The conversation on the Height Act is really just beginning. "Livability" has numerous dimensions, and having shorter commutes would be part of that. Having some greater density which might also encourage more retail, food and entertainment options -- these are also dimensions of livability. While Norton might not want to see a change, that will change, too...either with her or without her, as the population changes.

Those who want to preserve what they see as those aspects of the city's character related to height limits may have valid concerns about a slippery slope or even opening of the floodgates. Once you start carving out enclaves for exceptions, where does that end? At what height? What borders? The solution would be to offer up not incremental changes, but a new, comprehensive plan that is well-thought out, with new limits that will encourage the desirable changes while still preserving the old character that exists elsewhere. One chance to rework limits set over a century ago -- one change that would take the city well into the 22nd Century.

The sleepy 9-5 government town is becoming a city. It's time to consider the changes that will direct growth where it can best be accommodated. Instead of rising up like cake-batter, vertical growth can be directed where it will be least disruptive and positive, relieving pressure on neighborhoods that still offer a different vibe.

It's a conversation that is gaining considerable momentum. Rep. Norton might not be meeting lobbyists on the question, but her statement acknowledges that this is a conversation that is gaining prominence and relevance. When the conversation reaches a critical mass, the city will be forced to consider a change. That's when they should present the federal government with a comprehensive plan that won't be crushed by the thousand cuts that lobbyists can cause.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 21, 2012 12:17 pm • link • report

This height question keeps coming up every few years, and were it not for the time and engergy taken responding to it, it might be amusing how those advocating for removal of the height limits always in the end change their opinion after some lively discussion.

Wasn't it just a few years ago that GGW hyped some noted urbanist coming to DC for a speech from Vacounver (?) where he would surely blast the Height Act and its supposedly negative effects on Washington. Instead he came, he spoke, and he told us all how lucky we were to have the Height Act which had encouraged the building of a lively, and livable, and walkable city. I seem to remember even David Alpert writing a great piece essentially in support of the Height Act after that speech.

Yes, it's nice everyone is intersted in trying to find ways to make this city even better than it already is, but let's not waste our time on an issue that's already been discussed adnauseum and is already settled.

Let's work on other matters that really do need to be addressed. For example, we have a real homeless problem in the city here. That problem is something where a solution is still lacking. Let's spend some time on that instead of on on issue, i.e., the Height Act, where it's a solution in search of a problem. (I.e., the 'solution' is making very valuable property in already dense areas even more valuable for current owners. The 'problem' with regarding the Height Act issue is pretending the current height doesn't work ... i.e., pretending that the downtown neighborhoods such as Dupont Circle and Logan Circle and Georgetown and even K Street and beyond, are already lively, livable, and walkable.)

by Lance on Apr 21, 2012 12:54 pm • link • report

*i.e., pretending that the downtown neighborhoods such as Dupont Circle and Logan Circle and Georgetown and even K Street and beyond, are NOT already lively, livable, and walkable .. they are! and don't need fixing by building higher.

by Lance on Apr 21, 2012 12:56 pm • link • report

Instead of looking for confrontational approaches to modifying the height limit people need to look for consensus. People with any sense of place and any taste are never going to agree to tall buildings in places like central Paris, the French Quarter, or the Old City of Washington. And arguing for them just marginalizes the proponents of modification.

Instead, we need to have a consensus that places outside the Old City in the District do not need the height limit.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 21, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

Tom Coumaris said: "People with any sense of place and any taste are never going to agree to tall buildings in places like central Paris, the French Quarter, or the Old City of Washington."

Wow -- nice ad hominem attack on people who have different preferences than you have.

by Rob on Apr 21, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris: "People with any sense of place and any taste are never going to agree to tall buildings in places like central Paris, the French Quarter, or the Old City of Washington."

There's no arguing with such an obvious truth. Also, everyone with any sense of place and taste would obviously agree that residents of those places should be able to park for free indefinitely on the street.

by Gray on Apr 21, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

Tom Coumaris said: "People with any sense of place and any taste are never going to agree to tall buildings in places like central Paris, the French Quarter, or the Old City of Washington."

Amusing comment. YOu might want to revisit the CEntral Park example, with the sun-blocking monstrosities of recent years - he says, with his middle finger raised at Donald Trump.!! The neighborhood around Central Park is the strongest argument for a height limit of some kind -- to have sensible regulation everywhere. It's also an example of the need for consensus, since the Trump building went up over the objections of everyone in the neighborhood.

First off, let me say one thing in favor making some valuable properties even more valuable: That would mean greater tax revenue for the city...and perhaps more money to provide services for the homeless. Also, if it's done smartly, providing more housing should relieve some of the pressures that have made DC one of the most expensive cities to rent. There are many factors that play into homelessness, and high rental costs contribute to that. There might also be more money for public transportation and more money for schools, etc,., etc. Remember, it's not just the developers and landlords that will be contributing more money of the District tax base. If more of the workforce actually lives in the District , that would be a a huge boon to the District's treasury.

Yes, the argument over the Height Act isn't new, but there is a new dimension with the declaration that the central core is about to reach maximum build-out. I think this is generating new momentum to the move to reform the law, and urgency that's never been there before. It doesn't have to be a choice between the destruction of community by the scale of unconstrained development versus rigid adherence to the old regime. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There can be neighborhoods which would thrive with more dense development, alongside neighborhoods that maintain the smaller scale that so many crave.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 21, 2012 3:29 pm • link • report

To muse off-the-cuff for a minute:

Perhaps the Height Act could wait until after the city (not just the core) reaches full build-out. Something that's great about the city is there's always a "next" neighborhood, and part of that is the Act. The study in the link showed that DC actually has about as much floor space as similarly sized cities, but it's spread out over a larger area (hence the "Oozing like batter" headline).

This fits better with the pro-Height-Act narrative than the anti-Height-Act narrative. It also means that, as DC grows in population, more neighborhoods will be subsumed by downtown. We're approaching the point where the DC-imposed limits need to be raised to the federal limit, but given the underutilized land around the city and in places like Prince George's, I think we could hold off on the federal limit for another decade at least.

The benefit would be a more European city in terms of development pattern. I'm not talking about the romantic low-lying character, I mean a more mixed-use pattern for the whole city, which takes pressure off transportation infrastructure by spreading out loads and promoting more walking.

by OctaviusIII on Apr 21, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report

re bikes and the gas tax

As we currently finance infrastructure, electric vehicles present more or less the same challenge, but impose a far higher cost on infrastructure than bikes do. yes, there are problems with relying on the gas tax for infrastructure, but except for a few locales, its not bikes creating those issues.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 21, 2012 6:59 pm • link • report

Washington, DC does not need tall buildings. Our value is in not having them, it is what makes the city special. Harry Jaffe wrote well on this. DC is not New York City, which is an island.

About those replaced buses. Not sure if there are many bus riders on this blog, but I have ridden on two buses whose frames seemed on the verge of coming apart. I have HEARD many more, passing by. Are these the replacement buses for those that were taken out of circulation because some caught on fire?

by Jazzy on Apr 22, 2012 8:10 am • link • report

We had 800k people in DC with the height act in place. Saying that it needs to go in order to fit more people in is not true.

Saying that tall buildings are prohibited in DC is misleading. While they are prohibited within the legal boundaries of DC, they are permitted within the region's urban core (Rosslyn, Pentagon City, etc.).

by Amber on Apr 22, 2012 8:53 am • link • report

The only useful part of that MIT study is the acknowledgment that the federal goverment -- as a major landlowner and the largest tenant -- in the area is the on driving the real estate market.

Speaking as someone who lives in Rosslyn, it is far more pleasant to have DC level building around on a daily basis. Is there a good reason NOT have 23 story buildings in Friendship Heights? No, not really. But it does make the DC side more livable than the Bethesda side.

by charlie on Apr 22, 2012 9:38 am • link • report

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere here.

