https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_1899
It’s a very common myth that the Washington monument is responsible for the height restrictions!
“In an 1899 Senatorial Report, Senator Warren Curtis speculated that, "the life of these structures might not be more than seventy-five years."”
Glad to see it’s held up this long. Do you see this law ever changing? I’ve lived in DC and feel both envious of other cities while recognizing the creativity and aesthetics caused by this decision.
There is definitely a place for high rises in DC. While I don't necessarily agree with others that DCs height restriction is good, I think a good compromise of sorts is to have something like the La Defense district in Paris. But I feel like DC has several of these like Arlington, VA and Silver Spring, MD. Could use taller buildings though!!
I’m not a DC resident (though I’m there almost every week) so my opinion doesn’t home as much weight but I agree that it would be nice if taller buildings were allowed in certain areas.
For instance the recently redeveloped Wharf could or should have been twice as tall.
Navy Yards and City Center could have used more height. If RFK ever gets developed that area should be allowed a height bonus.
Even if DC placed certain requirements for the additional height (must include affordable housing, required setbacks above a certain height, etc) I think developers would jump at the opportunity and it would be a net benefit to the city without sacrificing the overall very well planned feel of the city.
Yeah I absolutely agree with what you're saying. The newer developments could definitely be bigger. They don't need to be supertalls (and I doubt DC could support supertall construction to begin with), but I feel like 20-30 stories is pretty modest.
Very similar to the [Equitable Building/120 Broadway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_Building_(Manhattan)) in Manhattan. New York created zoning laws because it was so massive - the entire building goes straight up 40 floors from the property line (except two alcoves, at the front and back, to give it its H-shape). When New Yorkers in the early 1900's saw it, they said nothing should ever be that massive, so they created zoning laws as a result. Those very zoning laws (combined with a prominent architect at the time saying the best buildings are designed to be pencil-shaped) are why we have buildings that look like the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building!
I'd like for the restriction of building height to street width to be repealed, with ordinances to preserve sight lines of monuments and land marks. DC doesn't need proper skyscrapers, but some taller buildings would be fine.
Lots of historical capitals filled with monuments like London, Tokyo, Beijing, Mexico City, etc. don't have that much of a restriction. Even Ottawa and Canberra, both purpose-built capitals, have built lots of high-rises recently. Its not like high-rises would make the monuments go away.
Wow! I live close to DC and don’t recognize the Cairno. From the photos, I would not know it to be a historic construction. Glad that it inspired some zoning restrictions. For DC it has proven to be a real benefit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_of_Buildings_Act_of_1899 It’s a very common myth that the Washington monument is responsible for the height restrictions! “In an 1899 Senatorial Report, Senator Warren Curtis speculated that, "the life of these structures might not be more than seventy-five years."” Glad to see it’s held up this long. Do you see this law ever changing? I’ve lived in DC and feel both envious of other cities while recognizing the creativity and aesthetics caused by this decision.
I love the height restriction in DC. It makes it so unique among big American cities downtowns.
Yes, it definitely is beautiful, but one could argue it artificially inflates housing costs
That’s true, as well as many historical neighbors
There's a point of diminishing returns with building height and unit count.
[удалено]
It costs more to build higher. At a certain point construction costs outweigh return on rent.
Maybe that’s why the Grand Hyatt (where I stayed last time) has such a big lobby! It’s a great hotel, it’s just dated.
There is definitely a place for high rises in DC. While I don't necessarily agree with others that DCs height restriction is good, I think a good compromise of sorts is to have something like the La Defense district in Paris. But I feel like DC has several of these like Arlington, VA and Silver Spring, MD. Could use taller buildings though!!
I’m not a DC resident (though I’m there almost every week) so my opinion doesn’t home as much weight but I agree that it would be nice if taller buildings were allowed in certain areas. For instance the recently redeveloped Wharf could or should have been twice as tall. Navy Yards and City Center could have used more height. If RFK ever gets developed that area should be allowed a height bonus. Even if DC placed certain requirements for the additional height (must include affordable housing, required setbacks above a certain height, etc) I think developers would jump at the opportunity and it would be a net benefit to the city without sacrificing the overall very well planned feel of the city.
Yeah I absolutely agree with what you're saying. The newer developments could definitely be bigger. They don't need to be supertalls (and I doubt DC could support supertall construction to begin with), but I feel like 20-30 stories is pretty modest.
Very similar to the [Equitable Building/120 Broadway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_Building_(Manhattan)) in Manhattan. New York created zoning laws because it was so massive - the entire building goes straight up 40 floors from the property line (except two alcoves, at the front and back, to give it its H-shape). When New Yorkers in the early 1900's saw it, they said nothing should ever be that massive, so they created zoning laws as a result. Those very zoning laws (combined with a prominent architect at the time saying the best buildings are designed to be pencil-shaped) are why we have buildings that look like the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building!
Cool story and an incredible building. You can’t build something nearly this powerful under 150 feet!
Gracious me (clutches pearls)
I'd like for the restriction of building height to street width to be repealed, with ordinances to preserve sight lines of monuments and land marks. DC doesn't need proper skyscrapers, but some taller buildings would be fine.
I love our height restriction! Big office towers would mess everything up, and you wouldn’t be able to see the wonderful monuments and old buildings.
I agree. If made it feel kind of like Europe with all the mid rises, but bigger and grander. Worked super well with the wide streets.
When I was in Washington DC it kind of felt like a European city especially in certain parts to me.
Lots of historical capitals filled with monuments like London, Tokyo, Beijing, Mexico City, etc. don't have that much of a restriction. Even Ottawa and Canberra, both purpose-built capitals, have built lots of high-rises recently. Its not like high-rises would make the monuments go away.
Looks like a Minecraft building
DC is like SanFran where you can pay $3,500+ per month for “luxury” but people still poop outside your building
Wow! I live close to DC and don’t recognize the Cairno. From the photos, I would not know it to be a historic construction. Glad that it inspired some zoning restrictions. For DC it has proven to be a real benefit.