{"id":2228,"date":"2012-04-16T22:24:42","date_gmt":"2012-04-17T02:24:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/?p=2228"},"modified":"2012-04-19T12:41:15","modified_gmt":"2012-04-19T16:41:15","slug":"thoughts-on-changing-dcs-height-limit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/2012\/04\/16\/thoughts-on-changing-dcs-height-limit\/","title":{"rendered":"Thoughts on changing DC’s height limit"},"content":{"rendered":"

With both city leaders and members of Congress<\/a> discussing alterations to DC’s height limit, I think there are a few things worth highlighting. \u00a0These are just some thoughts on what I think are the core issues here, and how DC might proceed.<\/p>\n

Why do this? <\/strong>\u00a0The compelling reason must be economic, and the reasoning behind this change will need to be carefully communicated to the public at large. \u00a0A limitation like this involves a number of trade-offs, and must be understood just as the costs of other zoning restrictions need to be understood.<\/p>\n

There ought to be a campaign that both illustrates the benefits of density, but also the costs of restricting development – both in terms of opportunity costs of limiting agglomeration economies, but also of the general costs that raise rents and prices for all sorts of real estate in the region. (see many previous posts from Ryan Avent – 1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 5<\/a>, among many others)<\/p>\n

At the same time, changing the height limit won’t be a panacea. \u00a0The real estate market in DC is regional, other local governments will need to pull their weight as well.<\/p>\n

Reverse the question: why shouldn’t<\/em> we do this? \u00a0<\/strong>Taking a page from the concept of shifting the procedural burden<\/a> of land use regulation, perhaps the question needs to be flipped on height limit proponents – if not up, where will the city grow? \u00a0Will commercial areas encroach into residential ones? \u00a0What about the costs of pushing development further out into the region? \u00a0What about the costs of rising rents?<\/p>\n

The height limit is not zoning. <\/strong>\u00a0It’s worth remembering that most of the District is regulated to maximum densities well below the maximum envelope of the height limit. \u00a0Likewise, these areas represent some of the best opportunities for cost-effective, small scale infill development: the “missing middle<\/a>” of housing densities.<\/p>\n

\u00a0It is important not to get too caught up in the density numbers when thinking about these types. Due to the small footprint of the building types and the fact that they are usually mixed with a variety of building types, even on an individual block, the perceived density is usually quite lower\u2013they do not look like dense buildings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There are many opportunities for this kind of infill development in DC, whether on alley lots or via the conversion of English Basements and other additions of multiple units into otherwise single-family zones. \u00a0Smaller scale multi-unit buildings can also be designed as to be visually indistinguishable from neighboring single-family homes. \u00a0This kind of development ought to be allowed across the board (and DC is moving in this direction), an example of incremental changes<\/a> to the regulatory environment.<\/p>\n

That said, those kinds of developments won’t impact the height limit. \u00a0In DC’s largely residential areas, I doubt a taller limit would have much effect. \u00a0Conversely, raising the height limit without increasing the allowed density brings little economic benefit.<\/p>\n

“Vistas” and “views” are overrated.<\/strong>\u00a0 Atrios said it<\/a>. \u00a0Most of the ‘views’ people talk about when discussing DC’s tourist-caliber photo shots are enhanced<\/em> by tall buildings, not the other way around. \u00a0The buildings frame the views down street corridors. \u00a0 Most of the people are not viewing things from the stereotypical aerial<\/a> shot<\/a>, but rather from<\/a> street<\/a> level<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Instead, what people seem to be concerned about is about the city’s skyline becoming a vista in and of itself, distracting from monuments and memorials. \u00a0 I don’t think this is of concern, as skylines can be manipulated<\/a> just as easily as other physical elements of the city. \u00a0Likewise, any alteration of DC’s height limit is not likely to suddenly trigger a free-for-all of skyscraper construction, but rather a slow climb to a new, higher equilibrium. \u00a0The overall impression from afar would still be that of a ‘flat’ skyline, the monuments and memorials would get their respect while the rest of the city would have room to grow.<\/p>\n

The “Monumental Core” and “Downtown” are not synonyms. <\/strong>\u00a0 The reported initial conversations on height involve minor changes in the already-tall areas, and transit-oriented height districts elsewhere. Matt Yglesias:<\/p>\n

\u00a0They seem to be contemplating two different ideas, either or both of which could be implemented. One is to tinker at the margins with the restrictions on downtown structures to allow an additional floor or two of leasable office space. The other is to allow for substantially taller buildings in a few outlying areas, with the thinking being that if we can have tall buildings right across the Potomac in Arlington County there’s no reason peripheral parts of D.C. shouldn’t have them too.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The idea of protecting the monumental core from the intrusion of tall buildings is a worthy urban design cause, but also largely a strawman. \u00a0 The NCPC’s Monumental Core Framework Plan<\/a> is discussing this area in blue, while the broader ‘downtown’ is represented in brown\/tan, showing the area of DC’s Center City Action Agenda<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0While adding some buffer around the White House, the larger point is that downtown already has most of the city’s tall buildings<\/a>. \u00a0Furthermore, if we’re talking about adding a modest increase in heights allowed in DC (something along the lines of allowing buildings to be twice as tall as the streets they front on, rather than the current limit of street width + 20 feet), then views like this<\/a> and this<\/a> within the monumental core will look exactly the same<\/em> in all of the tourist photos<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Always remember – the reason to do this is to add density, and perceptions of density (such as equating it with height) are often inaccurate<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There will be a plan.<\/strong>\u00a0Lydia DePillis wisely notes<\/a> that any change would need a plan, and not just open the door to willy-nilly skyscraper development. \u00a0In the event that this comes to pass, I’d expect both a detailed map and accompanying restrictions to protect the vistas we do have, as well as a strong urban design component. \u00a0 Potential options could be altering the existing formula (what if the limit were 2x of street width? \u00a0Or street width + 75 feet instead of 20?) and could easily introduce mandatory setbacks at certain heights to avoid urban canyon effects (think along the lines of a less-tall version of New York’s 1916 zoning code building envelope<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Such a plan could also identify areas for truly tall buildings, DC’s own version of La Defense<\/a> or Canary Wharf<\/a>. \u00a0Doing so should be part of a conscious urban design, rather than the isolation of the Tour Montparnasse<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Added density provides opportunities to finance new infrastructure. <\/strong>\u00a0What better way to link transportation and land use than to fund new transportation infrastructure via tax revenues from new development?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With both city leaders and members of Congress discussing alterations to DC’s height limit, I think there are a few things worth highlighting. \u00a0These are just some thoughts on what I think are the core issues here, and how DC might proceed. Why do this? \u00a0The compelling reason must be economic, and the reasoning behind […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[448,451,94,169],"class_list":["post-2228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-dc","tag-density","tag-height-limit","tag-zoning"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pHcGQ-zW","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2228"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2228\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2236,"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2228\/revisions\/2236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alexblock.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}