×
Some good points I wanted to highlight from the thread on DC's building height limit. John McCrory says:
As a former professional tourguide in Washington, D.C. I can tell you the original reason for the height limit: Following several notable fires in what were then skyscrapers (such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York), Washington and a few other cities adopted height limitations on buildings that allowed them to be built no higher than fire department ladders could reach from the street. AFAIK, D.C. is one of the few cities to retain the restriction, even though buildings came to be designed with better fire safety systems.Other theories in comments include that you needed a clear line for microwave communication between the Pentagon, the NSA, and the White House, and that everyone hated the Cairo building (I've never thought it so bad). On the limits themselves, Archan complicates the picture:
First, note the expense of high-rise buildings. When I look at condo prices for two different buildings, same general amenities, one across from the other, you’ll notice that the high-rise tends to be more expensive (and have much higher condo fees). There may be unobserved heterogeneity, but I believe that beyond a certain height, there are decreasing returns to height. Next, if you want to attract people, you’ve got to avoid crime. Extremely large buildings have a lot of space where no one can see people. There is an empirical regularity that high rise buildings have more crime than equally populous low-rise housing – it’s believed to have something to do with knowing your neighbors. Third, as Ezra mentioned, retail needs a sufficient population to sustain it. Lastly, if you want to attract families and not lose people as soon as they have kids (the New York model?), you need recreation space where kids can play.I’m not sure the DC area is on the right side of all of these factors. We’ve got high rise buildings going up 12-18 stories in the ‘burbs, and then we’ve got flat row houses elsewhere. We don’t do 5 - 7 story buildings very much. While we build up, we’re not increasing density on the ground except in U St/ Columbia heights. If you look downtown, you tend to see large entrances to office buildings instead of shops and stores. You can walk an entire block and not run into retail below a building. Similarly, we see shops separated from residential areas. You can’t go downstairs to your supermarket or neighborhood restaurant. Mixed development is what’s missing. Finally, I’m not sure we squeeze in enough small, well equipped parks. We’ve instead got a forest with Rock Creek Park, but you’ve got to schlep out there and you might not find equipment for kids.One thing I meant to say earlier was that easing the height limit doesn't mean you end up with all high-rises. You could have a maximum of 20 or 25 stories or something, and only in certain neighborhoods (someone suggested an Anacostia business district), which would significantly ease the supply problem without massively changing the character of the place. And finally, Randy makes an interesting structural point:
One good thing about it is it forces the city to spread out into the state of Virginia. No height limit means fewer DC people voting in Virginia. That would make it much harder for Democrats to win. So maybe the height limit makes Obama president.Maybe.
