Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Skyscrapers surrounding national parks is generally a bad idea.

Um. Have you MET San Francisco?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skyscrapers surrounding national parks is generally a bad idea.

Really? Why exactly?

Would you rather those National Parks be bulldozed so they can be replaced with more 8-11 story mid rise office or residential buildings? Would that be a better outcome?

Or perhaps you'd like to expand the exurbs even more? Push even farther out into the countryside to make rooms for more houses so people can have 2 hour commutes to downtown? Yeah great idea!



Or, how about we build taller buildings, put more people in them, and then they don't need a car AT ALL.

Central Park is surrounded by tall buildings, and it's doing just fine. Our parks here will, too.

It's not just fine. The surrounding buildings have neighbors.fighting each othe over "sun rights". Theres not a tree in sight outside of the park. You really need to keep up.

^^Thank you, PP! Why do posters want to compare DC to NYC? NYC is not doing so great and if you prefer it to DC then just move there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique. While we are rat infested, we are not a rat infested styles Gotham. She is proposing going after height limits again. After how she and the council pushed through the shelter plan with little public comment or regard for existing zoning requirements no doubt she will push through this short sighted but irreversible change. If she likes, she can go run for mayor in New York. Her proposal shows zero respect for my hometown of DC.

F--k charming and unique if people on MC incomes can no longer afford to live within a city.

Your attitude doesn't change the basic tenets of supply and demand, bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to bring housing costs down is to build more densely. That means building higher.

Shrug. It’s the only option. We have to build higher.

No developer is going to build tall affordable housing. Ask the folks in New York and San Francisco how that theory is planning out.

In fact, by tearing down older class B and C apartment buildings in Upper NW which have a lot of rent controlled units to build luxury buildings, the stock of affordable housing will be reduced.

A. There are already inclusionary zoning requirements on new developments, so yeah, there is tall AH

B. If you want to you could make specific AH requirements as a condition of building above the old height limit

C. Adding total supply of even luxury new units, will draw people who might otherwise have gentrified a poor or transitional neighborhood.

D. If you want specific protections for older rent controlled units, you can add those. Or only allow more height on specified parcels that do not have existing apts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

In Cleveland Park we call our neighborhood “the village in the city.” And we want to keep that green, walkable community character.

I don't agree that slightly taller buildings in CP would harm walkability, but if that is a concern, just don't make CP eligible for taller buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/05/10/bowser-ready-to-explore-d-c-height-limit-changes.html

Read and weep.

A. That article has no quotes indicating she is proposing raising the height limit. Rather she wants office of planinng to explore many options - which can certainly include upzonings - there are many parts of DC where regular zoning (floor area ratio limits, etc) are binding, the district wide height limit does not matter.

B. Before addressing the height limit, the office of planning would need to do a build out analysis, to determine who much building can still occur without altering the height limit. They did one back in 2012, the last time this came up. However critics said the analysis was not thorough enough, and in particular, IIRC, did not fully explore all potential upzonings.

C. That said, there are plenty of places where buildings above the current height limit would not materially change the look of the historic parts of DC. For one, you could raise it in areas near the MoCo line, where there are already taller buildings nearby on the Md side of the line. Or you could allow taller buildings in some place like L'Enfant Plaza, where I have difficulty seeing the harm.

I am no big fan of Bowser and like the current height limits, but I'd grudgingly be open to changing them once other options are exhausted. The middle class is being squeezed out, and we need increased density if we want to keep middle class families in the city. No bearing on me personally (we have good salaries), but I don't want DC to become a city of rich and poor only, with no middle class that includes [b]teachers, nurses, etc. Some of my child's teachers with families have had to commute from quite far away, and I'd prefer they have more options in the city.
[/b]

Please Google DC homebuyer assistance for first time homebuyers - specific programs are available for low income as well as ALL DC government workers including teachers and first responders. Personally know two teachers who have bought beautiful townhomes in transitional neighborhoods (ie they got a deal) and now their homes have appreciated .

Transitional neightborhoods end up, er, transitioned at some point. Which will happen faster after neighborhoods like Navy Yard and NoMa, which are absorbing a lot of the demand now, are built out.