Raising the general height limit to 160 feet to match the current limit on Pennsylvania Avenue should be a no-brainer. That would allow buildings around 15 stories... not 23 that others are suggesting. If that height is sufficient for America's Main Street in the heart of the ceremonial core, then I cannot imagine why it would be so horrible elsewhere.

That doesn't mean that everywhere will suddenly spring up to 160 feet... local zoning and NIMBY opposition will take care of that. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the legal ability to do so where it makes sense.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

@Amber

800k people fit in DC when pretty much all of what we currently call "downtown" was mixed-use rowhouses and apartment buildings. Perhaps we would still have more of that residential and historic character left in some areas like Foggy Bottom if buildings elsewhere downtown were actually allowed more reasonable heights. Then again, perhaps not, but we'll never really know now.

And the problem with allowing taller buildings only in the suburbs is that we do not have a regional taxation system. Jobs and residents lost to the cheaper suburbs means less revenue for the District. Those are real economic costs. It's easy to say everything should be kept the same when you're not the one paying for the upkeep.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 10:03 am • link • report

Adam L.-

Buildings on the north side of Pennsylvania were allowed to be 160 feet under a special exception because they are then identical height to adjoining ones on the south side of F Street that are 120 feet.

The vast majority of DC is outside the historic l'Enfant City and hence plenty of space for taller buildings that would presumably bring in extra revenue.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 22, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

The problem I have with height limit discussions is the presumption that DC is "close to build-out." No -- there are vast areas that have not been touched or are tremendously underused, such as the McMillan site, Washington Hospital Center, Fort Totten, Reservation 13, RFK, the Pepco plant, along NY Ave, etc., etc. Beyond these places, there are entire neighborhoods EotR that are vacant, such as Washington Highlands. And in the pricey residential parts there are also large tracts in which development has been hindered by neighborhood objections, such as AU Park. Development in most of these places is at least a generation away: DC is not near build-out.

by goldfish on Apr 22, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

Re: fall in gas-tax revenues: as more people get around by not using a car, this suggests that part of the transportation funding should come from general revenues.

by goldfish on Apr 22, 2012 10:54 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris

So what? "Special exemption" or not, the law says 160 feet. When you're standing on Pennsylvania Avenue, that's exactly what you get. Nowhere else in the city do we quibble over building heights in relation to the land elevation.

The issue with endorsing higher buildings outside the L'Enfant City is that there is generally little support because there is either not the infrastructure or there is little community support. For as much as those like Harry Jaffe like to say "we should build up to the height limit in areas around transit centers", that is practically very difficult to do. Look at what's happening in Eastern Market, Brookland, and Tenleytown as prime examples.

@goldfish

The idea that somehow we should have to build out every portion of the city before we start to think about changing height limits is the wrong approach. We should be offering height bonuses to developers in exchange for community benefits such as green/park space and transit enhancements. For example, in NoMa, offering developers a 25% height bonus (build up to 160 feet) to their projects in exchange for building public parks. Or, perhaps, using the same bonus offers to entice developers to pay for an extension of the streetcar along Benning Road to serve new developments at the Pepco lot. In addition, allowing extra heights elsewhere may also help take development pressure off of areas that we actually want to remain as they are, albeit lower density.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

I'll say it AGAIN - if you want more families in DC (and the population was higher in the past because there were more families), build row houses or houses. Please, for those who want tall buildings, spell out how families will want to move in them. Seriously, there is ZERO detail that advocates of higher buildings lay out on this front - talk about condo fees, talk about expenses, talk about neigborhoods, talk about it all, but talk about it in detail. There is NONE now. Or, do you just want more executive housing? Do you want more investor-owned condominiums? I mean, seriously, what?? I'm at a loss.

Families want houses in strong neighborhoods. Which is what Arlington is, parts of Alexandria, Montgomery County.

by Jazzy on Apr 22, 2012 11:41 am • link • report

Amber wrote: Saying that tall buildings are prohibited in DC is misleading. While they are prohibited within the legal boundaries of DC, they are permitted within the region's urban core (Rosslyn, Pentagon City, etc.).

As Adam L. wrote in reply, looking to the suburbs to provide growth ignores one of the fundamental points of the debate. DC doesn't get the tax revenue from those buildings in Arlington. THis is probably the most compelling reason to change the rules, but there are other reasons to build more centrally. Arguing that suburbs can take the load ignores the desire of business to be in the center or very close to it. Finally, it ignores the efficiencies and the social benefits that would come from increasing the density of the urban core, in the form of greater consumer demand and services provided for them, the relief valve this would provide on escalating rents due to scarcity in the city, and the good things the District could do with enhanced tax revenue.

I'm also with Adam L. in criticizing the argument that we should allow the whole city to build up before we consider raising the vertical limit. I don't think this cake batter approach is a good one. Those opposed to changing the Height Act don't want to mess up DC by building taller buildings, because they like the smaller scale. Locally targeted changes in the height limit would do more in the long-run to preserve the low-rise character of other neighborhoods because it will take the pressure off from the advancing cake batter. I would hate to see all those charming streets in the city with their townhouses get crowded out with big apartment blocks. That's one of the reasons why I think the Height Act should be reformed.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 22, 2012 11:44 am • link • report

@Jazzy -- There are plenty of neighborhoods in the city with houses -- some have strong neighborhoods, some are less attractive. If we built up around the core, there would be more activity and more tax revenue, etc., and the spillover could strengthen the weaker neighborhoods.

There are plenty of cities that have real middle-class neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it's true that DC doesn't have that now. The houses in DC go to either upper or lower-class. The lower-class neighborhoods are being gentrified with condos precisely because there are no opportunities to build more vertically in more upscale neighborhoods. If we changed that dynamic, we could preserve the family -friendly houses, even as we raise the incomes and quality of life in those neighborhoods.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 22, 2012 11:53 am • link • report

@Jazzy

Your comments ignore the fact that nearly all the growth in DC over the last decade has come as the result of increased development in downtown neighborhoods, particularly apartments and condos in Wards 2 and 6. Wards with predominantly single-family homes grew only a fraction. It's also a bit elitist to suggest that people wouldn't want to raise a family in an apartment building; many would take offense to that.

That said, the entire idea behind building higher in certain areas (as appropriate) is so that we can preserve other areas that want (and should) remain as single-family rowhomes or detached houses. And many developments are including more rowhomes just as you suggest for those who do need more space than they may otherwise find in high-rises. McMillan plans are a good example: http://envisionmcmillan.com/sites/default/files/Conceptual_Plan.pdf

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report

It's also a bit elitist to suggest that people wouldn't want to raise a family in an apartment building; many would take offense to that.

Hey, I am not above offending people. And I don't want to be muzzled.

Please tell me where are these people? Where is the Great Clamoring For High Rise Apartments by couples with one and two and three children? Seriously, where?

And where are the discussions of family living in high rise apartments? Tell me. I'd like to participate! I don't think there are any.

I do not buy your argument at all.

by Jazzy on Apr 22, 2012 12:06 pm • link • report

@Adam L, you been EotR lately? it has crazy amounts of land that lies fallow. And it is astonishingly cheap.

To fundamentally change this 100 year-old game by increasing height limits is to ignore why probably half of the land in DC is under-invested. We should fix this problem first.

by goldfish on Apr 22, 2012 12:15 pm • link • report

@Fischy Rosslyn and Pentagon City may be in Virginia, but they're hardly suburbs in a practical sense.

I don't understand why skyscrapers in DC would be so wonderful. More tax revenue for the city? Tax revenue would also increase as property values citywide increase. Efficiencies and social benefits of tall buildings in the urban core? See Rosslyn, Pentagon City, et cetera. Cheaper rents for everyone? Raw economics: downtown skyscraper rents are expensive in any city and cheaper rents are always in less desirable areas.

