Richard Layman is concerned that NoMA is developing with too much office space and too little residential. Right now, office space is more valuable for developers to build, and with the housing market cooling, that’s not about to change. Layman and Ryan Avent suggest raising the height limit. Extra floors could make it feasible to build a mix instead of all offices. On the other hand, the shortage of office space downtown is leading to a revitalization of other neighborhoods. Avent suggests DC auction off only a couple of height exceptions per year, outside of key viewsheds. That would avoid too much sudden change, keep the upward pressure in other areas, and raise a lot of money.

I tend to agree about the height limit, but even taller buildings wouldn’t ensure mixed-use districts. Can our zoning simply require a certain mix? It wouldn’t have to be all in the same building—large projects could require a mix, and for smaller projects, developers could buy and sell “office space rights” the way they trade air rights in many cities. For example, the zoning could require at least one-third residential and one-third commercial overall. A building that has 50% residential could sell its excess 17% as a credit to another developer who wants to build less than one third residential.

Anyone know about other cities that have done anything like this (either the simple way, where each building must have some of both, or the more complex credit-trading way)?

Continue the conversation about urbanism in the Washington region and support GGWash’s news and advocacy when you join the GGWash Neighborhood!

Tagged: dc, density, development, smart growth

David Alpert created Greater Greater Washington in 2008 and was its executive director until 2020. He formerly worked in tech and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco Bay, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He lives with his wife and two children in Dupont Circle.