An article in today's Post discusses the argument over the 130 foot building height restriction in the District. This is certainly an issue that greatly affects Logan Circle, as well as the surrounding communities.
On the one hand are those who feel that the city is simply running out of development-worthy land, and that the restriction unfairly limits the density an area can achieve - robbing the city of tax dollars. On the other hand are those who retort that not only is that anathema to the city "plan" by L'Enfant, and that there is plenty of land that could be suitable redeveloped.
Personally, I think I fall into the latter category, if only for the fact that much of the re-birth of the neighborhoods like ours would have been delayed if there had been less pressure to build out instead of up. And there seem to be plenty of half-renovated row houses sitting vacant, just begging to be torn down and replaced.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
No, they shouldn't change the height restriction. It helps keep up the property values in our little city.
Build the big, tall ugly buildings in Tyson's or Rosslyn or Bethesda.
Half million dollar one bedroom condos... it's impossibly expensive to live in this city.
I'd love to see raised height restrictions, but that'll never happen. We're more likely to finally get a vote in Congress than to ever see that happen.
There are huge portions of DC in two story row houses or SFHs. Those areas should be systematically rezoned for higher density. The areas immediately adjacent to Metro stations like Tenleytown should be rezoned as commerical space and high density residences, preferably vertically (1 story for retail, 2-3 for office, 2-3 for residential in each building).
Taller buildings near the Metro stations away from historic sites....yes
Why are some people obsessed with higher density? I lived in Amsterdam (which has a very high density) for several years . They seemed to get by without skyscrapers. I can't imagine Amsterdam or DC without row houses. This city needs more homes for families, not more "luxury" condos.
In fact, the population of DC in the 1950's was significantly higher than now, (800,000 vs 550,000). In my opinion, developers just want to maximize profits in the "good" neighborhoods rather than invest in other parts of the city.
Is the Logan newsletter no longer being produced?
One of the reasons I love DC is because you can actually see the sky here! While I enjoy visiting cities like Chicago and NY, I would not want to live there. I say keep the height restrictions.
No change. DC is full of beautiful old homes and buildings that can be renovated. There is no reason to destroy wonderful buildings to build an ugly, tall, prison-looking monstrosity that will not age well, not fit in, and be out of date looking in the future destroying the look and feel of DC. DC is not NY, NY!!
DC is a classic city, and we need to preserve the classic feel of it. We need to also ensure that DC keeps it's "neighborhood" feel to it as well as it's bucolic attributes.
There are plenty of opportunities to reinvigorate and rejuvenate neighborhoods and commercial centers without overcrowding the popular "Tony" zip codes. Lets bring some panache back to the rest of Washington and make the whole city great again.
Whenever my friend visits downtown DC from Philadelphia, she says "Wow it's so sunny here." I respond, it's because the buildings are low.
I love DC's European character, but we'll probably be left out in the race to build upwards. It's almost pointless to have no skyscrapers within city limits, when you can just cross the river or cross Western Avenue and see much taller structures.
DC just needs a skyscraper zone--somewhere that wouldn't obstruct the Washington monument and capitol. Perhaps Poplar Point?
Post a Comment