Having density dependent on the amount of infrastructure available to support it (street width) is a good thing.

by Amber on Apr 22, 2012 12:17 pm • link • report

@Jazzy

Even if we agreed that there wasn't a population of families that are clamouring to live in apartments, building high rise apartments helps reduce the financial pressures to convert townhouses into condos, group houses, etc. If the supply of apartments in the district were greater, I would expect the desirability of group house living arangements to be diminished. This would effectively create more housing for the families.

by Jim O on Apr 22, 2012 12:33 pm • link • report

@jazzy

Well, my cousins for one. GGW Contributor Dan Reed for another. Caroline Armijo
in Chinatown probably know a good number of people, as would many on the DCUrbanMom.com website.

But besides your disbelief that families would actually want to live in anything other than single-family rowhomes and detached houses don't you believe? That most of the District's growth over the last decade has come from downtown development? Or that building higher density in certain areas helps preserve more space for other types of housing stock? I think Arlington is a prime example of how both high and low density development can work for the benefit of everyone.

@goldfish

EotR will change too; it's just a matter of time. I have a feeling that it's already changing in historic Anacostia. The biggest issue is that urban fabric east of the river is fundamentally different than the types of areas that have experienced the most growth in Wards 2 and 6. The area East of the River has a more traditional suburban layout of single-family homes on long, winding secondary streets. And there's not really anything wrong with that, except that you shouldn't expect to see the same type of walkable developments tied to the street grid that we see elsewhere in the city.

And many of the vacant lots you talk about are not particularly close to transit, employment centers, or other amenities that would make them the ideal candidates for redevelopment. Those lots that are, such as the PEPCO site along Benning Road, will be unable resist development for too long.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 12:38 pm • link • report

@Amber

Why is street width an appropriate infrastructure indicator to determine density? Shouldn't proximity to existing transit and availability of electrical, water, and sewer capacity (installed or proposed) determine allowable density? This is why the correct approach to increasing denisty should include a well thought out "comprehensive plan" that Fischy referred to previously. Limiting density based on street width doesn't account for the true availability of infrastructure.

by Jim O on Apr 22, 2012 12:47 pm • link • report

@Amber

They're suburbs in that they're outside Washington, not that they're typically "suburban". But the tax revenue goes elsewhere. And while prices may not lower substantially in the District, there will still be more room for people who are willing to pay them. That's not an insignificant concern for a city where half of the property is tax-exempt as is 60% of the workforce. In addition, it all depends on your definition of "skyscraper" but I (nor do many industry groups) consider a height of 160 feet to fit the bill or significantly change what people already love about Washington.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 12:54 pm • link • report

It's nice to argue that increasing height elsewhere would relieve the pressure on neighborhoods worth preserving. Except it's these very neighborhoods in the l'Enfant City that many here want to raise the height in.

From developers' viewpoints, of course they want to use every rationale to build more in already successful neighborhoods, residential and commercial. They don't want to take the risk of developing underused areas.

But it's the job of planners and the community to plan development where development is needed, not just to pander to the desire of developers for more access to proven successful areas.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 22, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

It's fine that Eleanor Holmes Norton supports the height restrictions. But I thought that for the past gazillion years, she's been battling for home rule.

Here is a Congressionally-imposed mandate on what we can do in DC, even in areas miles away from the Capitol and the mall. And yet the woman who runs for office claiming to be "our champion" says she's strongly in favor of it.

I generally support the height limit, but am open to some tweaking of the limit or even considering the granting of limited exceptions in certain neighborhoods. But - unless we're talking about the federal core and its immediate environs - this is a decision that DC residents should make, and not Congress.

by Mike on Apr 22, 2012 2:38 pm • link • report

I'm not sure I get this whole mindset of the Height Act being a "blessing".

I've lived in this region for over 20 years and traveled all over the US and abroad. Sorry, "preservationists" but compared to other cities, height limits haven't made DC "exceptional". It's made the city exceptionally ugly and boring.

The DC Heights Act has squashed architectural creativity and given us a city of of low, squat buildings that all look like tombs, massive tissue boxes, and big-box stores. Very few DC buildings have distinctive or interesting facades.

And the aversion to tall buildings has spread beyond DC. This region is the only place I know of where 10 and 12-story buildings are called "towers" and 15 to 20-story buildings are rare standouts. As a result,the entire region has a sprawling, low-slung, unsophisticated, cookie-cutter feel to it that is horribly boring to look at. Look around. EVERY building, whether, government, commercial, or residential, looks like everything else around it. Even our houses - urban and suburban - all look alike.

The hysteria that we'll lose all our sunlight and never see the sky because of "massive towers". DC will never become New York, even if we allow 50-story buildings downtown. And the notion that eliminating the Height Act will lead to the construction of ugly buildings are totally false. If anything, we can get much better than what we get now - unimaginative look-alike, same-height boxes.

The review process for taller buildings - even skyscrapers - could be made very strict - even more so than it already is - to prevent the development of monstrosities.

In the end, taller Buildings will provide more available space, more people and more tax revenue. And before we hear more of the "DC did quite fine with height limits when it had 800,000 people in 1950", there is a world of difference between today's DC and the DC of the Truman era.

DC has an opportunity to move forward and reap the benefits. Or it can preserve the status quo and keep installing traffic cameras whenever it needs more revenue.

by ceefer66 on Apr 22, 2012 2:39 pm • link • report

@Amber:

Yes, the District of Columbia once had 800,000 people, but I suggest you jog on over to DCist this weekend for photographs on how that was achieved. Giant swaths of horrific slums - alley dwellings more often than not lacking both electricity and indoor plumbing. There were some vibrant neighborhoods in SW that were destroyed for freeways and awful modernist structures, but there were also those alley "dwellings."

There was a case that made it to the Supreme Court regarding this area, and Justice Douglas - in his opinion - used figures from the then most recent census to show how so few residents in the affect census tract had the most basic amenities including heating, plumbing, or electricity. He supported taking and razing.

Also, you might want to read David Brinkley's "Washington Goes to War." In it,
he recounts how so many young women found housing in Washington during and after World War II. Many actually rented rooms and beds in shifts, especially those who had wartime jobs at night.

And, of course, subletting of basement apartments or taking in a boarder was encouraged as part of the war effort, as well as a way to supplement income.

The 800,000 figure is interesting, but some of the anecdotes behind it tell some memorable stories.

by Mike on Apr 22, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

I am strongly against raising the DC building height restriction. Part of it is bias, since Montgomery County (and Arlington) would suffer because developers wouldn't have to go across the DC line to build their towers, but mostly I just like the way DC's skyline is now. DC is a very unique city and the building height is part of that. The White House, Washington Monument, and US Capitol are our city's symbolic landmarks and shouldn't be overshadowed by any skyscrapers.

DC also doesn't need to increase height to increase its density which, at 10,065/sq.mi., is already on par with or greater than the other major Mid-Atlantic/Northeastern cities including Baltimore (which itself was around 10K only thirty years ago). In many ways DC is more urban than other cities with similar densities, since instead of having a few skyscrapers clustered together, DC has a much greater number of highrises of more moderate heights. This is the main reason for those "canyons" of office buildings downtown. Also, DC isn't going to run out of space anytime soon. NoMa is chugging along very well, and there are many other areas that could use redevelopment in the city, but don't get me wrong I'm not saying we should tear down rowhomes or start construction in Rock Creek Park.

The only valid reason for taller buildings in DC is to lower the cost of living, but the effect of taller buildings would hardly make that much of a difference.

