What You're Saying
Media Coverage
A compilation of writings and thought pieces reflecting the variety of opinions on the issue of building heights in Washington, DC. The collection does not reflect the opinion and policy perspectives of the National Capital Planning Commission and/or the District of Columbia.
We need old buildings to make great cities, but we need new ones too
By Ben Adler
Grist (May 19, 2014)
Small Change To Height Act Signed Into Law
By Elliott Francis
WAMU (May 19, 2014)
With Obama's Signature, Height Act Change Becomes Law
By Bridget Bowman
Roll Call (May 16, 2014)
Everyone likes the status quo
By Matthew Yglesias
Slate (January 16, 2014)
Obama signs minor change to DC building height law
By Associated Press
(May 16, 2014)
Most District residents oppose Height changes
By Benjamin Freed
Washingtonian (January 16, 2014)
What the Height Act poll didn’t ask
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (January 16, 2014)
Poll: Height Act changes opposed by majority
By Mike DeBonis and Scott Clement
Washington Post (January 16, 2014)
DC population boom continued
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (December 30, 2013)
What would taller buildings mean
By Neil Flanagan
Greater Greater Washington (December 23, 2013)
Short, ‘Dowdy’ DC considers high heels
By Liz Halloran
NPR (December 20, 2013)
We need more housing. Lots more housing.
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (December 19, 2013)
Is tall all there is?
By Tim Halbur
Planetizen (December 16, 2013)
DC Council opposes height changes
CBS Morning News (December 17, 2013)
Washington's horizontal woes
By Todd S. Purdum
Politico (December 16, 2013)
Don’t count on taller buildings for cheaper housing
By Roger K. Lewis
Washignton Post (December 15, 2013)
Why the Height Act is not so cut and dry
By Mary Fitch
Washington Business Journal (December 13, 2013)
District Trying to Hash out Differences on Height
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (December 12, 2013)
Lack of building up keeps cities down
By Alissa Walker
Gizmodo (December 11, 2013)
How Washington would look w/ skyscrapers
FastCoDesign (December 10, 2013)
Ask Congress to give DC self-rule on heights
By David Alpert
Greater Greater Washington (December 6, 2013)
Penthouse change not as visible as it seems
By Christopher H. Collins
Washington Business Journal (December 6, 2013)
Norton urges Gray and Mendelson to talk
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (December 5, 2013)
Norton: Gray and Mendelson must talk height
By Sarah Anne Hughes
DCist (December 5, 2013)
The Height Act: An apology and a clarification
By Ryan Cooper
Washington Monthly (December 5, 2013)
Congress hears debate over building heights
By Elizabeth Wiener
The Northwest Current (December 4, 2013)
Rosslyn skyline
By Marie Maxwell
National Archives blog (December 4, 2013)
Who Are the Height Act Supporters?
By Ryan Cooper
Washington Monthly (December 3, 2013)
Agreement in DC a tall order
By Meredith Somers
The Washington Times (December 3, 2013)
DC Height Requirements Under Scrutiny
By Marissa Higdon
Talk Radio News Service (December 3, 2013)
Height Act Hearing Reveals Fissures in DC
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (December 3, 2013)
Old Washington Rules Meet Push for Change
By Andrew Siddons
The New York Times (December 3, 2013)
Would taller buildings ruin the DC skyline?
By Richard Simon
LA TImes (December 2, 2013)
Hearing gives some life to height changes
By Benjamin Freed
Washingtonian (December 2, 2013)
Issa Shames DC at Height Act hearing
By Sarah Anne Hughes
DCist (December 2, 2013)
To be continued: Congress and Height Act
By Editors
Urban Turf DC (December 2, 2013)
More discussion needed on DC Height Act
Daniel J. Sernovitz
Washington Business Journal (December 2, 2013)
Issa open to changes to DC building heights
By Ben Nuckols, Associated Press
Washington Post, (December 2, 2013)
Issa offers hope for DC autonomy on heights
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (December 2, 2013)
Agencies considered taller K Street
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (December 2, 2013)
DC height restrictions congressional hearing
By Associated Press
WJLA (December 2, 2013)
Congress Hears Testimony on Heights
By Associated Press
NBC 4 Washington (December 2, 2013)
VIDEO: 150 years of the U.S. Capitol Dome
By Scott Pelley
60 Minutes, CBS News (December 1, 2013)
Letters: Views are a 'national interest’
By Ernest E. Johnson, Washington
Washington Post (November 29, 2013)
A small future for tall buildings in DC
By David Brussat
Providence Post (November 28, 2013)
DC's Building heights head to Congress
By Patrick Madden
WAMU 88.5 FM (November 28, 2013)
Home Rule to dominate height hearing
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (November 27, 2013)
Building-heights hearing set
By Mike DeBonis
Washington Post (November 27, 2013)
Height Act arguments go to Congress
By Benjamin Freed
Washingtonian (November 26, 2013)
Phony height reform is dead!
By Matthew Yglesias
Slate (November 22, 2013)
Is the prospect of a taller DC really dead?
By Shilpi Paul
Urban Turf DC (November 22, 2013)
Talk of raising Height Act was premature
By Daniel J. Sernovitz
Washington Business Journal (November 21, 2013)
Mayor asks for buildings to be built higher
By Ryley Trahan
Washington Times (November 21, 2013)
Issa Predicts Nuanced Position on Height Act
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (November 21, 2013)
DC Asks Congress For Some Height Act Control
By Sarah Anne Hughes
DCist (November 21, 2013)
DC to Congress: Give Us Control Over Height
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 21, 2013)
DC height restrictions to be maintained
By Associated Press
Associated Press (November 21, 2013)
Never Grow Up; No Changes to the Height Act
By Valerie Paschall
Curbed DC (November 21, 2013)
U.S. panel rejects changes to DC skyline
By Ian Simpson
Reuters (November 21, 2013)
Federal Commission: Leave Heights Unchanged
By Benjamin Freed
Washingtonian (November 21, 2013)
Federal panel resists height change
By Elizabeth Wiener
NW Current (November 20, 2013)
Mayor Gray: 'People don't like change'
By Michael Neibauer
Washington Business Journal (November 20, 2013)
Commission votes against recommendation
By Associated Press
Washington Post (November 20, 2013)
Tall buildings are toast
By Mike Debonis
Washington Post (November 20, 2013)
Height changes are rejected by commission
By Mike Debonis
Washington Post (November 20, 2013)
NCPC to Send Watered-Down Recommendation
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 20, 2013)
Barry Only Member Who Supports Changes
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 20, 2013)
D.C. Council Has Lost Its Mind on Height Act
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 20, 2013)
Majority are Against Changing Height Act
By Sarah Anne Hughes
DCIst (November 20, 2013)
NCPC: No Major Height Act Changes
By Urban Turf Staff
Urban Turf (November 20, 2013)
Final decision: Leave the Height Act alone
By Michael Neibauer
Washington Business Journal (November 20, 2013)
Panel Opts To Keep D.C. Height Act Intact
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU (November 20, 2013)
D.C. Council Not Down With Plan
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU (November 20, 2013)
Heights could rise in some places
By Mike DeBonis
Washington Post (November 19, 2013)
The door opens a crack for taller buildings
By David Alpert
Greater Greater Washington (November 19, 2013)
Might There Be a Compromise?
By Valerie Paschall
Curbed DC (November 19, 2013)
Height restrictions should be eased away
By Associated Press
WJLA (November 19, 2013)
We're Close to a Height Act Compromise
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 19, 2013)
Executive Director's Recommendation
By Prince Of Petworth
Popville (November 19, 2013)
A case to change the city skyline
By Pooya Hajibagheri
GW Hatchet (November 19, 2013)
Proposal Would Keep Building Caps
By Benjamin Freed
Washingtonian (November 19, 2013)
Some DC Buildings Could Be Taller
By CBS Staff
CBS DC (November 18, 2013)
Commission Opens Door to Taller D.C.
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (November 19, 2013)
We're Close to a Height Act Compromise
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 18, 2013)
An opening for taller buildings in DC
By David Alpert
Greater Greater Washington (November 18, 2013)
Might There Be A Compromise on Heights?
By Valerie Paschall
DC Curbed (November 18, 2013)
Feds: Heights Should Remain Downtown
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU 88.5 FM (November 18, 2013)
NCPC Gives a Little in Height Fight
By Michael Neibauer
Washington Business Journal (November 18, 2013)
NCPC Open to Taller Buildings
By UrbanTurf Staff
Urban Turf (November 18, 2013)
NCPC: Taller Buildings w/ Congress' Review
By Sarah Anne Hughes
DCist (November 18, 2013)
Report is Cynical, Illogical, & Self-Serving
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 18, 2013)
Taller Buildings Are Fine, If the Feds Sign Off
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (November 17, 2013)
Would Repealing D.C.’s Height Limit Help Republicans Win Back Virginia?
By Marc Tracy
New Republic (November 14, 2013)
Charge of the Height Brigade
By Aaron Wiener
Washingotn City Paper (November 6, 2013)
Critics note Paris, but building it wasn't pretty
By Payton Chung
West North (November 5, 2013)
Council Examines Building Heights
By Griffin Cohen
The Hoya (November 5, 2013)
Scramble for Consensus on Height Act
Hannah Hess
Roll Call (November 4, 2013)
Topic of the Week: DC’s Height Limit
Steven Yates
Greater Greater Washington (November 4, 2013)
DC Architects Support Changes to Heights
By Aaron Wiener
Housing Complex (November 1, 2013)
9 Suggestions to Change the Height Limit
By Dan Malouff
Greater Greater Washington (October 30, 2013)
Council Enters Fray on Raising Height Limit
The Northwest Current (October 30, 2013)
Downtown: Built Up, but Not Built Out
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (October 30, 2013)
DC’s Odd Relegations and Laws
By Valerie Paschall
CurbedDC (October 29, 2013)
At Hearing, People Don’t Like Changes
By Matt Cohen
dcist (October 29, 2013)
Main Arguments against Changing Height Act
By Aaron Wiener
Housing Complex (October 29, 2013)
Two Misconceptions about DC Land-Use Regs
By Michael Hamilton
In My Backyard (October 29, 2013)
Height Hearing Reveals Opposition
By Shlipi Paul
UrbanTurf DC (October 29, 2013)
Grow High or Low: City Must Change
By Michael Neibauer
Washington Business Journal (October 28, 2013)
Height Act Changes Get Slammed
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (October 28, 2013)
Height Act Supporters Rip Plan for Tall
By Benjamin Freed
Washingtonian (October 28, 2013)
Residents Look Down on Height Proposals
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU 88.5 FM (October 28, 2013)
Should the Height Act be Amended?
By Valerie Paschall
CurbedDC (October 28, 2013)
Commentary: Support City's Height Limit!
By Janet Quigley
The Hill Rag (October 25, 2013)
Commentary: The Case for More Height in DC
By Shalom Baranes
Capital Buisness (September 30, 2013)
Please, Congress, Don’t Alter the Heights
By Nancy MacWood, Committee of 100
Washington Business Journal (October 11, 2013)
Height of Insanity
By Rebecca Miller, DC Preservation League
Washington Business Journal (October 4, 2013)
How Washington Went Topless
By Ryan Avent
Washington (September 29, 2013)
The Big Building Height Question
By Editors
BisNow (September 27, 2013)
District and NCPC Can't Agree
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (September 26, 2013)
DC Wants Buildings To Be Able To Grow
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU 88.5 FM (September 26, 2013)
DC Proposes Increasing Building Height
By Mike DeBonis
Washington Post (September 26, 2013)
New DC and Federal Studies Disagree
By Douglas Cantor
Examiner.com (September 25, 2013)
OP vs. NCPC: Revising Height Act
By Valerie Paschall
Curbed DC (September 25, 2013)
Press Release Reposted (comments)
By Editor
Prince of Petworth (September 25, 2013)
DC Planners Want Height That's Targeted
By Dan Malouff
Greater Greater Washington (September 25, 2013)
Tall Beyond the Core
By Shilpi Paul
UrbanTurf DC (September 25, 2013)
DC Wants Major Changes to Height Act
By Benjamin Freed
Washingtonian (September 25, 2013)
DC Recommends Major Changes to Height
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (September 24, 2013)
DC Proposes Major Changes to Height Act
By Michael Neibauer
Washington Business Journal (September 24, 2013)
Skyscrapers Belong Where There's Demand
By Matthew Yglesias
Slate Magazine (September 24, 2013)
The Needle: Sky's The Limit
By Perry Stein
Washington City Paper (September 24, 2013)
Washington Skyline Slowly Changing
By Alicia Lozano
WTOP (September 20, 2013)
We Urge Rejection to Relax Height Act
By Editor
The Intowner (September 15, 2013)
DC’s Height Limits: The Risk of Ending Them
By Philip Kennicott
Washington Post Magazine (September 15, 2013)
How DC Could Look if Height Limits Change
By Emily Chow and Gene Thorp
Washington Post (September 15, 2013)
Want to Shrink Government? Let DC Grow
By Lydia DePillis
Washington Post (September 15, 2013)
The Needle: Paper Moon
By Perry Stein
City Paper (September 13, 2013)
DC with chaged height limits
By News Desk
PBS Newshour (September 13, 2013)
Federal Planners: DC Is Just the Right Height
By Nancy Scola
Next City (September 13, 2013)
Tension Might Define Height Act Debate
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (September 13, 2013)
NCPC's Role Is to Define Federal Interest
Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (September 13, 2013)
Planners Release Height Sstudy Findings
By Victoria St. Martin
The Washington Post (September 13, 2013)
Planners Release Height Act Findings
By Victoria St. Martin
Washington Post (September 12, 2013)
Raising the Roof?
By Mark Segraves
NBC News 4 (September 12, 2013)
Building Heights to be Discussed
By Editor
ABC News 7, WJLATV (September 12, 2013)
NCPC Releases Draft Recommendations
By Shilpi Paul
UrbanTurf DC (September 12, 2013)
NCPC's Lame Timidity on the Height Act
By Matt Yglesias
Slate (September 12, 2012)
NCPC likely recommending tweaks to height
By Dan Malouff
Greater Greater Washington (September 11, 2013)
Federal Panel Proposes Leaving Act Intact
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU 88.5 FM (September 11, 2013)
Height Recommendations Not a Done Deal
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (September 11, 2013)
Five Ways NCPC Is Wrong About Height Act
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (September 11, 2013)
No Federal Benefit to Altering DC Height Act
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (September 11, 2013)
Few changes for Heights, panel recommends
By Michael Neibauer
Washington Business Journal (September 11, 2013)
NCPC: Mild consideration to Height change
By Michael Hamilton
ElevationDC (August 13, 2013)
DC with taller buildings?
By Lauren Williams
In My Backyard DC (August 14, 2013)
Skyscrapers for DC?
By Steven Nelson
US News and World Report (August 12, 2013)
Height Meetings Expose Growth Concern
By Hannah Hess
Roll Call (August 12, 2013)
Building Height Study Nears Completion (AUDIO)
By George Mesthos
CBS DC, WNEW 99.1 FM (August 10, 2013)
Options to Amend Height Act
By Anthony L. Harvey
The Intowner (August 10, 2013)
Study Looks at Impacts from Easing Heights
By Elizabeth Wiener
The Northwest Current (August 7, 2013)
DC contemplates ending height limits
By Ryan Greene
Vox Populi (August 6, 2013)
Should DC be More Like NYC?
By Shaun Courtney
Fairfax City Patch (August 4, 2013)
This is how DC would look w/ taller buildings
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (August 2, 2013)
CityCenter wraps-up & DC revisits height
By Laura Fisher Kaiser
Architectural Record (July 31, 2013)
Raise height limit? That’s a bigger question
By David Alpert
Washington Post (July 29, 2013)
Height Master Plan Visual Modeling Released
By Christopher Brown
Architecture DC Blog (July 25, 2013)
Study Makes Case for Increased DC Heights
By Jonathan Nettler
Planetizen (July 25, 2013)
Balancing Local & Federal Interests in Heights
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU 88.5 FM (July 25, 2013)
DC Height Restriction Limits, Public Meeting
By Associated Press
ABC 7 Washington (July 24, 2013)
Public Meetings Set on DC Height Limits (VIDEO)
By Tom Sherwood
NBC News 4 Washington (July 24, 2013)
Raising height limit would end the world
By Lydia DePillis
Washington Post (July 24, 2013)
DC With Tall Buildings?
By Shilpi Paul
UrbanTurf DC (July 24, 2013)
Imagining D.C. Under a Modified Height Act
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (July 24, 2013)
NCPC Holds Hearings On Relaxing Height Limits
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU 88.5 FM (July 23, 2013)
2nd Round of Public Meetings for Height Act
by
Greg Bianco
Washington Business Journal (July 22, 2013)
Changes to DC Height Limit? (AUDIO)
By Kevin Rincon
CBS DC, WNEW 99.1 FM (July 19, 2012)
DC Skyline Should Look Like Manhattan
By John-David Nako
PolicyMic (June 7, 2013)
DC‘s big problem with short buildings
By Sam Seifman
Next City (May 22, 2013)
Project reflects Paris' ambitions
By Peter Sigal
New York Times (May 21, 2013)
Let's get high
By Bill Bradley
Next City (May 20, 2013)
Changes coming to DC's heights?
By Thomas Warren
WTOP (May 18, 2013)
Agencies get public input on building height
By Douglas Canter
D.C. Green Business Examiner (May 18, 2013)
Rile up a crowd (in DC): Talk building heights
By Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper (May 14, 2013)
Study: Whether to let buildings grow tall (AUDIO)
By Martin Austermuhle
WAMU 88.5 FM (May 14, 2013)
Don't disturb the skyline: public responds
By Shilpi Paul
UrbanTurf DC (May 14, 2013)
The public opinion on DC's Height Act
By Shilpi Paul
UrbanTurf DC (May 13, 2013)
What your skyline says about your city
By Thomas J. Sigler
The Atlantic Cities (May 1, 2013)
Should washington grow up?
By Ian Simpson
Reuters (April 30, 2013)
A modern city in east Midtown?
(Discusses density and height issues in NYC)
By Robert A. M. Stern
The New York Times (April 21, 2013)
Can urbanists learn to love DC's height limit?
by Jordan Fraade
Elevation DC
(April 2, 2013)
Are tall buildings bad For Downtown?
by Michael Lewyn
Planetizen
(March 17, 2013)
Keep the lid on DC: Build better, not bigger
by Edward T. McMahon
Urban Land
(March 15, 2013)
DC looks to Europe as it rethinks height
by Nancy Scola
Next City (March 14, 2013)
Interview w/ NCPC Chairman Bryant (AUDIO)
Federal News Radio
(March 12, 2013)
Learning from European building heights?
by Aaron Wiener
Washington City Paper
(March 6, 2013)
Study to allow taller buildings in DC? (VIDEO)
by Tom Sherwood
NBC News 4 Washington (March 5, 2013)
The Pros & Cons of Revoking Height Act
By Irina Vinnitskaya
ArchDaily (December 13, 2012)
A monumental burden
by R.A.
The Economist (November 12, 2012)
The urbanist case for keeping DC's height
by Kaid Benfield
The Atlantic Cities (November 19, 2012)
The math on the cost of the DC height limit
by
Matt Yglesias
Slate (November 12, 2012)
Energy and D.C.'s height restrictions
by Shalom Baranes
Urban Land (October 28, 2010)
The Limits of DC - Improving the Height Act
by Ken DCMud (June 9, 2010)
Height Act still something to treasure
by
Larry Beasley
Washington Business Journal (June 7, 2010)
The truth about DC's skyline (AUDIO)
by
Rebecca Sheir
WAMU's Metro Connection (January 22, 2010)
Thank you to everyone who participated and provided feedback on the Height Master Plan. Citizens of 16 states and nine countries submitted more than 300 online comments. An additional 124 formal letters and written testimony were offered in direct responses to the draft recommendations released in Phase 3. On December 2, 2013 these comments, along with the final reports, were transmitted in support of the Congressional hearing "Changes to the Heights Act: Shaping Washington, DC for the Future, Part II". A video archive of the Congressional hearing and written testimony from NCPC's Executive Director Marcel Acosta and DCOP's Director Harriet Tregoning is available.
The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform accepted public comments on the final reports through December 10, 2013.
The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform accepted public comments on the final reports through December 10, 2013.
NCPC Special Meeting compiled written testimony & letters
November 19, 2013
November 19, 2013
NCPC Public hearing compiled written testimony & letters
October 30, 2013
October 30, 2013
DC Council hearing compiled written testimony & letters
October 28, 2013
October 28, 2013
Includes advance testimony and formal letter received through October 25, 2013.
Comments will be added following close of NCPC’s public comment period.
View Phase 2 Public Meeting comments and submitted documents (PDF)
View Phase 1 Public Meeting comments and submitted documents (PDF)
The comments below have been submitted online by members of the public.
All submitted comments are included in the public record.
Phase 3 Comments
Showing 146 of 146 total comments submitted
Sirs: As a native Washingtonian whose family settled in the city before Abe Lincoln's first term as President, I am amazed that the DC Government is allowed to violate the Federal Law that forbids the erection of over head power lines for streetcars in the city of Washington.
—Clyde Howard, Washington, DC (November 29, 2013)
—Clyde Howard, Washington, DC (November 29, 2013)
I support the repeal of DC's height act.
—Ricardo Huang, Berlin (November 27, 2013)
—Ricardo Huang, Berlin (November 27, 2013)
Please repeal dc height act.
—Luis Alberto Sanchez, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
—Luis Alberto Sanchez, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
I support the Anacostia Renaissance org. belief that it is Dc's best interest to real this Act. Please do so. Home Rule!
—Frank Lewis, DC (November 26, 2013)
—Frank Lewis, DC (November 26, 2013)
Please repeal height act. An abundance of European cities most beautiful buildings would have never seen the light of day if were for this regulation. I was unaware of this issue but group of young individuals were informing people outside of congress heights metro and I have been shocked since. Thanks for providing. . . Dc the opportunity to voice their opinion, via this web page.
Read more
—Sidney R., Congress Heights (November 26, 2013)
Read more
—Sidney R., Congress Heights (November 26, 2013)
Please repeal the height act and leave the height to DC. Not only are we the only world power without universal health care, but we are not only world power with a federally mandated regulation on the building heights of our capital.
—George T Tamils, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
—George T Tamils, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
DC is the only world city with a federally mandated height regulation. London, Madrid, Brussels, Barcelona, Hamburg all are examples of cities that do not have neither a federally mandated height nor a uniform height limit. Why this the case surprises me, we should fix this and repeal this binding and oppressing act on our city.. . . />
James Huang
Read more
—James R. Huang, From Washington D.C. Studying abroad in London (November 26, 2013)
James Huang
Read more
—James R. Huang, From Washington D.C. Studying abroad in London (November 26, 2013)
As Dc native I believe that the city of dc should set heights to 250 ft in the Lefant city. We should look to European cities to see how not having a federaly mandated height act has mas made the construction of some of their most beautiful buildings possible, without turning these cities into. . . Ne York. These cities Include London, Barcelona, Madris, Hamburg, Berlin, Brussels. All of these cities have beautiful and iconic skylines distinct from New York or Philadelphia with out a federally mandated height act.
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic,social, and cultural growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic,social, and cultural growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
Thank you for having my previous input displayed.
I would like to add that I hold the firm belief that the Dc Height act should be comply repealed. My reasons for this is that they serve as barrier that hinder our capital from becoming more dynamic, as well as its economic,. . . cultural, and social well being.
Sincerley
H.G
Read more
—Henry Gruber, DC Native living in London, England. (November 26, 2013)
I would like to add that I hold the firm belief that the Dc Height act should be comply repealed. My reasons for this is that they serve as barrier that hinder our capital from becoming more dynamic, as well as its economic,. . . cultural, and social well being.
Sincerley
H.G
Read more
—Henry Gruber, DC Native living in London, England. (November 26, 2013)
After cautiously analyzing the implications of the height act I have finally arrived to a conclusion. I am adding my voice to the complete repeal of the act in District.
—Martin Johnson, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
—Martin Johnson, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
I am a dc native who has been residing in the city of London for the past two years. Here i have seen how not having uniform city height act does not mean the city will turn into New York. London has done a faboulous job, of growing upward and at the same time maintaining. . . the identy and beuty of its city. I belive that dc should follow in example and not have a uniform height act. All we should have is a rule that states that the capitol and Washington monuments will remain visible parts of our skyline and leave the rest to zoning. In doing this we will be doing something similar to what Lodon has done with st pauls cathedral and its other land marks.
Read more
—Henry Gruber, London, England (November 23, 2013)
Read more
—Henry Gruber, London, England (November 23, 2013)
I reviewed the NCPC Draft Final Recommendations on the Height Master Plan on Monday prior to the Commission Meeting on Tuesday, November 19th. I am a city and regional planner by training. It was refreshing to see the NPCP analysis that went into the development of the recommendations. I have saved the report.
—Muriel Watkins , Washignton, DC (November 21, 2013)
—Muriel Watkins , Washignton, DC (November 21, 2013)
Not only are NCPC actions wrong and are harming our city, but ncpc study was porely constructed it offers a very poor and irealistic rendering of how buildings would look if heights were relaxed. Skidmore and Merrill and Owings the firm that NCPC sought out for the study has conducted other studies. . . for other cities and as this this link shows our models are primitive to say the least. Attached is model of height modifications in Fushan china. SOM made a design for Fusham that would maintain their historic buidings in their city while still being able to foster growth.
https://www.som.com/node/546?overlay=true
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr, DC (November 20, 2013)
https://www.som.com/node/546?overlay=true
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr, DC (November 20, 2013)
Well done.
Thank you for preserving the integrity and human scale of L'Enfant's design.
The fabric of Washington is expressed in the relationship of boulevard width to building height. That is nothing less than art.
—James Lee, Unknown (November 20, 2013)
Thank you for preserving the integrity and human scale of L'Enfant's design.
The fabric of Washington is expressed in the relationship of boulevard width to building height. That is nothing less than art.
—James Lee, Unknown (November 20, 2013)
Changes are obviously needed to the height act. DC has the most expensive downtown office prices in the country - because of supply constraints. This makes operating the federal government more expensive for all of us!
—Matthew Dickens, Washington, DC (November 19, 2013)
—Matthew Dickens, Washington, DC (November 19, 2013)
The Executive Director’s Staff Report concerning The National Capitol Planning Commission’s final recommendations to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government reform concerning the Height Act Master Plan for Washington D.C. is now before this Commission. The recommendation about whether and how to amend the Height of Building Act for areas inside the L’Enfant City. . . are contained in Recommendation 1. The Recommendation about whether and how to amend the Act outside the L’Enfant City are contained in recommendation 2.
I support Recommendation 1 and I oppose Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 1. This is concerned with both the federal interests within the L’Enfant City and the form and character of the nation’s capitol. It recommends no change in the Height of Buildings Act. It discusses proposed formulas and approaches for calculating the allowable height and explains that the proposed Ratio Approach would add height where it is least appropriate, where building heights should be lower to emphasize views of the Capitol and White House. It also examined the need for additional development capacity and determined that the city would not realize much additional capacity under the Ratio Approach.
I agree with the recommendation that the Height of Buildings Act should remain in place within the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Recommendation 2. This is concerned with the areas outside the L’Enfant City and is purported to balance the long-term potential growth needs with the importance of protecting the integrity of the form and character of the nation’s capitol, including federal interests and local communities. In the first place, there is no data to support the need to accommodate growth, but the recommendation sidesteps this deficiency and concentrates on what process should be used if it becomes necessary to accommodate a dialogue about growth and building heights. In other words, the recommendation concedes that is no need for a change to accommodate growth now, but nonetheless, recommends a process if and when the need arises.
The process that is recommended would allow amendments to the law outside the L’Enfant City to permit “targeted exceptions" through the Comprehensive Plan process. As explained in the recommendation that process appears to provide safeguards, but in practice, the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, as we saw in the last round, results in opaque amendments from Office of Planning and further unexpected amendments at the whim of individual Council members.
Do you recall the last major round of OP amendments about four years ago? The number of Office of Planning amendments amounted to over a hundred.
Were any of them â€vetoed†by NCPC? Or rejected by Congress during the 30-day layover period?
We have seen the tax deferments that have been offered to developers. Do we expect the “targeted exceptions†to the Height Act would be any different? Recommendation 2 will result in spot zoning by the Office of Planning and the Council, because the Zoning Commission will have to implements the “targeted exceptions†in order that zoning is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
I oppose Recommendation 2. The Height of Buildings Act should remain in place outside the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Read more
—Monte Edwards, DC, Capitol Hill (November 19, 2013)
I support Recommendation 1 and I oppose Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 1. This is concerned with both the federal interests within the L’Enfant City and the form and character of the nation’s capitol. It recommends no change in the Height of Buildings Act. It discusses proposed formulas and approaches for calculating the allowable height and explains that the proposed Ratio Approach would add height where it is least appropriate, where building heights should be lower to emphasize views of the Capitol and White House. It also examined the need for additional development capacity and determined that the city would not realize much additional capacity under the Ratio Approach.
I agree with the recommendation that the Height of Buildings Act should remain in place within the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Recommendation 2. This is concerned with the areas outside the L’Enfant City and is purported to balance the long-term potential growth needs with the importance of protecting the integrity of the form and character of the nation’s capitol, including federal interests and local communities. In the first place, there is no data to support the need to accommodate growth, but the recommendation sidesteps this deficiency and concentrates on what process should be used if it becomes necessary to accommodate a dialogue about growth and building heights. In other words, the recommendation concedes that is no need for a change to accommodate growth now, but nonetheless, recommends a process if and when the need arises.
The process that is recommended would allow amendments to the law outside the L’Enfant City to permit “targeted exceptions" through the Comprehensive Plan process. As explained in the recommendation that process appears to provide safeguards, but in practice, the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, as we saw in the last round, results in opaque amendments from Office of Planning and further unexpected amendments at the whim of individual Council members.
Do you recall the last major round of OP amendments about four years ago? The number of Office of Planning amendments amounted to over a hundred.
Were any of them â€vetoed†by NCPC? Or rejected by Congress during the 30-day layover period?
We have seen the tax deferments that have been offered to developers. Do we expect the “targeted exceptions†to the Height Act would be any different? Recommendation 2 will result in spot zoning by the Office of Planning and the Council, because the Zoning Commission will have to implements the “targeted exceptions†in order that zoning is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
I oppose Recommendation 2. The Height of Buildings Act should remain in place outside the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Read more
—Monte Edwards, DC, Capitol Hill (November 19, 2013)
Please do not support any change that loosens the Height Act outside of the Federal City. This will lead to de-stabilization of our communities and destruction of historic districts. The historic districts in DC are a unique and wonderful hybrid of a planned city and organic growth. The Height Act is an important protection against impulsive. . . development. People moving into DC are attracted by the wonderful housing stock, the trees, the light, and multimodal transportation. They are willing to pay top dollar for real neighborhoods. Loosening the Height Act in the greater city area will create an irreversible shift in policy, sending a message to DC's Office of Planning and private developers that density trumps preservation.
Read more
—Susan Taylor, Washington DC (November 19, 2013)
Read more
—Susan Taylor, Washington DC (November 19, 2013)
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/20681/no-dc-is-not-going-to-be-like-paris/
—Ricardo Espinoza Pujol, Paris, France (November 13, 2013)
—Ricardo Espinoza Pujol, Paris, France (November 13, 2013)
I completely support the OP plan. It seems like a very reasonable plan that 1) preserves the low slung nature of the skyline 2)doesn't allow high rises (it only raises building heights by 30 to 40 ft downtown) 3) specifically protects views of the Capitol, White House, and Washington Monument and 4) provides DC with more. . . room to grow in the walkable, urban core.
As for outside the L'Enfant Core I strongly believe that the regulation of height be left to the zoning regulations. Hopefully NCPC can agree to the mayors proposal and the recommendation to congress sent as one.
Read more
—Martin A. Lawrence, Dupont Circle (November 11, 2013)
As for outside the L'Enfant Core I strongly believe that the regulation of height be left to the zoning regulations. Hopefully NCPC can agree to the mayors proposal and the recommendation to congress sent as one.
Read more
—Martin A. Lawrence, Dupont Circle (November 11, 2013)
The Kingman Park Civic Association strongly supports the height limit restrictions in the District of Columbia. The historic character of the city, and the national memorials must be protected from over-development and unsightly appearances of towering buildings and blocked views of the city's beautiful vistas.
The height limits provide a teachable moment. . . for students of history, architecture and science. Preserve the city for future generations, and please don't allow over zealous developers to dictate the future of our city and nation.
Thank you,
Frazer Walton, President
Kingman Park Civic Association
Read more
—Frazer Walton for the Kingman Park Civic Association, Washinton DC (November 05, 2013)
The height limits provide a teachable moment. . . for students of history, architecture and science. Preserve the city for future generations, and please don't allow over zealous developers to dictate the future of our city and nation.
Thank you,
Frazer Walton, President
Kingman Park Civic Association
Read more
—Frazer Walton for the Kingman Park Civic Association, Washinton DC (November 05, 2013)
I have lived in DC for 44 years. Thank you for the opportunity to present.
Raising the height limit in the District is a drastic measure that would radically alter quality of life but which cannot provide any assurance whatsoever that we will maintain economic diversity in our population.
If economic. . . diversity is truly the concern, we should be requiring developers - NOW -to set aside portions of any new development for lower-income residents and not allow - buy-outs. The existing provisions in the District code don't protect moderate and/or low income housing.
There is no assurance that most developers won't take advantage of the housing buy-out and result in a NW Washington that is all upper-middle and upper income residents. Adding stories doesn't change the story
Harriett Tregoning herself has said many times that taller buildings will likely not have affordable housing because it is so expensive to build tall, and luxury housing would be the expected outcome.
Read more
—Kindy French, Washignton, DC (November 05, 2013)
Raising the height limit in the District is a drastic measure that would radically alter quality of life but which cannot provide any assurance whatsoever that we will maintain economic diversity in our population.
If economic. . . diversity is truly the concern, we should be requiring developers - NOW -to set aside portions of any new development for lower-income residents and not allow - buy-outs. The existing provisions in the District code don't protect moderate and/or low income housing.
There is no assurance that most developers won't take advantage of the housing buy-out and result in a NW Washington that is all upper-middle and upper income residents. Adding stories doesn't change the story
Harriett Tregoning herself has said many times that taller buildings will likely not have affordable housing because it is so expensive to build tall, and luxury housing would be the expected outcome.
Read more
—Kindy French, Washignton, DC (November 05, 2013)
I support retaining the Height Act in DC -- There's still room for development within the existing regulations and the low heights are one of DC's major characteristics.
—Ellen Maxwell, Washington, DC 20016 (November 04, 2013)
—Ellen Maxwell, Washington, DC 20016 (November 04, 2013)
Without reservation, I support NCPC’s position on preserving the Height Act.
—Bernard Ries, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
—Bernard Ries, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Thank you for allowing DC residents to comment on the proposed change to the DC Height Act.
I strongly support the NCPC's recommendation not to change the provisions of the Height Act. Washington is a beautiful city in large part because of the vistas, green spaces, and scale of its buildings. . . . It holds a unique and special place among large metropolitan areas on the East Coast because it is not densely packed with tall buildings that are not welcoming and obscure views of the sky, trees, and water. Washington's special character and historic architecture would be greatly diminished if the height limit on buildings were raised. I believe the city can continue to develop without destroying its uniqueness and beauty in the process. Thank you for all the time and effort you have expended on the study regarding building heights and for your wise recommendation.
Read more
—Susan McCarty, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
I strongly support the NCPC's recommendation not to change the provisions of the Height Act. Washington is a beautiful city in large part because of the vistas, green spaces, and scale of its buildings. . . . It holds a unique and special place among large metropolitan areas on the East Coast because it is not densely packed with tall buildings that are not welcoming and obscure views of the sky, trees, and water. Washington's special character and historic architecture would be greatly diminished if the height limit on buildings were raised. I believe the city can continue to develop without destroying its uniqueness and beauty in the process. Thank you for all the time and effort you have expended on the study regarding building heights and for your wise recommendation.
Read more
—Susan McCarty, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
Please find attached my testimony on the Height Master Plan for Washington, D.C., in connection with today’s hearing at the NCPC. I regret that I cannot present it in person.
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, D.C. 20015 (November 04, 2013)
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, D.C. 20015 (November 04, 2013)
As district residents for more than 20 years, my family and I welcomed the National Capitol Planning Commission’s determination that the District has not adequately justified its efforts to circumvent Height Act restrictions. A critical part of what makes the District the livable and distinct city that it is, is the low profile of our. . . buildings. It contributes to highlighting the monumental and government core of our capital city, brings in light, and fosters pedestrian and commercial friendly avenues. There is plenty of space that can be developed within the city to support future growth, and we have seen what senseless building can do to destroy the appeal and people scale of places like Bethesda and Silver Spring. The current and appropriate Height Act limits provide a necessary constraint to developers to plan and design their projects in a manner that is consistent with the unique low profile character of our city rather than taking tall building shortcuts that would forever change Washington’s enviable cityscape. I hope you continue in your efforts to hold the City Planning Office accountable for and resist its unjustified efforts to amend the Height Act.
Read more
—Cliff Johnson, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
Read more
—Cliff Johnson, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
My family has lived in this city since the turn of the last century. We've seen many changes -- good and bad -- in a hundred years of DC residency. I was born and raised in the area and as a young adult, lived in Paris, Brussels, London and Houston, Texas before choosing to. . . return to DC some ten years ago. One of the many wonderful things about DC is the human scale of our buildings. We only have to look across the river to Rosslyn and Crystal City to see what could happen if the Height Limit was eliminated -- towering buildings hovering over sidewalks, contributing to overwhelming traffic and a dearth of green space, interesting street-scapes or pedestrian-friendly areas. I urge you to adhere to the current restrictions which have served this city so well for so long and have contributed to it's beauty and elegance.
Read more
—Mary Emerson Slimp, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Read more
—Mary Emerson Slimp, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Please keep the building height as it is. An increase would be disastrous for the city.
—Unknown, Unknown (November 04, 2013)
—Unknown, Unknown (November 04, 2013)
Please reject the District’s attempt to set aside the height requirements for buildings in the District of Columbia.
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
I strongly endorse the NCPC position that the Height Act be retained. Your recommendations are well researched and well supported. I cannot say the same for proposals the eliminate or modify the Act. Please let citizens know what they can do to help keep our iconic city the beautiful place it is.
—Ann Hamilton, Washington, DC (Cleveland Park) (November 04, 2013)
—Ann Hamilton, Washington, DC (Cleveland Park) (November 04, 2013)
Please reject the District’s attempt to set aside the height requirements for buildings in the District of Columbia.
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Re: Executive Director's Recommendatio on the eNCPC Staff Height Act Study, presented on September 12, 2013,
to the NCPC Commission Meeting:
One of the advantages of individual comment is that almost necessarily it simplifies oppositions, and is very often theerefore unfair to one side of a complex argument or the other. My own reading of both. . . draft reports makes the central opoasition between OP and NCPC over-simple. 1
On the one side is OP, an agency of the government of the Federal Distric, with an agenda which postulates the desirability of autonomy for that government, and castingit therefore in terms of the fiscal resources it would have if things were different enough that an extension of height in the central business disrict (defined around the most obvious concentration of that area around K st., the new Convention Center and the Hotels and apparatus of a renewed and more elevated set of buildings in which the lobbyists and business people associated with the Board of Trade and analogous groups could so expand the tax-returns to government to make more plausible the prospect of a home-rule which could then graduate at some point in time into a genuine statehood, and free itself from the shackles (as they are often termed) of an objectionable dependence on Congressional permissions and consultations, at least for the non-Federal parts of the District.
On the other side is the agency of the NCPC which I simplify very considerably into an idealised version of an interdependent region, once oriented by the Year 2000 Plan to represent the undoubted utility of collaboration between virtually all the jurisdictions and agencies of constitutional States, and a hierarchy of cooperative things to comprehend not merely the area of the Constituional District but the variety of formerly suburban Counties in two States and asked to meter and in some sense to express the enormous variety of material and symbolic interests of rivals for significance (as surrogates for political and social power) reaching almost to Baltimore on its northern reach, to Front Royal and Charlottesville on the other, gathering the consequences of demographic change into an immense conurbation, and resulting in many forms of definition of inter-questions of population and class outside the bounds of the Federal District and interacting with it in an intimate and complicated weave of the commuter journies to work (no longer simply towards the District, but in many interwoven and cross-jurisdictional lines of traffic, both by quasi-freeway and private car, but the deviations of three airports and several mostly-suburban shopping centers (such as Tyson's Corner and Shirley Highway, Rockville Pike and 270, the north-south route of 95, and the like. There is an active competition for busines centers for new business district building, a great variety of building heights and concentrations, interacting with a complicated weave of dependency and rivalry---exemplified by the building up of Arlington just on the other side of the Potomac from Washington itself, and without some of the prohibitions on building-height and use that the city of Washington is constrained by, such as the Height Act of 1910. This is interactive with the provision of housing in the same area, increasingly by much taller apartment houses in an area which is only constrained by the necessof crossing the barrier of the Potomac by a limited number of bridges.
The suburbs of Washington were created by the social process of white-flight in the complex period which followed Brown vs. Education in 1954, and very large and scattered new centers of rather well-to do groups in suburbs, which embodied all the tensions of a both more concentrated, more similar USA now electronic and not variegaated simply by the facts of space or the difficulties of moving large elements of commuting populations by means of the private car.
The whole embodies a complicated whole of space, communication, transportation and electronics and to a certain extent, the rivalries of potential advantage for places and jurisdictions. These are not soluble by the resources of any one piece, but invoke the necessity of all of them. They do not ever achieve the ideal of mutual benefit, but they represent an ideal of collaboration to bring together the so-called stakeholders of any single problem (such as that of the Height Limitation Act in the Federal District of Washington) in an often-untidy mixture of elements and impulses, such as the allocation of a joint report to OP and to NCPC, when the basic thrust of either component is virrtually certain to reveal (and constitute) patterns of incompatibility between them.
1There are, after all, more than one form of parochialism than those of the parish-pump, since I suppose that there is also a form of it in time, the notion that our own times and those of our 'history' and our ' futures' are the only ones that exist,, have existed, and will exist. This is at least one of the things to be learned from the study of history.
Read more
—William Haskett, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
to the NCPC Commission Meeting:
One of the advantages of individual comment is that almost necessarily it simplifies oppositions, and is very often theerefore unfair to one side of a complex argument or the other. My own reading of both. . . draft reports makes the central opoasition between OP and NCPC over-simple. 1
On the one side is OP, an agency of the government of the Federal Distric, with an agenda which postulates the desirability of autonomy for that government, and castingit therefore in terms of the fiscal resources it would have if things were different enough that an extension of height in the central business disrict (defined around the most obvious concentration of that area around K st., the new Convention Center and the Hotels and apparatus of a renewed and more elevated set of buildings in which the lobbyists and business people associated with the Board of Trade and analogous groups could so expand the tax-returns to government to make more plausible the prospect of a home-rule which could then graduate at some point in time into a genuine statehood, and free itself from the shackles (as they are often termed) of an objectionable dependence on Congressional permissions and consultations, at least for the non-Federal parts of the District.
On the other side is the agency of the NCPC which I simplify very considerably into an idealised version of an interdependent region, once oriented by the Year 2000 Plan to represent the undoubted utility of collaboration between virtually all the jurisdictions and agencies of constitutional States, and a hierarchy of cooperative things to comprehend not merely the area of the Constituional District but the variety of formerly suburban Counties in two States and asked to meter and in some sense to express the enormous variety of material and symbolic interests of rivals for significance (as surrogates for political and social power) reaching almost to Baltimore on its northern reach, to Front Royal and Charlottesville on the other, gathering the consequences of demographic change into an immense conurbation, and resulting in many forms of definition of inter-questions of population and class outside the bounds of the Federal District and interacting with it in an intimate and complicated weave of the commuter journies to work (no longer simply towards the District, but in many interwoven and cross-jurisdictional lines of traffic, both by quasi-freeway and private car, but the deviations of three airports and several mostly-suburban shopping centers (such as Tyson's Corner and Shirley Highway, Rockville Pike and 270, the north-south route of 95, and the like. There is an active competition for busines centers for new business district building, a great variety of building heights and concentrations, interacting with a complicated weave of dependency and rivalry---exemplified by the building up of Arlington just on the other side of the Potomac from Washington itself, and without some of the prohibitions on building-height and use that the city of Washington is constrained by, such as the Height Act of 1910. This is interactive with the provision of housing in the same area, increasingly by much taller apartment houses in an area which is only constrained by the necessof crossing the barrier of the Potomac by a limited number of bridges.
The suburbs of Washington were created by the social process of white-flight in the complex period which followed Brown vs. Education in 1954, and very large and scattered new centers of rather well-to do groups in suburbs, which embodied all the tensions of a both more concentrated, more similar USA now electronic and not variegaated simply by the facts of space or the difficulties of moving large elements of commuting populations by means of the private car.
The whole embodies a complicated whole of space, communication, transportation and electronics and to a certain extent, the rivalries of potential advantage for places and jurisdictions. These are not soluble by the resources of any one piece, but invoke the necessity of all of them. They do not ever achieve the ideal of mutual benefit, but they represent an ideal of collaboration to bring together the so-called stakeholders of any single problem (such as that of the Height Limitation Act in the Federal District of Washington) in an often-untidy mixture of elements and impulses, such as the allocation of a joint report to OP and to NCPC, when the basic thrust of either component is virrtually certain to reveal (and constitute) patterns of incompatibility between them.
1There are, after all, more than one form of parochialism than those of the parish-pump, since I suppose that there is also a form of it in time, the notion that our own times and those of our 'history' and our ' futures' are the only ones that exist,, have existed, and will exist. This is at least one of the things to be learned from the study of history.
Read more
—William Haskett, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
Kudos to the NCPC for their thoughtful Height Act recommendations. My family goes back generations in DC and has seen the unique air-filled, green, non-shadowy city for 100 years. Visitors to DC do not simply note the downtown areas of the city, but the overall feel of the Federal City. At the Maryland. . . border at Wisconsin Avenue, the National Cathedral stands out straight ahead among lower rise buildings. In the same sight line, buildings are framed by trees because the limit for many large trees around 100 feet is proportional to the height of buildings. The same trees would be overshadowed in many areas with even a small change in height limits.
Regardless of why the Height Act was originally implemented, the impact has been a very airy, light-filled Washington that is quite unique versus other cities. The entire development pattern of DC was dictated by the Height Act, not just the areas near the memorials and downtown but everywhere across the city. In lower density wards, homes were built in very close proximity to limited height apartment buildings while still maintaining light and air. That adds charm and livability to many neighborhoods across the city that contrasts sharply with other cities. Raising heights in parts of the city even far from the core downtown can have disastrous impacts on the character of those areas and the city as a whole.
The Height Act has already been chipped away over time via dishonest interpretation and enforcement of the Height Act that is contrary to the intent and literal language of the Act. So now 90-foot height limited residential neighborhoods, many newer buildings actually stand 100-120 feet tall from the widest street plus an 18.5 foot penthouse. Extra height means extra shadows for adjacent buildings. Even in peak sunlight hours during winter, a 90 foot building casts a shadow many times that far. So when developers and planners claim that taller buildings and taller penthouses will have little impact on surrounding streets and buildings, it is not true.
Much of the value of higher zoned land simply accrues to the owner of such land. It does not provide broad societal benefit. It also has very limited, if any, reduction in housing costs for the same reason, the value (above construction costs and minimum investment return) always accrues to the land and high rise construction is expensive. The goal of DC should be to be the best city, a unique city, not the largest city with the most cranes and infrastructure not designed for it. Past generations’ wisdom gave DC its unique character. Let’s not ruin it in the blink of an eye, particularly when there is massive FAR available in the City without any changes to the Height Act. The light filled, lower density neighborhoods of DC are among its best.
Having DC become just like every other city is not in the Federal interest, or the local interest.
Read more
—Richard Graham, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
Regardless of why the Height Act was originally implemented, the impact has been a very airy, light-filled Washington that is quite unique versus other cities. The entire development pattern of DC was dictated by the Height Act, not just the areas near the memorials and downtown but everywhere across the city. In lower density wards, homes were built in very close proximity to limited height apartment buildings while still maintaining light and air. That adds charm and livability to many neighborhoods across the city that contrasts sharply with other cities. Raising heights in parts of the city even far from the core downtown can have disastrous impacts on the character of those areas and the city as a whole.
The Height Act has already been chipped away over time via dishonest interpretation and enforcement of the Height Act that is contrary to the intent and literal language of the Act. So now 90-foot height limited residential neighborhoods, many newer buildings actually stand 100-120 feet tall from the widest street plus an 18.5 foot penthouse. Extra height means extra shadows for adjacent buildings. Even in peak sunlight hours during winter, a 90 foot building casts a shadow many times that far. So when developers and planners claim that taller buildings and taller penthouses will have little impact on surrounding streets and buildings, it is not true.
Much of the value of higher zoned land simply accrues to the owner of such land. It does not provide broad societal benefit. It also has very limited, if any, reduction in housing costs for the same reason, the value (above construction costs and minimum investment return) always accrues to the land and high rise construction is expensive. The goal of DC should be to be the best city, a unique city, not the largest city with the most cranes and infrastructure not designed for it. Past generations’ wisdom gave DC its unique character. Let’s not ruin it in the blink of an eye, particularly when there is massive FAR available in the City without any changes to the Height Act. The light filled, lower density neighborhoods of DC are among its best.
Having DC become just like every other city is not in the Federal interest, or the local interest.
Read more
—Richard Graham, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
A friend just e-mailed me that the building heights limit in Washington is again under discussion and the deadline to submit comments is today. Because I was alerted so late this will be a brief note but I definitely want to voice my strong support for maintaining height.
I am fifth-generation Washingtonian who lived in. . . quite a few other U.S. cities in my young adulthood (Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York, and Portland, OR) but have been back home now for 17 years. A change in the height limits would substantially change much of what I love about this city and it seems to me that economic growth here is taking place at a sufficient pace.
Oddly, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I was in Wilmington, Delaware on business and as I walked from the train station to the office where my meeting was being held I was aware (not for the first time) that Wilmington felt a bit like Washington in the ‘80s/’90s, a bit depressed but filled with history and evident change on the way. It was a pleasant walk until I hit the “downtown†area where tall buildings had eradicated whatever history may have been there and left the sidewalks in deep shadows so nobody was lingering or strolling outside; I thought to myself, thank goodness we haven’t done this in Washington!
When I returned from Wilmington I walked from Union Station to Dupont Circle loving this city, its architecture, its trees, its light. Being forced to cross Massachusetts Avenue in several places where sidewalks were closed due to large construction projects, I was thankful that whatever was being built was not going to fundamentally change the feel of the city. And later in the evening, as I rode a bikeshare from Dupont Circle home, I had that same gratitude as I passed the rubble which used to be the Ontario Theater and will, I suppose, soon become “luxury condos†but not as many stories as I’m sure the developer would like.
I am right now writing this from my fourth-floor apartment in Mount Pleasant and looking out my front window at rooftops and church spires and people on the sidewalks enjoying the fall sunshine, in the far distance the tip of the Washington Monument can be seen. From my side window I have a view of Rock Creek Park and soon, when the tall tree a few blocks away loses its leaves, I’ll have my seasonal view of the National Cathedral.
I hope that greed or some misguided idea about what Washington needs will not alter the unique and wonderful character created by the building heights limit. It is one of the things that I believe make this the “fairest city in the greatest land of all.â€
Read more
—Katharine MacKaye, Washington DC (Mount Pleasant) (November 04, 2013)
I am fifth-generation Washingtonian who lived in. . . quite a few other U.S. cities in my young adulthood (Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York, and Portland, OR) but have been back home now for 17 years. A change in the height limits would substantially change much of what I love about this city and it seems to me that economic growth here is taking place at a sufficient pace.
Oddly, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I was in Wilmington, Delaware on business and as I walked from the train station to the office where my meeting was being held I was aware (not for the first time) that Wilmington felt a bit like Washington in the ‘80s/’90s, a bit depressed but filled with history and evident change on the way. It was a pleasant walk until I hit the “downtown†area where tall buildings had eradicated whatever history may have been there and left the sidewalks in deep shadows so nobody was lingering or strolling outside; I thought to myself, thank goodness we haven’t done this in Washington!
When I returned from Wilmington I walked from Union Station to Dupont Circle loving this city, its architecture, its trees, its light. Being forced to cross Massachusetts Avenue in several places where sidewalks were closed due to large construction projects, I was thankful that whatever was being built was not going to fundamentally change the feel of the city. And later in the evening, as I rode a bikeshare from Dupont Circle home, I had that same gratitude as I passed the rubble which used to be the Ontario Theater and will, I suppose, soon become “luxury condos†but not as many stories as I’m sure the developer would like.
I am right now writing this from my fourth-floor apartment in Mount Pleasant and looking out my front window at rooftops and church spires and people on the sidewalks enjoying the fall sunshine, in the far distance the tip of the Washington Monument can be seen. From my side window I have a view of Rock Creek Park and soon, when the tall tree a few blocks away loses its leaves, I’ll have my seasonal view of the National Cathedral.
I hope that greed or some misguided idea about what Washington needs will not alter the unique and wonderful character created by the building heights limit. It is one of the things that I believe make this the “fairest city in the greatest land of all.â€
Read more
—Katharine MacKaye, Washington DC (Mount Pleasant) (November 04, 2013)
I am opposed to any changes to the Height Act.
NCPC report: I agree with the NCPC finding that "changes to the Height Act within the L’Enfant City and within the topographic bowl may have a significant adverse effect on federal interests" and that "The Height Act continues to meet the essential interests and needs. . . of the federal government and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so in the future. There is no specific federal interest in raising heights to meet future federal space needs."
D.C. Government report: The pdf of the District government report located at: http://www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/docs/092013_DC_Height_Master_Plan_Draft_Recommendations_Report_FINAL.pdf is an incomplete version and only contains even-numbered pages. Therefore, the public does not have full access to this report for the purposes of reviewing and commenting. The Commission needs to provide full information to the public to ensure a credible public comment process.
Based on the incomplete information provided on the website, I oppose the District government's recommendations. While I oppose changes in the height limits District-wide, I want to point out that I live between Buzzard Point and the Waterfront Station, and I am opposed to any changes in those locations.
New development in the District should focus on communities near metro stations that need positive neighborhood investment and where it is affordable for families to live and for residents to open small business, such as Deanwood, Benning Road, and Capitol Heights. The average family cannot afford to live in the many new high rise buildings in the District. But they may not feel safe in some neighborhoods that are affordable and near metro. These areas in the district would greatly benefit from low or medium-rise development that would encourage neighborhood vitality and livable communities.
We need more neighborhoods with locally owned shops of all types, from bakeries and coffee shops to card stores to day care, yoga studios and local artists--not more high rise buildings with yet another CVS, Subway restaurant, and bank in the commercial spaces because no one else can afford to locate there. Instead, moderate density development in other neighborhoods will help improve their safety and community stability. I don't see any benefit in cramming more expensive, sterile, high-rise housing into the small center city, already overwhelmed with traffic.
One of the primary reasons I live in Washington, D.C. is because of our open skies, unique among major American cities. The heigh limit makes D.C. special. The bottom line is that seeing the sky and the sun makes people happy, even when downtown. And they allow the beautiful trees we have in the District to thrive. The sun, the sky, and the trees fill D.C. with glimpses of nature--feeding our souls in a way that most cities cannot. And seeing the stunning vistas of the Capitol dome, the Library of Congress, the Washington Monument, and the wide avenues can also bring a smile to many faces.
When has a concrete canyon, blocking the sky, casting shadows and creating a gray landscape, ever made anyone smile?
Read more
—Amy Mall, Washington, DC (20024) (November 04, 2013)
NCPC report: I agree with the NCPC finding that "changes to the Height Act within the L’Enfant City and within the topographic bowl may have a significant adverse effect on federal interests" and that "The Height Act continues to meet the essential interests and needs. . . of the federal government and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so in the future. There is no specific federal interest in raising heights to meet future federal space needs."
D.C. Government report: The pdf of the District government report located at: http://www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/docs/092013_DC_Height_Master_Plan_Draft_Recommendations_Report_FINAL.pdf is an incomplete version and only contains even-numbered pages. Therefore, the public does not have full access to this report for the purposes of reviewing and commenting. The Commission needs to provide full information to the public to ensure a credible public comment process.
Based on the incomplete information provided on the website, I oppose the District government's recommendations. While I oppose changes in the height limits District-wide, I want to point out that I live between Buzzard Point and the Waterfront Station, and I am opposed to any changes in those locations.
New development in the District should focus on communities near metro stations that need positive neighborhood investment and where it is affordable for families to live and for residents to open small business, such as Deanwood, Benning Road, and Capitol Heights. The average family cannot afford to live in the many new high rise buildings in the District. But they may not feel safe in some neighborhoods that are affordable and near metro. These areas in the district would greatly benefit from low or medium-rise development that would encourage neighborhood vitality and livable communities.
We need more neighborhoods with locally owned shops of all types, from bakeries and coffee shops to card stores to day care, yoga studios and local artists--not more high rise buildings with yet another CVS, Subway restaurant, and bank in the commercial spaces because no one else can afford to locate there. Instead, moderate density development in other neighborhoods will help improve their safety and community stability. I don't see any benefit in cramming more expensive, sterile, high-rise housing into the small center city, already overwhelmed with traffic.
