
How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes - mshafrir
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/lifestyle/magazine/dc-heights-study/
======
rayiner
What a horrible hit piece by WaPo against the plan to raise the height limit.
As if the taller buildings are going to be windowless slab-sided monoliths!

Height is beautiful:
[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3nsDtd8zatQ/S9382uGLh6I/AAAAAAAAAh...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3nsDtd8zatQ/S9382uGLh6I/AAAAAAAAAhs/i2q7WitbpoA/s1600/river.jpg)

[http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/lugnuts/Bridges/IMG_5...](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/lugnuts/Bridges/IMG_5657cs.jpg)

[http://www.thewrigleybuilding.com/images/about-
top.jpg](http://www.thewrigleybuilding.com/images/about-top.jpg)

Also, the growth of D.C. is something I intensely dislike. It reminds me of
Trantor in the Foundation series. It's all fueled by federal spending. The
city has no finance industry, not a lot of technology besides defense
contractors, no manufacturing, nothing that would justify the growth other
than lots of highly-paid federal workers.

I'm actually a proponent of a robust federal government, but I hate the fact
that it's concentrated in D.C. I think we need to spend money on say the SEC
or the EPA, but we should push the work of these organizations down to local
field offices, so the incidental benefits of federal jobs and contracts go
back into the communities that pay the taxes to support them. Moreover, local
siting makes federal offices much more sensitive to the local culture and
concerns.

~~~
kcorbitt
I generally agree but there is the concern that the higher buildings would
take away from the prominence of the historical monuments that the city
centers on.

A good example of this is the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. It appeared
prominent and even formidable when it was built in the 18th century but modern
construction has surrounded it on all sides and it's not even really part of
the skyline anymore[1]. That's ok, but we have to decide whether the loss of
emphasis on history is worth it.

[1]
[http://www.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/315661/3156...](http://www.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/315661/315661.jpg)
(You can just see the six spires over an office building in the left-hand side
of the frame).

~~~
mkr-hn
The only reason these short buildings are considered historic is that
important things happened in them before we learned how to make rebar, and
before we rediscovered concrete.

We can build tall buildings now. Some of those will become historic, if we
build them. Many of them will be very nice-looking, like the new WTC towers.
Don't let old building methods stand in the way of progress. I'm not one of
those growth-at-all-costs people, but there's a lot of benefit in finding ways
to put a large number of people in a small space comfortably.

~~~
msutherl
New building methods create ugly, uncomfortable, temporary environments. If
you've ever lived in, say, Paris or New York, you may understand the feeling
of living in the hollowed-out shell of a once-great city.

The Freedom Tower is incredibly boring, not to mention dated, and will have
the oppressive atmosphere of any modern office space inside.

~~~
culturestate
I live in the most skyscraper-crazy city on earth - Hong Kong - and I can
attest that if done properly and with care, building skyward doesn't have to
lead to a dystopian Fifth Element-style future.

------
natrius
Limiting housing supply in desirable locations is the new redlining. I
understand liking the character of a place, but it seems morally problematic
to use the police power to enforce that character at the expense of those who
will no longer be able to afford to live there as demand increases while
supply doesn't. Those same people are often the first to support affordable
housing mandates without recoiling at the inefficiencies of the Rube Goldberg
machine of policy they've constructed.

~~~
adestefan
This is never about housing. It's about corporations wanting to be pack in
more and more lobbyists as close as they can.

~~~
natrius
It's about both of those things. Luckily, I don't think _corporations_ and
_lobbyists_ are boogeymen. Why shouldn't they be allowed to work in convenient
locations? The most successful, established firms already do work in those
convenient locations, but since supply is so restricted, smaller firms can't
afford it.

When you restrict supply, the folks with money win.

~~~
adestefan
I don't think they're boogeymen either, but this will not lead to affordable
or convenient housing and anyone who believes otherwise is a just a fool. This
is from the experience of living in the city for 5 years.

If there was actual demand for denser housing or office space you'd see it
sprouting up across the river in Virginia or outside the southeast of the city
where land is dirt cheap. Remember the city itself is tiny and the areas
outside the city do not have these restrictions.

~~~
natrius
_" If there was actual demand for denser housing or office space you'd see it
sprouting up across the river in Virginia or outside the southeast of the city
where land is dirt cheap."_

This is untrue. If housing desirablility is inversely proportional to the
distance from the White House, then the area of equally desirable housing
increases with _square_ of the distance. You won't get dense nodes. It'll be
spread around in a circle.

 _" this will not lead to affordable or convenient housing"_

The more housing you allow, the cheaper it will be compared to a universe with
supply restrictions. Do you disagree with that?

