Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
Well yes and no. The height limit is mandated by Congress and would be hard to change. But, the height limit is widely embraced by the residents of DC. Outside of developers and some smart growth'ers, there really isn't much support for higher buildings. Most people in DC like the height limit. They think it gives DC a unique open feel and it spreads development around. Of course, I think a lot of supporters are overlooking the negative effects (large dead office zones and affordability issues) and treat it as an all or nothing (status quo vs. towering skyscrapers) issues. But, such is life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...4bc_story.html
http://committeeof100.net/uncategori...buildings-act/
Plus, the recent neighborhood downzones were entirely a local initiative in response to local concerns about some admittedly ugly popups and overdevelopment/changing character.
These issues are hardly unique to DC, most people like their neighborhood just the way it is. Especially in desirable neighborhoods. I'm sure this has been true at all times in history. The only difference is modern zoning laws, for better or worse, allows residents to convert their preferences in to legal binding mandates. |
Yes, just as I thought. The will isn't there to change. Either they just don't understand the positive potential effects of rezoning downtown or they are just not interested in changing the character of the city (due to fear or apathy). Honestly, since nobody lives downtown really, it shouldn't be a NIMBY issue. There are plenty of brownfields/blighted aras in DC also that could accommodate office clusters of high rises without adversely impacting the mall, allowing for downtown to be rezoned for more residential/retail purposes. Creating a satellite office-zone a la "La Defense" would allow for downtown's heights to remain low so the monumental core wouldn't be overshadowed and office functions could move out to be replaced by a city center that isn't just a glorified office park. I'm sure everyone would welcome a more vibrant city center if it was here and it's possible to make that happen if they people were interested in making democracy work. If the will was there congress would listen but people are fine with their current lifestyles and DC will not grow to its potential as Virginia and Maryland continues to be where most of the growth will occur in the future. Unfortunately, it's DC's loss in tax revenue and in potential greater international prestige. DC needs a superstar mayor like a Bloomberg, etc who supports big ambitious thinking. Someone who actually wants big things for the city and is ready to challenge congress. I'd welcome a mayor who had the balls to run on a platform of height limit increases and massive radical change. DC is the capital city of the USA, not Canada or Australia. It should be a superpower city and not a Ottawa, or Canberra. The image of a major vibrant international city won't happen if the suburbs are where most of the growth occurs and the core remains sub-par by international standards. You don't see DC featured in Conde Nast or international travel magazines much for a reason.