Hmm. If it the height restrictions keeping up the rent, how is that DC has added MORE apartments than almost every other city? And how is it that other cities -- without height restrictions -- have seen rent increases?

by charlie on Aug 9, 2012 9:06 am • link • report

Neighbors and Jack Evans have asked that the GSA require any development on the grounds of the West Heating Plant in Georgetown to include a public park.

You gotta love Georgetowners for stopping everything they can. Just because they can. Now, they apparently want a park next to a park. Apparently, Georgetown, bordered on two sides by major national parks, does not have enough parks.

by Jasper on Aug 9, 2012 9:22 am • link • report

@charilie,
I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but the answer is that demand continues to grow faster than supply? People want to move to the area and will take the oppurtunity to do when there is new property avaialble.

As for the height restrictions, it isn't for now as much as it is for the future decades from now.

I am a big propenent of the bowl. Viewsheds and the old city maintain the restriction and the height restrictions continue to lessen as we go further east and west.

by cmc on Aug 9, 2012 9:23 am • link • report

@charlie,

Hmm. If it the height restrictions keeping up the rent...

Who is arguing this? I see people arguing that supply restrictions are keeping up rents, and listing the height limit as one example.

how is that DC has added MORE apartments than almost every other city?

Because demand is strong? I'm not sure how DC's quantity of new apartments relative to other cities is relevant at all.

And how is it that other cities -- without height restrictions -- have seen rent increases?

Again, supply restrictions and height restrictions are similar, but different.

Also, we don't want to make too much of short term price swings due to the vagaries of the home finance markets and whatnot, but the long-term data on rising prices in constrained markets is pretty clear.

@cmc

I am a big propenent of the bowl. Viewsheds and the old city maintain the restriction and the height restrictions continue to lessen as we go further east and west.

Just noting that this is the exact opposite of our current situation, where the bulk of the tallest buildings in DC are in the bowl, not outside of it.

by Alex B. on Aug 9, 2012 9:29 am • link • report

Hmm. Maybe the biggest limitation isn't regulation -- but the ability to finance new buildings and then owner financing to buy them. Crazy, I know.

by charlie on Aug 9, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

@Alex B

I'm aware. We are nearly at capacity in the center city. Perhaps developers and financers would be more willing to develop further out if they add a couple more floors. Just as long as the historic viewsheds are maintained.

by cmc on Aug 9, 2012 9:38 am • link • report

charlie,

Hmm. Maybe the biggest limitation isn't regulation -- but the ability to finance new buildings and then owner financing to buy them. Crazy, I know.

In the short term, sure. But I'm not talking about the short term.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Manhattan.pdf
http://depts.washington.edu/teclass/landuse/zoning.pdf

by Alex B. on Aug 9, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

@cmc

Just as long as the historic viewsheds are maintained.

Define this, please.

I think of viewsheds and I think of the view of the Capitol Dome down Pennsylvania Avenue, or of the White House down 16th Street - a view that wouldn't be impacted by buildings of any height, since we're not going to build on street right-of-way.

by Alex B. on Aug 9, 2012 9:49 am • link • report

Well, alex, in the long term, well, never mind.

Serious question though. Isn't the limit -- both in terms of geography and regulations (like the height limit) a benefit to DC? It inflates the housing values, keeping property taxes up and the city better greased.

And what happens when the rest of the housing market in the county comes back online? One thing about looking at real estate maps that if you HAVE to move to DC and buy a place, for instance, you going to buy in Columbia Heights because that is a huge chunk of available units. We aren't Vancouver; most people who are moving here are doing so for work and not investment and need to find a place within a certain time frame.

by charlie on Aug 9, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

Plus when preserve views for certain buildings doesn't that amount to a sort of view subsidy for those who occupy that building? I can understand for certain cultural or government buildings but views are basically an externality that people get to enjoy and I don't know if its the best use of resources to preserve those for residents of private apartment/office buildings.

Basically, if you want to see the national mall. Go there.

by drumz on Aug 9, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

It inflates the housing values, keeping property taxes up and the city better greased.

