Let D.C.'s Buildings Grow The case for scrapping Washington's height act

Full Article
Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Bradley Truding, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s youthful-looking legislative director, didn’t quite know what he was getting into when he agreed to narrate the history of the District of Columbia Height Act at an early October event commemorating its centennial anniversary.

The Committee of 100 on the Federal City, a venerable group of civic worthies pledged to the preservation of Washington’s historic character, had convened its membership to discuss the past and present predicament of the 1910 law that limits D.C. buildings to a maximum height of 130 feet—and even less, in most parts of town. Truding was tasked with reciting the Act’s legislative origins, and began his talk by explaining that the limit had been enacted out of concern for fire safety.

In most contexts, the idea that fire-safety was a big deal back in 1910 would be unobjectionable. But as Truding uttered those words, necks stiffened in the Charles Sumner School’s second-floor meeting room; a sense of rebellion stirred the aging crowd. What about the preservation of Washington’s grand vistas, or its “human scale”? It wasn’t just fire safety that had prompted passage of the legislation, the preservationists bristled. Beauty played a role too.

“That can’t be, because what they would have done is say all buildings can go to the height of the fire ladders, so it would have been uniform,” protested an audience member. “The fact that there’s a formula means that it’s based on aesthetics.”

“You just cite the reports,” admonished another, arguing that Truding’s research must have been incomplete. “But you have to look at the newspapers.”


Why do they defend that rationale so fiercely? Simple: If the century-old rule were based on purely practical considerations that had gone out of date with the advent of sprinkler systems, its continued existence becomes difficult to defend. But defend it they do, year after year, decade after decade. Over the years, the notion of Washington as a vertically abbreviated city has moved from legislative edict to local custom to holy writ. Question the Height Act at your peril.

That’s still true today, even as practical considerations provide a strong case for overhauling the law. D.C. recently surpassed New York City to become the nation’s most expensive commercial office market. There’s not enough affordable housing for city employees to live in the District with their families. The federal government and its attendant industries have been expanding locally faster than any time since World War II, and high-rises are mushrooming in places outside the District like Rosslyn and Bethesda to accommodate it. Every high-rise in the suburbs means District tax dollars lost.

Notwithstanding the height limit’s hallowed reputation, calls for everything from drastic modification to outright repeal have been issued in almost every decade of its existence. And they haven’t always gone unheeded. Congress allowed apartment buildings to rise five feet higher in 1925, for example, at the urging of the American Institute of Architects. They also made exceptions for buildings like the National Press Club and the Harrington Hotel. But the law never crumbled.

It’s time for that to change.

The District desperately needs more capacity. The way to build it intelligently is to let the market and the city decide where tall buildings might or might not prove valuable. The idea of buildings puncturing D.C.’s squat skyline might seem unsettling at first—especially to those who absorb the terrifying rhetoric from the District’s preservationists. But even as scrapping the law would involve some tricky maneuvering around the District’s relationship with Congress, abandoning the Height Act and letting zoning rule would be worth it. Here’s why.

The District of Columbia had height limits even before it had the United States government. But the evolving justifications for those limits represent a study in changing ideas of how a city ought to function.

Back in the 1790s, President George Washington, who never actually governed from the city that would bear his name, first ordered that the new federal capital have a height limit at 40 feet. Washington wanted to avoid the rickety, dangerous tenement buildings already springing up in his chaotic temporary capital, New York. By contrast, the new metropolis was to be an oasis of serene elegance. Thomas Jefferson, the first chief executive to sit in the new capital for his entire term, greatly admired the scale of Paris; he supported a limit on height “to provide for the extinguishment of fires, and the openness and convenience of the town.” At any rate, the largely pastoral District hardly needed tall buildings at that point; home to a tiny federal government, the city wasn’t supposed to be a place where many people would need to spend much time.