We should definitely maintain the status quo. DC is unique to this country in many ways and should remain that way. I mean Friendship Heights and Silver Spring have plenty of existing high rises (and more under construction) and are right on the border on the Red Line; Bethesda is about 5 min up Wisconsin from the DC line and Rosslyn is right across the river, again both centered on Metro stations. If you really must have 400ft skyscrapers in your life though you can move to Baltimore or Philadelphia.

by King Terrapin on Apr 22, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report

"I am strongly against raising the DC building height restriction. Part of it is bias, since Montgomery County (and Arlington) would suffer because developers wouldn't have to go across the DC line to build their towers"

Done and done.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 3:29 pm • link • report

@Jazzy: why should we care about where families want to live? Families with children are a small slice of the area's housing market, and already are oversupplied with houses: fewer than 1/10 of households in DC are married couples with children, but 1/3 of its housing stock is 3+ bedroom.

Plus, they're a declining slice: only 1/15 of new households in the entire region, 2005-2010, are married couples with children. 93% of the demand for new housing is coming from NON-families, many of whom would like to live in apartments.

by Payton on Apr 22, 2012 3:54 pm • link • report

Density doesn't depend on height. Density depends on density.

When DC had many more people most of the townhouses in the Old City had 3 or 4 units per house. Today many of those have 1 renovated unit with 1 or 2 residents. Often one of those sits on their computer whining about how DC needs more density.

Paris has many times the density of DC with a city-wide height limit of 6 stories. People expect less square footage to live in the central city other places and people in DC have to come around. Our existing townhouses can easily be converted into 3 or 4 units each and with the additions already allowed more units can be added.

Building more urban horizontal McMansions for the well-heeled where one person will live in over a thousand square feet in an expensive high rise doesn't help density much.

I think DC's defacto system of encouraging more renovation of neglected neighborhoods, instead of raising the height limit in already successful ones, works well.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 22, 2012 4:12 pm • link • report

"Where is the Great Clamoring For High Rise Apartments by couples with one and two and three children? "

go to arlington, falls church, etc. Few people are going to squeeze a family into a condo in DC when there are condos nearby in places with better public schools.

"Paris has many times the density of DC with a city-wide height limit of 6 stories. People expect less square footage to live in the central city other places and people in DC have to come around. Our existing townhouses can easily be converted into 3 or 4 units each and with the additions already allowed more units can be added"

In general Americns won't accept the densities Parisians will - and I'm not even sure the conversion you envision is legal in most DC neighborhoods - and I strongly think its not desired there. It certainly doesn't sound compatible with the townhouses being a resource for families.

Has everyone completely given up in DCPS?AA

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 22, 2012 4:27 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris

"Paris has many times the density of DC with a city-wide height limit of 6 12 stories."

"The height limit for buildings in Paris is 37m (121ft)" There. Fixed it for you.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 4:28 pm • link • report

The Height Act is a form of regulation and as with most regulations, there are pros and cons. If you want to move this discussion forward, it's important to acknowledge both the pros and cons regardless of what side you're on. I'll attempt to list some of them:

PROS TO LIMITING HEIGHT
* Maintains historic views, character, and sunlight
* Promotes development in underdeveloped areas
* Preserves the number of highly desirable rowhouses and SFHs

PROS TO ALLOWING GREATER HEIGHT
* Increases the overall level of development which increases tax revenue, jobs, and amenities
* Creates additional condos/apartments which are more affordable than comparable rowhouses/SFHs
* Increases opportunities for new and different types of architecture

HEIGHT MYTHS
* Myth: DC can't accommodate 800K people without allowing greater height.

by Falls Church on Apr 22, 2012 4:57 pm • link • report

Perhaps the Height Act could wait until after the city (not just the core) reaches full build-out.

The thing is that there is heavy resistance to building the city further out. Brookland doesn't want more retail or density near its metro station. Similar initiatives have been fought to a standstill in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights.

What may help is to ease some of the Height Act requirements in areas where there is not the same resistance to density. This would have the added benefit to other DC residents of easing pressure on their own neighborhoods, allowing them to remain the sleepy commuter suburbs they want to live in.

by Tyro on Apr 22, 2012 5:04 pm • link • report

@Tyro "The thing is that there is heavy resistance to building the city further out."

Really, been to Loudoun County lately?

by Lance on Apr 22, 2012 5:37 pm • link • report

Really, been to Loudoun County lately?

I mean within the borders of DC, which should have been apparent from the context of my comment.

by Tyro on Apr 22, 2012 5:41 pm • link • report

While I would like to raise the height act, I would rather. change the zoning codes so more areas could take advantage of the current limit. Why should sites right next the the metro be limited to less than 3.5 FAR like the col brooks development is.

by Nathaniel on Apr 22, 2012 8:17 pm • link • report

Adam L.- I note the correction. The legal height limit in Paris is now about 120 feet. However in fact almost the entire city, including the center city, is about 6 stories with many multiples of the density of Washington.

There is a plan to raise the height limit in Paris to much greater heights. But only in the outer arrondisements. No one would ever suggest high rises in central Paris.(Tour Montparnasse cured that quick).

Haussman's Paris plan and the l'Enfant Plan are incredibly similar. We can learn a lot by looking to how Paris has managed to keep it's urban center dense and yet livable.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 22, 2012 10:16 pm • link • report

@Tom

Yes, much of central Paris has those 6-story Haussman buildings but that's also part of the problem. There are no neighborhoods like Spring Valley, Brookland or Hillcrest. There would be few of our iconic rowhomes. Much of the city would be 6-story buildings covering every available piece of property. While that approach may be favored by those that want that cake batter development, that's not exactly desirable to many. In addition, while Paris can create its built-up business districts on the outskirks of the city, unitary taxation systems ensure that the central areas are not set at a total disadvantage.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2012 11:24 pm • link • report

It seems people conflate 'views' with the idea of DC having a flat skyline.

To me, views are things I look at. That is, if I'm looking at the Capitol Dome, I'm likely looking at it from the ground and I'm looking toward it down a street. The street is framed by buildings. Taller buildings won't obstruct that view at all.

Likewise, if I'm looking at the city from afar, I can't tell if the buildings are 10 stories or 12. What I can tell is that they're all about the same height.

I just want to make clear that these are two very different things from a policy perspective. Maintaining DC's 'flat' skyline while adding density and height is perfectly do-able and reasonable. It won't harm views down street corridors. It won't change the image we have of DC, either. As noted, some sections of PA Ave already are built to 160 feet. If the limit were uniformly 160 or even 200 feet, this wouldn't be an issue. Similarly, if DC's standard had always been 200 feet instead of the current limit, no one would notice. There's a severe status quo bias.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 9:01 am • link • report

@Tom Coumaris

If you think people in the US are going to go for living in 195 square feet then preach it! Paris density, baby!

Heck, I think you'd be hard pressed to sell people on 400 square feet.

You can get to very high densities (greater than half of Paris density) without going crazy - these densities already exist in Dupont Circle. Row houses along the streets and at most corners you have a bigger apartment/condo building. This is doable in lots of places in the city but of course the usual suspects will always rage about TRAFFIC!

Increasing the height limit around the edges of downtown would allow for more office space in the core, which is good for smart growth (easier to structure public transit service, easier to find a place to live if both people work in the core, etc.) Increasing the height limit would probably mainly affect commercial properties (perhaps there would be some residential increase around the edges of downtown where there is residential too).

But as someone else said, a good start would be increasing the density allowance around Metro stations in the city to ensure that we're actually maximizing the capacity those stations can handle. The real problem isn't that we can't build high enough, it's that the density is too low and companies have to jump through a bunch of community hoops to build something worthwhile. See the Hine project (like 200 feet from the Metro) or the project at 14th & Wallach (also like a block from Metro) where the community hems and haws for years about one story or a few units and setbacks etc. It's just a game to try to preserve the status quo at all costs - even if the status quo is a hideous carryout.

