Architecture
Vancouver's Beasley: Tinker with height limit very carefully
Last night, Vancouver planner Larry Beasley praised tall buildings, but also praised Washington's lack of them. He argued it could benefit DC to allow height in narrowly circumscribed areas outside downtown, but cautioned DC to be very mindful of the consequent risk.
Photo by _Tawcan.
Tall buildings transformed Vancouver into a world-class city, attracting tourists, knowledge workers and financial investment and accommodating many people comfortably on a small peninsula. It's created a beautiful skyline, with elegantly sculpted towers piercing the sky, but also walkable neighborhoods and active streets.
Vancouver has achieved this through their own breed of tower-building, "Vancouverism." This involves giving great care to all three parts of a tall building: the base, the tower, and the top. The base must directly address the street, filling space at a modest height compatible with other buildings.
In residential areas, they places townhouses in the base, while in commercial areas maximize the transparency of ground-floor windows. In all areas, they put as much retail into the base as the area can support. As Beasley put it, the base must be "gently giving to the street, rather than harsh, brutal, and awesomely out of scale."
The tower itself is then set back to limit its impact on pedestrians, to make it "float out of consciousness." It must slim down as it rises, rather than blindly duplicating each floor plan on successively higher floors. And the top is where some extra artistry comes in, to avoid the bland flatness of many modern buildings while also not becoming "clownish."
Vancouver also clusters the buildings into "constallations," in an artistic "composition that makes a statement" and also ensures views of the sky through the cluster. Vancouver's clusters of towers seem to point into the sky, but not blot it out.
Photo by CanadaGood.
Separated by acres of empty land and interconnected by high-speed expressways, they did the opposite, but in Vancouver, this basic aesthetic lives and succeeds because the towers are only a small piece of the puzzle.
Vancouver does not simply permit tall buildings. They extract significant public amenities from them. Developers can only build if they offer these amenities, and a system of bonus densities along with a more discretionary approval process that gives officials leeway to shape projects has helped Vancouver wring nearly every amenity they could think of out of developing their city in recent decades.
In most cities, Beasley teaches how to manage tall buildings because those cities are inevitably going to build tall. However, unlike most cities, Washington, DC has kept a low skyline through the 100-year-old Height Act.
Photo by joshbousel.
It draws tourism, gives greater prominence to key national symbols, and created a "coherent frame of walls around ceremonial spaces." It also reduces the economic incentive to tear down historic buildings.
Of course, as we've discussed here and one questioner pointed out, the value for tourists and the framing of monuments and civic buildings doesn't require extending the height limit to the entire District. Few tourists venture beyond the central neighborhoods and few viewsheds extend past the L'Enfant City. Rosslyn has tall buildings and that hasn't diminished the uniqueness of downtown DC; in some ways, it's accentuated it.
Beasley argued that should DC allow greater heights, it should create a "no go zone" for certain distances from the monumental core. It should not allow heights in historic areas, or on high points in the city, which should remain either natural or host "important public edifices" like the National Cathedral.
Buenos Aires. Not what DC wants to look like. Photo by Natalia Romay.
If DC were to allow greater heights, Beasley's suggestion would be to do so in a single, small area where there is substantial community support and a desire for specific amenities. Any increases must be tied to those particular amenities. In addition, DC must engage in "thoughtful planning" and a "deliberate urban design analysis" to sculpt any cluster of towers.
For example, if it's not too close to the core, I could see this making some sense in NoMA where there are already tall buildings and few to no historic structures but a distinct lack of public parkland. Could a constellation of such towers make it economically possible to leave one or more areas completely empty and fund construction and maintenance of parks?
However, any height increase, Beasley argued, will need to be significant. DC could start pushing its envelopes slightly, such as allowing human occupancy space in the mechanical penthouses that current law allows over height limits as long as they are set back from the edges of buildings. It could give small density bonuses here and there in the more numerous areas where zoning, not the height limit, restricts buildings.
However, this would not yield meaningful community amenities. The cost of providing residential use in a commercial building is enough that a developer would probably not add it for only a floor or two of extra height, as Dan suggested.
Residents often oppose tall buildings, both because they can disrupt their "intuitive comfort" with the city and also specifically impact privacy, height, or views. However, in exchange for clear and desirable amenities, along with good design, in his experience many residents can ultimately support these projects.
Still, is it worth the risk? Beasley is not so sure. To him, as a visitor, DC has such unique qualities and such an extraordinary accomplishment in its height limits.
