Greater Greater Washington

Architecture


Live chat with Larry Beasley on DC's height limit

by David Alpert   •   May 19, 2010 10:45 am

Larry Beasley led the transformation of Vancouver into a walkable, vibrant city in large part through high-rise condos. Should DC relax its height limit and follow Vancouver's path, or is the best way for DC a different one?

Mr. Beasley gave a talk last night, sponsored by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts. Here, you can pose your questions and reactions to the points he made.

 Greater Greater Washington live chat: Larry Beasley(05/19/2010) 
10:48
David Alpert: 
Welcome to our live chat with Larry Beasley, former Vancouver Planning Director, to discuss tall buildings and their role in Vancouver and Washington, DC.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 10:48 David Alpert
10:48
David Alpert: 
We'll be starting in a few minutes. In the meantime, feel free to submit questions for Mr. Beasley. We'll pose as many of them to him as time permits.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 10:48 David Alpert
10:58
David Alpert: 
Also, here's my summary of Mr. Beasley's talk yesterday.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 10:58 David Alpert
11:04
David Alpert: 
Mr. Beasley has now joined us. Welcome!
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:04 David Alpert
11:04
Larry Beasley: 
Thank you.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:04 Larry Beasley
11:05
David Alpert: 
First of all, I want to say how impressed I am with Vancouver. I was able to visit it for the first time a year ago and was amazed that a city did such a good job with tall buildings. You could really see what modernists like Le Corbusier thought would be beautiful about a city of widely-spaced skyscrapers, only in Vancouver, it's also good urbanism.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:05 David Alpert
11:05
David Alpert: 
How did that come to be?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:05 David Alpert
11:06
Larry Beasley: 
Well, it was as much as anything, an accident of history that brought a lot of people together inthe right place and the right time to be inventive and to know what direction that invention might best take.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:06 Larry Beasley
11:07
David Alpert: 
Can you explain a bit what political/social conditions came together to trigger such a transformation?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:07 David Alpert
11:11
Larry Beasley: 
We faced an economic crisis and had to rethink our city for the future and many people had almost a utopian image of the liveable city. We had a reform City Council and a very visionary chief planner and a cadre of young planners like myself who were naive to politics but dedicated to a new way of city building. We then just wen tfrom there with a great deal of public dialogue and support. This all started in the mid-1970s.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:11 Larry Beasley
11:12
David Alpert: 
A few questioners asked about topics you touched on in your talk last night. Let's get a few of those.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:12 David Alpert
11:12
[Comment From Anthony LaMesaAnthony LaMesa: ] 
Most of the world's great cities have buildings of the "typology" of 4-5 stories. They do not look like Manhattan. Isn't there some value in terms of "urban design," livability and embracing a human scale to keeping DC's height limit in place?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:12 Anthony LaMesa
11:16
Larry Beasley: 
Well, my address comes down to pretty much this conclusion. I emphasized that the city is very unique and an extraordinary achievement of stewardship. So for the imageable places of the capital, the status quo is the right way to go. I only argued that there may be some modest adjustments outside the "sacred area" and that a careful analysis might find a few opportunities for more capacity - but never if it endangered the iconic center of this place.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:16 Larry Beasley
11:17
David Alpert: 
Ken points out some other factors that relate to height and density:
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:17 David Alpert
11:17
[Comment From Ken ArcherKen Archer: ] 
You mentioned last night that height with density, and not just height, is what matters. Given that, did Vancouver also revise anti-density zoning to allow for greater density (e.g. eliminate minimum parking requirements, eliminate minimum acreage requirements for new buildings, etc)?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:17 Ken Archer
11:20
Larry Beasley: 
Yes, absolutely. We carefully calibrated heights and density and we carefully created, above the outright allowable, extra viable heights and density that could be enjoyed as a bonus or incentive if people provided identified public goods and qualities like great design. You are right to notice that without density, variations in height are of only marginal economic interest - they become only a design interest for alternative forms.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:20 Larry Beasley
11:20
Larry Beasley: 
By the way, we have constantly been adjusting the parking requirements to accommodate less parking as transportation alternatives have become real.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:20 Larry Beasley
11:22
David Alpert: 
But you have maintained parking requirements? Do those hinder development less because the developers can just build more on top? Here, we've found that the parking requirements significantly cut into the potential for developing properties and the ability of developers to get a return for doing so.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:22 David Alpert
11:25
Larry Beasley: 
Well, in our case, we simply require all parking to be below grade - and we see parking accommodation that can go down many stories. When everyone has to do that, the parking is just dropped off of the equation as a significant variable for the scale of development. So we do not take any meaningful part of the marketable envelope for parking - nothing marketable is displaced.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:25 Larry Beasley
11:27
David Alpert: 
How much parking do you require for a tall building? It wouldn't be economical to dig down 10 stories or more for parking, would it?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:27 David Alpert
11:30
Larry Beasley: 
Well, it is a complicated requirement according to what the use is. Frankly I don't remember the detailed numbers - just the thrust that they have been coming down because proximity has clicked in. As to the depth, in my residential building downtown, for example, we have 6 levels of underground parking and it works functionally and the developer made a lot of money so I don't think it was a liablility that it went deep. Of course there can be geotechnical limitations on some sites.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:30 Larry Beasley
11:30
David Alpert: 
Thanks. You mentioned historic preservation as well as a value of the height limit, because the potential for razing a historic structure is much lower. Geoff has a question about one way historic structures are sometimes only partly preserved:
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:30 David Alpert
11:30
[Comment From GeoffGeoff: ] 
I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere, but what do you think about facadectomies where the 3-4-5 story old building has a 10-12 story addition added in the back (as is done on many blocks in downtown DC). Is it worth trying to visually trick people into believing that buildings aren't tall?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:30 Geoff
11:33
Larry Beasley: 
In the mainstream thinking of heritage policy, one does not like to do facadism. However, I have always found it is better to try to accommocate some heritage fabric rather than see it all lost if that is the choice. So it is not a preferred way to go but it is sometimes justified. By the way, even having said that, sometimes the result can be quite nice if, for example, the facade is making a key contribution to the wall of an open space. So, bottom line is that it all depends....