That's why we need the zoning rewrite, so we can figure out what densities/uses are appropriate where and not make everyone jump through hoops to build things that benefit the city.

by MLD on Apr 23, 2012 9:09 am • link • report

Adam L.- Nimby neighborhoods aside, there still several areas of DC, right atop Metro stations, that lie virtually empty. For years we've hoped Metro would be the thing that makes DC do a La Defense at one of them. Instead we're getting trivial development.

Congress Heights, Capitol Heights, Deanwood, Benning Road, Anacostia and Minnesota Avenue. All the EOR areas where development is sorely needed and welcomed. Office towers mixed with residential units would be wonderful there. But it has to have an incentive- like higher heights- because local developers don't want to go there.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 23, 2012 9:12 am • link • report

all you folks looking for office concentrations outside the core, have you ever worked near a metro station outside the core, and relied on transit?

I work near the Navy Yard metro. We have a grand total of one metro line, the Green line. Great if you live in Congress Heights or Petworth. If you live in Virginia on the Yellow line, or one of the bus lines to the Pentagon, the transfer can add 10 minutes or more to your trip. One reason a lot of folks here drive to work. Similar issues for Marylanders commuting to Orange line arlington, etc.

Sure these are better places for encouraging transit commutes than a campus in Loudoun or Frederick, but its NOT the same level of convenience to the entire regional work force as is the center of DC. Places where metro stations have 2 or 3 or (L'enfant) 4 metro lines, occasionally with commuter rail as well.

batter is far from a perfect substitute for higher density at the most desirable locations.

by MStreetDenizen on Apr 23, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

@Alex B I'm likely looking at it from the ground and I'm looking toward it down a street. The street is framed by buildings. Taller buildings won't obstruct that view at all.

You'd think. But that's not really the case, and not really the problem. Walk up Connecticut some day and take a look at St. Matthews and how what was a monument is not overshaddowed by buildings higher than it .... litterally by the monuments of commerce. You get the same thing in NYC but worse. Even the highest monuments get overshaddowed by buildings ... buildings that for the most part are nothing more than steel structures with walls of glass hung from them. Buildings that, unlike real monuments, are meant to last maybe a lifetime, but never for eternity ... as a monument is. And that's the problem. If you allow the buildings to go higher, you end up overshadowing all the monuments that ARE this city ... and the monuments, and monumental views, involve far more than looking at the Capitol buidling. A monumental city has all sorts of monuments. What about Union Station? It's place and prominence as a monument is currently threatened by a developer's trying to play with the rules as to where 'ground level' get measured. If they're successful, the beautiful icon Union Station will be overshadowed by some disposable glass curtained block-like office building. And if you're successful in raising the height limits, hundreds of other monumental sites within our fair city will be similarly threatened.

by Lance on Apr 23, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

Congress Heights, Capitol Heights, Deanwood, Benning Road, Anacostia and Minnesota Avenue. All the EOR areas where development is sorely needed and welcomed. Office towers mixed with residential units would be wonderful there. But it has to have an incentive- like higher heights- because local developers don't want to go there.

Unlike NoMa or SW or the Capitol Riverfront, none of those areas are adjacent to downtown.

Sure, they're all good candidates for dense development. But they're not substitutes for the kind of office and employment growth the downtown core will need in the coming years.

Development isn't actually like cake batter. It's not as if you take some away from here and put it over there. The economics change. Those EotR areas aren't likely to be huge office attractors anyway. They could be good for residential, but that doesn't address the office issue.

I'd be interested in a Canary Wharf or La Defense area, but you can't just pick an underdeveloped area and then say 'this is it.' The associated investment must be made. Canary Wharf, for example, was catalyzed by a huge investment in a Tube extension and as the hub of the Docklands Light Railway system.

The larger point is that the idea you propose is faulty - just because some areas haven't seen development yet isn't a good explanation for why more density in the core is unwarranted.

If anything, more density in the core will make those close-in but underdeveloped neighborhoods more attractive, since they're now closer to more stuff than they were before, all else being equal.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 9:31 am • link • report

sorry ... critically bad typo: how what was a monument is noW overshaddowed by buildings higher than it

by Lance on Apr 23, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

@Lance

Even the highest monuments get overshaddowed by buildings...

You're moving the goalposts. I was talking about views and street corridors, not about shadows.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 9:37 am • link • report

"Buildings that, unlike real monuments, are meant to last maybe a lifetime, but never for eternity"

"What about Union Station? "

Why does this make me think of the old office buildings around Grand Central Station in NYC, some of them about 100 years old now?

by ExNYer on Apr 23, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

@MStreet Denizen

batter is far from a perfect substitute for higher density at the most desirable locations.

Right on.

This is the broadest point to be made - the height limit has costs. We're already incurring those costs right now. As the city continues to grow in the face of strong demand, the costs will rise.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 9:41 am • link • report

yup, and now its not the WH, the Capitol, and the lincoln washington and Jefferson - now its union station, and various (how many?) churches.

Now its not about the uniqueness of DC, but arguments against hirises in any city.

by ExNYer on Apr 23, 2012 9:41 am • link • report

@Lance

I often wondered why Philadelphia was allowed to build up so much around Independence National Park, marring the historic sightlines. Surely Congress can control private development that abuts public property to preserve an area vital to our national identity. Who wants to start www.TearDownPhilly.org?

by Adam L on Apr 23, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

I wish someone could identify the ideal height, because there will always be some who argue for higher or lower. The point is it's impossible to figure it out economically becasue all the arguments for raising the height limit will be valid again once the new limit has been reached, whether at 20, 50, or 100 stories. At some point the downtown will have to be expanded horizontally.

At that point the solution will lie in building a really good multi-nodal public transportation system that will connect all the little downtowns of the region like Tysons, Bethesda and anyother's deemed smart growth. Why did London create the Docklands or Paris create La Defense? Becasue they feel modernist skyscrapers are incompatible with 6-8 story urbanism. Why do they think that? Answer that question honestly and you might find a good solution to this height problem.

by Thayer-D on Apr 23, 2012 10:27 am • link • report

" The point is it's impossible to figure it out economically becasue all the arguments for raising the height limit will be valid again once the new limit has been reached, whether at 20, 50, or 100 stories. "

"At that point the solution will lie in building a really good multi-nodal public transportation system that will connect all the little downtowns of the region "

That suggests an answer or at least a way of looking at the answer, doesn't it?

when someone suggests 60 story buildings, the alternative is nodes with 40 story buildings, with intense transit service.

When people are suggesting 20 story buildings, is it realistic to expect that level of transit service for 10 story buildings? The economies of scale for transit mean that the arguments are NOT the same as the height, and density, increase.

Also, IIUC none of the argument really apply above 70 stories or so - at that point issues with elevators, constructuion costs, etc mean that straight economics almost never dictates higher buildings - they are usually built for prestive, either for the anchor tenant, or for the municipality.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

@ AWalker,
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?

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?

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.

by Thayer-D on Apr 23, 2012 11:22 am • link • report

"AWalker,
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? "

Sure. And improved tunneling technology could mean different economies of scale for transit. And computer driven cars powered by solar generated electricity might mean that theres no more need to centrally located anything (I don't think so, but I can't rule it out). We can't answer what the economics will look like with game changing technology.

"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?"

I think thats been answered numerous times. Its because the residential areas there achieve very high density without a lot of height - A. Because of very low sq ft per person, by American standards and B. most of the residential area being 100% 6-8 story apts, without even townhouses, let alone SFHs. That impacts ridership, as well as gas prices that impact modal choice.

DC now isnt built like Paris. Its not going to get to look like Paris without a transformation that would alters its character rather more than a few buildings taller than the current height limit would, I think.

"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."