One of the primary reasons I live in Washington, D.C. is because of our open skies, unique among major American cities. The heigh limit makes D.C. special. The bottom line is that seeing the sky and the sun makes people happy, even when downtown. And they allow the beautiful trees we have in the District to thrive. The sun, the sky, and the trees fill D.C. with glimpses of nature--feeding our souls in a way that most cities cannot. And seeing the stunning vistas of the Capitol dome, the Library of Congress, the Washington Monument, and the wide avenues can also bring a smile to many faces.
When has a concrete canyon, blocking the sky, casting shadows and creating a gray landscape, ever made anyone smile?
Read more
—Amy Mall, Washington, DC (20024) (November 04, 2013)
Please consider this note my support for ending all Federal regulation of heights in the District of Columbia.
While I recognize that the Federal Government has an interest in Federally owned properties as well as the view sheds in the monumental core I don’t believe either of those interests are threatened or even impacted by. . . allowing the District of Columbia self determination when it comes to what heights are appropriate for the District.
I also find it absurd that across the river in Virginia or across Western and Eastern Avenues in MD there are much taller buildings and it is illustrative that the sky has not fallen and our Nation’s Capital is in no discernible way diminished by these taller buildings located across otherwise invisible political boundaries.
While I am not sure what, if any, changes should be made to the zoning laws of the District of Columbia I strongly believe those decisions (including those concerning height limits) should be left to the residents of the District of Columbia and their elected representatives.
I appreciate the great amount of thought and time that NCPC has put into this issue but hope you will agree these decisions belong in the hands of the citizens of our Nation’s Capital.
Read more
—Tom Quinn, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
While I recognize that the Federal Government has an interest in Federally owned properties as well as the view sheds in the monumental core I don’t believe either of those interests are threatened or even impacted by. . . allowing the District of Columbia self determination when it comes to what heights are appropriate for the District.
I also find it absurd that across the river in Virginia or across Western and Eastern Avenues in MD there are much taller buildings and it is illustrative that the sky has not fallen and our Nation’s Capital is in no discernible way diminished by these taller buildings located across otherwise invisible political boundaries.
While I am not sure what, if any, changes should be made to the zoning laws of the District of Columbia I strongly believe those decisions (including those concerning height limits) should be left to the residents of the District of Columbia and their elected representatives.
I appreciate the great amount of thought and time that NCPC has put into this issue but hope you will agree these decisions belong in the hands of the citizens of our Nation’s Capital.
Read more
—Tom Quinn, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
While there are many -- MANY -- pressures on you to allow the building height regulations to be shifted, i.e. raised to greater heights, I strongly urge you to either say "no" or add a five-year moratorium for more consideration. Our city's horizon now sparkles with the monuments and buildings that are the heart of this. . . city. Just as Paris looks to its Eiffel Tower (with higher buildings far out of the city center), residents and visitors look to the Washington Monument and the other monuments and the Capitol as the core of the nation's capital.
Developers are building more small studios, which suit many of the new young workers in town. Let those fill. There is no likelihood in rents or purchase prices going down. Add to that the additional costs of transportation infrastructures and headaches.
PLEASE VOTE NO.
Read more
—Carolyn Lieberg, Washington, DC 20024 (November 04, 2013)
Developers are building more small studios, which suit many of the new young workers in town. Let those fill. There is no likelihood in rents or purchase prices going down. Add to that the additional costs of transportation infrastructures and headaches.
PLEASE VOTE NO.
Read more
—Carolyn Lieberg, Washington, DC 20024 (November 04, 2013)
> From: SHARON LIGHT [mailto:sharonlight@me.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:59 AM
> To: Young, Deborah B.
Keep building height limits
Please maintain the building height limits for all of Washington DC. Do not cave in to developers who want to destroy the beauty of our city.
—Sharon Light, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:59 AM
> To: Young, Deborah B.
Keep building height limits
Please maintain the building height limits for all of Washington DC. Do not cave in to developers who want to destroy the beauty of our city.
—Sharon Light, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
I've just learned about your interest in citizen opinion about whether there is a desire to raise the height limits.
I hope my opinion not being sent too late. I am opposed to increasing height. Believe there are other ways to increase density.
—Celeste Regan, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
I hope my opinion not being sent too late. I am opposed to increasing height. Believe there are other ways to increase density.
—Celeste Regan, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
I am Howard University graduate from Congress heights with a BA in economics. Increased economic development is great, but they're not the only thing. DC's skyline view of the Capitol and Washington Monument is one of the world's most iconic, thus should of with out a doubt be preserved.
But taller buildings in Farragut Square. . . or Brookland or Anacostia wouldn't impede that view any more than they do in Rosslyn. One thing that bothers me particularly is why can't the land east of the anacostia build up if rosslyn is able to do so. There should be not a fedreal law dictating heights outside the lefant city just zooning regulations placed by the committee, espacialy east of the anacostia river.
Read more
—Devon Smith, D. C. (October 31, 2013)
But taller buildings in Farragut Square. . . or Brookland or Anacostia wouldn't impede that view any more than they do in Rosslyn. One thing that bothers me particularly is why can't the land east of the anacostia build up if rosslyn is able to do so. There should be not a fedreal law dictating heights outside the lefant city just zooning regulations placed by the committee, espacialy east of the anacostia river.
Read more
—Devon Smith, D. C. (October 31, 2013)
PLEASE keep the building height restrictions intact in Washington. The lower building heights in our city only lend to it's beauty . As a city, we have certainly gotten along without taller buildings until now. Certainly it is not necessary to change this restriction.
—Nancy Ann , Unknown (October 31, 2013)
—Nancy Ann , Unknown (October 31, 2013)
See Attached
Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez
—Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez, Friendship Heights (October 31, 2013)
Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez
—Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez, Friendship Heights (October 31, 2013)
I'm adding my voice to those who oppose any increase in the height limitations for new buildings in the District. We have a beautiful city with buildings constructed on a human scale, rather than looming over pedestrians and residents. San Francisco used to be beautiful as well; while it still retains some of its. . . charm, it no longer has the gracious, low-level skyline it used to have. Why must the District look like every other city in the nation? I don't favor paranoia, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that this push to allow taller and taller buildings is driven largely by the financial interests of developers and construction companies. We need to focus on aesthetics and livability as well.
Read more
—Nancy Stanley, Washington DC (October 31, 2013)
Read more
—Nancy Stanley, Washington DC (October 31, 2013)
There is plenty of room for growth WITHOUT raising building heights in Washington, DC. Washington is not - and should never be -- a typical high-rise mega city. Washington, DC is the capital of the United States, and should be focused, in every way and in every neighborhood, on its original purpose -- focused on the. . . governing and the government of the people, by the people and for the people, the buildings that house the government of the people, and the buildings that memorialize the spirit of the people.
Our neighborhoods should support the spirit of DC with quiet residences and low key retail areas.
All growth must include growth of the spirit as well as the physical. "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36
Keep the unique spirit and purpose of Washington, DC; keep Washington, DC low-rise.
Read more
—Hannah Family, Washington, DC (20015) (October 31, 2013)
Our neighborhoods should support the spirit of DC with quiet residences and low key retail areas.
All growth must include growth of the spirit as well as the physical. "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36
Keep the unique spirit and purpose of Washington, DC; keep Washington, DC low-rise.
Read more
—Hannah Family, Washington, DC (20015) (October 31, 2013)
Please maintain the building height limits for all of Washington DC. Do not cave in to developers who want to destroy the beauty of our city.
—Sharon Light, Unknown (October 31, 2013)
—Sharon Light, Unknown (October 31, 2013)
I understand you're seeking opinions re raising the building height limit in DC.
I'm opposed to raising the limit because our neighborhoods are truly neighborhoods, where we can stroll on the sidewalks in the sun and recognize our neighbors, as well as the people who work in our neighborhood. Look at. . . NY or Chicago, both of which are unacceptably noisy and dirty because of the density of their populations, which leads to anonymity on the streets - an atmosphere in which crime can flourish.
Read more
—Davida Perry, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
I'm opposed to raising the limit because our neighborhoods are truly neighborhoods, where we can stroll on the sidewalks in the sun and recognize our neighbors, as well as the people who work in our neighborhood. Look at. . . NY or Chicago, both of which are unacceptably noisy and dirty because of the density of their populations, which leads to anonymity on the streets - an atmosphere in which crime can flourish.
Read more
—Davida Perry, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
I'm writing to support your efforts to retain the Height Act. As a citizen of DC for over 25 years, I feel it is very important to maintain the cohesiveness and character of our neighborhoods and not threaten them with the creation of additional high rise buildings and developments.
—Dr Phyllis Stubbs, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
—Dr Phyllis Stubbs, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
Please don't raise the height limit for DC buildings. That limit has kept Washington a pleasant and livable city we can be proud of.
We don't want the "canyons" you find in New York, where the sidewalk is in shadow. We don't want to destroy the feel of. . . space and air one gets along Connecticut , Wisconsin Avenue and even much of downtown. That is what makes Washington a city of distinction for residents and tourists.
Read more
—Marjorie Rachlin, Washignton, DC (20008) (October 31, 2013)
We don't want the "canyons" you find in New York, where the sidewalk is in shadow. We don't want to destroy the feel of. . . space and air one gets along Connecticut , Wisconsin Avenue and even much of downtown. That is what makes Washington a city of distinction for residents and tourists.
Read more
—Marjorie Rachlin, Washignton, DC (20008) (October 31, 2013)
I am a DC resident that is also concerned about the proposed changes to the 1910 Height Act and height limitation. As a leading planning agency for the region, I hope that the National Capitol Planning Commission will use the latest planning and design principles and analytics to review the proposal and reach a reasoned decision.. . . With respect to linking the height increases to the creation of affordable housing, there are alternative measures, including the Districts inclusionary zoning program.
Montgomery County, our neighboring jurisdiction, is a leader in advancing affordable and mixed-use housing, having established the nation’s first inclusionary zoning program to develop Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU) in 1976. Since the IZ Program development, the county developed over 13,246 MPDU units: 9,290 off sale units (condominium and townhouse) and 3,956 rental units. See “Number of MPDUs Produced Since 1976†-http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/housing/singlefamily/mpdu/produced.html Montgomery County’s inclusionary zoning program has been recognized in a number of publications and has been replication by other jurisdictions. An increasing number of mixed-income properties have capitalized on their proximity and access to Metro stations, again putting Montgomery County in the lead in developing mixed-income transit oriented development (TOD) properties.
The District of Columbia Government passed Bill 16-952 "Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Act of 2006." With the emergency zoning rule change to the city’s inclusionary zoning program, Cheryl Cort, Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth noted the following in an article published by Greater Greater Washington, Inclusionary zoning will soon be making a difference in DC.
“Nearly 3 years after regulations were finalized, DC's inclusionary zoning (IZ) program is beginning to have a positive effect on affordable housing stock in the city.... While the program has suffered a slow start up because of grandfathering and the recession's effect on residential development, the program’s 3rd annual report suggests that IZ in DC will follow the success of neighboring Montgomery County.†July 12, 2012.
Read more
—Muriel Watkins, Washington, DC (October 31, 2013)
Montgomery County, our neighboring jurisdiction, is a leader in advancing affordable and mixed-use housing, having established the nation’s first inclusionary zoning program to develop Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU) in 1976. Since the IZ Program development, the county developed over 13,246 MPDU units: 9,290 off sale units (condominium and townhouse) and 3,956 rental units. See “Number of MPDUs Produced Since 1976†-http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/housing/singlefamily/mpdu/produced.html Montgomery County’s inclusionary zoning program has been recognized in a number of publications and has been replication by other jurisdictions. An increasing number of mixed-income properties have capitalized on their proximity and access to Metro stations, again putting Montgomery County in the lead in developing mixed-income transit oriented development (TOD) properties.
The District of Columbia Government passed Bill 16-952 "Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Act of 2006." With the emergency zoning rule change to the city’s inclusionary zoning program, Cheryl Cort, Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth noted the following in an article published by Greater Greater Washington, Inclusionary zoning will soon be making a difference in DC.
“Nearly 3 years after regulations were finalized, DC's inclusionary zoning (IZ) program is beginning to have a positive effect on affordable housing stock in the city.... While the program has suffered a slow start up because of grandfathering and the recession's effect on residential development, the program’s 3rd annual report suggests that IZ in DC will follow the success of neighboring Montgomery County.†July 12, 2012.
Read more
—Muriel Watkins, Washington, DC (October 31, 2013)
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. I am DC born and raised; my grandparents came here in 1933 when times were pretty bad elsewhere. DC was good to them and their progeny, myself included. Good example of how in bad times DC draws people. I believe the current uptick. . . in population follows the same trend, recession-driven. Some will stay, some will go. When the economy improves elsewhere DC will lose its draw. The ups and downs of population growth are not, I believe, as dramatic as the city planners would argue, despite their excitement about “millenlials.†It was interesting to read a study reported in the Post (9/12/12, Kathy Orton) that as many people are moving out of DC as are moving in.
As a native, the scale of the city has been important to me personally. I believe in democracy, the voice of the common man (as in this statement), and the sense that citizenry has responsibility for and dominion over the laws of the land. The scale of the city, the low rise buildings, encourages this conviction. Our city streets and avenues do not overwhelm, intimidate or alienate. This is best appreciated by contrast with other cities, where tall buildings diminish the individual, dominating the pedestrian and making one fearful or at least cautious. Those cities do not encourage an expansive view, a “we can do it†attitude or a sense of “we’re in it together.†They engender a myopic view of self protection rather than the confidence and strength our city’s profile creates all across the city, downtown as well as in neighborhoods.
I absolutely support the NCPC recommendation not to remove the Height Act. And I recoil from the shenanigans of the Office of Planning whose unilateral recommendation to Congressman Issa was high-handed and autocratic. It was typical of an office who would undermine the common man in a city of towering fortresses.
If anything, the NCPC has gained stature in my eyes. Thank you for your work.
Read more
—Linda Schmitt, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
As a native, the scale of the city has been important to me personally. I believe in democracy, the voice of the common man (as in this statement), and the sense that citizenry has responsibility for and dominion over the laws of the land. The scale of the city, the low rise buildings, encourages this conviction. Our city streets and avenues do not overwhelm, intimidate or alienate. This is best appreciated by contrast with other cities, where tall buildings diminish the individual, dominating the pedestrian and making one fearful or at least cautious. Those cities do not encourage an expansive view, a “we can do it†attitude or a sense of “we’re in it together.†They engender a myopic view of self protection rather than the confidence and strength our city’s profile creates all across the city, downtown as well as in neighborhoods.
I absolutely support the NCPC recommendation not to remove the Height Act. And I recoil from the shenanigans of the Office of Planning whose unilateral recommendation to Congressman Issa was high-handed and autocratic. It was typical of an office who would undermine the common man in a city of towering fortresses.
If anything, the NCPC has gained stature in my eyes. Thank you for your work.
Read more
—Linda Schmitt, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
Dear National Capital Planning Commision,
My name is Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr. I am a dc native as well as a senior at University of Maryland studying economics. First of I would like to congratulate the Districts office of planning on their suggestions on the modification of the height act. I completely agree that. . . it is essential for the district to update this 100 yr old legislation in order to foster growth, and to avoid turning the entire city into nothing but 130 ft boxes in the upcoming decades. I am for a modification that will allow for growth and ensure that national landmarks such as the Capitol remain a part of the iconic dc skyline. A skyline that with careful planning has the potential even be more beautiful. Thus I approve of the district's office of planning recommendation of increasing the height to a ratio of 1 to 1.25 in the l'effant city and to make areas outside the leFant city to be subject solely to zoning regulations. I am in favor of this recommendation. However I have an additional suggestion of making the ratio change as well as allowing for a couple of tr strategically placed buildings along Pennsylvania avea, the Warf deveolopment, as well main transit points.
First of I approve of the districts suggestion because it allows the city to grow while taking into consideration the city's landmarks. This so in that this modification would make only stubble changes in that some roads will stay the same while others will only have an increment of a couple stories. This modification will make it so 200ft buildings will be allowed in the current 160 ft max stretch of pensylvania ave. In other words an addition of two to three stories. Outside the lefant I agree with the office recommendation of of leaving the assignment of height subject to zoning. Thismakes perfect sense because there are parts outside the lefant city near metrostations in which 15 to 20 story buildings could exist for example why can should there be a restriction of areas such as friendship heights when right across western avenue there are an assortment of buildings ranging from 2 story boutiques to 20 story buildings 275 ft. buildings. Also there is no reason why high demand areas in upper north west and north east could have some taller development being that currently there are radio towers that exceed 500 ft and one tower that is taller than the Washington monument.
Read more
—Luis ASanchez, DC (October 31, 2013)
My name is Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr. I am a dc native as well as a senior at University of Maryland studying economics. First of I would like to congratulate the Districts office of planning on their suggestions on the modification of the height act. I completely agree that. . . it is essential for the district to update this 100 yr old legislation in order to foster growth, and to avoid turning the entire city into nothing but 130 ft boxes in the upcoming decades. I am for a modification that will allow for growth and ensure that national landmarks such as the Capitol remain a part of the iconic dc skyline. A skyline that with careful planning has the potential even be more beautiful. Thus I approve of the district's office of planning recommendation of increasing the height to a ratio of 1 to 1.25 in the l'effant city and to make areas outside the leFant city to be subject solely to zoning regulations. I am in favor of this recommendation. However I have an additional suggestion of making the ratio change as well as allowing for a couple of tr strategically placed buildings along Pennsylvania avea, the Warf deveolopment, as well main transit points.
First of I approve of the districts suggestion because it allows the city to grow while taking into consideration the city's landmarks. This so in that this modification would make only stubble changes in that some roads will stay the same while others will only have an increment of a couple stories. This modification will make it so 200ft buildings will be allowed in the current 160 ft max stretch of pensylvania ave. In other words an addition of two to three stories. Outside the lefant I agree with the office recommendation of of leaving the assignment of height subject to zoning. Thismakes perfect sense because there are parts outside the lefant city near metrostations in which 15 to 20 story buildings could exist for example why can should there be a restriction of areas such as friendship heights when right across western avenue there are an assortment of buildings ranging from 2 story boutiques to 20 story buildings 275 ft. buildings. Also there is no reason why high demand areas in upper north west and north east could have some taller development being that currently there are radio towers that exceed 500 ft and one tower that is taller than the Washington monument.
Read more
—Luis ASanchez, DC (October 31, 2013)
Capitol Hill Restoration Society testimony on OP report at City Council, held 10/28/2013.
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
Gene Solon’s Testimony on the National Capital Planning Commission Draft Federal Interest Report and Findings for the Height Master Plan for Washington, DC, Submitted October 30, 2013
Commissioners:
1. As you know, my neighborhood, the Near Southwest/Southeast community, is experiencing an ongoing building boom. The development pattern here includes not only our existing high-rise. . . residences, hotels and commuter-filled office buildings and the visitor-attracting Nationals’ baseball stadium - but also the proposed multipurpose waterfront Wharf project’s130-foot-plus high rise buildings (and unsafe, unnecessary proposed pier extensions into the Washington Channel blocking emergency evacuation by boat), and now, a proposed soccer stadium.
2. The development pattern’s impact upon Near Southwest/Southeast roadway congestion is already of major concern. DDOT has promised to periodically monitor car, truck, tour-bus and other traffic along Maine Avenue, M Street, 4th Street and other area roadways – but DDOT has refused to say what it will do if its monitoring program shows that the development-generated congestion will be too much for our roadway and subway systems to bear. Let’s face reality: it is no secret that Increased building height produces increased traffic.
3. The development pattern now looming will constrict treasured northward views we waterfront housing complex homeowners have had of the height of the Washington Monument (as well as the views we’ve had of Washington Channel water expanses).
4. Car and bus passengers’ views of our capital city’s unique features, including the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial the Capitol and other area attractions, will be constricted by buildings taller than current law allows.
5. A nation’s capital - our nation’s capital – must continue to be a special place, one that provides and protects open spaces, reflects history, respects its residents as well as visitors, and honors a nation’s most humane aspirations.
6. Washington, D.C. must not be allowed to become just another congested, cramped collection of tall towers!
Read more
—Gene Solon, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Capitol Hill Restoration Society comments on Office of Planning's 9/20/13 report. Thank you.
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
Capitol Hill Restoration Society testimony for public meeting 10-30-13 is attached. Thank you.
—Janet Quigley, CHRS, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Janet Quigley, CHRS, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
Attached is a revised copy of my original statement.
—Ferrial H. Lanton , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Ferrial H. Lanton , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Thank you for providing this opportunity to testify. I am opposed to any changes to the federal height act for the District of Columbia. I live in NE next to the McMillan Sand Filtration site and changing the height act would dramatically alter the character of our neighborhood.
—Cheryl Wagner, 3013 Hawthorne Dr NE Washington DC (October 30, 2013)
—Cheryl Wagner, 3013 Hawthorne Dr NE Washington DC (October 30, 2013)
As a professor of US architecture and urbanism and a District resident for over thirty years, I would like to go on record as adamantly opposing the D.C. Office of Planning's proposal to raise the height limit. The is the most sweeping proposal to occur, in my estimation, since the Senate Park Commission Plan in 1901-02.. . . In every other respect, it is cut of an entirely different cloth. While the SPC Plan was sweeping in its breadth to the degree that it became a major catalyst for establishing the field of city planning and provided a sound matrix for development for decades, the city's proposal is not planning at all, but rather a one-dimensional agenda-driven scheme. It fails to take into serious consideration any of the numerous ramifications its implementation would have -- on residential land values citywide, on infrastructure,on transportation, on the stability of the existing business center, and on the appearance of the city. Washington is an extraordinary, singular place that has benefitted from generations of enlightened planning. This proposal threatens to ruin that legacy. The city planning office should focus on the complex issue of how to foster growth in a responsible multi-faceted way. The fact that it has not done that and, characteristically, ignores public opinion ads insult to injury. I hope your deliberations of this crucial manner are as reasoned and responsible as they typically have been. We can ill-afford to have this radical, ill-conceived proposal take concrete form.
Read more
—Richard Longstreth, Washington, D.C. (October 30, 2013)
Read more
—Richard Longstreth, Washington, D.C. (October 30, 2013)
I support raising the height limit. Raising the height limit is the only viable way to create a more sustainable efficient city. Increasing the height limit will also create much needed tax revenue to fund new mass transit options.
—Eugene Dudink, Penn Quarter, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Eugene Dudink, Penn Quarter, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I support increases to height limits in the District of Columbia. I fell this is a greener form of urban development. A good compromise is to allow increased heights east of the Anacostia River if there is popular support for height limits west of the Anacostia River.
—David Anspach, Clinton, MD (October 30, 2013)
—David Anspach, Clinton, MD (October 30, 2013)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the significant issue of changing (or retaining) height limits in the District. I reside in the 3rd ward, and one of the reasons that attracted us to the district was the distinct character of the city – a very real and human scale city, without being. . . overwhelmed in a canyon of tall buildings, and with distinct neighborhoods that are essentially like a collection of villages. Each of these communities in the district has a genuine charm, with small businesses and a solid feeling of community. I have watched this city change and rehabilitate over the past twenty or more years (I have worked here for many years but was only able to move to the district permanently 3 ½ years ago) – with neighborhoods being rebuilt, small businesses opening, and a vibrant street life that was once non-existent. I see this process continuing, and with (hopefully) more attention to immediate needs such as improving jobs and neighborhoods in areas struck by poverty. Raising the height limits would benefit developers – not the population of our nation’s capital, or the attractiveness of this city to the huge numbers of visitors from our country and from abroad. The district would lose this character, without any apparent relatively greater benefit.
We regularly walk to small restaurants and shops near our home, housed in one and two story buildings – which would be in danger of being razed in favor of high rises if the height limits were changed. We like this scale. We also think that this change would ruin the desirability of exploring other areas of the district, including the downtown section. This beautiful city would become just another American high rise enclave, and not the distinct and attractive representation of our country to the world. We enjoy walking in different parts of the city, and part of the charm is watching small businesses open, and a feeling of a village – rather than a sterile and crowded city of high rises. The city economy is improving, and improving in a way that provides broader benefits and greater public good than turning it over to predatory developers. To be clear, I am not opposed to responsible development (and redevelopment) within the context of the existing heightline restrictions. There are many opportunities for business growth – including incubators, technology companies, start-ups, biotechnology, service companies, small shops, restaurants – promoting small businesses that could not afford the rental costs of a luxury high rise. To lose this base would both deprive the city of meaningful job prospects across the spectrum, and the diverse business base that makes this city such a great place to live.
I travel – extensively, within the US and broadly across the rest of the world. I find that cities that have given way to high rise development become empty, and desolate on weekends, with no character. Small shops and businesses are nonexistent (other than lunch places), and there is no reason to walk or spend time in this type of environment. Nor would DC be as attractive as it is now, or as representative of our nation. Let’s not let this happen here. Some have said that a change in the height limit would not impact zoning laws and therefore of no danger to the outlying areas – I don’t believe this. This would be a first step towards creeping large building development – now that a high rise has been built, there is no reason not to change the zoning for surrounding properties – and so it goes throughout the city.
I should also comment that I do not believe that a vote by the ANC in our ward (not to support opposition to a change) was representative of the community’s feelings. Recent votes by some members of the 3rd ward ANC not to oppose development were cast despite overwhelming opposition from a very large turnout of community members present. In speaking with other residents in the area (a broad range), there is a complete failure to grasp why these members were taking these positions.
Thank you very much for your efforts to oppose this change.
Read more
—Donald Crane, Washington, DC 20015 (October 30, 2013)
We regularly walk to small restaurants and shops near our home, housed in one and two story buildings – which would be in danger of being razed in favor of high rises if the height limits were changed. We like this scale. We also think that this change would ruin the desirability of exploring other areas of the district, including the downtown section. This beautiful city would become just another American high rise enclave, and not the distinct and attractive representation of our country to the world. We enjoy walking in different parts of the city, and part of the charm is watching small businesses open, and a feeling of a village – rather than a sterile and crowded city of high rises. The city economy is improving, and improving in a way that provides broader benefits and greater public good than turning it over to predatory developers. To be clear, I am not opposed to responsible development (and redevelopment) within the context of the existing heightline restrictions. There are many opportunities for business growth – including incubators, technology companies, start-ups, biotechnology, service companies, small shops, restaurants – promoting small businesses that could not afford the rental costs of a luxury high rise. To lose this base would both deprive the city of meaningful job prospects across the spectrum, and the diverse business base that makes this city such a great place to live.
I travel – extensively, within the US and broadly across the rest of the world. I find that cities that have given way to high rise development become empty, and desolate on weekends, with no character. Small shops and businesses are nonexistent (other than lunch places), and there is no reason to walk or spend time in this type of environment. Nor would DC be as attractive as it is now, or as representative of our nation. Let’s not let this happen here. Some have said that a change in the height limit would not impact zoning laws and therefore of no danger to the outlying areas – I don’t believe this. This would be a first step towards creeping large building development – now that a high rise has been built, there is no reason not to change the zoning for surrounding properties – and so it goes throughout the city.
I should also comment that I do not believe that a vote by the ANC in our ward (not to support opposition to a change) was representative of the community’s feelings. Recent votes by some members of the 3rd ward ANC not to oppose development were cast despite overwhelming opposition from a very large turnout of community members present. In speaking with other residents in the area (a broad range), there is a complete failure to grasp why these members were taking these positions.
Thank you very much for your efforts to oppose this change.
Read more
—Donald Crane, Washington, DC 20015 (October 30, 2013)
I support altering the height of buildings act in Washington DC.
The analysis of the remaining room for development in DC from the Office of Planning is persuasive; more room is needed to allow for the continued growth of the city in a healthy manner, allowing for revitalization and growth without widespread displacement.. . . />
Cities and urban economies are akin to living organisms; they grow and change all the time. And given the tremendous pressure for growth in the District, the most responsible reaction is to liberalize some of the rules that govern growth in the city and allow the market to provide for the demand to live and work in the city.
The role of planners should be to roughly shape that growth, not stymie it all together. I am fearful that NCPC's embrace of the anachronistic height limits in DC will do just that.
Unfortunately, the NCPC assertion of the Federal interest is both too broad and too limiting to realistically apply. If one were to take NCPC's broad declaration of interest to the logical conclusion, you would end up with a Federal interest in only maintaining the status quo; and an interest that is so broad as to crowd out any local interest.
The irony of this would be that such a broad interpretation of the federal interest would thus require running roughshod over other American virtues, such as private property rights; local government control; and the local democratic process.
As an alternative for the Federal Interst, I would argue that the jointly-agreed upon principles that framed this study are an excellent definition of the Federal Interest: maintaining a horizontal skyline, maintaining certain vistas and viewsheds, and maintaining historic assets within the city.
Even the most aggressive of the scenarios modeled as a part of this process is still consistent with these broadly stated interests; strong physical planning can maintain a taller, yet still horizontal skyline; view corridors and vistas will remain; the additional growth capacity from added height and density will help relieve development pressure on historic resources worthy of preservation.
Finally, it is important to note that any changes to actual building heights will be subject to extensive planning work; alteration of the federal law is just the first step in that process. Given the large impact on local conditions from the federal law, as a supporter of home rule for the District of Columbia, I support a full repeal of the federal height limit law, and remanding decisions on building heights back to the government agencies that help craft our current hybrid federal/local planning process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important planning study.
Read more
—Alex Block, Washington, DC - Ward 6 (October 30, 2013)
The analysis of the remaining room for development in DC from the Office of Planning is persuasive; more room is needed to allow for the continued growth of the city in a healthy manner, allowing for revitalization and growth without widespread displacement.
Cities and urban economies are akin to living organisms; they grow and change all the time. And given the tremendous pressure for growth in the District, the most responsible reaction is to liberalize some of the rules that govern growth in the city and allow the market to provide for the demand to live and work in the city.
The role of planners should be to roughly shape that growth, not stymie it all together. I am fearful that NCPC's embrace of the anachronistic height limits in DC will do just that.
Unfortunately, the NCPC assertion of the Federal interest is both too broad and too limiting to realistically apply. If one were to take NCPC's broad declaration of interest to the logical conclusion, you would end up with a Federal interest in only maintaining the status quo; and an interest that is so broad as to crowd out any local interest.
The irony of this would be that such a broad interpretation of the federal interest would thus require running roughshod over other American virtues, such as private property rights; local government control; and the local democratic process.
As an alternative for the Federal Interst, I would argue that the jointly-agreed upon principles that framed this study are an excellent definition of the Federal Interest: maintaining a horizontal skyline, maintaining certain vistas and viewsheds, and maintaining historic assets within the city.
Even the most aggressive of the scenarios modeled as a part of this process is still consistent with these broadly stated interests; strong physical planning can maintain a taller, yet still horizontal skyline; view corridors and vistas will remain; the additional growth capacity from added height and density will help relieve development pressure on historic resources worthy of preservation.
Finally, it is important to note that any changes to actual building heights will be subject to extensive planning work; alteration of the federal law is just the first step in that process. Given the large impact on local conditions from the federal law, as a supporter of home rule for the District of Columbia, I support a full repeal of the federal height limit law, and remanding decisions on building heights back to the government agencies that help craft our current hybrid federal/local planning process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important planning study.
Read more
—Alex Block, Washington, DC - Ward 6 (October 30, 2013)
I am writing in support of your recommendations to retain the Height Act.
I do NOT support development projects that do not comply with the Height Act.
—Tony Martinez, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I do NOT support development projects that do not comply with the Height Act.
—Tony Martinez, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
provided in attached Word document.
—Steve Schulte, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Steve Schulte, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I strongly support substantial revisions to the Height Act, as long as they respect the topography and horizontality that define the city's skyline.
Doing so will:
- add substantial flexibility to local architecture
- reduce the supply constraints that needlessly raise local prices and reduce the capital's economic competitiveness
- enhance the city's tax base. . . />
- improve the city's local market and thus ability to provide innovative urban services
- make better use of existing infrastructure investments, and mitigate demand for unaffordably costly infrastructure extensions
- reinstate some degree of local control over land use decisions, which is where such decisions should be made (not at the federal level)
Almost all of the many hours of arguments that I have heard in opposition to such a change have been grounded in emotion and fear of change rather than in fact or reasoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
PC
Read more
—Payton Chung, Washington (October 30, 2013)
Doing so will:
- add substantial flexibility to local architecture
- reduce the supply constraints that needlessly raise local prices and reduce the capital's economic competitiveness
- enhance the city's tax base
- make better use of existing infrastructure investments, and mitigate demand for unaffordably costly infrastructure extensions
- reinstate some degree of local control over land use decisions, which is where such decisions should be made (not at the federal level)
Almost all of the many hours of arguments that I have heard in opposition to such a change have been grounded in emotion and fear of change rather than in fact or reasoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
PC
Read more
—Payton Chung, Washington (October 30, 2013)
This message is to voice my support to retain the Height Act.
—Isabelle Barres, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
(2 of 2) Attached are written statements from the DC Federation of Civic Associations and from Penn-Branch Citizens/Civic Association that were presented yesterday at the D.C. Council's Committee of the Whole hearing on the Height Act. Both statements strongly oppose the District's "modest" proposal, especially its complete repeal of the Height Act outside the L'Enfant. . . City. These organizations would like to see no change to the Act, but do not strongly object to NCPC's reasoned approach as presented. We would not like NCPC to endorse changes beyond those that it already has presented.
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
—Laura Richards, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
—Laura Richards, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
(1 of 2) Attached are written statements from the DC Federation of Civic Associations and from Penn-Branch Citizens/Civic Association that were presented yesterday at the D.C. Council's Committee of the Whole hearing on the Height Act. Both statements strongly oppose the District's "modest" proposal, especially its complete repeal of the Height Act outside the L'Enfant. . . City. These organizations would like to see no change to the Act, but do not strongly object to NCPC's reasoned approach as presented. We would not like NCPC to endorse changes beyond those that it already has presented.
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
—Laura Richards , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
—Laura Richards , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
My name is Gale Barron Black, I am a native Washingtonian and reside in northwest DC, on Crestwood Drive. I also serve as the Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner for the single-member district 4A08, which covers census tract 26 (Crestwood). I support preserving the Height Act, without any changes to it. DC is unique. . . and beautiful because we can see the sky and enjoy the panoramic views. The Federal Elements better protect my interest, and this local resident hopes that the NCPC will hold steady on this one. It is a matter of national importance. We have the capability of accommodating newcomers, as DC did in the 1940s and 1950s. We don't need to build up. We need to protect what's here already. Plus, without adequate infrastructure, it would be an unwise investment and a departure from the grand plans that have guided us thus far.
Read more
—Gale Barron Black, Washingotn, DC (ANC 4A08) (October 30, 2013)
Read more
—Gale Barron Black, Washingotn, DC (ANC 4A08) (October 30, 2013)
I am writing to request you Retain the Height Act.
Increasing prevalence of tall buildings is changing the character of DC. All over the city I see neighborhoods I no longer recognize because they have been taken over by buildings three, four, sometimes five times the height of what they replaced. These areas lose their. . . small town within a big city feel.
I made a deliberate choice when I moved to DC in 1999 at age 31 with the intent to spend my working life here. I lived near New York City at the time but found the idea of living in the city, or even commuting there to work every day amongst sun blocking buildings, suffocating. I choose DC because of the lower buildings and the atmosphere that comes with them.
DO NOT raise the height limits. Not all growth is positive, especially if the cost is the soul of the city.
Read more
—Angela Carpenter Gildner, Washington, DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
Increasing prevalence of tall buildings is changing the character of DC. All over the city I see neighborhoods I no longer recognize because they have been taken over by buildings three, four, sometimes five times the height of what they replaced. These areas lose their. . . small town within a big city feel.
I made a deliberate choice when I moved to DC in 1999 at age 31 with the intent to spend my working life here. I lived near New York City at the time but found the idea of living in the city, or even commuting there to work every day amongst sun blocking buildings, suffocating. I choose DC because of the lower buildings and the atmosphere that comes with them.
DO NOT raise the height limits. Not all growth is positive, especially if the cost is the soul of the city.
Read more
—Angela Carpenter Gildner, Washington, DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
This is a plea to protect the Height Act as is. The Chevy Chase, D.C. community has learned the painful way that developers already have plenty -- I would argue too much -- flexibility to build under the law as it stands. Jane and Calvin Cafritz are in the midst of erecting a building a. . . half block from my family's house that, together with its immense penthouse, will tower 125 feet above the 25-foot and 30-foot single-family homes immediately adjacent to it. What more do they want?
The law has been key to preserving Washington's understated profile, one of the central things that makes this place unique among American cities. Please don't let that be lost.
Read more
—Peter Gosselin, Washington DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
The law has been key to preserving Washington's understated profile, one of the central things that makes this place unique among American cities. Please don't let that be lost.
Read more
—Peter Gosselin, Washington DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
I would like to submit the attached comments on the Height Act recommendations for the record. Thank you.
—Carol Aten, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Carol Aten, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I worked in Washington for many years. At one time I had a co-worker who had traveled a lot in Western Europe. I asked him which great capital city he thought was the most beautiful, expecting him to say Paris or Rome. He immediately said, "Washington." I laughed and accused him of being. . . too nationalistic. He replied that Washington alone had controlled the height of its buildings so that its great vistas and monuments stood out and left the clearest imprint on anyone visiting. That's why the height limits in the city should not be changed
Read more
—Georgia K. Cannady, Alexandria, VA 22301 (October 30, 2013)
Read more
—Georgia K. Cannady, Alexandria, VA 22301 (October 30, 2013)
I support basic conclusions of the Height Study, that some increase in building height allowed in District of Columbia will benefit our city. “Both federal and our local interests will be served by having a vibrant, economically healthy, livable Capital City.†I accept DC studies projections regarding development capacity to accommodate future growth. . . .
I do have strong reservations regarding proposed heights of up to 200’ in certain areas and on streets with 160’ ROW. The modeling study images confirm that 1:1.25 ratios of street width to building height retain human scaled streetscapes. The images of the city from the distance tell a different story. Figure 13, L’Enfant city at 200’ height from Fredric Douglas House, and Figure 18, Illustrative clusters at 200’ both demonstrate dramatic change in views of the city. WHERE IS THE CAPITOL DOME?
Iconic images of our city include those views of Washington Monument AND Capitol Dome from some distance and from the streets and houses on the edge of topographic bowl. Those view sheds do not appear to be sufficiently protected in the proposed approach.
And sincere thanks to NCPC and DC DOP for excellent work on this study and for sharing it with all of us citizens and residents of Capitol City.
Read more
—Joanna Kendig, Washington, DC Hill East (October 30, 2013)
I do have strong reservations regarding proposed heights of up to 200’ in certain areas and on streets with 160’ ROW. The modeling study images confirm that 1:1.25 ratios of street width to building height retain human scaled streetscapes. The images of the city from the distance tell a different story. Figure 13, L’Enfant city at 200’ height from Fredric Douglas House, and Figure 18, Illustrative clusters at 200’ both demonstrate dramatic change in views of the city. WHERE IS THE CAPITOL DOME?
Iconic images of our city include those views of Washington Monument AND Capitol Dome from some distance and from the streets and houses on the edge of topographic bowl. Those view sheds do not appear to be sufficiently protected in the proposed approach.
And sincere thanks to NCPC and DC DOP for excellent work on this study and for sharing it with all of us citizens and residents of Capitol City.
Read more
—Joanna Kendig, Washington, DC Hill East (October 30, 2013)
I prefer the current limits. The Washington cityscape is unique, and belongs in part, to the American People. If development pressures are affecting the height limits, there are numerous opportunties for development laterally, without extending development upward.
—Connie Graham, Alexandria VA (October 30, 2013)
—Connie Graham, Alexandria VA (October 30, 2013)
Leave the height restrictions as they are for D.C. This city doesn't need to be come another New York City with towering buildings blocking out views of the mall and its inspiring monuments!
—Elaine F. Graves, Washington, DC 20024 (October 30, 2013)
—Elaine F. Graves, Washington, DC 20024 (October 30, 2013)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Height Master Plan, which reflects much effort and hard work.
Regarding the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the National Register of Historic Places notes that
“The landscape values for the George Washington Memorial Parkway have always been the preservation of scenic and esthetic qualities associated. . . with the Potomac River valley. Extending from the coastal plain past the fail line to the piedmont, the valley area is of continuing concern including the palisades and the tree covered slopes, flowering understory, steep-sided creek valleys (runs), and hilltop vistas. THE LATTER PROVIDES A GLIMPSE OF THE MONUMENTAL CORE OF WASHINGTON D.C., A CENTRAL PURPOSE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUING PROTECTION OF THE PARKWAY.†(Capital letters Added for emphasis)
Every visitor, every commuter, every driver, and every person who has ever driven on the George Washington Memorial Highway has seen this superb glimpse of the City, which because of its magnificence, is forever etched in their memory. The magnificence of the Parkway, forever embracing the Potomac River, provides an extremely dignified and monumental character that is in keeping with the restrained dignity of George Washington as described by three different authors Paul Longmore, Arthur Schaeffer and Alistair Cooke.
Upon viewing the Parkway, one’s impressions and emotions are intertwined, but they are not created by accident, but by a significant effort brought about by deliberate thought and investments in creating such an entrance. One of these being restraining the height limit in the view shed.
Although the Report talks about opportunities beyond the “edge of the topographic bowl,†this is suggestive of a narrow geographic interpretation. A more realistic approach is a circular view, to which the George Washington Memorial Parkway offers a good example. The Parkway gives almost a 180 degree viewing as one drives in either direction because of the unobstructed perspectives afforded by the current height restrictions. A good example is the view from the Dangerfield Island, National Airport area, The President Johnson Memorial, and Arlington Cemetery. There are numerous sites on the other side of the “edge of the topographic bowl†which also would impacted by the proposed changes.
Alistair Cooke wrote that regarding George Washington “there were several things about him the unquestioned leader of the new nation. A pervasive sense of responsibility, an unflagging impression of shrewd judgment, and total integrity. It can best be summed up in what critics call “presenceâ€. But, it was nothing rehearsed. It was the presence of nothing but character.â€
In similar manner, the City bearing his name has evoked the dignified presence of the Father of our Country as a memorial for all time through the limits imposed on building heights. Let us not sully the magnificent cityscape of Washington with outliers interjected for the sake of commerce. For if we do, that special sense will be gone forever.
Read more
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria Virginia (October 29, 2013)
Regarding the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the National Register of Historic Places notes that
“The landscape values for the George Washington Memorial Parkway have always been the preservation of scenic and esthetic qualities associated. . . with the Potomac River valley. Extending from the coastal plain past the fail line to the piedmont, the valley area is of continuing concern including the palisades and the tree covered slopes, flowering understory, steep-sided creek valleys (runs), and hilltop vistas. THE LATTER PROVIDES A GLIMPSE OF THE MONUMENTAL CORE OF WASHINGTON D.C., A CENTRAL PURPOSE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUING PROTECTION OF THE PARKWAY.†(Capital letters Added for emphasis)
Every visitor, every commuter, every driver, and every person who has ever driven on the George Washington Memorial Highway has seen this superb glimpse of the City, which because of its magnificence, is forever etched in their memory. The magnificence of the Parkway, forever embracing the Potomac River, provides an extremely dignified and monumental character that is in keeping with the restrained dignity of George Washington as described by three different authors Paul Longmore, Arthur Schaeffer and Alistair Cooke.
Upon viewing the Parkway, one’s impressions and emotions are intertwined, but they are not created by accident, but by a significant effort brought about by deliberate thought and investments in creating such an entrance. One of these being restraining the height limit in the view shed.
Although the Report talks about opportunities beyond the “edge of the topographic bowl,†this is suggestive of a narrow geographic interpretation. A more realistic approach is a circular view, to which the George Washington Memorial Parkway offers a good example. The Parkway gives almost a 180 degree viewing as one drives in either direction because of the unobstructed perspectives afforded by the current height restrictions. A good example is the view from the Dangerfield Island, National Airport area, The President Johnson Memorial, and Arlington Cemetery. There are numerous sites on the other side of the “edge of the topographic bowl†which also would impacted by the proposed changes.
Alistair Cooke wrote that regarding George Washington “there were several things about him the unquestioned leader of the new nation. A pervasive sense of responsibility, an unflagging impression of shrewd judgment, and total integrity. It can best be summed up in what critics call “presenceâ€. But, it was nothing rehearsed. It was the presence of nothing but character.â€
In similar manner, the City bearing his name has evoked the dignified presence of the Father of our Country as a memorial for all time through the limits imposed on building heights. Let us not sully the magnificent cityscape of Washington with outliers interjected for the sake of commerce. For if we do, that special sense will be gone forever.
Read more
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria Virginia (October 29, 2013)
I am a local architectural professional who lives and works in the District of Columbia and I am in favor of the District having the ability to make its own height decisions.
As a district resident and homeowner, I support height change because I want to have a continued future as a homeowner and perhaps. . . one day raise a family in the District and not be priced out of the city I've grown to love. While new buildings will certainly come with high price tags, it will have a trickle down effect to existing (ageing) structures, creating more affordable middle-class housing. Also, as a district resident, I am a believer of independent rights for the District and believe that DC is capable, like many things else, of determining what is best for its own residents without Congress's approval.
As a local architectural professional, I believe the height limit can change in certain areas without the adverse effects that many are fearful of. With proper zoning setbacks, it is quite possible to achieve tall(er) buildings that still allow light and air to reach the street (most cities in the US and world are able to achieve this, why not us). I also think that height uniformity is a moot point - most buildings in the older portions of the city are in fact not uniform in height, and areas that are like the Golden Triangle suffer in architectural quality, partly due to this restriction. Modest additional height (with proper zoning setbacks) could provide an opportunity to rebuild many of the maxed-out 'boxy' buildings with better architecture that could achieve better building form through massing modification. It could also be an opportunity to make office areas more lively, by having them include residential components that would give the city more life presence at night. Adding height downtown could also alleviate pressure to redevelop historical residential neighborhoods.
I believe that this study's graphics were premature and have scared many people into envisioning expanded building height that is simply not modeled realistically.
Read more
—Nathan Alberg, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
As a district resident and homeowner, I support height change because I want to have a continued future as a homeowner and perhaps. . . one day raise a family in the District and not be priced out of the city I've grown to love. While new buildings will certainly come with high price tags, it will have a trickle down effect to existing (ageing) structures, creating more affordable middle-class housing. Also, as a district resident, I am a believer of independent rights for the District and believe that DC is capable, like many things else, of determining what is best for its own residents without Congress's approval.
As a local architectural professional, I believe the height limit can change in certain areas without the adverse effects that many are fearful of. With proper zoning setbacks, it is quite possible to achieve tall(er) buildings that still allow light and air to reach the street (most cities in the US and world are able to achieve this, why not us). I also think that height uniformity is a moot point - most buildings in the older portions of the city are in fact not uniform in height, and areas that are like the Golden Triangle suffer in architectural quality, partly due to this restriction. Modest additional height (with proper zoning setbacks) could provide an opportunity to rebuild many of the maxed-out 'boxy' buildings with better architecture that could achieve better building form through massing modification. It could also be an opportunity to make office areas more lively, by having them include residential components that would give the city more life presence at night. Adding height downtown could also alleviate pressure to redevelop historical residential neighborhoods.
I believe that this study's graphics were premature and have scared many people into envisioning expanded building height that is simply not modeled realistically.
Read more
—Nathan Alberg, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Hello, We support retaining the building height restrictions in the current Height Act. There is plenty of room to expand within the city without raising height restrictions.
—Nancy & David Hammond, Washington, DC 20016 (October 29, 2013)
—Nancy & David Hammond, Washington, DC 20016 (October 29, 2013)
Please do not raise the height of city buildings! As a native Washingtonian, I firmly believe that this low height currently no higher than 200 ft ( think) should not be increased because
1. I want to continue to see and enjoy the sunshine and clouds,
2. if I wanted to be among tall. . . buildings, I could have moved to New York,
3. this city is unique and should retain this low height density,
4. there is room to increase living density without going upward,
5. I do not want the voice of the few to dictate to the many what the future of this city should be, especially folks who just moved into the city in the past five-ten years. and
6. this city is too beautiful, neighbor friendly, and with a great deal of scenic value and purpose to be changed.
Please do not let this proposal go forward!!!
Read more
—Ferial Bishop, PRP, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
1. I want to continue to see and enjoy the sunshine and clouds,
2. if I wanted to be among tall. . . buildings, I could have moved to New York,
3. this city is unique and should retain this low height density,
4. there is room to increase living density without going upward,
5. I do not want the voice of the few to dictate to the many what the future of this city should be, especially folks who just moved into the city in the past five-ten years. and
6. this city is too beautiful, neighbor friendly, and with a great deal of scenic value and purpose to be changed.
Please do not let this proposal go forward!!!
Read more
—Ferial Bishop, PRP, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I am opposed to height limit increases. The ability to see the sky and appreciated the beautiful un-shadowed architecture of Washington, DC is one the reasons so many tourists visit each year – generating tax revenues. DC IS NOT New York and should stop trying to replicate its buildings. Maybe incentives to more. . . creative developers would encourage construction of more affordable/family based housing, since the same old ones don’t seem to be interested in solving the District’s ongoing affordable housing problem.
Suzanne Johnson, native Washingtonian and resident
Read more
—Suzanne Johnson, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Suzanne Johnson, native Washingtonian and resident
Read more
—Suzanne Johnson, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
This e-mail is to register my opposition to the Office of Planning’s (OP’s) proposed major changes in the Height Act which would adversely affect many residential areas of DC, including Foggy Bottom-West End, where I live. I also wanted to register my thanks for NCPC’s modest proposed changes. – Barbara Kahlow, 800-25th Street, NW, WDC. . . 20037
Read more
—Barbara Kahlow, Washington, DC (Foggy Bottom-West End) (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Barbara Kahlow, Washington, DC (Foggy Bottom-West End) (October 29, 2013)
I am writing to say that I very strongly support retaining the Height Act. I was born and raised in Washington DC and have lived the majority of my life in this city, in large part because it is one of the most beautiful, livable cities in the world, and I believe that the height. . . restrictions contribute significantly to its beauty. Washington DC is far more than just the downtown/mall area. Many many neighborhoods throughout this city are lovely and the lower density allows people to know their neighbors and build true communities.
I lived in Manhattan for a few years and found that the high rises blocked the views - other than for the wealthiest people who could live at the top of the high rises. They also blocked the sun, and caused very unpleasant wind tunnels. Furthermore, the extreme density of people living in the high rises meant that most people didn't know their neighbors.
There is plenty of under-developed land in DC, which can accommodate growth in DC for many many years. Please retain this city's phenomenal beauty and sense of community.
Read more
—Tory Ruttenberg, Washington DC (20016) (October 29, 2013)
I lived in Manhattan for a few years and found that the high rises blocked the views - other than for the wealthiest people who could live at the top of the high rises. They also blocked the sun, and caused very unpleasant wind tunnels. Furthermore, the extreme density of people living in the high rises meant that most people didn't know their neighbors.
There is plenty of under-developed land in DC, which can accommodate growth in DC for many many years. Please retain this city's phenomenal beauty and sense of community.
Read more
—Tory Ruttenberg, Washington DC (20016) (October 29, 2013)
Please add the attached document to the public record.
Thanks!
Sue Hemberger
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Thanks!
Sue Hemberger
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I have lived in the same house in Washington for 54 years! Please, as a concerned citizen, I beg you to leave the height act as it now exists! It is part of what makes Washington unique!
—Bob Asman, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
—Bob Asman, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I wish to endorse Charles W. McMillion's thoughtful comparison of the economic and budgetary impacts of retaining the building height limits, as argued by NCPC, or increasing them, as proposed by the Office of Planning. [Comment by Charles W. McMillion (PhD), Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)]
As McMillion makes clear,. . . the NCPC's solid analysis demonstrates the many economic and budgetary reasons for retaining the building height limit. Whereas the Office of Planning's limited analysis asserts the desirability of increasing building height limits but fails to make a solid budgetary case for doing so.
Furthermore, I find it distressing that OP has used a request initiated by a single Congressperson -- Darrell Issa -- as a springboard for putting forth its proposal to change DC's building height limits. One can only wonder whether OP was just waiting for such a (flimsy) basis in order to put forward this proposal.
Read more
—Pat Taylor ( Ph.D.), Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
As McMillion makes clear,. . . the NCPC's solid analysis demonstrates the many economic and budgetary reasons for retaining the building height limit. Whereas the Office of Planning's limited analysis asserts the desirability of increasing building height limits but fails to make a solid budgetary case for doing so.
Furthermore, I find it distressing that OP has used a request initiated by a single Congressperson -- Darrell Issa -- as a springboard for putting forth its proposal to change DC's building height limits. One can only wonder whether OP was just waiting for such a (flimsy) basis in order to put forward this proposal.
Read more
—Pat Taylor ( Ph.D.), Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I am aware, from discussions on the Chevy Chase listserve, that many of my neighbors have weighed in strongly against changes to the city's height limit. Please understand that this sentiment is not universal.
Affordable housing is clearly a problem in the city, and we need more density to help make it possible. Washington is,. . . after all, a city--not a suburb or rural area.
Some of us would like to see our neighborhood participate more fully in the changes that are making the city a more vibrant and interesting place to spend time. I am one of them, and I am not alone.
Read more
—Linda McIntyre , Washington DC (20015) (October 29, 2013)
Affordable housing is clearly a problem in the city, and we need more density to help make it possible. Washington is,. . . after all, a city--not a suburb or rural area.
Some of us would like to see our neighborhood participate more fully in the changes that are making the city a more vibrant and interesting place to spend time. I am one of them, and I am not alone.
Read more
—Linda McIntyre , Washington DC (20015) (October 29, 2013)
Keep low rise bldgs in DC. The first thing out of town visitors comment on is the beauty of our skyline without marring tall buildings. We are fortunate for the Height Act limitations and don't need higher buildings. Developers -- not residents -- are behind the aggressive movement to increase building height. DC has no research. . . to justify raising heights. Hopefully the National Capitol Planning Commission will do the right thing and prevent the DC city planning office from removing our status quo height limits.
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Please, both of you and the NCPC, hear the pleas of those of us who have lived in this beautiful city for 40 years and more: Do NOT allow the Planning Dept. or the BZA or any other District or Federal agency intent on raising the height maximums to do so!
—Carol Zachary and Jon Axelrod, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
—Carol Zachary and Jon Axelrod, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Keep low rise bldgs in DC. Please include my voice as one who would like to retain the Height Act and who readily supports the NCPC's recommendations.
—Beth Campbell, Washington DC (October 29, 2013)
—Beth Campbell, Washington DC (October 29, 2013)
NCPC's Height Master Plan offers a sensible approach to accommodating growth in our great city. This visionary plan recognizes that our existing urban form offers many benefits, which result in a distinctive, walkable, and sustainable environment unique among American cities. It also stands in sharp contrast with a drastic proposal by the DC Office of Planning. . . proposal that would irreparably change our prominent skyline, one which simply cannot be defended with a rational justification, let alone on the basis of economic development.
Read more
—Brad Gudzinas, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Brad Gudzinas, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I am surprised at the thought of changing the Height Limits in the District. They are there for a
reason and we citizens appreciate their value and depend on the idea of having normal neighborhoods.
Please leave them alone. Put your energy towards solving problems not creating them.
Is the District. . . government going to support as many stupid things in this town by changing those limits
as the Congress does is in this town by not doing anything?
Read more
—Diann Heine , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
reason and we citizens appreciate their value and depend on the idea of having normal neighborhoods.
Please leave them alone. Put your energy towards solving problems not creating them.
Is the District. . . government going to support as many stupid things in this town by changing those limits
as the Congress does is in this town by not doing anything?
Read more
—Diann Heine , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
This note is a request to keep the current height restrictions. When I first came to Washington in the mid 1970ies, I felt so much at home, one reason being that I could see the SUN! I never liked New York City as I felt overwhelmed by the tall buildings. Even now, I skip past Bethesda/Wisconsin. . . Ave. and shop at Westfield Mall where I feel more comfortable. PLEASE, don't let us become another New York City. D.C. is special. Our monuments and our people should not feel overwhelmed. Thank you for you attention.
Read more
—Elaine Vande Hei, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Elaine Vande Hei, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
I write in support of keeping DC’s height restrictions throughout the city. These restrictions are critical to maintaining the quality of life and appearance of our beautiful city.
As far as I’m concerned, the City’s Office of Planning has not made the case for lifting the restrictions, and is unduly influenced by commercial. . . interests.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Read more
—Greg Ferenbach, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
As far as I’m concerned, the City’s Office of Planning has not made the case for lifting the restrictions, and is unduly influenced by commercial. . . interests.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Read more
—Greg Ferenbach, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
I would like to make two points regarding the Height Act.
The first is that the current debate is about modifying the federal Height Act. Even if we eliminated the federal Height Act entirely, there wouldn't necessarily be taller buildings built in DC, because we would still have local zoning and land use policies.. . . DC doesn't need Congress micromanaging its affairs; we should be able to make our own decisions about urban form.
