Posts about Height Limit

Development

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)

  

Close

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 — Share	— tags: height limit, live chat

Development

Vancouver's Beasley: Tinker with height limit very carefully

by David Alpert   •   May 19, 2010 10:32 am

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.

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.

In essence, Vancouver is what the mid-century modernists like Le Corbusier would have built if they had the benefit of decades of experience. They thought widely-spaced towers beautiful and believed they would enhance the quality of life.

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.

That height limit brings many benefits of its own. For one thing, it makes DC particularly notable and memorable, which Beasley pointed out is increasingly valuable in a world economy where most mid-sized cities are increasingly undifferentiated and unremarkable.

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.

More importantly, Beasley cautioned against any allowance for greater heights in random and scattered locations. He showed some very compelling photographs of Buenos Aires, which has allowed a variety of tall buildings in an otherwise low-rise city. They have created an unpleasant effect of "increasing confusion" in the skyline, he argued.

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?

27 comments — Share	— tags: Canada, DC, height limit, live chat, Vancouver

Development

Vancouver's Larry Beasley talks DC's Height Act in forum Tuesday, live chat Wednesday

by David Alpert   •   May 17, 2010 2:28 pm

One of the perennial topics for debate in Washington, DC is the 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which limited tall buildings and created the current "low-rise" skyline. Now, the Act is 100 years old. Has it served DC well or poorly?

Vancouver's Yaletown.

Vancouver has achieved tremendous success specifically through building high-rises. This has allowed the area to grow and prosper without massive suburban sprawl, and Vancouver neighborhoods have become livable, walkable, and lively.

Supporters of DC's height limit, on the other hand, argue that the limit forces development of areas adjacent to downtown, like NoMA and the Capitol Riverfront for office districts, instead of concentrating jobs in downtown with dead areas and parking lots adjacent.

Who is right? Does the height limit make DC a more livable city or keep it from achieving its potential? Maybe DC should raise the limit in key areas outside downtown? After all, Rosslyn has tall buildings, and it's closer to the Mall than Anacostia or Fort Totten. Or is spreading out office space inefficient?

Sometimes, tall buildings turn into mere "towers in the park", gaining a lot of height but not much density. On the other hand, the limit makes developers mainly build giant boxes, to take maximum advantage of the limited building envelope.

Is it worthwhile to maintain a certain aesthetic of lower buildings? Vancouver's towers don't create "canyon effects" or dark streets, but do form soaring, glass slivers reaching into the sky. Some like that, some don't. How worthwhile is maintaining the look if it increase sprawl? Does it, or do people just want single-family houses even if they're two hours from downtown?

To attend the talk, RSVP at NCPC's page. They anticipate the event filling up, meaning walk-ins might not be able to get in. To attend the live chat, just come online here at 11 am on Wednesday.

In the meantime, please submit questions you'd like to ask Mr. Beasley. We'll also formulate some questions based on the topics that arise at the forum.

38 comments — Share	— tags: Canada, density, events, height limit, live chat, NCPC, sprawl, Vancouver

Development

Would a residential height bonus improve downtown?

by Dan Malouff   •   April 28, 2010 12:22 pm

Downtown DC could use more residential units, but the strong demand for downtown office space crowds out most residential development. Could a selective bonus above Washington's height limit for downtown residential units allow for new residents while avoiding a land rush?

Photo by Mr. T in DC.

Concentrating yet more office space downtown with taller buildings isn't in the region's best interest. More mixed-use neighborhoods are better than an office ghetto surrounded by bedroom communities.

There's also so much available land near downtown in places like Southwest and NoMa that the central office district could easily expand without taller buildings. Also, eliminating the height limit downtown could result in a push to tear down and redevelop too many historic buildings that are culturally valuable.

However, raising the height limit could make Downtown Washington a better neighborhood. It may be the most intensely built part of the region, but it is almost completely commercial. There are so few residential units that vast swaths of downtown are almost completely devoid of people outside the hours of 9-5.

