Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to start with looking at low hanging fruit, like underutilized land. Doing away with historical designations and upzoning DuPont, Logan Circle and Capitol Hill would have a much bigger impact. It’s also more climate friendly. Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

I assume you are referencing this study which came out last year:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

If so, you should know that this study has very serious limitations. One big one is that it doesn't attempt to account for differences in transportation or transportation infrastructure associated with different building methods. Higher density makes it economical to provide more extensive public transportation, and that gets people out of cars, reducing carbon emissions. Plus, commuting and other activities at high density typically require shorter travel distances, which reduces emissions regardless of the transportation method used.

A second is that it assumes a constant lifespan for buildings of 60 years regardless of the materials or methods used. High density buildings may be renovated or re-skinned, but the vast majority of skyscrapers are still standing, even ones over 100 years old. Lower buildings tend to have significantly shorter lifespans, which substantially offsets the higher fixed emissions costs associated with building taller buildings.

You realize that there are actual climate scientists here, right? The concensus findings of AR5 are that you have no clue what you talking about. I do find it funny that you have decided to come on the internet anonymously to larp as an expert.

I'll admit that I'm an economist, not a climate scientist by training, and there's surely literature on this topic that I'm not familiar with. Maybe I'm not the kind of expert you're looking for. But I have a PhD, know how to read papers, and I'm well trained in thinking about explicit and implicit costs. I'm not larping, thanks.

I read and remembered this paper because it got a bunch of popular press at the time it was released last year. The points I made are valid, the authors clearly call them out in the text.

If you want to provide a lit review, I'm all ears. I took a spin through the Buildings Chapter of AR5 and I see relatively little that talks about building height. There is some discussion of the role of compactness in reducing heating loads, and of roof surface area in installing photovoltaic cells.

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

Nope, this is horrible idea. The DC skyline with the monuments is what makes the city distinct. Look at Rosslyn and how junky all those tall buildings look. No way does DC need that. Plus legally there is a height limit, as well as limit on how close to the river you can build.

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).

Anonymous wrote:Better to start with looking at low hanging fruit, like underutilized land. Doing away with historical designations and upzoning DuPont, Logan Circle and Capitol Hill would have a much bigger impact. It’s also more climate friendly. Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

Ending the historic designations would do more for increasing density where it’s needed than anything else that people talk about. But it’s something that the GGW set refuse to bring up. I’m not sure why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to start with looking at low hanging fruit, like underutilized land. Doing away with historical designations and upzoning DuPont, Logan Circle and Capitol Hill would have a much bigger impact. It’s also more climate friendly. Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

I assume you are referencing this study which came out last year:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

If so, you should know that this study has very serious limitations. One big one is that it doesn't attempt to account for differences in transportation or transportation infrastructure associated with different building methods. Higher density makes it economical to provide more extensive public transportation, and that gets people out of cars, reducing carbon emissions. Plus, commuting and other activities at high density typically require shorter travel distances, which reduces emissions regardless of the transportation method used.

A second is that it assumes a constant lifespan for buildings of 60 years regardless of the materials or methods used. High density buildings may be renovated or re-skinned, but the vast majority of skyscrapers are still standing, even ones over 100 years old. Lower buildings tend to have significantly shorter lifespans, which substantially offsets the higher fixed emissions costs associated with building taller buildings.

You realize that there are actual climate scientists here, right? The concensus findings of AR5 are that you have no clue what you talking about. I do find it funny that you have decided to come on the internet anonymously to larp as an expert.

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.

They can be significantly taller without scrapping the overall height limit.

Oh, so by housing you mean luxury condos. Not all the actual and currently available affordable housing ALL over the city. We see you Density Bro!

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

oh good god. If no one wants to live in DC because the sun is blotted out, it will be plenty affordable. Think bigger.

Before scrapping the height limit, Hausmann-Ize ward 3

No more sfh in ward three

Only Parisian styled mid rises

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.

They can be significantly taller without scrapping the overall height limit.

I'd much rather rein in historic preservation. That gets weaponized by NIMBY's on some truly unspectacular pieces of property.

The height limit helps stabilize property values in DC as it limits the potential for new construction. If say a 100-story high-rise were to be built, it could increase supply substantially, causing inventory to soar and values of existing properties to decline. It might not affect SF homes directly, but it would have a major impact on office and condos.

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.

I'm not sure that the Height limit should be scrapped entirely, but it should be relaxed and revised. I think my ideal version would be something like a 250-300 foot height limit inside most of the old city, with a lower limit by right and the ability to purchase height credits from neighboring buildings that don't go taller to get to the full limit. That way, we get more density but also get away from the uniform boxy architecture that we have now.

Outside the old city, there should be no limit in commercial zones, and the District should identify and develop a business district similar to La Defense or East London. Poplar Point would be a good candidate for this, although as I recall some of the land has already been dedicated for specific projects.

We have a high office vacancy rate, but that only tells part of the story. Our downtown office rents are unusually high for a city of our size, second only to Manhattan last I checked. 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. It's pretty well suited to government agencies, medium to large law firms and consultants that want to be close to those agencies, and to smaller regional offices, but that's about it. Finding a way to relax the height limit is important to diversifying and strengthening our economy.

Anonymous wrote:Better to start with looking at low hanging fruit, like underutilized land. Doing away with historical designations and upzoning DuPont, Logan Circle and Capitol Hill would have a much bigger impact. It’s also more climate friendly. Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

I assume you are referencing this study which came out last year:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

If so, you should know that this study has very serious limitations. One big one is that it doesn't attempt to account for differences in transportation or transportation infrastructure associated with different building methods. Higher density makes it economical to provide more extensive public transportation, and that gets people out of cars, reducing carbon emissions. Plus, commuting and other activities at high density typically require shorter travel distances, which reduces emissions regardless of the transportation method used.

A second is that it assumes a constant lifespan for buildings of 60 years regardless of the materials or methods used. High density buildings may be renovated or re-skinned, but the vast majority of skyscrapers are still standing, even ones over 100 years old. Lower buildings tend to have significantly shorter lifespans, which substantially offsets the higher fixed emissions costs associated with building taller buildings.