The New York Avenue corridor ceremony isn’t built out.

But of course developers could get much higher margins if they could build tall in Georgetown and Logan Circle. That’s what this is all about, folks.

NY Avenue corridor is not built out. Yet. Though development IS already happening there. When Navy YD and NoMa are built out development will accelerate in the NY Ave corridor. This is why I suggest a build out analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think taller buildings are necessary. What needs to happen is increased density in close-in neighborhoods. My neighborhood is zoned R-20, as are many very desirable parts of DC that are close to public transport and walkable amenities.

What does R-20 stipulate? It requires that homes remain single family; they cannot be subdivided into separately titled units. Similar zoning code types can be found throughout the city. The same issue plagues inner MoCo areas like Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where there is high demand for housing but NIMBY'ist zoning policies prevent the subdivision of lots or building multi-unit apartment-style housing (even if high end).

Before we build skyscrapers, I suggested the Council further explore the expansion and sub-division of existing plats.

1. I agree that a real build out analysis needs to reflect possible upzonings

2. But it needs to be politically realistic. "We will build mid rises in every neighborhood that is currently detached SFHs" is not politically realistic.

3. Raising the height act does not necessarily mean skyscrapers.

4. Each new building that is built AT the current height limit is a lost opportunity.

That's her vision. Read the article. She wants every ward to address affordable housing and the solution she suggests is high rises. Logic would infer, high rises for every ward.

Revising the height act is only possibility. Wards that do not get higher heights than are possible under the current limit, could get more units, and more AH, in other ways.

[Anonymous]

How about focusing on the public transport greenies love and building in the suburbs which could use a renewal/revival?

More public transit is definitely a good idea. But very expensive. It can be part of the solution, but cannot be the only solution.

There are a million programs and options for homebuying for DC government workers in this city, and tons of subsidies for low income.

Nonetheless low income and lower middle income people face great and growing challenges finding adequate housing.

Do you realize that the current housing voucher is well above market value?

Market value in the few remaining non gentrified neighborhoods EOTR? But those will likely be gentrified as well.

DC doesnt have a special obligation to draw and house every low income person in the reinstate area.

Which is why its good that Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax all have programs for committed AH, and most of the suburban jurisdictions (all?) are creating more new market rate apts. But DC needs to do its share as well, esp as many of these low income people were born in DC.

We dont have the infrastructure for that, or the taxpayer base.

DC has the strongest finances of any local jurisdiction, I think. And since the number of low income people in DC is not increasing, not sure what the infra issue is? You mean infra for more total population? But they pay taxes and can help fund infra.

However, there are still plenty of areas to find affordable housing or build without going higher - Anacostia is lovely and the true suburb in the city. Have you ever visited? Rolling hills and bungalows. Maybe the hipsters should put their mt. Pleasant group homes there and bring in the coffee shops?

Bus Boys and Poets has already opened there. There are definitely young upper middle class people moving there - the more hip to historic Anacostia, the less hip to other neighborhoods. And that is certainly making Anacostia less affordable for a lower middle class AA family trying to buy.

Anyhow - its a tiny city with a tiny footprint.

Aggravated by limits on density (and in particular on height) that make no sense.

There is zero need for high rise in DC which is basically "the heart" of a massive tristate city.

Isnt the heart of a massive region the logical place for high rises?

The surrounding suburbs dont have the same height rules, so go live there.

Actually Crystal City and Rosslyn have height rules, imposed by the FAA. But yeah there is room for more density in the suburbs - but just as in DC, it takes battles with NIMBYs to get that. And of course for people who work in DC, living in the suburbs will mean more and longer car trips (even from those locations with good transit, which is hardly all of them)

Good thing Congress runs this city so Bowser has no hope. Viva Congress!

When Rep Issa was chair of the relevant committee, he was interested in changing the height limit. Not sure what the politics in the congress are now. Don't assume Congress would stop a good proposal for change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How about focusing on the public transport greenies love and building in the suburbs which could use a renewal/revival?

More public transit is definitely a good idea. But very expensive. It can be part of the solution, but cannot be the only solution.