Beasley will be join us to continue the conversation for a live chat at 11:00 this morning. What questions do you have for him?
 | 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
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
by John on May 19, 2010 10:51 am • link • report
by Peter Smith on May 19, 2010 11:08 am • link • report
A couple of observations. First, the Office of Planning and the Zoning Commission need to start getting serious again about requiring real amenities if development is approved that is greater than what zoning allows. Several years ago, for example, PUD developers were making serious investments in local parks, schools, etc., or buildng community theater and arts spaces, to provide a counter-balancing amenities for the impacts (extenalities) of denser development. More recently, the view of the Fenty administration seems to be -- even in economically developed areas -- that the developmment itslf is the amenity, because the city hungers anything that promises additional tax revenues and OP just wants to attract more residents (especially of the DINK kind). So if tall buildings were allowed, the amenities would have to be serious, of the type that Vancouver apparently requires.
Second, it is true that vast sections of the city would basically be off limits. The two neighborhoods that John cites probably would be. Cleveland Park is an historic district and also has the National Cathedral (on one of the highest points in the city). Tenleytown is also at a high elevation, with close-in single family residential, so such density and height is probably not workable there either. So you'd probably be looking at NE out New York Avenue, which may not be where many developers would want to be.
Finally, as someone who has worked in Rosslyn, the attraction of the taller buildings there is the views that they offer over the low-scale city, punctuated by the monuments. Most buildings there are mediocre and worse. Even with the "upscale" building there of recent years and buildings that are slghtly more attractive than the older Rosslyn ugliness, the streetscape still has a very unwelcoming feel. Despite valiant attempts to add little plazas and public art, the feeling is still cold -- like the downtown of pretty much AnyMediumCityDowntown, U.S.A. I much prefer the feel and scale of downtown Washington, even with its architectural sameness. Moreover, the new Rosslyn buildings, in my view, have fundamentally changed the view and atmosphere of areas like Georgeown, from many of its north-south streets. Thank goodness for National Airport and the FAA height limits, because it's unlikely they will be able to build much taller in Rosslyn.
by Capital View on May 19, 2010 11:22 am • link • report
by Monkey Daddy on May 19, 2010 11:23 am • link • report
I am completely sold on the points that the current height limit has spurred historic preservation of older structures, and I believe Mr. Beasley when he indicated that allowing a modest increase in heights (as many, including myself, have suggested) would not bring a significant economic benefit to the city. I also did not originally think of what chaos land value speculation would bring if there was a serious discussion about lifting the height restriction.
The one point Mr. Beasley did not touch on is that D.C. politics make any changes extremely difficult. Unlike other places where "the people" and neighbors have a voice in the planning process, in D.C. (and especially when it comes to the height restriction) there is only community that really matters: the 535 voting members of the United States Congress.
On the whole, though, I think it's clear that D.C. needs to increase its density in areas in order to keep up with demand for livable, walkable spaces and not just let that opportunity fall to suburban areas like Arlington, Montgomery County where barriers to development like land values and height restrictions are lower. 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.
by Adam L on May 19, 2010 11:28 am • link • report
by Teyo on May 19, 2010 11:30 am • link • report
by Thayer-D on May 19, 2010 11:34 am • link • report
by Paul on May 19, 2010 11:35 am • link • report
That picture you have isn't representative at all. Nueve de julio isn't the "skyline". He might be talking about downtown or puerto madera, but the height restrictions in that area aren't much more than DC.
If anything, that is the argument for DC building 20 story buildings; the larger building fit well into BA. To the extent they are ugly, that is just the concrete style that was popular from the 1960-1984.
by charlie on May 19, 2010 11:43 am • link • report
by John on May 19, 2010 11:48 am • link • report
by John on May 19, 2010 11:49 am • link • report
How many buildings in DC go anywhere near the limit ?
If more buildings would go near the highest they can get with the limit, plus building to take advantage of the geography sort of earth-sheltered building.
Businesses should spread throughout the city first and then when that room is full raise or get rid of the height restrictions.
Can anyone give me a good reason for lifting the restriction when there is probably about a good 30 sq miles that could be built upon within the borders of DC
by kk on May 19, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report
That is exactly the point Mr. Beasley made. Near the end of the lecture, he even advocated for putting a "ring" around an urban center and not allowing any development outside of that area. He estimated that it could take almost 150 years to exhaust all the development potential in that area before people would need to give way to sprawl. I don't think he was specifically talking about D.C. in any real seriousness, but the point was well-taken.
by Adam L on May 19, 2010 12:25 pm • link • report
I missed the talk, but I'm assuming he's drawing parallels to Paris's La Défense neighborhood?
