tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post3254941145321057222..comments2024-03-25T18:50:15.135-04:00Comments on DCmud - The Urban Real Estate Digest of Washington DC: The Limits of DC - Part IIIKenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08295461340042242438noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-67981557503919508072010-06-09T15:13:28.981-04:002010-06-09T15:13:28.981-04:00the southwest waterfront is much closer to the mal...the southwest waterfront is much closer to the mall and monuments than eastern market and dupont circle and therefore would be a horrible place for sky scrapers as Nikki suggested. Where do these people get these ideas?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-48802907732174815272010-06-07T15:15:02.692-04:002010-06-07T15:15:02.692-04:00Mike is bringing up a very important point that, I...Mike is bringing up a very important point that, I think, needs to be amplified. There are reasons that the downtowns of the cities he mentioned are empty after work hours and they revolve around real estate economics.<br /><br />Everyone has heard the dictum that the three most important factors in real estate value are "location, location and location," and this is true as far as it goes. In the creation of real estate value, however, it is the differences in physical location that are most important. If density is allowed to rise on certain downtown parcels, the land value of those parcels will rise--the land becomes more valuable per SF if you can build more program on it; it's price will rise. As the price of land rises, adjacent parcels become more valuable. As they become more valuable, only increased density will allow development on them. To the extent that density drops off in a gradual way (standard zoning) as you get farther from the core, land values will gradually fall. As the process continues, and more of the most influential and important tenants come to rent close to the center, the value of being near them rises; you can imagine contour lines of value . So it is the creation of differences in location that create high property values. <br /><br />As property values rise in the high-density core, the uses that can be accommodated there become more and more limited. In American CBDs (other than in DC and, to some extent, Los Angeles), only the employers of elite office workers can afford the rents (these areas are often called "financial districts" for a reason). No housing of course, unless it is for the very, very wealthy. Only certain kinds of retail, too. It is no surprise that Tiffany and Van Cleef and Arpels are on 5th Avenue but not Shell or BP gas stations. Neither is it surprising that these downtowns are deserts after quitting time.<br /><br />In DC the structure is much flatter and, one could argue, more democratic. Because of the height limit, the differences in location spoken of above do not occur. A much broader range of uses and residents can afford to be in and near the CBD, producing the sort of heterogeneity that we value so greatly. That fine-grained mix is simply impossible in the financial districts of New York or Boston or San Francisco. Compare them to height limited cities like Paris or Rome. Have you heard overseas visitors say that DC is the most European of American cities? <br /><br />Architecturally, there are pluses and minuses to the height limit. We can argue about how they balance, visually, but the scale doesn't lean dramatically one way or another. The limit has, however, made the District both distinctive and more like the ideal of Jane Jacobs or Richard Sennett. <br /><br />There are a number of other issues that we could/should discuss at this point, but let's keep the response shorter than the post.Jonathan Fitchhttp://www.labindc.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-53031548297648434232010-06-07T14:29:10.712-04:002010-06-07T14:29:10.712-04:00I believe two of the author’s assumptions in this ...I believe two of the author’s assumptions in this essay are flawed: 1) That the height limit is about nostalgia, and 2) That densification would increase the urban “vitality”. <br /><br />The DC height limit is about an overarching land use policy. That some find it charming or sentimental is just fine, but not the reason for its existence. Density is good. In fact, density is great. The Rosslyn- Ballston land use plan conceived in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s was brilliant in providing economic and cultural vitality that enhance adjacent lower density residential areas. The DC height limit, however, creates a moderated density pattern with softer density edges and a variety of other positive physical, cultural and economic qualities. These qualities are not necessarily good or bad, but they are viable foundations for a world class city.<br /><br />DC’s challenges with population density, urban vitality, and being a pedestrian friendly, 24-hour city don’t have anything to do with building heights. Further, changing the building height limit could be a short term stimulus, but it wouldn’t fix the underlying issues. DC began losing its people and its urban vitality in the 1950’s when the 50 year outmigration began. Depopulation occurred in countless cities around the Country for similar cultural and economic reasons. For some urban areas, whether new or historic, real highrise density may be the only or best answer to create and sustain urban vitality. DC, however, has a hole card. The U.S. Government and all that it brings. DC will be a magnificent city, topping out a mere 12-13 stories, as it fixes its municipal issues and suburban flight becomes a historical event. <br /><br />Manhattan is great but so is Paris.Loren Popenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-55094195133780262692010-06-07T13:44:08.170-04:002010-06-07T13:44:08.170-04:00I couldn't disagree more with this term paper ...I couldn't disagree more with this term paper of a blog entry. The lack of high rise buildings is part of what makes DC so great, and certainly something other people notice when they visit. I once met a guy from NYC, who noted the reason why Central Park is so popular is because it's the ONLY green space in all of Manhattan. I have to agree with Mike, who said there must be compromise between residential and commercial needs.