Getting Taller

I often walk around town frustrated by how short all the buildings are. Letting people build taller and thereby increase density would be good in a whole number of ways. But even a hardened development advocate such as myself would have to concede that it's not reasonable to ask people all across the city to accept having huge swathes of their neighborhood suddenly bulldozed and rebuilt as something wildly different. Ryan Avent has a more practical proposal:

I believe the District should designate a few safe viewsheds, where heights cannot be raised. Then, it should auction off a set number of height allowances each year. Auctions should boost the revenue take, and a set number of annual allowances would prevent wholesale redevelopment of areas with tight supply.

It might even be a good idea to set it up so that a healthy share of the revenue would accrue directly to the local Advisory Neighborhood Councils so as to give them some incentive to encourage development rather than adopting their usual posture of obstructionism.

Comments

Well, this is a terrible idea. The height limit is there for a reason, and it has something to do with a big white building with a round top that isn't getting any taller.

Posted by Vidor | March 6, 2008 1:59 PM

I may be wrong about this but it is my understanding that the consent of Congress would be required to allow the District to increase its hight limit.

Posted by SLC | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM

Speaking personally, I LIKE that DC isn't a mammoth city like NY. NY makes me feel insignificant in a way that DC never has.

Posted by Civilized Crank | March 6, 2008 2:05 PM

There is a moderately tall office building on 19th street a couple blocks down from Dupont Circle where they are building a couple new floors right on top of the existing building. Indicates to me that many buildings in the city are not even up against the height restriction.

Posted by tm | March 6, 2008 2:07 PM

Civilized Crank,

Unless you're one of the 535 most special people on Earth (not counting the SCOTUS, POTUS, VPOTUS or Cabinet members), you're much more insignificant in DC than you'd ever be in NYC.

I've lived in both. DC may make me "feel" significant, after all, I can run into one of the aforementioned special people, but I know it's all a lie.

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 2:11 PM

Why waste time with all those neighborhood obstructionists when you've got plenty of open, unbuilt space for a high density central spine, a la Boston, right there on the mall, just begging for development?

Posted by JM Hanes | March 6, 2008 2:13 PM

A very similar debate is raging right now in downtown Lexington, KY:

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/338477.html

Posted by MacGyver | March 6, 2008 2:14 PM

The height restriction is a vestige of when Congress completely controlled the District - including all revenue and spending. As buildings started to get higher and higher, they realized that they would have to continually spend money to buy new fire equipment - and thus the height restriction (nothing at all to do with the height of the Capitol building or anything else - they just froze what was in place at the time).

Now that DC has home rule and is in charge of it's own finances, there really is no reason for the fire equipment cost excuse for the height limitation.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | March 6, 2008 2:18 PM

Let's make a distinction here: you can build tallish without doing a Manhattan. Paris is short of tower blocks inside the péripherique, having stuck most of them in La Défense -- the Tour Montparnasse is a notable exception -- but it's also short of self-contained single-level commercial units.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 6, 2008 2:19 PM

As a native Philadelphian let me tell you; NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Since the first building exceeded the height of William Penn's hat on top of City Hall, we have not won a single major sport championship. That's 0 for the last 164.

Beware! Beware!

Posted by Njorl | March 6, 2008 2:27 PM

The fact that the buildings aren't tall is one of the better attributes of DC. It does have a considerably less oppressive feel than NY or Chicago. It would be silly to change that. It doesn't seem like population density in urban DC/NoVA is so low that dramatic measures are necessary drive it up.

Posted by J.B. | March 6, 2008 2:27 PM

Funny, I'm from the same city as Matt, and often walk around town thinking how nice it is to be able to see the sky.

Posted by GFK | March 6, 2008 2:32 PM

I really like DC's wide streets and short buildings and the openness and visible sky that they create. But the height restrictions are still too low. Would it be such a disaster if buildings were capped at 15 stories rather than 12?

Posted by Elliot Reed | March 6, 2008 2:39 PM

The first height limitation was enacted in 1899 in response to the erection of the Cairo apartment house at 1615 Q St, which at 14 stories was considered a monstrosity and a fire hazard. It's still there and it's worth a visit. In 1910, Congress enacted the current Height of Buildings Act, which sets the limit at the width of the adjacent street plus 20%, up to 130 feet. Ornmental structures on the roof can be higher, and mechanical structures (e.g. elevator shafts), can be higher as long as they are set back.