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about high-density development in DC, particularly if it comes at the cost of existing neighborhoods -- I'm still a bit upset that Capitol Hill lost an entire historic residential block this week.
I'd be even more upset if we ended up with our own Crystal City. Is Rosslyn something we want to emulate either? The "renewal" of Southwest was bad enough of a mistake, and I'm not quite sure we've fully comprehended what went wrong there.
Tom Veil made an interesting point on yesterday's RI Ave Metro story. The entire area could be demolished without displacing a single resident, and be rebuilt to accommodate 30,000 people at "Brooklyn-like" densities, (or an equivalent amount of office space) in a metro-accessible location.
Like Beasley said -- I'm not quite sure we need to rush to build office towers. We may end up better off if we shoot for modest height increases, and an extremely thorough architectural review process. Even with our height restrictions, we've managed to construct buildings downtown that feel oppressively tall.
by andrew on May 19, 2010 12:31 pm • link • report
that's cool - that's the first time i've heard/read that. i knew nothing of vancouver except that it kept topping 'best cities' lists, or being near the top, and that it had little to no culture/nightlife/etc., especially in downtown.
i did a quick google news search for 'vancouver nightlife' and the 3rd article down said this:
The motivation [to open all these bars and restaurants], Donnelly says — which he shares with his brother Matt, who works for the company as the operating manager at The Calling — is to once and for all ditch the perception that "Vancouver nightlife sucks."
i got into a debate at a bar w/ a vancouver tourist visiting sf -- she _loved_ vancouver. hated toronto. i love toronto, never been to vancouver. i said, "i heard vancouver nightlife is wack" -- she kept saying, "but it's so beautiful." so no objection on the wackness of 'the scene', but i've heard myriad people talk about how beautiful the place is. i figured i'd never live there -- i need some culture/action/etc. maybe i'll get to visit.
couple other quick comments -- what's up with Barwatch and people getting all shot up in downtown Vancouver? i'm not trying to bash for the sake of it, even though it would help my 'case' (i hate tall buildings, if you can't tell), but i do think tall buildings have a natural/inherent anti-human aspect to them -- they have an intrinsic anti-social characteristic -- seems to me, anyways -- so i'm curious about all the crime. in theory, if we design our cities right, we can reduce anti-social behavior. tall buildings, to me, are like cars -- they increase inequality, which increases crime -- exactly as we'd expect.
and building high is supposed to allow what benefit -- more affordable housing for one, i thought -- but that doesn't seem to be working in vancouver. they used to be the most unaffordable city in Canada in 1996 -- not sure if that's changed. maybe it's because everyone wants to live there, or some other factors, but i've never bought the 'high buildings==housing affordability' argument -- i just don't think there's anything to it, and have never seen any evidence to support it. if you know of some, please post it.
some of the language used in this post has to be comparable to the same language that Corbusier used back in the day -- "elegantly sculpted towers piercing the sky"? wow.
there are myriad reasons people don't like towers -- they block the sun, create wind tunnels, feel oppressive, are unsustainable and energy-intensive, etc.
i'm with Mr. Salingaros -- "we are not against tall buildings, but tall buildings seem to be against us."
i'd love to see a building towers skeptic give another, different, opinion on this topic. my mind is made up -- i'm in the process of moving from SF to SJ. but i'd like to be able to return to DC if I so decide. :)
and sometimes the answer is not 'compromise'. if someone wants peace, and someone else wants nuclear war, the answer is not 'a little bit of nuclear war'. ditto offshore drilling -- it should be 'none at all' -- not something between zero and every coast of America.
lastly, as pointed out, building high density does not require building high. see paris, barcelona, etc.
yay, Sun -- i love you! shining on Lance and crew this morning in San Jose! i'll do my best to protect from those mean, nasty tall buildings and the people who would build them!
by Peter Smith on May 19, 2010 12:59 pm • link • report
No, he specifically cited Rosslyn as something he didn't like... while trying to be gentle, he actually thinks the area has awful urban design.