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:33 Larry Beasley
11:34
David Alpert: 
Last night you mentioned that allowing heights is not going to suddenly create architecturally beautiful buildings. Just look at the bland tall buildings in Rosslyn, for example. So how could DC try to get more beautiful buildings, miss ohio asks:
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:34 David Alpert
11:34
[Comment From miss ohiomiss ohio: ] 
There is a sense that DC's new buildings are boring and that it is a result of the the height limit. How can we keep the limit but get cooler, more inspiring buildings?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:34 miss ohio
11:38
Larry Beasley: 
Good architecture comes from good architects that are supported by a regulatory system that facilitates good design and forces it to be a development priority. One of the easiest things you can do is implement design review and to put peer review in place. In every city that I have worked on to make that happen, the quality of architecture has gone up. The height of a building that is allowed is not relevent to the quality of the architecture. If your town accepts mundane architecture by approving it, then that is the type of architecture your town will get. Government has to be an ally of the architect against all the other things that homogenize design.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:38 Larry Beasley
11:39
David Alpert: 
One of the values of density that didn't get much discussion last night is affordability. DC may be beautiful, but it's also increasingly expensive. What has Vancouver done to ensure housing choices for a wide range of incomes? Adam L asks:
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:39 David Alpert
11:39
[Comment From Adam LAdam L: ] 
I would like to know Mr. Beasley's ideas on how to make D.C. more affordable so that the city can keep more of its economic potential (not to mention tax revenues) in the city.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:39 Adam L
11:43
Larry Beasley: 
The fact is that any successful modern city is going to have affordability problems because it can draw more people as building consumers than there is building supply. So every successful city has to make affordable housing a matter of public policy and they have to have programs to facilitate affordable housing - low income housing and middle income housing. We have some of that covered in Vancouver with our 20% low income housing policy that is working well. But we are only now exploring techniques for middle income affordability such as non-profit market housing or required rental housing. I could go on all day about this because it is one of the most worrisome spinoffs of the well designed city because so many people want to escape from the awful cities.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:43 Larry Beasley
11:44
David Alpert: 
Peter asks:
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:44 David Alpert
11:44
[Comment From Peter SmithPeter Smith: ] 
One critique I hear about Vancouver is that it has no downtown nightlife/culture—is that true and does that have anything to do with the tall buildings?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:44 Peter Smith
11:45
David Alpert: 
I would add that some say this about DC as well :)
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:45 David Alpert
11:49
Larry Beasley: 
Well, I am glad that Peter asked that question because for some reason that is a myth about the modern Vancouver. The reality is the opposite. Our nightlife and culture is in a major revival. We now truly have a 24-hour city that targets not only the middle but also the edges of demand. I love Vancouver's downtown in the evening with so many people about on the streets and in the cafes and restaurants and bars and pubs. It was particularly vivid during the Olympics where the demands for rich nightlife were well served by the offerings in the city. Heights have nothing to do with the matter but density does - we have enough people actually living downtown to make the place come alive at all hours. But we also have requirements for retail at grade and for active uses that line the streets for vitality. The "no fun city" epithet is now pretty out of date.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:49 Larry Beasley
11:50
David Alpert: 
I wanted to ask you about Vancouver's False Creek, which has this great network of tiny ferries shuttling between major attractions and neighborhoods on either side. Our Anacostia River is not much wider, and DC is now developing many areas on its banks. I think False Creek represents what the Anacostia could be (though we're a bit hampered by the many military bases). Did it take a lot of deliberate planning and public policy to make False Creek what it is, or did that happen organically as Granville Island, Yaletown, etc. developed?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:50 David Alpert
11:56
Larry Beasley: 
It was a little of both - fortuitous opportunity and aggressive planning. Granville Island was a senior government inititive and is still owned by the Federal Government who have a strong mission to make its edges permeable. All along the edges of the Creek ,the City required public and activity space as a non-negotiable imperative. Then we added the houseboat communities among the parked boats and we added the loops of restaurants and pubs. Then private initiative gave us the little ferries - two different companies. And once the public access was secured it just took off and everyone was expected in their development - public or private - to enhance that. I enjoy the result now that the water really belongs to the commonwealth and is experienced every day by everyone no matter their station in the community.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:56 Larry Beasley
11:56
David Alpert: 
Well, great work with that!
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:56 David Alpert
11:57
David Alpert: 
Unrelated to building heights, big kudos to Vancouver for its massive network of bike lanes. I was also impressed that all of the parking lots in Stanley Park required people to pay. Did you encounter opposition to bike lanes or to paid parking, or are Canadians just so much more enlightened than Americans?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:57 David Alpert
11:59
Larry Beasley: 
Well the bike lanes are very popular although in one particular case, where the bike lane definately deminished the traffic capacity, it was politically difficult - but the politicians took the heat and the lane is now well working (on the Burrard Bridge). The park parking charge happened without a hiccup. Yes, Canada is about good government not the pursuit of happiness...
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:59 Larry Beasley
11:59
David Alpert: 
Nice. Oh, quickly, you said the False Creek ferries are from private companies. Are they able to operate without public subsidy or is there a public component?
Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:59 David Alpert
12:00
David Alpert: 
Some companies are trying to start up ferries here but it's not clear if they can be self-sustaining.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 12:00 David Alpert
12:00
Larry Beasley: 
There is absolutely no public subsidy. They make a good living because they are very popular.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 12:00 Larry Beasley
12:00
David Alpert: 
That's terrific. Thanks so much for joining us today to talk, and great job making Vancouver such a successful city.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 12:00 David Alpert
12:01
David Alpert: 
We really appreciate hearing your input on our own city and our building height debates.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 12:01 David Alpert
12:01
Larry Beasley: 
I've enjoyed the experience and will now keep tab of your site as I work around the world. Best regards to all the bloggers.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 12:01 Larry Beasley
12:01
David Alpert: 
Readers: Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments by posting your own reactions to Mr. Beasley's thoughts.
Wednesday May 19, 2010 12:01 David Alpert
12:01
 