There are a million programs and options for homebuying for DC government workers in this city, and tons of subsidies for low income.

Nonetheless low income and lower middle income people face great and growing challenges finding adequate housing.

Do you realize that the current housing voucher is well above market value?

Market value in the few remaining non gentrified neighborhoods EOTR? But those will likely be gentrified as well.

DC doesnt have a special obligation to draw and house every low income person in the reinstate area.

Which is why its good that Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax all have programs for committed AH, and most of the suburban jurisdictions (all?) are creating more new market rate apts. But DC needs to do its share as well, esp as many of these low income people were born in DC.

We dont have the infrastructure for that, or the taxpayer base.

DC has the strongest finances of any local jurisdiction, I think. And since the number of low income people in DC is not increasing, not sure what the infra issue is? You mean infra for more total population? But they pay taxes and can help fund infra.

However, there are still plenty of areas to find affordable housing or build without going higher - Anacostia is lovely and the true suburb in the city. Have you ever visited? Rolling hills and bungalows. Maybe the hipsters should put their mt. Pleasant group homes there and bring in the coffee shops?

Bus Boys and Poets has already opened there. There are definitely young upper middle class people moving there - the more hip to historic Anacostia, the less hip to other neighborhoods. And that is certainly making Anacostia less affordable for a lower middle class AA family trying to buy.

Anyhow - its a tiny city with a tiny footprint.

Aggravated by limits on density (and in particular on height) that make no sense.

There is zero need for high rise in DC which is basically "the heart" of a massive tristate city.

Isnt the heart of a massive region the logical place for high rises?

The surrounding suburbs dont have the same height rules, so go live there.

Actually Crystal City and Rosslyn have height rules, imposed by the FAA. But yeah there is room for more density in the suburbs - but just as in DC, it takes battles with NIMBYs to get that. And of course for people who work in DC, living in the suburbs will mean more and longer car trips (even from those locations with good transit, which is hardly all of them)

Good thing Congress runs this city so Bowser has no hope. Viva Congress!

When Rep Issa was chair of the relevant committee, he was interested in changing the height limit. Not sure what the politics in the congress are now. Don't assume Congress would stop a good proposal for change.

NY has height and tons of people still commute into the city. Why are cities obligated to house everyone who wants to live in them - especially one with a tiny footprint like ours, that was originally envisioned not to even have residents, in which essentially PG country, Chevy Chase, Arlington etc are interwoven extensions of our city? They work here, we work there.... Anacostia is a total untapped suburb too. There are plenty of ways to smart grow dc and the tristate by creating different kinds of zones and feels . Bowser's vision of a post apolocalyptic concrete jungle DC of skyscrapers throughout all 4 wards is not what people want. They want lifestyle choices. That's why some want to live here in the first place (and some dont).

[Anonymous]

NY has height and tons of people still commute into the city.

1. NY has a LOT more jobs than DC has. 2. The goal is not to have NO ONE commuting into the District, but to not force more people to do so.


Why are cities obligated to house everyone who wants to live in them -

Never said they were. Just that an arbitrary limit on housing that forces more people out, is a bad thing.


especially one with a tiny footprint like ours,

I am not sure why the number of acres in the District is relevant to the height limit. How does fewer acres make it more difficult to have buildings a few stories taller than now allowed?

that was originally envisioned not to even have residents, [/quo
Er what? There were residents in the District BEFORE it was the federal district (in Georgetown mostly) The L'Enfant plan envisioned more people living in the District. That is why it planned far more streets than were needed for federal buildings.

in which essentially PG country, Chevy Chase, Arlington etc are interwoven extensions of our city? They work here, we work there.

Yes, and all those places AND DC need to contribute to dealing with the regional housing shortage. DC in particular is worried about displacement of long time DC residents.

... Anacostia is a total untapped suburb too.

Untapped? Plentyh of people live there now.

There are plenty of ways to smart grow dc and the tristate by creating different kinds of zones and feels . Bowser's vision of a post apolocalyptic concrete jungle DC of skyscrapers

Er without seeing a proposal - how much height (could just add a few stories to the current limit) or how widespread (you could just do it in a few selected places) how can you say that? Its very much a straw man. BTW, who calls it the tristate? Its either the DMV or greater Washington. Are you from NYC?

throughout all 4 wards is not what people want.

