Mike: As you and your colleagues move forward on the Height Act study, I’d ask — • Can NCPC/OP produce a diagram of widths of rights of way? o If so, can that “width” be associated with every property shape that it abuts, thereby allowing a determination and visualization of what the Height Act would allow (from the most permissive frontage)? IF so, then a diagram of Height Act can be produced and even overlaid with limitations that zoning now imposes, often less but sometimes more (see below) that is ”lost” to the greater restriction of the Act of 1910.

o At the same time, where rights of way are less than 90 feet, the Act limits building heights to the width of the right of way. What rights of way are less than 90 feet? Maybe this should be in increasingly restrictive decrements: 90-80, 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s, under 40? • Where In DC is the Height Act’s limit more restrictive than that allowed in Zoning (classic example being where height limit is stated as the same, but parapets height is counted in Height Act but not in zoning (up to 4 feet)? What about differences in the point from which “height” is measured? • Should there be a relief provision from Height Act limitations as a kind of variance? • In what areas of the District is Height Act the sole limitation (many receiving zones, perhaps elsewhere)? Going beyond these, the question of right of way widths is one that also informs where visualizations should occur. Remarks noted that this would include such icons as Pennsylvania Avenue. I would look for this along all rights of way that are 110 feet or more, these being where Height Act allows (if commercial) 130. I would particularly think that visualizations along K Street from Mt. Vernon square to Rock creek (148’) would be important, as well as other 160’ rights of way such as Maryland and nearly all of Virginia Avenue (both of which feature railroad tracks, often elevated, in portions of the r.o.w. at this time). Widths can be unsettled where multiple rights of way abut, as they do where freeway slices thru the area with flanking service lanes or sections of older L’Enfant streets; South Capitol where the interstate ramps exist is another that is particularly wide, wider than it is from about I Street south to the bridge. Finally, other than L’Enfant plaza and the SW Urban renewal plan, are there other areas where there is a “special” measuring point? Returning to visualizations, I would think some should be along particularly narrow rights of way as well, of which there are many in Adams Morgan and pockets of other often historic locations around the District.

Read more

  —Lindsley Williams, Washington, DC (June 07, 2013)

Thank you for the opportunity to participate. Although I have tremendous respect for both Harriet Tregoning's office and NCPC, I found the format of the meeting somewhat puzzling and frustrating. As I understood our task, it was to think about the link between the federal interest in DC and the height limit, and how changing or maintaining the height limit might impact the federal interest, favorably or unfavorably.

But this very abstract concept was communicated somewhat clumsily by the speakers who introduced the meeting, and also the various boards around the room seemed to raise a different question, somehting like "how would we like the city to change?" As a first step in the process, I would have found a different meeting more useful--a brainstorming session or a focus group around the question "what is the federal interest in DC?" To me, the answer is not all obvious,and I found it impossible to think usefully about the height limit without better understanding the federal interest. Also, I think it would be a very intriguing idea to having the residents of DC speak to congress about their ideas of what the federal interest in DC might be. I understand process comments are not what you're looking for at this point. Good luck!

Read more

  —Gary McNeil, Washington, DC (June 05, 2013)

Good morning NCPC, I was not able to make my comments through the online portal; so please find below my comments from the event last night: Name: Jacinda City/Neighborhood: DC/Dupont Circle I accept that my comments, will be published online and in print as part of the public record. And I am on email list. Station 2: What approach might we follow? Of the case studies exhibited, London is the best model. This approach would provide many developing areas of the city the chance to create something unique, while still protecting the prominence of the National Mall. Station 3: Principle 1 - What landmarks and monuments should be prominent? The Washington Monument and the Capitol Building should become the benchmarks for potential sightlines as they are currently the only prominent structures under the current height restrictions. With many of the buildings around the National Mall all being built to the same height, there are few views available of these two structures currently. Is it important for civic structures to define Washington’s future skyline? If polled, you will find that the DC’s skyline consists of the Washington Monument, Capitol Building, and the Lincoln Memorial. The horizontal DC skyline has already hindered the views of most notable civic structures. Thus, the current height restrictions have already diminished the participation in a general DC skyline. Should private buildings become prominent landmarks in Washington’s skyline? Regardless of height, private buildings have become landmarks. Private developers can easily create unique critically acclaimed taller buildings that can become the next generation of DC landmarks.

