprawl and longer car trips.
I think the comments about London and Paris are spot on. City of London and La Defense have all the skyscrapers clustered together. Can’t we do the same thing in Anacostia?
I don’t agree that building higher would improve our economics to the degree that some people have been pushing, or that the suburbs are growing based on the height limits in the city.
As long as I see developers having trouble filling condo buildings and retail store fronts, and as long as developers aren’t willing to take on projects in all parts of the city to redevelop run down buildings, boarded up buildings, etc., then there is not the demand to increase the height limit ACROSS the city. Is the demand there on the Mall, in Dupont, or in Georgetown? Sure. But I don’t want to see our city pushed up in the existing desirable neighborhoods, while other areas continue to be completely under developed and under utilized. In my mind, that would be poor planning for the people of this city and the capital of our country.
I also think that suburban growth will continue no matter what the height limit in the city. As long as land is cheaper farther out, as long as city services are worse than suburban services, as long as city crime is higher than suburban crime, as long as city taxes are higher than suburban taxes, as long as the infrastructure connecting us to the suburbs makes commuting times painful, etc., etc., etc., the suburbs will grow. I think there are many changes DC government can make to entice developers to build in DC instead of the suburbs that don’t require compromising the beauty of our city.
Once the beauty of our city is destroyed, our city has become less desirable. I don’t favor trading something that is desirable for developers for something that is less desirable for everyone else.
For DC to become world-class, it must be economically viable. Right now it barely is so.
One reason is because we can’t get the density needed. No one is saying take away the limit, but lets do a better job of managing the precious resource that we have: our land.
Raise the limit. 25 stories in places where it won’t impact our history. Protect the mall, Georgetown etc.
If Roslyn can do it, so should we.
http://www.dcbubble.blogspot.com
The National Capital Planning Commission is already talking about raising the restriction. Not to skysraper level, but a little higher.
The 130 feet sounds arbitrary but was chosen based on the height of the Capitol and with the hope that no building would prohibit views of the Capitol from more northern and eastern parts of the city. As for comparing to London or Paris – DC’s area is a tad smaller. Putting these buildings in Anacostia might work but really there is no room to put them in other parts of the city and NOT ruin the sanctity of the Mall and Monuments. I think if there were interest in buildling skyscrapers in DC you’d see it already. We’re not a banking center. We’re the federal capital and most business here relates to the government. You don’t need skyscrapers to be “world class” because that isn’t what DC is all about. New York is our “world class” city and I’m alright with that. I like DC just the way it is.
I support the La Defense model in concept. It would make sense to increase the density to provide affordable housing and establish a viable financing structure for DC.
The height limit caps property tax collection in Washington. But DC need a much larger tax base than most cities because we operate a local government that performs city functions (fire, police), county functions (schools), and state functions (health care, DMV). Next time you complain about city services, just remember that part of the blame goes to the 130 foot height limit.
Several commenters have said the taller buildings could go across the river. But the residents of Anacostia simply won’t let that happen without a huge fight. There’s a very rational scepticism with regard to grand plans in Anacostia based on the “slum removal” efforts that displaced thousands of black families in SW DC after World War II.
Anon@4:53PM,
From the article:
“Contrary to popular lore — and many a cabbie-turned- unofficial-tour-guide — Congress did not tailor the law to establish the 555-foot Washington Monument as the city’s tallest structure, or to ensure that the Capitol, at 288 feet, would not be overshadowed. Rather, lawmakers were responding to protests prompted by the rise of the 160-foot Cairo apartment building, on Q Street NW near 16th Street, in 1894.”
“I think if there were interest in buildling skyscrapers in DC you’d see it already. We’re not a banking center. We’re the federal capital and most business here relates to the government. You don’t need skyscrapers to be “world class” because that isn’t what DC is all about. New York is our “world class” city and I’m alright with that. I like DC just the way it is. “
I’m sorry, but I have a real problem with this kind of thinking as it is not uncommon. It ultimately holds the city back from being so much more than it is.
Why shouldn’t DC strive to be more? It bourne out of an outdated notion that the seat of government here really shouldn’t even be a working city but just some land with government buildings.
Maybe there hasn’t been an interest in skyscrapers here because there are too many people of the mindset that DC is nothing but the seat of government. Cities evolve or devolve and change. If a city doesn’t evolve, it will nothing devolve. Nothing stays the same forever. Whose to say that in another 100 or 200 years it wouldn’t be a major banking and financial center or technology center? But it certainly won’t be if people don’t let go of the idea that it is nothing but government. In most other countries, the nations capital is also the banking, financial, and technology hub. Thats not the case in America, but why force this restriction on the capital?
Ultimately, people who think this way will have to ask themselves should DC be just the nations capital or the nations capital AND much more?
This isn’t so much about building height limits but an entire mindset of putting restrictions on a city simply because it is the nations capital.
I completely agree with your post. There is a mindset here; a backward thinking, provincial attitude that holds DC back. We are just a Government town! This is a huge disservice to the city and it’s potential. DC is economic powerhouse, it is a different city than it was 10 years ago. That should noted and celebrated.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yes, I believe that the 130 feet restriction should be maintained.
Personally, I would love to see 40+ story high rises in Nova and Southern Maryland.