By the end of the 19th century, that was starting to change. But the modern height limit wasn’t spurred by some towering bureaucratic edifice—it was a response to the 1894 construction of the 160-foot Cairo Hotel at 1615 Q St. NW. The Board of Commissioners that ran the District at the time was mightily disturbed by the soaring steel-framed structure. One issue was that the firehoses of the era couldn’t quench a blaze on the upper floors. Another would sound more familiar today: Its overshadowed neighbors were worrying about their property values.

The commissioners responded by limiting building heights at 90 feet on residential streets and 110 feet on commercial avenues. The regulations were reinforced by Congress in 1899, with permission for heights up to 130 feet on the broadest promenades—a number cribbed from Boston and Chicago’s safety-oriented limits at the time. The law was refined to its more-or-less final version in 1910. According to a 1976 legislative history of building height regulations done by the House Committee on the District of Columbia, safety was far and away the primary concern of lawmakers in their deliberations.

But even then, before modern skyscrapers began springing up around the country, the popular press was pushing an aesthetic argument, too. “It seems that these regulations are in line with the policy of making this city the handsomest in the world,” read a contemporary commentary in the Evening Star. “It has already obtained that enviable distinction, and it is believed that the tendency towards the erection of sky scrapers, if left unchecked, would mar rather than increase the beauty of the city.”

And so in one sense, the absolutists at the Committee of 100 are right: While aesthetic values didn’t factor into the actual passage of the regulations—and the height of the Capitol’s dome, contrary to popular myth, had absolutely nothing to do with it—they had their advocates from the act’s very inception. Over time, a low-slung conception of the nation’s capital became the act’s staunchest defense.

Some quibbled with the Height Act from its very inception, and several exemptions were obtained to get around the law. But broader opposition started to arise in the 1960s. In other cities around the country and around the globe, local restrictions were ditched as urban boosters sought to erect proud new monuments to their modernity. Locally, D.C. itself started to worry about losing businesses and residents to the suburbs. Aesthetes also disdained an unintended effect of the height limits on D.C.’s downtown—a proliferation of boxy buildings that architect Arthur Cotton Moore decried in a 1966 Washingtonian article as “short, fat, and sexless.” While elegant towers sprouted up in Chicago and New York, D.C. was doomed to build boring bureaucratic slabs.

In 1971, the D.C. Council completed an extensive review of building height regulations. Its conclusion: In order to “start a dramatic reversal of the continuing deterioration” of downtown Washington, height limits should be selectively raised to a maximum of 250 feet. Everybody got on board: Mayor Walter Washington, then-Del. Walter Fauntroy, the city’s Zoning Commission, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and a number of civic and industry groups supported the modifications. But the federal Commission on Fine Arts took strong exception. Chairman J. Carter Brown extolled the fact that President Washington’s “vision is unpolluted as yet by the pressures of economic greed,” and said the city’s proposal would allow “a few visible belches, towers allowed to spring up piggly-wiggly.” Bills offered in Congress fizzled before reaching a vote.

After that attempt, the issue died down for a few decades, perhaps because demand didn’t exist in downtrodden D.C. for much beyond the 12-story superblock. Meanwhile, construction of the Metrorail system ferried people efficiently between government jobs downtown and houses in the suburbs, and the city’s population dropped by 30 percent between 1950 and 2000.

Now, the debate crops up every few years, whenever some high-profile person—like architecture writer Witold Rybczynski or urbanist developer Christopher Leinberger—sees fit to launch a polemic one way or another. The discussion has become circular and wooden, and even worse, carries an air of futility. According to Truding, nobody has approached his boss in the last few years to try again with legislation that would relax the limits. Even the most vociferous advocates of allowing higher buildings offer little in the way of ideas for actually making it happen.

If Mayor Walter Washington thought it made sense to relax height limits back in 1971, it makes even more sense today. After decades of decline, the District is hot again, and it’s missing opportunities: At a time when capital and the demand exist to support controlled experiments with higher buildings—just look at the bulky new edifices planned for the Center Leg Freeway’s air rights, over Union Station’s rail yard, and even further up 14th Street NW—the 1910 law still sits there, entirely inert. The Office of Planning is again reviewing its zoning regulations. But to get a sense of how lame the conversation is, consider this: The most contentious question involves how to measure the height of a building that’s on top of a bridge. The organization is powerless to make more substantive alterations.