Principle 2- Can new taller buildings coexist with our skyline? As I mentioned the current horizontal skyline only allows 2 structures to ultimately define DC’s skyline. The addition of taller buildings with proper zoning and sightlines can create a more dynamic DC skyline. What does a “horizontal skyline” mean to you? As a fan of architecture and a traveler I will say that the current horizontal skyline of DC is not appealing. If every other building on the street was a historic structure with varying forms of architecture, then the horizontal skyline may not be that bad. However, the current DC height restrictions have created near identical boxes that make me feel that DC architects and planners are forced to adhere to limited model of conformity. This makes the non-National Mall portions of DC feel devoid of an identity. And if parts of the city cannot find an identity, then it will become very hard to bring people to work or live in other areas. As an outsider coming into the city, I will say that DC’s neighbor Arlington is doing a great job in creating multiple prominent areas within the city that are attracting businesses and residents. Principle 4 How should building heights relate to: Major parks and natural features? To me, parks and public spaces are more defined by their landscaping, accessibility, and features rather than the structures around them. Well placed and thought-out trees and artwork will make you forget that there is a 20 story building across the street. Other Considerations No one will deny that some height restrictions will remain in place for those high-security areas.

Traffic is a problem that all densely populated cities. Rush hour and event traffic in DC could benefit from other programs such as timing street lights for cars, more Metro stops, and other DC/VA/MD mass transportation projects. Regardless of building height, the city will have to be the champion for low income housing and work with the private sector to push this initiative forward. Many federal agencies have already moved and are planning to move to Virginia and Maryland. The FBI is the latest high profile agency that will leave DC in the near future. The agencies are not moving to skyscrapers; however they are moving to dynamic structures that make their employees feel better about coming to work. The new generation of federal buildings in Virginia and Maryland are green, have unique architecture, and have higher floor to ceiling heights that appeal to open workspaces and flexible floor plans. Tourism can only be enhanced with the addition of zones of taller buildings. Foremost there would be opportunities for more hotel rooms which would help drive down some of the DC hotel costs, thus making vacations, conventions, sporting events, and concerts more appealing.

Read more

  —Jacinda L. Collins, PE, LEED Green Associate, Washington, DC (June 05, 2013)

(Via Twitter) @NCPCgov @OPinDC at 103 yrs old I'd say its about time for DCHoBA to grow up and start taking some responsibility for its actions! #heightdc

  —Matthew Steenhoek , Washignton, DC (June 03, 2013)

I'm pro height rise building. It would make the city look more attractive, and a city of the 21 century. DC height rise restriction makes the city look antique and boring.

  —Manuel Casas, Washington, DC (May 30, 2013)

It was nice meeting at the DC Height Master Plan public meeting. It was great to learn more about the National Capital Planning Commission's and the D.C. Office of Planning's joint effort to study the impacts of the D.C. Height Law. I also enjoyed how interactive the meeting was and having the chance to offer some input as a long-time D.C. resident and an Urban Planner. As I mentioned yesterday, at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University I wrote a term paper on the D.C. Height Act for my Planning Law class. That paper is attached.

View attachment

  —Sarah Gutschow, Washington, DC (May 21, 2013)

Focus on context-appropriate building height guidelines to improve housing affordability while maintaining District character. (Via Twitter)

  —Eli Glazier , Los Angles, CA (May 21, 2013)

(From Attachment)The District of Columbia’s commercial real estate is more expensive per square foot than Manhattan’s financial district. The area’s traffic is the worst in the country, with ever-expanding sprawl adding to the nation’s longest commuting times. Only 11% of the metropolitan area’s 5.7 million residents live in the District of Columbia, among the lowest percentage in the US and well behind New York City’s 43%, Los Angeles’ 30%, and Chicago’s 28%. We rank well below

View attachment

  —Frederic Harwood , Washington, DC (Shaw) (May 21, 2013)

This article identifies the impact of building high in terms of construction expenditures, construction jobs, construction salaries, and, once the building is finished, annual operating cash flow, employment, and salaries/earnings. In addition there are tax implications for the city and state for both the construction and the year to year operations. Finally, any building has an impact on the existing commercial and residential real estate market, and that is discussed as well.

the article ends with a discussion of Berlin and Paris, and the implications for Washington, DC. in going through the data, i note one slight correction. On page 6, the last paragraph beginning "More recently,..." the second line should read "2008, has generated $2.028B in total construction expenditures, including $1.26B in Philadelphia, resulting in 17,293 construction-related jobs...etc. " just a small change.