I personally think that the idea of a limited allowance for higher structures is a good one. I propose that every commercial building or lot be provided a multi-floor "allowance" (say 20 feet) that could be bought and sold, but used only in designated areas (e.g., within three blocks of a metro but not within a certain radius of the White House and memorials). Then any builder who wanted to put up a higher building could buy as many additional cubic feet as necessary, up to a limit (say an extra 60 feet of height). The sale could be taxed fairly heavily as a revenue producer - it wouldn't be unfair to do so, because the grant of the allowance would be in effect a gift to the current landowner.

This plan would be fair to all property owners, would lead to a phased increase in height, and would, over time, increase density and employment downtown, increase metro ridership, make the center city more competitive with Rosslyn, Crystal City, and Tyson's Corner, reduce upward pressures on rents, increase tax revenues, and inspire more interesting architecture than the old-fashioned K Street box.

Posted by Bloix | March 6, 2008 2:54 PM

Vsya vlast' local Advisory Neighborhood Councilam!

Here's a density story from L.A.

Posted by TLB | March 6, 2008 3:11 PM

I must admit, the number of people here standing up for white yuppie aesthetic preferences at the expense of more sustainable development and lowering DC's housing costs to benefit low and middle income families who might like to live there astounds me a bit.

Posted by Phaedrus | March 6, 2008 3:13 PM

I must admit, the number of people here standing up for white yuppie aesthetic preferences at the expense of more sustainable development and lowering DC's housing costs to benefit low and middle income families who might like to live there astounds me a bit.

Hmm, but don't you think that urban DC is still far better in terms sustainable development than sprawling suburbs and exurbs? And isn't part of the key to sustainable urban development to make urban life pleasant and appealing so that people want to live there? You may want to argue about where the optimal balance point is, but rejecting aesthetics entirely is not a terribly strong approach.

Posted by J.B. | March 6, 2008 3:33 PM

J.B.,

Fair point. Clearly I do think that the balance needs to be more toward high density than it is, but you're right that it's not the only factor.

Posted by Phaedrus | March 6, 2008 3:44 PM

and inspire more interesting architecture than the old-fashioned K Street box.

Bloix, show me one single place in this country where that has happened.

Posted by Brautigan | March 6, 2008 4:17 PM

Here's a suggestion!

Why not use the train to go to Manhattan when you want to see skyscrapers if, like Woody Allen, you only feel safe with verticality and darkness at 3:00 p.m. in winter.

If you really feel the need for a Fritz Lang teeming metropolis of stacked people and commercial offices closer to the center of Federal government, build it in Virginia, live there, and commute to the capital. That's what they do in Paris, in order to, like keep it sorta looking like it always has.

Let Americans keep George Washington's and L'Enfant's plan for their Federal government. So underneath it's a boiling caldron, at least when you visit, it seems serene, beautiful and even sleepy at times. It's a pyschology thing.

Somehow it happened that most of the states have state capitals that also are not the biggest cities in the state, wonder why that is (not.)

Posted by artappraiser | March 6, 2008 4:21 PM

P.S. I mean really, this:

I often walk around town frustrated by how short all the buildings are.

is an outrageous statement.

Keep it no buildings taller than the dome. Period.

Move to another city if it's too small and horizontal for you.

Posted by artappraiser | March 6, 2008 4:31 PM

"I must admit, the number of people here standing up for white yuppie aesthetic preferences at the expense of more sustainable development and lowering DC's housing costs to benefit low and middle income families who might like to live there astounds me a bit."

Yes, all of us creepy white yuppies caring about the primacy of the Capitol building. Lamentable.

Posted by Vidor | March 6, 2008 4:33 PM

P.S. I mean really, this:

I often walk around town frustrated by how short all the buildings are.

is an outrageous statement.

Keep it no buildings taller than the dome. Period.

Move to another city if it's too small and horizontal for you.

Posted by artappraiser | March 6, 2008 4:33 PM

I agree with the commenter who held up Paris as a model. It does not have much in the way of tall buildings (and they are isolated and hideous) but is still rather dense.

There are numerous parts of the District that could and should be much more dense and it woud not require a change to the height limits. Wisconsin Avenue near the Tenleytown Metro should have many more bulings in the 5 to 10 story range, rather than the one to two range that are prevalent.

However, given that it is not just the nation's capital, but the NIMBY capital of the world, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Sir Charles | March 6, 2008 4:56 PM

There is something just so precious about young people who move from NYC to Washington DC, and want to lower the housing costs by building new higher buildings. Yup, that'll do it for sure. Just look at Manhattan, the "Mr. Affordibility" of the urban social scene.

You want lower costs and higher density, go for 600 sq foot units in the existing envelope. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Posted by serial catowner | March 6, 2008 6:37 PM

The nature and character that make DC such an interesting and engaging city to live in are fully tied to the Height Act.

If you're pining for tall 'inharmonious' buildings and a lack of open green space take it across the river.

There is a lot of space still in town to be revitalized before it's worth bringing up the costs of maintaining the limit, and even then it isn't an argument that you'll win.

The District has some good things going for it, lets not come to town and start trying to screw around with them ok?

Paul Schwartzman wrote a good piece on this with some cool graphics in the Post last spring.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050101939.html?nav=emailpage
Roger K. Lewis threw out a rebuttal to the sanctity of the height limit, he's wrong too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052500833.html

Posted by hcoppola | March 6, 2008 9:30 PM

The nature and character that make DC such an interesting and engaging city to live in are fully tied to the Height Act.

If you're pining for tall 'inharmonious' buildings and a lack of open green space take it across the river.

There is a lot of space still in town to be revitalized before it's worth bringing up the costs of maintaining the limit, and even then it isn't an argument that you'll win.

The District has some good things going for it, lets not come to town and start trying to screw around with them ok?

Paul Schwartzman wrote a good piece on this with some cool graphics in the Post last spring.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050101939.html?nav=emailpage
Roger K. Lewis threw out a rebuttal to the sanctity of the height limit, he's wrong too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052500833.html

Posted by hcoppola | March 6, 2008 9:32 PM

sorry about the double post not sure what happened.

Posted by hcoppola | March 6, 2008 9:58 PM

Fascinating! It seems that on one hand we had people in a previous post complaining that the cost of living in big cities like New York was too high, so people move to the suburbs to reduce housing costs. Yet in a dense big city like Washington, any plans to ameliorate the high cost of living is met with "move to another city". I'll ask this question: is this the voice of gentrification looking to protect their rising equity?

I seem to recall that not too long ago DC had some of the highest crime rates in the country. Funny how times is a changing.

Posted by freddiemac | March 6, 2008 10:16 PM

I often walk around town frustrated by how short all the buildings are.

I was going to suggest you get a hobby, and then I realized you were telling us about it.

Posted by Chuck | March 6, 2008 10:36 PM

Phaedrus & freddiemac - High rise is an extremely expensive way to build. DC has plenty of room for residents in ordinary low-rise housing. In 1960, the population was 763,000. In 2005 it was 508,000. So there's no shortage of land for housing. We're talking about lifting or raising the restriction for office buildings in order to increase the efficiency of the downtown core.

Brautigan - Portland, Oregon.

artappraiser - the Capitol Dome is 288 feet high. The height limitation is 130 feet. Are you proposing that the height limitation be doubled? Or is it just that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Posted by Bloix | March 7, 2008 12:38 AM

I like seeing the sky and not constantly walking in shadow.

Posted by Brendan | March 7, 2008 7:32 AM

You do realize that there is already a similar program in place, oui? Take a stroll along K Street, or anywhere else in the "Golden Triangle" or whatever it is they call it. They are not just renovating those buildings, they are adding floors.

Posted by La Rana | March 7, 2008 10:22 AM

You do realize that there is already a similar program in place, oui? Take a stroll along K Street, or anywhere else in the "Golden Triangle" or whatever it is they call it. They are not just renovating those buildings, they are adding floors.

Posted by La Rana | March 7, 2008 10:23 AM