 
 
 
3 comments
Tags: height limit, live chat
Related posts:
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Now that we're getting a Bing Thom building at the Arena Stage, we might actually be getting a little Vancouver flavor in DC.

by Neil Flanagan on May 19, 2010 3:11 pm • link • report

There are assets of DC's height limit that I didn't see touched on in the conversation today or in the summary of the previous event: 1)it pushes development into otherwise run-down areas of the city that could use investment, and 2) it creates a dense core. It's only after going to other cities that one can appreciate the uninterupted downtown development from the west-end all the way to the capitol.

As a fan of tall buildings I can see their alure. However, for livability, I prefer low-level density. Downtowns in cities like Toronto and Philadephia are potmarked with parking lots, something Washington has slowly overcome in the past 20 years. Without the height limit, NoMa would still be run nothing but down warehouses and the Capitol Riverfront would not be experiencing the push for development it is experiencing either. The cap on height pushes demand into every available nook and cranny of our core, creating a cohesive street environment rather that towers amid parking lots. I for one would rather see NOMA with 10, ten-story builings creating a street-scape than than 3 thirty story buildings surrounded by nothing.

by G-Man on May 20, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report

Three things I'd add to Beasley's responses:
1. Underground parking is "more affordable" in Vancouver than in DC, since the former sits on a hill and the latter in a tidal swamp; pumping out muck is particularly pricey. (It gets scare quotes because it's always expensive, everywhere.)
2. Downtown -- or rather, the derelict industrial zones outside downtown -- was upzoned for high-rises partly in order to protect the single-family neighborhoods from "overdevelopment." Only recently have mid-rise typologies been tried, most memorably at the Olympic Village but also infilling along the miles of arterial streets.
3. Housing affordability is presently a huge problem in Vancouver; remember, the housing bubble did not collapse there. Policies to ensure it are a very different discussion in Canada since land use laws can be much stricter than here (no 5th Amendment).

by paytonc on Aug 27, 2010 8:21 pm • link • report

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Subscribe

All posts RSS · Add to Google

Comments on this post

Posts by David Alpert

Follow on Twitter @ggwash

Become a fan on Facebook

Get a daily summary by email:

Most Active Posts

Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks

Recent Links

Breakfast links: Best policies

Upcoming Events

Archives

2008

February · March · April · May

June · July · August · September

October · November · December

2009

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2010

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2011

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2012

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2013

January · February · March · April

May