Congress is considering whether or not to change DC’s height limit. Here are 9 suggestions that will help the city get the most benefit out of changing (but not eliminating) its height regulations.

Paris’ La Defense skyline. Photo by KJ Vogelius on flickr.

Much of the debate about the height limit has settled into two opposing camps, those who want taller buildings, and those opposed to any change. But it doesn’t need to be so black and white.

Regulations can change in practical and beneficial ways, without destroying Washington’s unique layout. If Congress repeals or changes the DC Height Act, the District will be free to regulate height in much more flexible ways.

That in mind, here are some suggestions that Congress and the DC Council should consider as they move forward.

1. Don’t eliminate, calibrate

Even though eliminating all height limits completely isn’t anyone’s proposal and has never been seriously on the table, it’s worth saying up front just to be clear. There are good reasons to regulate height, but our existing laws are not necessarily the ideal set. We can make them more ideal with some fine tuning.

2. Target development where we want it

Many assume raising the height limit would result in taller buildings everywhere, or all over downtown, but that need not be the case. It would be smarter to pick specific areas where we want to encourage more development, and only increase the limit there.

The city can raise the limit only on blocks with a Metro station entrance, for example, or only within 1/8 mile of Metro stations with low existing ridership, or only near Farragut Square, or only in Anacostia. Whatever.

No doubt where to allow them would be a contentious question, but the city already has many regulations encouraging or discouraging development in certain areas. There’s no reason the height limit can’t be used in the same way. We can be selective.

3. Grant a residential bonus for downtown

Downtown DC has no trouble attracting development, but office is usually more profitable than residential, so downtown is often packed during work hours but pretty empty in the evenings. More residential would help downtown stay active on evenings and weekends, not to mention reduce the capacity stress on our transportation network by allowing more people to live close to their work.

But under current rules, developers often can’t justify using floor space under the height limit for residential when office is more lucrative. If they got a bonus for residential, allowing them to build taller only if some or all of the added height were used for apartments, that would benefit everyone.

4. More offices can go downtown, but also other places

We want a lot of office buildings downtown because that’s where our regional transportation system converges. But we also want office buildings outside downtown so residential areas don’t empty out during work hours, and to encourage a healthy economy throughout the city.

Uptown nodes like Bethesda and Clarendon are good for the region and would be good for the city, and would happen in DC if we allowed them to. So while it may be desirable to allow taller buildings in some parts of downtown sometimes, it’s also desirable to encourage office development elsewhere as an anchor for uptown commercial districts.

5. Be inclusive of affordable housing

Height limit opponents say taller buildings will make DC more affordable, because it will increase the supply of housing, thus helping to address rising demand. Supporters of keeping it say tall buildings will make DC more expensive, because new development is almost always expensive. They’re both right, but those points aren’t mutually exclusive.

New buildings are indeed almost always expensive, because it costs a lot to build a skyscraper, and developers need to turn a profit within a few years.

But new buildings eventually become old ones, and this isn’t a short-term decision. Buildings that are expensive at first often become the next generation’s affordable housing. Part of the reason DC has an affordable housing problem now is that we didn’t build enough new buildings a generation ago. If we don’t build enough new units now, the next generation will be out of luck too.

In the mean time, we can solve the short-term affordability problem with inclusive zoning; in exchange for allowing taller buildings, the city should require some of their units to be affordable. Win-win.

6. Require good architecture

Some who want to change the height limit say regulations hurt DC’s architecture, resulting in boring-looking buildings. Meanwhile, many others hate tall buildings because so many skyscrapers are ugly. Both arguments are equally bad, because the world is full of both great and ugly buildings of every height.

But there’s no denying that tall buildings stand out, and thus become landmarks whether beautiful or ugly. To ensure we get the former rather than the latter, DC (or even NCPC) could require aesthetic review & approval for the design of any building above a certain height.

That sounds cumbersome, but it’s standard practice in many cities, and DC already does it in some neighborhoods.

A city the size of DC wouldn’t want to insist on aesthetic review for every building, but there’s no good reason DC can’t do it for tall ones.

Of course the devil is in the details. To use this sort of oversight, DC would have to establish design guidelines that tell architects what the city will approve or deny. That could be contentious, and might not be the same everywhere in the city.

7. Preserve historic facades and encourage entrances

Frequent, unique-looking entrances are incredibly important for quality walkable urbanism. One problem with tall buildings is many are so wide that they’re boring to walk next to at the ground level. The minimalist facades of modern architecture compound the problem.

This is why the urbanism in Georgetown is better than Rosslyn. It’s not that Rosslyn has buildings that are too tall, it’s that Rosslyn’s buildings are too wide, and too bare at the ground level.

While it’s not practical for tall buildings to change completely every 25′ the way rowhouses in Georgetown do, their ground floors can be designed to look and function as smaller buildings, and historic buildings can be integrated into larger developments above.

This may not strictly be a height limit issue, but it’s a good way to ensure that taller buildings improve the streetscape. It can be accomplished using the design guidelines and architectural review process outlined above.

8. Outlaw surface parking lots

Surface parking lots are the bane of walkable urbanism, but they’re common in almost every skyscraper-heavy downtown in America, because one large building can sap up years worth of demand, leaving developers of other properties waiting in limbo for reason to build.

Many developers in downtowns around the US opt to leave land nearly empty rather than fill it with short buildings, on the chance that they may strike it big with the next big once-a-generation mega skyscraper. Surface parking lots provide a convenient way to use that land in the mean time.

This is a big problem, and DC is not immune. In 2008 the developer of what’s now the shiny office building on the northwest corner of Connecticut Avenue and K Street wanted to use that land as a parking lot.

