Washington, DC's boom
I'm amazed at the number of cranes that can be seen rising above Washington, DC. I'm interested in the zoning which is allowing all this development to occur. I know there was a big rezoning change a could years back, but DC has been in its boom now for over a decade.
So what's the deal, DC members? Was there always a number of areas in the city that allowed 12+ floor buildings (prior to the 2016 zoning update) and the economic demand is pushing development to underdeveloped areas (like New York Ave near Gallaudet University)? Was there a series of minor zoning changes prior to 2016 that helped encourage all this development or was it always on the books? I'm really curious. WMATA still sucks, but I love the feel and vibe of the city. I'm a fan of density over height, and DC does this well. The height limit in DC forces developers to be more clever about the design of their buildings, maximizing light and views, efficiently using space, and being more welcoming to pedestrians that walk by. The thing that irks me about modern skyscrapers is that the base of the building may be entirely a lobby or other useless spaces. Developers/architects can hit their required square footage just by building up. I wish architects of modern skyscrapers would give their base or podium more thought. I'm wondering if there is something in zoning that can help. |
Ok sure I can talk about this. A few things to unpack:
Things to understand about DC: 1. DC has a downtown office market that's still growing. As the general world economy has shifted to requiring less office space, new office doesn't pencil in very many places. The DC region has a relatively strong office market, and downtown DC in particular is the strongest spot in it (suburbs except for Tysons are struggling). 2. DC's urban core is way too small for the region's population. Historically speaking, DC is smaller than cities like Philadelphia or Baltimore. There are fewer historic walkable neighborhoods to go around, and more demand for new people moving in. That results in more new construction, because there's less opportunity for the growth to be absorbed by existing rowhouses. And DC has more growth than most other highly urban cities. 3. The height limit pushes downtown growth outwards. Downtown DC is always expanding, because you can't go up. There are basically no undeveloped properties or above-ground parking lots in central DC. The land is already built, up to the max height allowed. But there's still demand for growth. So downtown constantly expands horizontally into adjacent neighborhoods, especially industrial ones that are comparatively easy to build in. The growth you see in NoMa (NY Ave near Gallaudet) and Navy Yard is essentially the outward expansion of downtown. It's growth that in other cities would be at least partially captured by replacing short downtown buildings with taller ones. 4. The height limit makes above-ground parking impractical. Most cities have surface parking lots and above-ground parking garages. With few exceptions, downtown DC and new construction anywhere in DC has neither. Most large buildings have underground parking lots, because the height limit puts above ground space at too much of a premium to be used for parking. This means the lower floors of DC's buildings are generally better than in most other cities. It also means DC buildings have fewer oversized lobbies than other cities (although DC has more than New York). 5. DC is comparatively willing/able to zone for meaningful transit oriented development. In most American cities, "zoning for TOD" means allowing 5 or 6 floors and maybe a little less parking. DC (including the suburbs) has been unusually willing to zone its Metro station areas for legitimate high density buildings. This is probably a result of the height limit plus the DC region's particular county-based governance structure, which puts zoning power at exactly the level of government small enough for regional competition (each county wants their office center), but large enough for elected officials to override NIMBYs (you can piss off a neighborhood if your jurisdiction has a million people, but not if it only has 50,000). Giving suburban zoning power to counties rather than cities is a big advantage, and results in more city-like zoning in the counties. 6. NoMa in particular benefits from an infill Metro station. You mention NoMa in particular. And yes it was upzoned a decade or two ago. The upzoning was possible because DC built an infill Metro station where there had not been one before. The Red Line used to speed through NoMa without stopping, but building a station there made it possible to upzone for TOD. The same thing is happening today in Alexandria at Potomac Yard, and along new Silver Line stations as they open in Virginia. |
I'm curious as to when (if at all) DC will do away with the height restrictions. At least in some parts of town.
|
I can understand why anti-gentrification advocates might want to increase the height limit - denser downtown development means less displacement on the downtown fringes. Of course, right now such people hate developers, so they won't do anything that might help their sworn enemy. :rolleyes:
I can also understand why developers might want to increase the height limit - bigger projects are more efficient to build, it would enable cheaper design features like above-ground parking podiums and allow them to make more money with less land. Right now it seems like these two powerful forces are sort of in a stalemate that keeps the height limit untouched and preserves the status quo of an expanding downtown. But from a planner's perspective - isn't the height limit working exactly as intended? New development is spread over a pretty large area. More and more parts of the city are becoming dense and walkable. Developers are building neighborhood-scale projects that often integrate new public space and even (minor) transit improvements, so it takes some of the burden off of government to provide these things. The only planning argument against this is that the city is now struggling to provide full-fledged transit to these newly developed areas. However, even with more intensity in the core, WMATA would still be struggling with severe capacity issues at places like Metro Center and Farragut. Arguably, their current plan of building a streetcar network to serve the downtown fringe is much cheaper than expanding subway stations and building whole new relief lines... |
The height limit is federally-imposed. It could be overturned probably fairly easily, but DC local politicians are so afraid of what they believe would be the ensuing NIMBY backlash that when the issue came up a few years ago they asked Congress ***NOT*** to give DC authority to decide its own heights.