Why change now? There are three main arguments.

First, consider commercial space. Here, D.C. has a natural advantage over suburban locales, because of its proximity to an increasingly active federal government. Although the District isn’t a financial center, incoming Mayor Vince Gray has expressed a desire to turn it into one, by creating a special tax district akin to those in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. The point: Astronomic office rents are a testament to the fact that downtown is full to bursting. While allowing developers to build a few towers wouldn’t necessarily make a dent in those prices, it would allow the District to capitalize on the presence of new business (and compete with the suburbs by building the high ceilings that both office users and retailers increasingly want). The Office of Planning’s director, Harriet Tregoning—no Committee of 100 favoriteworries that raising the height limits might weaken interest in other areas around the city that cry out for investment. But isn’t it also possible that the ability to build a tall building to anchor a commercial zone in those districts might prove as attractive?

Next, residential character—ironically, one of the reasons preservations love to cite for maintaining the height rules. It’s obvious that we have a supply problem when it comes to housing: Residential prices, still stagnant in much of the country, continue to rise precipitously in D.C., which risks turning into a wealthy enclave as the proportion of units subject to rent control grows smaller and smaller. The best way to solve that problem is to create a variety of different kinds of new places for people to live.

Many argue that ample opportunities currently exist to add density, and that’s true: Walking around D.C., you’ll still see a fair number of empty lots and ramshackle houses that could be knocked down and rebuilt to fill the zoning envelope. But new buildings aren’t like water, simply flowing to low points and collecting there. Sometimes the buildable capacity on a given piece of land isn’t worth the price it would take to consolidate several parcels. Moreover, historic districts already place much of the city off-limits to large-scale development. It makes much more sense from a developer’s perspective to build a tall building where it’s financially feasible and where more people want to live, like around a Metrorail station. An empty lot in Shepherd Park may just never be an attractive enough prospect for anything higher than a single family home.

Right now, highly desirable areas—or ones that have the right ingredients for vibrance, but just lack the residential density to bring them to life—must be developed very densely from a horizontal perspective. In NoMa, that’s inadvertently led to a dearth of park space, since all the land has been taken up by 12-story glass blocks. The same tension is evident in the planning of the McMillan Sand Filtration Site redevelopment on North Capitol Street near the Washington Hospital Center: Residents want more park space, but developers need to build more square footage to make it worth their while—and the whole area needs a huge infusion of new people in order to support the kind of retail the neighborhood would like to see. The pattern will eventually repeat itself in Hill East and Poplar Point.

Now imagine if the city had been allowed to grant developers in NoMa or on North Capitol more height in exchange for keeping some land clear for grass and trees? Urban parks surrounded by tall buildings, like New York City’s Gramercy Park, can feel cozy and safe—and be a huge factor in drawing people to the neighborhood.

Finally, since opponents of raising height limits rest most of their arguments on aesthetics, let’s talk about that.

From a structural standpoint, D.C.’s height limits have given rise to immense creativity. Our buildings have some of the deepest parking garages in America, for example, and quite a bit of engineering has gone into squishing heating and cooling systems into the smallest amount of space so that more floors can be packed under the height caps. And sure, it’s not impossible to build handsome short buildings.

But if there are architecturally innovative buildings in D.C., it’s in spite of the Height Act, not because of it. More often than not, developers demand as much square footage on a site as the zoning will allow, leaving the wistful architect with only façade design to play with. The variety in height and form in the rowhouses of Mount Vernon Square, Georgetown, and Dupont Circle, is a tremendous asset to those neighborhoods. Allowing it on a larger scale in other neighborhoods and commercial districts would make for a much more architecturally exciting environment.

