Gray, Issa consider relaxing D.C. building height limits
Gray, Issa consider relaxing D.C. building height limits
April 11, 2012 By Tim Craig Read More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...eBT_story.html Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/ima...1334149561.jpg |
interesting. Maybe they could designated a La Defense type zone someplace. That would have the benefit of dealing with some blight and extending downtown. Maybe over by the ballpark?
|
This is smaller news that the headline suggests. They're really only thinking about allowing existing exemptions for mechanical penthouses & whatnot to house usable space.
So far, anyway. |
Quote:
|
I'm so divided over this. I want our capital to grow and have skyscrapers, but i still want to have that d.c feel that you can't really get in any other major US city. I think a few 300 ft towers away from downtown wouldn't be too bad.
|
I don't think D.C. should relax the limit. There's an incredible amount of land left in the District to develop (the population is ~620k, still way down from the 800k peak), and there is plenty of room in the suburbs to deal with 'high-rise' demand. Both Tysons Corner and Bethesda have a number of proposals for towers in the 300-400' range.
I think that what's most important for the District is extending the Blue Line through Georgetown/~a mile above where the Orange/Blue currently run, thus expanding the CBD. Southwest is also being incorporated. Even without skyscrapers, the District is growing phenomenally--and one could argue that growth has been so widespread because development is forced to spread out. Paris is one of the densest cities in the world, and it isn't because of La Defense--I think D.C. should strive (as zoning has already encouraged) to emulate the same formula, given that it's really the only other top 10 global city to lack skyscrapers. It makes it unique, especially in the U.S. Regardless of this, the District's population will be pushing or exceeding 700k by 2020... why not let growth continue as-is? The only thing lacking for a massive boom is more transit. |
Sounds like the way to go. And at street level create more grand avenues where possible.
|
Quote:
|
Is the city as a whole hurting for developable space, or is it only office demand in the core/downtown area? I guess what I'm asking is - would a La Defense style business park somewhere else in the District really accomplish what the market is demanding? Is there anywhere you could do something like that without interfering with the cityscape, but still have it be more central than, say, northern Virginia already is?
|
Quote:
Heh, I was thinking the same thing too. |
LMich:
Quote:
The District likely has enough land left that raising relaxing the height act restrictions won't be an issue for twenty years. There is a lot of land that can be developed in Anacostia and Northeast (along Bladensburg Road and New York Avenue) as well as continued infill elsewhere. The District is updating its zoning code, which is sixty years old all to allow accessory dwelling units as part of existing residential homes (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/nei...ing-code/1206/). This would make it easier for landlords to rent basements or other units that are part already built homes. This will allow DC to provide more housing for new residents. That said, I strongly support relaxing the height act in some areas. You can have 15-18 or 20 story buildings in areas like Friendship Heights, Georgia Avenue, Van Ness, and Deanwood, without impacting the views of the Capitol and monuments one bit and without compromising existing neighborhoods. Although the architecture is bland, if Van Ness was more like Clarendon or Ballston, this would be a significant improvement. There are already 400 foot radio towers in Tenley and that hasn't ruined the views of the monuments at all. The DC side of Friendship Heights and Silver Spring should be able to be as tall as their Maryland counterparts. They make up one contiguous neighborhood. This shouldn't be even the slightest bit controversial. DC, the surrounding jurisdictions, and the federal government have invested billions or tens of billions of dollars in metro-rail. These jurisdictions should encourage as much development as possible within walking distance of the metro stations. There should be more residential density around this significant investment. Raising the height act will increase transit ridership, decrease sprawl, decrease air pollution, provide the District with more tax revenue, and create jobs (it would make it more feasible to redevelop existing 4-5 story buildings that might not make sense to redevelop if the height on them could only be one hundred feet tall). |
Quote:
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/med...yn-skyline.jpg The Pentagon is here too. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_building.jpg If they want to lift up height restrictions, this is a good place to do it, but not as high as to overwhelm the monuments. It's one of 2 other business districts in the area, so it should be seen as an option. |
^everytime I see an aerial shot of the Pentagon, the theme song for the movie "No Way Out" automatically pops into my head.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.