It sounds like you won't be satisfied with anything other than an architectural design type answer, unconstrained by economics and technology. My sense is that economics and technology ARE constraining - both in making it harder to achieve a less auto centric region without relaxing the height limit, but also in placing natural limits on how big buildings can get. I don't think we can just hand wave those issues away.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 11:34 am • link • report

@Thayer-D

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

@Lance
Simple question why do I care about protecting how people see whatever random monumnet you decide is important? Seriously I don't think St Matthews (which by the way is a nice big church but in no way special like the White House), would be in anyway dimished by if their was a big building across the street.

Your basic premise is that the status quo should always be maintained, I think that is ridiculous and is a contridiction to the idea of progress. Why don't we just stop building anythign and making improvements, lets let things stay the way they are.

by nathaniel on Apr 23, 2012 11:51 am • link • report

Alex,
I wasn't confusing density and height, rather I was trying to make your point that if Paris and New York are both very dense, why wouldn't we low skyliners vote for a Paris model?

"Asking what the ideal level of agglomeration is seems to fundamentally miss the point about what an agglomeration economy is."

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say cities aren't complex, but one usually simplifies to be able to move forward analytically. What metric(s) should one use to identify the height limit in DC, and how long should we leave it in place until we revisit this question?

by Thayer-D on Apr 23, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

"I don't think anyone in their right mind would say cities aren't complex, but one usually simplifies to be able to move forward analytically. What metric(s) should one use to identify the height limit in DC, and how long should we leave it in place until we revisit this question?"

Step 1. Determine the FAR, that, under current conditions in North America (and specifically in the inner part of this region), makes a high service transit node feasible, when at (or maybe when close to?" build out.

Step 2. For that FAR, look at the building profiles possible under different height limits. Squat and filling the lot, slightly stepped back, huge plazas, etc. Determine a preferred mix of building profiles.

Implement the FAR based on the economics. Implement the height limit based on the FAR and the result of step two.

Revisit Step 1 when technologies and economics change such as to suggest a different answer. At that time, also revisit Step 2. I dont know, for sure, but probably not more often than every 20 years.

maybe every 50 years, like with the zoning code?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report

@nathanial, St. Matthews was being presented as an example of a monumental view which has already been lost to too high buildings built around it. When built it dominated its skyline ... as a Cathedral is suppose to do. Now, because of incompatible construction around it (including office buildings the Church itself built around the Cathedral to rent out as office space), the monumental aspect of the cathedral is gone. And that's with the current height limits in place! Would Paris allow buildings to hog the skyline around Notre Dame? No .. And actually the did the opposite back in Haussman's time ... They actually tore down entire neighborhoods around that cathedral to make it monumental. We're fortunate, by design, (i.e. the L'Enfant and McMillan plans) we already have a monumental city which has grown around us in a remarkably short amount of time. Let's not destroy it to allow some overbuilding in the core area. Philadelphia IS a great example of how monuments and landmarks can easily be destroyed by not building the adjoining new buildings to the existing scale.

by Lance on Apr 23, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

@Thayer

I wasn't confusing density and height, rather I was trying to make your point that if Paris and New York are both very dense, why wouldn't we low skyliners vote for a Paris model?

Sure, vote for that model. It will require a lot more than just a height limit, however. Are you up for the challenge of rezoning pretty much every rowhouse 'hood in the city to accomodate 6-7 story development across the board?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say cities aren't complex, but one usually simplifies to be able to move forward analytically. What metric(s) should one use to identify the height limit in DC, and how long should we leave it in place until we revisit this question?

First, separate height from density. The height limit shouldn't impede density as it does now. Perhaps that means adjusting it or scrapping it entirely.

Second, adjust the regulations with some regularity, perhaps adopting the concept of a zoning budget:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1816368

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

Lance

Paris did that for Notre Dame. For one cathedral.

here in DC we have the Washington National Cathedral, it stands out for miles around.

Do we have to do that for BOTH cathedrals? Plus the Basilica up by CUA? How about for the Greek Orthodox cathedral (?) or for Adas Israel?

Note at the time of the Hausmann plan, France had a concordat with the RCC, which was effectively the national church, recognized by the govt.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report

Alex,
Implying that the Paris model would work (with the radical zoning re-write) are you ceeding the point that there's a finite if subjective limit to height and density? You're still not dealing with La Defense vs. Tyson's Corner issue as a way to absorb growth. Most cities have many centers, in fact, New York has two downtowns, the financial district and midtown. Why couldn't Rosslyn (amongst others) be the counter point to DC's downtown? Why don't they re-build the area between Wall street and Midtown? Because New York woulnd't be livable and therefore economically not as desirable as cities that strove to balance economic demands with livability. Call it the agglomeration of quality of life if you prefer.

by Thayer-D on Apr 23, 2012 12:48 pm • link • report

@Alex B. You're moving the goalposts. I was talking about views and street corridors, not about shadows.

No, I'm not moving the goalposts. The Height Act is as much about 'light and air' as it is about views. And if you go look at downtown Philadelphia, you'll see that they're all very much linked anyways. You are though helping to illustrate my point that once those advocating for an increase in height really understand the issue (and don't for example think 'it's only about the view from the middle of the street') they invariably come around to supporting the Height Act.

I think we saw some of this playing out when the wired streetcar proponents were saying 'but we can have it go down adjoining streets from the Capitol so that the wires aren't seen when viewing the Capitol from the Mall'. They showed they just 'didn't get it' ... I.e., the intention of the Height Act and Overhead Wires Act and ext isn't to leave a few 'vistas' from which photographs can be taken but instead to leave this city as an open sky city filled with sun and trees and everything green you'd think a smartgrowther would want ... except for the few monuments (yes, including churches) which should be piercing the sky giving this city the monument look it was designed to have.

As Thayer mentioned, we have Tysons Corner, and Bethesday, and etc. to take care of the 'we're out of office space' issue ... if it ever comes to be that we really are ...

by Lance on Apr 23, 2012 12:54 pm • link • report

@Thayer

Implying that the Paris model would work (with the radical zoning re-write) are you ceeding the point that there's a finite if subjective limit to height and density?

No, I am not. I am saying that to the extent such a model would increase the density we have in DC right now, all available data shows that any increase would be beneficial. That's what I'm endorsing - the increase. I'm not sold on any particular model yet.

Why couldn't Rosslyn (amongst others) be the counter point to DC's downtown?

They could be, and to some extent already are. My point is that such polycentricity, particularly without a very dense surrounding residential fabric has large costs. Rosslyn's got Metro, yes, but its connections still aren't as good as Downtown DC's are. Just as an example.

Why don't they re-build the area between Wall street and Midtown?

They could, if the zoning allowed it. New York's zoning currently does not.

Because New York woulnd't be livable and therefore economically not as desirable as cities that strove to balance economic demands with livability.

Desirable and livable for whom? Or, for how many? Let's say more density there would slightly decrease livability. But you've also increased the stuff (either via daytime pop from office or nighttime pop from residents), and that increase in people offsets the small decrease in livability (which I'd dispute anyway).

Therefore, adding density makes it more livable for more people.

Call it the agglomeration of quality of life if you prefer.