If we want Washington to be a city of mixed-use neighborhoods, then downtown is failing. Even the downtown BID thinks this is a problem.

39 comments — Share	— tags: DC, development, downtown DC, height limit

Historic

Lost Washington: The Raleigh Hotel

by Kent Boese   •   July 17, 2009 3:01 pm

The Raleigh Hotel got its start in 1893 when the Shepherd Centennial Building on the northeast corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 12th Street, NW, was converted from commercial use into the hotel by Washington architect Leon E. Dessez.

Raleigh Hotel ca. 1915.

The builder's demand for height caused Congress to change the height limit for Pennsylvania Avenue from 130 feet to 160 feet in 1910.

The Raleigh was well known for good food, drink, and entertainment. It was equally regarded for the beauty of its architectural details, such as the decoration of the gold-and-white ballroom on the top floor.

It was a prosperous hotel, though it lost some of its business to the Mayflower Hotel when it opened. One of the factors that made the Raleigh such a success was its manager, Curt C. Schiffeler, who managed to create a warm and informal atmosphere that pleased the guests. Schiffeler remained at the Raleigh until he retired in 1954. By then newer hotels were drawing patronage away. The Raleigh was razed ten years later in 1964.

More images below.

3 comments — Share	— tags: DC, height limit, historic losses, Penn Quarter

Development

Creating a new Sector Plan involves taking care of the details

by Cavan Wilk   •   June 15, 2009 11:00 am

Montgomery County planners are continuing with developing a new White Flint Sector Plan. Of course, every good plan requires a strict attention to detail. Recently, the planning board set the height limit to 300 feet in new Sector Plan. While arbitrary, this detail is an important step since such a decision is required by law.

Street grid concept at White Flint, from Friends of White Flint.

The discussion came about partly in response to a proposal by The JBG Companies to build a 390-foot building adjacent to the Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center. Representatives for JBG had previously told the board that the extra 90 feet were necessary to create an "elegant, iconic" building instead of a squat one. Currently, according to county planner Piera Weiss, the tallest building in White Flint is 289 feet.

Vice Chairman John Robinson said as a matter of law, a firm limit had to be set.

Clearly, the height limit in the District has not prevented its urban parts from being vibrant human-scale places. A height limit that is over twice as high would not prevent White Flint from achieving similar success as neighboring Bethesda, no matter how arbitrary.

Finally, why would White Flint need an "elegant, iconic" building that is greater that 300 feet? A new walkable urban place needs buildings that engage the street by being up against the sidewalk, have plenty of varying retail, and a diversity of housing options. Whether a building is functional to a pedestrian is far more important than whether it looks nice in an aerial photograph.

It is positive that the planning board followed the law, even though they were forced to make an arbitrary decision. Time is precious. The success of this project is vital to the economic and environmental future of Montgomery County.

8 comments — Share	— tags: height limit, Maryland, Montgomery, White Flint

Transit

2009 wish list for transit

by Cavan Wilk   •   December 29, 2008 7:11 am

Since it's almost time to put on your suit/tuxedo/ballgown and party like it's 2009, I sat down and thought about the best ways to improve transit in our region in the future. This list breaks down into two categories: near term and long term.

A possible future transit system for DC and Baltimore. Map by David Alpert.

Near term

Columbia Pike (Virginia) streetcar. This corridor in South Arlington is very close to two Metro stations: Pentagon and Pentagon City. However, highways and huge parking lots cut it off from both stations. Consequently, its development has been very stunted. While WMATA has made upgrades to its 16-series buses, upgrading the infrastructure to streetcars would go a long way to helping this corridor realize its potential.

National intercity high-speed rail. It's about time, right? Let's face it: the domestic airline industry is on life support. Once oil prices resume their stratospheric climb, this industry will die as a private enterprise. We will need other ways to get people between our cities. Also, train stations are usually located in the heart of downtown, while airports tend to be located 50 miles away. Delivering people to a city's center will boost demand for amenities downtown. It will also increase demand for regional and local mass transit, since visitors will arrive in the city without cars. As we have seen with our own Union Station, vibrant intercity train stations are powerful ways to create a sense of place.

