[supascience]

It is not about the art it's about the money. We have all (from every are of the DC area) invested in transportation infrastructure such as rail. When we take 20 acres of land near metro stations and build 10 story buildings on it instead of 20 or 30 story buildings we take a financial loss. One of the many reasons development of the suburban mini-cities has become so attractive is the comparable cost of office space. If office space were less expensive in the urban centers edge city development would not be so attractive. As for prominence, one of the most prominent things about Manhattan is Central Park. It is more noticeable than any building. If a similar design plan was adopted for DC you might have a federal mall area including the Capitol, White House, monuments, federal buildings and nearby office buildings with tree height buildings surrounded by tall buildings. This would give the city a unique appearance and I believe it would slow down suburban sprawl.

[ironchapman]

Madison, Wisconsin has a similar restiction on height. I hear it's a very pretty city.

[blueize74]

That was very interesting - thanks for the articles

[habitat67]

Found a great site that has many pictures and captions about DC's height limits:

Height Limit Photos

Here are a couple of photos of the Cairo -- I loved that buiilding when i lived in Dupont.

[Unifour]

I recently read that it was difficult to build over 10 stories in D.C. But that building in the pic looks taller than 10, and I've seen some 15 story or even higher out away from the mall area. Some buildings in Washington look taller than what they suggest. I wonder are there any exceptions? Does the limit rise away from the Capital and the Mall?

I love Washington and the restrictions, but that Cairo looks nearly 20 stories to me. Never change, D.C.

This post has been edited by Unifour: 20 October 2005 - 08:10 AM

[tamias6]

I wonder how developers would respond if D.C. lifted its height restrictions in at least a part of the city. Would there be an immediate building boom? Just to keep me from catching a bunch of flack, let's say a less historical part of the city that doesn't mean of that much.

[bmorescottamanda]

tamias6, on Oct 23 2006, 09:37 PM, said:

I wonder how developers would respond if D.C. lifted its height restrictions in at least a part of the city. Would there be an immediate building boom? Just to keep me from catching a bunch of flack, let's say a less historical part of the city that doesn't mean of that much.

I hope that don't happen because that's what is going to make the new residential high-rise towers in Baltimore so popular to DC residents.

[urbanvb]

tamias6, on Oct 23 2006, 11:37 PM, said:

I wonder how developers would respond if D.C. lifted its height restrictions in at least a part of the city. Would there be an immediate building boom? Just to keep me from catching a bunch of flack, let's say a less historical part of the city that doesn't mean of that much.

I can't even imagine it happening but I doubt few would say DC is not a neat city in spite of it not having tall buildings. Density is more desirable imo than tall buildings although I can appreciate them very much.

[tombarnes]

There is enough room for tall buildings in the suburbs of Virginia and Maryland without removing the height restrictions in DC. Having the Capitol, Washington Monument and other landmarks prominent on the skyline is part of Washington's identity. I'd hate to see this long-established pattern altered in favor of tall towers.

[krazeeboi]

urbanvb, on Oct 24 2006, 12:29 AM, said:

I can't even imagine it happening but I doubt few would say DC is not a neat city in spite of it not having tall buildings. Density is more desirable imo than tall buildings although I can appreciate them very much.

I totally agree. I think the height restrictions have contributed immensely to Washington's urbanity and I'd hate to see them abolished. As tombarnes said, let the VA and MD suburbs have the 'scrapers.

[Shakman]

DC's height restriction has not negatively impacted DC. In light of the height restrictions, DC has the third largest downtown in the US (behind Downtown Manhattan and Chicago).

[urbanvb]

I agree. The height has done little if anything to cause DC not to become a great place. Density is what DC has plenty of which is what counts imo.

[Spartan]

^These are all great points.

DC has one of the largest downtowns, and a much more spread out urban feel than any other city its size, and I think you can attribute most of that to its height restrictions. This forces more urban neighborhoods to form because you can't cram as many people into one place. There is certainly a threshold of density for great urban neighborhood, and 10 stories more than meets that requirement. Its proof that skyscrapers are just eye candy.

Here's a fun fact: "Nine percent of its residents already walk to work, the most of any U.S. city..."

DC also has one of the best transit systems in the country, and second largest behind New York... all of this is becuase that density was forced to spread out by the height restrictions!

Here is an interesting article about the height restrictions and its effects on DC's growth.

[Spartan]

There are some people suggesting a change to DC's height limits... the realy focus on the benefits of raising the height limit. Definitely worth a read.

Article