DC has 8 wards. You really are not from DC, are you?

They want lifestyle choices.

I don't see how the height limit is needed for that. Lots of cities that do not have height limits still have lifestyle choices.

.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NY has height and tons of people still commute into the city.

1. NY has a LOT more jobs than DC has. 2. The goal is not to have NO ONE commuting into the District, but to not force more people to do so.


Why are cities obligated to house everyone who wants to live in them -

Never said they were. Just that an arbitrary limit on housing that forces more people out, is a bad thing.


especially one with a tiny footprint like ours,

I am not sure why the number of acres in the District is relevant to the height limit. How does fewer acres make it more difficult to have buildings a few stories taller than now allowed?

that was originally envisioned not to even have residents, [/quo
Er what? There were residents in the District BEFORE it was the federal district (in Georgetown mostly) The L'Enfant plan envisioned more people living in the District. That is why it planned far more streets than were needed for federal buildings.

in which essentially PG country, Chevy Chase, Arlington etc are interwoven extensions of our city? They work here, we work there.

Yes, and all those places AND DC need to contribute to dealing with the regional housing shortage. DC in particular is worried about displacement of long time DC residents.

... Anacostia is a total untapped suburb too.

Untapped? Plentyh of people live there now.

There are plenty of ways to smart grow dc and the tristate by creating different kinds of zones and feels . Bowser's vision of a post apolocalyptic concrete jungle DC of skyscrapers

Er without seeing a proposal - how much height (could just add a few stories to the current limit) or how widespread (you could just do it in a few selected places) how can you say that? Its very much a straw man. BTW, who calls it the tristate? Its either the DMV or greater Washington. Are you from NYC?

throughout all 4 wards is not what people want.

DC has 8 wards. You really are not from DC, are you?

They want lifestyle choices.

I don't see how the height limit is needed for that. Lots of cities that do not have height limits still have lifestyle choices.

.

My point is that essentially, because of it's small size and original design of the founders, the suburbs are part of DC AND serve its housing needs. They also have no height restrictions, so... win-win. There is no cap on housing in the city. Its growing . But why should there be an artificial expectation that every person who wants to live in the city can, as you say?

[Anonymous]

Also, if you wish to help teachers first responders etc give them the right to enroll their child in the closest public school to their workplace. Hammer out reciprocity with the suburbs where they reside. This would be an absolute boon to them, or at least to those who dont take advantage of the DC homebuying programs designed just for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My point is that essentially, because of it's small size and original design of the founders, the suburbs are part of DC AND serve its housing needs. They also have no height restrictions, so... win-win. There is no cap on housing in the city. Its growing . But why should there be an artificial expectation that every person who wants to live in the city can, as you say?

Yes, the suburbs are part of the DC region. With almost 800,000 jobs in DC, DC's population would have to be like 1.5 million at least to account for children, elderly and others not in the labor force - and thats assuming zero reverse commuters.

But that does not mean housing in DC is adequate. Its not. As can be seen by high rents/prices, and continued gentrification. And that is WITH large scale commuting (commuting that leads to dangers on DC streets, I might add)

Again, its not true that there are no height restrictions or other zoning limits in the suburbs. but not sure why thats relevant. Even if you could make room for everyone in the suburbs - that would mean more commuting - more pollution and danger. More people with long commutes when people prefer short ones. And a more economically homogeneous District, as it would be the poor and lower middles forced out.

When a little bit more height can avert some of that.

As for no cap, again that is why you do a build out analysis. Eventually there will be a cap.

You could wait till that point is reached to change the height limit. But buildings are long lived and expernsive to tear down and replace.

If today you replace a parking lot with a 15 story buildings and in the future you want a 20 story building instead, it may not be economical to replace the 15 story building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

In Cleveland Park we call our neighborhood “the village in the city.” And we want to keep that green, walkable community character.

Cleveland Park is a bunch of old, rude, grumpy white people. It’s not a village, but it did have a lot of idiots.

And you are an ageist racist idiot -- great to hear you live somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.