Gray, Issa consider relaxing D.C. building height limits

[M II A II R II K]

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

There’s new momentum to relax federal building-height limits in the District, reopening decades-old debates about the look, feel and character of the city as well as whether the restrictions stifle economic growth. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) has spoken with U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) in recent weeks about ways Congress could amend height regulations that limit most city buildings to 130 feet.

- “The city is just as concerned, and city leaders and community folks are just as concerned, about not raising the height limits in a way that would adversely affect vista or historic areas,” said Issa, who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “The question is, ‘Should a federal prohibition be loosened to allow them to make those decisions in concert with historical groups?’ And my general feeling is, ‘Yes.’ ”

- Issa, Gray and Norton said they primarily envision minor modifications to the height restrictions, perhaps an additional story onto some projects. But even a small change could make District buildings sleeker, raise ceiling heights and provide more opportunity for green space, architects said. Issa said he’s also exploring whether the District should have greater flexibility to consider even taller buildings in areas away from downtown, a change that could one day remake parts of Northeast and Southeast and help the city absorb new residents and businesses.

- While height ceilings in many cities were established in the late 19th or early 20th centuries to respond to the skyscraper, local authorities in other cities have been able to modify or remove them to keep pace with demand and market forces. But in a city where such change would require a unified Congress and a presidential signature, the District’s skyline has been held in check. Contrary to local lore, the District’s height cap was not designed to guarantee that no building towered over the U.S. Capitol. Congress approved the restrictions in 1899 to temper community opposition to the newly built 160-foot Cairo apartment building on Q Street NW.

- The mayor’s stance will likely prompt a backlash from some civic groups and preservationists, who have long sought to protect city views. “We hold these national monuments as a treasure to be viewed and enjoyed and respected by people from all over the world and, for that reason, the current height limitations ought to be maintained. Period,” said William P. Lightfoot, a former D.C. Council member. “One story will block somebody’s view, and that is wrong.”

.....

[jcchii]

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?

[Cirrus]

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.

[LMich]

Issa, Gray and Norton said they primarily envision minor modifications to the height restrictions, perhaps an additional story onto some projects. But even a small change could make District buildings sleeker, raise ceiling heights and provide more opportunity for green space, architects said. Issa said he’s also exploring whether the District should have greater flexibility to consider even taller buildings in areas away from downtown, a change that could one day remake parts of Northeast and Southeast and help the city absorb new residents and businesses.

This actually seems like quite a measured way to do this, which is why I'm kind of surprised to see Issa involved.

[1Boston]

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.

[babybackribs2314]

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.

[M II A II R II K]

Sounds like the way to go. And at street level create more grand avenues where possible.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by jcchii

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?

I agree with this.... designate a La Defense type zone somewhere within the city.

[bunt_q]

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?

[mthq]

Originally Posted by LMich

This actually seems like quite a measured way to do this, which is why I'm kind of surprised to see Issa involved.

Heh, I was thinking the same thing too.

[202_Cyclist]

LMich:

This actually seems like quite a measured way to do this, which is why I'm kind of surprised to see Issa involved.

I agree, this is probably the most sensible thing to come from Darrell Issa.

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).

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by jcchii

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?

It already exists, but it hasn't been a part of the capital for almost 200 years


The Pentagon is here too.


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.

[MolsonExport]

^everytime I see an aerial shot of the Pentagon, the theme song for the movie "No Way Out" automatically pops into my head.