Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"no one goes there anymore, its too crowded"

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 be gentrified and become all white and UMC except for committed affordable housing. Is that the DC you want?

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.

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.

Let the tech and high rises go to the suburbs.

There is already talk about SOME Amazon employees reverse commuting from DC.

Too bad SF didnt do this.

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.

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

No developer is going to build many "affordable" 3BR condos in the city, height limit or not. Even in new luxury projects today, where 3 BR units could command a premium, developers all follow the same model: studio, I BR and 1 BR with "den", all aimed at the young-professional market segment, disposable income and no kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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.

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.

Ten or twelve years ago, the DC Office of Planning was considered an 'honest broker' known for its unsalted expertise. But now it's viewed as an advocate for the mayor's agenda, which is basically the pro-development agenda. Heck, the current director is a regular contributor to Greater Greater Washington. He also did his graduate thesis on eliminating the height restriction in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

I love being able to see the washington monument from almost anywhere in the city

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.

"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

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.

Mostly drawn to locations near metro, increasingly to close in locations. Look at Amazon, which chose Crystal City, close to the center of DC, with good transit and with bike lanes. The same issue comes up - more density in areas nearby - Arlington, Alexandria, and yes, DC, or more sprawl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"no one goes there anymore, its too crowded"

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 be gentrified and become all white and UMC except for committed affordable housing. Is that the DC you want?

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.

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.

Let the tech and high rises go to the suburbs.

There is already talk about SOME Amazon employees reverse commuting from DC.

Too bad SF didnt do this.

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.

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

No developer is going to build many "affordable" 3BR condos in the city, height limit or not. Even in new luxury projects today, where 3 BR units could command a premium, developers all follow the same model: studio, I BR and 1 BR with "den", all aimed at the young-professional market segment, disposable income and no kids.

There are more single person households than there are existing studios and 1BRs. Single people solve their affordability problem, often, by sharing existing older, 3BR apts and houses. Outbidding families. As long as that is the case smaller units will rent for a premium, and developers will build them. Allow MORE studios and 1BR's and you released more of the larger units for folks who really want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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.

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.

Ten or twelve years ago, the DC Office of Planning was considered an 'honest broker' known for its unsalted expertise. But now it's viewed as an advocate for the mayor's agenda, which is basically the pro-development agenda. Heck, the current director is a regular contributor to Greater Greater Washington. He also did his graduate thesis on eliminating the height restriction in DC.

So someone who is actually qualified, great. But you are incorrect, people smeared Harriet Tregoning as well. They decried Fenty for catering to "yuppies".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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.

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.

Ten or twelve years ago, the DC Office of Planning was considered an 'honest broker' known for its unsalted expertise. But now it's viewed as an advocate for the mayor's agenda, which is basically the pro-development agenda. Heck, the current director is a regular contributor to Greater Greater Washington. He also did his graduate thesis on eliminating the height restriction in DC.

Link? I see a forum GGWash did with him, but not regular contributions. You mean financial contributions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

I love being able to see the washington monument from almost anywhere in the city

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.

Mmmm I'm pretty sure I know what "vibrant" means. If you turn DC into NY or SF, there wont be a DC. Do you clamor for Brussels and Geneva to "become" Tokyo and London?

[Anonymous]

We need higher density housing. Too bad for our cute houses and yards. Greater good, and all that.

Read the piece in the NYT about Democrats creating barriers for better access to housing and thus exacerbating inequalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"no one goes there anymore, its too crowded"

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 be gentrified and become all white and UMC except for committed affordable housing. Is that the DC you want?

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.

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.

Let the tech and high rises go to the suburbs.

There is already talk about SOME Amazon employees reverse commuting from DC.

Too bad SF didnt do this.

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.

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

No developer is going to build many "affordable" 3BR condos in the city, height limit or not. Even in new luxury projects today, where 3 BR units could command a premium, developers all follow the same model: studio, I BR and 1 BR with "den", all aimed at the young-professional market segment, disposable income and no kids.

There are more single person households than there are existing studios and 1BRs. Single people solve their affordability problem, often, by sharing existing older, 3BR apts and houses. Outbidding families. As long as that is the case smaller units will rent for a premium, and developers will build them. Allow MORE studios and 1BR's and you released more of the larger units for folks who really want them.

This is not what happens. Young people move into 3 and 4 bedrooms because they can’t afford their own one bedroom or studio.

[Anonymous]

Great idea. Hope it happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

I love being able to see the washington monument from almost anywhere in the city

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.

Mmmm I'm pretty sure I know what "vibrant" means. If you turn DC into NY or SF, there wont be a DC. Do you clamor for Brussels and Geneva to "become" Tokyo and London?

I'm Parisian and yes, DC is very provincial and the opposite of vibrant. Brussels and Geneva, sleepy as they are, are more awake than DC, and there is an immensity of solutions between those and Tokyo, which I also know very well. Tokyo and London are demographically world apart, BTW. Lumping the two together takes away all your credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

I love being able to see the washington monument from almost anywhere in the city

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.

Mmmm I'm pretty sure I know what "vibrant" means. If you turn DC into NY or SF, there wont be a DC. Do you clamor for Brussels and Geneva to "become" Tokyo and London?

I'm Parisian and yes, DC is very provincial and the opposite of vibrant. Brussels and Geneva, sleepy as they are, are more awake than DC, and there is an immensity of solutions between those and Tokyo, which I also know very well. Tokyo and London are demographically world apart, BTW. Lumping the two together takes away all your credibility.

They are examples of cities you may consider "vibrant" enough. I dont think you have any of how self congratulatory your comments come off, so I'll leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We need higher density housing. Too bad for our cute houses and yards. Greater good, and all that.

Read the piece in the NYT about Democrats creating barriers for better access to housing and thus exacerbating inequalities.

The biggest cause of exacerbating inequalities is sloth.

[Anonymous]

Is there a vote on this? I'm definitely against removing the height restriction and want to make sure I have a say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a vote on this? I'm definitely against removing the height restriction and want to make sure I have a say.

Ha! If this moves forward, the Bowser Admin is likely to do it as “emergency legislation,” meaning rushed hearings and process.