But you're not really agglomerating anything in that scenario, but rather hording the increased value amongst a limited (and static) number of people.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report

Tall buildings are anti-environment:

[QUOTE]""Yves Contassot, the French Green Party representative for the 13th arrondissement, voiced his party's dissent: "A tower is not eco, to build it requires an enormous amount of energy compared to a traditional building." He argued that the enormous amount of energy needed just to get people and water to the upper floors is five or six times more than that allotted by the "plan climat," the set of environmental protocols France adopted several years ago. Contassot added that the skyscraper as an architectural form is "passé." ""[/QUOTE]

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/newly-freed-from-height-limits-paris-skyline-ready-to-rise.html

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 23, 2012 1:15 pm • link • report

"(You're) hording the increased value amongst a limited (and static) number of people"

So any piece of high priced downtown land is hording value from the rest of us? We could lower the value of Nantucket by allowing condo towers, or make Georgetown more valuable by re-building it like Clarendon. You're premis also assumes that there shoulldn't be any inequality of wealth in our society becasue not everyone can share in high priced realestate. Zoning is the legal way they keep Greenwich Village from being developed, but the real reason is obvious, or they'd change the zoning to make it affordable for recent Colledge grads and young families to live in the Village...wait a minute, it wouldn't be the Village any more. Hmmmm!

I agree with your premis that increased density would be good, but one has to balance what's worth preserving with precieved gains from a change. I think we're a long way off from risking what so many love about this City when there are so many prooven ways to deal with what you are trying to do. My guess is if they would build beautifully designed stone skyscrapers like they did in the 1920's and 1930's in New York, you'd have more takers, but the reality is we'd get Rosslyn or better yet, Hong Kong. Who want's to live in a forest of glass and steel towers?

by Thayer-D on Apr 23, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report

@Thayer

So any piece of high priced downtown land is hording value from the rest of us? We could lower the value of Nantucket by allowing condo towers, or make Georgetown more valuable by re-building it like Clarendon. You're premis also assumes that there shoulldn't be any inequality of wealth in our society becasue not everyone can share in high priced realestate. Zoning is the legal way they keep Greenwich Village from being developed, but the real reason is obvious, or they'd change the zoning to make it affordable for recent Colledge grads and young families to live in the Village...wait a minute, it wouldn't be the Village any more. Hmmmm!

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Nantucket is irrelevant to this conversation, we're not talking about natural areas or low intensity development.

I have no idea where you got the idea that my premise is one that abolishes inequality.

No, my premise is that these restrictions have costs. The cost is both that the existing real estate becomes outrageously expensive, but also that the prevention of letting the market add density where it is clearly warranted is a cost as well. That demand must be met someplace else, and someplace else is likely not a good substitute.

I agree with your premis that increased density would be good, but one has to balance what's worth preserving with precieved gains from a change. I think we're a long way off from risking what so many love about this City when there are so many prooven ways to deal with what you are trying to do.

I don't disagree, to an extent. We can indeed add more. We must balance interests, and I'd argue the current scheme is not balanced at all - it favors preservation and the status quo far too much, it is not counterbalanced by the need to acommodate our demand for space at all.

You're right that there are proven ways to do it, other than increasing the height limit. - the problem is that we're not doing them, either.

Who want's to live in a forest of glass and steel towers?

Ah yes, Hong Kong. Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 1:38 pm • link • report

"""I don't disagree, to an extent. We can indeed add more. We must balance interests, and I'd argue the current scheme is not balanced at all - it favors preservation and the status quo far too much, it is not counterbalanced by the need to acommodate our demand for space at all."""""

AlexB.-Georgetown is the only part with a real preservation board. In the old l'Enfant City preservation often just means saving the facade of the historic building and building whatever behind it up to the height limit. Maybe off-topic but DC's "facadeomies" aren't preservation.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 23, 2012 2:08 pm • link • report

I was trying to argue that the high value of real estate in our downtown dosen't necessarily mean that we must increase the height to bring those prices down. The Nantucket annalogy was to say there are many reasons places have high real-estate prices, but there again one needs to balance the need to have more affordable prices with what makes those prices high or one might kill the golden goose.

"You're right that there are proven ways to do it, other than increasing the height limit. - the problem is that we're not doing them, either."

If you're good with both strategies, why not focus more energy on the strategy that has the most support, why swim upstream?

If our system favors preservation over the "demand" for space, what neighborhoods should loose their preservation status, Greenwich Village, Dupont? Again, build a neighborhod or architecture worth preserving and my guess is you wouldn't have the need for so much preservation. Till then, you can take those 20 story glass towers to Roslyn and I'll suffer in the amenity desert of Downtown DC.

by Thayer-D on Apr 23, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

If you're good with both strategies, why not focus more energy on the strategy that has the most support, why swim upstream?

Because I reject your assertion that adding density and upzoning rowhouse neighborhoods (which is what would be required) has more support. Have you seen some of the NIMBY battles that go on over even modestly dense proposals?

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 2:30 pm • link • report

"Again, build a neighborhod or architecture worth preserving and my guess is you wouldn't have the need for so much preservation. Till then, you can take those 20 story glass towers to Roslyn and I'll suffer in the amenity desert of Downtown DC."

"when we build, let us build as if we build forever, even it means the planet is toast within 60 years"

Gotcha.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 2:38 pm • link • report

AlexB.- Present zoning in most of the rowhouse neighborhoods allows at least 3 or 4 units. Certainly R-4 and I'm pretty sure R-3. Also few are built to the height limit which is usually around 45 feet. (Historic districts do require a minimal setback above the present cornice for vertical additions). And rear additions through increased lot coverage are common.

Unfortunately most increased height and lot coverage is for single occupants who want a sunroom, exercise room, or bigger great rooms.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 23, 2012 2:47 pm • link • report

"AlexB.- Present zoning in most of the rowhouse neighborhoods allows at least 3 or 4 units. Certainly R-4 and I'm pretty sure R-3. Also few are built to the height limit which is usually around 45 feet. (Historic districts do require a minimal setback above the present cornice for vertical additions). And rear additions through increased lot coverage are common.
Unfortunately most increased height and lot coverage is for single occupants who want a sunroom, exercise room, or bigger great rooms."

single individuals, or single families? My impression is that many (most?) single unit town houses in the L'enfant city are inhabited by at least two adults, and in many areas commonly by a family of three or four. Would carving (or recarving) those houses back into multiple dwelling increase the density that much? They would like decrease the diversity of family styles.

Hirises for the singles, OTOH, may make townhouses more affordable to families.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 2:58 pm • link • report

I understand NIMBY's are tough, but if you're going to base the optimal way to increase density on the wishes of rich lawyers in NW DC, I'd posit that one ought to re-think the motivation for proposing skyscrapers. I can see that we differ over how to achieve the same results (a denser city)so I guess we'll just have to see how that play's out.

by Thayer-D on Apr 23, 2012 3:52 pm • link • report

I can see that we differ over how to achieve the same results (a denser city)so I guess we'll just have to see how that play's out.

No, we don't really differ. I'll support more density in the neighborhoods, too. I don't think that changes the need to adjust the height limit to allow for more density downtown.

It's not an either/or.

by Alex B. on Apr 23, 2012 4:00 pm • link • report

Hi-rises for the singles, OTOH, may make townhouses more affordable to families.

Where is this the case?

by Jazzy on Apr 23, 2012 4:58 pm • link • report

Let me be a bit more specific, are the any cities where this is the case? Not inner ring suburbs, but the final inner frontier - the city-city (St Louis, San Fran, etc).

by Jazzy on Apr 23, 2012 5:01 pm • link • report

I dont understand your question Jazzy - the existence of Hirises makes townhouses more affordable for families than they otherwise would be.

Thats only going to be the case where the inner city is desirable enough to attract families AND large numbers of singles. In such areas the townhouses are going to be relatively expensive - and of course more expensive than condos are. But they will be cheaper than IF all the singles crowd into (and subdivide) the townhouses.

In most cities hirises have only been built as the city has become more desirable, so TH prices have risen at the same time. It would be interesting if some city could ban hirises and then legalize them all of a sudden, just to test this theory, but Im not aware of any city that has done that.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 5:10 pm • link • report

@AWitC: Step 1. Determine the FAR, that, under current conditions in North America...