<br /><br />I can understand "thinking of the future" in terms of the overhead wires debate with the H Street streetcar project. <br /><br />Also not sure why the author would want to build sky scrapers in the most historic areas of town. The highly residential Eastern Market or Dupont Circle? Why not push for this kind of development in areas like Friendship Heights, the Southwest Waterfront near Nats Park or even the Georgia Ave corridor up to Military Road? All parts of DC that are a good ways from the historic buildings/monuments.<br /><br />And how successful can DC be commercially with a height ordinance in place? A walk through Chinatown offers a pretty good idea.nikki@federaltitle.comhttp://www.federaltitle.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-49423044230555518262010-06-07T13:23:14.237-04:002010-06-07T13:23:14.237-04:00And the most boring article of the website goes to...And the most boring article of the website goes to...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-91420906393806997332010-06-07T13:21:29.318-04:002010-06-07T13:21:29.318-04:00Real-world implementation of this extremely compli...Real-world implementation of this extremely complicated scheme (by DCRA, don't forget) would be somewhere between impossible and nightmarish. It also sets up peculiar incentives in terms of phasing of projects (i.e. one is incentivized to wait), and almost completely ignores the great power that is historic preservation. <br /><br />But the main problem is the focus on areas which are already sufficiently dense to support pedestrian life. Dupont Circle and Eastern Market are two of the city's most successful neighborhoods in this respect--why fix what isn't broken? And Mt Vernon Triangle manages a remarkable amount of urbane pedestrian life, notwithstanding that, thanks to the recession, it's only about 1/3 built. I think its future is assured; in fact, the recession will add needed variety.<br /><br />The author needs to look at areas like the New York Avenue NE corridor, places that have minimal pedestrian life, and, probably not coincidentally, only a smattering of historically-important buildings. There may be some realistic potential in such areas for taller buildings, especially if upzonings help finance a Metro or streetcar extension (following the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor model). Conveniently, most of these areas are well out from the monumental core, reducing the very legitimate worry that the monuments' primacy will be compromised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-72048883756244785342010-06-07T12:09:28.912-04:002010-06-07T12:09:28.912-04:00The limits are there for a reason.
Yes, taller bu...The limits are there for a reason.<br /><br />Yes, taller buildings can be more glamorous for architects to design. But the limits here provide a compromise between having a livable urban setting for residents and still be commercially viable for businesses. Look at many cities across the US that allow taller buildings and have NO downtown life; Charlotte, NC, Dallas, TX, Atlanta, GA, etc. They have many buildings multiple times taller than any in DC. They also have downtowns measured in only square blocks rather than square miles. Their downtowns are empty after 5 and weekends.<br /><br />All three of those cities would be better off if they had the foresight to literally "spread out" their density. There is just not the demand for a 75% increase in office or residential space in DC proper. Allowing for taller buildings would actually reduce the amount of development because there would be more supply. Not to mention this would also reduce property values. <br /><br />The limits of DC is what keeps property values up. The idea of incorporating new residences on K St. is simply not feasible. That is primo office space in this city and any residences built near by would be priced and filled accordingly by high-income residents. You cannot create a Brooklyn atop the Farragut metro.<br /><br />Could you imagine if this proposal was the standard from the start? The urban core of DC would be 1/3 the size in land area of todays. DC zoning laws are not perfect. But they have worked.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01759237960304501564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-70690360870394052792010-06-07T11:31:14.873-04:002010-06-07T11:31:14.873-04:00Raising the ceiling on building heights is likely ...Raising the ceiling on building heights is likely to result in increased demolition of beautiful, older buildings of low physical stature. Currently, these buildings can continue to thrive, but if something much, much larger could be put in their place, development interests would see them gone shortly and tall glass boxes replacing them. Not a pretty vision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com