With the District of Columbia’s height restriction entering its 100th year, Lydia DePillis from the Washington City Paper explains why downtown DC is all superblocks with so little natural light:
Recently approved development in Wheaton, MD
While reading about the new Safeway-anchored residential development just approved in Wheaton, all I could think was: Why can’t we get these kinds of buildings in the District? It’s a 17-story, 486-unit, 195-foot-tall apartment complex that will add density and vibrance to the suburb’s delightfully diverse and quirky town center. But it won’t look like the superblocks that proliferate within the D.C. diamond, which are the way they are because developers must ask their architects to pack as much square footage under the 130-foot height limit as possible to make the deal work financially. Since Wheaton is not bound by such restrictions, this development can achieve a kind of light, airy quality with towers on each corner and quite a bit of open space in the middle of the block. That also creates higher-quality living spaces for apartment dwellers, many more of whom will be able to have natural light.
The NYT also points out that “[b]ecause they cannot build up, developers have pushed out, helping gentrify less affluent parts of the city.” And as I’ve noted before, Matt Yglesias has blamed DC’s higher-than-Manhattan office rents on the height cap.
Confusingly enough, the height restriction is enshrined in federal law and is thus in Congress’ hands – so the question is, do legislators just not give a shit because none of them are elected by DC residents, or do they actually have an active interest in the status quo?
Here’s the problem: This isn’t a particularly good case study to make the point. The CityVista project in DC fits under the height limit, has more residential units (685 total), 130,000 sf of retail (including a Safeway), and 800 parking spaces.
http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2008/09/safeway-opening-brings-commerce-to-mt.html
This Weaton project is basically City Vista, but with the parking in the 3 floors above the retail rather than underground.
Now, don’t get me wrong – I would love to change the height act and allow more height and density in DC, but I don’t think this is a particularly compelling case study to do so. Even if DC allowed more height, codes would likely still require parking to be underground rather than in the pedestal of the tower – and the economics would still support that decision. However, the major difference in building height between CityVista and this project is the difference between underground and aboveground parking.
DC has pretty good transit, and cars make great bombs (Pennsylvania Ave = Bollard Boulevard). DC has a ton of room to raise density without going tall. (how to do this is the urban planning question of the 21st century, IMO)
Thats the thing that gets me about all these North American cities… so many skyscrapers, and lower density than their European counterparts.
I’m not fan of projects with parking on the first few floors, and I think the true solution is just to get rid of the parking minimums, but even if you don’t do that, there still is a major difference between above- and below-ground parking: below-ground parking costs a lot more, and thus fewer projects are going to be financed if you don’t allow it (either through direct mandates or through height restrictions).
Two Comments:
1) Unless I’ve missed it, it seems like this 11/9/10 “Market Urbanism” post, “This is Why D.C. Can’t Have Nice Things,” has overlooked Matt Yglesias’ link to this same Lydia DePillis post. The Yglesias post, “The District of Short Buildings” (11/6/10, 8:31 a.m.) has prompted about 50 or more comments, including some comments of mine.
In my comments I argue the position that Washington, D.C., because of its status as the U.S. capital (and its status as a “political” rather than “economic” city), is one of the few cities in the world where height restrictions might not be a bad idea. For those who are interested, my comments begin, I believe, on 11/6/10 at 12:49 p.m.
Here’s the link to the Yglesias thread:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/the-district-of-short-buildings/#comments
2) By the way, although I may not have mentioned it there, my thinking on this topic has been somewhat inspired by Jane Jacobs’ book, “Systems of Survival” (although, of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that she would either agree or disagree with me).
(To be continued.)
Benjamin Hemric
Tues., 11/9/10, 10:30 p.m.
What would your reaction be to the following idea:
Limit heights in the immediate Capitol Mall area, but allow for higher towers elsewhere in the city?
I’m wary of “light and airy”. Philly’s Center City has turned into a jumbled, tangled mess since lifting its restrictions (though in fairness it probably ultimately HAD to in order to compete for high end corporate headquarters). DC is a unique and lovely American city and its low skyline helps spread out its density. I must admit, I like the “superblocks” since they architecturally announce to the visitor that they are in the downtown area of a major city without it being overwhelming. The inner ring of suburbs can have the 300-400 foot towers. They have a place and a purpose. Just not in DC, especially not downtown (where the market for that kind of building would be anyway).
To be honest, that sort of sounds like the exact opposite of how a city should be. But if it were either that or leave the height restriction everywhere, obviously I’d take it.
I should also note that I used to live in DC, and I personally thought that the whole Mall and monument complex was an absolutely atrocious waste of space. I’d raze the Washington Monument (short of the Space Needle, is there any uglier symbol of a major American city?) and turn the Mall into a Lower Manhattan or Vancouver-esque collection of towers if I could…the place is good for nothing except making tourists wish they were somewhere else and holding massive rallies.