I hope the partners find these analyses helpful. I have enjoyed working on them, and it is something i really believe in.

sincerely

Read more

View attachment

  —Frederic Harwood, Washington, DC (Shaw) (May 21, 2013)

no changes to the height limit until the build out of NOMA and near Southeast and Mt Vernon Triangle. If the height limit is raised we will have fewer but taller buildings and the continuation of surface parking lots.

  —dan maceda, 475 K st NW DC (May 19, 2013)

As to terms and provisions, I would also like to see how seemingly similar provisions of the Height Act and the present Zoning and other development codes can trip up expectations of developers and residents alike. For example, the height of a parapet counts under Height Act and doesn't (if four feet or less) in zoning. What are allowed roof structures under both? Etc. This is a question the Senate's sitting representative to NCPC asked when the Height Act study was introduced earlier this year; it's worth addressing in the present endeavors.

  —P. P. Campbell, Jr., Washington, DC (May 17, 2013)

The vast preponderance of regulations have rules that are more or less clear and, importantly, a relief valve. In zoning and building codes, there is a process to seek a "variance" of some kind from a body (BZA) or ranking official ("code official"). For the Height Act, there is none.

What if — at least outside the L'Enfant area an authority were created to allow variances from the Act, be it otherwise left as is or as modified. This would be in keeping with the functions of the Zoning Commission (created 10 years after the Height Act) as it is now constituted, with hefty Federal representation and input. Height Act variance cases could be heard by the ZC (as it does with campus plans, and there could be a mandatory referral of any Height Act valance to not only NCPC (as with Foreign Missions) but also the Commission on Fine Arts (at least where it has jurisdiction).

Read more

  —P. P. Campbell, Jr., Washington, DC (May 17, 2013)

The record should reveal insights from Federal capitals, including Ottawa, Canberra, and Brazilia; and major cities in the U.S. (Chicago, Denver, Houston, Baltimore and Philadelphia); and beyond (Shanghai, the "Houston of Heights" -- no restrictions, total central control, no citizen input, no ANCs, no City Council that is not within Party control, etc.) In effect, a summary not only of "Practices" but analysis and conclusions against the core principles to lay-out potential "Best Practices to Support the Core Principles." It is important to review the context in which the Height Act of 1910 was adopted, shortly after elevators were common -- and when most aerial views would have been from natural promontories or hot air balloon.

The threat to which the 1910 Act responded was unchecked verticality that would, over time, block the views of (and from) significant federal places: Congress, Washington Monument, etc. The Act imposed a 130 ft limit, less where streets were narrower. The Act did not contemplate setbacks (other than roof structures) for allowing tiers of additional height -- something taller buildings in would come to utilize (notably the Empire State building). Tiered height can allow views that are meaningful and respectful that would not be the same if there were an extensive visual barrier brought about by flanking buildings of essentially the same height from one to another and occupying most of all of their parcel.

The Lewis plan of the 1950's introduced not only the concept of bulk (reflected as floor area ratio, among other things.) The Lewis Plan also articulated "Federal Interest" whose thoughts remain timely. For one, Lewis noted the value of the Commission on Fine Arts as a way in which to promote overall design of federal projects.

The Lewis plan proposed controls on density that were adopted and proposed taller buildings in various zones - limited to not unduly obstruct light from reaching the areas around them, with controls on something the plan called "angle of light obstruction." This part of the plan was rejected when most other parts were adopted. This lesson is more relevant to District as they consider respective amendments to the Comp Plan and zoning.

The study should make explicit the vast increase in human occupancy of roofs. Roofs were an attractive and economical place to toss utilities, and the views from rooftops of the past looking over American cities, including Washington, was filled with mechanical clutter. Now, such areas are limited in total area (percent), setbacks, and typically screened. But, increasingly roof amenities create and exploit value that was ignored in the past, particularly when blended with green features. Revisions to the 1910 Act, (as well as, eventually, the Comp Plan and zoning), should identify unintended barriers to such benefits.