DC streetcars. There's no time like the present to get the cars rolling. While DC Councilmember Jim Graham rightly emphasized putting the first route somewhere where there are people, DC officials should select and start planning the next few routes as well.

Baltimore Red Line. Our neighbors in Baltimore have been clamoring for better mass transit ever since the Highway Lobby ripped out their streetcar system in the early 1960's. Their current system is very piecemeal and incomplete. The Baltimore Metro Subway is a single line that runs from the northwestern suburbs in the median of a freeway (thereby giving zero chance of TOD) to just north of downtown. The light rail was an early 1990's project that was built for thrift and not necessarily performance. Subsequent upgrades have improved its performance. Neither rail system connects to the other, though.

The Red Line is a proposed east to west light rail line that would run from Woodlawn through West Baltimore, Downtown, Fells Point, Canton, and end east of the city line. It would connect the existing Light Rail and the Metro Subway. It would take a big step towards restoring Baltimore's incomplete transportation system.

What would the Washington region look like if the Metro were never built? Baltimore today offers some clues. Our neighbor city to the north is a major economic and social center in the United States, just like Washington. Their 18th Century street grid is also well laid out for transit and walking. The Red Line will help Baltimore achieve its potential.

Silver Line. An opportunity to turn the nation's flagship Edge City into a series of real walkable downtowns? Connect an airport that was built in an inconvenient place with only highway access to its region's Metro? In the same project? Such a great idea! No wonder it's been four decades in the making.

Purple Line (High Investment LRT option). This project will close obvious gaps in the existing Metro system, improve regional mobility, and induce the redevelopment of some 1960's-era inner suburban edge cities into actual places. On top of that, it will finish the currently incomplete Capital Crescent Trail between Silver Spring and Bethesda. Like the Silver Line, this project has been on the drawing board for decades, and it's time to build it.

Long term

Issue a national moratorium on freeway building. We have plenty of freeways. We need the money we spend every year on new freeways to improve the other elements that make up our transportation system. We also need to pay to maintain the infrastructure that we already have.

Building roads was a great idea. It was one of the main engines that drove our national economy in the 20th century. However, we have long since started to experience diminishing returns; for every new road we build. we get less and less in return from it. Today, building new roads actually makes traffic worse, and has for years now. Let's ensure our existing bridges and water mains are properly maintained before we build new roads.

Infill at Potomac Yards on the Yellow and Blue Lines. This is an excellent opportunity for TOD on existing electrified rail infrastructure. The New York Avenue/Florida Avenue infill station on the Red Line has been a success.

Experiment with higher height limits outside the L'Enfant City in DC. As BeyondDC recommends, let's allow taller buildings in specific, targeted areas near Metro stations toward the edge of the District. Greater height at Tenleytown or Anacostia would no more disrupt the low-rise feel of DC's center than Rosslyn or Crystal City do today. Ryan Avent recommends an auction system to limit height increases, ensure good development and raise revenue.

Close the Center Leg (I-395) between New York Ave and Massachusetts Ave. This segment induces through traffic on New York Avenue between the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and the Center Leg. The existing open cut could potentially be decked over and used as a right of way for a future heavy rail Blue Line at much lower cost than tunneling the same distance.

Extend the Purple Line. Long term, the Purple Line should connect to the Blue Line at either Largo Town Center or Capitol Heights. Then it should continue around to Suitland, Oxon Hill, National Harbor, and then to Alexandria. This is definitely more of a dream at present than anything near a political reality.

Separated Blue Line. The Metro system will hit capacity moving people into DC from Northern Virginia by 2030. A separated Blue Line through a new tunnel at Rosslyn, through downtown DC, and along H Street will add enormous new commuter capacity and serve important areas that the Metro system doesn't reach.

62 comments Share	— tags: Alexandria, Arlington, Baltimore, Blue Line, freeways, height limit, high-speed rail, Purple Line, Silver Line, streetcars, transit