Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, so many people convinced the sky is falling without stopping to think about how it would actually work out in the real world:

1. DC isn't going to become New York overnight without the height limit, we simply don't have to demand or population to fill that many high rises. The tall buildings would go downtown and maybe a few dotted around popular Metro stations. Anyone complaining about "buildings blocking out the light" has absolutely nothing to worry about unless they currently live within the central downtown area.


2. Anyone worried about property values falling also has absolutely nothing to worry about. This is Bowser we're talking about. Anything she supports has already been workshopped with and approved by a dozen developers and if it was going to lower their property values they would have nixed it long ago.

Agreed. Washington will just look like some middling' Midwestern city with some unremarkable tall buildings scattered here and there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support raising the height limit responsibly, but it feels like there's seriously no creativity or foresight

- Increasing the height limit _reduces_ pressure on neighborhoods outside the core like Cleveland Park (to take the prior example), it doesn't increase it. That's because taller buildings can substitute for the ever-expanding sea of 12 story boxes downtown that we currently have, and that threatens to engulf nearby neighborhoods. And, we still have all the zoning tools to ensure that historic structures remain.
- Increased density downtown will also help to make most of the area more useful to residents for something other than workplaces.
Downtown would easily support better shopping, better restaurants, etc if the height limit hadn't bid up rents so much.
- Increased density downtown would reduce the number of firms locating in far flung suburbs that leads to truly terrible commutes for two-income households.
- Increased density downtown would increase the tax base that can be used to pay for social services and affordable housing for poorer residents.

I get that people want to maintain the character of the city, but there are lots of ways that loosening the height limit can be done to maintain that. For example, buildings over the old limit could require additional design review. Or, we could make FARs tradable, so that a building that wants to go higher can only do so by purchasing the rights from a nearby building that then won't go as high. Take a look at Boston (I think a better analogue than NY by far). New tall buildings there are still contentious at times, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that the charm of Beacon Hill or the Back Bay has been destroyed by the tall buildings nearby. Instead, the buildings help make those places more vibrant.

On a related note, folks have noted the NY Ave. corridor as a place that has lots of surplus capacity for building. Fair, but most of NY Ave also has little to no transit access. Until that's fixed, there's no way that space can be fully developed. That's true of the majority of useable spaces in the city at this point.

Not true. The reason that many firms locate outside DC is because that those locations are convenient to their execs and workers and they don't see the benefit of paying higher taxes and dealing with less business friendly government. Economics are a factor for some firms in the suburbs, but they would be unlikely to locate in taller buildings in DC in any event.

Washington's "brand" is the prominence of its monuments, the long vistas, the open sky unencumbered by tall shadows, the human scale. That's a huge selling point to attract businesses and residents to the city. Lose that, and we're just another second-tier US downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Um. Have you MET San Francisco?

What was San Francisco thinking when they approved the fat middle finger called the Salesforce Tower. Not elegant architecture at all, but rather a blob on the horizon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. But I have the feeling that those who want to make Washington into New York couldn't make it in New York themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's let certain buildings exceed the height limit by a modest margin only if they are rent controlled housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. But I have the feeling that those who want to make Washington into New York couldn't make it in New York themselves.

God so true . This say everything about DC. But since we are NOT NY, let's let DC be what it is good at - DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support raising the height limit responsibly, but it feels like there's seriously no creativity or foresight

- Increasing the height limit _reduces_ pressure on neighborhoods outside the core like Cleveland Park (to take the prior example), it doesn't increase it. That's because taller buildings can substitute for the ever-expanding sea of 12 story boxes downtown that we currently have, and that threatens to engulf nearby neighborhoods. And, we still have all the zoning tools to ensure that historic structures remain.
- Increased density downtown will also help to make most of the area more useful to residents for something other than workplaces.
Downtown would easily support better shopping, better restaurants, etc if the height limit hadn't bid up rents so much.
- Increased density downtown would reduce the number of firms locating in far flung suburbs that leads to truly terrible commutes for two-income households.
- Increased density downtown would increase the tax base that can be used to pay for social services and affordable housing for poorer residents.

I get that people want to maintain the character of the city, but there are lots of ways that loosening the height limit can be done to maintain that. For example, buildings over the old limit could require additional design review. Or, we could make FARs tradable, so that a building that wants to go higher can only do so by purchasing the rights from a nearby building that then won't go as high. Take a look at Boston (I think a better analogue than NY by far). New tall buildings there are still contentious at times, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that the charm of Beacon Hill or the Back Bay has been destroyed by the tall buildings nearby. Instead, the buildings help make those places more vibrant.