Plus, tall buildings need not be just anonymous, glassy shafts that are the same in every city: What if additional height were granted on a competitive basis, and awarded for the best design? When you stop thinking about height in terms of letting greedy developers pack more profit onto their land, and instead in terms of creating leverage to hold them to a higher standard, the aesthetic argument gets flipped on its head.

Part of the problem with the Height Act debate thus far is that it’s lacked a real sense of what the city would actually start to look like under revamped regulations. The discussion is ridden with the depiction of “concrete canyons” that will shut out all light from the sidewalk, and skyscrapers that will defile our national symbols. That’s absurd.

The only realistic way to change D.C.’s height limitations is as part of a strategic, comprehensive planning process that allows for higher development where it makes most sense: Downtown, around Metro stations, along the waterfront, and where wide inbound streets cross the District line and are bordered by much taller buildings, like the spot where Georgia Avenue crosses into Silver Spring. A few towers on the edge of Rock Creek Park would be tremendously valuable, and impede nobody’s view. Large residential buildings bordering Pennsylvania Avenue SE would add grandeur to that largely empty promenade.

Builders would take these opportunities, but slowly. Much of the time, their plans would still go through multiple layers of development review to ensure compatibility with their surroundings and allow for public input. Just look at Paris, which Thomas Jefferson so admired: Its city council just passed legislation that will allow commercial buildings up to 590 feet in the city’s 13th Arrondissement, while protecting the character of its other historic neighborhoods.

But guess what? You can’t do that kind of fine-tuning from a federal body. The House and the Senate aren’t involved in any other city’s land-use decisions, for good reason: They’re no good at it. D.C.’s own elected government is perfectly capable of making development decisions, and much better equipped to do so in collaboration with residents.

In defense of Congress’ continuing hegemony, over and over again, we hear from the Committee of 100 that Washington isn’t like other cities, it’s the nation’s capital. Fine. But how does it follow that said capital, in contrast to other growing cities, must remain a turn-of-the-century village in perpetuity? There is no sinister smart-growth agenda to transform D.C. into Manhattan overnight. Washington can still be Washington—it’s just that more people should be allowed to enjoy it.

Our Readers Say

Nice work. And not that you need it, but here is some additional evidence to support getting rid of the DC height restriction:


I am not an NYC fanboy and certainly don't think DC should try to become NYC, I just think the above was an interesting and compelling article.
Great piece. Though this has been hashed and re-hashed too many times, the economic reality is still setting in.

Funny that the CFA guy back in the day used arguments against more height as a fight against greed. In reality, it's the other way around - limiting height (and thus density) restricts supply and increases prices.
Lydia, I think this is an interesting article, but I've got a few quibbles. One, we should not just look at things from a developer's point of view. Of course they want to make as much money as possible. So what? Does that mean that we should do whatever they say? This idea that developers have the right to get rich at all costs is not particularly compelling to me.

Second, your argument for higher buildings around tod makes a bit of sense if you only think about tod as being related to Metro. TOD does not have to be subway focused. If we were willing to make investments in bus infrastructure and see that as a legitimate means of transport with dedicated lanes, we would probably do ourselves some good.

Third, there seems to be this unspoken assumption that this city is going to triple in size in the next thirty years. Where is the proof of this?

Finally, you are making comparisons to New York, but I think that DC is more comparable to a place like Boston in terms of physical size and population.
@Indeed: 1) The city is projected to grow quite rapidly over the foreseeable future. 2) Lydia's arguments for TOD actually concentrate around Metro and streetcar lines. Bus lanes, even dedicated, do not attract the same investment as permanently-installed rail tracks.
as a DC native that has since moved to explore education opportunities, i hate coming home to see less and less of the sky. i grew up in downtown DC and have very vivid memories of being able to see the city fireworks from any city sidewalk. now, i have to go to a friend's rooftop deck in a city that has never been about rooftop decks. i miss the skyline and, however selfish that may be, i wish to preserve it.
Let me get this straight, we have a one-of-a-kind city with gorgeous vistas, a street-level intimacy not found in any other city in the US, and a Viennese stateliness to building scale and street architecture, and you want to erase this in a blur of shadows and glass boxes so that we can match wonderful places like downtown bethesda and Roslyn. Hmmmm.
One of the great things about this city are the little corners you turn throughout it to suddenly find a view of the Washington Monument or the Capitol Dome or even the Library of Congress. These are the things that drew me back here. These are the moments that keep me here, that catch my throat with their beauty.