Of course, if there was no reason to ever build taller buildings in DC, we wouldn't need to change the Height Act. My second point is that DC should have taller buildings, but that we should be careful in doing so. DC has an affordability crisis, particularly in the residential market. If we want DC to be anything other than a playground for the rich and powerful, we need to preserve affordable housing -- not just subsidized housing, but also affordable market rate housing. There are only ways to do that: decrease demand (make DC a less desirable place to live), reduce housing quality (allow homes to fall into disrepair), or increase supply. Obviously, increasing supply is the only one of these we would intentionally pursue. If we increase housing supply without allowing tall buildings, we end up with boring, boxy 8 story buildings all over the place. If we allowed taller, slimmer buildings, we could have more open space at ground level. More importantly, building a few tall buildings in select locations would relieve the pent-up market demand that is affecting lower density neighborhoods. If we retain repressive height limits, neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Shaw, Petworth, and Brookland will either 1. become even less affordable, displacing longtime residents or 2. see more and townhouses and beautiful historic homes torn down to create 6 story condo buildings. We would be far better served by allowing higher density construction around metro stations and retaining the existing character of some of DC's most special neighborhoods.
The NCPC proposal for changing the Height Act is timid and pathetic. The proposal from DC's Office of Planning, which would allow slightly taller buildings in the L'Enfant city and significantly ease restrictions further out, is much bolder and would make DC a more affordable, economically vibrant, and sustainable city.
Read more
—Paul Joice , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
The first is that the current debate is about modifying the federal Height Act. Even if we eliminated the federal Height Act entirely, there wouldn't necessarily be taller buildings built in DC, because we would still have local zoning and land use policies.. . . DC doesn't need Congress micromanaging its affairs; we should be able to make our own decisions about urban form.
Of course, if there was no reason to ever build taller buildings in DC, we wouldn't need to change the Height Act. My second point is that DC should have taller buildings, but that we should be careful in doing so. DC has an affordability crisis, particularly in the residential market. If we want DC to be anything other than a playground for the rich and powerful, we need to preserve affordable housing -- not just subsidized housing, but also affordable market rate housing. There are only ways to do that: decrease demand (make DC a less desirable place to live), reduce housing quality (allow homes to fall into disrepair), or increase supply. Obviously, increasing supply is the only one of these we would intentionally pursue. If we increase housing supply without allowing tall buildings, we end up with boring, boxy 8 story buildings all over the place. If we allowed taller, slimmer buildings, we could have more open space at ground level. More importantly, building a few tall buildings in select locations would relieve the pent-up market demand that is affecting lower density neighborhoods. If we retain repressive height limits, neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Shaw, Petworth, and Brookland will either 1. become even less affordable, displacing longtime residents or 2. see more and townhouses and beautiful historic homes torn down to create 6 story condo buildings. We would be far better served by allowing higher density construction around metro stations and retaining the existing character of some of DC's most special neighborhoods.
The NCPC proposal for changing the Height Act is timid and pathetic. The proposal from DC's Office of Planning, which would allow slightly taller buildings in the L'Enfant city and significantly ease restrictions further out, is much bolder and would make DC a more affordable, economically vibrant, and sustainable city.
Read more
—Paul Joice , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
I am a metropolitan development trends specialist and am a resident of Washington, DC. My experience includes owning and running the country's largest real estate consulting firm for 20 years, a former real estate developer, an author of 12 books on urbanism and numerous articles for national publications. In addition, I am a professor. . . at George Washington University and a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
I urge the adoption of the District of Columbia recommendations to ease the height restrictions outside of the L'Enfant old city boundaries and slight easing within the original L'Enfant boundaries to reflect changing fire suppression technologies.
The major reason for this recommendation is that following 60 years of losing relative job, office, retail and residential growth to the suburbs, the District in @ 2004 economically turned around and began to relatively grow. This was one of the first center cities in the country to turn itself around and it has provided residents with more opportunity, the District with a healthy balance sheet, a safer and more vibrant city and a model for center cities across the country.
The problem is that the L'Enfant city is running out of developable land and square footage that can be developed, mainly due to the height limit and the appropriate desire to preserve historic buildings. The L'Enfant city is probably 15-25 years from running out of developable land based upon current growth rates.
However, the District needs the ability to continue to grow. It would be a major shame to lose the advantage of offering walkable urban places to grow jobs and families due to not having enough land and building development potential.
In addition, the city is a leading model of environmental sustainability since walkable urban development is essential to reducing green house emissions. The City is also providing a model of green building, lower green house gas emissions as well. Having the early 20th century limitations of building heights maintained will reduce the ability of the District on reducing climate change forces, especially since the built environment (buildings and transportation) is the largest category of emissions, contribute nearly 75% of all green house gases.
Keeping an early 20th century law or provide a national model of reducing green house gases is not a difficult decision for me. We should let the nation's capital be an environmental model by selectively raising the height limit.
Finally, little is said about the financial implications of raising the height limit. In the District today, the value of a floor area ratio (FAR) square foot is between $100 and $200 per foot. The air rights above the current limit belongs to the citizens of the District. They are worth billions of dollars that could build the new streetcar system, affordable housing, redevelop our schools and many other positive things. The citizens of DC, whom I am one, would like to take advantage of this significant asset we own.
No one wants to disturb the sacred view corridors or character of the L'Enfant city. However, outside Boundary Street (generally Florida Avenue) the city government should have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate height. Economic growth will go to the predominantly minority northeast and southeast parts of the city that have rarely in 220 years received its fair share of economic opportunity. Raising the height limits will encourage racial and social equity.
Please accept the District's recommendations for modifying this arbitrary law outside the L'Enfant city while making minor adjustments within the old city.
Thank you,
Christopher B. Leinberger
Read more
—Christopher B. Leinberger, Washington, DC (October 28, 2013)
I urge the adoption of the District of Columbia recommendations to ease the height restrictions outside of the L'Enfant old city boundaries and slight easing within the original L'Enfant boundaries to reflect changing fire suppression technologies.
The major reason for this recommendation is that following 60 years of losing relative job, office, retail and residential growth to the suburbs, the District in @ 2004 economically turned around and began to relatively grow. This was one of the first center cities in the country to turn itself around and it has provided residents with more opportunity, the District with a healthy balance sheet, a safer and more vibrant city and a model for center cities across the country.
The problem is that the L'Enfant city is running out of developable land and square footage that can be developed, mainly due to the height limit and the appropriate desire to preserve historic buildings. The L'Enfant city is probably 15-25 years from running out of developable land based upon current growth rates.
However, the District needs the ability to continue to grow. It would be a major shame to lose the advantage of offering walkable urban places to grow jobs and families due to not having enough land and building development potential.
In addition, the city is a leading model of environmental sustainability since walkable urban development is essential to reducing green house emissions. The City is also providing a model of green building, lower green house gas emissions as well. Having the early 20th century limitations of building heights maintained will reduce the ability of the District on reducing climate change forces, especially since the built environment (buildings and transportation) is the largest category of emissions, contribute nearly 75% of all green house gases.
Keeping an early 20th century law or provide a national model of reducing green house gases is not a difficult decision for me. We should let the nation's capital be an environmental model by selectively raising the height limit.
Finally, little is said about the financial implications of raising the height limit. In the District today, the value of a floor area ratio (FAR) square foot is between $100 and $200 per foot. The air rights above the current limit belongs to the citizens of the District. They are worth billions of dollars that could build the new streetcar system, affordable housing, redevelop our schools and many other positive things. The citizens of DC, whom I am one, would like to take advantage of this significant asset we own.
No one wants to disturb the sacred view corridors or character of the L'Enfant city. However, outside Boundary Street (generally Florida Avenue) the city government should have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate height. Economic growth will go to the predominantly minority northeast and southeast parts of the city that have rarely in 220 years received its fair share of economic opportunity. Raising the height limits will encourage racial and social equity.
Please accept the District's recommendations for modifying this arbitrary law outside the L'Enfant city while making minor adjustments within the old city.
Thank you,
Christopher B. Leinberger
Read more
—Christopher B. Leinberger, Washington, DC (October 28, 2013)
I am a community activist from Southwest Washington, DC, and a former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner.
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or. . . through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
U.S. Citizen
Resident of Southwest Washington, DC
I am a community activist from Southwest Washington, DC, and a former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner.
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
Read more
—David C. Sobelsohn, SW Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or. . . through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
U.S. Citizen
Resident of Southwest Washington, DC
I am a community activist from Southwest Washington, DC, and a former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner.
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
Read more
—David C. Sobelsohn, SW Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
Dear Sirs,as a resident of the District,I see no reason to adjust the Height Act. There is plenty of developable land in the District for commercial and residential use that is underutilized. Developing commercial space outside of the core would do wonders for neighborhood economies and infrastructure relief.
—James Church, Washingotn, DC (20002) (October 25, 2013)
—James Church, Washingotn, DC (20002) (October 25, 2013)
My name is Ben Klemens. I live in a house at the North end of L'Enfant's plan. My day job is as a manager in a federal agency, working at the federal center in Suitland, Maryland.
My understanding of federal administration is that its central problem is how to attract and retain talented. . . people. It is the key to efficient government.
In the segment of the NCPC draft report on the location of federal agencies, where I had expected discussion of this central federal interest, the report instead states that recent federal office developments "outside of traditional downtown federal enclaves [are] often serving as catalysts in distressed or emerging markets and anchoring development around Metrorail stations." The discussion in this section of the report is therefore not about federal interests, but about how the federal government can encourage local growth. Further, from my perspective in Suitland, the statements in this segment ring false: if anything, the Suitland Federal Center, off limits to not-federally-employed local residents, has had a deadening effect on the area around the Suitland Metro.
What that means for us as federal workers is that we are effectively trapped in the bubble of our building from clock-in to clock-out. In other places I have worked, my coworkers and I have often gone out to lunch, which naturally made us a better team and helped us to enjoy work a little bit more. If we had an interviewee that the bosses were especially interested in, we'd go out for dinner with him or her. All of that is largely impossible from Suitland, Maryland. My agency has a strong workforce, but I have also seen coworkers leave, complaining of the problems with working at a geographically isolated agency. I've listened to interviewees---suburbanites and urbanites alike---wonder aloud whether they could make the commute every day.
The report as written gives several examples showing that new federal office space continues to be developed at a regular pace, and points out that the trend has been toward building more Suitland-like campuses. But it fails to make the link that this trend can be detrimental to the key federal interest of hiring good people and helping them to enjoy coming to work every day.
I have noticed that, although the option has always been open to them, the NCPC has never chosen to relocate to Suitland, Maryland. There, they would have bigger offices at a lower land-use cost, thus freeing up budget for new or expanded programs. The fact that the NCPC has not made such a move to less dense pastures indicates that it has found value in its current location, perhaps from easier transportation, better amenities, or proximity to other agencies or businesses. Whatever it is that the NCPC has at its current location, other federal managers like myself need as well, so that we too can attract and retain the best and the brightest.
Because the problem of attracting and retaining talented people is absolutely central to federal administration, I believe it is vitally in the federal interest to take steps to expand the availability of central DC office space where federal agencies can locate.
Read more
—Ben Klemens, Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
My understanding of federal administration is that its central problem is how to attract and retain talented. . . people. It is the key to efficient government.
In the segment of the NCPC draft report on the location of federal agencies, where I had expected discussion of this central federal interest, the report instead states that recent federal office developments "outside of traditional downtown federal enclaves [are] often serving as catalysts in distressed or emerging markets and anchoring development around Metrorail stations." The discussion in this section of the report is therefore not about federal interests, but about how the federal government can encourage local growth. Further, from my perspective in Suitland, the statements in this segment ring false: if anything, the Suitland Federal Center, off limits to not-federally-employed local residents, has had a deadening effect on the area around the Suitland Metro.
What that means for us as federal workers is that we are effectively trapped in the bubble of our building from clock-in to clock-out. In other places I have worked, my coworkers and I have often gone out to lunch, which naturally made us a better team and helped us to enjoy work a little bit more. If we had an interviewee that the bosses were especially interested in, we'd go out for dinner with him or her. All of that is largely impossible from Suitland, Maryland. My agency has a strong workforce, but I have also seen coworkers leave, complaining of the problems with working at a geographically isolated agency. I've listened to interviewees---suburbanites and urbanites alike---wonder aloud whether they could make the commute every day.
The report as written gives several examples showing that new federal office space continues to be developed at a regular pace, and points out that the trend has been toward building more Suitland-like campuses. But it fails to make the link that this trend can be detrimental to the key federal interest of hiring good people and helping them to enjoy coming to work every day.
I have noticed that, although the option has always been open to them, the NCPC has never chosen to relocate to Suitland, Maryland. There, they would have bigger offices at a lower land-use cost, thus freeing up budget for new or expanded programs. The fact that the NCPC has not made such a move to less dense pastures indicates that it has found value in its current location, perhaps from easier transportation, better amenities, or proximity to other agencies or businesses. Whatever it is that the NCPC has at its current location, other federal managers like myself need as well, so that we too can attract and retain the best and the brightest.
Because the problem of attracting and retaining talented people is absolutely central to federal administration, I believe it is vitally in the federal interest to take steps to expand the availability of central DC office space where federal agencies can locate.
Read more
—Ben Klemens, Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
No change to the District’s height limits should be considered in the name of greater density without first developing and putting into place a comprehensive plan for the infrastructure to support it. Anyone who has ridden on Metro during rush hour or driven down its streets knows we are currently experiencing gridlock. Making room for more. . . people without the means to move them around, much less providing the parks, schools, libraries, police, and firehouses to serve them is a formula for an expensive deterioration of this city’s quality of life.
Read more
—R. Rhinehart, Washignton, DC (October 25, 2013)
Read more
—R. Rhinehart, Washignton, DC (October 25, 2013)
Keep the law as it now stands. It has worked for years to keep DC a city with world-renowned beauty. We do not need to shroud our unique historic buildings as well as DC's well-designed contemporary buildings with over-sized structures that hide the magnificence of the Federal monuments and architecture as well as the historic neighborhoods.
—Penny Jones, Alexandria, VA (October 24, 2013)
—Penny Jones, Alexandria, VA (October 24, 2013)
Please see the attached file.
—David Haresign & Mary Fitch, Washington DC (October 21, 2013)
—David Haresign & Mary Fitch, Washington DC (October 21, 2013)
Identity is a extremely fragile value in built environment because we cant, or don´t, measure it. Nor do we have any economic calculations for "subjective" values like identity, charm or livability. And this despite that we know that these values create the best prerequisites for economic values in built environments! Be aware of the subjective values. . . you have! And select a reasonable size piece of land within (or beside) the existing urban area and let new buildings create new values without choking existing.
Read more
—Erika Wörman, Stockholm, Sweden (September 30, 2013)
Read more
—Erika Wörman, Stockholm, Sweden (September 30, 2013)
A city like Washington benefits from height controls in many ways. They help sunlight reach windows and green spaces, air move on dank summer days and sun warm surfaces in frigid months, pollution dissipate, and trees and plants survive. Our lower density has helped manage our population, helped spread development laterally across the city,. . . and led to Washington being one of the most beautiful and livable cities in the country. These benefits are immeasurably positive and should be protected. However, the height rules, as written now, do not address increases in height to create more green space, seem arbitrary such as where a portion of one side of Pennsylvania Avenue has a higher height limit than the rest of the city, and do not allow for higher density nodes of live-work development to be created in the east and north sides of the city. Walkable live-work cities require increased density that is best captured through managed and thoughtful increases in height with controls on overall density to limit overwhelming embedded infrastructure. We should be looking at massing models of the city to create density contours that protect our treasured viewsheds and greenness while fostering opportunities for more sustainable live-work neighborhoods and greater freedom of architectural expression. The process of allowing taller building must be deliberative, open, and well-studied for each taller building. Aesthetics and sun angles at the scale of the neighborhood and greater viewshed need to be factored each time. Washington is a city for its citizens and a city for the nation - it has two parents. We need to develop new rules that make sense and protect the interests of both.
Read more
—D. Wauters, McLean, VA (September 30, 2013)
Read more
—D. Wauters, McLean, VA (September 30, 2013)
Except for the "no change" approach, I believe that all of the proposed approaches to manage height in the District FAIL to protect the "light and air" and views of District residents, and unfairly favor commercial development at the expense of quality of life for residents. OP has already established a de facto policy of. . . waiving the height limit and ignoring the District's Master Plan as illustrated by the recent approval of ultra-high density 11-story buildings with little or no open space in my own neighborhood.
Perhaps DC's tax base could be increased by greater density, but the potential for increased revenue should not be driving changes to the character of the District at the expense of its beauty and inviting charm. DC is not Manhattan. While demand for commercial space in DC may well outstrip supply sometime in the future, that is demonstrably not the case today in the Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast quadrants, and I do not perceive any urgency that justifies altering the very character of the city. Today, I see vacant commercial buildings (some of which were constructed in the past 5 years); I see vacant lots; I see boarded up buildings. The problem is not lack of adequate density, the problem is lack of transportation access and/or a desire for a prestigious Northwest address. The majority of these vacant or dilapidated buildings are in areas where renewal is needed, and that need should be addressed first. That need should not be treated as an invitation to alter the general character of DC's neighborhoods.
Pierre L'Enfant's vision included a focus on vistas, which highlight Federal structures and thereby indicate the power and prestige of the national government and visible open space, which indicates room for the interaction of citizens in a democratic society. [1] The construction of ever-taller buildings, which will unavoidably block the very vistas which L'Enfant sought to preserve, will alter the very character of the District to the detriment of its residents and visitors, and to the primary benefit of developers.
DC remains very much residential and the wants and desires of its residents need to be respected. The proposed approaches FAIL to adequately address impacts on residents and visitors. I would urge OP to directly canvass residents and obtain meaningful input on the impacts of increased height and density before proceeding further.
Read more
—Robert Weller, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Perhaps DC's tax base could be increased by greater density, but the potential for increased revenue should not be driving changes to the character of the District at the expense of its beauty and inviting charm. DC is not Manhattan. While demand for commercial space in DC may well outstrip supply sometime in the future, that is demonstrably not the case today in the Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast quadrants, and I do not perceive any urgency that justifies altering the very character of the city. Today, I see vacant commercial buildings (some of which were constructed in the past 5 years); I see vacant lots; I see boarded up buildings. The problem is not lack of adequate density, the problem is lack of transportation access and/or a desire for a prestigious Northwest address. The majority of these vacant or dilapidated buildings are in areas where renewal is needed, and that need should be addressed first. That need should not be treated as an invitation to alter the general character of DC's neighborhoods.
Pierre L'Enfant's vision included a focus on vistas, which highlight Federal structures and thereby indicate the power and prestige of the national government and visible open space, which indicates room for the interaction of citizens in a democratic society. [1] The construction of ever-taller buildings, which will unavoidably block the very vistas which L'Enfant sought to preserve, will alter the very character of the District to the detriment of its residents and visitors, and to the primary benefit of developers.
DC remains very much residential and the wants and desires of its residents need to be respected. The proposed approaches FAIL to adequately address impacts on residents and visitors. I would urge OP to directly canvass residents and obtain meaningful input on the impacts of increased height and density before proceeding further.
Read more
—Robert Weller, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Attached please find the National Trust’s 9/25/2013 preliminary comments and requests for clarification regarding the Height Study. During the public information session, Ms. Tregoning said, I believe, that the positions of some groups participating in the session are already known to the agencies. Speaking for the National Trust, I don’t understand this comment. The National Trust. . . has raised questions, requested additional information and maps, expressed concern about potential impacts to historic properties, and advised caution. However, we have not taken a position regarding NCPC’s 9/12/2013 draft recommendations or DC-OP’s 9/24/2013 draft recommendations. Thank you in advance for considering the National Trust’s preliminary comments as you seek to reach consensus regarding where height changes would be appropriate.
Read more
—Rob Nieweg (National Trust for Hist. Preservation), Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Read more
—Rob Nieweg (National Trust for Hist. Preservation), Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
I think the building height restriction in Washington DC should be lifted for limited areas of the city.
Building height in the downtown area of NW/SW Washington, roughly bounded by 24th St, NW, North/South Capitol and M Streets (NW and SW) should be limited as current law specifies.
However, outside of those bounds, building. . . height restrictions should be lifted to permit buildings of up to 50 stories or 500 feet.
Read more
—Alvin Hutchinson, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Building height in the downtown area of NW/SW Washington, roughly bounded by 24th St, NW, North/South Capitol and M Streets (NW and SW) should be limited as current law specifies.
However, outside of those bounds, building. . . height restrictions should be lifted to permit buildings of up to 50 stories or 500 feet.
Read more
—Alvin Hutchinson, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Raising the height limit in a control area could create a focal point for the city, but instead of focusing on a aesthetics should be interesting in analyzing the demand space for, residential, office space , commercial, and understand what are the city's internal needs.
In our case Tegucigalpa, is experiencing gentrification on the. . . outskirts due to the land in the city's center with the greater value is developing into modern office and residential buildings, not much have been done for urban space to accommodate all influx of upper class and workers. Our buildings aren't that tall, but have an excellent and appealing design.
This started to create well define boundaries between downtown- historic district and modern area and the rest of the city.
Read more
—Jonathan Mendoza, Honduras (September 30, 2013)
In our case Tegucigalpa, is experiencing gentrification on the. . . outskirts due to the land in the city's center with the greater value is developing into modern office and residential buildings, not much have been done for urban space to accommodate all influx of upper class and workers. Our buildings aren't that tall, but have an excellent and appealing design.
This started to create well define boundaries between downtown- historic district and modern area and the rest of the city.
Read more
—Jonathan Mendoza, Honduras (September 30, 2013)
I have lived in Washington, DC since 1991. I attended the briefing on alternatives to the current Height Act presented at the Tenley library in early August. After careful consideration of the pros and cons to each approach,I urge that the National Capital Planning Commission adopt Approach 1B. This approach allows no height. . . increase but does allow penthouse occupancy with or without setback.
The reasons for my recommendation include:
1. The distinctive beauty of Washington, D.C. is attributable not only to federal monuments and buildings but also to its warm and welcoming skyline. As the nation's capital, Washington, DC is unlike other cities. Hence a careful decision must take into consideration its national role as well as its role as a comfortable home to its residents. The very human dimensions of the city allow it to excel in both roles. This alone should be sufficient to retain the current Height Act, with the modest modification contained in 1B.
2. The depiction of various height increases in drawings presented at the briefing showed box like structures atop existing buildings to illustrate the changes in street width to height. Unfortunately, they seemed all too realistic. Few of the new buildings in DC are architecturally interesting. Most look like the new big box structures along New York Ave and H Streets--relatively cheap to build but which bring big profits. They do nothing to enhance the visual charm of the city. Therefore, any increase in height limit for buildings in the District are likely to produce more of the same, only taller. This is not an inviting picture.
3. There is currently plenty of unoccupied new construction in the city offering both office space and apartments/condominiums. Moreover, the District currently enjoys a budget surplus which deflates the argument emphasizing the need for increased tax revenue. Improvements DC government ethics policies and practices as well as robust enforcement of anti-corruption and oversight measures should only improve the DC government's revenue situation.
When all current structures are occupied and there is no more space to develop, then the Height Act can be revisited. There is no need to do this now. Once this genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the National Capital Planning Commission to retain the current Height Act with the modest penthouse modification. Retaining the current act will ensure that the District of Columbia continues to be a beautiful and livable city.
Read more
—Ann Phillips, Washington, DC (September 29, 2013)
The reasons for my recommendation include:
1. The distinctive beauty of Washington, D.C. is attributable not only to federal monuments and buildings but also to its warm and welcoming skyline. As the nation's capital, Washington, DC is unlike other cities. Hence a careful decision must take into consideration its national role as well as its role as a comfortable home to its residents. The very human dimensions of the city allow it to excel in both roles. This alone should be sufficient to retain the current Height Act, with the modest modification contained in 1B.
2. The depiction of various height increases in drawings presented at the briefing showed box like structures atop existing buildings to illustrate the changes in street width to height. Unfortunately, they seemed all too realistic. Few of the new buildings in DC are architecturally interesting. Most look like the new big box structures along New York Ave and H Streets--relatively cheap to build but which bring big profits. They do nothing to enhance the visual charm of the city. Therefore, any increase in height limit for buildings in the District are likely to produce more of the same, only taller. This is not an inviting picture.
3. There is currently plenty of unoccupied new construction in the city offering both office space and apartments/condominiums. Moreover, the District currently enjoys a budget surplus which deflates the argument emphasizing the need for increased tax revenue. Improvements DC government ethics policies and practices as well as robust enforcement of anti-corruption and oversight measures should only improve the DC government's revenue situation.
When all current structures are occupied and there is no more space to develop, then the Height Act can be revisited. There is no need to do this now. Once this genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the National Capital Planning Commission to retain the current Height Act with the modest penthouse modification. Retaining the current act will ensure that the District of Columbia continues to be a beautiful and livable city.
Read more
—Ann Phillips, Washington, DC (September 29, 2013)
I suppose I would ask exactly what is meant by a thriving city; what are the larger goals of the city? Some cities have begun to use measures of 'density', though this can be misleading. I would tend to disagree that just increasing the FAR will make a city 'thrive'. Paris has relatively low building heights,. . . very high density, and a lot of vibrancy. Compare that with some cities like Dallas, which while definitely on the up-swing, have a lot more height and large swathes of dead zones in the downtown. (Or look at the financial district in New York, but don't go there at night.)
I think the solution is likely much more nuanced than height. Mixed use is all the rage in many circles, but there is some legitimacy to it. Activities that keep people on the streets at all times of day, not just office towers that close at 6pm are safer and attract more residents. There also need to be areas for people congregate, 'democratic' spaces where the public interacts and that are useful. People here have mentioned Barcelona, while the Sagrada Familia is great, Las Ramblas, a wide boulevard, is the attraction for many people and activities.
Now to pull in investment to the city, an increased FAR could definitely help. That investment then may help to support other investments in the city through a TIF, but I would think this would need a careful study of the cost-impact and the nature of the development. With the cost of housing in DC, I think the limits of market saturation for housing units would be extremely difficult to reach, so I doubt one could hold costs down through increased height limits -if in fact rental costs are a factor.
I would say creating a vibrant city is much different than the nature of the skyline and view corridors of the capitol that deserve a bigger discussion about what makes a city thrive.
Read more
—Joshua Palmer, Austin, Texas (September 29, 2013)
I think the solution is likely much more nuanced than height. Mixed use is all the rage in many circles, but there is some legitimacy to it. Activities that keep people on the streets at all times of day, not just office towers that close at 6pm are safer and attract more residents. There also need to be areas for people congregate, 'democratic' spaces where the public interacts and that are useful. People here have mentioned Barcelona, while the Sagrada Familia is great, Las Ramblas, a wide boulevard, is the attraction for many people and activities.
Now to pull in investment to the city, an increased FAR could definitely help. That investment then may help to support other investments in the city through a TIF, but I would think this would need a careful study of the cost-impact and the nature of the development. With the cost of housing in DC, I think the limits of market saturation for housing units would be extremely difficult to reach, so I doubt one could hold costs down through increased height limits -if in fact rental costs are a factor.
I would say creating a vibrant city is much different than the nature of the skyline and view corridors of the capitol that deserve a bigger discussion about what makes a city thrive.
Read more
—Joshua Palmer, Austin, Texas (September 29, 2013)
ou will loose the existing character of the city if you do away with the height restriction. The existing structures will suddenly become so insignificant and many will disappear from the residents and visitors mind. On the ground, it will also become a different place all together. Be it that it may have more surprises- old. . . small buildings amount huge structures- Tokyo.
My suggestion is to select a reasonable size piece of land within the existing urban area that is not of good condition now and do away with the height restriction there. It will help to accommodate the space requirements and reduces the pressure on the other parts of the city. It will also add another layer of time and character to the city.
Read more
—Siah Gim Lim, Tokyo, Japan (September 29, 2013)
My suggestion is to select a reasonable size piece of land within the existing urban area that is not of good condition now and do away with the height restriction there. It will help to accommodate the space requirements and reduces the pressure on the other parts of the city. It will also add another layer of time and character to the city.
Read more
—Siah Gim Lim, Tokyo, Japan (September 29, 2013)
I've been driving down N. Capitol Street for many, many years. Although the route has been less than visually appealing for that time, when the sight of the Capitol dome came into view it was a clear and exciting perspective of the horizon. Already someone's approval of a tall, bulky new building at M Street has. . . destroyed that experience. See for yourself in the attached photos. Now you are considering relaxing the rules to do away with height limits that provide the city's vistas and character. Please don't do it, please don't do more harm than this.
Read more
—Eileen Emmet, Silver Spring Md (September 28, 2013)
Read more
—Eileen Emmet, Silver Spring Md (September 28, 2013)
I am submitting this statement on behalf of the Sheridan-Kalorams Neighborhood Council (SKNC) in support of the Historic Districts Coalition and in opposition to changing the DC Height Act. Sincerely, Christopher Chapin
—Christopher K. Chapin, Washington, DC (September 28, 2013)
—Christopher K. Chapin, Washington, DC (September 28, 2013)
From my experience in Barcelona the vibrant city needs walkable streets and provide all needs within the same neighborhood. Car-based cities would never be vibrant but sometimes and under certain circumstances inside malls.
—Joan Valls Fantova, Barcelona, Spain (September 28, 2013)
—Joan Valls Fantova, Barcelona, Spain (September 28, 2013)
DC should increase the height limit but create incentives where additional floors can only be added if they include residential (particularly low income), a public amenity or institution (library, school, etc), or demonstrated need. I think this would make more affordable housing available in the downtown core and make the area more dynamic with people using. . . buildings 7 days a week, for all uses.
The downtown core is not for DC residents now. It is for office workers - a significant number of whom come from Virginia and Maryland- and for tourists staying in hotels located there. THe height act will help it become a living part of the city.
In the meantime, DC could look to help developers add office to key areas such as along the Anacostia river, McMillan Reservoir area, Old Soldier's Home, and Walter Reed to add mixed usage to areas that currently are only residential.
Read more
—Adam, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
The downtown core is not for DC residents now. It is for office workers - a significant number of whom come from Virginia and Maryland- and for tourists staying in hotels located there. THe height act will help it become a living part of the city.
In the meantime, DC could look to help developers add office to key areas such as along the Anacostia river, McMillan Reservoir area, Old Soldier's Home, and Walter Reed to add mixed usage to areas that currently are only residential.
Read more
—Adam, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
Two comments:
Op recommendations were supposed to take into account public input. If one reviews the comments presented at the OP meetings and posted later concerning the research and proposal for Height Act changes, one finds NO evidence at all that the public's voice was heard.
The OP website says "These work products,. . . public comments, and other background materials will be the basis for the recommendations from the National Capital Planning Commission to the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform in fall 2013."
Harriet Tregoning sent OP’s DRAFT proposal to Issa before hearing public testimlony to NCPC and conferring with them, even tho Issa specifically asked for the two agencies to submit a consensus plan to him. Words fail me.
Read more
—Claudia Phelps, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
Op recommendations were supposed to take into account public input. If one reviews the comments presented at the OP meetings and posted later concerning the research and proposal for Height Act changes, one finds NO evidence at all that the public's voice was heard.
The OP website says "These work products,. . . public comments, and other background materials will be the basis for the recommendations from the National Capital Planning Commission to the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform in fall 2013."
Harriet Tregoning sent OP’s DRAFT proposal to Issa before hearing public testimlony to NCPC and conferring with them, even tho Issa specifically asked for the two agencies to submit a consensus plan to him. Words fail me.
Read more
—Claudia Phelps, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I think the Office of Planning's recommendations to modify the height limit in DC is an excellent idea. Creating a denser, more amenity rich and varied urban environment is a positive move as we proceed to keep DC a world class city. The constraints currently imposed on architects has resulted in a skyline and street. . . front of boring boxes.
Read more
—Alice giancola, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
Read more
—Alice giancola, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I'm disappointed by how timid NCPC's recommendations are.
I appreciate that low buildings have an aesthetic appeal and contribute to the character of DC. But they have a cost. Limiting the supply of housing and commercial space drives up prices and makes DC less affordable for low income households. Also, urban areas are a key. . . to the fight against climate change; enabling more people to live and work in DC will reduce per capita energy use.
I prefer the recommendations of DC's Office of Planning. I think it is a reasonable compromise to continue to have a federal limit on heights in the L'Enfant City, but to allow taller buildings in other parts of the city.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I appreciate that low buildings have an aesthetic appeal and contribute to the character of DC. But they have a cost. Limiting the supply of housing and commercial space drives up prices and makes DC less affordable for low income households. Also, urban areas are a key. . . to the fight against climate change; enabling more people to live and work in DC will reduce per capita energy use.
I prefer the recommendations of DC's Office of Planning. I think it is a reasonable compromise to continue to have a federal limit on heights in the L'Enfant City, but to allow taller buildings in other parts of the city.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I write to compliment the careful Height Act assessment of the NCPC’s “Federal Interest Report and Findings,†but also to draw attention to the premature and even reckless recommendations of the DCOP based on its incomplete “Height Master Plan for the District of Columbia – Evaluation and Draft Recommendations.â€
A telling contrast between the two. . . approaches is that NCPC accurately observes: “The District of Columbia has had one of the nation’s strongest commercial and residential development markets, and its stability has made it consistently one of the most desirable real estate investment markets.†(p. 13) By contrast, OP refers back to a 1997 study “…that our tax burden results in at least a 25-percent higher cost of doing business than in the surrounding area, discouraging location in the District and undermining our competitiveness.†(p. 4) While acknowledging “demonstrable improvements over the past decade,†OP and their consultant PES and its two developer partners, continually suggest DC is now somehow not “competitive†and insists DC “is literally constrained by the Height Act.†(p. 8)
In fact, of course, as NCPC notes, DC has long been one of the strongest commercial and residential markets in the country, gaining population for the past 15 years since 1998. In fact, according to the BLS and BEA, DC now provides more jobs than ever before on record; 730,000 payroll jobs – and another perhaps 85,000 entrepreneurs/self-employed. The total number of jobs in DC is far higher than even the resurgent total 640,000 men, women, children and seniors who live in DC much less than the 340,000 working-age DC residents who are employed and pay DC income taxes. This remarkable, unique-in-the-nation imbalance between offices and housing is why DC has over 500,000 in-and-out commuters each day bidding up housing prices to unaffordable levels, over-taxing our daytime commercial infrastructure and creating the worst congestion in the nation.
These half-million daily commuters leave each evening with $1.5 billion in annual state/local income tax payments sent outside DC along with most of their spending and investing. The huge commercial infrastructure demands and revenue losses – despite a strong economy -- are key reasons why DC’s residential infrastructure – schools, affordable housing, resident-oriented businesses, safe streets, playgrounds… have been so badly neglected. OP claims to have looked at other cities but NO other city but DC is prohibited by law from capturing any portion of tax revenue from commuter income earned here.
Major policy changes must always be considered in light of potential budgetary impacts but this is absolutely vital for DC with its unique revenue constraints. NCPC takes budgetary concerns seriously; OP does not.
NCPC points out in 3.3 Infrastructure Overview: “Taller buildings could impact infrastructure capacity if they result in greater density. These impacts may affect services ranging from sewer and water, storm water management, road and transit capacity and other utilities. Like many American cities, Washington’s infrastructure is aging and requires repair or replacement. Particularly in various locations in the L’Enfant City/downtown, road, transit and sewer infrastructure is at capacity and efforts are underway to fund improvements to these systems. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), for example, has an $11 billion Capital Needs Inventory to upgrade and maintain current infrastructure. In addition, many of these systems have costs, customer demand, and operational considerations that are regional in scale.â€
And NCPC states in Key Findings 3.3.a: Infrastructure in the National Capital Region, including transportation, is a federal interest. Large or uniform increases in height may impact the city’s infrastructure. Due to timing and funding constraints, this study does not specifically analyze infrastructure impacts nor provide recommendations to mitigate those impacts. Representatives from federal agencies and local residents alike expressed strong concerns about impacts to infrastructure from increases in height.
That is, NCPC finds that DC is doing well and until it can be shown that raising the iconic Height Limit will likely result in more benefits than costs, there is no need for major change to the height limit.
OP, on the other hand, limits its contracted “Economic Feasibility Analysis†largely to builders’ costs, and the imagined need to become more “competitive†and capture even more office building to maintain or even worsen the current worst-in-the-nation office/residential imbalance, congestion and bidding-up of housing prices. OP barely mentions DC’s already deeply stressed infrastructure and ignores entirely its many billions of dollars in unfunded maintenance and modernization needs and yet OP recommends raising the 130 foot height limit by 54% to 200 feet. How would this enormous addition to density affect car traffic and road maintenance, Metro crowding and breakdowns, our vulnerable power grid, water, sewer…?
OP’s Feasibility Analysis finds that 80% of construction jobs will go to more commuters but that new tax revenue associated with much taller buildings may bring in about $100 million/yr. compared to about $6 billion in current DC tax revenue. Since OP fails to offer any consideration of the very significant added cost for infrastructure and other services associated with much taller buildings, it is not possible to know whether its added height recommendation would likely be a net benefit or loss to the DC budget. I suspect such additional demands on DC’s aged infrastructure would result in public expenditures far exceeding the meager tax revenues gained. (And it is hard to imagine neighboring jurisdictions or Congress rushing to pay a larger share of DC’s bills.) So why would OP make such a reckless recommendation to raise the height limit before assessing the likely budgetary impact?
One final, perhaps minor point that has annoyed me about OP’s relentless selling of this project from the beginning: If you read carefully you can find places where OP does admit that this challenge to the Height Act comes from one “Tea Party†Congressman from California, not usually considered a friend of DC, Darrell Issa, He was appointed Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform which has jurisdiction over DC matters. Issa called a Subcommittee hearing in July 2012 which he did not attend and, in fact only three members of the 39 member full Committee attended any part of the hearing much less did any of the other 435 members of the full House attend. The letter requesting this project was sent on Oversight Committee stationary but by Mr. Issa (as Chairman) alone; neither the Ranking Committee Democrat nor anyone else signed. There was never a vote on this project, by anyone – anywhere. And yet, OP has constantly referred to this project as “requested by Congress†as is done again in the Press Release of Sept. 24, 2013 announcing OP’s draft recommendations. However, there is absolutely no indication of significant interest in Congress or among DC or US residents to raise DC’s height limit.
I am disappointed in OP’s reckless recommendation and do not believe that it is “smart†or good for DC. I hope it goes no further.
Read more
—Charles W. McMillion (PhD), Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
A telling contrast between the two. . . approaches is that NCPC accurately observes: “The District of Columbia has had one of the nation’s strongest commercial and residential development markets, and its stability has made it consistently one of the most desirable real estate investment markets.†(p. 13) By contrast, OP refers back to a 1997 study “…that our tax burden results in at least a 25-percent higher cost of doing business than in the surrounding area, discouraging location in the District and undermining our competitiveness.†(p. 4) While acknowledging “demonstrable improvements over the past decade,†OP and their consultant PES and its two developer partners, continually suggest DC is now somehow not “competitive†and insists DC “is literally constrained by the Height Act.†(p. 8)
In fact, of course, as NCPC notes, DC has long been one of the strongest commercial and residential markets in the country, gaining population for the past 15 years since 1998. In fact, according to the BLS and BEA, DC now provides more jobs than ever before on record; 730,000 payroll jobs – and another perhaps 85,000 entrepreneurs/self-employed. The total number of jobs in DC is far higher than even the resurgent total 640,000 men, women, children and seniors who live in DC much less than the 340,000 working-age DC residents who are employed and pay DC income taxes. This remarkable, unique-in-the-nation imbalance between offices and housing is why DC has over 500,000 in-and-out commuters each day bidding up housing prices to unaffordable levels, over-taxing our daytime commercial infrastructure and creating the worst congestion in the nation.
These half-million daily commuters leave each evening with $1.5 billion in annual state/local income tax payments sent outside DC along with most of their spending and investing. The huge commercial infrastructure demands and revenue losses – despite a strong economy -- are key reasons why DC’s residential infrastructure – schools, affordable housing, resident-oriented businesses, safe streets, playgrounds… have been so badly neglected. OP claims to have looked at other cities but NO other city but DC is prohibited by law from capturing any portion of tax revenue from commuter income earned here.
Major policy changes must always be considered in light of potential budgetary impacts but this is absolutely vital for DC with its unique revenue constraints. NCPC takes budgetary concerns seriously; OP does not.
NCPC points out in 3.3 Infrastructure Overview: “Taller buildings could impact infrastructure capacity if they result in greater density. These impacts may affect services ranging from sewer and water, storm water management, road and transit capacity and other utilities. Like many American cities, Washington’s infrastructure is aging and requires repair or replacement. Particularly in various locations in the L’Enfant City/downtown, road, transit and sewer infrastructure is at capacity and efforts are underway to fund improvements to these systems. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), for example, has an $11 billion Capital Needs Inventory to upgrade and maintain current infrastructure. In addition, many of these systems have costs, customer demand, and operational considerations that are regional in scale.â€
And NCPC states in Key Findings 3.3.a: Infrastructure in the National Capital Region, including transportation, is a federal interest. Large or uniform increases in height may impact the city’s infrastructure. Due to timing and funding constraints, this study does not specifically analyze infrastructure impacts nor provide recommendations to mitigate those impacts. Representatives from federal agencies and local residents alike expressed strong concerns about impacts to infrastructure from increases in height.
That is, NCPC finds that DC is doing well and until it can be shown that raising the iconic Height Limit will likely result in more benefits than costs, there is no need for major change to the height limit.
OP, on the other hand, limits its contracted “Economic Feasibility Analysis†largely to builders’ costs, and the imagined need to become more “competitive†and capture even more office building to maintain or even worsen the current worst-in-the-nation office/residential imbalance, congestion and bidding-up of housing prices. OP barely mentions DC’s already deeply stressed infrastructure and ignores entirely its many billions of dollars in unfunded maintenance and modernization needs and yet OP recommends raising the 130 foot height limit by 54% to 200 feet. How would this enormous addition to density affect car traffic and road maintenance, Metro crowding and breakdowns, our vulnerable power grid, water, sewer…?
OP’s Feasibility Analysis finds that 80% of construction jobs will go to more commuters but that new tax revenue associated with much taller buildings may bring in about $100 million/yr. compared to about $6 billion in current DC tax revenue. Since OP fails to offer any consideration of the very significant added cost for infrastructure and other services associated with much taller buildings, it is not possible to know whether its added height recommendation would likely be a net benefit or loss to the DC budget. I suspect such additional demands on DC’s aged infrastructure would result in public expenditures far exceeding the meager tax revenues gained. (And it is hard to imagine neighboring jurisdictions or Congress rushing to pay a larger share of DC’s bills.) So why would OP make such a reckless recommendation to raise the height limit before assessing the likely budgetary impact?
One final, perhaps minor point that has annoyed me about OP’s relentless selling of this project from the beginning: If you read carefully you can find places where OP does admit that this challenge to the Height Act comes from one “Tea Party†Congressman from California, not usually considered a friend of DC, Darrell Issa, He was appointed Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform which has jurisdiction over DC matters. Issa called a Subcommittee hearing in July 2012 which he did not attend and, in fact only three members of the 39 member full Committee attended any part of the hearing much less did any of the other 435 members of the full House attend. The letter requesting this project was sent on Oversight Committee stationary but by Mr. Issa (as Chairman) alone; neither the Ranking Committee Democrat nor anyone else signed. There was never a vote on this project, by anyone – anywhere. And yet, OP has constantly referred to this project as “requested by Congress†as is done again in the Press Release of Sept. 24, 2013 announcing OP’s draft recommendations. However, there is absolutely no indication of significant interest in Congress or among DC or US residents to raise DC’s height limit.
I am disappointed in OP’s reckless recommendation and do not believe that it is “smart†or good for DC. I hope it goes no further.
Read more
—Charles W. McMillion (PhD), Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I would like to support the continuance of the Height Act and protect L’Enfant’s view of our federal city. There are plenty of places beyond the federal city where penthouses can be built. It is only in the interest of the developers to extend the height limits so I would like to maintain our Height Act. . . as it now stands.
Read more
—Anne Vinson, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
Read more
—Anne Vinson, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
I'm a DC property owner and would like to testify in regard to #HeightDC: Please do NOT lift the height restrictions. Minor modifications are fine, but to practically wipe them out would be a great disservice to this wonderful city.
In addition to the view of the monuments, a big part of DC's appeal is the. . . manageable, "small town feel." Plus, the low height restriction helps to prompt economic expansion in blighted neighborhoods rather than concentrate wealth in a few areas.
Again, please do not make any significant changes to the current rules.
Read more
—Phil Piga, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
In addition to the view of the monuments, a big part of DC's appeal is the. . . manageable, "small town feel." Plus, the low height restriction helps to prompt economic expansion in blighted neighborhoods rather than concentrate wealth in a few areas.
Again, please do not make any significant changes to the current rules.
Read more
—Phil Piga, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
An example of similar restriction for Height is set in Building Constructions in Barcelona
In our city we also have several iconic buildings and only some of the are allowed to avoid restriction
In my opinion, WDC shouldn't look for skyscrapers and, if needed, provide more space for business and living within. . . very delimited areas at least 5 kilometers from downtown
and, of course, always linking both the new area and downtown thorough rail connections.
Read more
—Joan Valls Fantova , Barcelona, Spain (September 26, 2013)
In our city we also have several iconic buildings and only some of the are allowed to avoid restriction
In my opinion, WDC shouldn't look for skyscrapers and, if needed, provide more space for business and living within. . . very delimited areas at least 5 kilometers from downtown
and, of course, always linking both the new area and downtown thorough rail connections.
Read more
—Joan Valls Fantova , Barcelona, Spain (September 26, 2013)
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City responds to the Mayor's Height Act recommendations (see attached)
—Committee of 100, Nancy MacWood, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
—Committee of 100, Nancy MacWood, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
I attended the final Phase 2 meeting hosted by OP's Harriet Tregoning, and my sense of the crowd’s input was, keep the Height Act intact; there is presently much unexploited vertical and horizontal space in the city for development.
Given the already overtaxed, inadequately built-out public transportation system and ongoing reductions in parking,. . . I question how increasing density benefits sustainability, livability, or economic development for D.C. residents. I already know many people who live in the suburbs and in D.C. who decline to shop or dine in town because they find the combination of heavy traffic and scarce parking daunting. There are probably people who also choose to work elsewhere for the same reasons. At the same time, public transportation is so underdeveloped, and declines so precipitously on weekends, that using it requires driving to a transport node, like a Metro station, and then hunting for a place to stow one’s car so it won’t be ticketed. To add vitality to a city, public transportation must run frequently, dependably, and extensively. That doesn’t describe our current system.
The city has much under-utilized space at present; our population is still well below its peak of 800,000 in the 1950s. If we want economic vitality to push its way out of the pockets where it took refuge in and has been holed up since the 1960s, why would we build commercial and residential space in the already gentrified areas of the city? As to the notion that adding commercial and residential space brings down commercial and residential prices, then Manhattan--where relatively speaking, the sky is the limit--would be one of the least expensive housing and business markets in the U.S.
If casting off the Height Act limits is the best we can expect from our city planners, it is even more discouraging to contemplate what they will do if Congress grants the D.C. government the complete freedom from Height Act constraints that OP seeks outside the L’Enfant City. (If this is what Statehood would look like, I may lose my zeal for it.) I understand that the city’s own zoning regulations are in many neighborhoods more stringent than the Height Act’s restrictions, but I have no doubt that OP and the Zoning Commission will figure out how to jerry-rig those as well.
Read more
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, DC (Ward 4, Chevy Chase) (September 25, 2013)
Given the already overtaxed, inadequately built-out public transportation system and ongoing reductions in parking,. . . I question how increasing density benefits sustainability, livability, or economic development for D.C. residents. I already know many people who live in the suburbs and in D.C. who decline to shop or dine in town because they find the combination of heavy traffic and scarce parking daunting. There are probably people who also choose to work elsewhere for the same reasons. At the same time, public transportation is so underdeveloped, and declines so precipitously on weekends, that using it requires driving to a transport node, like a Metro station, and then hunting for a place to stow one’s car so it won’t be ticketed. To add vitality to a city, public transportation must run frequently, dependably, and extensively. That doesn’t describe our current system.
The city has much under-utilized space at present; our population is still well below its peak of 800,000 in the 1950s. If we want economic vitality to push its way out of the pockets where it took refuge in and has been holed up since the 1960s, why would we build commercial and residential space in the already gentrified areas of the city? As to the notion that adding commercial and residential space brings down commercial and residential prices, then Manhattan--where relatively speaking, the sky is the limit--would be one of the least expensive housing and business markets in the U.S.
If casting off the Height Act limits is the best we can expect from our city planners, it is even more discouraging to contemplate what they will do if Congress grants the D.C. government the complete freedom from Height Act constraints that OP seeks outside the L’Enfant City. (If this is what Statehood would look like, I may lose my zeal for it.) I understand that the city’s own zoning regulations are in many neighborhoods more stringent than the Height Act’s restrictions, but I have no doubt that OP and the Zoning Commission will figure out how to jerry-rig those as well.
Read more
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, DC (Ward 4, Chevy Chase) (September 25, 2013)
The DC Government has failed to complete their assignment. Issa's request was to "...examine the extent to which the Height of Buildings Act of 1910 continues to serve federal and local interests, and how changes to the law could affect the future of the city."
The very first sentence in DC's report states "The. . . central question that this report attempts to answer is whether changes to the federal Height Act can be accomplished in a way that allows the federal government and the District of Columbia to reap the economic, fiscal and social benefits of additional height."
In other words, they went at this activity with the predetermined conclusion that they wanted to raise the Height Limit in some way - thus rendering this entire report instead as a one-sided vehicle for supporting their position.
I also find it disturbing that this report has been publicized without taking into account the comments provided at the public hearings, and without consultation with City Council.
Read more
—Erik Hein, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
The very first sentence in DC's report states "The. . . central question that this report attempts to answer is whether changes to the federal Height Act can be accomplished in a way that allows the federal government and the District of Columbia to reap the economic, fiscal and social benefits of additional height."
In other words, they went at this activity with the predetermined conclusion that they wanted to raise the Height Limit in some way - thus rendering this entire report instead as a one-sided vehicle for supporting their position.
I also find it disturbing that this report has been publicized without taking into account the comments provided at the public hearings, and without consultation with City Council.
Read more
—Erik Hein, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
I think the Office of Planning's recommendations to modify the height limit in DC is an excellent idea. The economic benefits, coupled with creating a denser and more amenity rich urban environment, far outweigh any possible drawbacks. I'm all for it!
—John Bradley Papp, Astoria, NY (September 25, 2013)
—John Bradley Papp, Astoria, NY (September 25, 2013)
My fear is that the decision will simply go the way of the developers drooling their money over 69sq/mi of airspace currently guarded by the mayor and the city council. This is the same DC government that could not even stand up against Walmart and its promise of jobs calibrated to swell the class of. . . working poor.
The decision should be according to what we want Washington DC proper to look like and to feel like. If we want a skyline the level it is, the height restrictions should stay as they are. Do we want skyscrapers? Do we want to look like other high-rise cities? Maybe. It’s a decision.
Of course, in a high-rise DC, there will eventually be a well-dressed, security cleared person, licensed to own rocket launchers and assault weapons, sitting by his/her window on the 35th floor overlooking the White House, waiting for the right moment to shoot.
Read more
—B. Becker, Unknown (September 25, 2013)
The decision should be according to what we want Washington DC proper to look like and to feel like. If we want a skyline the level it is, the height restrictions should stay as they are. Do we want skyscrapers? Do we want to look like other high-rise cities? Maybe. It’s a decision.
Of course, in a high-rise DC, there will eventually be a well-dressed, security cleared person, licensed to own rocket launchers and assault weapons, sitting by his/her window on the 35th floor overlooking the White House, waiting for the right moment to shoot.
Read more
—B. Becker, Unknown (September 25, 2013)
I've reviewed both NCPC and DC inputs. It appears that there is no intent to provide Congress with a joint recommendation, which puts both parties at risk because it forces Congress to integrate the two inputs. Recommend NCPC and DC develop a jointly acceptable recommendation, in accordance with Congressional intent.
With regard. . . to DC's input: the District goes to great lengths to explain that they need to grow their tax base, so they can continue to provide city services and affordable housing to all District residents. However, their recommendation to increase heights to accommodate further high-rise development would seem to attract only high-income residents and high-paying businesses. That this influx of wealth could somehow prevent rising living costs seems misguided at best, or a blatant attempt at wealth redistribution (tax the rich so we can buy affordable housing!) at worst. At least in the media, DC has been reported to be running an annual surplus anyway, so this rationale for height increases is unconvincing as currently structured.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (September 25, 2013)
With regard. . . to DC's input: the District goes to great lengths to explain that they need to grow their tax base, so they can continue to provide city services and affordable housing to all District residents. However, their recommendation to increase heights to accommodate further high-rise development would seem to attract only high-income residents and high-paying businesses. That this influx of wealth could somehow prevent rising living costs seems misguided at best, or a blatant attempt at wealth redistribution (tax the rich so we can buy affordable housing!) at worst. At least in the media, DC has been reported to be running an annual surplus anyway, so this rationale for height increases is unconvincing as currently structured.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (September 25, 2013)
I am looking for the DCOP draft Height findings and report. I understand that it was to be posted on the NCPC website this week.
—Eleanor Budic, Washington, DC (September 21, 2013)
—Eleanor Budic, Washington, DC (September 21, 2013)
At ANC 2D's September 16th Meeting, the following action was taken endorsing the Coalitions efforts. As always, David Bender, PhD (ANC 2D, Chair/Secretary)
8.2 Height of Buildings Act….Sally Berk; Following a presentation and brief discussion; Commissioner Lamar moved that; ANC 2D agrees to support The Historic Districts Coalition endorsement to “Make. . . No Changes to the Height Act†and agrees to be a signatory on future correspondence which states this position. Seconded Approved
Read more
—David Bender, PhD (ANC 2D, Chair/Secretary), Washington, DC (ANC 2D) (September 18, 2013)
8.2 Height of Buildings Act….Sally Berk; Following a presentation and brief discussion; Commissioner Lamar moved that; ANC 2D agrees to support The Historic Districts Coalition endorsement to “Make. . . No Changes to the Height Act†and agrees to be a signatory on future correspondence which states this position. Seconded Approved
Read more
—David Bender, PhD (ANC 2D, Chair/Secretary), Washington, DC (ANC 2D) (September 18, 2013)
Please don't raise the height limit on buildings in the District. The relatively low building heights are part of the charm of the nation's capital, much as is true in another livable capital, Paris. As Paris has constructed its high rises across the river at La Defense, so let us have ours in Rosslyn, Arlington and. . . Crystal City. Adding air space to increase income is a bad idea.
Read more
—Alison Daifuku, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
Read more
—Alison Daifuku, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
I am a DC resident who relocated from Toronto twenty years ago, and am very much opposed to tinkering with Washington DC building height restrictions. The height restrictions have served the city extremely well over the years. Thanks to the farsightedness of the creators of these restrictions, Washington DC doesn't have dark canyons, but is illuminated. . . with natural light. Plus, it has a distinct, unique and beautiful skyline.
Moreover, it isn't scarred with buildings that were once de rigeur, but failed to age gracefully - like Chicago's infamous Robert Taylor Homes. Its neighborhoods are also protected from developers erecting high rise apartments that tower over smaller homes and leave old time residents in the shadows.
Finally, to those who claim that the height restrictions need to be lifted to accommodate growth - do some basic research. In 1950, Washington DC was home to 800,000 people, who all lived here WITH the existing height restrictions. That is nearly 200,000 MORE people than currently reside in the District.
The height restriction is part of what makes Washington, DC such a special place. ALL Washingtonians - rich and poor, enjoy bright skies and an abundance of natural light. Don't jeopardize this priceless amenity so a select few developers can blot the landscape and ruin it forever.
To those that want to live in Manhattan, Dubai or Hong Kong - please move there now. But don't ruin our city because you have height-envy.
Read more
—AK, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
Moreover, it isn't scarred with buildings that were once de rigeur, but failed to age gracefully - like Chicago's infamous Robert Taylor Homes. Its neighborhoods are also protected from developers erecting high rise apartments that tower over smaller homes and leave old time residents in the shadows.
Finally, to those who claim that the height restrictions need to be lifted to accommodate growth - do some basic research. In 1950, Washington DC was home to 800,000 people, who all lived here WITH the existing height restrictions. That is nearly 200,000 MORE people than currently reside in the District.
The height restriction is part of what makes Washington, DC such a special place. ALL Washingtonians - rich and poor, enjoy bright skies and an abundance of natural light. Don't jeopardize this priceless amenity so a select few developers can blot the landscape and ruin it forever.
To those that want to live in Manhattan, Dubai or Hong Kong - please move there now. But don't ruin our city because you have height-envy.
Read more
—AK, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
If we can have what the person below me calls a La Defense across the river in Virginia why not have it across the river in SE dc. The answer is it makes no sense what so ever. Also there are 21 buildings in la defense which exceed the Roslyn height limit witch is 400 feet.
—Trevon Agustin Johnson, Washington DC (September 15, 2013)
—Trevon Agustin Johnson, Washington DC (September 15, 2013)
While I'm not currently a D.C. resident, I have been following the debate about the D.C. height limits for a long time. I feel the Height of Buildings Act is very outdated and harmful to both the United States and for residents of the capital. The restrictive limit makes D.C. an unnecessarily expensive place to live. . . and to work. It even makes hotel prices much higher, which restricts the accessibility for our of town visitors and tourist to enjoy the city. Having taller buildings will not diminish or denigrate the views of our public monuments. Central Park is not harmed by being surrounded by tall buildings, nor are other historic monuments and buildings. They retain their importance, and tall buildings allow even more people to enjoy those monuments.