Good for home owners, sure. However, if priced dropped because of increased supply, I don't think you'd see a decreased tax base (particularly given DC's fiscal realities - more residents means more income tax) at all. Broader base, lower rates.

The larger point is that the cost for entering the DC market is excessive, and that will drag on the local economy.

by Alex B. on Aug 9, 2012 10:08 am • link • report

@cmc:We are nearly at capacity in the center city.

Only if you define 'center city' as between I-395, Mass Ave and the Potomac. Not if you include neighborhoods just across any of those streets. Or take anything within Boundary Street (now FL Ave) to be downtown. Plenty of space to grow.

by Jasper on Aug 9, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

"particularly given DC's fiscal realities" yeah, good point. Given DC has the ability the levy a very high income tax you do want to cram in more people.

i doubt we'll see a "cost" for the high values. Entry level federal workers can live in Pimmit HIlls or a group house. Low cost hispanic labor will just have to suffer, as they already do. DC isn't the Bay area either. The only people who high levels of income are law firm partners. Corporate execetives get very rich, but given their (relatively) low salaries there are limits to what they can buy on mortage terms.

by charlie on Aug 9, 2012 10:18 am • link • report

Anyone else feel like something's not right with the Initiative 70 outcome? Every. Single. person I know in DC has signed that petition, I think - old, young; white, black; gay, straight; long-time resident, newcomer. It's been circulated at every neighborhood association meeting I've run for months and at all ANC meetings I've attended.

In my 11 years in DC I've never seen more publicity around a ballot-initiative yet I assume many make it onto the Nov. ballot all the time. Am I only one?

by Shipsa01 on Aug 9, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

Anyone else feel like something's not right with the Initiative 70 outcome?

I was thinking the same thing. If the end result of the 70 effort was failure, it brings into question the whole process.

by oboe on Aug 9, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

RE: Ballot initiatives

1. I wonder how much of the registered voter rolls are people who no longer live in DC?

2. Something like 10-15% of the signatures were thrown out due to addresses on the forms not matching addresses on the voter rolls. And unlike signature collections for individual campaigns, they can't reach out to those people to have them update their address on the voter roll.

So moral of the story: update your address when you move! https://www.dcboee.org/voter_info/reg_status/

by MLD on Aug 9, 2012 10:45 am • link • report

RE: 6000 new apts; rent impacts

The article slightly touches upon this, but with average occupancy rates in the area already being low: it's a sign that there may be adequate residual demand to claim the new supply without doing much to lower rents.

I'd be curious of a more microscopic look at occupancy of units of similar class, design, and accessibility to what are being built. Is the occupancy rate for such similar units any different than the wider-area average?

by Bossi on Aug 9, 2012 10:51 am • link • report

@Jasper

I don't think there will ever be a consensus on this, but is a good thing that we develop our nice low-rise and human-scaled neighborhoods in the areas that you're talking about all because of a height limit? Although one could argue that there are negative and positives about having the height limit as is, at what point does it become basically irrational? I think the major area that we can develop with the current height limit is SW.

I completely agree with Alex B. on the viewsheds. I think unless you're atop a building, the viewsheds that most of us get to actually enjoy are at the street-level and those would stay as dramatic and attractive as they are whether we have taller buildings or not. I also think even with buildings twice as tall, we'd have plenty of sunlight as well.

by Vik on Aug 9, 2012 11:13 am • link • report

RE: Height Limits

There's still plenty of land to be developed in DC. The idea that the height limits are only of value to people that live in penthouses is silly. One of the great things about DC is how great the views are from all over the city, and also how we mostly stay clear of the boxed in canyon feel that you get in other large cities. Keep in mind that we don't know how long the current population boom in DC will last.

by Chatham on Aug 9, 2012 11:23 am • link • report

You gotta love Georgetowners for stopping everything they can. Just because they can. Now, they apparently want a park next to a park

Actually, this is a very savvy move by Georgetowners that will not impact whether that land gets developed. All it will do is lower the price for the land GSA receives at auction.