Every city I've lived in that's relaxed its height restrictions (3 so far) has ended up with complications from wind. Somehow, I hope we can avoid that here.

Well, yes, it's very nice that the city is going to grow for the foreseeable future. But that does not put a number on it. Building up when we need to build out doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, people seem to think that we're going to be on approaching New York in scale. We're not. We still haven't passed Baltimore.

As for streetcars, I'm ambivalent. I don't see how it makes sense to put down permanent ground level infrastructure to meet our transportation needs. This might work in other cities, and I'm hoping that it works here, but I think that the desire for them is more ideological than practical. That streetcars are more of a draw is something drawn from hope rather than experience. Buses don't draw the same investments only because people with money want streetcars and see buses as the transportation of poor people. That's the bottomline. They like hte idea of streetcars. Nothing to do with practicality.

My point, which I didn't quite make, is that your argument is merely a self fulfilling prophecy. If everyone says that streetcars attract investment then it must be true...because everyone is saying it. There is far too much group-think going on.
Where is the proof that the city "desperately needs capacity"? Take Tenleytown, where a property owner recently built a one story building right next to the Metro. Maybe the market isn't in as desperate need of capacity as some folks say. And if it is, why shouldn't the first step be for the District to loosen zoning restrictions to allow building up to the height allowed in the Height Act? Only in downtown does zoning allow development to max out the federal height limits.
Yeah, great idea. Metro can barely handle the capacity we have. Fund metro fully, exhaust every square inch of city space -- then maybe we need to change the height restrictions.

Fort Totten built a ton of new stuff and none of it's used. They are about to build the same apartment building type complex at RI Avenue.

DC is unique. It is a monument to humanity, unlike Manhattan which is a monument to hubris. I like sky. I like small buildings. I don't really care what developers want. They are interested in profits only, not what's best for the city and not what's best for the residents.
Eliminating the height restriction immediately increases supply, and without an identical increase in demand, causes existing home prices to tumble. Thus, the height restriction should stay.
Lots of great points in the article, and I agree with most of them. A few high rises, stratigecallly placed, can be a great value. If you look at the Gold Coast of Chicago, for instance, you have houses that are very similar to Dupont circle, but on corners there are condos that rise perhaps 40 floors. That adds tons of people who are shopping, eating and walking the streets, making a rich urban presence. If Capitol Hill or Dupont Circle had a few of these buildings, it was would make those areas even more desirable, which would raise the existing housing even more in demand.

IF we were to raise the height limit, I would suggest that it be part of an overall package. AFterall, if the developers get all that new space to rent, the citizens should get something for it as well, and any such package needs to have enforcement teeth in it.

1. All new development must have extensive street landscaping. The sidewalk in front of the building must include a dense selection of shade trees, AND the maintenance of these trees is the responsibility of the landlord. I am tired of expensive buildings going up and they put in two spindly trees that die the next year. And the tree boxes should have low bushes and/or a changing array of flowers. No one should object, since this makes the building and the neighborhood more attractive to everyone.

2. Any high rise on a commercial street must have stores facing the street on the entire first floor. This is essential to creating a walkable neighborhood. AND a certain percentage cannot be national chains so that it's not all Starbucks and CVS stores.

3. If there are enough high rises down a street, they can be taxed to create a streetcar or trolley, or they have to pay a certain revenue towards metro. The only way Washington can survive is if we have a functioning metro, so it's in their interest to make sure the escalators really work well.