…of course I’m exaggerating, but only a little.
I’ll take “a jumbled, tangled mess” (though honestly, I don’t agree with this characterization) over an unsafe wasteland that shuts down at 8 p.m., like it was before all the towers started going up. (I can’t claim to actually be old enough to remember what the area around City Hall was like before the Comcast Tower and everything else went up, but based on the older architecture that I see and what I’ve heard from my parents, it wasn’t pretty.)
(Granted, it’s still pretty dead at night, but that’s probably due to a lack of liquor licenses than anything else.)
3) (Sorry for the delay in posting the “continuation” of my previous comment above!)
This is both [a] a question (mostly for other readers of the “Market Urbanism” blog) and [b] a comment:
[a] Do any of you ever see Stephen Smith’s comments, OTHER than those contained in his initial article-like posts? I’ve been looking, with no success, for the full text of any of his response comments ever since October 17, 2010 — which is when I mentioned that there seems to me to be a technical problem with the site. But all that I ever see of his comments, when I place my computer mouse over the list of recent commenters on the right side of the screen (below the list of “Sites that recently linked to Market Urbanism articles”) are the first few words of what seem to be a longer comment.
For instance, currently his name is listed twice in that column. When I place my computer mouse over the first one I see the words, “I’ll take” — and that’s all. And when I click on the link, the thread does not show any Stephen Smith comment. Again, the same thing is true with the next Stephen Smith comment. When I place my computer mouse over that one I see the words, “To be honest, that sounds like the exact opposite of” — and that’s all.
His comments seem to be the only ones that are “missing” this way.
Although this may only be only my problem, I have encountered this problem from maybe a dozen computers at a large university library (both PCs and Macs) AND also from a PC elsewhere, one totally unrelated to the university.
If there really is a problem (and if it isn’t just me) I suspect that Stephen Smith sees his comments when he accesses the blog site from his own computer — but wouldn’t see it if he accessed it from someone else’s computer (but he doesn’t know this since he hasn’t tried to do so in the last few weeks).
The reason I think this is what may be happening is something similar has happened to me. I’ve noticed that sometimes when I post a comment on, say for example, the “City Room” blog of the “New York Times” I will be able to see the comment I’ve posted on the computer I’ve submitted it from — but no other — until the comment has been properly “processed” (which sometimes takes them 12 hours or so).
[b] In any case, if Stephen Smith has addressed any of his comments towards me, this is why I haven’t responded.
Benjamin Hemric
Thurs., 11/11/10, 9:00 p.m.
To be honest, that sort of sounds like the exact opposite of how a city should be. But if it were either that or leave the height restriction everywhere, obviously I’d take it.
I should also note that I used to live in DC, and I personally thought that the whole Mall and monument complex was an absolutely atrocious waste of space. I’d raze the Washington Monument (short of the Space Needle, is there any uglier symbol of a major American city?) and turn the Mall into a Lower Manhattan or Vancouver-esque collection of towers if I could…the place is good for nothing except making tourists wish they were somewhere else and holding massive rallies.
…of course I’m exaggerating, but only a little.
To be honest, that sort of sounds like the exact opposite of how a city should be. But if it were either that or leave the height restriction everywhere, obviously I’d take it.
I should also note that I used to live in DC, and I personally thought that the whole Mall and monument complex was an absolutely atrocious waste of space. I’d raze the Washington Monument (short of the Space Needle, is there any uglier symbol of a major American city?) and turn the Mall into a Lower Manhattan or Vancouver-esque collection of towers if I could…the place is good for nothing except making tourists wish they were somewhere else and holding massive rallies.
…of course I’m exaggerating, but only a little.
I’ll take “a jumbled, tangled mess” (though honestly, I don’t agree with this characterization) over an unsafe wasteland that shuts down at 8 p.m., like it was before all the towers started going up. (I can’t claim to actually be old enough to remember what the area around City Hall was like before the Comcast Tower and everything else went up, but based on the older architecture that I see and what I’ve heard from my parents, it wasn’t pretty.)
(Granted, it’s still pretty dead at night, but that’s probably due to a lack of liquor licenses than anything else.)
I’ll take “a jumbled, tangled mess” (though honestly, I don’t agree with this characterization) over an unsafe wasteland that shuts down at 8 p.m., like it was before all the towers started going up. (I can’t claim to actually be old enough to remember what the area around City Hall was like before the Comcast Tower and everything else went up, but based on the older architecture that I see and what I’ve heard from my parents, it wasn’t pretty.)
(Granted, it’s still pretty dead at night, but that’s probably due to a lack of liquor licenses than anything else.)
Thanks for reminding me that nobody’s seeing the comments – Adam suggested to me that it was because I was replying with WordPress’ widget and not using the Diqus system (which I try to avoid because I don’t like artificially inflating the Sitemeter hit counter), and lo and behold, it looks like that was the problem. I’m a little too lazy to go back and redo all the comments I made within the last few months (which were apparently never showing up), and I apologize to you or anyone else who was never getting a response!
