Housing Complex

Four Reminders of What D.C. Would Not Look Like Under a Modified Height Act

height illo

Thanks to our friends at Fast Company for helping allay the sky-is-falling hysteria by commissioning artists to illustrate what D.C.'s skyline would not look like if the Height Act were amended or repealed. OK, so maybe that's not exactly how they billed it. But given the dismay caused by the modeling studies showing hypothetical beige blocks built up to various new height limits, it's useful to have more colorful imagery of what we are and aren't actually talking about.

And here are four for the "aren't" column. No, taller buildings in D.C. wouldn't be a collection of capsizing Space Needles. No, they wouldn't be built to 3,000 feet, consuming multiple city blocks. No, they wouldn't take over the National Mall. And no, they wouldn't surround the Capitol.

As Congress weighs changes to the 1910 law restricting D.C. building heights, I'd encourage our federal overlords to keep these illustrations handy as a reminder of just how minor that changes under consideration are: buildings downtown growing by perhaps 30 or 40 feet, and buildings elsewhere staying exactly the same, with the future possibility of similarly small increases. Here, Mr. Issa, is the link.

Illustration collage via Fast Company under fair use

  • Bob

    LOL. This must be tongue in cheek, because it's certainly no way to persuade anyone to change the Height Act!

  • Bob See

    ^Exactly! The opponents would rather stick to what they fear might happen as opposed to reality.

  • Issa

    The fact that Vince Gray is running again suggests that he will abandon any changes to the Height Act and is likely to send Harriet Tregoning packing pretty soon.

  • gimbels lover

    These artists don't understand how to design an efficient floor plan. Those towers have terrible net/gross ratios and obscenely high floor-to-floors. I'm OUTRAGED!!1!

    On the other hand 432 Park Ave got built, so...

  • Pingback: Morning Links - Loose Lips