Scrapping the DC Height Limit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:aren't there areas in the city that are currently affordable? That is my impression. Why not work on better transport connectors, parks and amenities so that people want to live, you know, all over and not squashed on Wisconsin Avenue in a dark wind tunnel (density vision).

There are plenty of affordable housing units in DC and a ton more being built. The folks that say that there are not have tunnel vision about Ward 3 born of bitterness of the price tags

And lust for quick profit....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:aren't there areas in the city that are currently affordable? That is my impression. Why not work on better transport connectors, parks and amenities so that people want to live, you know, all over and not squashed on Wisconsin Avenue in a dark wind tunnel (density vision).

It really depends on what you mean by "affordable". Yes, there are rent-reduced apartments if you are low-income, but I remember reading something that said there was a very long wait-list for such units.

I think there's a bigger issue with units for your middle-income (for DC) people. Those making like $100K in HHI, with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, no, no, no. Dumb idea. The height restriction makes DC livable. Lots of places to build crappy condos still.

I agree. I love this city because we DON'T have towering buildings all over the place. If I wanted NY, I'd move to NY.

Developers, please stop tying to manufacture a crisis. Your desire to have a bigger bank account is not our problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before scrapping the height limit, Hausmann-Ize ward 3

No more sfh in ward three

Only Parisian styled mid rises

Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:aren't there areas in the city that are currently affordable? That is my impression. Why not work on better transport connectors, parks and amenities so that people want to live, you know, all over and not squashed on Wisconsin Avenue in a dark wind tunnel (density vision).

It really depends on what you mean by "affordable". Yes, there are rent-reduced apartments if you are low-income, but I remember reading something that said there was a very long wait-list for such units.

I think there's a bigger issue with units for your middle-income (for DC) people. Those making like $100K in HHI, with kids.

They just built a ton of new units along SD avenue very close to lots of great charter schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

Well the dirty secret is if the focus of politicians and developers and GGW-ers was on improving all the above, then there would be a lot more desirable neighborhoods and we wouldn't have to change height limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

Plenty of space on Metro these days. I don’t think traffic is a good reason not to build more housing — I don’t like traffic, either, but it’s pretty selfish to say no one else can live here because existing residents don’t want to deal with any inconvenience. And if enough new people move in, they’ll build more schools. Ostensibly my kids go to an overcrowded school, but their class sizes have all been smaller than mine were growing up in the Maryland suburbs, and I haven’t found class size to be a major problem for them anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, no, no, no. Dumb idea. The height restriction makes DC livable. Lots of places to build crappy condos still.

Sure if you can afford a three million dollar house in Cleveland park.

There’s nothing unlivable about having taller buildings that are better able to support restaurants, drugstores, bars, etc. you know how when you walk around in NY that are more restaurants and stores? That’s because their buildings are taller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could actually help with the lack of affordable housing in the city

Manhattan seems to be doing a remarkable job of adding affordable housing with virtually no height limitations. How about those new super-tall affordable housing skyscrapers? It should work like a charm in DC also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no, no, no. Dumb idea. The height restriction makes DC livable. Lots of places to build crappy condos still.

Sure if you can afford a three million dollar house in Cleveland park.

There’s nothing unlivable about having taller buildings that are better able to support restaurants, drugstores, bars, etc. you know how when you walk around in NY that are more restaurants and stores? That’s because their buildings are taller.

Ever notice how the DC Smart Growth lobby will throw just about anything against the wall (yet another of its connection to Trump World), to see what sticks. First we hear the bogus argument that raising the height limit and adding lots of dense, tall Development to DC neighborhoods will address affordable housing. Now the argument is that dense and tall will mean more restaurants, banks and CVS stores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is the only way to go. It is better for the environment and more density mean improvements in public transportation. Also we would see more free expression of buildings. Right now the only option is t build boxes to maximize return. It is such a shame that the nationals Capitol is an architecture waste land.

The “Nationals Capitol”? I was unaware that the team had tried to seize the building, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

Plenty of space on Metro these days. I don’t think traffic is a good reason not to build more housing — I don’t like traffic, either, but it’s pretty selfish to say no one else can live here because existing residents don’t want to deal with any inconvenience. And if enough new people move in, they’ll build more schools. Ostensibly my kids go to an overcrowded school, but their class sizes have all been smaller than mine were growing up in the Maryland suburbs, and I haven’t found class size to be a major problem for them anyway.

They'll build more schools? Where? Clearly you aren't even from around here.

[Anonymous]

“But, at the same time, downtown DC is a difficult place for large private sector firms to locate. They can't piece together a large headquarters space, and they run the risk of being unable to expand in the future because of the height limit.”

I have made significant lease decisions for my organization, having conducted extensive site searches across the DC and Arlington Fairfax and Montgomery counties. The statement above is largely bullshit. It is true that DC can be a difficult place for private sector firms to locate, but not for the reason stated above. It is because the District government is more bureaucratic and significantly less efficient than local governments, particularly in Northern Virginia. The District government also has shown less restraint in reflexively raising taxes. There is one additional reason (that “urbanists” won’t want to hear): the lack of reasonably affordable parking in DC. Companies listen to their employees and many, especially working parents, need the flexibility to drive to work.