On a related note, folks have noted the NY Ave. corridor as a place that has lots of surplus capacity for building. Fair, but most of NY Ave also has little to no transit access. Until that's fixed, there's no way that space can be fully developed. That's true of the majority of useable spaces in the city at this point.

Not true. The reason that many firms locate outside DC is because that those locations are convenient to their execs and workers and they don't see the benefit of paying higher taxes and dealing with less business friendly government. Economics are a factor for some firms in the suburbs, but they would be unlikely to locate in taller buildings in DC in any event.

Washington's "brand" is the prominence of its monuments, the long vistas, the open sky unencumbered by tall shadows, the human scale. That's a huge selling point to attract businesses and residents to the city. Lose that, and we're just another second-tier US downtown.

I call bullshit.

- Execs live in Kalorama now
- In virtually every other tech industry hub in the country, that industry has is largely moving back into the city. That includes New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle, none of which are exactly known for their business-friendly policies. If downtown office space prices weren't totally distorted by the height limit, the same would be true here as well.
- Actually, the same is true here as well. Remember that Forbes opinion piece that was convinced that Amazon was just dying to put HQ2 in Oatlands? Yeah, there's a reason that guy looks ridiculous now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support raising the height limit responsibly, but it feels like there's seriously no creativity or foresight

- Increasing the height limit _reduces_ pressure on neighborhoods outside the core like Cleveland Park (to take the prior example), it doesn't increase it. That's because taller buildings can substitute for the ever-expanding sea of 12 story boxes downtown that we currently have, and that threatens to engulf nearby neighborhoods. And, we still have all the zoning tools to ensure that historic structures remain.
- Increased density downtown will also help to make most of the area more useful to residents for something other than workplaces.
Downtown would easily support better shopping, better restaurants, etc if the height limit hadn't bid up rents so much.
- Increased density downtown would reduce the number of firms locating in far flung suburbs that leads to truly terrible commutes for two-income households.
- Increased density downtown would increase the tax base that can be used to pay for social services and affordable housing for poorer residents.

I get that people want to maintain the character of the city, but there are lots of ways that loosening the height limit can be done to maintain that. For example, buildings over the old limit could require additional design review. Or, we could make FARs tradable, so that a building that wants to go higher can only do so by purchasing the rights from a nearby building that then won't go as high. Take a look at Boston (I think a better analogue than NY by far). New tall buildings there are still contentious at times, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that the charm of Beacon Hill or the Back Bay has been destroyed by the tall buildings nearby. Instead, the buildings help make those places more vibrant.

On a related note, folks have noted the NY Ave. corridor as a place that has lots of surplus capacity for building. Fair, but most of NY Ave also has little to no transit access. Until that's fixed, there's no way that space can be fully developed. That's true of the majority of useable spaces in the city at this point.

Not true. The reason that many firms locate outside DC is because that those locations are convenient to their execs and workers and they don't see the benefit of paying higher taxes and dealing with less business friendly government. Economics are a factor for some firms in the suburbs, but they would be unlikely to locate in taller buildings in DC in any event.

Washington's "brand" is the prominence of its monuments, the long vistas, the open sky unencumbered by tall shadows, the human scale. That's a huge selling point to attract businesses and residents to the city. Lose that, and we're just another second-tier US downtown.

I call bullshit.

- Execs live in Kalorama now
- In virtually every other tech industry hub in the country, that industry has is largely moving back into the city. That includes New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle, none of which are exactly known for their business-friendly policies. If downtown office space prices weren't totally distorted by the height limit, the same would be true here as well.
- Actually, the same is true here as well. Remember that Forbes opinion piece that was convinced that Amazon was just dying to put HQ2 in Oatlands? Yeah, there's a reason that guy looks ridiculous now.

Well Amazon didn’t exactly choose the District, did it? Possibly because they had been warned about Bowser’s pay to play schemes

[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.

And yet, your neighborhood literally has a useless parking lot on top of a metro station for no good reason other than, because.

The building is historically protected as the result of a 1980s scheme to rebuild Cleveland Park like Van Ness, the hairy armpit of Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet, your neighborhood literally has a useless parking lot on top of a metro station for no good reason other than, because.

The building is historically protected as the result of a 1980s scheme to rebuild Cleveland Park like Van Ness, the hairy armpit of Ward 3.

There wasn't an actual scheme. It was scare mongering that has resulted in one of the worst land use to transportation examples in the world today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's let certain buildings exceed the height limit by a modest margin only if they are rent controlled housing.

Low rent high-rise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's let certain buildings exceed the height limit by a modest margin only if they are rent controlled housing.

That could be one approach. Though there are issues with all low income high rises. Another approach would be have a mixed income building with all the extra units created by adjusting the height limit be committed affordable housing. Lots of possibilities.