Quibble: Gramercy Park? The gated, private park that you need a key to enter is the solution to NoMa's ills?
I disagree with scraping the Height Act. Commercial space in downtown DC will most likely be more expensive than in the suburbs simply because of that old realtor maxim: location. Businesses are unlikely to move from downtown to Georgia Avenue simply because the high rise on the Avenue is less expensive. And tall buildings do not lend themselves automatically to affordable or desirable housing necessarily. Look at NoMa for pricey condos. Who can afford that? And if the emphasis is on low income, look at Cabrini Green in Chicago. The last tower is being vacated now to prepare it for destruction. The last thing Georgia Avenue would need is low income high rises. And finally, while I do agree that there are some tall buildings that look simply beautiful; I can think of some in New York and even in Baltimore. But the ones in Rosslyn, Crystal City and Bethesda are more likely to be what would be built in DC and let's face it: those are not exactly architectural treasures. I have to agree with Sarah, Tom and Carly, DC is a beautiful, low rise city. Why not focus on moderate density increases where Metro allows but keep the city on a lower, more human scale?
<em>Let me get this straight, we have a one-of-a-kind city with gorgeous vistas, a street-level intimacy not found in any other city in the US, and a Viennese stateliness to building scale and street architecture, and you want to erase this in a blur of shadows and glass boxes so that we can match wonderful places like downtown bethesda and Roslyn. Hmmmm. </em>

if i could marry a comment, this comment would be my one and only true love.
#1 Take a look at Montparnasse Tower and notice how ugly it looks in central Paris. Then look across the river Seine at La Defense and see that the height restrictions are relaxed outside of the city center. The exact same can be said for DC and Rosslyn. You cite Paris, but its clear that you've either never been there or don't realize how completely out of place Montparnasse Tower looks in the center of Paris.

#2 The height restriction makes DC unique and beautiful. No one wants DC to be like Manhattan. Sorry. If you want a Manhattan, just move back to New York City where people are stacked on top of each other like sardines, the quality of life sucks, and everything is more expensive, except bagels.

#3 You must be joking about the placement of skyscrapers at location #16 on your quaint map. This is in the the flight path of planes coming into DCA. If you've ever spent time on the Georgetown or GWU campus, you'll know that the planes are extremely loud in their low-flying approach to the airport. Can you imagine people in the building being forced to mute their phones every time a plane flies by? Scratch that location entirely. In fact scratch all locations within the footprint of the old boundaries of Washington City.

#4 DC has a lot of space to grow, even with the current height restriction. The problem is not a lack of vertical space, but a lack of financial incentive to build new buildings and fill out the city. There are a lot of places throughout the city that do not have 13 story buildings which would benefit from development.

#5 George Washington had to write a personal letter to the state of Maryland asking for $100,000 to help finish the construction of the government buildings before Congress was due to arrive in 1800. Congress also passed an amendment to the Residence Act 1791 which forbid government buildings in Virginia. Combined, these reasons were based on the fact that the Federal government was poor in the beginning and the height restriction was based on the frugal desire to not spend lavishly on government buildings and put the government further into debt.

#6 The District of Columbia is one of the most beautiful cities in America. Much of this beauty is due to the fact that it's architectural history is preserved. Giving developers the incentive to build taller buildings will cause many existing buildings to be demolished and rebuilt to match the new height allowances. The net result of this is increased property taxes and more expensive rent. Your premise that higher buildings will lower the cost of office space is incorrect because all studies show the reverse happens-- it becomes more expensive not less-- just like Manhattan.

In summary, keep the height restriction in place and stop wasting your time trying to advocate for changing something that makes DC beautiful.
The DC Council authorized special fuding about 6 years ago for a project to study the tax benefits of raising the height limit in one small area. The finding was that the City could raise millions in additional tax revenue. The consulting firm iof Jair Lynch oversaw the study.
What's needed is a real discussion of the trade-offs the height limit involves.