Right in the middle of a big push for DC statehood, too. It was a massive abdication of responsibility, and gave serious ammunition to the argument that DC doesn't deserve full home rule. |
DC could just establish an area for high-rises like Paris' La Defense or London's Canary Wharf. Arlington would be the best place for it. In fact, would it harm Washington if they just reannex Arlington?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Alexandria (and Arlington) was originally part of DC. Quote:
Since, in 1846, Congress allowed the retrocession, one wonders if they couldn't revoke it. Politically that might be impossible. Constitutionally, one wonders. Still, as a born and raised Washingtonian (spending my eariest years at 14th & Colorado Ave.) I know the height limit was intended to keep the Capitol dome a prominent landmark and has resulted in a fullfillment of L'Enfant's vision of Washington as a city in the 18th century French mode. One could wish some of the commercial architecture were better, but this native would not wish for high rises in the city itself. Arlington, whether part of DC or not, and Silver Spring are pretty good places for them. |
Wow, thanks Cirrus. That was very helpful and answers many of the questions I had.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I wish more cities would just ban above ground parking facilities. Remove parking minimums in the zoning text and require it be surface or underground only. The market will determine how many below ground spots are needed and the appropriate rate for a space. Above ground parking has an impact of the pedestrian environmental, and parking minimums indirectly subsides car ownership by folks that don't drive. Quote:
Quote:
https://62b44a55c8f3a87440df-45c7b4d...ture-large.jpg |
Quote:
Well, based on what Pedestrian said, it could be a possibility. I think it would be good way for DC to expand beyond its political roots. Plus, like he said, DC looks better as a mostly lowrise city. Gives it a European feel and shows how the US is a continuation of the Western tradition with the great monuments and government buildings at the center. Plus almost every major US has a skyline and except for NYC, Chicago, and a few others, all of the other skylines are unremarkable. |
Quote:
If there was political will, Congress could admit the Dominican Republic as the 51st State. It's theoretical Constitutional, but never going to happen, much like DC recededing (or whatever the word would be) Arlington from Virginia. Way off topic, but fun history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa..._Santo_Domingo |
Quote:
|
Well, either way, Arlington is the best place for a highrise skyline in the DC area. But it sounds like it would have to be Virginia's decision to make that happen (give Arlington back to DC that is).
|
Good comment Cirrus, but you forgot - DC loves to pat itself on the back for all the growth but much of it is because the federal government is based there. People can claim and stutter otherwise but numerous corporations have moved to the area to be close to the federal government. Not too mention all the direct federal jobs and endless contractors etc who suck on the government teat - as well as the insane and always growing defense industry. And yet, despite all of this incredible financial stimulus, African American incomes in the city are actually stagnant or decreasing while shooting thru the roof for whites and Asians. SMDH
|
Virginia is booming as well. The Ashburn, VA area is ripe with activity. A lot of the growth is cascading into the burbs and surrounding counties.
|
Quote:
A little history: Quote:
So that's how DC was created and later modified and, as I said, I'll let the lawyers argue about whether any of the legislative acts, state or federal, could be undone. One point though--that it did take acts of the state legislatures for the land to cease being parts of Maryland and Virginia originally shows JManc is correct that the Feds couldn't just take it or any part of any other state, but having been given it once could make it unique. |
Quote:
This intro sounds like the type of argument coming from the anti-gentrifiers. A group not as bad as NIMBYs, but equally misguided. More growth is needed if there is a large segment of the population that is economically disenfranchised. Residents in the southwest corner of town should be petitioning city government for widespread rezoning to bring in the money, jobs and development that have revitalized many other segments of the city. Instead, why do I have the feeling the exact opposite occurs. Some folks rather just whine and point blame rather than develop a solution and force a difference. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Normal economic fundamentals simply don't apply to the DC area for that reason. It wasn't even really affected by the Great Recession. |
Quote:
1. Being outside the District of Columbia, Arlington is not subject to DC's height limit. There are already tons of tall buildings in Arlington. It has been home to the DC-region's tallest office and residential buildings for decades. Its tallest buildings are currently about 400 feet tall. 2. Arlington already has about the same amount of office space as La Defense. They both have about 40 million square feet of office space. Arlington has a little more than La Defense if you include the Pentagon; La Defense has a little more if you don't. Arlington's office market is spread out, however, in TODs around 7 different Metro stations, and a bit elsewhere. 3. Arlington is unlikely to have buildings much taller than 400' any time soon. This is because although it's not subject to DC's height limit, it is subject to height limits imposed by the FAA as a result of National Airport, which is in Arlington and has flight paths very close to Arlington's two largest office nodes, Rosslyn and Crystal City. FAA height limits are very apparent looking at Crystal City, which has a midrise canopy skyline much like DC's. Rosslyn is further upstream along the flightpath and isn't as obviously affected (it's where Arlington's 400' buildings are), but it's still limited by the FAA. 4. Silver Spring and all other suburbs of DC have normal local zoning height limits. When I said DC area politicians have been successful in getting high density TODs built, that's true. But it's not unlimitedly true. There are still locally-imposed height limits everywhere, they're just higher. For example, Silver Spring's vary but are in the 200 foot range. These can be changed at any time and they are often changed, to revise the limits upwards, so they're not exactly a hard limit. 5. For the forseeable future, the tallest buildings will be in Tysons. Rosslyn has been the DC region's skyscraper champ for decades, but its crown is right now in the process of being taken away by Tysons. Tysons is further out and more suburban, but was recently upzoned when the Silver Line opened, and is being actively re-planned as a walkable TOD, just like Arlington was 40 years ago. Already a 470' building is topped out, and a 615' building is in the works. So no, do not look to Arlington. Look to Tysons. Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.