Thanks for reminding me that nobody’s seeing the comments – Adam suggested to me that it was because I was replying with WordPress’ widget and not using the Diqus system (which I try to avoid because I don’t like artificially inflating the Sitemeter hit counter), and lo and behold, it looks like that was the problem. I’m a little too lazy to go back and redo all the comments I made within the last few months (which were apparently never showing up), and I apologize to you or anyone else who was never getting a response!
Some additional thoughts:
1) Good to finally see Stephen Smith’s comments. Reading the “Market Urbanism” blog recently has been like watching a TV that has no sound!
2) While I have no strong feelings one way or another regarding D.C. height limits (but feel it’s important not to overlook in the discussion the salient fact the D.C. is not the same kind of city as most other cities — and vice versa), it’s “funny” that the building that DePellis is extoling as being aesthetically superior seems (from the rendering) like it would be just the kind of building that would be pilloried in a NYC community board hearing as being an aesthetic horror. (Not that I necessarily agree with that opinion.) And it also seems that a number of NYC’s most treasured and desirable residences / hotels (e.g., the Dakota, the Belnord, the Anthorp, the Plaza, etc.) would fall into the “superblock” (incorrect use of the word?) category of structures that she finds aesthetically inferior.
3) Like others in this thread, I suspect that DePelllis may be not be using the word “superblock” correctly (or at least she’s using it in an unconverntional and confusing fashion). It seems to me that the superblock designation has less to do with size of a block than the blocking off of streets. Thus, for example, the very long blocks in NYC between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Ave. (Ave. of the Americas) would not be correctly called “superblocks,” so it seems to me, because they do not block off streets, but are just very long blocks. On the other hand, even some smaller blocks than these that are located in the Wall St. area would be correctly called superblocks, so it seems to me, because they do block off through streets (and were created by the demapping of streets).
Benjamin Hemric
TH, 11/11/10, 11:05 p.m.
Yeah, you’re right, that’s not exactly what “supberblock” means.
Anyway, while I definitely wouldn’t stand in the way of someone if they wanted to build a boxy structure, having worked in one of those DC buildings before, I can say that one pitfall is that only higher-ups in any company renting office space in them get to see natural light during the day.
LIMITS TO MARKET URBANISM?
I’d like to expand a bit on my previous posts in this thread. I think this thread on height limits in Washington, D.C. brings up the opportunity to throw into the ring a topic that I’ve been meaning to bring up ever since I’ve been posting on this board (almost two years ago?):
What are the limits (if any) to “market urbanism”?
Let me briefly explain:
My guess is that most of us here believe that there are both legitimate areas for market forces and legtimate areas for government action. Where does one draw the line between the two? My guess is that each of us would probably draw the line in a slightly different place, and I think it might be useful along the way (in various threads) to discuss how the topics illustrate where we, as individuals, are drawing the line and why.
For instance, although I’m a big supporter of market forces (or at least in my opinion I am), I’ve never been in favor of the privatization of prisons. I’ve become increasingly skeptical about the privatization of roadways and government support for private schools (e.g., charter schools). Although I’m probably less in favor of zoning than most anyone else I know (even most “conservatives”), I do think that VERY BASIC zoning rules (similar to those that were used in NYC’s 1916 zoning ordinance) do serve a legitimate purpose.
I suspect that others would draw the line differently. (I know Adam, the originator of the “Market Urbanism” board, is more “pure” libertarian and very much in favor of private roads, and I believe he also strongly favors private schools.) As mentioned in my previous thread, my “line” has been very much influenced by Jane Jacobs’ book “Systems of Survival” (although she might or might not have agreed with how I’ve interpreted it). (Looking up “Libertarian,” or something like that on Wikipedia, I see that there are established names for various types of libertarians, and I suspect, but am not sure, that there is a type of libertarianism that would basically describe my stance.)
In terms of the issue of height limits in Washington, D.C., although I have no strong feelings one way or another, it does seem to me that for a city like Washington, D.C., which is not a “real” city but a government created settlement (which in some important ways is like a miltary base, albeit one with relatively unrestricted access), it is at least legitimate for government to focus on this topic (and people can thus argue back and forth as to what kind of city is, in their opinion, more beautiful and a better capital for our nation). Furthermore, it seems to me that in a such a non-economic city the usual economic arguments that are very legitimate in “real” cities (i.e., those that are economic cities) are usually less pertinent. I do think such economic arguments, though, are very much applicable in “real” economic cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. And in large “real” cities that are also capitals (e.g., London, Paris, etc.), while it is legitimate to discuss height limits (apparently Paris has one and London doesn’t), the question can also become one of should the city remain a capital or should the capital be shifted elsewhere.
Benjamin Hemric
Sun., 11/14/10, 3:15 p.m.