41–50 of 62 posts
I don't understand why DC doesn't do a Parisian-style La Defense. The central historical DC core can remain at its current height, while skyscrapers and other high rises can be in a designated area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_D%C3%A9fense
D.C. would look much more like a real city without the restrictions. This is a good thing! Cities grow! The choice here is between upward and outward. You can keep buildings unnaturally short, which forces the city to spread out, increasing commute times (and a whole lot more). Or you can let things grow, and let the place be more livable for the people that actually live there.
Paris is often seen as one of the most beautiful cities in the world and totally does feel like a real city despite the height limit. In fact the new financial district off to the side with its skyscrapers and, I imagine, no height limit, while modern and fancy, just doesn't feel as city-like as the rest of Paris. It feels like a dead place where people only come to work. I've only spent a good week in Paris, so it m…
What a horrible hit piece by WaPo against the plan to raise the height limit. As if the taller buildings are going to be windowless slab-sided monoliths! Height is beautiful: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3nsDtd8zatQ/S9382uGLh6I/AAAAAAAAAh... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/lugnuts/Bridges/IMG_5... http://www.thewrigleybuilding.com/images/about-top.jpg Also, the growth of D.C. is something I intensely dislike. It…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally agree but there is the concern that the higher buildings would take away from the prominence of the historical monuments that the city centers on. A good example of this is the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. It appeared prominent and even formidable when it was built in the 18th century but modern construction has surrounded it on all sides and it's not even really part of the skyline anymore[1]. That's…
The only reason these short buildings are considered historic is that important things happened in them before we learned how to make rebar, and before we rediscovered concrete. We can build tall buildings now. Some of those will become historic, if we build them. Many of them will be very nice-looking, like the new WTC towers. Don't let old building methods stand in the way of progress. I'm not one of those growth-a…
The Freedom Tower is incredibly boring, not to mention dated, and will have the oppressive atmosphere of any modern office space inside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about both of those things. Luckily, I don't think corporations and lobbyists are boogeymen. Why shouldn't they be allowed to work in convenient locations? The most successful, established firms already do work in those convenient locations, but since supply is so restricted, smaller firms can't afford it. When you restrict supply, the folks with money win.
I don't think they're boogeymen either, but this will not lead to affordable or convenient housing and anyone who believes otherwise is a just a fool. This is from the experience of living in the city for 5 years. If there was actual demand for denser housing or office space you'd see it sprouting up across the river in Virginia or outside the southeast of the city where land is dirt cheap. Remember the city itself i…
This is untrue. If housing desirablility is inversely proportional to the distance from the White House, then the area of equally desirable housing increases with square of the distance. You won't get dense nodes. It'll be spread around in a circle.
"this will not lead to affordable or convenient housing"
The more housing you allow, the cheaper it will be compared to a universe with supply restrictions. Do you disagree with that?
What a horrible hit piece by WaPo against the plan to raise the height limit. As if the taller buildings are going to be windowless slab-sided monoliths! Height is beautiful: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3nsDtd8zatQ/S9382uGLh6I/AAAAAAAAAh... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/lugnuts/Bridges/IMG_5... http://www.thewrigleybuilding.com/images/about-top.jpg Also, the growth of D.C. is something I intensely dislike. It…
Right, because that gives a place substance...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason these short buildings are considered historic is that important things happened in them before we learned how to make rebar, and before we rediscovered concrete. We can build tall buildings now. Some of those will become historic, if we build them. Many of them will be very nice-looking, like the new WTC towers. Don't let old building methods stand in the way of progress. I'm not one of those growth-a…
New building methods create ugly, uncomfortable, temporary environments. If you've ever lived in, say, Paris or New York, you may understand the feeling of living in the hollowed-out shell of a once-great city. The Freedom Tower is incredibly boring, not to mention dated, and will have the oppressive atmosphere of any modern office space inside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paris is often seen as one of the most beautiful cities in the world and totally does feel like a real city despite the height limit. In fact the new financial district off to the side with its skyscrapers and, I imagine, no height limit, while modern and fancy, just doesn't feel as city-like as the rest of Paris. It feels like a dead place where people only come to work. I've only spent a good week in Paris, so it m…
Paris is also ~2000 sq miles while DC is only 60 sq miles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an argument that forcing the city to "spread out" rather than "up" has been partly responsible for the rapid improvement in crime and livability in many parts of the city over the last decade. What would H St NE or Upper 16th St look like if one could just build huge buildings in Dupont and Adams Morgan.
Making it impossible for poor folks to live in a place does tend to reduce crime. Is it moral?