Taller buildings will bring more jobs to D.C. and make it a more appealing place to live. It would also be likely to help the government attract better civil servants, and therefore improve our government. I am currently a law student, and I hope to live and work in D.C. soon. The city will be much more vibrant, accessible, attractive, and enjoyable to all if the outdated restrictions on heights is drastically liberalized. Thank you for your time!
Read more
—Zachary Ferguson, Chapel Hill, NC (September 14, 2013)
Taller buildings will bring more jobs to D.C. and make it a more appealing place to live. It would also be likely to help the government attract better civil servants, and therefore improve our government. I am currently a law student, and I hope to live and work in D.C. soon. The city will be much more vibrant, accessible, attractive, and enjoyable to all if the outdated restrictions on heights is drastically liberalized. Thank you for your time!
Read more
—Zachary Ferguson, Chapel Hill, NC (September 14, 2013)
Dear Commissioners,
I must voice my strong opposition to the proposal to undo the 1910 Height Act.
There has been steady drum beat for this for years from developers and District officials.
One of the perfections of Washington is the height of the buildings.
This proposal seems to be motivated by nothing. . . but greed, increasing the value of buildings in certain parts of the city and the taxes and emoluments that will be available to officials.
It is a toe in the door. DC has been wonderfully served by the Act, which has helped make the city one of the most beautiful in the US. I beg you not to aid those who wish to change it. Kind regards, Peter Waddell.
Read more
—Peter Waddell, Washington DC (September 14, 2013)
I must voice my strong opposition to the proposal to undo the 1910 Height Act.
There has been steady drum beat for this for years from developers and District officials.
One of the perfections of Washington is the height of the buildings.
This proposal seems to be motivated by nothing. . . but greed, increasing the value of buildings in certain parts of the city and the taxes and emoluments that will be available to officials.
It is a toe in the door. DC has been wonderfully served by the Act, which has helped make the city one of the most beautiful in the US. I beg you not to aid those who wish to change it. Kind regards, Peter Waddell.
Read more
—Peter Waddell, Washington DC (September 14, 2013)
I think D.C should follow the way London is building and changing their city around. London has done a good job of keeping the views of their landmarks viewable while building skyscrapers around them. I think raising the height act in the city would benefit Washington in the long run. IF passed the building coeds could. . . be strict in certain parts of the city so that important landmarks wont be blocked. It would be nice to see 20 to 30 something story buildings scattered through the city but at the same time not OVER doing it. I am all for change and if D.C wants the population to continue to raise changing the height act is what they should do.
Read more
—Reggie, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
Read more
—Reggie, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
Please raise the height in DC. I feel as though the city is due for a change and also having taller buildings would lower the rent rates for apartments and office space due to the fact that more units would be able to go into office/residential buildings. For the longest time London, England had the same. . . height restriction and now they are building skyscrapers that actually enhances cities beauty. It would also attract major company's and businesses to build in DC. We don't need New York City size skyscrapers but it wouldn't hurt to build 20 to 30 story buildings in certain parts of city. RASIE THE HEIGHT ACT!!
Read more
—unknown, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
Read more
—unknown, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
The first thing out of town visitors express is delight at the low rise character of our city. It is wonderful to not be overwhelmed with tall buildings that block the sky.
Please do not cave in to real estate developer money and pressure to raise height limits and create an over crowded, congested. . . environment.
Lets show pride in our nation's capitol city and continue with height restrictions as envisioned by city planners with foresight and good judgement.
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (September 13, 2013)
Please do not cave in to real estate developer money and pressure to raise height limits and create an over crowded, congested. . . environment.
Lets show pride in our nation's capitol city and continue with height restrictions as envisioned by city planners with foresight and good judgement.
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (September 13, 2013)
One of the most beautiful and livable cities in the world is Paris. They have a height limit about like DC's. It is a city on a human scale, like DC is now. Citizens love it, tourists love it. Increasing the height limit will drown the monuments, the White House, the Congress and every other beautiful. . . building. Changing the height limit will result in wholesale demolition of the buildings that make Washington Washington. I will then be just another city with developeritis.
n
Read more
—Severne Johnson, Kingston, WA (September 12, 2013)
n
Read more
—Severne Johnson, Kingston, WA (September 12, 2013)
Phase 2 Comments
Showing 68 of 68 total comments submitted
Having attended Phases 2 & 3 Public Meetings I am convinced that Approach 1: No height increase is the best course of action for D.C. now and for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, the Zoning Board has made many exceptions to existing height limit and they have produced a poor precedent. Even in the vicintity of Metro. . . and other transit centers height limits beyond 110 ft. and 130 ft. are unnecessary. They produce a congested city environment rather than one with open vistas and the hope of reducing population densities; they increase temperatures in summer and lower them in winter. They add to greenhouse gases that are producing a thermal blanketwith high CO2 levels in the mid-atlantic instead of reducing them and placing our efforts behind truly "going green" in deed and not just in rhetoric. Limiting the density of brick, concrete, mortar, stone and glass will help to keep Washington a model of responsible and attractive architecture long into the future.
Read more
—Eugene Abravanel, D.C. (September 10, 2013)
Read more
—Eugene Abravanel, D.C. (September 10, 2013)
Based on the earlier presentations, utilizing Approach 2 Street-to-Height Relation seems the more promising approach for certain commercial areas of the District. The most successful commercial corridors appear to be those with commercial uses lining both sides of the street or right-of-way. Each side of the street benefits from the vitality of other. . . . This relationship tends to weaken as the right-of-way widen. The “canyon†effect of significantly increasing the height along narrower rights-of-way could actual detract from that vitality. It would also be more difficult for pedestrians at street level to truly appreciate the taller structures. Instituting a street-to-height to 1:1.2 or greater along wider rights-of-way (perhaps wider than 90 feet?) would have less impact because each side of the street is less dependent on the other. It would also be important to institute a comprehensive program of streetscape improvements such as trees other street furnitures at the same time to create or reinforce the pedestrian experience at street level (i.e., below the third floor).
Read more
—Arthur Jackson, Silver Spring, MD (August 30, 2013)
Read more
—Arthur Jackson, Silver Spring, MD (August 30, 2013)
TENLEYTOWN NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION
Revising the Height Act of 1910
WHEREAS the Height Act of 1910 is a federal statute governing the District of Columbia, which restricts residential buildings to 90 feet and business to a height equal to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet (generally totaling 130 feet), plus some heights are. . . extended to 160 feet along portions of Pennsylvania Avenue.
WHEREAS reviewing the Height Act to determine whether any revisions are desirable or necessary is understandable but that does not automatically mean amendments are necessary.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of monuments that should continue to be showcased through zoning and height restrictions.
WHEREAS in the areas around the White House, Capitol and federal agencies, height restrictions have been praised as enhancing security for the federal government.
WHEREAS Washington is one of the most attractive and lovely cities in America not only because of its monuments but also because of its tree canopy and open spaces and because pedestrians can see the sun, the sky and the stars.
WHEREAS some have proposed increasing heights from “L’Enfant to Tenleytownâ€, which would include neighborhoods across the entire spectrum of density and existing height.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of neighborhoods and each neighborhood has different and, in many instances, very desirable characteristics, which should be recognized and preserved in any consideration of amendments to the Height Act.
WHEREAS proposals to increase height along the main Avenues, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, New York, and others would dwarf residences abutting the avenues that are two story single family detached in some areas but might be harmonious with multi-story office buildings and warehouses in others.
WHEREAS any increase in height for buildings does not solely increase tax revenue it also would result in new infrastructure demands on services, such as schools, public transit, sewer, and water.
WHEREAS incentives through increased heights everywhere would not result in encouraging development in any particular area but rather would merely allow taller buildings wherever a greater profit might be realized in already flourishing areas.
WHEREAS increased heights may result in a few very tall buildings with large capacity absorbing such a large percent of the demand that development would be deterred across the rest of the city, which has benefited from a dispersal of development activity throughout the city.
WHEREAS there is unused potential available now that can accommodate new growth without any amendments to the Act or to DC zoning because current height restrictions allow more development in many areas.
Be it RESOLVED that the Tenleytown Neighbors Association supports preserving the overall building limits established in the Height Act because of the extraordinary contributions these restrictions have made to the distinctive character of the city of Washington.
TNA Sept. 17, 2012
Read more
—TENLEYTOWN NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, Tenleytown, Washington, DC (August 30, 2013)
Revising the Height Act of 1910
WHEREAS the Height Act of 1910 is a federal statute governing the District of Columbia, which restricts residential buildings to 90 feet and business to a height equal to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet (generally totaling 130 feet), plus some heights are. . . extended to 160 feet along portions of Pennsylvania Avenue.
WHEREAS reviewing the Height Act to determine whether any revisions are desirable or necessary is understandable but that does not automatically mean amendments are necessary.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of monuments that should continue to be showcased through zoning and height restrictions.
WHEREAS in the areas around the White House, Capitol and federal agencies, height restrictions have been praised as enhancing security for the federal government.
WHEREAS Washington is one of the most attractive and lovely cities in America not only because of its monuments but also because of its tree canopy and open spaces and because pedestrians can see the sun, the sky and the stars.
WHEREAS some have proposed increasing heights from “L’Enfant to Tenleytownâ€, which would include neighborhoods across the entire spectrum of density and existing height.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of neighborhoods and each neighborhood has different and, in many instances, very desirable characteristics, which should be recognized and preserved in any consideration of amendments to the Height Act.
WHEREAS proposals to increase height along the main Avenues, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, New York, and others would dwarf residences abutting the avenues that are two story single family detached in some areas but might be harmonious with multi-story office buildings and warehouses in others.
WHEREAS any increase in height for buildings does not solely increase tax revenue it also would result in new infrastructure demands on services, such as schools, public transit, sewer, and water.
WHEREAS incentives through increased heights everywhere would not result in encouraging development in any particular area but rather would merely allow taller buildings wherever a greater profit might be realized in already flourishing areas.
WHEREAS increased heights may result in a few very tall buildings with large capacity absorbing such a large percent of the demand that development would be deterred across the rest of the city, which has benefited from a dispersal of development activity throughout the city.
WHEREAS there is unused potential available now that can accommodate new growth without any amendments to the Act or to DC zoning because current height restrictions allow more development in many areas.
Be it RESOLVED that the Tenleytown Neighbors Association supports preserving the overall building limits established in the Height Act because of the extraordinary contributions these restrictions have made to the distinctive character of the city of Washington.
TNA Sept. 17, 2012
Read more
—TENLEYTOWN NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, Tenleytown, Washington, DC (August 30, 2013)
One of the main reasons I chose DC as my home is because the buildings are the height that they are. Very few urban places have this unique characteristic, of enabling its residents to see the sky even while in the heart of the city. If this were to go through, I and my. . . family would move - it means that much to us.
Read more
—Kendra Moesle, Washington, DC (August 29, 2013)
Read more
—Kendra Moesle, Washington, DC (August 29, 2013)
When and where will the September 2013 public meetings be held? It's time to get the word out!
—Eleanor Budic, Washington DC NW (August 23, 2013)
—Eleanor Budic, Washington DC NW (August 23, 2013)
DC height limit should be modified.
One reason is that is that it makes no sense for the limit to be city wide.For instance
"There are 500 foot radio towers in tenley and these don’t seem to have ruined the views of the Capitol, Washington Monument or other important landmarks one bit. We have invested. . . billions of dollars in metro-rail—I don’t understand why we can’t have 15-20 story buildings in places like Friendship Heights, Georgia Avenue and within walking distance of some of the other more distant metro stations in DC. There are already 15-20 story buildings directly across the street on the Maryland side of Friendship Heights. The buildings on the DC side should be able to be that tall.
This would not impact views one bit but it would allow more people to live within walking distance of transit, it would encourage more economic activity, and it would expand DC’s tax-base." (Urban Turf Blog Comment)
Read more
—Eugenia Navaro, Washington DC (August 21, 2013)
One reason is that is that it makes no sense for the limit to be city wide.For instance
"There are 500 foot radio towers in tenley and these don’t seem to have ruined the views of the Capitol, Washington Monument or other important landmarks one bit. We have invested. . . billions of dollars in metro-rail—I don’t understand why we can’t have 15-20 story buildings in places like Friendship Heights, Georgia Avenue and within walking distance of some of the other more distant metro stations in DC. There are already 15-20 story buildings directly across the street on the Maryland side of Friendship Heights. The buildings on the DC side should be able to be that tall.
This would not impact views one bit but it would allow more people to live within walking distance of transit, it would encourage more economic activity, and it would expand DC’s tax-base." (Urban Turf Blog Comment)
Read more
—Eugenia Navaro, Washington DC (August 21, 2013)
I believe that the current Washington DC skyline regulations - keeping maximum building heights below the heights of the Capitol Building and other monuments (obviously we leave the Washington Monument out of this discussion) are the correct standards and should be maintained. I do not want my nation's capital to become a mass of coolie. . . cutter buildings all reaching the same height and destroying the uniqueness and views of the current capital city.
Read more
—Bill Nierstedt, Garwood, NJ 07027 (August 20, 2013)
Read more
—Bill Nierstedt, Garwood, NJ 07027 (August 20, 2013)
The comments below were copied off the Urban Turf blog and express my views about the blandness of commercial architecture in DC as a result of the height limit.
"When you don't have the height issue, it's much easier to make a building that has different forms," architect Eric Colbert, who has designed dozens of. . . multifamily buildings throughout the District, told UrbanTurf.
The problem, explained Colbert, is related not just to the height restriction, but also the floor area ratio (FAR). Because the cost of the land is based on the amount of square footage that one is allowed to build, developers feel compelled to build to the full FAR, which often means building out to the property line and up to the maximum height. This creates the box effect that is so common in new DC buildings.
"There is an incredible amount of pressure on the architect to design something that maximizes the salable or leasable square footage," shared Colbert. "If you were to raise the height but not change FAR, it would allow more sculpting in the facade."
Read more
—Steve Strauss, Washington, DC (August 20, 2013)
"When you don't have the height issue, it's much easier to make a building that has different forms," architect Eric Colbert, who has designed dozens of. . . multifamily buildings throughout the District, told UrbanTurf.
The problem, explained Colbert, is related not just to the height restriction, but also the floor area ratio (FAR). Because the cost of the land is based on the amount of square footage that one is allowed to build, developers feel compelled to build to the full FAR, which often means building out to the property line and up to the maximum height. This creates the box effect that is so common in new DC buildings.
"There is an incredible amount of pressure on the architect to design something that maximizes the salable or leasable square footage," shared Colbert. "If you were to raise the height but not change FAR, it would allow more sculpting in the facade."
Read more
—Steve Strauss, Washington, DC (August 20, 2013)
I would like to say that I believe the height city's areas should have their own restrictions but that this should not be through a federal law that applies city wide. I believe that this should be addressed by the people of DC. Like it is in other capitals around the world. This way. . . we would determine what heights specific areas should have because not every part of the city is the same. London has done good job in that each district has different zoning laws for each of its 32 districts. For intance in westmister (where big ben is heights are relatively low where as near st pauls cathedral there are taaller bulidings but this is in way that the views of St pauls are protected. Also there beutifull buidings along hyde park that are taller than what is permited by our height and yet this dosent make London feel like new York. Also it sis important to note that even if this act where to be removed the citys heights would depend on a particular neighboorhods zonning laws and desires. Which has been the case even under this act in many areas buildings have remained lower than the allowable height limit due to zonning laws take m street in goergetown the current zooning laws are what govern here. So it is safe to say what ever happens to the height act this dosent mean that georgetown will have a burj kahalifa for aesthetic reason as well as economic and it does not mean that the city will have a skysline will turn into new york. I believe if analyse this carefully we can find ways to allow the city to raise heights in particular areas thus having an increment in anual tax revenue with out hindering the city sklyine.
Read more
—Stephen Rivers, Congress Heights (August 20, 2013)
Read more
—Stephen Rivers, Congress Heights (August 20, 2013)
Who in Congress has come up with this lamebrain idea of changing the height restrictions in Washington,DC? Who is trying to despoil one of the most beautiful "horizontal" cities in the world? Did this come from lobbyists supporting the construction industry or what? There is plenty of room to grow without this move. I. . . love the beauty of our nation's capitol. Don't let the politicians -whomsoever they may be - ruin it! Virgil Miedema
Read more
—Virgil Miedema, Hanover, New Hampshire (August 20, 2013)
Read more
—Virgil Miedema, Hanover, New Hampshire (August 20, 2013)
I am strongly opposed to any changes in the Height Act, and I also have several serious concerns about the work that has been presented to the public in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 meetings.
When I first came to Washington, after having lived and worked in New York City, I was immediately struck. . . by the difference in the scale and how refreshing it was to work in downtown Washington, with its openness, light and air. The ability to see the sky as one walks through downtown, walking along streets where trees can thrive, and our iconic horizontal skyline should not sacrificed.
The October 3, 2012 letter from Chairman Issa to Mayor Gray and Chairman Bryant called for the exploration of strategic changes in the Height Act to take into account the impact on “compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods,†along with other factors. Consideration of compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods appears to have been ignored as a guiding principle. This is an important consideration and must be addressed.
I find the Economic Feasibility Study to be problematic. I can only comment on the PowerPoint presentation, since the actual study is still not available, so it is impossible to critique the assumptions or methodology. The study seems to be looking at whether increased heights in various sections of the District would be profitable. The potential for increased profits then seems to be the basis for choosing areas for increased heights and density, without consideration of the compatibility with the nearby neighborhoods, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or whether the infrastructure can support the increased density. While it is useful to know whether developers are likely to build taller buildings in certain areas if the allowed heights were increased citywide, and that might help to ascertain the impact on development patterns in the District of a citywide change in the height limit, the potential for increased profits in the listed areas should not be the basis for determining where the height limit should be raised. The analysis only seems to take into account whether the current rents and market demand can support the increased costs associated with increased heights, and does not consider whether increased heights in those areas would have a negative impact on surrounding neighborhoods and stress an already strained infrastructure, or whether allowing increased heights in those areas might divert development from other areas which might benefit from some increased development within the current zoning and Height Act envelopes, as NoMa has benefited from the current height limits.
In the presentation, initially, it was stated that only areas designated as high density in the Comprehensive Plan land use map would be considered, but the presentation included both high density and medium density areas, a point that was made explicit later in the presentation. Yet, it is clear from the descriptions of the medium density residential and commercial Comprehensive Plan land use categories, that medium-density areas should never have been considered as candidates for increases in the allowable heights. The Comprehensive Plan describes the medium density residential areas as “neighborhoods and areas where mid-rise (4-7 stories) apartment buildings are the predominant use. Pockets of low and moderate density housing might also exist within these areas.†[225.5] The Medium Density Commercial category is described as having “buildings generally larger and/or taller than those in moderate density commercial areas, but generally do not exceed eight stories in height,†[225.11] where the height in the moderate density commercial designation is described as generally not exceeding five stories in height [225.10]. Clearly, the areas designated as Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan should not have been included in the analysis and, for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the discussion should be limited to areas designated as High Density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Further, there seems to be no substantiated justification for increasing the height limit even in those areas designated as High Density on the Comprehensive Plan land use map. There are ample development opportunities within the envelope of the current Height Act, and even with the current zoning envelope. There is no need to increase the heights allowable by the Height Act in order to accommodate anticipated growth.
Read more
—Marilyn Simon, Friendship Heights, DC (August 18, 2013)
When I first came to Washington, after having lived and worked in New York City, I was immediately struck. . . by the difference in the scale and how refreshing it was to work in downtown Washington, with its openness, light and air. The ability to see the sky as one walks through downtown, walking along streets where trees can thrive, and our iconic horizontal skyline should not sacrificed.
The October 3, 2012 letter from Chairman Issa to Mayor Gray and Chairman Bryant called for the exploration of strategic changes in the Height Act to take into account the impact on “compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods,†along with other factors. Consideration of compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods appears to have been ignored as a guiding principle. This is an important consideration and must be addressed.
I find the Economic Feasibility Study to be problematic. I can only comment on the PowerPoint presentation, since the actual study is still not available, so it is impossible to critique the assumptions or methodology. The study seems to be looking at whether increased heights in various sections of the District would be profitable. The potential for increased profits then seems to be the basis for choosing areas for increased heights and density, without consideration of the compatibility with the nearby neighborhoods, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or whether the infrastructure can support the increased density. While it is useful to know whether developers are likely to build taller buildings in certain areas if the allowed heights were increased citywide, and that might help to ascertain the impact on development patterns in the District of a citywide change in the height limit, the potential for increased profits in the listed areas should not be the basis for determining where the height limit should be raised. The analysis only seems to take into account whether the current rents and market demand can support the increased costs associated with increased heights, and does not consider whether increased heights in those areas would have a negative impact on surrounding neighborhoods and stress an already strained infrastructure, or whether allowing increased heights in those areas might divert development from other areas which might benefit from some increased development within the current zoning and Height Act envelopes, as NoMa has benefited from the current height limits.
In the presentation, initially, it was stated that only areas designated as high density in the Comprehensive Plan land use map would be considered, but the presentation included both high density and medium density areas, a point that was made explicit later in the presentation. Yet, it is clear from the descriptions of the medium density residential and commercial Comprehensive Plan land use categories, that medium-density areas should never have been considered as candidates for increases in the allowable heights. The Comprehensive Plan describes the medium density residential areas as “neighborhoods and areas where mid-rise (4-7 stories) apartment buildings are the predominant use. Pockets of low and moderate density housing might also exist within these areas.†[225.5] The Medium Density Commercial category is described as having “buildings generally larger and/or taller than those in moderate density commercial areas, but generally do not exceed eight stories in height,†[225.11] where the height in the moderate density commercial designation is described as generally not exceeding five stories in height [225.10]. Clearly, the areas designated as Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan should not have been included in the analysis and, for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the discussion should be limited to areas designated as High Density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Further, there seems to be no substantiated justification for increasing the height limit even in those areas designated as High Density on the Comprehensive Plan land use map. There are ample development opportunities within the envelope of the current Height Act, and even with the current zoning envelope. There is no need to increase the heights allowable by the Height Act in order to accommodate anticipated growth.
Read more
—Marilyn Simon, Friendship Heights, DC (August 18, 2013)
As Dc native I belive that 225 ft under Aproach 3c is better than our current one size fits all law. Yet I belive that a 250ft. limit should apply in the Lefant city with consideration to viewshed as previously mentioned. I belive London had done a great job in maintaing the precence of its symbolic. . . buildings and being able to buid high while ensuring this.
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence , Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence , Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
Heights can and should be raised in DC with out hindering the character of our city. This can done even by rasing heights with in the Lefant city to 275ft. Especially is a view shed study is performed is done in addition. In add buildings have all ready tall towers have been built . . . arcross the river in Arlington and this has not changed the character of the Lefant city so why would raising heights in areas in dc that further away from the monumental core not be ok aswell.
Given that having taller buildings across the river has not changed the skyline of the Lefant city why not let dc grow east of the anacostia. Having been raised there I can say that there's undeveloped land that could be used wisely. Raising here would enable our city to have greater growth while not having our skyline of monumental dc loosing its character. Why not have tall buildings in areas such as Poplar Point and other areas south east. This would help generate revenue revenue that could be used to further improve parks, schools, transportation among other things.
Read more
—Martin Murphy, Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
Given that having taller buildings across the river has not changed the skyline of the Lefant city why not let dc grow east of the anacostia. Having been raised there I can say that there's undeveloped land that could be used wisely. Raising here would enable our city to have greater growth while not having our skyline of monumental dc loosing its character. Why not have tall buildings in areas such as Poplar Point and other areas south east. This would help generate revenue revenue that could be used to further improve parks, schools, transportation among other things.
Read more
—Martin Murphy, Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
The current Height Limit should be retained as is with no changes. The city will look like Rosslyn and worse if there is a break in the tradition and the city will be much less livable if there is a change.
—R Palmer, DC (August 15, 2013)
—R Palmer, DC (August 15, 2013)
I grew up in Northern Virginia, and was constantly in DC, and used to wander as a youth in the corridors of the Capitol, the Smithsonian, etc. My mother was a docent at the White House. The city has great symbolic meaning for me, and that includes our view of it.
What I. . . didn't see in the comments I read is the perspective that this city, and the view of this city commonly presented, such as in photographs and on television, is almost invariably the view from heights of Virginia across the expanse of the L'Enfant grid.
It is a view of our "government." Ordered. Equivalent, with notable exceptions (The Washington Monument, Capitol Hill). It is a "beautiful" and symbolic view in its own right. Let's not forget it was modeled after Paris, at least at the macroscopic level (would that L'Enfant had included the "quiet backs" of, say, the Latin quarter. C'est dommage. . .)
To interpose tall commercial structures within that view (say by developing Chinatown, or SE, or north of H street, or east of the Supreme Court), subordinates the world's perspective of our national government, as inferior to commercial things. Sleek tall shiny glass buildings of 40, 50, 80 stories; humble government crawling about the floor at their feet. Which is important now? The answer, psychologically, is obvious. Without the commercialism, we are all humble, as we should be, in service to our larger country.
That perspective (both literally and figuratively), that commercial things are more important than our government, should never be permitted to exist in the American or World public's sense of "Washington."
It is a cost to our prestige that is unrecoverable and reduces the city to "ordinary-ness." We would do ourselves a grave disservice, and damage our "brand" in the world at a cost which could never be recovered in the short range economics of "density" and "home rule."
We're playing the Long Game here. This is about a perspective and posture that must perform on behalf of the Nation and endure, not as architectural form, but as a defining idea, for centuries. Play the Short Game to appease nattering local residents or corporate interests, or feel good planners (my profession), and we lose the ability of the city, the mission of the city, to project the idea of America, the sense of what we value in America to our ever renewing, every accreting citizenry and to those who would aspire to join us in our mission throughout the world.
Don't raise the height limit. It is a choice from which we could never recover. It would be the death knell of our deserved sense of American Exceptionalism.
Daniel Peterson, PE
formerally of McLean, Va
now South Orange, NJ
Read more
—Daniel Peterson, South Orange, NJ (August 15, 2013)
What I. . . didn't see in the comments I read is the perspective that this city, and the view of this city commonly presented, such as in photographs and on television, is almost invariably the view from heights of Virginia across the expanse of the L'Enfant grid.
It is a view of our "government." Ordered. Equivalent, with notable exceptions (The Washington Monument, Capitol Hill). It is a "beautiful" and symbolic view in its own right. Let's not forget it was modeled after Paris, at least at the macroscopic level (would that L'Enfant had included the "quiet backs" of, say, the Latin quarter. C'est dommage. . .)
To interpose tall commercial structures within that view (say by developing Chinatown, or SE, or north of H street, or east of the Supreme Court), subordinates the world's perspective of our national government, as inferior to commercial things. Sleek tall shiny glass buildings of 40, 50, 80 stories; humble government crawling about the floor at their feet. Which is important now? The answer, psychologically, is obvious. Without the commercialism, we are all humble, as we should be, in service to our larger country.
That perspective (both literally and figuratively), that commercial things are more important than our government, should never be permitted to exist in the American or World public's sense of "Washington."
It is a cost to our prestige that is unrecoverable and reduces the city to "ordinary-ness." We would do ourselves a grave disservice, and damage our "brand" in the world at a cost which could never be recovered in the short range economics of "density" and "home rule."
We're playing the Long Game here. This is about a perspective and posture that must perform on behalf of the Nation and endure, not as architectural form, but as a defining idea, for centuries. Play the Short Game to appease nattering local residents or corporate interests, or feel good planners (my profession), and we lose the ability of the city, the mission of the city, to project the idea of America, the sense of what we value in America to our ever renewing, every accreting citizenry and to those who would aspire to join us in our mission throughout the world.
Don't raise the height limit. It is a choice from which we could never recover. It would be the death knell of our deserved sense of American Exceptionalism.
Daniel Peterson, PE
formerally of McLean, Va
now South Orange, NJ
Read more
—Daniel Peterson, South Orange, NJ (August 15, 2013)
The Office of Planning had significant omissions in its final phase 2 meeting for the Height Master Plan of DC last night. These glaring omissions need to be corrected, and public comment allowed, before OP moves on to Draft Recommendations for changing the Height Act.
Although the Office of Planning was tasked. . . by Congress to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods, national security concerns, input from local residents...," OP did not provide a single slide in its presentation, nor could staffers direct me to a single image in its modeling study, from the ground level of a single-family residential street showing what our neighborhoods would look like if areas identified as medium or high density in the Comprehensive Plan were allowed to build up to heights allowed under the Height Act now or a more relaxed Height Act in the future. In other words, OP completely avoided showing any direct impact of height increases on single-family areas.
OP showed multiple slides of models of the city with various permutations of increased height that might possibly occur either under the existing Height Act or with a more relaxed Height Act. Attendees saw many vista-type images, eg. from Meridian Hill Park, or the Air Force Memorial. We saw also long street view images, eg. looking down PA Ave towards the Capitol. OP boasted that it had hundreds more images in its modeling study.
This glaring absence of modeling images from the residents' street-level perspective is inexcusable. I have confirmed with NCPC that the choice of images created for the modeling study was up to OP, and was not limited or dictated by NCPC. I can only conclude that either OP inadvertently left out the residents' point of view, or OP deliberately chose not to include images of the immediate impact of increased heights in residential areas. In either case, whether by an act of omission or commission, OP has shown a disregard for residents in single-family neighborhoods.
(OP might suggest that the slide from the Frederick Douglass House offers impact on a residential area. However, I would suggest that because the Frederick Douglass House is up on a hill, the modeling does not match the conditions in a residential area. The Frederick Douglass House offers more of a vista. Neighborhoods where the ground level of the new construction and existing homes are at the same levels would have a very different look.)
Before OP goes forward with the Phase 3 Draft Recommendations, it needs to provide residents the opportunity to see models of changes to current heights in streets adjacent to residential areas. The models should do what they did for vistas and long streetscapes, that is, show changes that could result from allowing maximum heights under the Height Act and from building to increased heights under a relaxed Height Act.
Here is a sampling of locations that could give Ward 3 and 4 residents a sense of what the new heights would mean to single-family homes near high or medium-density areas. I used Wards 3 and 4 only because those are the areas with which I am most familiar, having lived there for 14 years.
1. Harrison and 45th St NW
2. Harrison and 44th St NW
3. Fessenden and 43rd NW
4. 43rd St NW between Jennifer and Military
5. 42nd St between Garrison and Fessenden
6. Military and 38th St NW
7. Alton and 35th St NW
8. Van Ness and Reno Road NW
9. Cumberland and 36th St NW
10. Holly and 12th St NW
11. 9th and Hemlock NW
12. Aspen and 13th Pl NW
Other wards should also have the opportunity to suggest locations for models, so that they may have a sense of the possible changes to residential streets that are only one or two blocks off a high or medium-density designation on the Comprehensive Plan.
Please do not allow OP to go forward with its Phase 3 Draft Recommendations until it has provided such models and ample time for public presentation and comment. Otherwise, OP will be ignoring not only its citizens, but also Congress' request to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods...[and] input from local residents."
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Chevy Chase, DC (August 15, 2013)
Although the Office of Planning was tasked. . . by Congress to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods, national security concerns, input from local residents...," OP did not provide a single slide in its presentation, nor could staffers direct me to a single image in its modeling study, from the ground level of a single-family residential street showing what our neighborhoods would look like if areas identified as medium or high density in the Comprehensive Plan were allowed to build up to heights allowed under the Height Act now or a more relaxed Height Act in the future. In other words, OP completely avoided showing any direct impact of height increases on single-family areas.
OP showed multiple slides of models of the city with various permutations of increased height that might possibly occur either under the existing Height Act or with a more relaxed Height Act. Attendees saw many vista-type images, eg. from Meridian Hill Park, or the Air Force Memorial. We saw also long street view images, eg. looking down PA Ave towards the Capitol. OP boasted that it had hundreds more images in its modeling study.
This glaring absence of modeling images from the residents' street-level perspective is inexcusable. I have confirmed with NCPC that the choice of images created for the modeling study was up to OP, and was not limited or dictated by NCPC. I can only conclude that either OP inadvertently left out the residents' point of view, or OP deliberately chose not to include images of the immediate impact of increased heights in residential areas. In either case, whether by an act of omission or commission, OP has shown a disregard for residents in single-family neighborhoods.
(OP might suggest that the slide from the Frederick Douglass House offers impact on a residential area. However, I would suggest that because the Frederick Douglass House is up on a hill, the modeling does not match the conditions in a residential area. The Frederick Douglass House offers more of a vista. Neighborhoods where the ground level of the new construction and existing homes are at the same levels would have a very different look.)
Before OP goes forward with the Phase 3 Draft Recommendations, it needs to provide residents the opportunity to see models of changes to current heights in streets adjacent to residential areas. The models should do what they did for vistas and long streetscapes, that is, show changes that could result from allowing maximum heights under the Height Act and from building to increased heights under a relaxed Height Act.
Here is a sampling of locations that could give Ward 3 and 4 residents a sense of what the new heights would mean to single-family homes near high or medium-density areas. I used Wards 3 and 4 only because those are the areas with which I am most familiar, having lived there for 14 years.
1. Harrison and 45th St NW
2. Harrison and 44th St NW
3. Fessenden and 43rd NW
4. 43rd St NW between Jennifer and Military
5. 42nd St between Garrison and Fessenden
6. Military and 38th St NW
7. Alton and 35th St NW
8. Van Ness and Reno Road NW
9. Cumberland and 36th St NW
10. Holly and 12th St NW
11. 9th and Hemlock NW
12. Aspen and 13th Pl NW
Other wards should also have the opportunity to suggest locations for models, so that they may have a sense of the possible changes to residential streets that are only one or two blocks off a high or medium-density designation on the Comprehensive Plan.
Please do not allow OP to go forward with its Phase 3 Draft Recommendations until it has provided such models and ample time for public presentation and comment. Otherwise, OP will be ignoring not only its citizens, but also Congress' request to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods...[and] input from local residents."
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Chevy Chase, DC (August 15, 2013)
When I was a young girl around the age of 7, my parents took my siblings and me to Washington DC for the first time on a family vacation. I fell in love with the city and decided then that I would someday move from St. Louis to live in DC. and I did.. . . I came back for another family vacation and on a high school trip and for two college internships. I returned temporarily after college, and then, more than twenty years ago, I came back for good and bought a house in the city a few years later. As a young girl, I loved the uniqueness of the city with the interesting buildings that didn't tower over me. I still do. I am horrified to think that the Height Act might be lost. The Height Act makes DC extraordinary; it gives DC a special feel that no other major city in our country has. While developers may want to get rid of the Height Act to make money, we residents love the Height Act. Do not change it!
Read more
—C Engelhardt, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
Read more
—C Engelhardt, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
We should not pit historic districts or historic preservation against height.
The presentation at the public meeting indicates that the visual modeling study excludes all historic districts from potential height increases. As the study moves forward, a more nuanced approach to both discussing and studying height in historic districts should be considered and communicated.. . . Wholesale exclusion (or even implying wholesale exclusion) may have unintended consequences, such as furthering negative perceptions of historic districts as prohibitive or static designations. This could discourage future historic districts, when the primary purpose of the designation is not to limit development or height. We do not want what would otherwise seem a sensible and feasible parameter to hinder our use of historic districts as an effective planning tool in the future.
There are many reasons why an area of the city may have historic or cultural significance, and there are aspects of architecture and planning beyond building height that are considered during design review. Currently, there are historic districts that already or could potentially accommodate tall buildings without compromising the district's integrity. If we are taking the long view, we also have to consider that we may not fully understand how the idea of historic districts or preservation will evolve in the next 100 years. We may have future districts where scale is not a significant aspect of historic character or where taller buildings themselves become historic. We should ensure that we maintain the ability to decide whether height is appropriate on a district-by-district or case-by-case basis.
I understand that the nuanced approach to height in historic districts is something that would most likely be part of a potential reworking of the comprehensive plan, not in a change to the federal law. I also understand that the study may already be taking such an approach in actuality. However, this comment is more about how we discuss historic districts and preservation during the process. The Height Study is important to the future of the city, and these public discussions could have a significant effect on the perception of preservation. Therefore, upcoming presentations and recommendations during the next phase of the study should convey a less black and white approach to height and historic.
Read more
—Carrie Barton (PRESERVE/scapes), Arlington, VA (August 14, 2013)
The presentation at the public meeting indicates that the visual modeling study excludes all historic districts from potential height increases. As the study moves forward, a more nuanced approach to both discussing and studying height in historic districts should be considered and communicated.. . . Wholesale exclusion (or even implying wholesale exclusion) may have unintended consequences, such as furthering negative perceptions of historic districts as prohibitive or static designations. This could discourage future historic districts, when the primary purpose of the designation is not to limit development or height. We do not want what would otherwise seem a sensible and feasible parameter to hinder our use of historic districts as an effective planning tool in the future.
There are many reasons why an area of the city may have historic or cultural significance, and there are aspects of architecture and planning beyond building height that are considered during design review. Currently, there are historic districts that already or could potentially accommodate tall buildings without compromising the district's integrity. If we are taking the long view, we also have to consider that we may not fully understand how the idea of historic districts or preservation will evolve in the next 100 years. We may have future districts where scale is not a significant aspect of historic character or where taller buildings themselves become historic. We should ensure that we maintain the ability to decide whether height is appropriate on a district-by-district or case-by-case basis.
I understand that the nuanced approach to height in historic districts is something that would most likely be part of a potential reworking of the comprehensive plan, not in a change to the federal law. I also understand that the study may already be taking such an approach in actuality. However, this comment is more about how we discuss historic districts and preservation during the process. The Height Study is important to the future of the city, and these public discussions could have a significant effect on the perception of preservation. Therefore, upcoming presentations and recommendations during the next phase of the study should convey a less black and white approach to height and historic.
Read more
—Carrie Barton (PRESERVE/scapes), Arlington, VA (August 14, 2013)
I am a native local, I hate going to New York City and believe your proposal to raise the height to anything less than a 1:1 street ratio with step back requirements would change the character of DC. The height restrictions in place were meant to not exceed the height of trees when looking from. . . the GW parkway. The City blends in and the monuments stand out. A support the no change condition. I like the look and feel of the city the way it is, and will not frequent it if it looks like NYC.
Read more
—Kimberly Larkin, Alexandria, VA (August 14, 2013)
Read more
—Kimberly Larkin, Alexandria, VA (August 14, 2013)
Visual Modeling Study:
The models clearly show the importance of enforcing DC view-scapes and height limits that are relatively low compared with commercially-oriented cities in the US. Do not destroy our unique skyline. The Height Act can be tweaked - but not trashed - in the L'Enfant City. Outside the . . . City, the height can be higher, but strongly protecting the Avenue and Capitol Street views. In both cases density around transit nodes must be given priority.
Occupied penthouses with setback in L'EC is fine.
Rooftop amenities and hidden mechanical systems should be encouraged.
Frontage height vs. street width of 1:1 in L'EC is human-scale, allowing air and light at street-level.
Encourage zoning changes within the present or 1:1 height limit in L'EC to encourage density around transit. There are large areas that are under-developed that would allow needed growth.
River-fronts should be recreationally oriented, not highways and high buildings.
Read more
—Gene Imhoff, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
The models clearly show the importance of enforcing DC view-scapes and height limits that are relatively low compared with commercially-oriented cities in the US. Do not destroy our unique skyline. The Height Act can be tweaked - but not trashed - in the L'Enfant City. Outside the . . . City, the height can be higher, but strongly protecting the Avenue and Capitol Street views. In both cases density around transit nodes must be given priority.
Occupied penthouses with setback in L'EC is fine.
Rooftop amenities and hidden mechanical systems should be encouraged.
Frontage height vs. street width of 1:1 in L'EC is human-scale, allowing air and light at street-level.
Encourage zoning changes within the present or 1:1 height limit in L'EC to encourage density around transit. There are large areas that are under-developed that would allow needed growth.
River-fronts should be recreationally oriented, not highways and high buildings.
Read more
—Gene Imhoff, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
Please do not raise the height limit on building within the District. DC is beautiful and distinct. Raising the height limit would drastically alter the cities character, and is unnecessary. We are not yet utilizing well the PAC we already have available.
—Topaz Terry, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
—Topaz Terry, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
I welcome this study and the resulting conversation. I strongly believe that the federal height limit should be modified. It should not be eliminated entirely, because DC is the nation's capital and it is fair for the federal government to establish some parameters to guide the city's growth (that is why NCPC exists). However, DC deserves. . . to have more flexibility and autonomy to create a built environment that meets the needs of the people who live and work here.
It is very important to understand that changing the height limit would not automatically change DC. Development is guided by the city's zoning and comprehensive plan; it would be necessary to change these before any taller buildings are permitted, and changing those local policies would require extensive public debate and approval from elected officials.
There are three main reasons why I believe we should allow taller buildings in DC. First, limiting building heights limits housing supply, and limiting housing supply increases housing prices. DC desperately needs affordable housing; not just units that are explicitly subsidized (such as inclusionary zoning units) but affordable market rate units. Second, cities are one of the keys to preventing climate change. Living in an urban area is less energy intensive than living in far flung suburbs. Increasing housing opportunities in DC would reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Third, providing more housing (and more commercial space) in DC would enable economic growth. Some of this would be displaced from other cities, but some of it would be the result of increased efficiency and economies of scale that result from the concentration of economic activity.
There are two commonly cited reasons not to increase the height limit: concerns about congestion and aesthetic concerns about viewsheds and the appearance of tall buildings. People are entitled to their opinions on these matters, but I think it is extremely selfish and superficial to place these concerns above concerns about housing affordability, economic growth, and environmental sustainability.
Regarding the specific plans under consideration: I don't feel strongly, but I believe the best approach would be to allow clusters of taller buildings (approach 3) similar to what has been done in London, Paris, and Berlin. Identifying the specific areas would be difficult and would require public debate. I believe areas outside the topographic bowl (such as Tenleytown) would be good candidates. Some closer areas, such as Waterfront Station, or Columbia Heights, or along New York Avenue, would also be good candidates.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC, Southwest quadrant (August 13, 2013)
It is very important to understand that changing the height limit would not automatically change DC. Development is guided by the city's zoning and comprehensive plan; it would be necessary to change these before any taller buildings are permitted, and changing those local policies would require extensive public debate and approval from elected officials.
There are three main reasons why I believe we should allow taller buildings in DC. First, limiting building heights limits housing supply, and limiting housing supply increases housing prices. DC desperately needs affordable housing; not just units that are explicitly subsidized (such as inclusionary zoning units) but affordable market rate units. Second, cities are one of the keys to preventing climate change. Living in an urban area is less energy intensive than living in far flung suburbs. Increasing housing opportunities in DC would reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Third, providing more housing (and more commercial space) in DC would enable economic growth. Some of this would be displaced from other cities, but some of it would be the result of increased efficiency and economies of scale that result from the concentration of economic activity.
There are two commonly cited reasons not to increase the height limit: concerns about congestion and aesthetic concerns about viewsheds and the appearance of tall buildings. People are entitled to their opinions on these matters, but I think it is extremely selfish and superficial to place these concerns above concerns about housing affordability, economic growth, and environmental sustainability.
Regarding the specific plans under consideration: I don't feel strongly, but I believe the best approach would be to allow clusters of taller buildings (approach 3) similar to what has been done in London, Paris, and Berlin. Identifying the specific areas would be difficult and would require public debate. I believe areas outside the topographic bowl (such as Tenleytown) would be good candidates. Some closer areas, such as Waterfront Station, or Columbia Heights, or along New York Avenue, would also be good candidates.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC, Southwest quadrant (August 13, 2013)
As a DC resident, I think that that it is essential to distinguish between the historic/local DC. DC is a little more than 60 square miles. Most of this is not "historic" in the same sense that the national mall is. There are unique local neighborhoods in DC, but preservation of these neighborhoods. . . is akin to preservation of neighborhoods of similar age and historical value outside of the District. For many from outside of DC, "DC" is only this national image, and outside the historic core, the interests of the local DC economy should trump all else.
To preserve the historic core - the national mall - is imperative. At the same time, to relegate the remainder of DC to height restrictions deprives the metropolitan area, and its residents, of the many benefits derived from urban life. Protectionist measures must always be weighed against the human toll. Each protected street in DC - protection for the few, the rich and the powerful - comes at the expense of commuters who cannot afford access to the urban core that DC offers.
I moved to the DC metropolitan area in the 6th grade, a member of a middle class family who never could have dreamed of living in the downtown core. We lived over an hour outside the city. My father commuted for over 10 hours each week. Now that I am a young attorney in a 2-income marriage (with no children), I can afford to rent an apartment in NW DC - 564 sq. ft. I can walk to work in less than 10 minutes and I believe that - in this respect - I have a very good quality of life.
In renewing my lease, like so many, I had to weigh the cost of increased taxes and the cost of my apartment against the cheaper options in VA. For me, the thumb is on the scale for staying, for now. That said, imagine supporting a family in the DC area. Until we can value people over structures, we will protect existing residents over commercial apartments and other developments that offer more individuals the benefits of dense, urban life, where walkability replaces the costs and environmental toll of a daily commuter existence.
The height restrictions are about the District facing the reality that it is losing potential residents, potential tax dollars and potential human well-being for the sake of existing interests. This is the city that had over 900k residents prior to white flight and the 1968 race riots, and now only has 600k (although growing). The city needs to encourage development and population growth to make DC a model city, with the economic, environmental and social benefits that accrue to urbanites.
Read more
—Evan Coleman, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
To preserve the historic core - the national mall - is imperative. At the same time, to relegate the remainder of DC to height restrictions deprives the metropolitan area, and its residents, of the many benefits derived from urban life. Protectionist measures must always be weighed against the human toll. Each protected street in DC - protection for the few, the rich and the powerful - comes at the expense of commuters who cannot afford access to the urban core that DC offers.
I moved to the DC metropolitan area in the 6th grade, a member of a middle class family who never could have dreamed of living in the downtown core. We lived over an hour outside the city. My father commuted for over 10 hours each week. Now that I am a young attorney in a 2-income marriage (with no children), I can afford to rent an apartment in NW DC - 564 sq. ft. I can walk to work in less than 10 minutes and I believe that - in this respect - I have a very good quality of life.
In renewing my lease, like so many, I had to weigh the cost of increased taxes and the cost of my apartment against the cheaper options in VA. For me, the thumb is on the scale for staying, for now. That said, imagine supporting a family in the DC area. Until we can value people over structures, we will protect existing residents over commercial apartments and other developments that offer more individuals the benefits of dense, urban life, where walkability replaces the costs and environmental toll of a daily commuter existence.
The height restrictions are about the District facing the reality that it is losing potential residents, potential tax dollars and potential human well-being for the sake of existing interests. This is the city that had over 900k residents prior to white flight and the 1968 race riots, and now only has 600k (although growing). The city needs to encourage development and population growth to make DC a model city, with the economic, environmental and social benefits that accrue to urbanites.
Read more
—Evan Coleman, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
I have yet to review the proposal(s) therefore I will
not comment at this time.
I will advise you that I am very uncomfortable with our
D.C. height restriction being challenged.
More as I learn more and seriously thing about the
many aspects of such a proposal.
—natalie marra, Kalorama Triangle (August 13, 2013)
not comment at this time.
I will advise you that I am very uncomfortable with our
D.C. height restriction being challenged.
More as I learn more and seriously thing about the
many aspects of such a proposal.
—natalie marra, Kalorama Triangle (August 13, 2013)
Let's face it, DC is not just another city, and therefore it shouldn't be treated as just another city. Allowing commercial interests to overshadow the government seat just does not seem right to me, not from a design point of view, but from an emotional POV. There is something very stirring about viewing DC from across. . . the river, or from the air, that would be irretrievably lost if you have to search among 10-16 story buildings to find the White House or the monuments. Let Arlington continue it upwards growth, and leave DC alone.
Read more
—Rich Roedner, Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (August 13, 2013)
Read more
—Rich Roedner, Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (August 13, 2013)
1. The full Economic Feasibility Study (“coming soonâ€) never made it online in time for the public to see and comment upon its methodology. But even the information contained in the presentation slides makes it clear that raising heights raises building costs and is economically viable only in areas that already command high rents.. . . So much for the affordability argument.
2. In her public presentation, Harriet Tregoning claimed that DC would be fully built out in 20 years. When asked how she reached that conclusion and where the analysis backing it up could be found, Tregoning was evasive. The Office of Planning doesn’t appear to have done any such study and the claim itself is not credible. DC has a number of large, undeveloped tracts and, even in developed areas, most buildings haven’t been built out to the limits of the zoning code, plus the zoning code itself doesn’t exploit the full envelope available to it under the current Height Act limits. There’s plenty of room to grow. DC government’s push for a relaxation of the Height Act isn't rooted in necessity -- it's more of a vanity project for the government (and a potential windfall for a handful of developers).
3. Tregoning has also repeatedly claimed in these public meetings that changing the Height Act would have no immediate effect on what could be built in DC because it would take a major revision of the zoning code to allow the new limits to take effect. But DC’s zoning code is currently being revised (the full text of the revision is already before the Zoning Commission) and the proposal is to tie building heights in most zones downtown (which would be expanded to include NOMA, SW, the area near the Nats stadium) to Height Act limits, and to allow unlimited FAR within those limits. And no on-site parking would be required in these zones either. I'd hate to see an expanded downtown replicating the pattern seen in so many US cities where a few tall buildings are surrounded by above-ground parking facilities.
The bottom line: DC government has been unable to offer any compelling reason for easing existing height restrictions and it has relied on misrepresentations in what appears to have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to garner support for the project.
Please leave the Height Act as it is.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
2. In her public presentation, Harriet Tregoning claimed that DC would be fully built out in 20 years. When asked how she reached that conclusion and where the analysis backing it up could be found, Tregoning was evasive. The Office of Planning doesn’t appear to have done any such study and the claim itself is not credible. DC has a number of large, undeveloped tracts and, even in developed areas, most buildings haven’t been built out to the limits of the zoning code, plus the zoning code itself doesn’t exploit the full envelope available to it under the current Height Act limits. There’s plenty of room to grow. DC government’s push for a relaxation of the Height Act isn't rooted in necessity -- it's more of a vanity project for the government (and a potential windfall for a handful of developers).
3. Tregoning has also repeatedly claimed in these public meetings that changing the Height Act would have no immediate effect on what could be built in DC because it would take a major revision of the zoning code to allow the new limits to take effect. But DC’s zoning code is currently being revised (the full text of the revision is already before the Zoning Commission) and the proposal is to tie building heights in most zones downtown (which would be expanded to include NOMA, SW, the area near the Nats stadium) to Height Act limits, and to allow unlimited FAR within those limits. And no on-site parking would be required in these zones either. I'd hate to see an expanded downtown replicating the pattern seen in so many US cities where a few tall buildings are surrounded by above-ground parking facilities.
The bottom line: DC government has been unable to offer any compelling reason for easing existing height restrictions and it has relied on misrepresentations in what appears to have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to garner support for the project.
Please leave the Height Act as it is.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
As a native Washingtonian,i always felt that the height restriction, gave the city a rather Drab boring look,plus back in the day the thrill of the city was not trying to look out my window to see the monument or capitol, but to actually go down there.i believe a happy medium would be to keep the. . . mall area as is for the post card pic,expand the fringes up, at least as high as the structures in Baltimore and Richmond giving it a modern 21st century look.Friends of mine who've have visited, have always been intrigued by Rosslyn, and liked the look and feel.
Read more
—Dakarai, Washington, D.C. (August 12, 2013)
Read more
—Dakarai, Washington, D.C. (August 12, 2013)
Rasing the height in L'Enfant city with respects to a max of 200 ft view shed would enable us to grow while maintaining our panoramic views.
—Martin Johnson, Fort Totten, Washington D.C (August 12, 2013)
—Martin Johnson, Fort Totten, Washington D.C (August 12, 2013)
Several comments from the Phase 2 presentation:
1) Approach 1B penthouse occupancy is probably a false option. Penthouse floors of large commercial or residential properties are mostly occupied by elevator over-rides, stairs, and a lot of noisy mechanical equipment - it offers limited area and you would have to extend the elevator shaft to serve. . . it, thereby creating a height increase.
2) I think you should add corridors to the clusters that you have selected for possible height increases. There would seem to be a strong urban design correlation between the avenues of the L'Enfant plan and building height - think of the clear identity of Connecticut Ave. vs the fractured form of some other major avenues. Height increases could be used to reinforce the urban form of the L'Enfant plan.
3) Ultimately I think your study will require a very subjective interpretation of where height could be permitted based on proximity to landmarks, historic sites, avenues, etc. Height per se is not the only issue, it is a question of how it is done and its affect on adjacent properties. That will probably get you into very site specific issues and even some form of design review - similar to what Zoning Board, Historic Pres. Rev. Board, and Fine arts do now. I understand that your study must deal with the broad brush at this point, but any implementation will need to be a lot more refined.
Read more
—W. Etienne, Woodley Park, DC (August 12, 2013)
1) Approach 1B penthouse occupancy is probably a false option. Penthouse floors of large commercial or residential properties are mostly occupied by elevator over-rides, stairs, and a lot of noisy mechanical equipment - it offers limited area and you would have to extend the elevator shaft to serve. . . it, thereby creating a height increase.
2) I think you should add corridors to the clusters that you have selected for possible height increases. There would seem to be a strong urban design correlation between the avenues of the L'Enfant plan and building height - think of the clear identity of Connecticut Ave. vs the fractured form of some other major avenues. Height increases could be used to reinforce the urban form of the L'Enfant plan.
3) Ultimately I think your study will require a very subjective interpretation of where height could be permitted based on proximity to landmarks, historic sites, avenues, etc. Height per se is not the only issue, it is a question of how it is done and its affect on adjacent properties. That will probably get you into very site specific issues and even some form of design review - similar to what Zoning Board, Historic Pres. Rev. Board, and Fine arts do now. I understand that your study must deal with the broad brush at this point, but any implementation will need to be a lot more refined.
Read more
—W. Etienne, Woodley Park, DC (August 12, 2013)
Having looked through the information from the study, I can tell you that my wife and I would vote to approve your resolution if we were at the meeting. Similar to you, we would like to retain the neighborhoods at the density level they are now, and not see them become overdeveloped. Much of. . . what we enjoy about this area (and Washington in general) would be lost if the density of Kalorama is increased further. The high rise buildings in my mind should be kept to certain corridors (like 14th Street), and not allowed to infiltrate the other, more residential, areas.
Read more
—Gary Hoffman, Washington DC (August 12, 2013)
Read more
—Gary Hoffman, Washington DC (August 12, 2013)
DC is a city with a beautiful view, especially from the elevation of SE. Why make the skyline like such as NYC, Houston, Chicago, Hong Kong - all which are just dreadful! I want to see the city when I fly in; I don't want tall buildings hovering over me when I walk downtown and since. . . 9/11, I certainly don't want to live or work in a high rise building. Who in DC proposed this outlandish idea! I've attended 2 meetings and hope this idea is dropped.
Read more
—Mary Buckley, Washington, DC - SE (August 12, 2013)
Read more
—Mary Buckley, Washington, DC - SE (August 12, 2013)
I would like to thank everyone in NCPC for undergoing this study, as well as all those who have voiced their opinions. To start I would like to clarify that none of the models posed by this study will make the DC skyline resemble New York or even Chicago. Chicago's skyline has over 70 buildings. . . over 500Ft. Of which 64 are over 555ft(Washington Monument), 13 over 800 ft. and 5 over 1000ft. including the sears tower at 1451 ft. and the Trump International at 1389 ft. This study only goes to model changes to the height act from 130 ft to 200 in the L'Enfant city and 130-225 in select clusters outside the L'Enfant plan. So evidently even under highest height modeled in this study our buildings would be no where near the heights of Chicago's 64 buildings that tower our monument. In fact our under this scenario the Washington monument is almost 3 times the height of the buildings within the Lefant Plan and 105 ft over twice the height of our buildings in the designated high density areas outside the plan.
I would also like to point out that there are parts of Maryland bordering dc were taller buildings than what is allowed has been built. I am referring in particular to Silver Spring and Friendship Heights were 15-25 story buildings have been built without having changed the character of our skyline. This being so it makes sense to apply this the across the dc md border south of western ave along Wisconsin ave in Friendship Heights and south of eastern ave in the Water Reed area. In doing so we will be promoting economic growth in the city with out changing the character of our skyline.
As for the L'Enfant City I do believe that we need to raise heights within the L'Enfant plan but we can not have a one size fits all approach. Approach 3c of raising the height in strategic areas is more reasonable option. I would suggest to have a general max of 225ft. with view shed analysis of the taken into consideration.
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Cordero, Friendship Heights DC (August 12, 2013)
I would also like to point out that there are parts of Maryland bordering dc were taller buildings than what is allowed has been built. I am referring in particular to Silver Spring and Friendship Heights were 15-25 story buildings have been built without having changed the character of our skyline. This being so it makes sense to apply this the across the dc md border south of western ave along Wisconsin ave in Friendship Heights and south of eastern ave in the Water Reed area. In doing so we will be promoting economic growth in the city with out changing the character of our skyline.
As for the L'Enfant City I do believe that we need to raise heights within the L'Enfant plan but we can not have a one size fits all approach. Approach 3c of raising the height in strategic areas is more reasonable option. I would suggest to have a general max of 225ft. with view shed analysis of the taken into consideration.
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Cordero, Friendship Heights DC (August 12, 2013)
I attended the Phase II meeting at Catholic University, appreciate NCPC and DCOP's efforts to study this question exhaustively.
I believe some version of 3C, Illustrative Clusters, has the most promise as reason to consider legislative change.
I found it valuable to understand that Zoning/Master Planning limitations are in. . . most places more restrictive than the Congressional limitations on height. So if desired, many changes could be made without any Congressional intervention. NCPC/DCOP should only recommend legislative changes if there are planning goals they want to achieve, that they are unable to achieve within the existing Federal legislation.
As was noted at the briefing, the current height limits have served the city well by encouraging development in areas like NoMA and Mt Vernon Triangle that might not otherwise be considered. This spreads economic benefits over a larger area of the city.
If clusters were established at certain transit-friendly locations (Option 3C), to encourage further development outside the L'Enfant plan, it seems like it would minimize risk to horizontality, views, and light/airy aspects of DC, while continuing the economic and population growth trend the District appears to be on. Either the legislation or accompanying planning guidance should include:
1. No "by-rights" development in the clusters; would require approval of any proposed construction. This would ensure new structures are architecturally attractive and consistent with planning principles.
2. Developers in the clusters should (as noted in the meeting) be expected to contribute to utility/infrastructure/transportation upgrades required to support the developments, and also perhaps other amenities as appropriate (parks etc)
3. There would have to be Sector plans for the clusters, so that NCPC/DCOP could provide clear planning guidance up front for developers.
4. The clusters considered should be outside the L'Enfant plan. Preservation of the character and identity of this portion of DC is too important to take risks with it; regardless with existing height limitations the NCPC/DCOP have shown they are committed to preserving it.
As for the legislation, selection of the clusters may require some additional reporting to Congress. Recommend against including locations in the legislation, instead there would be authority to establish, with approval, x number of clusters. This will be the most difficult aspect.
As noted in my point #4 above, it seems like any legislation that affects the L'Enfant plan is not particularly needed or useful. The pictures of Pennsylvania Avenue SE looking towards the Capital highlight the risk of allowing increased heights on the geographic bowl (3B): that the vistas created by the topography are marred.
Summary: if there is any need to adjust existing legislation, 3C would be the best option of those presented.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (August 11, 2013)
I believe some version of 3C, Illustrative Clusters, has the most promise as reason to consider legislative change.
I found it valuable to understand that Zoning/Master Planning limitations are in. . . most places more restrictive than the Congressional limitations on height. So if desired, many changes could be made without any Congressional intervention. NCPC/DCOP should only recommend legislative changes if there are planning goals they want to achieve, that they are unable to achieve within the existing Federal legislation.
As was noted at the briefing, the current height limits have served the city well by encouraging development in areas like NoMA and Mt Vernon Triangle that might not otherwise be considered. This spreads economic benefits over a larger area of the city.
If clusters were established at certain transit-friendly locations (Option 3C), to encourage further development outside the L'Enfant plan, it seems like it would minimize risk to horizontality, views, and light/airy aspects of DC, while continuing the economic and population growth trend the District appears to be on. Either the legislation or accompanying planning guidance should include:
1. No "by-rights" development in the clusters; would require approval of any proposed construction. This would ensure new structures are architecturally attractive and consistent with planning principles.
2. Developers in the clusters should (as noted in the meeting) be expected to contribute to utility/infrastructure/transportation upgrades required to support the developments, and also perhaps other amenities as appropriate (parks etc)
3. There would have to be Sector plans for the clusters, so that NCPC/DCOP could provide clear planning guidance up front for developers.
4. The clusters considered should be outside the L'Enfant plan. Preservation of the character and identity of this portion of DC is too important to take risks with it; regardless with existing height limitations the NCPC/DCOP have shown they are committed to preserving it.
As for the legislation, selection of the clusters may require some additional reporting to Congress. Recommend against including locations in the legislation, instead there would be authority to establish, with approval, x number of clusters. This will be the most difficult aspect.
As noted in my point #4 above, it seems like any legislation that affects the L'Enfant plan is not particularly needed or useful. The pictures of Pennsylvania Avenue SE looking towards the Capital highlight the risk of allowing increased heights on the geographic bowl (3B): that the vistas created by the topography are marred.
Summary: if there is any need to adjust existing legislation, 3C would be the best option of those presented.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (August 11, 2013)
Can it be in a zone, like Philadelphia?
—Michael Hirsch, |Newtown, PA (August 10, 2013)
—Michael Hirsch, |Newtown, PA (August 10, 2013)
I agree with Royce that it depends on the overall vision of DC. I'm not familiar with DC planning principles, goals or visions related to planning, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. In a general sense, allowing for taller or high rise buildings can both have negative and positive effects. If DC is. . . continually growing, building up, not out, is a good way to alleviate too much sprawl. I would be more concerned with how high rises (or taller building) could affect social class distribution. Typically, and I would assume, taller buildings (ie. apartments, condos) would cater to the wealthier portion of the DC population and, as such, could gentrify certain areas or push out the "middle class." Assuming there would be zones allowing taller buildings, there's the potential that those would be the areas that could draw higher classes of people which may segregate areas of the city that otherwise may not have been. For example, in San Francisco, most high rise residential buildings are out of reach for the 99 percenters and as a result there's social separation in those neighborhoods. Then, there's the safety issue. Would police and fire protection services be able to accommodate taller buildings? Would emergency staff need to be trained to perform high rise emergency services for example. It might be worth investing in various photo simulations in different areas that would be suitable for taller buildings and make determinations from there.
Read more
—Ricky Caperton, San Francisco, CA (August 10, 2013)
Read more
—Ricky Caperton, San Francisco, CA (August 10, 2013)
It depends on the vision for DC, its growth management strategy and whether a balance can be struck. Maybe DC already has this but perhaps the preservation of view corridors to buildings of interest from strategic locations can help dictate height maximums. This would allow other areas to infill more economically (read: higher). Ottawa and Vancouver. . . use view sheds to preserve points of interest rather than a absolute max height everywhere approach.
Read more
—Royce Fu, Ottawa, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Read more
—Royce Fu, Ottawa, Canada (August 09, 2013)
The highest building in Cologne is in North City, and following is the Date of the Building.
Ort: Neustadt-Nord, Köln
Bauzeit: 01.06.1999–21.11.2001
Eröffnung: 21. November 2001
Status: fertiggestellt
Architekten: Jean Nouvel, Paris
Kohl & Kohl Architekten, Essen
Nutzung/Rechtliches
Nutzung:. . . Bürogebäude, Restaurants, Konferenzräume, Radiostation
Hauptmieter: DekaBank
Bauherr: Hypothekenbank, Essen
Technische Daten
Höhe: 148,1[1] m
Höhe bis zur Spitze: 165,5[2] m
Etagen: 43
Aufzüge: 6 Stück (3x à 5 m/s, 3x à 6 m/s) mit Schindler Zielrufsteuerung
Geschossfläche: 36.430 m²
Umbauter Raum: 131.700 m³
Baustoff: Stahlbeton, Stahl, Glas
Konstruktion: Rahmenkonstruktion
Höhenvergleich
Köln: 1. (Liste)
Deutschland: 14. (Liste)
Anschrift
Stadt: Köln
Land: Deutschland
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Koelnturm_20050129.jpg/245px-Koelnturm_20050129.jpg
Read more
—Salah S., Cologne, Germany (August 09, 2013)
Ort: Neustadt-Nord, Köln
Bauzeit: 01.06.1999–21.11.2001
Eröffnung: 21. November 2001
Status: fertiggestellt
Architekten: Jean Nouvel, Paris
Kohl & Kohl Architekten, Essen
Nutzung/Rechtliches
Nutzung:. . . Bürogebäude, Restaurants, Konferenzräume, Radiostation
Hauptmieter: DekaBank
Bauherr: Hypothekenbank, Essen
Technische Daten
Höhe: 148,1[1] m
Höhe bis zur Spitze: 165,5[2] m
Etagen: 43
Aufzüge: 6 Stück (3x à 5 m/s, 3x à 6 m/s) mit Schindler Zielrufsteuerung
Geschossfläche: 36.430 m²
Umbauter Raum: 131.700 m³
Baustoff: Stahlbeton, Stahl, Glas
Konstruktion: Rahmenkonstruktion
Höhenvergleich
Köln: 1. (Liste)
Deutschland: 14. (Liste)
Anschrift
Stadt: Köln
Land: Deutschland
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Koelnturm_20050129.jpg/245px-Koelnturm_20050129.jpg
Read more
—Salah S., Cologne, Germany (August 09, 2013)
The skyline is all about a city's image; it is a modern American-led preoccupation based on image; it has nothing to do with the quality of urban environments. The greatest cities often have the most unimpressive skylines. It's what goes on at street level that matters (eye-level architectural qualities, availability and quality of public space, lively. . . and animated streets, etc).
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtedly be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtedly be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Ecologically speaking, tall buildings, and especially high-rises, are not the best choice. In an age where we have become conscious of our ecological footprint, skyscrapers are no longer a justifiable urban investment. If the argument for tall buildings comes from a desire to densify, then one should look more closely and learn from examples such as. . . Paris, Montreal, Brooklyn, where high densities and livable communities are created without high towers. If however, tall buildings are to be built, one can look to Vancouver for optimal design for height and human-scale streetscapes.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
The height limits should stay the same. They make DC unique, keeps tall building from looming over people on the streets, keeps sight lines clear, has symbolic value in terms of democratic respect for the nation's iconic governmental buildings, puts pressure on architects to do a better job rather than just build tall, and keeps DC. . . from being subject to the "tallest building" competition.
Read more
—Marc Brenman, Seattle, WA (August 09, 2013)
Read more
—Marc Brenman, Seattle, WA (August 09, 2013)
Well, based on the existing Height of Buildings Act and the presentation, which is quite informative, I have the following thought:
Residential Streets:
Width of street = Building height
Maximum height = 100'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20% of max height with min 10' setback
. . . Commercial Streets
Width of street = Building height + 20'
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 40' max with min 10' setback
Pennsylvania Ave
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20' max with min 20' setback
Read more
—Mitchell Austin, AICP, Punta Gorda, Florida (August 09, 2013)
Residential Streets:
Width of street = Building height
Maximum height = 100'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20% of max height with min 10' setback
. . . Commercial Streets
Width of street = Building height + 20'
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 40' max with min 10' setback
Pennsylvania Ave
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20' max with min 20' setback
Read more
—Mitchell Austin, AICP, Punta Gorda, Florida (August 09, 2013)
Three comments:
1) Raising building heights may interfere with some segments of the city’s wireless infrastructure for fire/life/rescue services and telecommunications. The topographic bowl allows microwave based communication links to crisscross the city between hospitals, fire stations, police stations, downtown, and other communication nodes. Taller buildings that block the visibility of these nodes would have. . . costly impacts for either building tall-unsightly radio towers or acquiring new communication sights to re-route communications around any future obstructing building. Also, as urban canyons get deeper, there may be impacts to police and ambulance vehicle radios at street level, not to mention GPS. This is not to discourage taller buildings in general, but just to remind stakeholders that the space above some narrow point-to-point routes across the city is already heavily used today by the city and supporting federal entities.
2) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for mechanical penthouse sizes from a direct ratio (of 1:1 height to set back distance) to a building code permitting buildable space from the building face back at 45 degrees up to a height not exceeding the current limit of 18 feet. Such a building code change would permit more buildable volume without any additional visible impact at street level. This concept could apply to either mechanical spaces and/or potential future habitable spaces on the roof level. It would also provide leeway for owners of existing buildings to add roof-top accommodations (within the 45 degree envelop) to support roof-level enjoyment areas.
3) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for building heights to provide a waiver application process for small architecturally enhancing adornments and corner finials to be excluded from the measured building height. This would permit existing and future buildings to fully utilize their available building envelope without being forced to omit the type of architectural embellishments that are prevalent on historic structures and in architecturally rich neighborhoods.
Read more
—James Stevens, Alexandria, VA (August 09, 2013)
1) Raising building heights may interfere with some segments of the city’s wireless infrastructure for fire/life/rescue services and telecommunications. The topographic bowl allows microwave based communication links to crisscross the city between hospitals, fire stations, police stations, downtown, and other communication nodes. Taller buildings that block the visibility of these nodes would have. . . costly impacts for either building tall-unsightly radio towers or acquiring new communication sights to re-route communications around any future obstructing building. Also, as urban canyons get deeper, there may be impacts to police and ambulance vehicle radios at street level, not to mention GPS. This is not to discourage taller buildings in general, but just to remind stakeholders that the space above some narrow point-to-point routes across the city is already heavily used today by the city and supporting federal entities.
2) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for mechanical penthouse sizes from a direct ratio (of 1:1 height to set back distance) to a building code permitting buildable space from the building face back at 45 degrees up to a height not exceeding the current limit of 18 feet. Such a building code change would permit more buildable volume without any additional visible impact at street level. This concept could apply to either mechanical spaces and/or potential future habitable spaces on the roof level. It would also provide leeway for owners of existing buildings to add roof-top accommodations (within the 45 degree envelop) to support roof-level enjoyment areas.
3) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for building heights to provide a waiver application process for small architecturally enhancing adornments and corner finials to be excluded from the measured building height. This would permit existing and future buildings to fully utilize their available building envelope without being forced to omit the type of architectural embellishments that are prevalent on historic structures and in architecturally rich neighborhoods.
Read more
—James Stevens, Alexandria, VA (August 09, 2013)
The low skyline contributes to the overall attractiveness of D.C.
Out of town visitors always comment on the openness of the city and how it adds to the experience.
There is more than enough undeveloped property in the District for economic growth especially in the northeast and southeast part of the city where development. . . would revitalize the neighborhoods
Read more
—chet hepburn, arlington,va (August 09, 2013)
Out of town visitors always comment on the openness of the city and how it adds to the experience.
There is more than enough undeveloped property in the District for economic growth especially in the northeast and southeast part of the city where development. . . would revitalize the neighborhoods
Read more
—chet hepburn, arlington,va (August 09, 2013)
The skyline is all about a city's image; it is a modern American-led preoccupation based on image; it has nothing to do with the quality of urban environements. The greatest cities often have the most unimpressive skylines. It's what goes on at street level that matters (eye-level archetectural qualities, availability and quality of public space, lively. . . and animated streets, etc).
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtely be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montréal, CA (August 09, 2013)
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtely be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montréal, CA (August 09, 2013)
I don't think the height restrictions should be eased. First, it's very important to maintain the "view" which here is of our Nation's most symbolically important buildings. Second, there's already maybe too much congestion of people and vehicles on the ground level, especially outside. More is worse. Third, lower buildings are safer in emergencies. I'm sure. . . I agree heartily with many other people who've already said essentially the same things.
Read more
—Jean SmilingCoyote, Chicago, Illinois (August 08, 2013)
Read more
—Jean SmilingCoyote, Chicago, Illinois (August 08, 2013)
I attended the Phase Two meeting last evening (August 7, 2013) at the Mt. Pleasant library. Thank you for your thorough presentation! As a licensed Washington, DC tour guide, I especially love that so many more people will understand the true origin of the The Height Act! Maybe some day we can finally bury the myth. . . about the Washington Monument and/or the U.S. Capitol building being the catalyst for it. Thomas Franklin Schneider wanted to leave his mark on DC and he surely did with his Cairo building.
I am inclined to support your Approach 3, 3 C to be exact. I think raising the height limit in illustrative clusters in the city would be the most beneficial to both federal and local interests. I would enjoy seeing more varied architecture in the city. I would also love to see a surplus of housing options; being a person of lesser means, so to speak, I would like to be able to find a decent one bedroom apartment and not have to spend half my paycheck from my non profit job on rent. I am faced with moving out of my beloved Mt Pleasant due to sky rocketing home prices and am just devastated. I do not want to move out to the suburbs as I adore living in the District and walking pretty much everywhere. I definitely support the protecting of viewsheds around our more iconic structures so care should be taken to limit building heights within several blocks of the Capitol, the Cathedral, and the memorials. I support view corridors much like they have in Austin, TX around their capital building. Good luck with the study!
Read more
—Amy Kunz, Washington, DC (August 08, 2013)
I am inclined to support your Approach 3, 3 C to be exact. I think raising the height limit in illustrative clusters in the city would be the most beneficial to both federal and local interests. I would enjoy seeing more varied architecture in the city. I would also love to see a surplus of housing options; being a person of lesser means, so to speak, I would like to be able to find a decent one bedroom apartment and not have to spend half my paycheck from my non profit job on rent. I am faced with moving out of my beloved Mt Pleasant due to sky rocketing home prices and am just devastated. I do not want to move out to the suburbs as I adore living in the District and walking pretty much everywhere. I definitely support the protecting of viewsheds around our more iconic structures so care should be taken to limit building heights within several blocks of the Capitol, the Cathedral, and the memorials. I support view corridors much like they have in Austin, TX around their capital building. Good luck with the study!
Read more
—Amy Kunz, Washington, DC (August 08, 2013)
Ecologically speaking, tall buildings, and especially highrises, are not the best choice. In an age where we have become concious of our ecological footprint, skyscrapers are no longer a justifiable urban investment. If the argument for tall buildings comes from a desire to densify, then one should look more closely and learn from examples such as. . . Paris, Montreal, Brooklyn, where high densities and livable communities are created without high towers. If however, tall buildings are to be built, one can look to Vancouver for optimal design reconciliating height and human-scale streetscapes.
Read more
—Julia, Montreal, CA (August 08, 2013)
Read more
—Julia, Montreal, CA (August 08, 2013)
I find these planning ideas strange. So is the luxury condo / high-rise office real estate market so important as to ignore how drastic this affects the core of our Nation's Capital? Is the real estate development push so important to serve as to ignore the fact that more and more people will want to. . . work in these taller buildings and will be coming by way of car, bus, and metro meaning more congestion, broken trains, and longer bus lines while these transporation services are usually on the budget cutting room floor? What about the infrastructure -- water pipes that are more than a century old used to pumping at normal levels now being required to pump even more water to higher altitudes -- won't they burst and who pays the emergency repairs? What about sun and sky -- aren't this important economical factors in developing a City? Why not more analysis of bigger buildings at the fringes of DC, why upset the monument core? This unsupported idea creates more questions than what it may deliver.
Read more
—Chris Otten, Adams Morgan (August 07, 2013)
Read more
—Chris Otten, Adams Morgan (August 07, 2013)
I vehemently object to an increase in DC height limits. The fact that DC is exceptionally charming, bright, cheerful, livable and attractive to foreign visitors and residents alike is precisely due to the height limitations act. Please do not ruin our national heritage. There are already enough dark and dingy centers of pollution and congestion in. . . this country. DC is unique and the will of the people indicates that it should be kept that way.
Read more
—cecily kohler, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
Read more
—cecily kohler, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
Washington is a uniquely beautiful city. The lower building heights show off our iconic monuments and give them breathing room. It would be a shame to allow it to become just-another-city, USA.
—Jean Houghton, Southwest DC (August 06, 2013)
—Jean Houghton, Southwest DC (August 06, 2013)
No height increase.
—Megan, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
—Megan, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
My wife Joy, and I understand that Congress has asked the National Capitol Planning Commission to take a re-look at the 1910 Height of Building Act. This worries me enormously. I was thirteen years old when I first visited Washington DC as one of about 25,000 Boy Scouts attending the First National Jamboree. . . . One of the most lasting memories was that wonderful feeling of openness and straight-away views of that most impressive city, our nation's Capitol. Since that time I have visited or worked in Washington DC at least a hundred times: from 1946 as a university undergrad doing research, introducing small sons to its historic and architectural glory, and will at the close of my 89th year, as a surviving WWII combat trooper of the 10th Mountain Division, attend the Oct 11-14th National Reunion of the 10th.
Our Capitol's preservation from the terrible damage which will occur, should the 1910 law be relaxed, is so important to not only those of us now alive but to all of our children and grandchildren. I know that development projects are needed but those needs can be fully met just over the line in Virginia and Maryland. In fact those areas would welcome new buildings. Please act on behalf of ALL of us to preserve the wonderful openness of our National Capitol - and receive the gratitude of this old wartime soldier and patriot.
Read more
—Robert E. Jones, Colorado Springs, CO (August 06, 2013)
Our Capitol's preservation from the terrible damage which will occur, should the 1910 law be relaxed, is so important to not only those of us now alive but to all of our children and grandchildren. I know that development projects are needed but those needs can be fully met just over the line in Virginia and Maryland. In fact those areas would welcome new buildings. Please act on behalf of ALL of us to preserve the wonderful openness of our National Capitol - and receive the gratitude of this old wartime soldier and patriot.
Read more
—Robert E. Jones, Colorado Springs, CO (August 06, 2013)
The Height Act has rendered the city of Washington into a prosperous and vibrant city over the last 100+ years. There remain under served areas of the city where investment and development could provide affordable housing.
My vote is Approach 1 No height increase -- maintain existing height, that is 1A.
—Juliet G. Six, President Tenelytown Neighbors Association, Washington, DC (August 05, 2013)
My vote is Approach 1 No height increase -- maintain existing height, that is 1A.
—Juliet G. Six, President Tenelytown Neighbors Association, Washington, DC (August 05, 2013)
The only reason that cost per SF for residential construction seems to decrease when heights go above 200' is that the Ec Feasibility Study has assumed that garage size will be held constant even as height (SF/# of units) increases.
Take parking out of the equation entirely (or scale it to reflecting increases. . . in SF) and cost per SF increases with height -- and the increase is significantly more than the chart on the fourth page of the Ec Feasibility Presentation pdf indicates. Using the consultants' numbers, raising building heights from 130' to 250' would raise the construction costs of office space by $15/SF and the construction cost of residential space by $14/SF.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Friendship Heights (DC) (August 05, 2013)
Take parking out of the equation entirely (or scale it to reflecting increases. . . in SF) and cost per SF increases with height -- and the increase is significantly more than the chart on the fourth page of the Ec Feasibility Presentation pdf indicates. Using the consultants' numbers, raising building heights from 130' to 250' would raise the construction costs of office space by $15/SF and the construction cost of residential space by $14/SF.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Friendship Heights (DC) (August 05, 2013)
Suggestions are obviously tied to developments already contemplated - Walter Reed, Union Market, Soldiers Home, etc. Better to address individually than change the whole skyline so that developers have carte blanche. This is not planning, it is ceding to greed.
Why not look at raising the height limit in the third alphabet/ higher numbered streets,. . . all around - those would be some views, and let the sun shine in the city still. De-centralize worksites, traffic congestion, shorten commutes. Should not transit oriented development also have office/work space?
Read more
—Elizabeth McIntire, Washington, DC 20010 (August 04, 2013)
Why not look at raising the height limit in the third alphabet/ higher numbered streets,. . . all around - those would be some views, and let the sun shine in the city still. De-centralize worksites, traffic congestion, shorten commutes. Should not transit oriented development also have office/work space?
Read more
—Elizabeth McIntire, Washington, DC 20010 (August 04, 2013)
Thank you for the presentation.
My immediate concern is that the presentation does not show how the view from the George Washington Memorial Highway will be affected. The George Washington Memorial Highway frames the view of Washington for millions of drivers approaching the city. The George Washington Memorial Highway commemorates the nation’s first president,. . . it preserves a natural setting, and it provides a scenic entryway for visitors to the nation's capital. The proposed height changes will affect the current view that is enjoyed by all who drive on the George Washington Memorial Highway. Therefore, the presentation should include the effects on the view shed as seen from the George Washington Memorial Highway.
Poul Hertel
PS. Also include the effects on the LBJ memorial views. The memorial marks the spot where the former president would stop to look at Washington D.C. before driving home to Texas with his wife.
Read more
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria va 22314 (August 03, 2013)
My immediate concern is that the presentation does not show how the view from the George Washington Memorial Highway will be affected. The George Washington Memorial Highway frames the view of Washington for millions of drivers approaching the city. The George Washington Memorial Highway commemorates the nation’s first president,. . . it preserves a natural setting, and it provides a scenic entryway for visitors to the nation's capital. The proposed height changes will affect the current view that is enjoyed by all who drive on the George Washington Memorial Highway. Therefore, the presentation should include the effects on the view shed as seen from the George Washington Memorial Highway.
Poul Hertel
PS. Also include the effects on the LBJ memorial views. The memorial marks the spot where the former president would stop to look at Washington D.C. before driving home to Texas with his wife.
Read more
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria va 22314 (August 03, 2013)
DC is my second home and although I am a lover of modern skyscrapers, I do NOT want to see them in the nation's capitol. The beauty of the nation's architecture would be overwhelmed by the introduction of taller buildings.
Keep the height restrictions as they are. The people of this country want. . . the emphasis to be on the beauty and elegance of the original buildings. It makes the city unique and stunning.
Susan Kossiakoff
Susan Kossiakoff
Read more
—Susan Kossiakoff, Chicago, IL (August 03, 2013)
Keep the height restrictions as they are. The people of this country want. . . the emphasis to be on the beauty and elegance of the original buildings. It makes the city unique and stunning.
Susan Kossiakoff
Susan Kossiakoff
Read more
—Susan Kossiakoff, Chicago, IL (August 03, 2013)
I'm all for increasing the heights in D.C.
For any city to thrive it must grow it's population.
More people equates to more jobs and a more more diversified economy.
An increased population leads to more demand for housing. To make it reasonably affordable we must add housing units.
Going higher is. . . more efficient by doing more with what we already have. It's a great sustainable practice!
Changing technologies leads to changing space needs.
Lifting the height restrictions will make the city stronger in the future.
Read more
—Robert Tack, Tenleytown DC (August 03, 2013)
For any city to thrive it must grow it's population.
More people equates to more jobs and a more more diversified economy.
An increased population leads to more demand for housing. To make it reasonably affordable we must add housing units.
Going higher is. . . more efficient by doing more with what we already have. It's a great sustainable practice!
Changing technologies leads to changing space needs.
Lifting the height restrictions will make the city stronger in the future.
Read more
—Robert Tack, Tenleytown DC (August 03, 2013)
The Tenleytown session is timed so that the loudest critics of raising the heights limit are out of town on vacation. Doesn't inspite confidence in the process.
—Peter Gosselin , Chevy Chase D.C. (August 02, 2013)
—Peter Gosselin , Chevy Chase D.C. (August 02, 2013)
We recently bought at apartment in D.C. as a "second"home, and have often commented on how refreshing a contrast it offers to NYC. Its light, its air, its wonderful, old trees, its lack of congestion. As the capital, this is a city that should reflect a nation's values concerning the quality of life of. . . its urban dwellers. Increased building height may be the simplest and most obvious solution to the problem being addressed, but it is hardly creative or forward-looking or even thoughtful. Surely we deserve better; surely we can avoid repeating the disastrous errors of past city "planning."
Read more
—Marcia Welles, New York City and Washington D.C. (August 01, 2013)
Read more
—Marcia Welles, New York City and Washington D.C. (August 01, 2013)
I believe my submission may not have gone through. Thus I am repeating that I believe new height limits to be a poor idea for a unique city - a city whose current empty and underused spaces and buildings have yet to be addressed adequately before I accept that there is some sort of lack. . . of space.
Read more
—carol c ross, Washington DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
Read more
—carol c ross, Washington DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
What a rotten idea! I wish more attention would be paid to the imaginative renovation and development of areas and buildings that are currently vacant or underused. When that space is finally utilized using current height restrictions, then that would be the time to consider new needs.
—Carol C. Ross, Washington, DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
—Carol C. Ross, Washington, DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
I do not think the DC height limit question is a purely local issue.
The entire nation would be affected by the damage done in relaxing the height limit restrictions, as its capital city would be irrevocably marred. I would think the entire nation would be interested in preserving the architectural integrity of. . . the nation's capital.
There is plenty of room just over the line in MD and VA for tall buildings. And there is zoning for them.
Do US citizens really want their leading city to be compromised, with the national monuments and the capitol building smothered and dwarfed by high-rise development projects?
I think it would be a shame for our nation's capital city to be permanently visually compromised just so a few people can enjoy a short-term gain.
I would think members of congress would also want the city's structural heritage preserved.
Read more
—Susan Lowell, washington, dc (July 30, 2013)
The entire nation would be affected by the damage done in relaxing the height limit restrictions, as its capital city would be irrevocably marred. I would think the entire nation would be interested in preserving the architectural integrity of. . . the nation's capital.
There is plenty of room just over the line in MD and VA for tall buildings. And there is zoning for them.
Do US citizens really want their leading city to be compromised, with the national monuments and the capitol building smothered and dwarfed by high-rise development projects?
I think it would be a shame for our nation's capital city to be permanently visually compromised just so a few people can enjoy a short-term gain.
I would think members of congress would also want the city's structural heritage preserved.
Read more
—Susan Lowell, washington, dc (July 30, 2013)
That height limits impact affordability of all uses, great that the District is exploring options. Good luck with your all's efforts.
—David Cristeal, Arlington (July 30, 2013)
—David Cristeal, Arlington (July 30, 2013)
The heighth limit should not be changed as there is no benefit to the city just the developers who want to make more money selling a larger office building or condo. If you raise the heighth limit DC could look and feel like NY with buildings blocking out the sun and creating caverns of windy. . . and dark streets. If you raise the limit even a small amount developers will use this as an opening to get more for there greedy selves. This does not benefit those living and working in the city. It could block the monuments that make DC the capitol and a special city. The focus would be on office buildings and that is simply the wrong direction. Use existing land to its max and try to improve current space with something attractive.
Read more
—Roberta Carroll, Washington, DC (July 30, 2013)
Read more
—Roberta Carroll, Washington, DC (July 30, 2013)
As a longtime District residents, I believe updating the height limits are in order to continue to allow for robust growth especially around transit. In order to protect historic viewsheds, some reasonable buffers (about half a mile) around the Capitol, White House, and The Mall could be put in place where the height limit will. . . remain unchanged. Raising the height limit will all for more jobs, residents, and encourage distinctive world class architecture.
Read more
—Alan Budde, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
Read more
—Alan Budde, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
I think heights in DC should not be raised. The lower height limit (compared to other metropolitan areas) preserves a feeling of openness that is consistent with the natural beauty of the mall, Rock Creek Park, etc. If someone wants to live in a denser area, they can move to New York or Boston.. . .
I also think the schedule for public meetings during the summer is unacceptable. Many citizens take vacations during the summer and so are not able to attend (I am one). These presentations need to be repeated at either ANC or Citizen Association meetings during the school year to provide opportunity for citizens to be there.
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
I also think the schedule for public meetings during the summer is unacceptable. Many citizens take vacations during the summer and so are not able to attend (I am one). These presentations need to be repeated at either ANC or Citizen Association meetings during the school year to provide opportunity for citizens to be there.
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
Phase 1 Comments
Showing 353 of 353 total comments submitted
Please do not reverse the current approach. This is a deadly crossing. If you reverse the approach someone else will be killed in the future.
—James Tauber, Rockville (March 28, 2024)
—James Tauber, Rockville (March 28, 2024)
Several places throughout have "Covid-19" versus "COVID-19".
—Jarrod Kuriger, Springfield, VA (January 11, 2024)
—Jarrod Kuriger, Springfield, VA (January 11, 2024)
Dear Ms. Free, . . .
My name is Brian Cipperly and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a resident of Ward 6 in the District, I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open-ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall, and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen loopholes like this get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy prioritizes trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Brian Cipperly
bcgobraves@gmail.com
Read more
—Brian Cipperly, Washington DC (September 15, 2020)
My name is Brian Cipperly and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a resident of Ward 6 in the District, I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open-ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall, and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen loopholes like this get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy prioritizes trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Brian Cipperly
bcgobraves@gmail.com
Read more
—Brian Cipperly, Washington DC (September 15, 2020)
Dear Ms. Free, . . .
My name is Kathy Jacquart and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a resident of Brookland, I enjoy the wonderful tree-lined streets of my neighborhood. I also know how important it is to protect trees as Brookland recently has experienced development that in some cases has led to the removal of trees that have not been replaced.
I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Kathy Jacquart
jacquartke@gmail.com
Read more
—Kathy Jacquart, Washington D.C. (September 15, 2020)
My name is Kathy Jacquart and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a resident of Brookland, I enjoy the wonderful tree-lined streets of my neighborhood. I also know how important it is to protect trees as Brookland recently has experienced development that in some cases has led to the removal of trees that have not been replaced.
I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Kathy Jacquart
jacquartke@gmail.com
Read more
—Kathy Jacquart, Washington D.C. (September 15, 2020)
Dear Ms. Free, . . .
My name is Raymond Nuesch and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Raymond Nuesch
renuesch@hotmail.com
Read more
—Raymond Nuesch, Washington DC (September 15, 2020)
My name is Raymond Nuesch and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Raymond Nuesch
renuesch@hotmail.com
Read more
—Raymond Nuesch, Washington DC (September 15, 2020)
Dear Ms. Free, . . .
My name is Helen Schietinger and as a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate I work to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. The Casey Trees mission includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a resident of NW Washington DC, I know how vital the tree canopy is for the health and wellbeing of my city. There is no good alternative for a tree, which is part of the lungs of our city: grass, green roofs, vines on fences are all fine, but they do not provide shade, hold large amounts of water in the ground, consume large amounts of carbon dioxide while releasing oxygen into the air.
I urge you to close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Helen Schietinger
h.schietinger@verizon.net
Read more
—Helen Schietinger, Washington DC (September 15, 2020)
My name is Helen Schietinger and as a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate I work to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. The Casey Trees mission includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a resident of NW Washington DC, I know how vital the tree canopy is for the health and wellbeing of my city. There is no good alternative for a tree, which is part of the lungs of our city: grass, green roofs, vines on fences are all fine, but they do not provide shade, hold large amounts of water in the ground, consume large amounts of carbon dioxide while releasing oxygen into the air.
I urge you to close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Helen Schietinger
h.schietinger@verizon.net
Read more
—Helen Schietinger, Washington DC (September 15, 2020)
Dear Ms. Free, . . .
My name is Kristin Taddei and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land. As a resident of Washington, D.C., which is known for its many beautiful trees, I experience the numerous benefits of trees on a daily basis. Perhaps most important are the many unseen benefits trees offer during times like these, when community health, mental well-being, and access to shady green spaces are so important.
I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Kristin Taddei
Kristin.taddei@gmail.com
Read more
—Kristin Taddei, Washington, DC (September 15, 2020)
My name is Kristin Taddei and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land. As a resident of Washington, D.C., which is known for its many beautiful trees, I experience the numerous benefits of trees on a daily basis. Perhaps most important are the many unseen benefits trees offer during times like these, when community health, mental well-being, and access to shady green spaces are so important.
I am writing to you today to ask that you close the open ended exception to the proposed federal tree replacement policy. The trees in D.C. and its surrounding areas are iconic. People travel from around the world to see the cherry blossoms at the Tidal Basin, the elms that line the National Mall and the cypress at Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. Our trees clean our air, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life. While there are many parts of the updated policy that we appreciate, like the addition of a tree replacement ratio and the new emphasis on preservation, I am concerned that the language in section FE.G.2.6 allows developers to use green building techniques instead of replacing the trees they removed. I can appreciate that in some cases, there really is no alternative and this section allows for flexibility within development plans. But, we at Casey Trees have seen flexibilities like this that exist in District policy get taken advantage of and we want to ensure the policy priorities trees on federal land. Therefore, we recommend you amend section FE.G.2.6 to read as follows:
If none of the provisions in the above sections can be met, developers may offset the balance of replacement tree(s) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide equal environmental benefits to those of the removed canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, air pollution mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Identification and implementation of these offsets should be done using vegetative elements from Washington, D.C.’s Green Area Ratio. This includes all elements except those relating to:
- Vegetated roofs,
- Permeable paving, and
- Renewable energy generation.
We also recommend adding a new FE.G section that would require the developer to work with the local government’s forestry agency during the design and development process
We urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Kristin Taddei
Kristin.taddei@gmail.com
Read more
—Kristin Taddei, Washington, DC (September 15, 2020)
Dear Ms. Free, . . .
My name is Vincent Verweij and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a Washington, D.C. resident, many of the projects happening in my city are impacted by these regulations. I appreciate the work done to strengthen these regulations. Our trees clean our air, provide critical wildlife habitat, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life.
With many tree replacement regulations, they often focus significantly on the replacement component. I believe their need to be situations defined in the Federal Tree Replacement regulation in which all possible considerations are taken to protect the existing trees. Some ecosystems are irreplaceable. I suggest that any development on sites with old growth forests (as defined by the U.S. Forest Service) and/or with significant ecosystems, such as those defined as “rare highly” through “critically significant” in the D.C. State Wildlife Action Plan, be in compliance with all federal, state and local environmental and development regulations and restrictions. Preventing damage to these remnant spots of high biodiversity will become harder and harder over time. I look to the National Capital Planning Commission to look forward and conserve the resources we still have.
I urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees and valuable ecosystems on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Vincent Verweij
v.w.verweij@gmail.com
PS: I am commenting as a private citizen of Washington, DC. I have also commented on behalf of Arlington County, Virginia, as the urban forest manager for the County, with comments focused on the needs of that County.
Read more
—Vincent Verweij, Washington, DC (September 15, 2020)
My name is Vincent Verweij and I am a Casey Trees Certified Tree Advocate. Casey Trees is a D.C. based nonprofit with the mission to restore, enhance and protect the tree canopy of our nation’s capital. This includes planting, maintaining and advocating for trees on District, private and federal land.
As a Washington, D.C. resident, many of the projects happening in my city are impacted by these regulations. I appreciate the work done to strengthen these regulations. Our trees clean our air, provide critical wildlife habitat, remove pollutants from our water and provide a sense of relief to the stresses of everyday life.
With many tree replacement regulations, they often focus significantly on the replacement component. I believe their need to be situations defined in the Federal Tree Replacement regulation in which all possible considerations are taken to protect the existing trees. Some ecosystems are irreplaceable. I suggest that any development on sites with old growth forests (as defined by the U.S. Forest Service) and/or with significant ecosystems, such as those defined as “rare highly” through “critically significant” in the D.C. State Wildlife Action Plan, be in compliance with all federal, state and local environmental and development regulations and restrictions. Preventing damage to these remnant spots of high biodiversity will become harder and harder over time. I look to the National Capital Planning Commission to look forward and conserve the resources we still have.
I urge you to consider the above provisions to ensure that all trees and valuable ecosystems on federal land are given the opportunity to be protected.
Sincerely,
Vincent Verweij
v.w.verweij@gmail.com
PS: I am commenting as a private citizen of Washington, DC. I have also commented on behalf of Arlington County, Virginia, as the urban forest manager for the County, with comments focused on the needs of that County.
Read more
—Vincent Verweij, Washington, DC (September 15, 2020)
Smithsonian comments provided in attached file.
View attachment
—Jane Passman for Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (September 14, 2020)
View attachment
—Jane Passman for Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (September 14, 2020)
NCPC,
A few comments for your consideration:
Section G: Trees and Vegetation in the Region
Comment: If the DC plan is to reach 40% canopy by 2032 and 216,000 trees will need to be planted over the next 20 years to meet this goal, then does the 2032 timeframe need to be changed to. . . 2040?
Under FE.G.1, please consider adding the following:
When preservation is not possible due, for example, to existing tree/forest growth that adversely impacts federal government mission safety or the health and welfare of federal government personnel; exceptions to this tree replacement policy will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
FE.G.2 para 2.b: Some tree species rating guides offer a range (e.g., Black Willow 40-50). This tree replacement policy should specify whether to use the lower, upper, or average species rating where applicable.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Thank you.
Krist Zimmerman
Read more
—Kristofer Zimmerman, Springfield, VA 22150 (September 14, 2020)
A few comments for your consideration:
Section G: Trees and Vegetation in the Region
Comment: If the DC plan is to reach 40% canopy by 2032 and 216,000 trees will need to be planted over the next 20 years to meet this goal, then does the 2032 timeframe need to be changed to. . . 2040?
Under FE.G.1, please consider adding the following:
When preservation is not possible due, for example, to existing tree/forest growth that adversely impacts federal government mission safety or the health and welfare of federal government personnel; exceptions to this tree replacement policy will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
FE.G.2 para 2.b: Some tree species rating guides offer a range (e.g., Black Willow 40-50). This tree replacement policy should specify whether to use the lower, upper, or average species rating where applicable.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Thank you.
Krist Zimmerman
Read more
—Kristofer Zimmerman, Springfield, VA 22150 (September 14, 2020)
To: Commissioners, Executives, Officers and Staff of the National Capitol Planning Commission
From: Lindsley Williams – Former Active Resident and Citizen of the District of Columbia
Date: September 11, 2020
Subject: My Personal Review, Comments, Questions and Recommendations for Consideration in Draft Proposed Update to NCPC Policy Amendments for Tree Canopy and Vegetation. . . />
I have read and thought about the draft update to the Environmental element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capitol.
As a former resident with considerable experience with and respect for comprehensive plans, I commend everyone involved with the effort revealed in the proposed draft and hope that it will be adopted in due course, much as proposed in the draft dated July 9, but also with provisions to be added that would provide a basis for additional or amended policies at some later stage as circumstances change or as more becomes known or distinctions I and others suggest should be reflected.
My review is solely from my own reading and experience. Put another way, these comments, questions and recommendations are mine alone and not on behalf of any prior, current, or prospective client.
As to Appendix A, specifically “Section G: Policies Related to Tree Canopy and Vegetation”
As to Appendix A, specifically “Section G: Policies Related to Tree Canopy and Vegetation,” my conclusion is that much of it is appropriate but that it should at least acknowledge that the overall region of the national capitol area has a range of natural conditions that should be distinguished and have policies in place, or a place for amendments, to provide for what could become critically different risks to trees and ground vegetation. To me, the main risk factors are those that relate to sources of water, including storm water, rises in rivers that overflow their banks, and even water that would reach shorelines and beyond along the lower Potomac and Anacostia rivers from Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean from storms or just rising sea level or subsidence of what is now still land high enough to have not been flooded in the past century.
In addition, my reading of the draft found no place where it declares or finds the current tree canopy and vegetation are particularly wonderful, not just for recreation and hiking but that provide a buffer between areas of national importance, downtown core, and residential development adjacent to escarpments that descend from private developed areas to the streams they abut, be it the Potomac or Anacostia rivers or canals that were created along their shorelines, Rock Creek, or other streams in valleys over the region. To me, having a few places that would be names and mapped would be appropriate, but this need not be a full inventory and classification for all properties with trees or vegetation. Photo images would reinforce such a discussion.
To my way of thinking, the report should include or at least reference diagrams that would show where the provisions of the overall policy would apply to some degree (about which more later), where the trees and ground cover that exists on public land that is within the scope of NCPC’s authority, approval, or advice/recommendation is substantially in line with the proposed policies, where the conditions are met to some degree but fall short in others, and where the present conditions are well short of what is proposed. A companion diagram should also be prepared and included or referenced to show the responsible government component for public lands or Federal entities including those of the Department of Defense, and ownership that is the State or locality (as in their public parklands).
Moreover, where flooding is now occurring of land is so low that either descending land or rising ocean water levels or both could inundate areas at times or for extended periods, future plantings should be with trees or ground cover that can survive or even thrive when the water reaching its roofs has some degree of salinity. My reason for this is twofold. First the number of times in a year there is a “flood warning” or “flood risk” alert, typically when water may appear on land that is low lying or in an dare with poor drainage.” There should be maps showing where the happens and how often. Second, there is no mention to land levels that are stable and those that may be sinking (noting this is a factor in increased flooding of some Maryland islands in the lower Potomac River basin). The Commission should take steps if it has not already done so to designate low lying and maybe sinking areas that could be lost and transportation systems and air shafts that significant floods of the Potomac River below Key Bridge and Three Sisters Island were to occur. To me, the areas at risk include Haines Point, portions of the National Mall, the Kennedy Center, Georgetown and other waterfronts, and many if not all bridges over and tunnels under the Potomac River and Anacostia River in the National Capitol Region. The regional public transportation organization such as WMATA should be asked to identify areas where operations had to be suspended due to flooded stations or portions of tracks that were inundated at any time in the past year, but adding the date the closure started and the date service resumed.
Where the adopted policy lists species, I would urge that those species that can survive or thrive be designated in some fashion, and that the policies adopted include provisions that limit choices of plantings to those that are able to at least survive some periods of time when water will likely surround the trunk of a tree or the stalk or stem of other vegetation, or even survive ongoing salinity in the water reaching the roots of trees and other ground covers.
The policy notes that trees and ground covers are not free and must be paid for almost always. The policy should, in my mind, distinguish the costs owners would face in general and provide some guidance where costs of viable species would be more than for those areas where a full range of species could be used. Np public owner can just ‘print the money” compliance would require. So, to my way of thinking, the cost factor should be discussed more fully. Where flooding is so likely that inundation rules out some species, that should be expressly allowed. Where flooding and/or salinity limit trees and vegetation types significantly, those who administer the plan should be open to receiving information on costs when the species are significantly more expensive to purchase, plant, and/or maintain.
The overall plan, in my mind, would be even better if it would discuss how it would apply to the grounds of historic landmarks if the grounds themselves are specifically designated or are part of a National monument or have elevated prominence even if not officially designated. That would require a list of such places if they and their grounds are not already designated.
Finally, the policy’s applicability should be acknowledged. It would seemingly apply to affected Federal properties in the National Capitol Region, other than the area under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol. But would or should it apply to sites where the Federal government is contemplating to locate some function or staff cluster? More discussion may be the path to select prior to adoption. That said, the policy should likely note a range of conditions and uses where particular coverage percentages would create problems given the intended use or topography. Examples are the Federal land that is used for golf or spectator sporting events or rail-based transportation corridors for freight, passengers, or a mix of the two,
The plan should, in my view, clarify what it applies to and what is excluded. Even then, private developers or private land may be directed by local permit authorities that their project must be submitted to NCPC on both a preliminary and final approval process. This will add time and significant costs to that the developer must absorb. To me, NCPC should add provisions to their tree and ground cover policies that provide a rapid way for a developer to submit a summary statement to NCPC setting out why any project is beyond the authority of the overall policies and provide that the Executive Director or officers can issue a finding to indicate exemption but must do so within two weeks of receiving the request but noting that when such a conclusion is not declared, then the project would be subject to the provision as they are applicable.
The policies may also be ones that the government of the District of Columbia would want or need to incorporate in its own Comprehensive Plan, which will be reviewed by NCPC as it is amended over time, but NCPC has authority to require changes if it votes to do so where there is a conflict between Federal and DC plan provisions. At a minimum, the adopted tree and ground vegetation policy should be conveyed to the State and local governments and rail-based transportation providers in the National Capitol Area and urge them to see if they would consider ways to adopt relevant portions or encourage actions that are consistent with it or consider amending provisions that are contrary And, when the Federal tree policy amendment is adopted by NCPC, it should be conveyed to the officials of the National Park Service responsible for the C & O canal upstream from the National Capitol Region so that that the upstream canal lands does not appear to be following standards that are vastly different than those along the canal downstream.
And, one final detail: The policy would retain a definition for the diameter of a tree trunk. That definition seems appropriate when the tree involved is growing on land that is essentially flat. But where land slopes or has other irregularities such as those at and along the Potomac River’s northern side and its “Billy Goat Trail,” the definition falls short. Would it not make sense to say something like “at the height that is four feet above the highest surrounding ground into which the tree’s trunk extends” instead?
Find and Resolve Any Significant Differences and Conflicts with the Recommendations of the Silver Jackets
My prior comments and recommendations include some that suggest adding maps and cost data, among other things, to the draft policy before it is adopted. Much of this involves details in the draft that are likely to be proper for its content but would not be found in many, if any, other NCPC comprehensive plan issuances. Several weeks ago, I received a suggestion to see what Is being done and what is being recommended by the “Silver Jackets” efforts to address area environmental problems and risks. I got as far as their website but no further. With Federal staff not working in their regular offices, I was reluctant to try to reach anyone of the professionals who are involved in those efforts. But I sense that some of the policies proposed in the draft amendments for Trees and Ground Cover could be ones the Silver Jackets would endorse. But I also realize that some could conflict. Thus, I urge NCPC to seek input to ensure that any conflicts are known and seek to find ways to reduce or eliminate conflicts or resolve to retain the policies and practices proposed, at least as a starting point for these amendments.
So, Who Am I?
Decades ago, I was trained as an urban planner (mid 1960s) and then had a full career as a Commissioned Officer In the U. S. Public Health Service almost all of which was while I was a resident of the District of Columbia living in Woodley Park and Cleveland Park from 1971 to 2017. During those decades, I was a community leader and lead the Woodley Park Community Association, became a Commissioner of the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3-C (1977-1980), became and member and at times Chairperson of the D.C. Zoning Commission (1981-1988), completing my active duty in the USPHS in 1996. Thereafter, I became a zoning and development analyst or consultant with the law firm of Holland and Knight LLP (1999-2013). For many of the years, those particularly from 1971 onward, I was active in local and Federal comprehensive planning efforts and a large number of zoning cases on behalf of community, my Single Member District, and the government of the District of Columbia, recommending and then creating and then adopting rules, amending rules, or as a voting member of the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment participating and then voting on cases in its jurisdiction. After my appointment to the Zoning Commission concluded, I participated in policy development and cases as an urban planning and zoning expert.
Kudos:
NCPC should be proud of its effort and the current draft. The National Capitol Planning Commission, its Board, its Executive, Officers, and staff should also be thanked for the way and time it has given not just listed contributors but the general public the opportunity to comment. While I find the statement to be generally clear , I worry that some well-intentioned citizens may request, urge, or demand that the policies be more widely applied. To me, that is far from what I see as being currently needed. Times have changed making what is proposed generally appropriate, at least for the present environment. Accordingly, I urge its revision in places noted above but adopt something and see how it works. Address any shortcomings that become known as further policy reviews and project reviews take place in the times ahead.
Finally, I have to say as an urban planner how this policy proposal reflects sound urban planning but with a substantial enrichment from the field of landscape architecture and, as well, one staff member that I have never met in person, but gained an appreciation of in recent email and telephone exchanges, that being Stephanie Free, DLA, and those others in and beyond NCPC who were also involved in shaping what became the draft now under review.
With best wishes, hopes, questions -- and some suggestions, I remain ---
Lindsley Williams 2007 Lake Shore Drive Oakland, MD 21550 Mobile 202-246-4814
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Oakland, MD (September 14, 2020)
From: Lindsley Williams – Former Active Resident and Citizen of the District of Columbia
Date: September 11, 2020
Subject: My Personal Review, Comments, Questions and Recommendations for Consideration in Draft Proposed Update to NCPC Policy Amendments for Tree Canopy and Vegetation
I have read and thought about the draft update to the Environmental element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capitol.
As a former resident with considerable experience with and respect for comprehensive plans, I commend everyone involved with the effort revealed in the proposed draft and hope that it will be adopted in due course, much as proposed in the draft dated July 9, but also with provisions to be added that would provide a basis for additional or amended policies at some later stage as circumstances change or as more becomes known or distinctions I and others suggest should be reflected.
My review is solely from my own reading and experience. Put another way, these comments, questions and recommendations are mine alone and not on behalf of any prior, current, or prospective client.
As to Appendix A, specifically “Section G: Policies Related to Tree Canopy and Vegetation”
As to Appendix A, specifically “Section G: Policies Related to Tree Canopy and Vegetation,” my conclusion is that much of it is appropriate but that it should at least acknowledge that the overall region of the national capitol area has a range of natural conditions that should be distinguished and have policies in place, or a place for amendments, to provide for what could become critically different risks to trees and ground vegetation. To me, the main risk factors are those that relate to sources of water, including storm water, rises in rivers that overflow their banks, and even water that would reach shorelines and beyond along the lower Potomac and Anacostia rivers from Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean from storms or just rising sea level or subsidence of what is now still land high enough to have not been flooded in the past century.
In addition, my reading of the draft found no place where it declares or finds the current tree canopy and vegetation are particularly wonderful, not just for recreation and hiking but that provide a buffer between areas of national importance, downtown core, and residential development adjacent to escarpments that descend from private developed areas to the streams they abut, be it the Potomac or Anacostia rivers or canals that were created along their shorelines, Rock Creek, or other streams in valleys over the region. To me, having a few places that would be names and mapped would be appropriate, but this need not be a full inventory and classification for all properties with trees or vegetation. Photo images would reinforce such a discussion.
To my way of thinking, the report should include or at least reference diagrams that would show where the provisions of the overall policy would apply to some degree (about which more later), where the trees and ground cover that exists on public land that is within the scope of NCPC’s authority, approval, or advice/recommendation is substantially in line with the proposed policies, where the conditions are met to some degree but fall short in others, and where the present conditions are well short of what is proposed. A companion diagram should also be prepared and included or referenced to show the responsible government component for public lands or Federal entities including those of the Department of Defense, and ownership that is the State or locality (as in their public parklands).
Moreover, where flooding is now occurring of land is so low that either descending land or rising ocean water levels or both could inundate areas at times or for extended periods, future plantings should be with trees or ground cover that can survive or even thrive when the water reaching its roofs has some degree of salinity. My reason for this is twofold. First the number of times in a year there is a “flood warning” or “flood risk” alert, typically when water may appear on land that is low lying or in an dare with poor drainage.” There should be maps showing where the happens and how often. Second, there is no mention to land levels that are stable and those that may be sinking (noting this is a factor in increased flooding of some Maryland islands in the lower Potomac River basin). The Commission should take steps if it has not already done so to designate low lying and maybe sinking areas that could be lost and transportation systems and air shafts that significant floods of the Potomac River below Key Bridge and Three Sisters Island were to occur. To me, the areas at risk include Haines Point, portions of the National Mall, the Kennedy Center, Georgetown and other waterfronts, and many if not all bridges over and tunnels under the Potomac River and Anacostia River in the National Capitol Region. The regional public transportation organization such as WMATA should be asked to identify areas where operations had to be suspended due to flooded stations or portions of tracks that were inundated at any time in the past year, but adding the date the closure started and the date service resumed.
Where the adopted policy lists species, I would urge that those species that can survive or thrive be designated in some fashion, and that the policies adopted include provisions that limit choices of plantings to those that are able to at least survive some periods of time when water will likely surround the trunk of a tree or the stalk or stem of other vegetation, or even survive ongoing salinity in the water reaching the roots of trees and other ground covers.
The policy notes that trees and ground covers are not free and must be paid for almost always. The policy should, in my mind, distinguish the costs owners would face in general and provide some guidance where costs of viable species would be more than for those areas where a full range of species could be used. Np public owner can just ‘print the money” compliance would require. So, to my way of thinking, the cost factor should be discussed more fully. Where flooding is so likely that inundation rules out some species, that should be expressly allowed. Where flooding and/or salinity limit trees and vegetation types significantly, those who administer the plan should be open to receiving information on costs when the species are significantly more expensive to purchase, plant, and/or maintain.
The overall plan, in my mind, would be even better if it would discuss how it would apply to the grounds of historic landmarks if the grounds themselves are specifically designated or are part of a National monument or have elevated prominence even if not officially designated. That would require a list of such places if they and their grounds are not already designated.
Finally, the policy’s applicability should be acknowledged. It would seemingly apply to affected Federal properties in the National Capitol Region, other than the area under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol. But would or should it apply to sites where the Federal government is contemplating to locate some function or staff cluster? More discussion may be the path to select prior to adoption. That said, the policy should likely note a range of conditions and uses where particular coverage percentages would create problems given the intended use or topography. Examples are the Federal land that is used for golf or spectator sporting events or rail-based transportation corridors for freight, passengers, or a mix of the two,
The plan should, in my view, clarify what it applies to and what is excluded. Even then, private developers or private land may be directed by local permit authorities that their project must be submitted to NCPC on both a preliminary and final approval process. This will add time and significant costs to that the developer must absorb. To me, NCPC should add provisions to their tree and ground cover policies that provide a rapid way for a developer to submit a summary statement to NCPC setting out why any project is beyond the authority of the overall policies and provide that the Executive Director or officers can issue a finding to indicate exemption but must do so within two weeks of receiving the request but noting that when such a conclusion is not declared, then the project would be subject to the provision as they are applicable.
The policies may also be ones that the government of the District of Columbia would want or need to incorporate in its own Comprehensive Plan, which will be reviewed by NCPC as it is amended over time, but NCPC has authority to require changes if it votes to do so where there is a conflict between Federal and DC plan provisions. At a minimum, the adopted tree and ground vegetation policy should be conveyed to the State and local governments and rail-based transportation providers in the National Capitol Area and urge them to see if they would consider ways to adopt relevant portions or encourage actions that are consistent with it or consider amending provisions that are contrary And, when the Federal tree policy amendment is adopted by NCPC, it should be conveyed to the officials of the National Park Service responsible for the C & O canal upstream from the National Capitol Region so that that the upstream canal lands does not appear to be following standards that are vastly different than those along the canal downstream.
And, one final detail: The policy would retain a definition for the diameter of a tree trunk. That definition seems appropriate when the tree involved is growing on land that is essentially flat. But where land slopes or has other irregularities such as those at and along the Potomac River’s northern side and its “Billy Goat Trail,” the definition falls short. Would it not make sense to say something like “at the height that is four feet above the highest surrounding ground into which the tree’s trunk extends” instead?
Find and Resolve Any Significant Differences and Conflicts with the Recommendations of the Silver Jackets
My prior comments and recommendations include some that suggest adding maps and cost data, among other things, to the draft policy before it is adopted. Much of this involves details in the draft that are likely to be proper for its content but would not be found in many, if any, other NCPC comprehensive plan issuances. Several weeks ago, I received a suggestion to see what Is being done and what is being recommended by the “Silver Jackets” efforts to address area environmental problems and risks. I got as far as their website but no further. With Federal staff not working in their regular offices, I was reluctant to try to reach anyone of the professionals who are involved in those efforts. But I sense that some of the policies proposed in the draft amendments for Trees and Ground Cover could be ones the Silver Jackets would endorse. But I also realize that some could conflict. Thus, I urge NCPC to seek input to ensure that any conflicts are known and seek to find ways to reduce or eliminate conflicts or resolve to retain the policies and practices proposed, at least as a starting point for these amendments.
So, Who Am I?
Decades ago, I was trained as an urban planner (mid 1960s) and then had a full career as a Commissioned Officer In the U. S. Public Health Service almost all of which was while I was a resident of the District of Columbia living in Woodley Park and Cleveland Park from 1971 to 2017. During those decades, I was a community leader and lead the Woodley Park Community Association, became a Commissioner of the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3-C (1977-1980), became and member and at times Chairperson of the D.C. Zoning Commission (1981-1988), completing my active duty in the USPHS in 1996. Thereafter, I became a zoning and development analyst or consultant with the law firm of Holland and Knight LLP (1999-2013). For many of the years, those particularly from 1971 onward, I was active in local and Federal comprehensive planning efforts and a large number of zoning cases on behalf of community, my Single Member District, and the government of the District of Columbia, recommending and then creating and then adopting rules, amending rules, or as a voting member of the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment participating and then voting on cases in its jurisdiction. After my appointment to the Zoning Commission concluded, I participated in policy development and cases as an urban planning and zoning expert.
Kudos:
NCPC should be proud of its effort and the current draft. The National Capitol Planning Commission, its Board, its Executive, Officers, and staff should also be thanked for the way and time it has given not just listed contributors but the general public the opportunity to comment. While I find the statement to be generally clear , I worry that some well-intentioned citizens may request, urge, or demand that the policies be more widely applied. To me, that is far from what I see as being currently needed. Times have changed making what is proposed generally appropriate, at least for the present environment. Accordingly, I urge its revision in places noted above but adopt something and see how it works. Address any shortcomings that become known as further policy reviews and project reviews take place in the times ahead.
Finally, I have to say as an urban planner how this policy proposal reflects sound urban planning but with a substantial enrichment from the field of landscape architecture and, as well, one staff member that I have never met in person, but gained an appreciation of in recent email and telephone exchanges, that being Stephanie Free, DLA, and those others in and beyond NCPC who were also involved in shaping what became the draft now under review.
With best wishes, hopes, questions -- and some suggestions, I remain ---
Lindsley Williams 2007 Lake Shore Drive Oakland, MD 21550 Mobile 202-246-4814
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Oakland, MD (September 14, 2020)
I strongly support the proposed tree replacement policy.
—Leanna Fenske, 810 E St NE, Washington, DC (September 11, 2020)
—Leanna Fenske, 810 E St NE, Washington, DC (September 11, 2020)
- FE.G.2: clarification needed that trees are to be measured as Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) or some other means. Ie: what is a 10” diameter tree?
- FE.G.2: what is the direction for replacement if a tree on site is dead?
- FE.G.2: Provide a reference or hyperlink to a source for “species rating” used in the. . . calculation
- FE.G.2: Regarding: “Forests and Stands of Trees: Plant 1.5 acres for every 1 acre removed. Consult with federal and local stakeholders to determine the appropriate density, mixture, and size of replacement plantings.” This requirement seems extremely vague when compared with the detailed tree condition assessment and formula needed to calculate exact number and types of replacement trees.
- FE.G.2: Regarding: “Offset the balance of replacement trees (if the total quantity of replacement trees cannot be met) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide similar environmental benefits to those of canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, and/or carbon sequestration.” This section also seems vague. It would be helpful if there were some sort of benchmarks provided that projects can prove they have met to be in conformance.
Read more
—Susan Roberts, Bethesda (September 10, 2020)
- FE.G.2: what is the direction for replacement if a tree on site is dead?
- FE.G.2: Provide a reference or hyperlink to a source for “species rating” used in the. . . calculation
- FE.G.2: Regarding: “Forests and Stands of Trees: Plant 1.5 acres for every 1 acre removed. Consult with federal and local stakeholders to determine the appropriate density, mixture, and size of replacement plantings.” This requirement seems extremely vague when compared with the detailed tree condition assessment and formula needed to calculate exact number and types of replacement trees.
- FE.G.2: Regarding: “Offset the balance of replacement trees (if the total quantity of replacement trees cannot be met) with sustainable, low impact development practices on the project site or property. These practices should provide similar environmental benefits to those of canopy trees, such as stormwater capture and treatment, reduced urban heat island effect, and/or carbon sequestration.” This section also seems vague. It would be helpful if there were some sort of benchmarks provided that projects can prove they have met to be in conformance.
Read more
—Susan Roberts, Bethesda (September 10, 2020)
These comments are prepared on behalf of Arlington County, Virginia.
1. Section G: Add "Arlington county has a tree canopy of 41% (38% when counting the Airport and Department of Defense land), and approximately 750,000 trees". Source https://arlingtonva.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/01/Arlington-County-Tree-Canopy-Report-2016-.pdf
2. General comment: When referring to "Washington, DC", include the region, as this policy applies to. . . jurisdictions outside of DC.
3. General comment: Add "ISA-Certified" in front of Arborist, and define ISA as "International Society for Arboriculture"
4. General comment: Change "preservation" to "conservation" throughout the document, as preservation in the urban context is rarely appropriate.
5. FE.G.1: Change "hazardous" to "high risk".
6. FE.G.2, section 2a: Provide a lower limit to the trees replaced. Arlington uses 3 inches. Not providing a lower limit could create severe hardship, where natural regrowth could create significant amounts of small seedlings.
7. FE.G.3: Change "preserve" to "conserve"
Read more
—Vincent Verweij, Arlington County, Virginia (September 01, 2020)
1. Section G: Add "Arlington county has a tree canopy of 41% (38% when counting the Airport and Department of Defense land), and approximately 750,000 trees". Source https://arlingtonva.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/01/Arlington-County-Tree-Canopy-Report-2016-.pdf
2. General comment: When referring to "Washington, DC", include the region, as this policy applies to. . . jurisdictions outside of DC.
3. General comment: Add "ISA-Certified" in front of Arborist, and define ISA as "International Society for Arboriculture"
4. General comment: Change "preservation" to "conservation" throughout the document, as preservation in the urban context is rarely appropriate.
5. FE.G.1: Change "hazardous" to "high risk".
6. FE.G.2, section 2a: Provide a lower limit to the trees replaced. Arlington uses 3 inches. Not providing a lower limit could create severe hardship, where natural regrowth could create significant amounts of small seedlings.
7. FE.G.3: Change "preserve" to "conserve"
Read more
—Vincent Verweij, Arlington County, Virginia (September 01, 2020)
Please see attached comments submitted in opposition of Meadowbrook Stables Riding Ring Pavilion (MP 100)
View attachment
—Antonia Dentes, Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (March 18, 2020)
View attachment
—Antonia Dentes, Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (March 18, 2020)
I live at 2805 Blaine Drive, 5 houses up the street from Meadowbrook Stable. I have long appreciated the presence of the stable in our neighborhood. I appreciate its historic character of the stable buildings.
The stable management however has made choices that are disruptive of our community. For example its choice of lighting design,. . . and the light fixtures on the side of the stable are extraordinarily and unnecessarily bright and shine into both our homes, yards and the park.
The proposed structure at the corner would impinge on our residential community. In an earlier plan, the stable had proposed a covered structure west of the riding rings and between the historic stable building and the new maintenance/manure storage building. Located there would not disrupt the viewscape from the neighborhood. Unfortunately that is close to the creek and deeper in the flood zone.
I don't think there are design tweaks that can mitigate the unacceptable impact this proposed structure has for our neighborhood.
I OPPOSE the proposed multi-story structure.
Read more
—Eric E. Sterling, Chevy Chase, Maryland (March 18, 2020)
The stable management however has made choices that are disruptive of our community. For example its choice of lighting design,. . . and the light fixtures on the side of the stable are extraordinarily and unnecessarily bright and shine into both our homes, yards and the park.
The proposed structure at the corner would impinge on our residential community. In an earlier plan, the stable had proposed a covered structure west of the riding rings and between the historic stable building and the new maintenance/manure storage building. Located there would not disrupt the viewscape from the neighborhood. Unfortunately that is close to the creek and deeper in the flood zone.
I don't think there are design tweaks that can mitigate the unacceptable impact this proposed structure has for our neighborhood.
I OPPOSE the proposed multi-story structure.
Read more
—Eric E. Sterling, Chevy Chase, Maryland (March 18, 2020)
I write in opposition to the proposed building at Meadowbrook Stables. My concern being that this would set precedent to unnecessary future constructions and disruption to the parks landscape.
Thank you.
—Andres Garrido, Silver Spring (March 18, 2020)
Thank you.
—Andres Garrido, Silver Spring (March 18, 2020)
My wife and I both think this ring would be a detriment to our lovely neighborhood. We love the stables as is and think the new ring would take away from our beautiful surroundings.
—Martin J Goldman, Chevy Chase (March 17, 2020)
—Martin J Goldman, Chevy Chase (March 17, 2020)
1). A large commercial space does not fit with a small neighborhood and will instruct views and access to the park
2) this process should not move ahead while everyone and everything else is shut down. It does not allow for adequate public comment.
—Larry Fogel, Chevy chase, md (March 17, 2020)
2) this process should not move ahead while everyone and everything else is shut down. It does not allow for adequate public comment.
—Larry Fogel, Chevy chase, md (March 17, 2020)
I am concerned about the size and aesthetics of the proposed structure. I do not feel that there has been sufficient consultation with those in the immediate neighborhood concerning the impact of the pavilion. Not all of us can take time off during a work day to attend an NCPC meeting or other scheduled. . . forum. In contrast to previous care taken by Meadowbrook to cultivate positive relations between the stables and its neighbors, there has been no direct communication and thus rumors abound.
Read more
—Cindy Arnson, Chevy Chase, MD (March 16, 2020)
Read more
—Cindy Arnson, Chevy Chase, MD (March 16, 2020)
Most of the current facility falls within the 100-year flood plain (see attached), and the proposed plan increases its risk rather than its resilience. Recent flood events around the country has shown that 100-year floodplains do not indicate the chances of the designated areas as having 0.1% of flooding per year. For example, Houston saw two. . . 1000-year floods (0.01%/year flood) in just two years between 2017 and 2019. Efforts have been made, on federal, regional, and local scales, to relocate people and assets away from flood zones rather than adding risks to them.
The proposal mentions climate change impacts being an issue they care about. Is investing more to build out the facility on a site that is already at risk really the best use of their resources?
Potential water pollution is another concern, especially considering the nature of the facility and its obvious risk to floods. Does the current and proposed wastewater (and flood risk) management plan address this concern, under both normal and flood conditions?
Erosion management, during construction but also after the expansion is completed, is another area that the current plan does not address. This has water quality and public safety implications.
The "purpose & need" section of the proposal, while clear in outlining the new ring's benefit to the Foundation, does not adequately address those of the public. Simply having the facility open to the public for passive observation does not seem to be a fair exchange for the public to give up their access and views.
Lastly, the development document mentions the use of flood lights. Will the new enclosed ring need more of them? Light pollution and its impact on the ecosystem within the park and possible increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be another concern.
Read more
View attachment
—Hyon Rah, Washington, DC (March 11, 2020)
The proposal mentions climate change impacts being an issue they care about. Is investing more to build out the facility on a site that is already at risk really the best use of their resources?
Potential water pollution is another concern, especially considering the nature of the facility and its obvious risk to floods. Does the current and proposed wastewater (and flood risk) management plan address this concern, under both normal and flood conditions?
Erosion management, during construction but also after the expansion is completed, is another area that the current plan does not address. This has water quality and public safety implications.
The "purpose & need" section of the proposal, while clear in outlining the new ring's benefit to the Foundation, does not adequately address those of the public. Simply having the facility open to the public for passive observation does not seem to be a fair exchange for the public to give up their access and views.
Lastly, the development document mentions the use of flood lights. Will the new enclosed ring need more of them? Light pollution and its impact on the ecosystem within the park and possible increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be another concern.
Read more
View attachment
—Hyon Rah, Washington, DC (March 11, 2020)
I appose the scope of this project. The size of the proposed rink is huge. It will change the parklike feel of the stables to an urban environment with all the noise, increased traffic, increased need for parking and loss of open space. Walking, running and biking around the stables is enjoyed by many, many. . . people including myself on a daily basis as an experience to enjoy nature. For us, this building will change this walk from a healthy quiet time to one with the feel of walking in the neighborhood with cars and traffic. This addition to the stables is designed to benefit a few people who can afford riding lessons and will affect the quality of life for many, many people. This change is NOT in the public interest.
Read more
—Colette Silver, Chevy Chae, MD (March 10, 2020)
Read more
—Colette Silver, Chevy Chae, MD (March 10, 2020)
I am so glad that finally there will be a covered ring to ride. This will be a great enhancement to the Meadowbrook experience.
—Walter Vandaele, Washington, DC (March 10, 2020)
—Walter Vandaele, Washington, DC (March 10, 2020)
I am writing in strong support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long- overdue addition to the facility. Meadowbrook's horses need daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, which is extremely difficult in the absence of a covered facility given ice, rain. . . and snow conditions in the area. The pavilion will further allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of the weather. It will importantly bring this historic facility up to 21st century standards, enhancing its essential character, use, and ability to serve the public.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Sarah Alexander, Washington (March 09, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Sarah Alexander, Washington (March 09, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round. . . basis regardless of the weather. It will bring this historic facility up to 21st century standards, enhancing its essential character, use, and ability to serve the public.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration!
Sarah
Read more
—Sarah Spooner, DC (March 09, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration!
Sarah
Read more
—Sarah Spooner, DC (March 09, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round. . . basis regardless of the weather. It will bring this historic facility up to 21st century standards, enhancing its essential character, use, and ability to serve the public.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
While I live in DC, I live in Shepherd Park - just off Kalmia. My daughter has loved horses since she was tiny and we played at the Candy City park. We would walk to Meadowbrook to look at the riders and horses.
Rock Creek Park is a special place for DC metro area, preserving areas for beauty and recreation. Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the park-like setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I support all efforts to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Erin Loubier, Washington, DC (March 09, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
While I live in DC, I live in Shepherd Park - just off Kalmia. My daughter has loved horses since she was tiny and we played at the Candy City park. We would walk to Meadowbrook to look at the riders and horses.
Rock Creek Park is a special place for DC metro area, preserving areas for beauty and recreation. Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the park-like setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I support all efforts to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Erin Loubier, Washington, DC (March 09, 2020)
Please see attached letter in support of Meadowbrook Stables' proposed riding ring.
View attachment
—Kazue Torii, Bethesda, MD (March 09, 2020)
View attachment
—Kazue Torii, Bethesda, MD (March 09, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. My child rides at Meadowbrook and it's an important part of our lives. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and. . . mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of the weather.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Debbie Russ, West Orange, NJ (March 09, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Debbie Russ, West Orange, NJ (March 09, 2020)
I am writing to support Meadowbrook Stables in building their Riding Ring Pavilion, an attractive and necessary improvement. Not only does this feature allow Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, it also allows riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of. . . the weather. It will bring this historic facility up to 21st century standards, enhancing its essential character, use, and ability to serve the public.
Meadowbrook’s team has designed a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
Please take into account the many people this pavilion will benefit, and the beautiful landscape it is helping to maintain.
Read more
—Kirsten Howard, Chevy Chase, MD (March 08, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has designed a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
Please take into account the many people this pavilion will benefit, and the beautiful landscape it is helping to maintain.
Read more
—Kirsten Howard, Chevy Chase, MD (March 08, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. I drive all the way up from Arlington so that my child can ride at Meadowbrook since it's an amazing stable and an important part of our lives. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will. . . enable Meadowbrook to finally be on par with other riding facilities in northern Virginian and Maryland who have had covered pavilions for years. In addition, horses could get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, and riders could finally train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of the weather.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter and often my daughter is unable to ride due to inclement weather. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal
Read more
—Marcela, Arlington, VA (March 07, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter and often my daughter is unable to ride due to inclement weather. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal
Read more
—Marcela, Arlington, VA (March 07, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. My child rides at Meadowbrook and it's an important part of our lives. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and. . . mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of the weather.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Elizabeth Lieberman, Chevy Chase, MD (March 07, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Elizabeth Lieberman, Chevy Chase, MD (March 07, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round. . . basis regardless of the weather.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Julia Barton, Bethesda MD (March 07, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Julia Barton, Bethesda MD (March 07, 2020)
I am writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables covered riding pavilion. My daughter has been riding at Meadowbrook for the past six years. Before moving to this area, she rode at a barn that had an indoor riding arena, which allowed for full riding lessons year round. Meadowbrook is a wonderful stable, but we have missed. . . an indoor ring! The barn is beautiful and is always well kept. I am certain the addition will be the same, and it will lead to safer conditions for the students, staff, and the horses.
Read more
—Karen Ann Ballotta, Washington, DC (March 07, 2020)
Read more
—Karen Ann Ballotta, Washington, DC (March 07, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. My child once rode at Meadowbrook and it was an important part of our lives. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their. . . physical and mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of the weather.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Laura Hambleton, Chevy Chase (March 07, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Laura Hambleton, Chevy Chase (March 07, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. My child rides at Meadowbrook and it's an important part of our lives. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and. . . mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of the weather.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
Read more
—Nora, Kensington, MD (March 07, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
Read more
—Nora, Kensington, MD (March 07, 2020)
Meadowbrook has been of great benefit to me physically and emotionally for 30 years. I first rode and then taught there, now I volunteer in the office one day a week. From the first I was struck with how friendly and welcoming the place was, and how cheerful the horses were. I hope Meadowbrook continues to. . . offer exercise, team building and contact with nature for many years to come
Read more
—Angela Fitzgerald, SW DC (March 06, 2020)
Read more
—Angela Fitzgerald, SW DC (March 06, 2020)
I love this design and the usefulness of it. I have taken lessons at Meadowbrook Stables since 1992, when I lived up the street. Though I now live around the beltway, I continue to ride there 3 days a week. I grew up riding and have never found a place as dedicated to horses. . . and people as Meadowbrook Stables. This new covered arena will assure that Meadowbrook can continue to serve the community, preserve the amazing equestrian history of the place, and maintain the health and wellbeing of the horses. I whole-heartedly support it.
Read more
—Kerry Richard, McLean, VA (March 06, 2020)
Read more
—Kerry Richard, McLean, VA (March 06, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. My child rides at Meadowbrook and it's an important part of our lives. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and. . . mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of the weather.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Susan Lyle, chevy chase, md (March 06, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 square feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in Montgomery County and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Susan Lyle, chevy chase, md (March 06, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. The proposed riding pavilion will be long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round basis regardless of. . . the weather. It will bring this historic facility up to 21st century standards, enhancing its essential character, use, and ability to serve the public.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a year round space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Catherine Ide, Arlington, VA (March 06, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a year round space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Catherine Ide, Arlington, VA (March 06, 2020)
I’m writing in support of Meadowbrook Stables’ proposed covered riding ring. The proposed riding pavilion will be a beautiful and long overdue addition to the facility. It will enable Meadowbrook's horses to get the daily exercise that is critical to their physical and mental wellbeing, and allow riders to train safely and consistently on a year-round. . . basis regardless of the weather. It will bring this historic facility up to 21st century standards, enhancing its essential character, use, and ability to serve the public.
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Kristin Shepard, Washington, DC (March 06, 2020)
Meadowbrook’s team has clearly gone to great lengths to design a building that respects the historic design of the original 1930s barn, as well as the community and environmental setting. The new structure will incorporate many elements of the historic barn, as well as the smaller and more recent maintenance building. The project also includes the addition of new stormwater management and substantial landscaping, replacing over 30,000 sqaure feet of what is currently impervious sand surface with biowales and native plants, as well as a very significant solar power installation.
In mild climates, such as Florida, riding can be a year-round outdoor sport. However, in the mid-Atlantic, riding cannot reliably and safely take place throughout the winter. Like basketball, tennis, gymnastics or swimming, equine athletes and their riders need a space to exercise and train that is protected from the elements. It is for these reasons that covered riding rings have long been standard features at comparable facilities throughout the mid-Atlantic, precisely because they allow for safe and consistent training opportunities.
Meadowbrook is a special and unique place for riders and non-riders alike in the Chevy Chase community and the surrounding region. Thousands of riders, over many generations, have enjoyed Meadowbrook. And today it welcomes not only hundreds of riders each year, but at least as many non-riding visitors from the community, who come to walk through the barns, bring their children to pat the horses, and enjoy the parklike setting. It's been an important part of the community for over 85 years, and I want to ensure that it survives and thrives into the future. For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to support this proposal.
Read more
—Kristin Shepard, Washington, DC (March 06, 2020)
I write in enthusiastic support of Meadowbrook Stables' proposed covered riding ring. I have been a rider at Meadowbrook for over 20 years, after taking a 23-year hiatus from riding. I have boarded horses at Meadowbrook for the last thirteen years. I know first-hand the high quality of care the animals at Meadowbrook. . . receive. I also know how hard the team at Meadowbrook has worked to make this project environmentally sound and as responsive to community concerns as possible. The ring will provide a space for horses and ponies to exercise during inclement weather, enhancing the staff's ability to keep the animals sound and healthy.
Meadowbrook has been an institution for the last 85 years. The covered arena will help it survive for the next 85 years. Thank you for your considerations of these remards.
Read more
—Mary Kennedy, Washington DC (March 06, 2020)
Meadowbrook has been an institution for the last 85 years. The covered arena will help it survive for the next 85 years. Thank you for your considerations of these remards.
Read more
—Mary Kennedy, Washington DC (March 06, 2020)
I am writing in support of the proposed new ring, which is a desirable and appropriate addition to the site.
In fact, when I was a child, there were two riding stables, each with barns and large rings, on that road. "Pegasus" sat behind Meadowbrook and was a wonderful place.
I road at. . . both stables.
Today, Meadowbrook is a resource for many riders, including some who receive scholarships to ride, but financial viability is heavily dependent on competitive young riders who need to practice often, even if the weather is poor. They need this ring. Without it, they might go elsewhere and financial viability would become a problem for Meadowbrook.
Surely a beautiful, well-kept facility is more of an asset to the community than a deteriorating building would be? And isn't helping young athletes train in a healthy sport valuable in itself?
We have ball fields and soccer fields at dozens of schools, but despite our County's long equestrian tradition, few stables with expert training remain.
Let Meadowbrook provide great resources by adding this ring. It is the right thing to do.
Read more
—Mary Leonard, North Bethesda (March 06, 2020)
In fact, when I was a child, there were two riding stables, each with barns and large rings, on that road. "Pegasus" sat behind Meadowbrook and was a wonderful place.
I road at. . . both stables.
Today, Meadowbrook is a resource for many riders, including some who receive scholarships to ride, but financial viability is heavily dependent on competitive young riders who need to practice often, even if the weather is poor. They need this ring. Without it, they might go elsewhere and financial viability would become a problem for Meadowbrook.
Surely a beautiful, well-kept facility is more of an asset to the community than a deteriorating building would be? And isn't helping young athletes train in a healthy sport valuable in itself?
We have ball fields and soccer fields at dozens of schools, but despite our County's long equestrian tradition, few stables with expert training remain.
Let Meadowbrook provide great resources by adding this ring. It is the right thing to do.
Read more
—Mary Leonard, North Bethesda (March 06, 2020)
I not only live in Montgomery County, but my daughter rides on the team and leases a horse there. We also have a pony that my daughter outgrew who has found a home at Meadowbrook, where he is living out his golden years helping little children learn the gift of riding. I have strong. . . personal feelings about Meadowbrook because the coaches, staff and other riders really helped to get my (then 11 year old) daughter and I through the unexpected loss of her father 4 years ago. Riding has been my daughter's passion but also her outlet for a number of years, but during a critical period, it has proved to be a nurturing and comforting environment. But the viability of this historic stable is really quite dependent on the addition of an indoor ring. The team riders who really support the barn financially through leasing, boarding and lessons, are at a disadvantage to other barns with indoor facilities who can practice more regularly. The higher levels of competition require more regular practice, not to even touch on the comfort and overall well-being of both riders and horses. I am committed to staying at Meadowbrook, but at some point it is to the detriment of my daughter's possible equestrian scholarship opportunities (which many of these riders are banking on) if she does not get the practice time. I am obviously a single mother and I work (more than) fulltime and travel extensively, so this hobby requires great sacrifice and logistics - but is so worth it. This barn is our community, although we do not have the benefit of living in the neighborhood. I wish the neighbors who are worried about this addition would see that this barn houses not just horses but young people's hopes and dreams.
Read more
—Elizabeth Wagner, North Bethesda (March 06, 2020)
Read more
—Elizabeth Wagner, North Bethesda (March 06, 2020)
My primary comment for the draft Transportation Element is that, upon its
completion and approval, there should be a coordinated effort to integrate
the Element as a model and reference tool into all applicable policy
documents to ensure consistent transportation practices are implemented between all impacted agencies within the National Capital Region.
The. . . coordination effort should include the Federal, State, regional and
local government agencies as well as transportation agencies/providers
located within the National Capital Region with regards to their
Comprehensive/Master Plans, Parking Plans, Trails Plans and Transportation Plans (inclusive of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans) as applicable.
Read more
—Darryl Griffin, Work address: 3250 Catlin Avenue, Quantico, Virginia 22134 (November 12, 2019)
completion and approval, there should be a coordinated effort to integrate
the Element as a model and reference tool into all applicable policy
documents to ensure consistent transportation practices are implemented between all impacted agencies within the National Capital Region.
The. . . coordination effort should include the Federal, State, regional and
local government agencies as well as transportation agencies/providers
located within the National Capital Region with regards to their
Comprehensive/Master Plans, Parking Plans, Trails Plans and Transportation Plans (inclusive of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans) as applicable.
Read more
—Darryl Griffin, Work address: 3250 Catlin Avenue, Quantico, Virginia 22134 (November 12, 2019)
Upon review of the transportation element document, there are statements that acknowledge the shifts in commuting.
The availability of telework is a huge positive, but it has also had an impact, including the major reduction of carpool and vanpooling. Federal agencies usually provide either parking or transit benefit (subsidies), but what is not discussed. . . is the failure of federal agencies to adequately promote bicycling, carpool and vanpooling. Many federal garages have not kept up preferred vanpool spaces, etc.
We need to rethink TDM strategies to reduce SOV travel. Part of the effort should promote part time carpooling to reach those folks who can't use the transit network, and do not come in everyday (and would normally use a regular carpool). Thanks, Jeff Price
Read more
—Jeff Price , Arlington, VA (November 12, 2019)
The availability of telework is a huge positive, but it has also had an impact, including the major reduction of carpool and vanpooling. Federal agencies usually provide either parking or transit benefit (subsidies), but what is not discussed. . . is the failure of federal agencies to adequately promote bicycling, carpool and vanpooling. Many federal garages have not kept up preferred vanpool spaces, etc.
We need to rethink TDM strategies to reduce SOV travel. Part of the effort should promote part time carpooling to reach those folks who can't use the transit network, and do not come in everyday (and would normally use a regular carpool). Thanks, Jeff Price
Read more
—Jeff Price , Arlington, VA (November 12, 2019)
Please see attached letter with comments from the Arlington County Division of Transportation.
View attachment
—Dan Malouff, Arlington, VA (November 12, 2019)
View attachment
—Dan Malouff, Arlington, VA (November 12, 2019)
Hi Jennifer,
Attached please find the Navy's comments on the Draft Transportation Element and Submission Guidelines update. I will send a formal submission letter via email.
Thank you!
Nik Tompkins-Flagg
NAVFAC NCPC Liaison
View attachment
—Nik Tompkins-Flagg, Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2019)
Attached please find the Navy's comments on the Draft Transportation Element and Submission Guidelines update. I will send a formal submission letter via email.
Thank you!
Nik Tompkins-Flagg
NAVFAC NCPC Liaison
View attachment
—Nik Tompkins-Flagg, Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2019)
These comments are submitted jointly from the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the District of Columbia Office of Planning (OP).
View attachment
—DC Department of Transportation & DC Office of Planning, District of Columbia (November 12, 2019)
View attachment
—DC Department of Transportation & DC Office of Planning, District of Columbia (November 12, 2019)
Please do something to remove the scourge of motorized scooters from our sidewalks. I live at 6th and Pennsylvania Ave, NW and do not own a car, so I walk everywhere. Daily I am nearly knocked down by a motorized scooter. They speed past, coming from behind with complete disregard for pedestrians, actually. . . making physical contact with helpless pedestrians. Each week it gets worse. The abandoned scooters all over the sidewalks are also a menace. Please restrict them to bike lanes and ban them from sidewalks. Who is going to pay my medical bills when I am knocked down and injured?
Read more
—Jo Ann duplechin, Washington, DC (November 10, 2019)
Read more
—Jo Ann duplechin, Washington, DC (November 10, 2019)
The following comments are submitted on behalf of the NoMa Business Improvement District (BID). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Transportation Element.
Shuttle Buses:
The NoMa BID encourages the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to reduce support of shuttle buses in the draft element. We believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. . . in neighborhoods like NoMa, where transit and other modes of transportation are plentiful. While shuttle buses can be a useful tool in reducing Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) trips by providing “last mile” services in certain circumstances, private shuttles often duplicate services provided by other modes in neighborhoods like these; but these shuttles are restricted to a certain set of users, reducing their efficacy. Furthermore, these shuttles demand valuable curbside space or cause congestion issues by blocking single-lane roads or bike lanes.
Monumental Core:
Several agencies and plans have identified North Capitol Street as a corridor in need of significant focus for streetscape improvements in the coming years: NCPC’s Monumental Core Streetscape Framework (2018) identifies this street as an important “radiating and edging” corridor in the national capital’s street network; NCPC and District government agencies have identified this corridor as a priority for streetscape improvements as part of their Monumental Core Streetscape Initiative (ongoing); and the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), in conjunction with the NoMa BID, has called for a re-evaluation of the North Capitol Street streetscape in the North Capitol Needs Assessment Report (January 2019). The NoMa BID believes that these efforts support a thorough consideration of the existing streetscape and how the corridor could become a safer, more efficient, and more attractive corridor for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.
Workplace Parking:
The NoMa BID encourages federal buildings and tenants to partner with neighboring buildings with excess parking supply. We support NCPC’s efforts to encourage modes of travel that are alternative to SOV commutes. But as long as some parking is needed, this alternative reduces the need to build additional on-site parking at new federal office buildings. In neighborhoods like NoMa, with a high proportion of transit-users, a relatively low proportion of car-owners, and more than a dozen multifamily apartment buildings built in the last ten years, there exists a high volume of vacant and secure parking spaces, many of which are located adjacent to federal office buildings. In NoMa, about one-third of residential parking spaces (more than 1,000) are vacant, most of which is adjacent to or less than one block from tenants such as Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Department of Justice, and the Federal Communications Commission.
Development on Federal Facilities:
The NoMa BID hopes that the NCPC will include language in the Transportation Element that encourages federal developments to include building facades and sidewalk spaces that create pleasant experiences for pedestrians.
Read more
—NoMa Business Improvement District, Washington, DC (October 08, 2019)
Shuttle Buses:
The NoMa BID encourages the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to reduce support of shuttle buses in the draft element. We believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. . . in neighborhoods like NoMa, where transit and other modes of transportation are plentiful. While shuttle buses can be a useful tool in reducing Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) trips by providing “last mile” services in certain circumstances, private shuttles often duplicate services provided by other modes in neighborhoods like these; but these shuttles are restricted to a certain set of users, reducing their efficacy. Furthermore, these shuttles demand valuable curbside space or cause congestion issues by blocking single-lane roads or bike lanes.
Monumental Core:
Several agencies and plans have identified North Capitol Street as a corridor in need of significant focus for streetscape improvements in the coming years: NCPC’s Monumental Core Streetscape Framework (2018) identifies this street as an important “radiating and edging” corridor in the national capital’s street network; NCPC and District government agencies have identified this corridor as a priority for streetscape improvements as part of their Monumental Core Streetscape Initiative (ongoing); and the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), in conjunction with the NoMa BID, has called for a re-evaluation of the North Capitol Street streetscape in the North Capitol Needs Assessment Report (January 2019). The NoMa BID believes that these efforts support a thorough consideration of the existing streetscape and how the corridor could become a safer, more efficient, and more attractive corridor for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.
Workplace Parking:
The NoMa BID encourages federal buildings and tenants to partner with neighboring buildings with excess parking supply. We support NCPC’s efforts to encourage modes of travel that are alternative to SOV commutes. But as long as some parking is needed, this alternative reduces the need to build additional on-site parking at new federal office buildings. In neighborhoods like NoMa, with a high proportion of transit-users, a relatively low proportion of car-owners, and more than a dozen multifamily apartment buildings built in the last ten years, there exists a high volume of vacant and secure parking spaces, many of which are located adjacent to federal office buildings. In NoMa, about one-third of residential parking spaces (more than 1,000) are vacant, most of which is adjacent to or less than one block from tenants such as Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Department of Justice, and the Federal Communications Commission.
Development on Federal Facilities:
The NoMa BID hopes that the NCPC will include language in the Transportation Element that encourages federal developments to include building facades and sidewalk spaces that create pleasant experiences for pedestrians.
Read more
—NoMa Business Improvement District, Washington, DC (October 08, 2019)
Please get rid of bicycle helmet requirements associated with federal facilities. First, complying with local laws should be enough. Second, WABA (Washington Area Bicyclist Assoc) has come out against these requirements because they discourage bicycling and, counter-intuitively, make bicycling less safe. This may seem like a small thing, but it is the many small barriers to. . . biking/walking/transit that people encounter every day that keep people in their cars.
Thanks for reading my comment.
Read more
—Jonathan Krall, Akexandria, VA (September 23, 2019)
Thanks for reading my comment.
Read more
—Jonathan Krall, Akexandria, VA (September 23, 2019)
The distinction between "federal workers" as an independent class from residents and visitors is an odd choice for the goal statement. This distinction implies that other types of "workers" are accounted for in either the resident or visitor classification and have no independent needs. Classifying the region as either federal worker, resident, or visitor is not. . . accurate and should not reflect the groups that this plan aims to plan for.
Read more
—Doug Davies, Washington DC (September 20, 2019)
Read more
—Doug Davies, Washington DC (September 20, 2019)
Please see attached letter.
—Meghan Hottel-Cox, Washington, DC (September 16, 2019)
—Meghan Hottel-Cox, Washington, DC (September 16, 2019)
Please see attached.
—David Lewis, Washington, DC (September 16, 2019)
—David Lewis, Washington, DC (September 16, 2019)
Please find attached a letter from City Interests LLC regarding Parkside and the Federal Workplace Element CEA.
—Michael Hodas, Washington, DC (September 13, 2019)
—Michael Hodas, Washington, DC (September 13, 2019)
The July 11, 2019, draft Federal Workplace Element does not mention Executive Order 12072, August 16, 1978 (Federal Space Management) (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12072.html) and Executive Order 13006, May 21, 1976 (Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central Cities) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-05-24/pdf/96-13305.pdf), although previous versions of this Element have cited one or both of these. This needs. . . to be corrected.
For example, page 7 of the 2016 Federal Workplace Element describes and cites Executive Order 12072. Among other things, E.O. 12072 states:
1-1. Space Acquisition.
1-101. Federal facilities and Federal use of space in urban areas shall serve to strengthen the Nation's cities and to make them attractive places to live and work. Such Federal space shall conserve existing urban resources and encourage the development and redevelopment of cities.
..........
1-103. Except where such selection is otherwise prohibited, the process for meeting Federal space needs in urban areas shall give first consideration to a centralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including other specific areas which may be recommended by local officials.
........................
1-301. The heads of Executive agencies shall cooperate with the Administrator in implementing the policies of this Order and shall economize on their use of space.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13006, May 21, 1976 (Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central Cities) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-05-24/pdf/96-13305.pdf) expands upon E.O. 12072. Section 1 of E.O. 13006 states:
Section 1. Statement of Policy. Through the Administration’s community empowerment initiatives, the Federal Government has undertaken various efforts to revitalize our central cities, which have historically served as the centers for growth and commerce in our metropolitan areas. Accordingly, the Administration hereby reaffirms the commitment set forth in Executive Order No. 12072 to strengthen our Nation’s cities by encouraging the location of Federal facilities in our central cities. The Administration also reaffirms the commitments set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act to provide leadership in the preservation of historic resources, and in the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 to acquire and utilize space in suitable buildings of historic, architectural, or cultural significance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1-101 of E.O. 12072 requires federal facilities and federal use of space to strengthen the Nation's cities and to encourage the development and redevelopment of cities. This is a legal requirement.
Section 1 of E.O. 13006 reaffirms the commitment set forth in Executive Order No. 12072 to strengthen the Nation’s cities by encouraging the location of Federal facilities in its central cities. Washington, D.C., is the central city of the National Capital Region.
All federal facilities and federal use of space in the National Capital Region that are outside of Washington, D.C. are in violation of E.O. 12072 and E.O. 13006. These violations have resulted in the decrease of federal employment within the District of Columbia and the increase in the increase of federal employment outside of the District.
The violations have greatly decreased the efficiency of the federal government and contributed to suburban sprawl within the National Capital Region. NCPC has done little to stop these violations.
The draft Federal Workplace Element states on page 7: "Federal Employment: City and Regional Distribution" ....
"Historically, federal employment has always been concentrated in Washington, DC. Because federal employment is such an important part of the regional economy, a vital goal is to strike a balance between central and regional locations. In 1960, 63 percent of federal employment (civilian and military) was in Washington.5 By 1990, that share was reduced to approximately 52 percent. Today, the federal employment distribution in Washington is below 49 percent."
The repeated violations of E.O. 12072 and E.O. 13006 by the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) and by the heads of other federal agencies are responsible for this decrease in the federal employment distribution in Washington . NCPC needs to stop these violations by emphasizing the need for the GSA Administrator and the heads of other federal agencies to comply with E.O. 12072 and 13006.
As stated above, the 2016 Federal Workplace Element references E.O. 12072. However, the July 11, 2019, draft Federal Workplace Element does not mention either E.O. 12072 or E.O. 13006. NCPC needs to correct this deficiency.
The section in the draft Federal Workplace Element entitled "Major Drivers Shaping Workplace Policy" on pages 11 - 13 needs to describe Executive Orders 12072 and 13006. The section should state that the provisions of these Executive Orders are legally binding, but that GSA and other federal agencies have repeatedly violated them when purchasing and leasing properties within the National Capital Region.
Page 19 of the draft Federal Workplace Element states:
"Policies
The federal government should:
FW.A.1 Maintain and reinforce Washington, DC as the seat of the federal government by retaining a majority of the regional federal employment in Washington."
An addition to FW.A.1 or a new paragraph should cite Executive Orders 12072 and 13006. The addition or new paragraph that these Executive Orders require that GSA and other federal agencies to locate within Washingon, D.C., all leased and federally-owned facilities that are in the National Capital Region, except where prohibited by federal statutes.
Page 27 of the draft Federal Workplace Element states:
"Policies
The federal government should:
FW.B.1 Prioritize the location of federal workplaces within the designated Central Employment Area (CEA) in Washington, DC. Beyond the CEA, consider sites in proximity to transit and identified by local jurisdictions as priority places for federal facilities. The District of Columbia, NCPC, and other federal agencies should evaluate the CEA as needed to ensure that it reflects current priorities."
FW.B.1. or another paragraph should describe the requirement in Section 1-103 in Executive Order 12072, that, except where such selection is otherwise prohibited, the process for meeting Federal space needs in urban areas must give first consideration to a centralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including other specific areas which may be recommended by local officials.
In addition, a new policy (FW.B. ....) should should encourage the location of federal facilities on historic properties in Washington, D.C. and other central cities in the National Capital Region by summarizing the following requirement in Section 2 of Executive Order 13006:
"Sec. 2. Encouraging the Location of Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Central Cities. When operationally appropriate and economically prudent, and subject to the requirements of section 601 of title VI of the Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3122), and Executive Order No. 12072, when locating Federal facilities, Federal agencies shall give first consideration to historic properties within historic districts. If no such property is suitable, then Federal agencies shall consider other developed or undeveloped sites within historic districts. Federal agencies shall then consider historic properties outside of historic districts, if no suitable site within a district exists. Any rehabilitation or construction that is undertaken pursuant to this order must be architecturally compatible with the character of the surrounding historic district or properties."
Read more
—Bernard H. Berne, Arlington, Virginia (August 14, 2019)
For example, page 7 of the 2016 Federal Workplace Element describes and cites Executive Order 12072. Among other things, E.O. 12072 states:
1-1. Space Acquisition.
1-101. Federal facilities and Federal use of space in urban areas shall serve to strengthen the Nation's cities and to make them attractive places to live and work. Such Federal space shall conserve existing urban resources and encourage the development and redevelopment of cities.
..........
1-103. Except where such selection is otherwise prohibited, the process for meeting Federal space needs in urban areas shall give first consideration to a centralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including other specific areas which may be recommended by local officials.
........................
1-301. The heads of Executive agencies shall cooperate with the Administrator in implementing the policies of this Order and shall economize on their use of space.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13006, May 21, 1976 (Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s Central Cities) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-05-24/pdf/96-13305.pdf) expands upon E.O. 12072. Section 1 of E.O. 13006 states:
Section 1. Statement of Policy. Through the Administration’s community empowerment initiatives, the Federal Government has undertaken various efforts to revitalize our central cities, which have historically served as the centers for growth and commerce in our metropolitan areas. Accordingly, the Administration hereby reaffirms the commitment set forth in Executive Order No. 12072 to strengthen our Nation’s cities by encouraging the location of Federal facilities in our central cities. The Administration also reaffirms the commitments set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act to provide leadership in the preservation of historic resources, and in the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 to acquire and utilize space in suitable buildings of historic, architectural, or cultural significance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1-101 of E.O. 12072 requires federal facilities and federal use of space to strengthen the Nation's cities and to encourage the development and redevelopment of cities. This is a legal requirement.
Section 1 of E.O. 13006 reaffirms the commitment set forth in Executive Order No. 12072 to strengthen the Nation’s cities by encouraging the location of Federal facilities in its central cities. Washington, D.C., is the central city of the National Capital Region.
All federal facilities and federal use of space in the National Capital Region that are outside of Washington, D.C. are in violation of E.O. 12072 and E.O. 13006. These violations have resulted in the decrease of federal employment within the District of Columbia and the increase in the increase of federal employment outside of the District.
The violations have greatly decreased the efficiency of the federal government and contributed to suburban sprawl within the National Capital Region. NCPC has done little to stop these violations.
The draft Federal Workplace Element states on page 7: "Federal Employment: City and Regional Distribution" ....
"Historically, federal employment has always been concentrated in Washington, DC. Because federal employment is such an important part of the regional economy, a vital goal is to strike a balance between central and regional locations. In 1960, 63 percent of federal employment (civilian and military) was in Washington.5 By 1990, that share was reduced to approximately 52 percent. Today, the federal employment distribution in Washington is below 49 percent."
The repeated violations of E.O. 12072 and E.O. 13006 by the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) and by the heads of other federal agencies are responsible for this decrease in the federal employment distribution in Washington . NCPC needs to stop these violations by emphasizing the need for the GSA Administrator and the heads of other federal agencies to comply with E.O. 12072 and 13006.
As stated above, the 2016 Federal Workplace Element references E.O. 12072. However, the July 11, 2019, draft Federal Workplace Element does not mention either E.O. 12072 or E.O. 13006. NCPC needs to correct this deficiency.
The section in the draft Federal Workplace Element entitled "Major Drivers Shaping Workplace Policy" on pages 11 - 13 needs to describe Executive Orders 12072 and 13006. The section should state that the provisions of these Executive Orders are legally binding, but that GSA and other federal agencies have repeatedly violated them when purchasing and leasing properties within the National Capital Region.
Page 19 of the draft Federal Workplace Element states:
"Policies
The federal government should:
FW.A.1 Maintain and reinforce Washington, DC as the seat of the federal government by retaining a majority of the regional federal employment in Washington."
An addition to FW.A.1 or a new paragraph should cite Executive Orders 12072 and 13006. The addition or new paragraph that these Executive Orders require that GSA and other federal agencies to locate within Washingon, D.C., all leased and federally-owned facilities that are in the National Capital Region, except where prohibited by federal statutes.
Page 27 of the draft Federal Workplace Element states:
"Policies
The federal government should:
FW.B.1 Prioritize the location of federal workplaces within the designated Central Employment Area (CEA) in Washington, DC. Beyond the CEA, consider sites in proximity to transit and identified by local jurisdictions as priority places for federal facilities. The District of Columbia, NCPC, and other federal agencies should evaluate the CEA as needed to ensure that it reflects current priorities."
FW.B.1. or another paragraph should describe the requirement in Section 1-103 in Executive Order 12072, that, except where such selection is otherwise prohibited, the process for meeting Federal space needs in urban areas must give first consideration to a centralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including other specific areas which may be recommended by local officials.
In addition, a new policy (FW.B. ....) should should encourage the location of federal facilities on historic properties in Washington, D.C. and other central cities in the National Capital Region by summarizing the following requirement in Section 2 of Executive Order 13006:
"Sec. 2. Encouraging the Location of Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Central Cities. When operationally appropriate and economically prudent, and subject to the requirements of section 601 of title VI of the Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3122), and Executive Order No. 12072, when locating Federal facilities, Federal agencies shall give first consideration to historic properties within historic districts. If no such property is suitable, then Federal agencies shall consider other developed or undeveloped sites within historic districts. Federal agencies shall then consider historic properties outside of historic districts, if no suitable site within a district exists. Any rehabilitation or construction that is undertaken pursuant to this order must be architecturally compatible with the character of the surrounding historic district or properties."
Read more
—Bernard H. Berne, Arlington, Virginia (August 14, 2019)
In comments submitted to the portal yesterday, I mentioned an article I had read about threats posed by rising sea levels expected in the future.
I found the story both fascinating and troubling. The list of just US cities that could be affected and have huge costs for even dubious sea walls. . . has upset me. Just in our area and nearby, no mention of Washington DC or Baltimore MD. That's why I think the Federal element on Federal workplace should at least have some discussion or at least a reminder to look at what NCPC has already done on flooding, including floods from the ocean just down the Potomac River. Or, worse, what would happen if the geological fault that is somewhat past the mouth of the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay were to fracture and generate vast and powerful amounts of water that would run out of shoreline in the case of the Potomac when they get just past Georgetown and the Kennedy Center and the effects of the existing topography would stop the oncoming waters but the surge would be of great power to fundamentally change existing development and a natural topography that has been in place for centuries, long before even L'Enfant developed his plan.
Link is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/climate/seawalls-cities-cost-climate-change.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
Lindsley Williams
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Oakland, Maryland (August 08, 2019)
I found the story both fascinating and troubling. The list of just US cities that could be affected and have huge costs for even dubious sea walls. . . has upset me. Just in our area and nearby, no mention of Washington DC or Baltimore MD. That's why I think the Federal element on Federal workplace should at least have some discussion or at least a reminder to look at what NCPC has already done on flooding, including floods from the ocean just down the Potomac River. Or, worse, what would happen if the geological fault that is somewhat past the mouth of the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay were to fracture and generate vast and powerful amounts of water that would run out of shoreline in the case of the Potomac when they get just past Georgetown and the Kennedy Center and the effects of the existing topography would stop the oncoming waters but the surge would be of great power to fundamentally change existing development and a natural topography that has been in place for centuries, long before even L'Enfant developed his plan.
Link is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/climate/seawalls-cities-cost-climate-change.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
Lindsley Williams
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Oakland, Maryland (August 08, 2019)
From a prior email to NCPC, with updates in some portions:
Commissioners and Commission Executives and Staff:
i have been concerned with the challenges of planning for possible flooding in the National Capitol area, and particularly in the lower lying areas of the core of DC as laid out by L'Enfant. . . more than two centuries ago and other low-lying areas along the Potomac River that are now "tidal" to some extent (the Alexandria waterfront and Reagan National Airport come to mind) as do low-lying Federal and regional facilities along the Anacostia River's eastern side (such as the Air Force and Marine Corps bases) and the enormous Blue Plains waste water treatment complex.
It would seem appropriate to develop and include statements in the plan now under review pending adoption about the threat rising sea levels could pose that would be "ocean originating" as distinct from storm water surges that would arrive from land and its current rivers and streams. One way to make this clear would be to include a diagram/map of current shorelines and then show areas that would be inundated if the water level were to rise by 5 foot intervals. I have read news reports that cite projections of a rise in sea level as much as 50 feet from vast melting of what's now frozen far north and far south (the polar icecaps). I can't assert any certainty as to such a rise but if it were to be even half that, the L'Enfant's city's total land area would be greatly reduced. At risk: the Congress, the White House, the Mall and its institutions and memorials, and bridges and tunnels the population and nation know, depend on, and cherish, along with emergency access and exits, air shafts and catch basins that are essential to the connected infrastructure. Add to this all or portions of facilities that are of utmost importance to our nation and its economy, such as the Federal Reserve Bank headquarters and the portion of the Treasury Department that has the duty and capacity to print and distribute our standard currency with its security features.
Sea level rise can also seem to occur when land levels reduce, commonly called "sinking." This is reportedly happening in some areas in the lower Potomac and Chesapeake Bay areas. The draft element should diagram what's known about this as well and discuss the implications.
It could be useful to diagram where full and part time federal employees are located with clusters of dots that range from one to some thousands, and include in this personnel that are in the same location as contract employees or guest workers (a population that can in some instances be larger than the employee count itself).
Some might recommend "sea walls". That's a possibility, but one that has obvious limits and considerable costs to create and maintain.
Should the Capitol and White House move to higher land in DC or Virginia? That's not my preference, but the plan should have a discussion and potential plan to adopt or adapt /revise if and as circumstances warrant. Such plans should tackle the thorny problems associated with this, particularly who would be in charge (Federal government, States and DC (if not a State by then anyway), localities, citizens, etc.) and how would the funds needed be ready to apply in what may well be a time of great stress and many other demands.
The email is from myself as an individual, not on behalf of any client or organization composed at my dwelling in the hills of western Maryland -- where the elevation is just over 2,500 feet above "sea level."
Let's just plan to keep us all, and our institutions, "dry" and out of "harms way" and look ahead in this situation not just for a decade or two but a century.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Lindsley Williams
Land Line 301-387-4224
Mobile 202-246-4814
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Oakland, Maryland (August 07, 2019)
Commissioners and Commission Executives and Staff:
i have been concerned with the challenges of planning for possible flooding in the National Capitol area, and particularly in the lower lying areas of the core of DC as laid out by L'Enfant. . . more than two centuries ago and other low-lying areas along the Potomac River that are now "tidal" to some extent (the Alexandria waterfront and Reagan National Airport come to mind) as do low-lying Federal and regional facilities along the Anacostia River's eastern side (such as the Air Force and Marine Corps bases) and the enormous Blue Plains waste water treatment complex.
It would seem appropriate to develop and include statements in the plan now under review pending adoption about the threat rising sea levels could pose that would be "ocean originating" as distinct from storm water surges that would arrive from land and its current rivers and streams. One way to make this clear would be to include a diagram/map of current shorelines and then show areas that would be inundated if the water level were to rise by 5 foot intervals. I have read news reports that cite projections of a rise in sea level as much as 50 feet from vast melting of what's now frozen far north and far south (the polar icecaps). I can't assert any certainty as to such a rise but if it were to be even half that, the L'Enfant's city's total land area would be greatly reduced. At risk: the Congress, the White House, the Mall and its institutions and memorials, and bridges and tunnels the population and nation know, depend on, and cherish, along with emergency access and exits, air shafts and catch basins that are essential to the connected infrastructure. Add to this all or portions of facilities that are of utmost importance to our nation and its economy, such as the Federal Reserve Bank headquarters and the portion of the Treasury Department that has the duty and capacity to print and distribute our standard currency with its security features.
Sea level rise can also seem to occur when land levels reduce, commonly called "sinking." This is reportedly happening in some areas in the lower Potomac and Chesapeake Bay areas. The draft element should diagram what's known about this as well and discuss the implications.
It could be useful to diagram where full and part time federal employees are located with clusters of dots that range from one to some thousands, and include in this personnel that are in the same location as contract employees or guest workers (a population that can in some instances be larger than the employee count itself).
Some might recommend "sea walls". That's a possibility, but one that has obvious limits and considerable costs to create and maintain.
Should the Capitol and White House move to higher land in DC or Virginia? That's not my preference, but the plan should have a discussion and potential plan to adopt or adapt /revise if and as circumstances warrant. Such plans should tackle the thorny problems associated with this, particularly who would be in charge (Federal government, States and DC (if not a State by then anyway), localities, citizens, etc.) and how would the funds needed be ready to apply in what may well be a time of great stress and many other demands.
The email is from myself as an individual, not on behalf of any client or organization composed at my dwelling in the hills of western Maryland -- where the elevation is just over 2,500 feet above "sea level."
Let's just plan to keep us all, and our institutions, "dry" and out of "harms way" and look ahead in this situation not just for a decade or two but a century.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Lindsley Williams
Land Line 301-387-4224
Mobile 202-246-4814
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Oakland, Maryland (August 07, 2019)
My membership are employed by the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center. Parking for the Smithsonian employees is almost gone now. People who drive and must park their vehicles, if they can find a spot or garage and pay as much as $25.00 per day. If they live in Virginia, they must take toll. . . lanes because if they do not it will take them as much as 4 hours one way. The tolls on frwy 66 are as much as $38.00 one way. My membership can pay as much as $98.00 per day just to go to work. If they take Metro, they could be fired due to being late to work for taking a broken and mismanaged rail system.
You have no plans to address the financial hardship of the Federal workforce, instead you add speed cameras and more parking meters to fill your overflowing city coffers at the expense of hard working federal employees. You also object to the Federal Government moving some of it's agencies out of DC to states where the cost of buildings is much lower. You have tricked the Federal workforce to oppose this move as well, by not telling them that for the first time in their lives for many of them they would actually be able to afford a house because the cost of living is so much cheaper and there are no parking issues or $38.00 tolls to rob them of their hard earned dollar.
If you don't want your city to dry up and disappear you need to address the needs of the Federal Workforce just not cater to the Federal Agencies.
Read more
—David Hendrick, Warrenton, VA (July 30, 2019)
You have no plans to address the financial hardship of the Federal workforce, instead you add speed cameras and more parking meters to fill your overflowing city coffers at the expense of hard working federal employees. You also object to the Federal Government moving some of it's agencies out of DC to states where the cost of buildings is much lower. You have tricked the Federal workforce to oppose this move as well, by not telling them that for the first time in their lives for many of them they would actually be able to afford a house because the cost of living is so much cheaper and there are no parking issues or $38.00 tolls to rob them of their hard earned dollar.
If you don't want your city to dry up and disappear you need to address the needs of the Federal Workforce just not cater to the Federal Agencies.
Read more
—David Hendrick, Warrenton, VA (July 30, 2019)
Suggest providing incentives to those providing housing to federal government workers and contractors working in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area and surrounding areas. i.e., Federal Government pay a 10 -25 % incentive to apartment complexes (that meet the Federal Government quality housing criteria) renting to government employees and/or contractors.
I recently worked at Fort Belvoir,. . . VA and commuted from Frederick, MD and paid $1,630 + per month for a modest one bedroom apartment. in Frederick, MD.
Other employee incentives could be developed by the Federal Government to alleviate commuting times and housing crunches on employees and contractors. i.e., increase the opportunities for responsible telework by Federal Employees. Telework would decrease commuting on the interstates, reduce traffic congestion, risk of accidents, and improve overall employee satisfaction.
Suggest studying the high tech workplace environments such as in Silicon Valley and other lucrative workplace areas in the United States to learn lessons on attracting and retaining high quality employees and apply those lessons learned to Federal Government jobs.
Read more
—Lavaughn Lee Hamblin, Brooksville, KY 41004 (July 20, 2019)
I recently worked at Fort Belvoir,. . . VA and commuted from Frederick, MD and paid $1,630 + per month for a modest one bedroom apartment. in Frederick, MD.
Other employee incentives could be developed by the Federal Government to alleviate commuting times and housing crunches on employees and contractors. i.e., increase the opportunities for responsible telework by Federal Employees. Telework would decrease commuting on the interstates, reduce traffic congestion, risk of accidents, and improve overall employee satisfaction.
Suggest studying the high tech workplace environments such as in Silicon Valley and other lucrative workplace areas in the United States to learn lessons on attracting and retaining high quality employees and apply those lessons learned to Federal Government jobs.
Read more
—Lavaughn Lee Hamblin, Brooksville, KY 41004 (July 20, 2019)
The plan is impressive. It should be enhanced by a survey and table of surface parking lots used for Federal Employees especially within Washington DC with specific plans to make them impermeable or covered by solar or eliminated and replaced by shuttle transportation from nearby public transit.. Of special note the extensive congressional lots within walking. . . distance of Union station or other metro stops.The Federal Publications Buildings and associated parking lots which include the closure of one DC street should be specifically reviewed. No DC street unless required for security purposes should be retained for Federal exclusive usage.
Read more
—DANIEL Maceda, WASHINTON (July 18, 2019)
Read more
—DANIEL Maceda, WASHINTON (July 18, 2019)
I attended one of the open houses for the Parks & Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan, but have not had time to respond to the draft in depth. I just want to reiterate the importance of the Civil War Defenses of Washington (CWDW)/Fort Circle Parks. These are not only extremely significant cultural. . . and historical resources, but also beautiful landscapes, natural resources, and public parks. Unfortunately, the National Park Service has not adequately maintained, operated or promoted them due to lack of funding and staff resources. The small staff that administer them are very dedicated and hardworking, but more resources are needed for adequate protection, interpretation, and management. Other Federal and District government agencies need to do their part to help. Our organization, the Alliance to Preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington, does what we can in the private sector to provide advocacy, raise public awareness and education. But much more is needed from everyone. The NCPC's Parks and Open Space Element should provide direction and guidance.
Loretta Neumann, President
Alliance to Preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington
Read more
—Loretta Neumann, Washington (May 07, 2018)
Loretta Neumann, President
Alliance to Preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington
Read more
—Loretta Neumann, Washington (May 07, 2018)
I ask the NCPC to advocate for environmentally sensitive lighting in Federal parks and open spaces. Please amend the Comprehensive Plan to require: fully shielded lighting; warm color temperatures (below 2700k); and lighting that is no brighter than required for a residential street or alley. This would be for a white surface (residential cement road,. . . sidewalk, etc.) an average of 0.3 footcandles (or 3 lux); or if the surface is asphalt, then a bit brighter, 0.4 footcandles (or 4 lux). Thank you.
Read more
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, DC (May 07, 2018)
Read more
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, DC (May 07, 2018)
I propose the a revision to Section D. (Balance Multiple Uses Within Parks), of the Parks and Open Space Element that will add the following recommendation on page 36 following "The federal government should ....":
POS D.8. Except where precluded by other uses, replace frequently mowed open spaces with natural areas, including meadows. . . and pollinator habitats.
Explanation: Many National Parks in the National Capital Region, including the George Washington National Parkway, contain wide expanses of frequently mowed lawns that serve no useful purpose.
These landscaped areas support little wildlife and require needless federal expenditures for frequent mowing. The National Park Service should mow these areas only once a year (outside of growing season) to encourage the development of natural meadows and pollinator habitats while controlling the spread of invasive vines and other non-native vegetation.
On 20 June 2014, President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum entitled "Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators". The memorandum established a Pollinator Health Task Force, to be co-chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. On May 19, 2015, the Pollinator Health Task Force issued a "National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators" (National Strategy (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Pollinator%20Health%20Strategy%202015.pdf). The strategy lays out a number of current and planned federal actions, which include: " Pollinator Habitat Acreage: Restore or enhance 7 million acres of land for pollinators over the next 5 years through Federal actions and public/private partnerships."
However, the National Park Service has not complied with the National Strategy within the National Capital Region. The National Park Service is still frequently mowing the wide unused lawns that occupy most of the George Washington Memorial Parkway's landscape between the Arlington Memorial Bridge and Mount Vernon. Further, the National Park Service is still frequently mowing much of the median between the traffic lanes on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
These costly federal actions, which are contrary to federal policy, are significantly harming the natural environment in the National Capital Region. The Parks and Open Space Element therefore needs to contain a recommendation that will help the federal government implement the National Strategy within the National Capital Region.
Read more
—Bernard H. Berne, Arlington, Virginia (May 02, 2018)
POS D.8. Except where precluded by other uses, replace frequently mowed open spaces with natural areas, including meadows. . . and pollinator habitats.
Explanation: Many National Parks in the National Capital Region, including the George Washington National Parkway, contain wide expanses of frequently mowed lawns that serve no useful purpose.
These landscaped areas support little wildlife and require needless federal expenditures for frequent mowing. The National Park Service should mow these areas only once a year (outside of growing season) to encourage the development of natural meadows and pollinator habitats while controlling the spread of invasive vines and other non-native vegetation.
On 20 June 2014, President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum entitled "Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators". The memorandum established a Pollinator Health Task Force, to be co-chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. On May 19, 2015, the Pollinator Health Task Force issued a "National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators" (National Strategy (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Pollinator%20Health%20Strategy%202015.pdf). The strategy lays out a number of current and planned federal actions, which include: " Pollinator Habitat Acreage: Restore or enhance 7 million acres of land for pollinators over the next 5 years through Federal actions and public/private partnerships."
However, the National Park Service has not complied with the National Strategy within the National Capital Region. The National Park Service is still frequently mowing the wide unused lawns that occupy most of the George Washington Memorial Parkway's landscape between the Arlington Memorial Bridge and Mount Vernon. Further, the National Park Service is still frequently mowing much of the median between the traffic lanes on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
These costly federal actions, which are contrary to federal policy, are significantly harming the natural environment in the National Capital Region. The Parks and Open Space Element therefore needs to contain a recommendation that will help the federal government implement the National Strategy within the National Capital Region.
Read more
—Bernard H. Berne, Arlington, Virginia (May 02, 2018)
I wanted to submit comments for this project to first extend my appreciation to NCPC for proposing a landscaping plan that would:
• Include soil volume adequate for shade trees.
• Protect the grove of trees north of the Delta Solar sculpture.
• Include new shade trees in the Northeast and Southwest sections.
• Improve visitor access to trees.
. . . />
I would request that the NCPC consider making the following enhancements to the current plans, as it relates to the landscape:
• Replace shade trees in at least a 1:1 ratio.
• Plant shade trees in all planting beds where there is at least 1,000 cubic feet of soil.
• Expand the 5'3" planting bed in the North Entrance section (below) into the space designated as a 12' walkway to its south.
• Increase or maintain the level of tree diversity that exists at the National Air & Space Museum today.
Read more
—Jackie Cobb, Washington, DC (May 01, 2017)
• Include soil volume adequate for shade trees.
• Protect the grove of trees north of the Delta Solar sculpture.
• Include new shade trees in the Northeast and Southwest sections.
• Improve visitor access to trees.
• Replace shade trees in at least a 1:1 ratio.
• Plant shade trees in all planting beds where there is at least 1,000 cubic feet of soil.
• Expand the 5'3" planting bed in the North Entrance section (below) into the space designated as a 12' walkway to its south.
• Increase or maintain the level of tree diversity that exists at the National Air & Space Museum today.
Read more
—Jackie Cobb, Washington, DC (May 01, 2017)
Although I would much prefer a demolish and rebuild of the entire museum, with an international design competition (which could be cheaper than renovations: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/concrete-details/article/20829491/why-air-and-space-should-build-anew), of these cladding options I would prefer the St. Clair Limestone.
—David Garber, Washington, DC (April 05, 2017)
—David Garber, Washington, DC (April 05, 2017)
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City commends the National Capital Planning Commission on the proposed square guidelines for the site of the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI Headquarters) and urges the Commission to adopt them as final.
The proposed guidelines are well-considered and comprehensive and will provide important guidance to a future developer.. . . Most importantly, the guidelines protect the public interest in Pennsylvania Avenue and honor its significance as the nation’s Main Street. It is important that the future space along Pennsylvania Avenue be wide enough to accommodate landscape features (two rows of trees) and space for animated urban activity (sidewalk cafes, art works, kiosks, etc)
We fully support the proposed build-to line along Pennsylvania Avenue which provides adequate space for urban activities. We believe that this design for Pennsylvania Avenue in the 21st century is consistent with L’Enfant’s vision for a broad ceremonial street with a double row of trees. Because the “cartway” has been widened significantly, using the old L’Enfant line would limit the public space so important for civic events and permit only a single row of trees.
L’Enfant outlined his plan at the end of the eighteenth centery (1791) and could not have anticipated that buildings would be so high or that the Avenue width (curb to curb) would be as wide as it is today in the 21st century. He did, however, wish that it frame the vista of the U.S. Capitol. The modeling by the NCPC staff clearly shows that the vista is best served by the guidelines now proposed.
The proposed square guidelines for Squares 378 and 379 build on previous planning, experience, and modeling to provide the best opportunity to realize this once-in-a generation opportunity to “get it right” on this most important of streets. This section of Pennsylvania Avenue in the future must be an active urban space, not just a narrow sidewalk.
Read more
—Carol Aten--Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Washington, DC (November 10, 2016)
The proposed guidelines are well-considered and comprehensive and will provide important guidance to a future developer.. . . Most importantly, the guidelines protect the public interest in Pennsylvania Avenue and honor its significance as the nation’s Main Street. It is important that the future space along Pennsylvania Avenue be wide enough to accommodate landscape features (two rows of trees) and space for animated urban activity (sidewalk cafes, art works, kiosks, etc)
We fully support the proposed build-to line along Pennsylvania Avenue which provides adequate space for urban activities. We believe that this design for Pennsylvania Avenue in the 21st century is consistent with L’Enfant’s vision for a broad ceremonial street with a double row of trees. Because the “cartway” has been widened significantly, using the old L’Enfant line would limit the public space so important for civic events and permit only a single row of trees.
L’Enfant outlined his plan at the end of the eighteenth centery (1791) and could not have anticipated that buildings would be so high or that the Avenue width (curb to curb) would be as wide as it is today in the 21st century. He did, however, wish that it frame the vista of the U.S. Capitol. The modeling by the NCPC staff clearly shows that the vista is best served by the guidelines now proposed.
The proposed square guidelines for Squares 378 and 379 build on previous planning, experience, and modeling to provide the best opportunity to realize this once-in-a generation opportunity to “get it right” on this most important of streets. This section of Pennsylvania Avenue in the future must be an active urban space, not just a narrow sidewalk.
Read more
—Carol Aten--Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Washington, DC (November 10, 2016)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Square Guidelines for the redevelopment of the FBI Headquarters. The DowntownDC Business Improvement District would like to offer comments on the following areas for your consideration:
Site Vision:
The DowntownDC BID supports the general vision to redevelop the Hoover Building as a vibrant, mixed use,. . . high density addition to Downtown DC.
In keeping with the District’s vision for a living downtown, the DowntownDC BID strongly encourages the inclusion of residential uses in the redevelopment of the site. Additional downtown residents help further the transformation of Downtown into a vibrant place around the clock; they also help get Downtown to a critical mass of residents to support local-serving retail establishments in addition to the regional-serving destination retail.
Pennsylvania Avenue Setback:
The DowntownDC BID supports decreasing the current setback of the FBI building along Pennsylvania Avenue. The current sidewalk is too wide to provide an intimate pedestrian experience; decreasing the setback would also allow for a greater developable area and more design flexibility for a developer to work with the triangular lot on Square 379.
Pennsylvania Avenue Building Height:
The Downtown BID supports maximizing the available development capacity on the FBI site; preserving view corridors to the US Capitol on Pennsylvania Avenue is important; using upper story setbacks that take cues from the historic buildings along the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue is a good benchmark, with taller portions set back from that historic cornice line.
Internal Circulation:
Due to the large size of the FBI site, adding internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation makes sense. Aside from the restoration of the historic D Street right of way, other internal circulation patterns could be a strong addition to the site.
CityCenterDC provides a model – a consolidated underground loading dock and parking facility allows the entire site to be serviced by just three curb cuts. At the street level, pedestrian-only streets such as Palmer Alley both open additional building space up as viable retail spaces but also provide additional pedestrian pathways through an otherwise large parcel. These principles should be embraced and encouraged for the FBI site, but the specific arrangement and configuration of those spaces will require further analysis from NCPC and District government agencies and partners.
While not an appropriate topic for the Square Guidelines, NCPC should encourage the District Department of Transportation to work with the eventual developer of the site on a comprehensive transportation plan for the area to determine the best traffic arrangement for a newly created D Street, as well as studying the conversion of 10th St NW to two-way operation.
Read more
View attachment
—Alex Block, Washington (September 20, 2016)
Site Vision:
The DowntownDC BID supports the general vision to redevelop the Hoover Building as a vibrant, mixed use,. . . high density addition to Downtown DC.
In keeping with the District’s vision for a living downtown, the DowntownDC BID strongly encourages the inclusion of residential uses in the redevelopment of the site. Additional downtown residents help further the transformation of Downtown into a vibrant place around the clock; they also help get Downtown to a critical mass of residents to support local-serving retail establishments in addition to the regional-serving destination retail.
Pennsylvania Avenue Setback:
The DowntownDC BID supports decreasing the current setback of the FBI building along Pennsylvania Avenue. The current sidewalk is too wide to provide an intimate pedestrian experience; decreasing the setback would also allow for a greater developable area and more design flexibility for a developer to work with the triangular lot on Square 379.
Pennsylvania Avenue Building Height:
The Downtown BID supports maximizing the available development capacity on the FBI site; preserving view corridors to the US Capitol on Pennsylvania Avenue is important; using upper story setbacks that take cues from the historic buildings along the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue is a good benchmark, with taller portions set back from that historic cornice line.
Internal Circulation:
Due to the large size of the FBI site, adding internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation makes sense. Aside from the restoration of the historic D Street right of way, other internal circulation patterns could be a strong addition to the site.
CityCenterDC provides a model – a consolidated underground loading dock and parking facility allows the entire site to be serviced by just three curb cuts. At the street level, pedestrian-only streets such as Palmer Alley both open additional building space up as viable retail spaces but also provide additional pedestrian pathways through an otherwise large parcel. These principles should be embraced and encouraged for the FBI site, but the specific arrangement and configuration of those spaces will require further analysis from NCPC and District government agencies and partners.
While not an appropriate topic for the Square Guidelines, NCPC should encourage the District Department of Transportation to work with the eventual developer of the site on a comprehensive transportation plan for the area to determine the best traffic arrangement for a newly created D Street, as well as studying the conversion of 10th St NW to two-way operation.
Read more
View attachment
—Alex Block, Washington (September 20, 2016)
Please accept my comments regarding the redevelopment guidelines proposed for Squares 378 & 379
View attachment
—Chris Morrison FAIA, Washington, DC (September 19, 2016)
View attachment
—Chris Morrison FAIA, Washington, DC (September 19, 2016)
I am submitting comments as the former Chief architect for GSA, and my comments are based on my experience as an architect in the District of Columbia for over 50 years; including my time as Chief Architect for the US General Services Administration.
It would be excellent for the District to reintroduce an active. . . Street Wall along America's Main Street that would provide a vibrant pedestrian friendly experience. This should include restaurants, shops and cafes. The development should be mixed-use with 24-hour activity: hospitality, residential, multi-tenant offices, retail, indoor and outdoor dining.
The design should be "of our time" but have some reference to overall context of the Federal City. In other words, it should be meaningful, with permanent materiality and appropriate proportions. It should also celebrate and communicate environmental responsibility and sustainable design.
I have previous experience regarding the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue during my work on (and officially reviewed for GSA) the Urban Design Criteria for the Ronald Reagan Building as well as the Market Square proposals. Therefore, I have an appreciation for what is needed to finally create the vibrant Main Street that PADC was looking to develop when it was first created.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a well-planned and executed redevelopment of two keys parcels in the District. We must focus on creating value as well as a lasting connection between two important neighborhoods that have been separated for decades.
The context of the two squares are not currently unified, therefore it does not seem to be logical that so much weight should be given to the context. The current context has created a place that is not particularly vibrant or commercially successful.
It seems that rather than creating very strict guidelines now. It would be better to see what the best designers in the nation can propose that will maximize the vast potential of this site; the last true opportunity to make America's Main Street a showplace of and for the American People.
Read more
—Ed Feiner, FAIA, Arlington, VA (September 16, 2016)
It would be excellent for the District to reintroduce an active. . . Street Wall along America's Main Street that would provide a vibrant pedestrian friendly experience. This should include restaurants, shops and cafes. The development should be mixed-use with 24-hour activity: hospitality, residential, multi-tenant offices, retail, indoor and outdoor dining.
The design should be "of our time" but have some reference to overall context of the Federal City. In other words, it should be meaningful, with permanent materiality and appropriate proportions. It should also celebrate and communicate environmental responsibility and sustainable design.
I have previous experience regarding the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue during my work on (and officially reviewed for GSA) the Urban Design Criteria for the Ronald Reagan Building as well as the Market Square proposals. Therefore, I have an appreciation for what is needed to finally create the vibrant Main Street that PADC was looking to develop when it was first created.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a well-planned and executed redevelopment of two keys parcels in the District. We must focus on creating value as well as a lasting connection between two important neighborhoods that have been separated for decades.
The context of the two squares are not currently unified, therefore it does not seem to be logical that so much weight should be given to the context. The current context has created a place that is not particularly vibrant or commercially successful.
It seems that rather than creating very strict guidelines now. It would be better to see what the best designers in the nation can propose that will maximize the vast potential of this site; the last true opportunity to make America's Main Street a showplace of and for the American People.
Read more
—Ed Feiner, FAIA, Arlington, VA (September 16, 2016)
I have been a business owner and resident of the Penn Quarter for 44 years. Development issues of the Penn Quarter are of particular interest to me, especially when it has to do with the most historic street in the Nation, Pennsylvania Ave., NW, the People's Avenue.
I am passionately opposed to any development on. . . the existing FBI site that does not have the interest of the entire Nation as its primary focus !
The smaller of the 2 squares, square 379 is of particular interest to me as it would be to any person visiting our great Capitol. We do not need another office building on this square, nor do we need a building that has a short setback from the street. If maximizing the total number of square feet of the buildings is crucial, then by all means D St. needs to remain closed. Reopening D St would add nothing to improving the traffic flow, and would greatly diminish the total square footage of the development package. If, for some obscure reason, it becomes necessary to reopen D St., perhaps a tunnel passage might be considered, allowing development from the second floor, upward.
A plan should be considered so that any development facing Pennsylvania Ave serves the interests of all people of this nation. My vision is to have a National Museum entitled, "A Nation of Immigrants". Such a museum and such a focus would be particularly timely. I envision a participation from many of Washington, DC's Embassies, and entrepreneurs. I envision a grand Pennsylvania Ave sidewalk, as wide as is already existing, with outdoor cafes serving foods from all over the world, with shops displaying and selling the finest arts, crafts, fashions, and wares from a huge variety of countries. I envision a Pennsylvania Ave entrance leading to the museum above the first floor retail, telling the history and boasting of the many contributions that immigrants from so many of the world's countries have made to make our country the great Nation that it is today.
Such a project would create job opportunities, provide tax revenues to both federal and local governments, and most importantly, create something that would be a major attraction, not only to local residents but to all visitors from all parts of the world. An office building could never do that !
Read more
—dominick cardella, WASHINGTON DC (September 13, 2016)
I am passionately opposed to any development on. . . the existing FBI site that does not have the interest of the entire Nation as its primary focus !
The smaller of the 2 squares, square 379 is of particular interest to me as it would be to any person visiting our great Capitol. We do not need another office building on this square, nor do we need a building that has a short setback from the street. If maximizing the total number of square feet of the buildings is crucial, then by all means D St. needs to remain closed. Reopening D St would add nothing to improving the traffic flow, and would greatly diminish the total square footage of the development package. If, for some obscure reason, it becomes necessary to reopen D St., perhaps a tunnel passage might be considered, allowing development from the second floor, upward.
A plan should be considered so that any development facing Pennsylvania Ave serves the interests of all people of this nation. My vision is to have a National Museum entitled, "A Nation of Immigrants". Such a museum and such a focus would be particularly timely. I envision a participation from many of Washington, DC's Embassies, and entrepreneurs. I envision a grand Pennsylvania Ave sidewalk, as wide as is already existing, with outdoor cafes serving foods from all over the world, with shops displaying and selling the finest arts, crafts, fashions, and wares from a huge variety of countries. I envision a Pennsylvania Ave entrance leading to the museum above the first floor retail, telling the history and boasting of the many contributions that immigrants from so many of the world's countries have made to make our country the great Nation that it is today.
Such a project would create job opportunities, provide tax revenues to both federal and local governments, and most importantly, create something that would be a major attraction, not only to local residents but to all visitors from all parts of the world. An office building could never do that !
Read more
—dominick cardella, WASHINGTON DC (September 13, 2016)
I am a resident of the District, a professional archaeologist, and a Federal employee that manages the museum program for a large Federal agency with millions of archaeological collections. In all these capacities, I am well aware of how much the District of Columbia needs an archaeological collections facility that provides long-term preservation and accountability. . . of the District's collections; access to those collections for researchers, educators, descendant communities, and the general public; and objects and archives for display in temporary exhibitions. I strongly support the Archaeological Collections Storage and Exhibit Space in the MLK Library Rehabilitation and Modernization Project. It is critical that all the District's archaeological collections are located in a single location in order to efficiently and effectively manage and provide access to them. The general public needs to see the results of the archaeology conducted in the District so the exhibit space is an important component of this effort. It is also critical that the space allocated for this effort is sufficient to house ALL the current collections AND to accommodate future growth of the collections as more archaeological projects are conducted in the District.
Read more
—S. Terry Childs, Washington, DC 20007 (September 04, 2016)
Read more
—S. Terry Childs, Washington, DC 20007 (September 04, 2016)
Comments on Urban Design Draft Federal Element
View attachment
—Lindsley Williams, Urban Design (December 14, 2015)
View attachment
—Lindsley Williams, Urban Design (December 14, 2015)
Reference to "Reduce the Footprint" should be provided in lieu of, or in addition to the page five reference to "Freeze the Footprint".
—Jane Engvall, Federal Workplace (December 08, 2015)
—Jane Engvall, Federal Workplace (December 08, 2015)
To Whom it May Concern,
The attached letter is the response of The Friends of Kingman Park Board written on behalf of it's members regarding development at the RFK Site. We hope you will take into consideration our opinions in any future development plans for this area. We appreciate you taking the time to. . . read our response.
Sincerely,
Corianne Setzer
Friends of Kingman Park, Vice President
Read more
View attachment
—The Friends of Kingman Park Board, General Comment (December 07, 2015)
The attached letter is the response of The Friends of Kingman Park Board written on behalf of it's members regarding development at the RFK Site. We hope you will take into consideration our opinions in any future development plans for this area. We appreciate you taking the time to. . . read our response.
Sincerely,
Corianne Setzer
Friends of Kingman Park, Vice President
Read more
View attachment
—The Friends of Kingman Park Board, General Comment (December 07, 2015)
Please see attached comments.
View attachment
—Frazer Walton, Kingman Park Civic Association (December 07, 2015)
View attachment
—Frazer Walton, Kingman Park Civic Association (December 07, 2015)
Staff commends the National Capital Planning Commission for its comprehensive review and broad-based recommendations on the Historic Preservation element. Of particular interest to Fairfax County is recommendation HP.C.11 on page 8 of this element; the federal government should protect and preserve in place, the extant boundary stones that mark the original survey of the District of. . . Columbia. There are seven DC boundary stones located in and/or adjacent to Fairfax County. They were listed in the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites in 1970 and in the National Register in 1991. Thanks to the efforts of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) beginning in 1915, the stones were recovered and preserved. A century later, the stones are unfortunately in poor condition. Protection and preservation of the stones by the federal government, perhaps in concert with the DAR, would help to ensure the survival of these nationally significant objects.
Read more
—Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, Historic Preservation (December 07, 2015)
Read more
—Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, Historic Preservation (December 07, 2015)
The Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements, Federal Environment Element. Staff notes that the policies in this Element contain many relevant and timely updates, specifically in the area of climate change and adaptation. Staff is pleased to see the inclusion and revision of policies. . . that reflect the recent Executive Orders, and focus on the broader issues of sustainability.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements, Federal Environment Element.
Read more
—Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, Federal Environment (December 07, 2015)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements, Federal Environment Element.
Read more
—Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, Federal Environment (December 07, 2015)
Dear Angela Dupont,
Please find attached Casey Trees' public comments on the National Capital Planning Commission's updated Federal Elements. If you have any questions about these recommendations, please feel free to contact me at ktaddei@caseytrees.org.
Sincerely,
Kristin Taddei
View attachment
—Kristin Taddei, General Comment,Urban Design,Federal Workplace,Foreign Missions & International Organizationss,Feder (December 07, 2015)
Please find attached Casey Trees' public comments on the National Capital Planning Commission's updated Federal Elements. If you have any questions about these recommendations, please feel free to contact me at ktaddei@caseytrees.org.
Sincerely,
Kristin Taddei
View attachment
—Kristin Taddei, General Comment,Urban Design,Federal Workplace,Foreign Missions & International Organizationss,Feder (December 07, 2015)
Urban Design Element:
UD.A.2.2 While hiding utilities is important, NCPC should consider security infrastructure (bollards, barriers, etc) as a utility and well and work to 'hide' these elements within the rest of the streetscape.
UD.B.1.5 Digital Signage and Illumination: While there is a need to strike an appropriate balance between. . . reverence in the Monumental Core, the plan should balance opportunities for commerce as well as improved lighting opportunities for festive occasions in the rest of the city. While lighting and commercial signage may not be appropriate within the monumental core, these elements are critical elements to the city and commercial activity that surrounds it, and the plan should not impose undue restrictions on the vibrancy of day-to-day commerce in those neighborhoods adjacent to the monumental core.
Within the monumental core, consider the example of Paris, where illumination makes the City of Light come alive at night, rather than feeling drab and staid. Today's technology also allows for creative use of color for special occasions, using light to celebrate something without altering the monumental core's architecture.
Too often, lighting in federal spaces is both uninteresting and detrimental to an area's sense of place at night. Columbus Circle, adjacent to Union Station, includes streetlights that shine into the eyes of drivers and pedestrians, detracting from the space and the architecture while also making the space seem darker than it is.
The plan's recommendations for lighting should also consider safety and security issues. Street lighting along key avenues with NCPC's protected vistas is often poor (several pedestrians have been hit while crossing Pennsylvania Avenue at night). Illumination for pedestrians must be provided.
UD.B.3.1 Need to better define what a 'street' is and why it should be preserved. There is a difference between keeping a street open to automobile traffic as opposed to re-using the right-of-way for pedestrians, bikes, and placemaking. Protecting the L'Enfant Plan is important, but remember that L'Enfant was not a traffic engineer.
Protections against 'visual incursions into the rights of way' is overly broad. You could read this as a prohibition on street trees or other in-street greenery.
UD.B.3.2 Include formal partnerships for the programming and maintenance of public space as a priority, including partnerships with non-governmental entities.
UD.B.4.1 New programming for street level of Federal Triangle Buildings - a welcome addition to add street life into a office-heavy environment. But this requires addressing security issues such as locked front doors and 'temporary' planters acting as security barriers that only serve to block sidewalk access for pedestrians.
Given the historic nature of the Federal Triangle buildings, it is unreasonable to expect any ground-floor activation of those buildings to include publicly accessible uses (such as ground-floor retail), even if those uses would be desirable. However, even the existing office uses are hostile to pedestrians on the street, with closed entrances and security barricades.
UD.C.2.2 Encouraging retail uses is an excellent method to link federal buildings in with their surroundings, particularly in areas outside of the monumental core. These parts of the city have value because of their urban setting, and the federal government should embrace that.
UD.C.3 - The entire security sub-chapter is excellent, particularly the focus on federal standards for security and design in public space. However, despite the introduction's lamentation about temporary security measures such as obtrusive planters (that lack living plants), there isn't a recommendation that these 'temporary' solutions of concrete barricades and planters be replaced with permanent and pedestrian-friendly streetscape additions. This is in spite of their presence for decades (since the Oklahoma City bombing) on Washington's streets.
The plan should call for the Federal Government to aggressively work to eliminate 'temporary' security measures and install permanent, pedestrian-friendly and attractive barriers.
In 2005, (page 42), NCPC notes that they updated security objectives and policies. Has there been any progress in implementing these policies over the last decade?
Transportation Elements:
T.B.5 Stronger language would be welcome: charge market rates for parking.
T.D.1 Providing parking only for those that are unable to use other modes is good, but 'unable' is an open-ended term. Providing parking at market rates should better inform decisions about how much parking is really needed for these facilities. By not charging the market rate for parking, the Federal Government is distorting the true demand for parking.
T.E The biking plan elements are excellent.
T.F should include language about avoiding unnecessary or duplicative circulators and instead focus on partnering with local transit operators and providers to use the local transit system for Circulator routes - or allow the public to utilize these federally provided services.
Add a requirement to analyze existing transit networks and provide a rationale for why a shuttle is needed. If existing public transit services are insufficient, look to first add service by funding additional transit services via an agency's TMP.
Read more
—Alex Block, Urban Design,Transportation (December 07, 2015)
UD.A.2.2 While hiding utilities is important, NCPC should consider security infrastructure (bollards, barriers, etc) as a utility and well and work to 'hide' these elements within the rest of the streetscape.
UD.B.1.5 Digital Signage and Illumination: While there is a need to strike an appropriate balance between. . . reverence in the Monumental Core, the plan should balance opportunities for commerce as well as improved lighting opportunities for festive occasions in the rest of the city. While lighting and commercial signage may not be appropriate within the monumental core, these elements are critical elements to the city and commercial activity that surrounds it, and the plan should not impose undue restrictions on the vibrancy of day-to-day commerce in those neighborhoods adjacent to the monumental core.
Within the monumental core, consider the example of Paris, where illumination makes the City of Light come alive at night, rather than feeling drab and staid. Today's technology also allows for creative use of color for special occasions, using light to celebrate something without altering the monumental core's architecture.
Too often, lighting in federal spaces is both uninteresting and detrimental to an area's sense of place at night. Columbus Circle, adjacent to Union Station, includes streetlights that shine into the eyes of drivers and pedestrians, detracting from the space and the architecture while also making the space seem darker than it is.
The plan's recommendations for lighting should also consider safety and security issues. Street lighting along key avenues with NCPC's protected vistas is often poor (several pedestrians have been hit while crossing Pennsylvania Avenue at night). Illumination for pedestrians must be provided.
UD.B.3.1 Need to better define what a 'street' is and why it should be preserved. There is a difference between keeping a street open to automobile traffic as opposed to re-using the right-of-way for pedestrians, bikes, and placemaking. Protecting the L'Enfant Plan is important, but remember that L'Enfant was not a traffic engineer.
Protections against 'visual incursions into the rights of way' is overly broad. You could read this as a prohibition on street trees or other in-street greenery.
UD.B.3.2 Include formal partnerships for the programming and maintenance of public space as a priority, including partnerships with non-governmental entities.
UD.B.4.1 New programming for street level of Federal Triangle Buildings - a welcome addition to add street life into a office-heavy environment. But this requires addressing security issues such as locked front doors and 'temporary' planters acting as security barriers that only serve to block sidewalk access for pedestrians.
Given the historic nature of the Federal Triangle buildings, it is unreasonable to expect any ground-floor activation of those buildings to include publicly accessible uses (such as ground-floor retail), even if those uses would be desirable. However, even the existing office uses are hostile to pedestrians on the street, with closed entrances and security barricades.
UD.C.2.2 Encouraging retail uses is an excellent method to link federal buildings in with their surroundings, particularly in areas outside of the monumental core. These parts of the city have value because of their urban setting, and the federal government should embrace that.
UD.C.3 - The entire security sub-chapter is excellent, particularly the focus on federal standards for security and design in public space. However, despite the introduction's lamentation about temporary security measures such as obtrusive planters (that lack living plants), there isn't a recommendation that these 'temporary' solutions of concrete barricades and planters be replaced with permanent and pedestrian-friendly streetscape additions. This is in spite of their presence for decades (since the Oklahoma City bombing) on Washington's streets.
The plan should call for the Federal Government to aggressively work to eliminate 'temporary' security measures and install permanent, pedestrian-friendly and attractive barriers.
In 2005, (page 42), NCPC notes that they updated security objectives and policies. Has there been any progress in implementing these policies over the last decade?
Transportation Elements:
T.B.5 Stronger language would be welcome: charge market rates for parking.
T.D.1 Providing parking only for those that are unable to use other modes is good, but 'unable' is an open-ended term. Providing parking at market rates should better inform decisions about how much parking is really needed for these facilities. By not charging the market rate for parking, the Federal Government is distorting the true demand for parking.
T.E The biking plan elements are excellent.
T.F should include language about avoiding unnecessary or duplicative circulators and instead focus on partnering with local transit operators and providers to use the local transit system for Circulator routes - or allow the public to utilize these federally provided services.
Add a requirement to analyze existing transit networks and provide a rationale for why a shuttle is needed. If existing public transit services are insufficient, look to first add service by funding additional transit services via an agency's TMP.
Read more
—Alex Block, Urban Design,Transportation (December 07, 2015)
Attached please find comments from US GSA, National Capital Region, Office of Planning and Design Quality.
View attachment
—Stephanie Hamlett, Urban Design,Federal Workplace,Federal Environment,Historic Preservation,Action Plan Matrix (December 07, 2015)
View attachment
—Stephanie Hamlett, Urban Design,Federal Workplace,Federal Environment,Historic Preservation,Action Plan Matrix (December 07, 2015)
I am a resident of Kingman Park and live next the the RFK site. I have attended 2 community meetings held by Events DC and I can tell you that the community views voiced at both meetings are 100 percent behind making RFK an open park and green space. The community does not want. . . a new stadium. The community would like to see the RFK site made a part of the Federal Mall area. I have reviewed the National Capital Planning Commission's plan for the RFK site which was written in 2006 and those ideas are exactly what the communities surrounding the RFK site would like to see. Once again, we DO NOT want another stadium built. And furthermore, the land is extremely toxic which is an extreme concern for our community.
Read more
—Diana Hibbs, General Comment (December 06, 2015)
Read more
—Diana Hibbs, General Comment (December 06, 2015)
Re: 10th Street redevelopment as an urban garden/thoroughfare.
My concern is that the care and upkeep of this area be clearly articulated, and long-term commitments made, before any design decisions are made. Both the DC Department of Parks & Recreation and the National Park Service are deferring maintenance of parks and seeing cutbacks. The. . . Southwest Business Improvement District (SW BID) is the logical keeper of this space, in my view, but I would like all parties involved to agree and make that commitment.
Robert (Bob) Craycraft
Executive Director
Waterfront Gateway Neighborhood Assn.
www.dcwaterfrontgateway.org
Read more
—Robert Craycraft, Federal Workplace,Federal Environment (November 11, 2015)
My concern is that the care and upkeep of this area be clearly articulated, and long-term commitments made, before any design decisions are made. Both the DC Department of Parks & Recreation and the National Park Service are deferring maintenance of parks and seeing cutbacks. The. . . Southwest Business Improvement District (SW BID) is the logical keeper of this space, in my view, but I would like all parties involved to agree and make that commitment.
Robert (Bob) Craycraft
Executive Director
Waterfront Gateway Neighborhood Assn.
www.dcwaterfrontgateway.org
Read more
—Robert Craycraft, Federal Workplace,Federal Environment (November 11, 2015)
View attachment
—Casey Anderson, Chair of the Montgomery County Planning Board, Montgomery County, Maryland (July 09, 2015)
Hello,
I'd like to encourage the federal urban design plan to keep in mind Washington, DC's goal of reaching 40% tree canopy by 2032. With a significant portion of Washington, DC in federal hands, this will require cooperation to reach this goal. Already, the National Park Service and several other agencies are working to improve. . . the capital's tree canopy. Please don't omit this important goal from your plans.
More can be found here, in the urban tree canopy goal plan: http://ddoe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf
Sincerely,
Vincent Verweij
Read more
—Vincent verweij, Washington (June 13, 2015)
I'd like to encourage the federal urban design plan to keep in mind Washington, DC's goal of reaching 40% tree canopy by 2032. With a significant portion of Washington, DC in federal hands, this will require cooperation to reach this goal. Already, the National Park Service and several other agencies are working to improve. . . the capital's tree canopy. Please don't omit this important goal from your plans.
More can be found here, in the urban tree canopy goal plan: http://ddoe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf
Sincerely,
Vincent Verweij
Read more
—Vincent verweij, Washington (June 13, 2015)
The comprehensive plan should support bicycling. As it stands some entrances to federal facilities, such as the north gate at Joint Base Anacostia Bolling, do not accommodate people on bicycles. Further, federal facilities universally impose extra-legal restrictions on cycling, such as helmet laws that are more strict than local laws. Studies show that helmet requirements reduce. . . the number of people cycling and that cycling is an activity that increases a person's life span, on average, with or without a helmet (helmets may be useful, but helmet requirements are not). Further, federal facilities often have bicycling accommodation standards (bike parking, shower facilities) that are weaker than those in most US cities.
Federal facilities are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, cities, and our nation. Nationwide, we are shifting away form cars-only transportation and towards higher capacity transit, biking and walking (yes, biking is higher capacity than driving--cars take up a lot of space). Throughout the plan, every effort should be made to require that federal facilities be knit into biking, walking and transit networks. I realize that most workers drive to work today, but we need to plan for the future.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Read more
—Jonathan Krall, Alexandria, VA (May 18, 2015)
Federal facilities are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, cities, and our nation. Nationwide, we are shifting away form cars-only transportation and towards higher capacity transit, biking and walking (yes, biking is higher capacity than driving--cars take up a lot of space). Throughout the plan, every effort should be made to require that federal facilities be knit into biking, walking and transit networks. I realize that most workers drive to work today, but we need to plan for the future.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Read more
—Jonathan Krall, Alexandria, VA (May 18, 2015)
Urban means not having the entire infrastructure dedicated to cars. In fact, to make a good urban environment, you should explicitly exclude or slow down cars. The urban environment is for people. That means people scaled transportation like walking and biking should take priority over cars. Your policies should reflect this dynamic.
—Bryan Herdliska, Arlington (May 15, 2015)
—Bryan Herdliska, Arlington (May 15, 2015)
I'd like to see some of the policies that mention pedestrians be more explicit about cycling. For example:
[The federal government should] Design pedestrian and vehicular entrances or any physical gateways to federal campuses and buildings to be as inviting and as accessible as possible.
"Vehicular" could (does? should?) refer to bicycle access, but. . . it would be better if it made that explicit.
There are also a few omissions in my opinion.
Under urban design and security, it mentions how "Permanent closure of streets or sidewalks within right-of-ways established by the L’Enfant Plan should be prohibited." This should also include multi-use paths. Same thing for temporary closures.
Most importantly, I'd like to see a policy under the "Integrating Federal Buildings and Campuses within the Surrounding Community" that mentions how federal building should encourage green commuting, specifically with the addition of bike parking and shower facilities.
Read more
—David Cranor, WASHINGTON (May 14, 2015)
[The federal government should] Design pedestrian and vehicular entrances or any physical gateways to federal campuses and buildings to be as inviting and as accessible as possible.
"Vehicular" could (does? should?) refer to bicycle access, but. . . it would be better if it made that explicit.
There are also a few omissions in my opinion.
Under urban design and security, it mentions how "Permanent closure of streets or sidewalks within right-of-ways established by the L’Enfant Plan should be prohibited." This should also include multi-use paths. Same thing for temporary closures.
Most importantly, I'd like to see a policy under the "Integrating Federal Buildings and Campuses within the Surrounding Community" that mentions how federal building should encourage green commuting, specifically with the addition of bike parking and shower facilities.
Read more
—David Cranor, WASHINGTON (May 14, 2015)
Thank you for initiating a rethinking of Pennsylvania Avenue. This street is an underperforming asset in Washington DC. It comes to life with every parade and special event, but for the most of the time, it is just an attractive but dull boulevard separating the National Mall and Federal Triangle from the rest of. . . DC. The boulevard clearly needs more activation, life and reasons to visit it.
Here are some ideas that might be useful in revisioning Pennsylvania Avenue:
1. Imagine the avenue benefiting from a annual arts competition, similar to London's Trafalger Square's 4th Plinth. Imagine a series of sites along the avenue where the temporary art could be located and the annual buzz of excitement that would come from the competition. Corporations could underwrite it competition and benefit from sponsorship. Tourists and residents would find this fun. There needs to be a bit of whimsy and fun into DC's urban setting. Even along Pennsylvania Avenue.
2. Hold a photography contest of views along the avenue or nearby vicinity that captures the unexpected or weird juxtaposition of architecture, people and events. This event could be a one time activity or an annual event that would bring people out throughout the year to photograph the avenue. Here is an example of such an image.
Thank you for consideration of these ideas. I am confident that your panelists also can come up with many interesting ways to activate the street and make more use of this important asset in our city.
Karen
Read more
View attachment
—Karen Kumm Morris, Arlington, VA (September 17, 2014)
Here are some ideas that might be useful in revisioning Pennsylvania Avenue:
1. Imagine the avenue benefiting from a annual arts competition, similar to London's Trafalger Square's 4th Plinth. Imagine a series of sites along the avenue where the temporary art could be located and the annual buzz of excitement that would come from the competition. Corporations could underwrite it competition and benefit from sponsorship. Tourists and residents would find this fun. There needs to be a bit of whimsy and fun into DC's urban setting. Even along Pennsylvania Avenue.
2. Hold a photography contest of views along the avenue or nearby vicinity that captures the unexpected or weird juxtaposition of architecture, people and events. This event could be a one time activity or an annual event that would bring people out throughout the year to photograph the avenue. Here is an example of such an image.
Thank you for consideration of these ideas. I am confident that your panelists also can come up with many interesting ways to activate the street and make more use of this important asset in our city.
Karen
Read more
View attachment
—Karen Kumm Morris, Arlington, VA (September 17, 2014)
Comment: Will there be a standalone session on Freedom Plaza?
NCPC: It would be helpful to know if your interest in Freedom Plaza is about design, programming, or a particular issue.
Comment: Design. There is little if any programming at Dupont Circle or outside the Centre Pompidou (the fountain, not the immediate plaza). . . but both succeed as public spaces in a way Freedom Plaza does not.
Read more
—Josh Gibson, Washington, DC (September 16, 2014)
NCPC: It would be helpful to know if your interest in Freedom Plaza is about design, programming, or a particular issue.
Comment: Design. There is little if any programming at Dupont Circle or outside the Centre Pompidou (the fountain, not the immediate plaza). . . but both succeed as public spaces in a way Freedom Plaza does not.
Read more
—Josh Gibson, Washington, DC (September 16, 2014)
Hi,
I would like to talk further about walkability, connectivity by active transportation and indoor walking/running track for meetings.
Thank you,
@Jess2non
Wanting to make DC better than it already is
—Jessica Tunon, Washington, DC (September 12, 2014)
I would like to talk further about walkability, connectivity by active transportation and indoor walking/running track for meetings.
Thank you,
@Jess2non
Wanting to make DC better than it already is
—Jessica Tunon, Washington, DC (September 12, 2014)
Pennsylvania redesign plan
Washington DC population is the nation’s capital and center for world affairs business which makes its more vulnerable to security threat or invasion. Over the years we have seen a rapid immigrants migrations who moved to DC to live and settled here and some are coming from war tone countries including terrorist. . . invaded nations from the Middle East or North Africa. With this type of influx of people, one will argue that the center of town in Washington dc, such as Pennsylvania ave, which almost housed all our important offices and administrative building must be a more restricted area from people or host public events. The core security of any state is indomitable how much its heads and capital city is completely secured and safe from any foreign threat or internal threat. Over the past months and years we have witnessed few instances in which citizens who are mad with the system tries to break security around that vicinity. With such increasing internal confrontations, hosting public events around our national treasure building or main administrative center is not an advisable idea even if that continue to be the security arrangements must be review and probably ensure that movement of people and hosting of public must highly regulated to protect any unwanted threat from individual.
Access to pedistratian
The planning must be increase a better and improve pedestrian walk way to prevent unwanted accidents from vehicles It will be good to rework on the lanes motor vehicles use more especially in Pennsylvania. As of now, the lanes are too wide to cross over. Since our freedom plaza is one of core symbol of our nation’s founding sprite and citizens’ rights, to add value to its face, greener design including a well 21st century art work will increase its incredible tourism site seeing and global value to our guest and visitors. Additional the country historical achievement and founding spirit must be visible and disabled using a 212st century art design to attach more global audience and pass by.
Disability walk way should also be more visible and wide as a way to improve the easy access of persons of disability I will prefer to see more restrictions to street trading rather it should be meant restrict for official matters cultural attractions should be displace to increase the beautification of the city center more especially for our elite or political events Commercial centers should not be too close to main buildings in other to prevent influx of people The government under the federal budget must establish a special revolovoling funds to help with capital city maintained and beautifications since our city is the face of our nation’s pride and Pennsylvania Avenue is the main center for all our government and commercial activities for the city.
Read more
—Kamara, Washington, DC (September 11, 2014)
Washington DC population is the nation’s capital and center for world affairs business which makes its more vulnerable to security threat or invasion. Over the years we have seen a rapid immigrants migrations who moved to DC to live and settled here and some are coming from war tone countries including terrorist. . . invaded nations from the Middle East or North Africa. With this type of influx of people, one will argue that the center of town in Washington dc, such as Pennsylvania ave, which almost housed all our important offices and administrative building must be a more restricted area from people or host public events. The core security of any state is indomitable how much its heads and capital city is completely secured and safe from any foreign threat or internal threat. Over the past months and years we have witnessed few instances in which citizens who are mad with the system tries to break security around that vicinity. With such increasing internal confrontations, hosting public events around our national treasure building or main administrative center is not an advisable idea even if that continue to be the security arrangements must be review and probably ensure that movement of people and hosting of public must highly regulated to protect any unwanted threat from individual.
Access to pedistratian
The planning must be increase a better and improve pedestrian walk way to prevent unwanted accidents from vehicles It will be good to rework on the lanes motor vehicles use more especially in Pennsylvania. As of now, the lanes are too wide to cross over. Since our freedom plaza is one of core symbol of our nation’s founding sprite and citizens’ rights, to add value to its face, greener design including a well 21st century art work will increase its incredible tourism site seeing and global value to our guest and visitors. Additional the country historical achievement and founding spirit must be visible and disabled using a 212st century art design to attach more global audience and pass by.
Disability walk way should also be more visible and wide as a way to improve the easy access of persons of disability I will prefer to see more restrictions to street trading rather it should be meant restrict for official matters cultural attractions should be displace to increase the beautification of the city center more especially for our elite or political events Commercial centers should not be too close to main buildings in other to prevent influx of people The government under the federal budget must establish a special revolovoling funds to help with capital city maintained and beautifications since our city is the face of our nation’s pride and Pennsylvania Avenue is the main center for all our government and commercial activities for the city.
Read more
—Kamara, Washington, DC (September 11, 2014)
September 8, 2014
Marcel C. Acosta, AICP
Executive Director
National Capital Planning Commission
401 9th Street, NW
North Lobby, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20004
SUBJECT: Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative
Dear Mr. Acosta:
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City (Committee of 100), founded in 1923, is the District of Columbia’s oldest citizen. . . planning organization. We are pleased to provide these initial comments on the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative, the new combined effort to continue the revitalization of the Pennsylvania Avenue area. Pennsylvania Avenue is important to the nation and to our city, so its continued revitalization should be a federal priority.
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City has long been concerned with protecting and enhancing, in our time, the various elements of the L’Enfant Plan (1791-92) and the planning and design work of the McMillan Commission (1901-02). Both of these plans have been important in shaping the “Monumental Core†of Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House is a key element of the L’Enfant Plan and of the Monumental Core and adjacent areas. The Avenue has long been seen as a “bridge†between Downtown to the north and the Federal Triangle and National Mall to the south.
The Opportunity
It is now clear that we are in the process of a dramatic change for the center of our city. This includes the revitalization of Downtown north of Pennsylvania Avenue, a process underway for over fifty years and now nearing completion; the remaking of Pennsylvania Avenue under the initial guidance from the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC); the continued development and enhancement of the National Mall by the National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution and others; and new plans for the area south of the National Mall, generally extending from 1st Street to 15th Street, SW, and south to the Southwest Freeway (I-395).That large area includes the Southwest Ecodistrict Plan area, prepared by the National Capital Planning Commission; the Maryland Avenue Plan area, prepared by the D.C. Office of Planning; the site of a future memorial to President Eisenhower and the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial, now nearing completion. These projects have the potential cumulative effect of transforming the commercial and federal centers of Washington. There are, of course, many other major changes planned or underway in other areas of the Monumental Core, and in nearby commercial, institutional and residential areas.
Although some of these efforts will take some years to realize, the result can be an exciting new activity pattern for the central area of Washington. This progress is important to the residents of Washington, D.C., the region, and the nation. Pennsylvania Avenue, at the center of this action, is truly a national street, recognized across the nation and around the world
In moving forward with the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative, NCPC and the other agencies and organizations involved should give special consideration to collecting information on various aspects of Pennsylvania Avenue and making it available in understandable form, both in text and graphics. The same is true for the proposals for future development and activation as they are prepared. We note some categories for study in the “Big and Little Ideas for the Avenue†section below.
As information and concepts are collected and developed, there should be ample opportunities for public review and comment, and for all concerned to think and learn about the past, present and future of Pennsylvania Avenue. NCPC is off to a good start with the initial public meeting on July 23, 2014, the present comment period ending September 8, 2014, and the Pennsylvania Avenue Speaker Series Event on September 19. Mary Pat Rowan attended the July 23 meeting to represent the Committee of 100. In outlining our comments, we have used the categories suggested by NCPC for commenting on the initial information presented at the July 23 meeting.
User Experiences along the Avenue
The members of the Committee of 100 have experienced sections of Pennsylvania Avenue at different times, as have many residents of the Washington area, and visitors from this country and abroad. Some members of the Committee have been able to witness the many changes to the area since the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan was adopted in 1974, some forty years ago, and some remember the initial concepts going back to the early 1960s. As work continues, the Committee of 100 can provide more detailed responses about user experiences.
We understand that for purposes of this project, Pennsylvania Avenue includes not only the width of the Avenue but also areas to the north into Downtown and areas to the south into the Federal Triangle. We assume the work of the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative will extend at least to the boundaries of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) Development Area, and to some adjacent areas. It would be useful for NCPC to clarify the area that is being considered. In the following sections
we make suggestions about what NCPC should consider. In saying this, we understand that the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative is a collaborative process involving NCPC, NPS, GSA and other federal agencies; the D.C. Office of Planning and other District agencies, the Downtown BID, Pennsylvania Avenue and various neighborhood and citywide business and civic groups.
Crafting an Aspiration Statement
We have not tried to craft a complete formal aspiration statement for Pennsylvania Avenue at this early stage. We believe it should be a special place in our city, and indeed in our country (sometimes called the “Main Street of Americaâ€). It should have some monumental aspects but it should also have a festive aspect, alive with people and activities. The Avenue should continue to have historic elements that recall the history of our city and the country. Of course it will be the place of Presidential Inaugural parades as well as other local and national events. New design ideas should be explored, but everyone involved needs to be careful not to promote design fads that may quickly be dated. Pennsylvania Avenue needs to have a timeless quality. We note that many objectives outlined in the 1974 PADC Plan are still valid.
Big and Little Ideas for the Avenue
Need for a Strong Federal and District Commitment: A key factor in the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative is to obtain a strong commitment by the federal government to the project. There was such a commitment in the PADC period (1972-1996) and, though key federal agencies have continued to be involved with Pennsylvania Avenue, it is clear that adequate funding for upkeep and improvement of the public spaces along Pennsylvania Avenue has been lacking. Strong federal commitment for the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative is a key element. Fortunately, there is considerable information available, both in the previous work of PADC, the recent work of the National Park Service (National Park Service National Historic Site Management Plan-April 2014, released July 21, 2014), and NCPC’s studies of the Monumental Core. Strong commitment from the District government, especially the Office of Planning and DDOT, as well as other District agencies, will also be important.
Private and Civic Involvement: Strong commitment from the private sector, both through the Downtown Business Improvement (BID) and from property owners and businesses along the Avenue, will be necessary, as well as commitment and participation of neighborhood and citywide organizations. The Committee of 100 is committed to strong participation in the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative.
The Avenue and Adjacent Open Spaces: The design and use of the Avenue itself (sidewalks, tree planting, traffic lanes and bike paths) is especially important, as well as maintenance and use of the major open spaces (John Marshall Park, Indiana Plaza, Navy Memorial Park, Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park), and some smaller open spaces. Full maintenance of many sidewalks, including the larger landscaped areas, has been lacking in recent years. Some of the open spaces also have maintenance and design problems, especially Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park. Decisions about the future redesign of these two park areas will be especially important. We suggest that lighting for the pedestrian areas and the roadway be reviewed. Studies should consider how the future Avenue can be further activated, with more sidewalk cafes, outdoor vending, fountains, art works, orientation signing and similar measures.
Transportation: Transportation considerations along Pennsylvania Avenue include the very important pedestrian movements, as well as the automobile, taxi, transit and bicycle movements in the main roadway (maintained by DDOT). Transportation needs and preferences need to be reviewed. North- south movement, especially pedestrian movement and transit movement, linking Downtown, the Federal Triangle and National Mall, will be increasingly important in the future.
Planning for Development Opportunities: NCPC will need to review development opportunities in the Pennsylvania Avenue area, with a strong emphasis on encouraging a mix of uses that will spur more activity along the Avenue. This may mean new development or it may be reusing existing buildings for existing uses, or for new uses. Today, major renovation of the Old Post Office as a luxury hotel is underway. There have been discussions of some other sites being redeveloped, and the FBI Building is a major development opportunity. NCPC should also work closely with the D.C. Office of Planning, the Downtown BID, and neighborhood groups to address development opportunities just north of the Pennsylvania Avenue Area. Despite major development, there appears to be some weakness in the retail market in adjacent areas.
In planning for Pennsylvania Avenue, NCPC will need to review the status of the PADC square guidelines, existing and proposed zoning, and historic preservation and design review to see if the present development guidelines are still appropriate, or if new or revised measures are needed.
Realizing the Potential of the FBI Building Site: We believe major attention needs to be focused on the future development of the site of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, 9th Street, 10th Street and E Street, NW. even though redevelopment of that site will be some of years in the future. At the present time, GSA is engaged in the initial steps leading to selection of a new site for a modern, secure and attractive “FBI Campusâ€. It will take some years to design and build that campus and to relocate the FBI offices.
We are concerned that the present emphasis seems to be all on the future FBI Campus with limited regard for the future of the existing J. Edgar Hoover Building site. The use of the site to reactivate that section of Pennsylvania Avenue, through good design and a mix of uses, should also be a major federal interest.
The present building, with its front façade, and large moat-like setbacks on 9th, 10th and E streets, has a negative effect on adjacent frontages. Special urban design of future development on this site is critical to increase activity on those streets, as well as along Pennsylvania Avenue.
Connecting with Adjacent Areas: Planning for Pennsylvania Avenue must consider linkages to adjacent areas, including the Federal Triangle to the south, the Capitol Grounds to the east, the sections of Downtown on to the north, and President’s Park to the west. All of these areas have had considerable planning, some by NCPC, some by other federal agencies and the Architect of the Capitol, and some by the D.C. Office of Planning and the Downtown BID. All these areas have some relationship and effect on the main area of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Historic Preservation and Historic Commemoration: The original plans for Pennsylvania Avenue in the early 1960s called for completely rebuilding the north side of the Avenue, with a uniform building line and large open spaces. The FBI Building, completed in 1974, was the first step. Fortunately, the efforts of the District government, federal agencies, and local and national groups, led to plan revisions in 1974 that included a mix of new and old buildings. Historic buildings retained include the Willard and Washington hotels, the National Theater, the Old Post Office, the Evening Star Building, and the cluster of buildings at Pennsylvania Avenue and Indiana Avenue, as well as other buildings in the PADC area to the north. The Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative should include a review of the condition of these buildings and should determine if further preservation actions are needed.
Additional marking of the history of buildings and areas along the Avenue may also be needed. For example, marking the original location of Washington’s original Chinatown near Pennsylvania Avenue and Fourth Street, NW (suggested in several comments at the July 23rd meeting) seems like a good example of providing more information about the national and local history of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Activating the Avenue: There is a good level of activity along Pennsylvania Avenue today, aided by many restaurants, retail establishments, four hotels (and the Trump International Hotel in the Old Post Office to open in 2016) and a number of apartments, as well as office space. Yet much more needs to be done to activate the Avenue with more restaurants and more hotels and residential space. Pennsylvania Avenue is already used for a number of different events, especially in Navy Memorial Park, the farmers market on 8th Street and on Freedom Plaza. However, an increased program is needed to add new events and entertainment, and to make the Avenue the place where both residents and visitors want to come for a special Washington experience.
The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation
The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation was in existence for over 20 years (1972-1996) and over that period was responsible for major changes and improvements for Pennsylvania Avenue, changes that were almost entirely beneficial. Since then, NCPC, NPS and GSA have acted to continue the federal role in the continued revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue. Moving forward, we believe some new organizational structure, involving the key agencies and other actors, will be needed to efficiently carry out the proposals of the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative in coming years. Creating this enhanced organizational structure should be a key element of the Initiative studies.
Lessons Learned from Capital City Streets
As has been suggested, we believe it is useful to look at the lessons of great streets in other capital cities, both in terms of what works and, as noted in the information provided, what does not work or at least would not be suitable for Pennsylvania Avenue. Lessons from other great streets in this country might also be useful. At the same time, it is necessary to recognize that these great streets are different from Pennsylvania Avenue, and not to spend too much time in making comparisons.