Outlawing surface parking lots in areas where tall buildings are permitted would go a long way towards ensuring downtown DC never looks anything like this.

9. Protect the iconic monuments

Development economics are important, but they’re not the only thing. The most valuable land in DC is probably the White House Ellipse, but we’re not going to put skyscrapers there. DC’s skyline view of the Capitol and Washington Monument is one of the world’s most iconic, and should of course be preserved.

But taller buildings in Farragut Square or Brookland or Anacostia wouldn’t impede that view any more than they do in Rosslyn, and La Defense did not destroy Paris.

We can, and should, allow taller buildings where they’re most appropriate, while protecting the views that define our city.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

DDOT’s final alternatives analysis for a premium transit route from Union Station to Georgetown calls for a streetcar using a dedicated transitway along K Street.

The analysis recommendations confirm earlier planning that had included K Street in DC’s proposed 37-mile network, and long-time plans for a K Street Transitway.

Other alternatives that were analyzed and rejected would have followed I and M Streets, or used buses rather than streetcars.

Streetcar route. Image from DDOT.

The selected route begins on the Hopscotch Bridge as an extension of the H Street streetcar. From there it runs west along H Street, New Jersey Avenue, and K Street, until it reaches its end at Wisconsin Avenue under the Whitehurst Freeway in Georgetown.

From 10th Street to 21st Street NW the line runs as the K Street transitway, in dedicated lanes fully separated from cars by medians on most blocks. Although the transitway has been planned for years, DDOT did consider other options.

K Street section through downtown. Image from DDOT.

Since federal rules prohibit overhead wires in most of the L’Enfant City, DDOT’s analysis included a report on wire-free propulsion. Wire free technology is improving, and seems possible for segments of up to 2.5 miles long.

Since the route from Union Station to Georgetown is a little over 3 miles long, rapid battery recharge stations may be necessary, unless the technology improves or overhead wires are allowed.

Construction is still a couple of years away, and will most likely move forward after DDOT hires a private firm to design and build its 22-mile premium transit system.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

Last week Arlington painted its first green bike box, at the corner of Veitch Street and Lee Highway.

The bike box was originally installed in July, but without green paint. The new green markings make the box more visible, so car drivers know to stop behind it.

Between the bike box and its new buffered bike lanes, Veitch Street has become one of Arlington’s best on-street bikeways.

Veitch Street bike box. Photo by David Goodman, Arlington County Bicycle Program Manager.

Each day this week while I’m in Seattle for Railvolution there will be a brief post about some cool transportation-related thing in that city.

Thanks to its unique geography, Washington state has one of the world’s most extensive ferry networks. The largest boats, in Seattle, can carry thousands of passengers and hundreds of cars.

The downtown Seattle ferry terminal is within walking distance of the Pioneer Square subway station, making trips to Bainbridge Island and Bremerton easy.

Seattle ferry terminal.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

Each day this week while I’m in Seattle for Railvolution there will be a brief post about some cool transportation-related thing in that city.

Seattle is currently rebuilding its Broadway corridor to add a new streetcar line. When complete, Broadway will have both a streetcar and a cycletrack, making it one of America’s most multimodal streets.

It’s going to be quite a sight.

Tomorrow: Ferries.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

Each day this week while I’m in Seattle for Railvolution there will be a brief post about some cool transportation-related thing in that city.

Seattle is home to America’s 2nd largest trolley bus network. Trolley buses are buses on wheels powered by overhead wire instead of diesel fuel or battery. They’re quieter and smoother than normal buses, but more expensive, and some people don’t like the overhead wires.

I’m a big fan of these, and would like to see them in more cities. While still a step down from streetcars, trolley bus wires offer some of the same sense of permanence as rail. They’re a sign a bus line isn’t likely to change.

Seattle trolley bus.

Tomorrow: A very complete street.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

Each day this week while I’m in Seattle for Railvolution there will be a brief post about some cool transportation-related thing in that city.

Seattle’s monorail opened in 1962 for the world’s fair, and for decades was the only rail transit in town. Unfortunately it’s more of a novelty than a bona fide transit system. The monorail has only 2 stations, one downtown and a second at the Space Needle, at what was once the fairgrounds.

Why not build more? There were some proposals to do so, but one problem is that monorails aren’t as flexible as light rail. While they’re great for elevated lines, they’re harder and more expensive to build at-grade or in a subway, options Seattle needed for what became its Central light rail line.

But it is undeniably neat.

The monorail in downtown Seattle.

Tomorrow: Trolleys, but not streetcars.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

I’m in Seattle this week for the Railvolution conference, along with about half of GGW’s editorial team. Since I’ll be too busy geeking out at transit nerd nirvana to blog, each day this week there will be a brief post about some cool transportation-related thing here in Seattle. Today: Their unique bus/rail subway.

The Seattle Transit Tunnel is a 5-station subway that forms the core of Seattle’s transit network. It started off as a bus-only subway, but became a joint bus/rail tunnel when Seattle’s Central Link light rail line opened in 2009.

Each station is different, but one, Pioneer Square, would look particularly at home in DC:

Pioneer Square subway station.

Tomorrow: The famous Monorail.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

Lots of bridges around the world can be raised to let ships pass under, but not many look like this.

It’s the Slauerhoffbrug, of Leeuwarden, Netherlands, and it’s quite a sight. Here’s a video of it in action.

Slauerhoffbrug, aka the flying bridge of Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
Photo by Bert Kaufmann on flickr.

Arlington produced a half-hour documentary about its bike planning efforts, and how it became one of the east coast’s best cycling towns. Give it a watch.

Left: Watch the movie (you’ll probably want to full-screen it). Right: Nifty movie poster.