Here's how it works. Let's say the land would sell for $10M and the developer would stand to make $1M in profit. Now, let's say Georgetown imposes a community benefits package BEFORE the auction that would cost a potential developer $1M (the key here is that it is BEFORE). No developer will pay $10M for the land anymore because they would then only breakeven. So, they pay $9M for the land, $1M for community benefits and still come away with $1M in profit. It's basically a transfer from GSA to Georgetowners. Very smart.

by Falls Church on Aug 9, 2012 11:38 am • link • report

I'd be curious of a more microscopic look at occupancy of units of similar class, design, and accessibility to what are being built. Is the occupancy rate for such similar units any different than the wider-area average?

Here's an analysis that segments by Class A vs. Class B:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/delta-renters-gaining-in-apartment-market/2012/04/06/gIQAhvWd4S_story.html

Vacancy in newer, high-end apartments (Class A) rose to 5.1 percent from 4.8 percent a year ago. Vacancy remained at 2.2 percent for 0lder, lower quality apartments (Class B) .

by Falls Church on Aug 9, 2012 11:45 am • link • report

@oboe, I don't think the failure of I-70 is an indictment of the process. Them was lots and lots of signatures--just not enough, and not 5% in a sufficient number of wards. If the leadership of the effort presses on, they'll succeed next time, but they have to learn from mistakes made.

I do think a couple of strategic mistakes by the leadership of the effort should be taken to heart. (1.) Why submit the signatures earlier than required by deadline, just to get on the November ballot? Would have been better to take all the time necessary for such a huge undertaking, and let the initiative appear on whatever Election Day that would have resulted. (2.) Why not thoroughly check the petition sheets against the voter rolls before submitting the signatures? Now the leadership will do the vetting of the signatures in the next 10 days that could have been done in a more rigorous way for months before this. It sounds like the "30,000 signatures" claim may have been based on counting sheets, not counting signatures, so the leadership was counting on 6,000+ ghost signatures that were actually just blank lines on partially-filled petition sheets. If so, that's sloppy!

I collected a few sheets of signatures, and I got lots of "atta-boys" and almost no push-backs from people who gave me their signatures. It's a popular initiative. This effort will succeed if DC Public Trust starts over and tries again and ups its game a little next time.

by trulee pist on Aug 9, 2012 11:45 am • link • report

@Chatham
Views all over the city? That isn't true. You can't see the Mall and the monuments from Friendship Heights/Chevy Chase/Spring Valley and much of Northwest north of Glover Park and they can't been seen all for much of Northeast/Southeast DC.

I'm not calling for skyscrapers and the reality is that taller buildings will still have to fit in the fabric of the neighborhood. It is not likely that a 30-floor building will be approved in SFH neighborhood. However, in the future, as neighborhoods grow, developers might want to expand to the 14th, 15th, even 20th floors. And it might just work.

by cmc on Aug 9, 2012 4:38 pm • link • report

Totally off-topic: Interesting proposal in the Post to bring the 2024 summer Olympics to DC. I have two minds: that the conflicts between DC, VA, MD, and Fed are too numerous and entrenched to be overcome to make this a success; but oh! the possibilities!

Any chance we can start an article on this subject?

by goldfish on Aug 9, 2012 6:01 pm • link • report

@goldfish, there was a link to a Baltimore Sun article in the Monday news round-up on DC-Baltimore possibly bidding for the 2024 games with some discussions on it. With the Robert McCartney column in the Wash Post, appears that potential organizers testing the waters to see if there would be enough political and public support to try to assemble a bid for 2024 to the USOC in the first round of picking the US city candidate.

Could be worth discussing, if there is going to be a serious effort to try to submit a bid to the USOC. One comment I have is that the DC area in 2024 will have better transit options that the DC of 2012 with a completed Silver Line to Dulles, a presumably completed Purple Line, some parts of the streetcar systems in DC and Arlington & Alexandria running. The DC area of 2024 should also have more hotel room capacity, although I have no numbers for that. Putting on the Games would cost many billions of dollars though.

by AlanF on Aug 9, 2012 7:12 pm • link • report

Re: DC Olympics

If there is an article, what I'd like to know is why do the organizers feel a new stadium is needed? Is there a reason FedEx field couldn't be used as the Olympic stadium? Would there not be time to restore it to football standards (even if they had the Redskins play the first few weeks away)? Does the lease not permit it? Etc.