For those that like vistas and views, that's great. I like them, too. However, capping the supply of office space and housing will only raise rents and raise costs. Consider the trade-off - would you like that kind of city if it were really expensive?
No, just no. DC wouldn't be DC without the height limit. It's part of what gives the city it's unique character. You like tall building move to St. Louis or some crap.
In your December 17 cover story “Let It Grow,” Lydia DePillis argues for permitting high-rise buildings on the Southwest Waterfront on the theory that a “tall tower here would have stunning views.” But the “tall tower” DePillis envisions won’t likely provide “stunning views” to just anyone who wanders off an elevator. Rather, the tower will provide those views only to the select few who can afford them. And here’s a secret: people already live in Southwest. Some of us already have pretty nice views, views DePillis would block with her towers. Sixty years ago urban renewal redeveloped Southwest with little regard for the people whose families had lived here for generations. Southwest will not let that happen again. Whatever DePillis thinks.

David Sobelsohn
ANC Commissioner
Southwest DC
Height=Density is a false equation. Paris with at height limit of 6 stories is many times more dense than DC. Density is low in DC because many single people or couples live in 3000 or 4000 square foot houses. Zoning can be used to encourage the 500 square foot residences that are common in great world cities.

Neither does height make housing more affordable- just the opposite. Tall buildings are much more expensive to build and the resulting residences are expensive. Many cities now encourage 5 story buildings which can be built from lumber very quickly and economically.

Great cities like Paris, Berlin and DC have height limits in the near-downtown to preserve the quality of life. It works well where average residences are 500 square feet. The problem with low-density has little to do with height but rather with a sense here of entitlement to large residences.
I see nothing wrong with allowing heights of buildings to rise so long as we don't destroy the vistas we have--and that the tourists like to photograph.

However, I don't see the urgency in doing this right now when the housing market is stagnant.

The article is very interesting and food for thought.
Totally off base.
It is precisely because we are the Capital City, is why we must remain unique among all others.
If we allow ourselves to grow vertically, it will ruin our uniqueness. The city council will inevitable fall victim to the almighty dollar.
Only congress can save us.
At first I thought I would be open to taller buildings in Washington, but having just walked around Georgetown this morning, I've changed my mind. Keep the height limit! It's noticeable how a couple of buildings constructed in Rosslyn in the the last three years have impacted Georgetown for the worse. Walking south on 35th and 36th Streets, their southerly location blocks the light and creates a hulking silouette above the streetscape. Let's not mar other views. The low scale city, light filled streets and open views are some of the best defining characteristics of the nation's capital. Why strive to be like anywhere else? Leave the height limit alone.
The argument in favor of the height limits seems to be, simply, it's pretty, and pleasant. Okay, but the low-rise limit and relatively low density results in sprawl, and dependence upon automobiles. If we're going to change the automobile-centered lifestyle, reduce the traffic congestion that degrades the quality of life in our urban neighborhoods, and permit people to live lives without owning cars, we have to have density such that people can walk, or take urban transit, wherever they need to go. Columbia Heights, for one, is going in that direction. Yes, it works, and it has to be our future. Our cities weren't designed to handle an automobile or two per household, and the District is being strangled by cars.

Check with those Committee of 100 folks, and you'll find that they all have cars, most likely several per household. That's the lifestyle of the past, which these preserve-everything folks want to keep. The result is Georgetown -- too many cars, too much traffic, too much congestion, and no place to put all those cars.

Lose the height limits, yes. The District has to be a place for people to live, not a pretty artifact of an obsolete lifestyle.
The issue isn't height, it's density. We all decry how little street front retail there is the District, even along the most dense streets like K St. The truth is DC will never become a truly livable, 24/7 environment without more street front retail....and the only way to get that is to increase density.

A study should be undertaken to determine how much addition density is required in order to support retail development, then height restrictions should flow from there. It may mean an increase in height in residential zones of only a floor or two, and it may mean greater increases in commercial zones.

“The District desperately needs more capacity.”
Your thesis---but no where do you back up this asssertion.
Prove it. How much? How "desperate" are we? Who says?
And unless you plan to have all the addtional "density" riding bicycles how are they going to travel? Metro's pretty packed these days, so's K Street.

