Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#51

Post by eli »

adestefan wrote: post #30
natrius wrote: post #13

Limiting housing supply in desirable locations is the new redlining. I understand liking the character of a place, but it seems morally problematic to use the police power to enforce that character at the expense of those who will no longer be able to afford to live there as demand increases while supply doesn't. Those same people are often the first to support affordable housing mandates without recoiling at the ine…

This is never about housing. It's about corporations wanting to be pack in more and more lobbyists as close as they can.

Do you have any evidence to support that? I think the push for ending the height restrictions was mostly coming from residential developers.

Lobbyists can live anywhere (I'm sure many/most live outside DC proper) and, if anything, I would argue that it's increasingly less important for a lobbying firm to physically be on K St or the Hill.

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#52

Post by eli »

brianbreslin wrote: post #22

It would make sense to ease restrictions near metro stations first, then later sprinkle restriction lifting throughout other neighborhoods once mass transit and infrastructure gets improved. Key issues to consider: infrastructure (power, water, sewage, gas, internet, transit, roads) traffic impact walkability of neighborhood (are there food options, etc.) I think pushing sprawl outward is the LAST thing DC needs, tra…

Arguably traffic could improve if people were able to live closer to their jobs rather than having to drive in from a far-flung suburb.

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#53

Post by natrius »

eli wrote: post #50
natrius wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making it impossible for poor folks to live in a place does tend to reduce crime. Is it moral?

Living in a city has become desirable again. People who can't afford to live in the city are being pushed out into the suburbs like Prince George's county. Is that immoral? I don't know.

Displacement isn't inherently immoral in my opinion, but using those people's government to exacerbate the process is.

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#54

Post by eli »

adestefan wrote: post #40
natrius wrote: post #35

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…

There is absolutely demand for affordable housing in desirable parts of the city. It's not that people want denser living, they want to live in a nice part of the city. Way out east of the river is not a great place to live or work for a variety of reasons.

(And, obviously, there are tall office buildings in Rosslyn just over the bridge from DC.)

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#55

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

rayiner wrote: post #24

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…

I wasn't aware that this was even supposed to be a hit piece. I kept scrolling down, increasing the building height limits, and always preferred the tallest variants with the largest footprints...

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#56

Post by mdasen »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #38
rayiner wrote: post #24

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…

How do you read this as a hit piece...? Nowhere that I saw do they even allude to the various proposals being bad ideas. Also, DC has a decently sized tech community and industry, a lot of which is not related to the federal government. I'd venture to say it's the largest in the country after SF, NYC and Chicago.

If you look at the photos, you can click the right arrow (or top buttons if not on a phone) to see what the neighborhood would look like with eased height restrictions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/lifestyle/magaz.... Rather than photoshopping in nice buildings, they've put in windowless concrete slabs of uniform height. Sometimes the best way to get people to agree with your side isn't to argue for your side, but to "push-poll" people: do you like the way DC looks now or do you want massive concrete blocks with no windows dominating everything? In photo mockups, it comes off as subtle, but it can shape the opinions of many.

I'm not saying that's what the WaPo is trying to do. I think they just didn't put in the time to do a good job creating a hypothetical new DC with realistic buildings of varying heights. However, if you support increased heights for buildings, their mock-ups make something you consider positive look bad. I mean, I'd hate to live in a city with imposing concrete blocks with no windows. It would look like some dystopian future world. But the photos of what I think is Chicago that were linked to don't look oppressive and don't have uniformity of height - there's plenty of sky that you can see through the buildings since they aren't connected beige blobs. Now, one can still dislike tall buildings (they can change the nature of the area), but they wouldn't have the same oppressive feeling.

So, the mockups from WaPo look oppressive (on purpose or on accident) while proponents of eased height restrictions would insist that it would look a lot more like the Chicago photos than some concrete dystopia.

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#57

Post by adestefan »

Swizec wrote: post #49
adestefan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paris is also ~2000 sq miles while DC is only 60 sq miles.

I doubt Paris was anywhere near 60sq miles when it started out as a trading settlement in 250 BC.

DC is restricted to that 60 sq miles and can get no larger. It was actually a bit larger until they gave back all the land on the south side of the Potomac to Virginia.

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#58

Post by fjk »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #39
Swizec wrote: post #5

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…

Height restrictions or not the new development in DC is mostly garbage. Planners do not seem to understand the formula for making pleasant urban neighborhoods with multistory residential buildings is that the ground floor must be retail. The building facade and retail must be flush with the sidewalk. I don't understand why this formula is so hard for urban planners to accept. You see it in every thriving city. It sim…

I would argue that planners do understand the formula for making pleasant urban neighborhoods - it's usually the developers who don't get the placemaking concepts.

That being said, I'm interested in the neighborhoods/buildings you mentioned being so bad. Could you share which locations you're referencing?

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#59

Post by culturestate »

msutherl wrote: post #44
mkr-hn wrote: post #32

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.

I live in the most skyscraper-crazy city on earth - Hong Kong - and I can attest that if done properly and with care, building skyward doesn't have to lead to a dystopian Fifth Element-style future.

Re: How D.C. could look if the height restriction changes

#60

Post by rayiner »

mdasen wrote: post #56
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you read this as a hit piece...? Nowhere that I saw do they even allude to the various proposals being bad ideas. Also, DC has a decently sized tech community and industry, a lot of which is not related to the federal government. I'd venture to say it's the largest in the country after SF, NYC and Chicago.

If you look at the photos, you can click the right arrow (or top buttons if not on a phone) to see what the neighborhood would look like with eased height restrictions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/lifestyle/magaz... . Rather than photoshopping in nice buildings, they've put in windowless concrete slabs of uniform height. Sometimes the best way to get people to agree with your side isn't to argue for…

Right. Chicago looks great because of the set back requirements. Buildings either have to be further back from the street, or taper as they rise. That lets plenty of sunlight to street level. The mockups are straight vertical additions onto buildings that extend right to the street.
Post reply on HN