The most ambitious part of the effort is the pace proposed -- delivering recommendations to Congress this Fall.

Read more

View attachment

  —P. P. Campbell, Jr., Washington, DC (May 17, 2013)

In order to remain competitive with adjacent jurisdictions, the District of Columbia should judiciously select portions of the District outside the historic L'Enfant plan to raise the height limitations. The high-rise buildings in Rosslyn negate any argument that higher limits would contribute to the degradation of the Federal presence in the center of the city. Outside the L'Enfant plan and historic districts are several nodes or corridors that would benefit from high rise structures. As a corridor example: all of the south side of New York Avenue from the Amtrak rail crossing to the Arboretum. As a node example, a new Metro Green Line infill station at St. Elizabeth's campus.

  —Thomas Taylor, Judiciary Square (May 16, 2013)

If you are against altering the height limit then you are basically saying that it's ok that DC's rents are so egregiously high and that the traffic is terrible. I'm sorry, no skyline or community character is worth such costs. It's completely unfair for people who have lived here longer to shut the door on newcomers who can barely afford the prices in DC and are sick of the traffic.

  —Kevin Waskelis, Washington, DC (May 14, 2013)

I support higher rise buildings especially near metrostops. maybe it will bring down the cost of housing slightly, and it makes a lot of sense to creat density near metro. P.S. I live in a single family rowhouse - but not everyone can afford that or should want that.

  —Lasse van Essen, U street, NW DC (May 14, 2013)

Get rid of the height limit and allow developers to build as tall as possible. We need more density and more housing.

  —Max Bergmann, Washington DC (May 14, 2013)

Residents East of the River are concerned about their view being blocked by buildings, bridges, etc. that are built between them and the downtown and mall areas.

  —Carol Casperson, Fairlawn neighborhood (Washington East) (May 13, 2013)

Which problem will modifying/eliminating the height limit solve? It won't reduce the cost of housing. DC is a desirable area, and developerswill continue to build expensive housing. It won't fix the boxy architecture either. It'll just make taller boxy buildings (this is a zoning/style problem, not a height problem). The proposed changes to the law are a solution in search of a problem.

  —Amber, Washington, DC (May 13, 2013)

One of my favorite things about Washington is the open skyline character. Not having a lot of tall buildings lets the city feel more open and less congested. The lower buildings also make it possible to see the monuments from different points in the city. Both of these aspects enhance the appeal of the city and people do notice.

  —moogmar, Washington, DC (May 13, 2013)

The current height restrictions are terrible for our city. Additional height should be allowed on major arteries (Wisconsin Ave, 16th Street, Connecticut Ave, etc) and specifically around metro stations. Further, any height restriction outside the immediate vicinity of the monuments makes no sense.

  —Matt Sloan, Washington DC (U Street Coridor) (May 13, 2013)

I wish to ask that you hold the line on the present height limits. In the first place, the lower limits on height give DC a lovely skyline – and in the second place, the limits actually allow us citizens of Washington, Dc to see the sky! Already in my small neighborhood – near a Metrorail station in which there is much development going on – some of our iconic neighborhood views have been destroyed – obliterated by the proliferation of tall, ugly buildings. I know the value of being able to actually see the sky and enjoy a reasonable vista – I am from Manhattan – New York city – I love DC because it is not filled with skyscrapers and because one can actually see the horizon, at least from certain vantage points. In this highly automated culture, it is important to connect with Nature – the view of the sky – dawn, sunset – stars and moon – are a gift to us all – they help bring peace and healing to our often troubled minds and spirits. Bricks and concrete do not. Less height is a small step in the right direction.

  —Mary Elizabeth Kenel, Washington, DC (Brookland/Michigan Park/Catholic University) (May 10, 2013)

We should follow Paris’s lead. L’Enfant used Paris as a principal inspiration in designing Washington, of course, so why not follow them in this endeavor as well, especially since (1) they’ve long had height restrictions similar to ours, and (2) they’ve recently (about three years ago) modified their own restrictions to allow for much higher rooflines in certain arrondisements. See here: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/newly-freed-from-height-limits-paris-skyline-ready-to-rise.html

  —Tony Varona, Chevy Chase, MD (May 10, 2013)

As a resident of DC I urge the study to recommend that the height limits remain in place. The lack of skyscrapers gives DC a distinctive feel which is beloved by the residents and remembered fondly by tourists. Removing these limits would change the characters of neighborhoods and put more stress on our transit systems.

