Report a Comment

If the economics of elevatiors etc. set a (hypothetical) height limit at 70 stories, wouldn't another technological inovation similar to improved elevators raise that limit?

Plausibly, yes. But it's not just elevators, but all of the other systems required to go up. At some point, the marginal costs of an additional floor will exceed the marginal benefit.

The calculation would be different in every city, since the value placed on the additional density is different.

If there's an economics of scale argument for transit, why are there well used transit systems for 6-8 story Paris as well as skyscraper ladden New York city?

Don't confuse height and density. Both Paris and New York are very dense. The whole reasoning in DC to relax the height limit would be explicitly to increase density.

Also: density's impact on transit ridership will actually decrease at high levels of density, mainly because the density puts so much stuff within walking distance that transit often isn't necessary to accomplish many trips. Instead, transit is used for longer trips to meet needs that can't be met in the immediate neighborhood. It's a giant efficiency thing.

I think you're needlessly complicating the question I was asking. Technology and transit can be designed to handdle a variety of conditions (optimally). My question given that assumtion is what other metrics ought to dictate ideal height limits.

I don't think that's a useful way to think about the limit, because that's not how cities work. First, they're far more complex than the argument would imply. Second, cities are essentially large agglomeration economies. Asking what the ideal level of agglomeration is seems to fundamentally miss the point about what an agglomeration economy is.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 11:36 am • link • report