As for streetfront retail, somehow more intelligent planning decisions and incentives surely could be devised. Look at all these bank branch store fronts. Worthless in the evening and weekend for encouraging streetlife.
Perhaps I am being simplistic in my opinion, but it seems that the reason to repeal the "Height Act" is to expand the residential capacity for the federal employees that keep growing with big government. That is about to change.

There seems to be growing concern that federal hiring is outpacing private sector jobs, and reduction of government seems inevitable. So it may be a moot point when there are hundreds of vacancies instead of hundreds of needed additional dwellings.

Instead of building up into the sky, why not build below ground? It would be more energy efficient to do so.
I have been to DC many times, and sorry, but I think it's ugly. I'm not sure about this whole concept of "human scale", what the restrictions have created is a bunch of low, squat buildings that look like massive big-box stores. Very few of the buildings actually have interesting facades. And it just has a very sprawling, unrefined feel to it.
The review process for proposed skyscrapers could be made very strict, and require approval by a large body in a democratic process. Allowing a very limited amount of high-rises does not guarantee that we'll have a forest of ugly monstrosities. We could hire renowned American architects to create "centerpieces of America", and these skyscrapers could complement nicely the current open-air atmosphere of the city. Think of the Burj Al Arab in Dubai, or maybe something in the style of Canary Wharf in London.
why not a compromise? Amend the archaic Height Limit to fit the times. I propose a change in the height limit from 90 to 120 for future residential development out of the downtown core - 2-3 extra floors per building will increase the supply in our current time of high demand and inch down rents without ruining anyone's quality of life. For commercial development, increase the limit to accommodate another 1-2 floors per structure, and even more in certain areas like Friendship Heights. these slightly taller buildings can acquire much-needed ground floor retail anchor tenants, revenues will moderately increase across the board, we attract more and more residents which helps to bolster our No Taxation Without Representation argument, and our beautiful vistas aren't ruined.
If they raised/removed the height limit, everyone in the taller buildings would be able to see the layout of the giant pentagram and the jigg would be up.
Don't believe me?
Think its crazy conspiracy talk?
Look it up yourself.

Ever wonder why they chose a pentagon shape? A pentagon forms the inner portion of a pentagram star.
Your brain wants to tell you its a coincidence because it clashes with your world view but the truth is, this country was founded by Freemasons. Freemasons worship Lucifer (although the lower degrees don't realize it).
Don't believe that either?
Ask a freemason who the bearer of light is.

In fact, read about Albert Pike (33rd degree Mason) and his revelations about what Freemasonry really is about.
IN FACT, read his book, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, where he details explicitly how Freemasonry is the worship of Lucifer aka Satan.

When talking about why it is that U.S. cities aren’t “dense” and “walkable”, is there anything more to blame than their height limitations? Where these limitations aren’t explicit, they’re still enforced indirectly through zoning. This robs cities not only of their “urban” feel, but prevents them from being affordable, economical and environmentally sound. I can’t understand why this attitude is so prevalent, especially in cities like New York and Chicago, which are defined by their skyscrapers. Seattle is another city with stringent height policies, which you can learn more about by visiting:

Not sure why anybody would not want the best for Washington, DC. DC is handicapped by this archaic law that does not parallel the growth and success of this city. There should be NO reason to have a height restriction here or anywhere throughout the city. I understand not having building that block the monumental core of the National Mall, but outside of that...YOU NEED TO BUILD HIGHER!!! Taller buildings in this city creates more of a tax base for revenue, more people to add to the population and greater and attractive development for this wonderful city. You naysayers need to move to smaller cities, perhaps a town of less than 800 people and reside there. Washington is a major city that continually requires VISION! Our lack of leadership within our city council lacks the vision that makes this city viable, livable, extraordinary and great!

Please by all means abolish the Height Law and Build higher in DC!

Leave a Comment

Note: HTML tags are not allowed in comments.
Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.