  —Jennifer Henderson, Washington, DC (May 09, 2013)

The characteristic of DC as compared with most other cities that you can't tell the difference from one to the other is the lack of skyscraper buildings. This is noticeable when you fly into Reagan National Airport or when you are standing downtown in the middle of the city. This city is beautiful in its simplicity and is unique in the country.

Please do not think of caving in to developers who are only interested in money and profit from change- nothing else!

Read more

  —Nancy C Wischnowski, Chevy Chase, DC (May 09, 2013)

My initial reaction to any proposal to relax DC's building height limits is that this would be a very bad idea which, sooner or later and regardless of any safeguards that may be included, will lead to the destruction of what is arguably a unique cityscape in the United States, for a city of comparable size. One only needs to look across the river to the urban disaster that is Rosslyn (or indeed, any other city in Virginia--a state which apparently eschews urban planning) to understand what the possibilities might be. Thoughtful commentators like Roger Lewis have recently argued in favor of some relaxation of the rules, clearly envisaging some strategic intensification of development around metro stops. But it is almost certain that high rise development, once allowed to get its foot in the door, in the longer term, will inexorably spread and progressively destroy what is unique about the city.

This is a city with a long history of corruption and incompetence. The more freedom city managers and elected representatives are given to influence the look and fabric of the city, the worse it will get.

Finally, one cannot help wondering what has prompted Congressman Issa, a man not entirely free from shadows of his own, to initiate these inquiries. I have carefully reviewed the background materials provided but can find no explanation. It would seem to me that, at the very least, Congressman Issa should explain himself. This is a man of limited experience as an elected representative who, as far as I am aware, has never served in state or local government and has no apparent record of published opinion on matters related to city planning either in this city or in his constituency near San Diego. Nevertheless, he seems to have experienced some kind of conversion on the road to Damascus that has prompted him to launch ostensibly detailed and no doubt expensive inquiries into a question that has not been of any obvious contention in the 25 years I have been resident in this city and which, indeed, has served the city well for 200 years.

I think that the congressman, at the very least, owes everybody concerned a detailed explanation.

Read more

  —Robert Crooks, Washington, DC (May 09, 2013)

I am opposed to increasing the height limits in DC. We are a beautiful city, and any proposal to increase height limits will be a detriment to our environment. This city caters to developers already. Green space is being taken over by apartment buildings. We don't need or want our air space and sky views also taken over.

  —Jackie Young, Washington, DC Ward 5 (May 08, 2013)

The building height limit is an integral aspect of the District’s ambience and its real estate market. There is substantial demand for living and working space in and around the District. The height limit constrains development. Thus, the price for office and residential space is higher than it otherwise would be because the height limit restricts the size of buildings.

At the same time, the height limit has reduced land values to the extent that a market exists for development in excess of what the height limit allows. In other words, there might be demand for office space to fill a 20-story office building near Metro Center. But no developer will pay a price for land near Metro Center based on the income from a 20-story office building because such a building is not permitted. Therefore, developers will only pay for land based on the income that could be derived from an office building allowed by current height law and zoning. (Demand for office or residential space that cannot be accommodated in the Downtown fuels land price increases and development in suburban areas such as Bethesda, Arlington and Tysons Corner.) If the District relaxed the height limit in any part of the District where the market demand for space exceeded the supply allowed under the existing height limit, two things would happen: 1. The price of land would increase because potential development (and therefore the potential income) for each piece of land would increase. (In fact, land prices might even rise in anticipation of this change.) Thus, this publicly-created land value could result in a tremendous windfall to private landowners – many of whom are very affluent and absentee. 2. Some properties would be redeveloped to take advantage of the new height limits and this would increase the supply of built space. This would tend to reduce rents but higher land values would also be factored into the rents. Therefore, it is unlikely that residential or commercial prices or rents would decline, unless a “value capture” strategy was pursued simultaneously to relaxing the height limit.

A value capture strategy would entail reducing the property tax rate on building values while increasing the tax rate on land values. The lower rate on buildings would make them cheaper to build, improve and maintain. The higher tax rate on land values would return publicly-created land values to the public and help keep land prices down by reducing the speculative demand for land.

