Report a Comment

"because you’ve created a character and quality of life that I think you would lose if you go higher...”

Why is this statement left unchallenged?

Define 'higher,' as well.

If the DC height limit capped buildings at street width plus 60 feet (or plus 100? Or double street width with mandatory cascading setbacks?) instead of street width plus 20, would that fundamentally change the character and quality of life here? I don't think so - unless one's definition of character is the status quo.

It's frustrating that any of these discussions fall back to a false dichotomy of 'DC status quo' vs. 'Nothing but Empire State Buildings' as if there's no middle ground.

Now, if that's a statement meant to say that the suburban jurisdictions need to step up and allow more density at Metro stations, that's great - but I don't see how that allows for someone to punt on the height limit question.

Also - the 390' tower in Rosslyn has a total FAR of 10 (the site includes a substation next door, giving it a rather large footprint). That's less dense than the max zoning allowed in DC. Point being, if and when DC modifies the height limit, the reason to do so will be density, not height for height's sake.

by Alex B. on Mar 12, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam