They are, development has already begun - obviously the Hechts warehouse. More will come, despite relatively poor transit access on portions of the corridor. But you need to look down the road so to speak - if that area is built out in, say, 2030, then the by building things in the 2020s to the old height limit, an opportunity is lost. Put another way, once there are no more parcels to build on, what will be the point of changing the height limit? |
Plenty of cities with buildings that big have "soul" Rosslyns problem is excessively wide roads. |
LOL you do not even know what you are talking about. |
You mean like from K street? You people are shrill and I bet you do not even live in the city. Continue to spread the fear that the mall will be lined with huge skyscrapers! Oh the terror of the development! The truth is there are areas in the city that should have the arbitrary height limit removed. It is stupid and restricts the development, affordability housing, initiative design and urban planing. The city could require developers to incorporate green infrastructure and public spaces into the development. Let’s face you want to see a fake Disney city...like those streetcar tracks in Georgetown. |
There was a recent, deeply written article on SF and how horrible it's become with its "growth" and how everyone pretty much hates it and is miserable. I'm happy to "look out" and put the brakes on this growth. To what end? DC is vibrant and has good balance right now. We have a built in employer (FEDS) and some nice pop ups. All neighborhoods wi eventually be "discovered" and we should "look out" for really thoughtful, human scale development that is mixed income and win win. We should continue to improve mass transit. Let the tech and high rises go to the suburbs. Too bad SF didnt do this. Sure they'd a like a do over. |
Vibrant? Are you f'ing kidding me? This town is dead. It's mired in mediocrity. Please...you have no idea what the word means. |
"human scale" = build it somewhere else. Face it, we either keep paving over arable land for tract housing, or we get serious about adding density where infrastructure and jobs already exist. It's pretty simple |
Without density you can not fund mass transit. Where do you think the money comes from? The two go hand in hand. Also who gives you the right to determine that DC should not have growth, tech jobs, etc? Talk privilege! |
"no one goes there anymore, its too crowded"
And be gentrified and become all white and UMC except for committed affordable housing. Is that the DC you want?
As noted, density supports transit, transit supports (and is justified) by density. L'Enfant Plaza is at the junction of FIVE metro lines. It is far from vibrant. Allowing taller denser buildings there seems like a no brainer to me.
There is already talk about SOME Amazon employees reverse commuting from DC.
Most tech employment in the Bay Area IS in the suburbs. They just ended up with lots of reverse commuting. While Arlington is more friendly to urbanist growth than most SF suburbs are, moving more employment growth there will mean demand in DC. I suppose you could hope for all tech growth to be out past Dulles. With lots of added sprawl, lots more auto trips, lots more green house gases. It might preserve your quiet block in DC, at the expense of the region and the planet. |
People who buy in the outer suburbs are looking for a particular type of house with a nice fenced yard for kids and a dog, at a more reasonable price than closer in. It is not the same demographic as would rent or buy in some upscale flat above a CAVA in DC. The notion that DC needs to be massively upznned to prevent suburban sprawl is a red herring. |
|
"As noted, density supports transit, transit supports (and is justified) by density. L'Enfant Plaza is at the junction of FIVE metro lines. It is far from vibrant. Allowing taller denser buildings there seems like a no brainer to me."
Some of the buildings at L'Enfant Plaza (including by IM Pei) are landmarked. Also, there's a lot of density that has been added just south at the wharf, which is perhaps the largest construction project on the East Coast. Tall buildings at L'Enfant would certainly impact the vistas to and from the Mall and the monumental core. |
There are townhouses and apts in the outer suburbs. And there are definitely people who compare a bigger house in the outer suburbs to staying in a TH or even apt in DC - you see that in the RE forum often. Regional real estate markets are connected. The less there is in transit oriented development in DC and close in suburbs with good transit, the less development there will be at the edge. People have to live somewhere. (also more development near transit in DC makes locations in the suburbs near transit more desirable relative to places away from transit) |
Some are landmarked, some are not. There have been new buildings there recently, which due to height limits and zoning have missed the opportunity to add more density. The Wharf units are NOT as close to L'Enfant Plaza station where the 5 metro stations are. That is (one reason) why there is so much auto traffic to and from them. I believe that that taller buildings could be managed to limit impact on vistas. Planning office would need to show that when changing heights on particular parcels. |
Prices control everything. If we could have an affordable 3BR condo in the city, we wouldn't necessarily be living in the suburbs. But I'm not going to pay these current DC prices |
You must not get outside DC much. Except for government agencies, law firms and some trade associations and nonprofits, the job action (especially in the tech and corporate sectors) is mostly in the Washigton suburbs. |