Read more

  —Rick Rybeck, Washington, DC (May 08, 2013)

There is PLENTY of room for development and population growth in DC without raising the height limit. Compare density in Adams Morgan or U St/Columbia Heights with places like Historic Anacostia and Minnesota Ave. Look at the empty real estate in Brentwood, Edgewood, Brookland and Fort Totten. Midrise development near these and other stations east of North Capitol could accommodate tens of thousands of housing units.

With the limit in place, this city previously housed over 800,000 people - nearly 30% more people than live here now. And there is potential for more than that within existing building codes. Further, we're already about to see a glut of apartments coming on the market in the next year. Let's see what impact that has on housing affordability before we rush to become New York (which, in case you hadn't noticed, isn't exactly affordable).

Read more

  —Kristen, Washington, DC (May 02, 2013)

The current height limitations for buildings in D.C. should be maintained and we should avoid elevating or making exceptions to those limitations. D.C. should strive to be a model of a livable, low density city with medium sized structures and attractive neighborhoods where the air is clean and where there is minimal adverse impact on the environment. Encouraging low density neighborhoods with well-maintained homes and where both pollution and C02 emissions are held to a minimum is a goal we should strive to achieve. Tall buildings will not encourage fulfillment of such a goal and will not even prove to be in the interests of long-term economic success. Visitors from around the country and world will be eager to visit an attractive capital that has resisted the tall building fad that is choking many American (and foreign) cities. The citizens deserve and want more for their capital city.

  —Eugene Abravanel, Washington,. D.C. (April 23, 2013)

Washington, D.C. should not look like New York City or any other city with skyscrapers. It should maintain its character with building below the height of the U.S. Capitol. Increasing the density and height of buildings only serves to increase social and economic impacts associated with more buildings and structures. Further, as the nation's corner stone of democracy, it was well planned to support clear thinking without added congestion and security issues to the nation's governance.

  —Veronica Raglin, Washington, D.C. (April 21, 2013)

I just wanted to compliment you on your site, "Height Master Plan for Washington, DC." It is well designed. But, most important, it has given space to very thoughtful and articulate discussion of the topic. I'm looking at you from the Virginia side of the Potomac, and I'm very proud of both your facilitation of this discussion and the content of the contributing public. Thank you.

  —Patricia Duecy, McLean, VA (April 19, 2013)

I grew up here and chose to move back to DC because of the human scale of the buildings and the character of the city that is created by the longlasting preservation of height and scale. Washington , DC is moving in the wrong direction with easing the height restrictions and over-developing this city beyond what the infrastructure and the human psyche can handle. I echo other's comments that if I wanted no sunlight, wind tunnels for sidewalks, and an impersonal feeling city, I would live somewhere else like New York City so I could feel stressed out everyday like a New Yorker. I don't understand why people first move here because of the character and liveability and then want to change it.

  —Michelle J, Washington, DC (April 17, 2013)

It saddens me to think that our lovely city may one day look like New York City and we will not be abe to see the sight of day. If someone likes the idea of sky scrapers he/she should consider moving elsewhere. Or stick to Arlington or Silver Spring. Look at Philadelphia and while once they had a lovely skyline but it was destroyed when sky scrapers started over shadowing their lovely historical buildings. I hope this never happens to our nations capital which was so expertly planned and which visitors from around the world flock to enjoy because of its lovely buildings and monuments.

  —Michelle Green, Washington, DC (April 17, 2013)

"Relaxing" the height restriction seems unlikely to provide many of the benefits claimed. It is more important that we plan better for the land buildings occupy than it is to assume that height equals right (one can look to other cities to prove this is not the case). A thoughtful planning process should identify what we want DC to be in the future and determine whether it really is the case that we must fundamentally change our urban form to get there. Further, we must be clear in assessing economic, quality-of-life, and aesthetic motives behind such decisions.

  —Brad Gudzinas, Washington, DC (April 17, 2013)

There's nothing unique about a lack of skyscrapers. Many small towns lack them too. But DC is a world-class city, and in order to compete with other world-class cities, or even compete with DC's own suburbs, it must allow building heights to rise.

  —Feval, Washington, DC (April 17, 2013)

Washington is such a lovely city, I do not understand why we would want to change it for some canyons of concrete and glass. Once this has started here is no turning back.