There are obviously a lot of issues with the Olympics, but building a new stadium is one thing that leaps out at me as being an expensive mistake.

by JW on Aug 9, 2012 8:55 pm • link • report

The thought of hosting the Olympics and sending the World to Landover, MD is so depressing, I don't even want to give it another moment of consideration.

If you're going to host the Olympics it would have to be at a new stadium - probably around where RFK is and incorporate the Mall and monuments, etc.

Anyway, it's fun to think about, but DC is roughly 28 years out (if not probably more) to host. We can't get our sh!t together on anything transportation related (or for that matter - anything) now; were not ready for "prime time" yet.

by Shipsa01 on Aug 9, 2012 10:10 pm • link • report

@JW, besides the question of whether FedEx stadium is big enough and can be adapted for a track & field configuration, few would want to build the Olympic complex out near the end of the Blue Line in PG county. The main Olympic Stadium has to be in the main complex with many of the other sport venues so most athletes, coaches, officials, and the ticket holders are not traveling all over the place. people should look up the info on the London Olympic Park and all the event venues to get a grasp of the scale of the whole thing.

Before we think that DC has a good enough transit system to compete, there is this statement in the wiki entry on the London 2012 Olympics public transportation: " London's public transport was an element of the bid which was scored poorly in the IOC's initial evaluation; however, they felt that if the improvements were delivered in time for the Games then London would cope." This is London with the Tube and more passenger rail lines than DC would ever dream of they are talking about. IIRC, one of the concerns the IOC had about the Chicago 2016 bid a few years ago was about the reach and capacity of the Chicago transit system.

If there is to a post about possibly bidding for the 2024 games, someone needs to obtain and summarize the plans for the 2012 bid.

by AlanF on Aug 10, 2012 12:39 am • link • report

@AlanF: The main Olympic Stadium has to be in the main complex with many of the other sport venues so most athletes, coaches, officials, and the ticket holders are not traveling all over the place.

Does it though? The 2012 plan called for venues stretching from DC to Baltimore. Having the main stadium on a metro line, next to the Beltway (which would probably have Zil lanes) doesn't strike me as outrageous. I mean, you have the opening and closing ceremonies and the track & field events at the main stadium. If you have other events everywhere from downtown and the Mall to College Park to Annapolis to Baltimore, I don't really see why Landover is such an obstacle. The original article discussed precedents for having Olympic events scattered throughout a region.

Regarding DC's transit, I don't see our system as a dealbreaker, particularly if we commit to improvements (and IMO, the best thing about a potential Olympic bid is the chance to use it as an excuse to spend serious $$$ improving transit). Looking at the 2020 contenders, I know our system doesn't approach Tokyo, and I know nothing about Madrid, but (admittedly basing this on my experiences) our transportation system is superior to that of Istanbul after accounting for population.

by JW on Aug 10, 2012 2:05 am • link • report

@ JW: I know nothing about Madrid,

Madrid has a decent metro system.

by Jasper on Aug 10, 2012 9:57 am • link • report

Is there a reason FedEx field couldn't be used as the Olympic stadium?

Yes, a running track would not fit, not without some major renovations. Running tracks are really large.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/63/93/20080802085950_httppostedfile_IAAF_TF_Manual2008_web-1_4481.pdf

Starting at page 15, there are different track configurations. A standard IAAF track has a total length on the long axis of 177 meters. An NFL field, with end zones and some safety buffer comes to ~114 meters. There aren't 60 spare meters of space there...

If a new stadium were built to accommodate the Olympics with a goal of later use for the Redskins (or pretty much any other non-track sport, for that matter), they'd have to look into moveable seating, as was done with the Stade de France:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_de_France

http://www.ponticelli.com/Front/imgs/cms/large/stadedefrance_tribunes_124818375148179600.jpg

by Alex B. on Aug 10, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

@JW
Think of it this way - the 400m track in an Olympic stadium fits the entire NFL field inside of it, with room to spare. Now look at FedEx Field on Google Maps - definitely no room for a track circumscribed around that field.

by MLD on Aug 10, 2012 11:06 am • link • report