His biggest argument is that D.C. *could* experiment with higher buildings around transit in areas well outside the ceremonial core (using La Defence as an example). However, the possibly harm caused by land value speculation (which increases building costs to both developers and the final end users) and opening up the 100-year-old restriction to variances may unleash a Pandora's Box on unintended consequences for the city. After listening to his lecture, I agree with his "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach.
by Adam L on May 19, 2010 1:03 pm • link • report
Neat. Thanks for the clarification -- wish I could've been at the lecture.
by andrew on May 19, 2010 2:45 pm • link • report
are these 'elegantly sculpted towers' or 'monocultural rounded vertical glass towers filled with toilet paper rolls'?
http://www.sfu.ca/cupc2007/img/Vancouver_ib.jpg
to me, San Francisco is beautiful because of nature -- the nearby mountains, the hills of the city, the water all around it, the crazy sky/clouds/fog/etc. some of the buildings are nice, and many -- if not most, by now -- of the buildings are simple modern horrors. the flood building is real nice, but all these other modern bricks? blech.
http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=flood+building+san+francisco
i suspect, Vancouver, like SF, is beautiful in spite of its tall buildings, not because of them.
and even if we were to approve of tall buildings, why can't they be, you know, nice? do they have to be so shiny and glassy and reflecty and ugly? how about some of those amenities -- like non-glass, non-metal facades? forget the new park, the new whatever -- how about start by giving us a building which will actually add to the beauty of the city instead of detract from it? gimme some Beaux Arts -- gimme something to look at and appreciate. maybe nobody's alive who can still do that stuff, but i'm sure someone can relearn it.
like james howard kunstler said, we need better buildings.
by Peter Smith on May 19, 2010 3:31 pm • link • report
Those are recommendations. The FAA has no power over what Arlington can or cannot build.
by J. Randolph Babbitt on May 19, 2010 4:48 pm • link • report
Only ONE question: You say that the Height Act reduces the economic incentive to tear down historic buildings. Downtown, it seems that the height limit (along K street, for example) means that we building owners need to extract as much rent as possible, and they will readily tear down older buildings (which are usually ugly anyway) to replace them with clean new glass office buildings. So I would argue perhaps the opposite.
As an aside, I live along 14th St in Logan Circle, and would love to see more density and more amenities. We are no where near the height limit there, so I'd like to see zoning allow us to reach a little bit higher.
Thanks for the post!
by DK on May 19, 2010 5:25 pm • link • report
Our residential center neighborhoods are zoned so that you often have a single person or couple living in a 3000 sq. ft. house that has about the same real estate value as a near-by condo of under 700 sq.ft. Just bizarre and a waste of density. We should have much greater density in townhouse buildings, not tall human file cabinets.
Also glad to see mention of enforcing good architecture. In DC architecture is practically illegal.
The best buildings in Vancouver are the public ones with incredible architecture at the Law Courts, BC Place, the stadium, the exhibit center, etc. Our public buildings from Verizon Center to the Convention Center to government buildings are horrible and ugly. We could have done better.
We can if we demand it.
by Tom Coumaris on May 19, 2010 7:44 pm • link • report
http://dcbydesignblog.com/2010/05/celebrating-100-years-of-low-buildings/
by DC by Design on May 19, 2010 8:26 pm • link • report
Rosslyn is a mixed bag as an example. In the sky it worked, but on the street level it is, unfortunately, still a dangerous road jungle.
Question to the writers of GGW: Can we ever get an evaluation of the successes and failures of Rosslyn?
by Jasper on May 19, 2010 8:37 pm • link • report
But are we building a city for the tourist alone? ... or for us too?
by Lance on May 19, 2010 10:57 pm • link • report
i definitely like the idea of an urban growth boundary -- sure to get mucho interest. the Randians will freak. we need to discuss it just so we can take in that spectacle. :) the sooner we start organizing for one, the sooner we can make it happen. oregon has a state law. think a couple of other states have pseudo-growth boundaries. the weird part about DC tho, is the whole 'state' is a city, so somehow DC would just have to become part of both VA and MD plans.
He estimated that it could take almost 150 years to exhaust all the development potential in that area before people would need to give way to sprawl.
i like the idea of long term planning, too -- real long-term planning -- 50 years, 100 years, 500 years out (@see Long Now).
by Peter Smith on May 19, 2010 11:08 pm • link • report
But realistically, if you want to set a urban boundary in this area, it will pretty much end up between Leesburg, Frederick, Baltimore/Bowie/Annapolis, Andrews AFB, Woodbridge/Quantico and Manassas. Plenty of infill possible but you can't eliminate the built sprawl.
In the end the problem of course is the ridiculous amount of competing jurisdictions that we have.
by Jasper on May 20, 2010 9:14 am • link • report
by C Richardson on May 20, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report
Add a Comment