  —John Bergin, Capital Hill (April 12, 2013)

I am glad to see this is being looked at. I feel strongly that the height limits need to be eased both for economic reasons and to enhance the architectural esthetic of the city. Our downtown buildings are boring boxes.

  —Alice, Takoma, dc (April 11, 2013)

Very impressed with the quality and content of the English and German speakers at the Archives, creating a good international context from which Washington can move forward. Before the presentations, I felt Washington's beauty and uniqueness was primarily due to its horizontal skyline. I now am more open to a sensitive exploration to varying heights.

  —Jeffrey Levine, Washington, DC (March 19, 2013)

Low lying areas east of and below the Anacostia Ridge should be examined, especially around the Southern Ave Metro. Views from the western ridge of Rock Creek Park should be respected.

  —Mike Jelen (March 19, 2013)

I strongly support significant relaxation of the height limit in all of Washington, DC, with a total repeal in strategic locations near Metro stations outside of the historic L'Enfant city.

The height limit combines with the city's wide thoroughfares to severely limit density and drives up prices for housing and commercial space, particularly downtown, where office rents are the highest in the country. Because we cannot change the street grid, and because it would be truly horrific to bulldoze the city's low-rise rowhouse neighborhoods, increasing the height of buildings is one of the only tools available to allow for greater supply of residential and office space in the city's core and so reduce price pressure on local residents and businesses.

I understand the various interests involved with the possibility of changing the character of the historic center of the capital city, but allowing for a few extra stories in new developments downtown will do nothing to detract from - indeed, it would enhance - the experience of living in and visiting Washington. For these reasons, I believe residents can accept federal oversight of building height within the L'Enfant city. (Even if that federal oversight comes from Congress, where District residents remain unrepresented.) Outside of the historic core - below Florida Avenue and between Rock Creek Park and the Anacostia River - however, these concerns do not deserve the same precedence when weighed against the need to accommodate new residents and to provide needed and desired services and employment in a quickly growing city. In these areas, the federal height limit should be repealed in its entirety and District officials should be free to adopt their own more tailored limits (e.g. via zoning rules, which already exist and which are currently being rewritten). At the very least, within specified distances of MetroRail stations, high-service bus routes and (in the future) streetcar routes, the federal height limit should be relaxed to the point that city officials can approve over-height buildings that meet particular needs or wants of the city, such as affordable housing, needed services such as grocery/retail in food desert areas, etc.

I appreciate the chance to provide my input to this important proceeding, and as a resident of the District of Columbia, I strongly encourage you to relax the height limit throughout the city and to consider outright repeal of the limit beyond the monumental core.

Read more

  —Adam Taylor, Washington, DC (March 13, 2013)

I live in NW DC near Logan Circle. I would not be opposed to easing height restriction East of the Anacostia River. The "Anacostia" area has a lot of natural advantages--mainly spectacular views from many neighborhoods of the monumental core of DC. Imagine if developers could build taller buildings -- there would be some highly prized views which would enhance the value of development in that area.

  —John Hines, Washington, DC (March 10, 2013)

The DC height limit harms the city, making it more expensive and less vibrant. And while it does preserve certain view sheds, it also deadens and destroys architecture in the nation's capital -- compare DC's skyline to the work of art that is Chicago's. Tall buildings are fully compatible with a beautiful city. The height limit should be repealed.

  —Dan Miller (March 08, 2013)

I very much look forward to this study. However, if the presumption from the start is that the height limits in the L'Enfant City should not be touched, I would argue that the study is not thorough enough. Currently, the L'Enfant city has all of the elements to accommodate more density. It is the location of most of our transit stations. It is the location of our most dense buildings right now. It is the area with the greatest market demand.

  —Alex Block, Washington, DC (March 07, 2013)

Washington's character is unique because of the height limit. Please don't allow it to be changed.

  —Dave Johnson (March 07, 2013)

This resident says NO! If I wanted to live in shady cold canyons surrounded by tall glass towers, I'd live in Chicago or NY. I live in DC because it's unlike any other city in the U.S. The character of this city is unique and is one of the things that brings people here. It is built on a more human scale. I've been here for 25 years and still love the park-like and open, bright design of this low-slung city.

  —Carmen Gilotte, Washington, DC (March 07, 2013)