One of the most widespread myths I hear from out-of-towners and Washingtonians alike is that the height limit in DC states that no building can be taller than the dome of the Capitol, and that the limit was enacted to preserve views of the Capitol and Washington Monument. At 14 stories tall, it was the tallest building in the city at that time, and some residents had concerns about it.
Would it overwhelm the lower-density neighborhood? Was it structurally sound? Would existing fire-fighting equipment be able to reach top floors?
Those last two questions were primarily the reason that Congress stepped in in to establish the Height of Buildings Act. Technology at the time was advancing quickly, but questions remained about the safety of such a tall building. Height limits at the time were fairly common in American cities, including Boston and Chicago. The Zoning Commission has five members, one of whom is picked by the Architect of the Capitol and another of whom comes from the National Parks Service which, of course, operates many of the parks in our city, generally in an anti-urban way, but that's another story.
WMATA is also significantly influenced by federal policymaking. Last but by no means least, an awful lot of land and buildings in the city are owned by the federal government—it's a much larger share of the built environment directly under federal control than you would see in a typical city.
This is a great question. We never really got to test it in Congress because of the backlash against reform from the D. My guess is that between Issa's patronage and the clearly expressed will of the city, that Congress would be willing to make the change.
But it's possible that they wouldn't be. Plenty of people I know who live in the suburbs—some of them federal officials or Hill staffers—say they like the absence of tall buildings, so if there were strong suburban sentiment against reform that might block it.
You could imagine the congressional delegations from Virginia and Maryland worrying that skyscrapers in D. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Cities Atlanta Austin Boston.
Chicago Detroit Los Angeles. New York San Francisco Archive. Filed under:. In this day of motorized transportation and the Internet, must the Department of Agriculture really sit within a stone's throw of the White House and the Capitol? It's ridiculous that we have a vast core of commercial structures that becomes devoid of life each weekend.
Then come Monday, hordes of suburbanites flood back into the city, choking all modes of transportation. Let's get the FBI out of DC, as well as a lot of other ancillary Federal buildings, so that development can spread out. The argument that raising height limits will reduce rents makes zero economic sense. Developers only start construction if they can be assured of getting sufficient profit for their projects. As soon as rents begin to fall, whether due to recession, lack of demand, or oversupply, developers cut back on new projects, and rents begin to rise again.
Also, the height limit isn't "limiting" anything except in the core business district. Even in popular areas like U Street, Logan, and Penn Quarter, taller buildings could be accommodated by relaxing local zoning laws rather than messing with the city wide height limit. In other areas Petworth, Brookland, SE taller buildings could be built today, under current zoning - there just hasn't been sufficient demand.
If you relax the height limit downtown, all you'll get are taller office buildings. Unless office rents are falling, in which case developers will shrug. How do you figure? Colin you need to learn how to read Anyone who thinks relaxing the Height Act won't lead to lower rents or help moderate rent increases does not understand basic economics.
Is this under serious consideration? I mean, more than someone's mental massage exercise or architecture masters thesis? For the first time in my life, I'll be one of them. Doing this makes zero sense and will absolutely destroy one of the biggest things that makes this city a wonderful place to live. First, people need to calm down. Nobody is advocating Dubai-on-the-Potomac. If the Height Act is relaxed, it will be in certain places and it will likely be incrementally.
Additionally, all of the local DC planning regulations will still exist, historical preservation requirements and regulations will still exist, and neighbors can still offer input via their Advisory Neighborhood Commission.
Opponents of relaxing the Height Act should answer why foot tall radio towers do not compromise the views of the Capitol, Washington Monument and other historic views but a foot tall building 5 to 7 miles from the Capitol will.
What is the purpose of building upward? Is DC running out of land? Answer is no. Building up would starve the impetus for developers to build in these areas. I think this is a very premature discussion. Where are these vast areas of land in upper NW and Southeast that you speak of? There are plans for at least one thousand new housing units in Ward 3 and most of the land around the Navy Yard and Southwest waterfront is either under construction or will be developed. Build taller, the question in my mind is whether we're talking about doing this downtown.
As long as everything south of let's say Columbia Heights is off the table, who cares. But what counts, as many have said, is the ability to walk around downtown and make the federal buildings the focus of the federal city, and see those federal buildings from every rooftop close by. Otherwise, yeah, this makes absolutely no sense.
And as Zesty pointed out, if the question is supply, job creation, reducing rent, and the rest of your talking points, there's lots of places throughout NE, SE, and upper NW for development to occur, making the city better for all. Develop there areas first; THEN let's talk about the points you thought were valid! This should really be two separate issues, the downtown core and around the outer metro stations. Build taller, that doesn't seem to be the proposal on the table.
Those renderings are all about downtown. In the downtown core area, there are already several structures that exceed the Height Act limits, including the Cairo, the Old Post Office, and several smokestacks. Relaxing the Height Act by feet in the downtown core, especially as you get farther from the Capitol and Washington Monument does not seem like it would compromise views one bit.
It would if every building downtown was the height of the Cairo, the Old Post Office, or those smokestacks. Duponter "Part of what makes it unique is that you can see these buildings while IN DC" There's nothing unique about that, and one will still be able to have great views of the Capitol, Old Post Office, Wash. Monument, Nat'l Shrine, etc. The law is still observed and enforced to this day. The member Commission meets monthly to adopt, approve, or provide advice on plans and projects that impact the nation's capital and surrounding areas.
Skip Navigation Nov 12, Search Site Go. Custom Search Site Search Projects.
0コメント