Setting the maximum building height is to consider the trade-off between economics and esthetics. Because these two considerations are so different, it will always be fraught with subjectivity. Trying to determine an "optimal" height will frustrate any numerate person that attempts it.

Strangely, it is a lot like the speed limit, which is also a trade-off -- between mobility and safety -- that similarly resists analysis.

by goldfish on Apr 23, 2012 10:53 pm • link • report

Dream on. You are creating a situation were the relative percentage of houses goes down and their affordability goes up? Just on the face of it, that doesn't make sense. Houses will become more expensive the more high rises (hirises is hard to read) you create because they become rarer. I'm trying to wrap my head around your argument, which is why I have been asking you to cite specific instances, which you have not done because you say you do not understand the question (?).

Boston? St Louis? San Francisco? Los Angeles, Miami - are any of these cities illustrative of the argument you are trying to put forth? Is that clearer?

by Jazzy on Apr 24, 2012 6:20 am • link • report

That's an interesting argument Jazzy. Would a townhouse neighborhood be more valuble near other townhouse neighborhoods or near a highrise neighborhood? Maybe the highrise one becasue they'd bring the benefits of a larger market and would add to the scarcity of your own home, thus making it more exclusive and expensive. By that logic, the best way to spread affordability might not be to jamb downtown with highrise towers, which would make bordering and Historic Dupont and Logan circle neighborhoods that much more desirable. The same logic would also work when you add 6-8 story mixed use buildings along the Avenues at transit stops, but maybe if there where many more neighborhoods like along Connecticut, Wisconsin, Georgia, NewYork and etc, neighborhoods, you could mitigate the spike in prices from adjoining single family neighborhoods.

Also, you'd be inching us torards a Paris type model, which seems to be a bit more popular than the Hong Kong model, a place that seems to be too crowded.

by Thayer-D on Apr 24, 2012 7:57 am • link • report

Apologies for sitting here with my mouth open, but of course houses would get much more expensive the fewer of them there are! Also why do we have to have another-city model? Can't we just have a Washington model? Is it that so few of us are familiar with the city we live in to recognize it? To understand our own history?

Someone above said we should not focus on families. This is another serious point of departure I have with commenters here. Of course we should want to attract families. That is what builds sustainable growth, meaningful growth.

I'll try to close my mouth now.

by Jazzy on Apr 24, 2012 8:08 am • link • report

@Jazzy

The argument assumes that you're not replacing townhouses with hirises - you'd be replacing retail corridor buildings with mixed-use hirises (retail on the bottom, residences above). Houses only become rarer if you tear them down. The relative percentage of townhouses might go down but the supply stays the same and the total supply of housing goes up.

Houses would be cheaper relative to what they would otherwise be in that city without hirises because people who would rather have something else in the city (a condo/apartment) are not competing for those houses anymore.

Isn't it obvious that if you build more supply of housing in general, that prices for housing will be lower in general? Housing prices don't just go up at a constant rate. They certainly haven't if you look at city housing prices for the past 30 years.

by MLD on Apr 24, 2012 8:30 am • link • report

"Apologies for sitting here with my mouth open, but of course houses would get much more expensive the fewer of them there are!"

There wouldnt be fewer. You wouldnt tear down townhouses to build hirises (just as we dont do that now). You would build hirises where we build them now - as MLD says, on parking lots, old low rise commercial properties, etc. Just build them a few stories taller. Which means more units for the singles and couples, and less need to do what Thayer proposes, which is carve up townhouses to create apts for singles and couples.

"Isn't it obvious that if you build more supply of housing in general, that prices for housing will be lower in general?"

No one suggests limiting the production of cars or clothes to keep the price down. Housing seems to confuse people.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 24, 2012 9:04 am • link • report

I knew when I sent that, it would not read clearly. What I meant is, relative to the number of housing units in general. You also quote two different people in your response - the second quote is not from me.

For the record, I love irises! Who doesn't?

Again, I am just not buying what you're selling.

by Jazzy on Apr 24, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

I think we're talking about two things here. Where and how to expand downtown office space and where to add more population. I think both have still a lot more room to grow in existing low density areas, especially around transit before we raise the limit of downtown to 20 stories. As for carving up townhouses for more singles and couples, that's already happening, infact, you could increase that through zoning in single family areas.

If an area isn't designated historic, I'd propose up-zoning those areas to mid-rise buildings, areas like TelnleyTown, AU park, Brentwood, etc. I'd also relax zoning to allow for more office nodes. If we're going to need a multinodal transit system anyway, why expect all office growth needs to happen in downtown?

by Thayer-D on Apr 24, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

"What I meant is, relative to the number of housing units in general"

Why would a change in the relative number of town houses due to building taller hi rises on lots where there were no houses, and where hi rises would have been built anyway, make townhouses scarcer?

"Again, I am just not buying what you're selling."

I understand that. I just don't get the logic behind it.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 24, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

"By that logic, the best way to spread affordability might not be to jamb downtown with highrise towers, which would make bordering and Historic Dupont and Logan circle neighborhoods that much more desirable"

but folks constantly say that hirises make adjacent townhouses LESS desirable, and the larger the hirises, the more so.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 24, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

I think you're right AWalker. What comes to mind is the near north shore in Chicago above the Loop where they built hirises right in an area comperable to Dupont Circle. It looks like hell! Let's keep those highrises out of Dupont circle and preserve it and other historic neighborhoods much like you'd preserve the medeival centers of so many historic European cities. The sacrafices we must make!

by Thayer-D on Apr 24, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

I just found a great article that explains what I've been trying to put into words much better than I've been able to do. the concluding paragraph is as follows for those who don't want to read the whole thing.

"I don't think smart growth by itself gets us there. We need to stop thinking of smart growth as a goal but instead as a tool to achieving the more demanding goal of creating better, greener, more sustainable people habitat. If we want to win hearts as well as minds, we need to start paying much more attention to placemaking, to the quality of what we advocate. In fact, I would go further. If we want to deserve to win, we need to pay a lot more attention to making great places. It's not just about the numbers: to paraphrase Gil Scott-Heron, the revolution will not be quantified."

for those who do want to read the whole thing...
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/04/how-smart-growth-lost-its-way/1833/

by Thayer-D on Apr 24, 2012 10:33 am • link • report

@thayer

I wouldn't disagree with that last graf at all, but here's the thing: I don't think tall buildings inhibit placemaking at all.

No, it's not just about the numbers. But that doesn't mean you ignore the numbers. Again, it's not an either/or.

by Alex B. on Apr 24, 2012 10:38 am • link • report

Alex,
"it's not just about the numbers" means just that, it's about both! How do you get an "either/or" from that?

You're defensiveness makes it hard to find concensus, which we need to do to get the ball rolling. Hey, at least we broke 100 comments on this thread!

by Thayer-D on Apr 24, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

@Thayer,

I've read Kaid Benefield's pieces on this before. He's a great writer, but I fundamentally disagree with him on one assertion that he makes (in the paragraphs before your quote) about sometimes needed for forgo some density in favor of a sense of place.

He writes: "They must be significantly more dense than sprawl, but also sometimes forego additional increments of density in order to maintain light, limit noise, provide privacy, and respect a human scale."

I disagree with him on that because I think he's presented it as a false dichotomy; ergo, my comment that it's not an either/or. We can maintain light, limit noise, provide privacy, respect a human scale without arbitrarily capping density.

I say this because in Kaid's post where he discussed those issues, the real issue that impacted the sense of place was not density at all, but some other confounding variable.

You're defensiveness makes it hard to find concensus

Like I said, I agree with the sentiment of Kaid's paragraph that you quoted. We have consensus on that.

The problem with consensus is that it's easy to reach consensus on the abstract things. Maybe I'm jumping a few steps ahead, but density is not the problem that needs addressing.

by Alex B. on Apr 24, 2012 11:14 am • link • report