------
ameister14
I actually really like the height limit in DC aesthetically. After living
there and Bethesda for 6 years it's strange to think of anything else but the
monuments physically dominating everything in sight.

~~~
JPKab
I don't disagree, but when you look at the Arlington, Virginia neighborhoods
of Rosslyn and Ballston, you can readily see how the height limit impacts DC.
For those of you not familiar with DC's geography, the District of Columbia
was originally a perfectly square diamond. The portion on the south side of
the Potomac was given back to Virginia due to congressional lobbying in the
early 1800's creating laws which mandated building all Federal buildings on
the north side of the Potomac. This left the Arlington/Alexandria portions of
the District of Columbia as poor, economic backwaters. No Federal money
pouring in, and also no congressional representation. Virginia took them back.

The cities of Arlington and Alexandria now occupy the portion of the original
diamond that is west of the Potomac. When standing in Georgetown, you look
across the river and see 20 story office buildings. Arlington and Alexandria
act as quasi-DC, in the sense that they are dense, are connected via DC's
subway system (Metro) and separated from DC only by a relatively narrow river.

Lifting the height limit, I think, would be a great thing for DC. It is an
overly suburbanized metro area due to the height restrictions.

------
Smirnoff
Oh, so construction companies are running out of places in DC? And they need
the location right next to the White House?

Please.

There is space right across Anacostia river in the South East. Metro goes
there pretty fast.

Build the buildings there, just make sure to hire more police to make it safer
for workers.

~~~
eli
Sure, and that's sort of what happened around Navy Yard. But c'mon, it's not
that simple and you know it.

~~~
Smirnoff
I understand that it's not easy. One way to solve South East crime and penury
problems is to move these people away. Building corporate offices there could
make it happen.

Now I know that the approach of moving Anacostia people away has this problem:
ultimately these people will have to go somewhere and the vicious circle will
start again but at least we don't know that all these people will go to the
same location, so these problems can be spread and be solved by different
communities.

------
maxharris
D.C. would look much more like a real city without the restrictions. This is a
good thing!

Cities grow! The choice here is between upward and outward. You can keep
buildings unnaturally short, which forces the city to spread out, increasing
commute times (and a whole lot more). Or you can let things grow, and let the
place be more livable for the people that actually live there.

~~~
Swizec
Paris is often seen as one of the most beautiful cities in the world and
totally does feel like a real city despite the height limit.

In fact the new financial district off to the side with its skyscrapers and, I
imagine, no height limit, while modern and fancy, just doesn't feel as city-
like as the rest of Paris. It feels like a dead place where people only come
to work.

I've only spent a good week in Paris, so it might feel different when you're
living there for a long time. But not-tall cities are totally cool.

~~~
adestefan
Paris is also ~2000 sq miles while DC is only 60 sq miles.

~~~
Swizec
I doubt Paris was anywhere near 60sq miles when it started out as a trading
settlement in 250 BC.

~~~
adestefan
DC is restricted to that 60 sq miles and can get no larger. It was actually a
bit larger until they gave back all the land on the south side of the Potomac
to Virginia.

------
brianbreslin
It would make sense to ease restrictions near metro stations first, then later
sprinkle restriction lifting throughout other neighborhoods once mass transit
and infrastructure gets improved.

Key issues to consider: infrastructure (power, water, sewage, gas, internet,
transit, roads) traffic impact walkability of neighborhood (are there food
options, etc.)

I think pushing sprawl outward is the LAST thing DC needs, traffic there is
already horrible (not as bad as mexico city or sao paulo, but awful by US
standards).

~~~
eli
Arguably traffic could improve if people were able to live closer to their
jobs rather than having to drive in from a far-flung suburb.

------
tvanantwerp
To everyone complaining that companies just want to pack in more lobbyists:
There are lots of non-lobbyists in DC, you know? Some of those people include
blue collar workers, people on minimum wage, and even nonprofit employees
trying to scale back what lobbyists are extracting from us via government.
Higher rents (due to less housing) hurt all of those groups. High-paid
lobbyists can live in Georgetown regardless. The poor cannot.

------
keiferski
I don't understand why DC doesn't do a Parisian-style La Defense. The central
historical DC core can remain at its current height, while skyscrapers and
other high rises can be in a designated area.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_D%C3%A9fense](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_D%C3%A9fense)

~~~
maaku
Because this is about putting more lobbyists _closer_ to the capital building.

------
bking
I don't understand why a city needs to keep "growing" to keep it alive. Keep
the height restrictions because it keeps the city beautiful. Why don't we
develop the parts that are run down before we screw up the view.

~~~
natrius
Because we live in a market economy. You build stuff where people want to be,
not where you hope they'll go. Unless you don't care if your building stays
empty.

------
eli
I personally am fine with exemptions to the height limit, especially if they
can be tied to a meaningful concession from the developer like a _significant_
number of affordable housing units.

------
sethbannon
Some background from the WaPo:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/24/s...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/24/study-
raising-d-c-s-height-limit-would-help-city-not-cause-world-to-end/)

------
tomohawk
Keeping the height restriction in place may be the only practical limit on the
size of government.

~~~
eli
What on earth are you talking about?

~~~
maaku
Check your sarcasm detector.

------
asveikau
Great images, though I'd imagine in real life it would look a bit different
from uniform beige boxes.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I too liked the technique, but noticed that if you photoshop in actual
building looking buildings instead of beige monoliths it actually looks fine.
That makes me wonder if they started there and switched to the monoliths when
they didn't get the right impact for the story.

