Raise the Roof? DC Considering Changes to Tall Buildings Restriction

Washington DC's restriction on tall buildings is in the midst of its latest challenge, as city and congressional leaders discuss possible modifications to the 1910 Heights of Buildings Act, which generally restricts construction within the city's radius to no more than 90 feet for residential buildings and 130 feet for commercial structures.  Leading the charge is DC Mayor Vincent Gray, in concert with "congresswoman" Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who chairs the House committee that controls the city's pursestrings.

Real estate developers have long abhorred the prohibition on taller buildings, which they say limits their ability to develop downtown Washington to its full potential and artificially inflates the price of the city's prime office space.  Additionally, Issa and others believe that relaxing the limit on tall buildings would help lure developers to outlying areas of the city that have historically been neglected but could become candidates for high-rise residential and office buildings.

It should also be noted that the three leaders are not talking about a total repeal of the rule, but what instead seems like a relatively minor change which would allow the addition of another floor or two on top of new and existing structures.

Still, those committed to DC's architectural status quo have dug in their heels.  William P. Lightfoot, a former DC City Council member, argued that sweeping views of the city's monuments and national landmarks help to define the city, and ought to be maintained.  “One story will block somebody’s view, and that is wrong.”

On the contrary, many argue, with space at a premium, why artificially constrain the amount available to those wishing to develop it?

"The place where tall buildings can unlock the most value is in the downtown core, where demand for real estate is highest," said Forbes contributor Josh Barro, "Ideally, Washingtonians will eventually shut up about 'viewsheds' and Connecticut Avenue will get the skyscrapers it deserves."

While personally unsympathetic to the notion that developers should be permitted to turn downtown Washington into a sea of skyscrapers, the proposal to relax restrictions on the city's margins is intriguing.  The DC building height limit, and Congress' jurisdiction over it, could end up being a rare issue where nuance is appropriately taken into account and leaders endeavor to make policy based on the varied and important considerations of a given issue.  As Issa said, “We have an architectural interest in the nation’s capital, but it’s a pretty small area that we are really interested in.  When you get to the edges of the city, you have to ask yourself: What harm would it be if those buildings were taller?”

I couldn't agree more that more high-rise development on DC's outskirts would ultimately be a good thing.  The outlying areas under consideration are mostly too far away to have legitimate sightlines of the Capitol Building and Washington Monument in the first place, so new high rises might ironically end up creating better opportunities for residents in those areas to view our nation's treasures.  Further, anything that encourages retail and investment expansion into historically underdeveloped areas is probably a good thing.

On the other hand, however, fully repealing the ban on tall buildings would be a disaster.  Supporters of unchecked upward growth in DC's downtown core tend to be motivated by one thing and one thing only - dollar signs for developers, and the supposed benefits that would bring to the rest of us.  They might have a point if DC faced actual space constraints outside of its relatively small downtown area, but the city is already disproportionately built up in the roughly 20 block radius to the north and west of the Capitol, with comparatively close-in areas like Logan Circle, U St/Columbia Heights, NoMa, and the Southwest Waterfront only garnering interest in recent years as prime space has become an issue.  Universally lifting the ban on tall buildings would only re-concentrate development back into the downtown core, discouraging future expansion into these areas. 

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the stops on the Washington metro knows that most of the action takes place at only a handful of them.  Is it ultimately better for the city if we continue to reinforce this trend, or if we encourage further linkages with the city's vast exterior?  DC is in the midst of an urban renaissance, which has partly been driven by the movement of people and dollars into new areas of the city.  Going back to the old days of downtown and everywhere else would seem foolhardy.

Then there's the question of those viewscapes, and they are not just the concern of well-heeled property owners in the city's more affluent areas.  After all, part of what makes any place desirable to live or work is that place having its own feel and unique identity.  For DC residents like myself, one of the best parts about the city are the views around random street corners that serve to remind us that we are in fact in the nation's capital.  From my neighborhood in the northeastern section of the city, at any given time I can walk down the street and see, just barely, above the sea of low-lying homes and government office buildings between here and there, the tip of the Washington monument.  There are countless neighborhoods like mine all around DC - areas where the undeniable feeling of urban living is tempered by the existence of a more close-knit reality.  Building more skyscrapers would discourage further investment into emerging neighborhoods like mine.  But it would also negate one of Washington's most signature aspects.

A new floor here or there in DC's downtown wouldn't hurt anyone, and high-rise buildings on the city's flanks may serve as a vital economic catalyst.  But beware the slippery slope, Washingtonians.  We become like everyone else at our own peril.

What do you think about possible amendments to the DC Heights of Buildings Act?  Contribute your thoughts in the comments section...