Looking Ahead for Pennsylvania Avenue
Achieving the next stages of improving and revitalizing Pennsylvania Avenue will take time. Some efforts can begin soon but other actions will take longer. Repair and upgrading of the infrastructure of the Avenue (cleaning and replacing pavers, improving landscaping, and possibly revising some of the public spaces) will take longer and require considerable funding. New development will take longer. The single major development opportunity for Pennsylvania Avenue is, of course, the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building site. That great opportunity must not be wasted.
Some target date should be set for this next stage of Pennsylvania Avenue revitalization. The year 2026, now some 12 years in the future, is the 250th anniversary of American Independence. That year will be celebrated across our county with numerous events and projects. We believe that 2026 would be a good target date, while noting that we should all begin now to think about and begin to implement the continued revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City looks forward to further discussion of the continuing revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue as ideas and options are developed as part of the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative. Thank you for this opportunity to make these initial comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy MacWood
Chair
In replying please respond to:
john.fondersmith@verizon.net
Read more
—Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Washington, DC (September 11, 2014)
Marcel C. Acosta, AICP
Executive Director
National Capital Planning Commission
401 9th Street, NW
North Lobby, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20004
SUBJECT: Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative
Dear Mr. Acosta:
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City (Committee of 100), founded in 1923, is the District of Columbia’s oldest citizen. . . planning organization. We are pleased to provide these initial comments on the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative, the new combined effort to continue the revitalization of the Pennsylvania Avenue area. Pennsylvania Avenue is important to the nation and to our city, so its continued revitalization should be a federal priority.
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City has long been concerned with protecting and enhancing, in our time, the various elements of the L’Enfant Plan (1791-92) and the planning and design work of the McMillan Commission (1901-02). Both of these plans have been important in shaping the “Monumental Core†of Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House is a key element of the L’Enfant Plan and of the Monumental Core and adjacent areas. The Avenue has long been seen as a “bridge†between Downtown to the north and the Federal Triangle and National Mall to the south.
The Opportunity
It is now clear that we are in the process of a dramatic change for the center of our city. This includes the revitalization of Downtown north of Pennsylvania Avenue, a process underway for over fifty years and now nearing completion; the remaking of Pennsylvania Avenue under the initial guidance from the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC); the continued development and enhancement of the National Mall by the National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution and others; and new plans for the area south of the National Mall, generally extending from 1st Street to 15th Street, SW, and south to the Southwest Freeway (I-395).That large area includes the Southwest Ecodistrict Plan area, prepared by the National Capital Planning Commission; the Maryland Avenue Plan area, prepared by the D.C. Office of Planning; the site of a future memorial to President Eisenhower and the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial, now nearing completion. These projects have the potential cumulative effect of transforming the commercial and federal centers of Washington. There are, of course, many other major changes planned or underway in other areas of the Monumental Core, and in nearby commercial, institutional and residential areas.
Although some of these efforts will take some years to realize, the result can be an exciting new activity pattern for the central area of Washington. This progress is important to the residents of Washington, D.C., the region, and the nation. Pennsylvania Avenue, at the center of this action, is truly a national street, recognized across the nation and around the world
In moving forward with the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative, NCPC and the other agencies and organizations involved should give special consideration to collecting information on various aspects of Pennsylvania Avenue and making it available in understandable form, both in text and graphics. The same is true for the proposals for future development and activation as they are prepared. We note some categories for study in the “Big and Little Ideas for the Avenue†section below.
As information and concepts are collected and developed, there should be ample opportunities for public review and comment, and for all concerned to think and learn about the past, present and future of Pennsylvania Avenue. NCPC is off to a good start with the initial public meeting on July 23, 2014, the present comment period ending September 8, 2014, and the Pennsylvania Avenue Speaker Series Event on September 19. Mary Pat Rowan attended the July 23 meeting to represent the Committee of 100. In outlining our comments, we have used the categories suggested by NCPC for commenting on the initial information presented at the July 23 meeting.
User Experiences along the Avenue
The members of the Committee of 100 have experienced sections of Pennsylvania Avenue at different times, as have many residents of the Washington area, and visitors from this country and abroad. Some members of the Committee have been able to witness the many changes to the area since the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan was adopted in 1974, some forty years ago, and some remember the initial concepts going back to the early 1960s. As work continues, the Committee of 100 can provide more detailed responses about user experiences.
We understand that for purposes of this project, Pennsylvania Avenue includes not only the width of the Avenue but also areas to the north into Downtown and areas to the south into the Federal Triangle. We assume the work of the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative will extend at least to the boundaries of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) Development Area, and to some adjacent areas. It would be useful for NCPC to clarify the area that is being considered. In the following sections
we make suggestions about what NCPC should consider. In saying this, we understand that the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative is a collaborative process involving NCPC, NPS, GSA and other federal agencies; the D.C. Office of Planning and other District agencies, the Downtown BID, Pennsylvania Avenue and various neighborhood and citywide business and civic groups.
Crafting an Aspiration Statement
We have not tried to craft a complete formal aspiration statement for Pennsylvania Avenue at this early stage. We believe it should be a special place in our city, and indeed in our country (sometimes called the “Main Street of Americaâ€). It should have some monumental aspects but it should also have a festive aspect, alive with people and activities. The Avenue should continue to have historic elements that recall the history of our city and the country. Of course it will be the place of Presidential Inaugural parades as well as other local and national events. New design ideas should be explored, but everyone involved needs to be careful not to promote design fads that may quickly be dated. Pennsylvania Avenue needs to have a timeless quality. We note that many objectives outlined in the 1974 PADC Plan are still valid.
Big and Little Ideas for the Avenue
Need for a Strong Federal and District Commitment: A key factor in the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative is to obtain a strong commitment by the federal government to the project. There was such a commitment in the PADC period (1972-1996) and, though key federal agencies have continued to be involved with Pennsylvania Avenue, it is clear that adequate funding for upkeep and improvement of the public spaces along Pennsylvania Avenue has been lacking. Strong federal commitment for the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative is a key element. Fortunately, there is considerable information available, both in the previous work of PADC, the recent work of the National Park Service (National Park Service National Historic Site Management Plan-April 2014, released July 21, 2014), and NCPC’s studies of the Monumental Core. Strong commitment from the District government, especially the Office of Planning and DDOT, as well as other District agencies, will also be important.
Private and Civic Involvement: Strong commitment from the private sector, both through the Downtown Business Improvement (BID) and from property owners and businesses along the Avenue, will be necessary, as well as commitment and participation of neighborhood and citywide organizations. The Committee of 100 is committed to strong participation in the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative.
The Avenue and Adjacent Open Spaces: The design and use of the Avenue itself (sidewalks, tree planting, traffic lanes and bike paths) is especially important, as well as maintenance and use of the major open spaces (John Marshall Park, Indiana Plaza, Navy Memorial Park, Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park), and some smaller open spaces. Full maintenance of many sidewalks, including the larger landscaped areas, has been lacking in recent years. Some of the open spaces also have maintenance and design problems, especially Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park. Decisions about the future redesign of these two park areas will be especially important. We suggest that lighting for the pedestrian areas and the roadway be reviewed. Studies should consider how the future Avenue can be further activated, with more sidewalk cafes, outdoor vending, fountains, art works, orientation signing and similar measures.
Transportation: Transportation considerations along Pennsylvania Avenue include the very important pedestrian movements, as well as the automobile, taxi, transit and bicycle movements in the main roadway (maintained by DDOT). Transportation needs and preferences need to be reviewed. North- south movement, especially pedestrian movement and transit movement, linking Downtown, the Federal Triangle and National Mall, will be increasingly important in the future.
Planning for Development Opportunities: NCPC will need to review development opportunities in the Pennsylvania Avenue area, with a strong emphasis on encouraging a mix of uses that will spur more activity along the Avenue. This may mean new development or it may be reusing existing buildings for existing uses, or for new uses. Today, major renovation of the Old Post Office as a luxury hotel is underway. There have been discussions of some other sites being redeveloped, and the FBI Building is a major development opportunity. NCPC should also work closely with the D.C. Office of Planning, the Downtown BID, and neighborhood groups to address development opportunities just north of the Pennsylvania Avenue Area. Despite major development, there appears to be some weakness in the retail market in adjacent areas.
In planning for Pennsylvania Avenue, NCPC will need to review the status of the PADC square guidelines, existing and proposed zoning, and historic preservation and design review to see if the present development guidelines are still appropriate, or if new or revised measures are needed.
Realizing the Potential of the FBI Building Site: We believe major attention needs to be focused on the future development of the site of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, 9th Street, 10th Street and E Street, NW. even though redevelopment of that site will be some of years in the future. At the present time, GSA is engaged in the initial steps leading to selection of a new site for a modern, secure and attractive “FBI Campusâ€. It will take some years to design and build that campus and to relocate the FBI offices.
We are concerned that the present emphasis seems to be all on the future FBI Campus with limited regard for the future of the existing J. Edgar Hoover Building site. The use of the site to reactivate that section of Pennsylvania Avenue, through good design and a mix of uses, should also be a major federal interest.
The present building, with its front façade, and large moat-like setbacks on 9th, 10th and E streets, has a negative effect on adjacent frontages. Special urban design of future development on this site is critical to increase activity on those streets, as well as along Pennsylvania Avenue.
Connecting with Adjacent Areas: Planning for Pennsylvania Avenue must consider linkages to adjacent areas, including the Federal Triangle to the south, the Capitol Grounds to the east, the sections of Downtown on to the north, and President’s Park to the west. All of these areas have had considerable planning, some by NCPC, some by other federal agencies and the Architect of the Capitol, and some by the D.C. Office of Planning and the Downtown BID. All these areas have some relationship and effect on the main area of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Historic Preservation and Historic Commemoration: The original plans for Pennsylvania Avenue in the early 1960s called for completely rebuilding the north side of the Avenue, with a uniform building line and large open spaces. The FBI Building, completed in 1974, was the first step. Fortunately, the efforts of the District government, federal agencies, and local and national groups, led to plan revisions in 1974 that included a mix of new and old buildings. Historic buildings retained include the Willard and Washington hotels, the National Theater, the Old Post Office, the Evening Star Building, and the cluster of buildings at Pennsylvania Avenue and Indiana Avenue, as well as other buildings in the PADC area to the north. The Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative should include a review of the condition of these buildings and should determine if further preservation actions are needed.
Additional marking of the history of buildings and areas along the Avenue may also be needed. For example, marking the original location of Washington’s original Chinatown near Pennsylvania Avenue and Fourth Street, NW (suggested in several comments at the July 23rd meeting) seems like a good example of providing more information about the national and local history of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Activating the Avenue: There is a good level of activity along Pennsylvania Avenue today, aided by many restaurants, retail establishments, four hotels (and the Trump International Hotel in the Old Post Office to open in 2016) and a number of apartments, as well as office space. Yet much more needs to be done to activate the Avenue with more restaurants and more hotels and residential space. Pennsylvania Avenue is already used for a number of different events, especially in Navy Memorial Park, the farmers market on 8th Street and on Freedom Plaza. However, an increased program is needed to add new events and entertainment, and to make the Avenue the place where both residents and visitors want to come for a special Washington experience.
The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation
The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation was in existence for over 20 years (1972-1996) and over that period was responsible for major changes and improvements for Pennsylvania Avenue, changes that were almost entirely beneficial. Since then, NCPC, NPS and GSA have acted to continue the federal role in the continued revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue. Moving forward, we believe some new organizational structure, involving the key agencies and other actors, will be needed to efficiently carry out the proposals of the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative in coming years. Creating this enhanced organizational structure should be a key element of the Initiative studies.
Lessons Learned from Capital City Streets
As has been suggested, we believe it is useful to look at the lessons of great streets in other capital cities, both in terms of what works and, as noted in the information provided, what does not work or at least would not be suitable for Pennsylvania Avenue. Lessons from other great streets in this country might also be useful. At the same time, it is necessary to recognize that these great streets are different from Pennsylvania Avenue, and not to spend too much time in making comparisons.
Looking Ahead for Pennsylvania Avenue
Achieving the next stages of improving and revitalizing Pennsylvania Avenue will take time. Some efforts can begin soon but other actions will take longer. Repair and upgrading of the infrastructure of the Avenue (cleaning and replacing pavers, improving landscaping, and possibly revising some of the public spaces) will take longer and require considerable funding. New development will take longer. The single major development opportunity for Pennsylvania Avenue is, of course, the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building site. That great opportunity must not be wasted.
Some target date should be set for this next stage of Pennsylvania Avenue revitalization. The year 2026, now some 12 years in the future, is the 250th anniversary of American Independence. That year will be celebrated across our county with numerous events and projects. We believe that 2026 would be a good target date, while noting that we should all begin now to think about and begin to implement the continued revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City looks forward to further discussion of the continuing revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue as ideas and options are developed as part of the Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative. Thank you for this opportunity to make these initial comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy MacWood
Chair
In replying please respond to:
john.fondersmith@verizon.net
Read more
—Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Washington, DC (September 11, 2014)
Good evening,
My name is Kaidia Pickels and I'm an NYU student studying in Washington, D.C. this semester. I've come up with a short proposal regarding the revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue and have attached it below. Thank you for your consideration of my feedback!
View attachment
—Kaidia Pickels, Washington, D.C. (September 08, 2014)
My name is Kaidia Pickels and I'm an NYU student studying in Washington, D.C. this semester. I've come up with a short proposal regarding the revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue and have attached it below. Thank you for your consideration of my feedback!
View attachment
—Kaidia Pickels, Washington, D.C. (September 08, 2014)
Here are my ideas for Pennsylvania Avenue.
View attachment
—Foley C Pfalzgraf, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
View attachment
—Foley C Pfalzgraf, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
1. Provide road map that helps tourists to navigate not only around PA avenue but also walking distance to nearby landmark places.
2. Info Boards that talks about the history of the construction and buildings nearby.
3. Maybe have statues of influential people in America on two sides of the road.
4. Attract more commercial vendors. . . or restaurants. Have better lightings on the buildings and landmarks during nights --> makes the environment more hangout-friendly --> give people a reason to visit.
5. Have too much lanes: develop a better vehicle + bike lanes & encourage more cyclists .
6. Like when there are trees on two sides of the street.
7. Redevelop FBI site.
8. Improve crossing signal timing.
9. Renovate buildings and road.
Read more
—Charles Chen, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
2. Info Boards that talks about the history of the construction and buildings nearby.
3. Maybe have statues of influential people in America on two sides of the road.
4. Attract more commercial vendors. . . or restaurants. Have better lightings on the buildings and landmarks during nights --> makes the environment more hangout-friendly --> give people a reason to visit.
5. Have too much lanes: develop a better vehicle + bike lanes & encourage more cyclists .
6. Like when there are trees on two sides of the street.
7. Redevelop FBI site.
8. Improve crossing signal timing.
9. Renovate buildings and road.
Read more
—Charles Chen, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
It struck me as odd that restaurants were closed while I walked along Pennsylvania Avenue at 5:00 PM on a Saturday. But one look at the surroundings could explain why. Almost no one was there. The tourists were on their way out from their day of hustling through the Smithsonians and other near by monuments,. . . and since the offices, that took up the majority of the buildings on the street, were closed, there was no reason for locals to be there. Pennsylvania Avenue is not a dynamic space, but it could be. With the plan I am proposing, Pennsylvania Avenue could be an attraction, but also a space for locals to congregate and celebrate their city. My plan has three main objectives for a ne Pennsylvania Avenue: to make it greener, to make it a place to celebrate the social movements that have crossed it, and to make it a place that locals want to be.
The first part of my plan- make it greener- is probably the most straightforward. While Pennsylvania Avenue does have some tree cover, more trees could be added to enhance it aesthetically as well sustainably. In some places, like Freedom Plaza, there was no shade. I propose increasing the tree cover as well as making the tree cover look more natural to increase the green space DC is so famous for. Another thing that could make the space look less rigid and look more like a fluid, natural environment is the addition of rain gardens. These gardens not only are aesthetically pleasing but also are helpful in combatting flooding. I noticed some succulents in some of the potted plants, and I also think converting more of the potted plants to succulents could help with flooding issues. Better yet, making those potted plants into raised beds of succulents alongside the rain gardens could be both more aesthetically pleasing and better for the city. Also infrastructural changes could be applied to make the road more sustainable. Little things like making the sidewalks permeable surfaces that can soak up rainwater and changing the light fixtures to be LED bulbs placed at the top of the lighting fixtures to avoid light pollution help to decrease the impact this one street has on our environment as well as providing benefits to the city.
Another thing I noted while walking down Pennsylvania Avenue is that there is no commemoration of all the protests and parades that have crossed Pennsylvania Avenue. Pennsylvania Avenue has been a historic fixture in the social movements that have swept this country as well as the place of many official celebrations. I suggest that we ask local artists or schools to create murals on the sidewalks depicting the stories of the movements and celebrations that have happened on Pennsylvania Avenue. This would add another dimension to the repetitious, neoclassical buildings that flank both sides of the Pennsylvania Avenue. Also we could change Pershing Park to be a celebration of social movements by dedicating it to a leader or multiple leaders of social movements such as Alice Paul, the woman who organized the Woman Suffrage Parade in 1913, or A. Phillip Randolph, the man in charge of organizing the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. An interesting monument would be to have multiple leaders of different protests standing side-by-side with signs and hands in the air in the act of protest and tell their story on the wall behind them.
The last part of my plan is meant to incorporate DC locals into this design, because locals are often left out of designs such as this. My last suggestion is to transform Freedom Plaza into more of an interactive space. As it is now, Freedom plaza doesn’t offer much other than a skate park for teenagers. With all of it’s flat, empty, stone space, in the heat, it is unbearably hot and not hospitable to people spending time there. Therefore, I am recommending changing Freedom Plaza into a community space. The biggest highlight of this space would be an outdoor event space, equipped with a stage. It wouldn’t be huge event space, but it could be a space for local concerts, plays, as well as a collection point for future social action. The space would be very green, with trees flanking both sides of the park, as well as spaces for people to relax throughout Freedom Plaza.
Overall, I think these changes will make Pennsylvania Avenue a more dynamic space that more locals and tourists will want to participate in. These changes could help Pennsylvania Avenue live up to its historic significance with change that reflects the events that have made it famous, while also incorporating the people who walk there every day. It is important for the evolution of Pennsylvania Avenue to look at all not only increasing foot traffic and the appeal of the street but also its ability to be sustainable for the people who will be walking there in the future, and I believe this design does just that.
As a side-note I apologize for my sketches, drawing is not my forte.
Read more
View attachment
—Ansley Roberts, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
The first part of my plan- make it greener- is probably the most straightforward. While Pennsylvania Avenue does have some tree cover, more trees could be added to enhance it aesthetically as well sustainably. In some places, like Freedom Plaza, there was no shade. I propose increasing the tree cover as well as making the tree cover look more natural to increase the green space DC is so famous for. Another thing that could make the space look less rigid and look more like a fluid, natural environment is the addition of rain gardens. These gardens not only are aesthetically pleasing but also are helpful in combatting flooding. I noticed some succulents in some of the potted plants, and I also think converting more of the potted plants to succulents could help with flooding issues. Better yet, making those potted plants into raised beds of succulents alongside the rain gardens could be both more aesthetically pleasing and better for the city. Also infrastructural changes could be applied to make the road more sustainable. Little things like making the sidewalks permeable surfaces that can soak up rainwater and changing the light fixtures to be LED bulbs placed at the top of the lighting fixtures to avoid light pollution help to decrease the impact this one street has on our environment as well as providing benefits to the city.
Another thing I noted while walking down Pennsylvania Avenue is that there is no commemoration of all the protests and parades that have crossed Pennsylvania Avenue. Pennsylvania Avenue has been a historic fixture in the social movements that have swept this country as well as the place of many official celebrations. I suggest that we ask local artists or schools to create murals on the sidewalks depicting the stories of the movements and celebrations that have happened on Pennsylvania Avenue. This would add another dimension to the repetitious, neoclassical buildings that flank both sides of the Pennsylvania Avenue. Also we could change Pershing Park to be a celebration of social movements by dedicating it to a leader or multiple leaders of social movements such as Alice Paul, the woman who organized the Woman Suffrage Parade in 1913, or A. Phillip Randolph, the man in charge of organizing the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. An interesting monument would be to have multiple leaders of different protests standing side-by-side with signs and hands in the air in the act of protest and tell their story on the wall behind them.
The last part of my plan is meant to incorporate DC locals into this design, because locals are often left out of designs such as this. My last suggestion is to transform Freedom Plaza into more of an interactive space. As it is now, Freedom plaza doesn’t offer much other than a skate park for teenagers. With all of it’s flat, empty, stone space, in the heat, it is unbearably hot and not hospitable to people spending time there. Therefore, I am recommending changing Freedom Plaza into a community space. The biggest highlight of this space would be an outdoor event space, equipped with a stage. It wouldn’t be huge event space, but it could be a space for local concerts, plays, as well as a collection point for future social action. The space would be very green, with trees flanking both sides of the park, as well as spaces for people to relax throughout Freedom Plaza.
Overall, I think these changes will make Pennsylvania Avenue a more dynamic space that more locals and tourists will want to participate in. These changes could help Pennsylvania Avenue live up to its historic significance with change that reflects the events that have made it famous, while also incorporating the people who walk there every day. It is important for the evolution of Pennsylvania Avenue to look at all not only increasing foot traffic and the appeal of the street but also its ability to be sustainable for the people who will be walking there in the future, and I believe this design does just that.
As a side-note I apologize for my sketches, drawing is not my forte.
Read more
View attachment
—Ansley Roberts, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
Pennsylvania Avenue
I have never been outside in the streets and thought to myself,â€there is so much history here.†Of course, there is history made everywhere every day but no one comes to think of it until they visit Washington, D.C. On Friday evening, around 7:53PM, I was walking on Pennsylvania Avenue on 14th street. . . and noticed so many things. As I walked from 14th street towards the direction of the Capitol on Pennsylvania Avenue I could not understand why there was barely anyone around on a Friday night. Then, I made some observations and came up with some ideas as to how can Pennsylvania Avenue revive history.
As I began my walk, I came across what is known as the Freedom Plaza. However, I was not aware of where I was standing on because there was no particular sign or label that said this was Freedom Plaza. I had to find out where I was standing on, on my GPS. I saw many skateboarders taking advantage of the empty space, because it sure was empty. There were some people walking up and down the streets as well as cars. Most of these people were tourists. I then told myself, “Of course there are tourists here! Pennsylvania Avenue is one of the most popular streets in our nation’s capital where people come to visit just to walk on these streets.â€
Walking through Pennsylvania Avenue, I focused on many different areas where the street can be better improved for the public’s eye. For starters, as I walked on the Avenue I expected to be able to clearly see each and every building that surrounds this street but I was disappointed to see trees. I am not a fan of deforestation and I definitely would not want to engage in activities to induce global warming, however I am to make exceptions on these trees that cover almost every building on Pennsylvania Avenue. There was the National Theater that had trees covering the sign. I could not tell it was a theater either, because of how empty it looked. Maybe have more advertisements about what is on this great avenue.
As I reached 10th street, I was in front of the FBI Building and remembered hearing about rumors of them relocating which had me think that the building can either become a entertainment center or even a museum. It is a very huge building with so much space. Further, while I was continue to walk I was beginning to get thirsty and saw that there was a water fountain. As I reached the fountain, I was devastated to find out there was no water. In fact, none of the water fountains worked which I found to be highly insane. This city has tourists visiting every day and the walk from one historical location to another is dreadfully long, it would be beneficial to fix these water fountains especially for the hot summer days in Washington.
I couldn’t help to miss the cracked floors in the streets as well in the sidewalks. I almost tripped in a pot hole that should have been covered on 9th street and Pennsylvania Avenue. It could be very dangerous for those people who are walking and looking up to see these wonderful buildings and see such great architecture but then trip and fall for not looking in the ground.
Another thing that came across to me was the fact that the only bank that I constantly saw was Wells Fargo. I suggest decreasing the number of Wells Fargo Banks on Pennsylvania Avenue and perhaps establishing several other banks like Bank of America or Chase Bank. I know there are many people who come from different parts of the world and feel hopeless to find a bank besides Wells Fargo. Lastly, I was totally shocked to see that by the time I reached 3rd Street on Pennsylvania Avenue, I had only seen one security guard and no police. That brought up a question of security and how I did not feel safe walking these streets at night. Perhaps amp up the security around this area, especially on a Friday night when people are going out for the weekends.
Read more
—Ledwin Martinez, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
I have never been outside in the streets and thought to myself,â€there is so much history here.†Of course, there is history made everywhere every day but no one comes to think of it until they visit Washington, D.C. On Friday evening, around 7:53PM, I was walking on Pennsylvania Avenue on 14th street. . . and noticed so many things. As I walked from 14th street towards the direction of the Capitol on Pennsylvania Avenue I could not understand why there was barely anyone around on a Friday night. Then, I made some observations and came up with some ideas as to how can Pennsylvania Avenue revive history.
As I began my walk, I came across what is known as the Freedom Plaza. However, I was not aware of where I was standing on because there was no particular sign or label that said this was Freedom Plaza. I had to find out where I was standing on, on my GPS. I saw many skateboarders taking advantage of the empty space, because it sure was empty. There were some people walking up and down the streets as well as cars. Most of these people were tourists. I then told myself, “Of course there are tourists here! Pennsylvania Avenue is one of the most popular streets in our nation’s capital where people come to visit just to walk on these streets.â€
Walking through Pennsylvania Avenue, I focused on many different areas where the street can be better improved for the public’s eye. For starters, as I walked on the Avenue I expected to be able to clearly see each and every building that surrounds this street but I was disappointed to see trees. I am not a fan of deforestation and I definitely would not want to engage in activities to induce global warming, however I am to make exceptions on these trees that cover almost every building on Pennsylvania Avenue. There was the National Theater that had trees covering the sign. I could not tell it was a theater either, because of how empty it looked. Maybe have more advertisements about what is on this great avenue.
As I reached 10th street, I was in front of the FBI Building and remembered hearing about rumors of them relocating which had me think that the building can either become a entertainment center or even a museum. It is a very huge building with so much space. Further, while I was continue to walk I was beginning to get thirsty and saw that there was a water fountain. As I reached the fountain, I was devastated to find out there was no water. In fact, none of the water fountains worked which I found to be highly insane. This city has tourists visiting every day and the walk from one historical location to another is dreadfully long, it would be beneficial to fix these water fountains especially for the hot summer days in Washington.
I couldn’t help to miss the cracked floors in the streets as well in the sidewalks. I almost tripped in a pot hole that should have been covered on 9th street and Pennsylvania Avenue. It could be very dangerous for those people who are walking and looking up to see these wonderful buildings and see such great architecture but then trip and fall for not looking in the ground.
Another thing that came across to me was the fact that the only bank that I constantly saw was Wells Fargo. I suggest decreasing the number of Wells Fargo Banks on Pennsylvania Avenue and perhaps establishing several other banks like Bank of America or Chase Bank. I know there are many people who come from different parts of the world and feel hopeless to find a bank besides Wells Fargo. Lastly, I was totally shocked to see that by the time I reached 3rd Street on Pennsylvania Avenue, I had only seen one security guard and no police. That brought up a question of security and how I did not feel safe walking these streets at night. Perhaps amp up the security around this area, especially on a Friday night when people are going out for the weekends.
Read more
—Ledwin Martinez, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
At 7:50pm on Friday September 6th, 2014 I was sitting on Pennsylvania ave and 14th street. I decided to walk from 14th street, Pennsylvania ave to the Capitol building. I saw people sitting on the benches in Freedom Plaza however, I feel the Plaza should be labeled with a bigger sign so that tourists know the. . . name of the Plaza and what it’s significance is to Washington, D.C history. Also with the Freedom Plaza I noticed that the floors are somewhat cracked. Therefore, there should be the reconstruction of tiles on the floor. There should be more police officers and security guards on duty at night. I noticed that there was only ONE security guard on duty tonight.
Along the sidewalks there a lot of tall trees covering the nation’s buildings. These buildings include Canada’s embassy and the J.Edgar Hoover FBI building. I am not a fan of deforestation but I think these trees should be cut down due to the fact that a lot of tourists come to D.C to site see and to take pictures. It would be better if the trees are cut down so that they can take more full pictures of these buildings in general. The water fountains that are along the side that don’t work should be fixed to work again. D.C has a lot of tourist sites and since it’s very hot in the summer therefore, some tourists might forget to bring water with them when they are walking around and exploring D.C. Having these water fountains working would be beneficial to tourists on the streets who are dehydrated from exploring the city. The floor tiles on the regular sidewalks need to be fixed. For example, I almost tripped and fell because one of the tiles were completely out from the ground; not fully cemented into the ground. This problem needs to be fixed because someone could really get hurt from tripping over a disheveled platform.
As I was getting closer to the end of third street, I noticed that a lot of the plaza’s ex. Indiana plaza has a lot of homeless people lounging around them. I think that the plaza’s should be open for the public in the daytime and then closed for the public in the night. I think this idea should be taken into consideration because it looks really inappropriate seeing homeless people at these historical monuments lounging either in front of them or on them. When I reached the end of third street I realized that along the sides of Pennsylvania ave there are numerous amounts of Wells Fargo Banks. They should get rid of at least two of the Wells Fargo Banks and establish a Capital one bank, a Chase bank and a Bank Of America because not everyone has Wells Fargo as their primary bank.
Read more
—Yasmyn Camp, Washington, D.C (September 08, 2014)
Along the sidewalks there a lot of tall trees covering the nation’s buildings. These buildings include Canada’s embassy and the J.Edgar Hoover FBI building. I am not a fan of deforestation but I think these trees should be cut down due to the fact that a lot of tourists come to D.C to site see and to take pictures. It would be better if the trees are cut down so that they can take more full pictures of these buildings in general. The water fountains that are along the side that don’t work should be fixed to work again. D.C has a lot of tourist sites and since it’s very hot in the summer therefore, some tourists might forget to bring water with them when they are walking around and exploring D.C. Having these water fountains working would be beneficial to tourists on the streets who are dehydrated from exploring the city. The floor tiles on the regular sidewalks need to be fixed. For example, I almost tripped and fell because one of the tiles were completely out from the ground; not fully cemented into the ground. This problem needs to be fixed because someone could really get hurt from tripping over a disheveled platform.
As I was getting closer to the end of third street, I noticed that a lot of the plaza’s ex. Indiana plaza has a lot of homeless people lounging around them. I think that the plaza’s should be open for the public in the daytime and then closed for the public in the night. I think this idea should be taken into consideration because it looks really inappropriate seeing homeless people at these historical monuments lounging either in front of them or on them. When I reached the end of third street I realized that along the sides of Pennsylvania ave there are numerous amounts of Wells Fargo Banks. They should get rid of at least two of the Wells Fargo Banks and establish a Capital one bank, a Chase bank and a Bank Of America because not everyone has Wells Fargo as their primary bank.
Read more
—Yasmyn Camp, Washington, D.C (September 08, 2014)
Please see attached for comments.
View attachment
—Massimiliano Valli, Washington, D.C. (September 08, 2014)
View attachment
—Massimiliano Valli, Washington, D.C. (September 08, 2014)
Pennsylvania Avenue: Development Corporation
When you think of Pennsylvania Avenue you think of a clean sector of DC that lines all of the major government buildings, the monuments, and the museums. When you think of Pennsylvania Avenue you think of businessmen and women and tourists flooding the streets. However, this image of Pennsylvania avenue dies. . . the minute the clock strikes 6pm and all businesses have closed along the street. When I went to Pennsylvania Avenue at the 3rd street intersection at 7pm, pedestrians abandoned the avenue. The lack of use of this public space in the evening limits its function and profitability. In order to reap the maximum benefit from the urban space that is Pennsylvania Avenue green space should be turned into “play spaceâ€, older buildings should be refurbished to accommodate workers and tourists with hotels, residencies and fine dining and public buildings should be open for extended recreational hours.
While Pennsylvania Avenue has beautifully maintained fields on its sides (especially closest to the capital on 3rd street) these fields serve little to no purpose. Perhaps the evening jogger might come and run on them or a homeless man may find shelter under a tree but vast fields do not bring people- playgrounds and events do. What is meant by play space is not limited to children’s jungle gyms but adult one’s too. A recreational urban model used by Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is to have adult outdoor gyms on every corner in order to stimulate pedestrian fitness and health. These gyms come with pull up bars, bench tables, and leg presses. While this model is most effective in Rio due to the year round summer weather, having a unit or two installed along with a child play space would make for an excellent summer fitness alternative. After all, DC was recently rated amongst the fittest United States cities, and what would enhance a work out would be the capital hill backdrop. Further, gyms would only be a recreational use of green space under fair weather conditions. For the colder seasons, fall markets and winter fairs would fend well with the tourism downtown draws. Using the free green land for a “fall fest†and a “winter light garden†would make the fields of Pennsylvania Avenue an evening staple of the touristic visit. Much like the folk festival, the tree lighting and the zoo lights- the use of the Pennsylvania avenue capital fields could bring a new tradition to the seasons for tourists. These events combined with exercise space and equipment for the summer would keep the sector alive after dark.
Second, the website suggests that some buildings of Pennsylvania are experiencing wear and tear that would require a refurbishing. Why not eliminate the use of these buildings as office space and sell it to become high-end residencies, hotels and restaurants. The most expensive sector to live, stay, and eat in New York city is the upper west and east borders with park avenue (the avenue facing central park). The reason? There is an allure of living by the “most beautiful†part of the city. Even more so- it is a fad location driven by a contagious idea that it is the place to be when in the city. What more could lead to a fad location than the museums, the obelisk, the public government offices and the white house? Pennsylvania Avenue is cut to be a “fad†street for that trendy elite that want the best experience in DC. Real estate would entail high end permanent residencies for those commuters to government offices who desire to be that much closer to work, hotels for the tourists and businessmen wanting the full “DC experience†and appropriate eateries open until evening for those individuals to be able to make use of Pennsylvania avenue at night. Living and dining on Pennsylvania Avenue would become a show of class and financial stability. While it would be an ambitious idea to open this area to a “normal†economic profile, the amount of maintenance the area requires to maintain it as a touristic showcase could only accommodate those who are willing to pay a higher ticket price for a finer downtown experience.
Finally, there is a clear shift in activity on Pennsylvania Avenue the minute the daytime museum attractions close at 5pm. While this is a normal occurrence for a business district, it is not for a commercial one. Pennsylvania Avenue does not only attract workers but tourists. Tourists are on vacation and want to maximize their time. Therefore, when the tourist rearing Smithsonian museums close at 5pm, tourists vacate the area for another site. While it is cost ineffective to maintain a free public museum open after hours, it would be a great option to make after hours a paying exclusive privilege for those who want to stick around. Extending the café hours for the art galleries or hosting “evening special†late night show cases for a ticket price would stimulate evening tourism but not sacrifice as much cost as general extended hours.
As part of your imitative with the Development Corporation I hope my user experience reflected through the suggestions of green space into “play spaceâ€, older buildings refurbished to accommodate workers and tourists with hotels, residencies and fine dining and public open for extended recreational hours serves of some aid for your future efforts in improving Pennsylvania avenue.
Read more
—Nicole Piedra, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
When you think of Pennsylvania Avenue you think of a clean sector of DC that lines all of the major government buildings, the monuments, and the museums. When you think of Pennsylvania Avenue you think of businessmen and women and tourists flooding the streets. However, this image of Pennsylvania avenue dies. . . the minute the clock strikes 6pm and all businesses have closed along the street. When I went to Pennsylvania Avenue at the 3rd street intersection at 7pm, pedestrians abandoned the avenue. The lack of use of this public space in the evening limits its function and profitability. In order to reap the maximum benefit from the urban space that is Pennsylvania Avenue green space should be turned into “play spaceâ€, older buildings should be refurbished to accommodate workers and tourists with hotels, residencies and fine dining and public buildings should be open for extended recreational hours.
While Pennsylvania Avenue has beautifully maintained fields on its sides (especially closest to the capital on 3rd street) these fields serve little to no purpose. Perhaps the evening jogger might come and run on them or a homeless man may find shelter under a tree but vast fields do not bring people- playgrounds and events do. What is meant by play space is not limited to children’s jungle gyms but adult one’s too. A recreational urban model used by Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is to have adult outdoor gyms on every corner in order to stimulate pedestrian fitness and health. These gyms come with pull up bars, bench tables, and leg presses. While this model is most effective in Rio due to the year round summer weather, having a unit or two installed along with a child play space would make for an excellent summer fitness alternative. After all, DC was recently rated amongst the fittest United States cities, and what would enhance a work out would be the capital hill backdrop. Further, gyms would only be a recreational use of green space under fair weather conditions. For the colder seasons, fall markets and winter fairs would fend well with the tourism downtown draws. Using the free green land for a “fall fest†and a “winter light garden†would make the fields of Pennsylvania Avenue an evening staple of the touristic visit. Much like the folk festival, the tree lighting and the zoo lights- the use of the Pennsylvania avenue capital fields could bring a new tradition to the seasons for tourists. These events combined with exercise space and equipment for the summer would keep the sector alive after dark.
Second, the website suggests that some buildings of Pennsylvania are experiencing wear and tear that would require a refurbishing. Why not eliminate the use of these buildings as office space and sell it to become high-end residencies, hotels and restaurants. The most expensive sector to live, stay, and eat in New York city is the upper west and east borders with park avenue (the avenue facing central park). The reason? There is an allure of living by the “most beautiful†part of the city. Even more so- it is a fad location driven by a contagious idea that it is the place to be when in the city. What more could lead to a fad location than the museums, the obelisk, the public government offices and the white house? Pennsylvania Avenue is cut to be a “fad†street for that trendy elite that want the best experience in DC. Real estate would entail high end permanent residencies for those commuters to government offices who desire to be that much closer to work, hotels for the tourists and businessmen wanting the full “DC experience†and appropriate eateries open until evening for those individuals to be able to make use of Pennsylvania avenue at night. Living and dining on Pennsylvania Avenue would become a show of class and financial stability. While it would be an ambitious idea to open this area to a “normal†economic profile, the amount of maintenance the area requires to maintain it as a touristic showcase could only accommodate those who are willing to pay a higher ticket price for a finer downtown experience.
Finally, there is a clear shift in activity on Pennsylvania Avenue the minute the daytime museum attractions close at 5pm. While this is a normal occurrence for a business district, it is not for a commercial one. Pennsylvania Avenue does not only attract workers but tourists. Tourists are on vacation and want to maximize their time. Therefore, when the tourist rearing Smithsonian museums close at 5pm, tourists vacate the area for another site. While it is cost ineffective to maintain a free public museum open after hours, it would be a great option to make after hours a paying exclusive privilege for those who want to stick around. Extending the café hours for the art galleries or hosting “evening special†late night show cases for a ticket price would stimulate evening tourism but not sacrifice as much cost as general extended hours.
As part of your imitative with the Development Corporation I hope my user experience reflected through the suggestions of green space into “play spaceâ€, older buildings refurbished to accommodate workers and tourists with hotels, residencies and fine dining and public open for extended recreational hours serves of some aid for your future efforts in improving Pennsylvania avenue.
Read more
—Nicole Piedra, Washington, DC (September 08, 2014)
Please look at this, I spent time thinking about how I feel this space could be extremely well utilized to provide a benefit for the community and the country as a whole. Thank you so much!
View attachment
—Kimberly Bernotas, 1307 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 (September 08, 2014)
View attachment
—Kimberly Bernotas, 1307 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 (September 08, 2014)
Please find my submission attached below.
View attachment
—Anna Sutton, Washington, DC (September 07, 2014)
View attachment
—Anna Sutton, Washington, DC (September 07, 2014)
Attached are my suggestions for a section of Pennsylvania Avenue!
View attachment
—Anna Robinson, Washington, DC (September 07, 2014)
View attachment
—Anna Robinson, Washington, DC (September 07, 2014)
The Pennsylvania Avenue Initiative is a project with the bold goal of “developing a vision for how the Avenue can meet local and national needs in a 21st capital cityâ€. While some may be looking to the streets of Brasilia, Brazil and Moscow, Russia, it is important to recognize the uniqueness of Washington D.C and. . . to take into account the symbolic nature of Pennsylvania Avenue in particular. Pennsylvania Avenue connects the Capitol building to the White House, and the view of the hill from down the avenue is a widely recognized sight by people from all walks of life. The avenue is also the route President elects take to their new home (The White House) on the day of their inaugurations.
Today the Avenue is home to many federal office buildings, and in a walk down Pennsylvania on a Saturday afternoon, the majority of the few people you see are tourists on their way to see the impressive White House or the remarkable office of our Congress, the Capitol building. Maybe it is because of the large width of the Avenue itself or because of the plaques installed reminding readers of moments in our country’s history, but on a weekend or weekday evening Pennsylvania Avenue seems empty. The area isn’t as residential as other streets in the district or as commercial as other neighborhoods, and while some may use the initiative to transform this (and increase density, or foster economic development), I think the most fitting solution would be to keep the overall atmosphere unchanged. The symbolic nature of a street connecting our Commander in Chief and Executive Branch of government to the voice of the people (our Congress), represents a very American principle; a principle our country was founded on.
In making changes that are compatible with the Avenue as it has existed before and continues to exist today, while still bringing a new and fresh element to the area, I would recommend re-purposing the current FBI office building (Pennsylvania Avenue between 9th and 10th street NW). It is understood that the repurposing of any federal building can be very challenging, but in the case of the J. Edgar Hoover building, there is a lot of potential for positive additions to the area.
While it isn’t the most efficient method, if the building was torn down and then rebuilt in a smaller and lower fashion, there would be enough room to create a huge green space. My vision would have a building around half the size of the current headquarters, with a large public green space/park area for tourists to stop and sit. With benches and small tables, it could also serve as a place for federal employees to sit outside with their lunch on days when weather is permitting. My idea also includes a playground/jungle gym area in one area of the new park for children to play outside. The reason I would include an area for children in the plan for the park is because of my larger vision for the use of the new building. I think the best use of space for the location would be a community center focused on civic education and teaching local D.C children about their country and its government. Because the Avenue has always stood as a symbolic link between two branches of government, the location is perfect for making progress in the education of our country’s future leaders. Like most other states, the public school education system in D.C has a lot to work on and an educational community center focusing on teaching kids about American history and government could serve as a supplemental activity for the districts children, especially for those who for some reason are at a disadvantage (socioeconomically, academically, etc.). Through the establishment of afterschool programs, summer camps, and/or a kind of academic historical center and library, I think the center could serve as a valuable resource to enhance students’ interest and understanding of the way our government works.
My idea includes the community education center on the upper floors of the new building. The first floor though would be designated as an open cafeteria-like space. With seating and tables available for federal employees, or the tourists who walk up and down the Avenue, there would be booths set up in a circular formation around the entire first floor. The booths could be sold or rented to D.C food establishments, and help to stimulate the local economy. Food trucks have made their way to D.C and have been very successful, so this would be very similar, but indoors (a selling point for hot D.C summers) with available seating in the same place. My idea would include a sleek and modern looking open space for the cafeteria with large windows to let in natural light and provide prime people-watching opportunities for patrons enjoying lunch.
My plan for repurposing the site of the FBI headquarters would combine a green space that would add an aesthetic value to the Avenue, a venue that would benefit local food vendors and the federal employees who work in the vicinity, and most importantly- would take on the task of educating future generations in a place that has long stood as an iconic symbol of the ideals America was founded on.
Read more
—Jessica Herrera, Washington, D.C (September 07, 2014)
Today the Avenue is home to many federal office buildings, and in a walk down Pennsylvania on a Saturday afternoon, the majority of the few people you see are tourists on their way to see the impressive White House or the remarkable office of our Congress, the Capitol building. Maybe it is because of the large width of the Avenue itself or because of the plaques installed reminding readers of moments in our country’s history, but on a weekend or weekday evening Pennsylvania Avenue seems empty. The area isn’t as residential as other streets in the district or as commercial as other neighborhoods, and while some may use the initiative to transform this (and increase density, or foster economic development), I think the most fitting solution would be to keep the overall atmosphere unchanged. The symbolic nature of a street connecting our Commander in Chief and Executive Branch of government to the voice of the people (our Congress), represents a very American principle; a principle our country was founded on.
In making changes that are compatible with the Avenue as it has existed before and continues to exist today, while still bringing a new and fresh element to the area, I would recommend re-purposing the current FBI office building (Pennsylvania Avenue between 9th and 10th street NW). It is understood that the repurposing of any federal building can be very challenging, but in the case of the J. Edgar Hoover building, there is a lot of potential for positive additions to the area.
While it isn’t the most efficient method, if the building was torn down and then rebuilt in a smaller and lower fashion, there would be enough room to create a huge green space. My vision would have a building around half the size of the current headquarters, with a large public green space/park area for tourists to stop and sit. With benches and small tables, it could also serve as a place for federal employees to sit outside with their lunch on days when weather is permitting. My idea also includes a playground/jungle gym area in one area of the new park for children to play outside. The reason I would include an area for children in the plan for the park is because of my larger vision for the use of the new building. I think the best use of space for the location would be a community center focused on civic education and teaching local D.C children about their country and its government. Because the Avenue has always stood as a symbolic link between two branches of government, the location is perfect for making progress in the education of our country’s future leaders. Like most other states, the public school education system in D.C has a lot to work on and an educational community center focusing on teaching kids about American history and government could serve as a supplemental activity for the districts children, especially for those who for some reason are at a disadvantage (socioeconomically, academically, etc.). Through the establishment of afterschool programs, summer camps, and/or a kind of academic historical center and library, I think the center could serve as a valuable resource to enhance students’ interest and understanding of the way our government works.
My idea includes the community education center on the upper floors of the new building. The first floor though would be designated as an open cafeteria-like space. With seating and tables available for federal employees, or the tourists who walk up and down the Avenue, there would be booths set up in a circular formation around the entire first floor. The booths could be sold or rented to D.C food establishments, and help to stimulate the local economy. Food trucks have made their way to D.C and have been very successful, so this would be very similar, but indoors (a selling point for hot D.C summers) with available seating in the same place. My idea would include a sleek and modern looking open space for the cafeteria with large windows to let in natural light and provide prime people-watching opportunities for patrons enjoying lunch.
My plan for repurposing the site of the FBI headquarters would combine a green space that would add an aesthetic value to the Avenue, a venue that would benefit local food vendors and the federal employees who work in the vicinity, and most importantly- would take on the task of educating future generations in a place that has long stood as an iconic symbol of the ideals America was founded on.
Read more
—Jessica Herrera, Washington, D.C (September 07, 2014)
Could you provide information on each of the panel members that describes what in their background makes each of them an expert (your word) on what the future of Pennsylvania Avenue should become. I know only one of the panel members and though a very savvy person, i had not considered him an 'expert' visionary. . . for the task before you. I have never heard of the other panelists and would like more information on them and what qualifies them as experts in the arena you are seeking advice on.
I would also like clarification on a phrase you used. You referred to Pennsylvania Avenue as a "special neighborhood," can you define the boundaries of this neighborhood or is this a slip of the tongue -- something that just sounded good? To me the neighborhood is Penn Quarter and one of its boundary streets is Pennsylvania Avenue. I would suspect you would agree that a boundary street is quite different than a neighborhood. In the nearly 50 years i have worked on and in this part of the city, until now, i have never heard anyone refer to The Avenue as a neighborhood.
Thank you for this opportunity to ask these questions. I look forward to your response.
Read more
—Jo-Ann Neuhaus, Penn Quarter - F bet. 9th and 10th streets, NW (September 04, 2014)
I would also like clarification on a phrase you used. You referred to Pennsylvania Avenue as a "special neighborhood," can you define the boundaries of this neighborhood or is this a slip of the tongue -- something that just sounded good? To me the neighborhood is Penn Quarter and one of its boundary streets is Pennsylvania Avenue. I would suspect you would agree that a boundary street is quite different than a neighborhood. In the nearly 50 years i have worked on and in this part of the city, until now, i have never heard anyone refer to The Avenue as a neighborhood.
Thank you for this opportunity to ask these questions. I look forward to your response.
Read more
—Jo-Ann Neuhaus, Penn Quarter - F bet. 9th and 10th streets, NW (September 04, 2014)
I’d like to support the goals and policies of the SW Eco-District Plan and applaud NCPC’s efforts to begin implementing the plan by developing design standards for 10th Street and Banneker Connection. These comments are meant as constructive design input to further the project forward.
10th Street has a strategic location on axis. . . between the Smithsonian and Banneker Park. Rebuilt as the L’Enfant Esplanade as part of “Urban Renewalâ€, the result is both bland and alienating, with no character or human scale. The NCPC proposed plan makes excellent suggestions to enliven the space with events, fountains and landscape features. The diagrams communicate these intentions very clearly. As the process moves forward, we encourage you to further the design to mediate the scale between the faceless monumental architecture and the proposed landscape features.
Banneker Park is at the natural escarpment and offers the magnificent prospect of the Potomac River. This potential has yet to be realized; it is desolate and dismal, a meaningless shapeless left over space. The NCPC’s proposal recognizes the need to connect to the River. We encourage NCPC to have higher ambitions and pursue a much grander vision.
Banneker Park ought to be completely reconfigured to create a significant place and act as the key hinge connecting 10th Street down to the riverfront. The connection to the waterfront calls for a major active pedestrian bridge over the highway and magnificent stairs like the Spanish Steps in Rome or the Potemkin Stairs in Odessa, Ukraine, (made famous by Sergei Eisenstein in the 1925 movie the Battleship Potemkin). This grand vision can also offer practical benefits. Redefining the space with new buildings can finance the cost of the bridge and stairs and the level changes can include parking and facilitate connections to the Metro at L’Enfant Plaza.
Banneker can be both a formal hinge rotating the axis from the Smithsonian to the Potomac River and a functional hub, serving as a major gateway for buses and cars with easy connections to Metro access at L’Enfant Plaza. Great care should be taken in designing this hinge, since it is on axis with the Smithsonian Castle. A new trolley along 10th Street can make this transit hub work more effectively.
We encourage NCPC to develop the design with character and communicate this vision with verve, to allow the public to experience the potential of the space at day and night, at different seasons, during different events.
Lourdes Escobar, one of my thesis students, just completed her thesis project for a proposal for the Banneker site; we would appreciate the opportunity to share her design and process with you in the new year.
Happy New Year!
Read more
View attachment
—Miriam Gusevich, Washington, DC. (December 31, 2013)
10th Street has a strategic location on axis. . . between the Smithsonian and Banneker Park. Rebuilt as the L’Enfant Esplanade as part of “Urban Renewalâ€, the result is both bland and alienating, with no character or human scale. The NCPC proposed plan makes excellent suggestions to enliven the space with events, fountains and landscape features. The diagrams communicate these intentions very clearly. As the process moves forward, we encourage you to further the design to mediate the scale between the faceless monumental architecture and the proposed landscape features.
Banneker Park is at the natural escarpment and offers the magnificent prospect of the Potomac River. This potential has yet to be realized; it is desolate and dismal, a meaningless shapeless left over space. The NCPC’s proposal recognizes the need to connect to the River. We encourage NCPC to have higher ambitions and pursue a much grander vision.
Banneker Park ought to be completely reconfigured to create a significant place and act as the key hinge connecting 10th Street down to the riverfront. The connection to the waterfront calls for a major active pedestrian bridge over the highway and magnificent stairs like the Spanish Steps in Rome or the Potemkin Stairs in Odessa, Ukraine, (made famous by Sergei Eisenstein in the 1925 movie the Battleship Potemkin). This grand vision can also offer practical benefits. Redefining the space with new buildings can finance the cost of the bridge and stairs and the level changes can include parking and facilitate connections to the Metro at L’Enfant Plaza.
Banneker can be both a formal hinge rotating the axis from the Smithsonian to the Potomac River and a functional hub, serving as a major gateway for buses and cars with easy connections to Metro access at L’Enfant Plaza. Great care should be taken in designing this hinge, since it is on axis with the Smithsonian Castle. A new trolley along 10th Street can make this transit hub work more effectively.
We encourage NCPC to develop the design with character and communicate this vision with verve, to allow the public to experience the potential of the space at day and night, at different seasons, during different events.
Lourdes Escobar, one of my thesis students, just completed her thesis project for a proposal for the Banneker site; we would appreciate the opportunity to share her design and process with you in the new year.
Happy New Year!
Read more
View attachment
—Miriam Gusevich, Washington, DC. (December 31, 2013)
National Capital Planning Commission’s recent concept proposal (12/04/13) illustrates exciting opportunities to connect the public from the National Mall down to the SW Waterfront.
A more complete proposal would be to connect the 10th Street Urban Garden Promenade together with the SW Waterfront by means of an enhanced addition to the Maine Avenue Fish Market.. . . I propose a new market to address pedestrian access concerns from the high level Banneker Park (NCPC’s Prospect) to the low level Waterfront, while creating program support for the local DC SW Waterfront Neighborhood and a new sensuous urban experience for the public.
Read more
View attachment
—Lourdes, Sterling, VA (December 31, 2013)
A more complete proposal would be to connect the 10th Street Urban Garden Promenade together with the SW Waterfront by means of an enhanced addition to the Maine Avenue Fish Market.. . . I propose a new market to address pedestrian access concerns from the high level Banneker Park (NCPC’s Prospect) to the low level Waterfront, while creating program support for the local DC SW Waterfront Neighborhood and a new sensuous urban experience for the public.
Read more
View attachment
—Lourdes, Sterling, VA (December 31, 2013)
The "Concepts" are appropriate and should be presented for formal action such as concept approval.
In the course of adoption, make it clear that the concept remains just that and is not a "regulatory" statement. In this context, the classification of rights of way "for zoning" is troubling as it suggests a rigid pathway. . . from concept to zoning without further refinement, and this could limit Federal Agencies (if the plan is to apply to them) and DC/private owners as zoning would apply to them.
As to the concepts proposed, there is a dense tree canopy at the northern end of 10th Street. Seen "in plan view," this looks appealing. Yet, the canopy could well be so dense as to block the views north to the iconic Smithsonian "castle." Explore ways to have canopy but with branches limbing out at a point above grade where the view toward the Castle would be framed, not obscured.
Finally, the plan seems to lack discussion of contemplated heights of development and where the height would be measured from. A strict reading of the Height Act could have adverse impact on development where the actual ground level is far below the exposed surface on decks or viaducts.
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Washington (December 31, 2013)
In the course of adoption, make it clear that the concept remains just that and is not a "regulatory" statement. In this context, the classification of rights of way "for zoning" is troubling as it suggests a rigid pathway. . . from concept to zoning without further refinement, and this could limit Federal Agencies (if the plan is to apply to them) and DC/private owners as zoning would apply to them.
As to the concepts proposed, there is a dense tree canopy at the northern end of 10th Street. Seen "in plan view," this looks appealing. Yet, the canopy could well be so dense as to block the views north to the iconic Smithsonian "castle." Explore ways to have canopy but with branches limbing out at a point above grade where the view toward the Castle would be framed, not obscured.
Finally, the plan seems to lack discussion of contemplated heights of development and where the height would be measured from. A strict reading of the Height Act could have adverse impact on development where the actual ground level is far below the exposed surface on decks or viaducts.
Read more
—Lindsley Williams, Washington (December 31, 2013)
Add enough residential units within walking distance to this area to create a safe and lively neighborhood feeling.Presence of few Washingtonians will add more energy and attraction to the place.
—Mohammad ali, potomac (December 21, 2013)
—Mohammad ali, potomac (December 21, 2013)
If I wanted to live in a glass and cement canyon I'd live in NYC. I chose DC back in the '80s in part because it's a beautiful city. And it's height restrictions are a major part of what makes it so beautiful. Please don't destroy this city with this nonsense. Let the skyscrapers fill Bethesda. . . or Rockville. Keep them out of the District of Columbia.
Read more
—Nancy, Washington, DC (December 02, 2013)
Read more
—Nancy, Washington, DC (December 02, 2013)
Sirs: As a native Washingtonian whose family settled in the city before Abe Lincoln's first term as President, I am amazed that the DC Government is allowed to violate the Federal Law that forbids the erection of over head power lines for streetcars in the city of Washington.
—Clyde Howard, Washington, DC (November 29, 2013)
—Clyde Howard, Washington, DC (November 29, 2013)
I support the repeal of DC's height act.
—Ricardo Huang, Berlin (November 27, 2013)
—Ricardo Huang, Berlin (November 27, 2013)
Please repeal dc height act.
—Luis Alberto Sanchez, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
—Luis Alberto Sanchez, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
I support the Anacostia Renaissance org. belief that it is Dc's best interest to real this Act. Please do so. Home Rule!
—Frank Lewis, DC (November 26, 2013)
—Frank Lewis, DC (November 26, 2013)
Please repeal height act. An abundance of European cities most beautiful buildings would have never seen the light of day if were for this regulation. I was unaware of this issue but group of young individuals were informing people outside of congress heights metro and I have been shocked since. Thanks for providing. . . Dc the opportunity to voice their opinion, via this web page.
Read more
—Sidney R., Congress Heights (November 26, 2013)
Read more
—Sidney R., Congress Heights (November 26, 2013)
Please repeal the height act and leave the height to DC. Not only are we the only world power without universal health care, but we are not only world power with a federally mandated regulation on the building heights of our capital.
—George T Tamils, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
—George T Tamils, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
DC is the only world city with a federally mandated height regulation. London, Madrid, Brussels, Barcelona, Hamburg all are examples of cities that do not have neither a federally mandated height nor a uniform height limit. Why this the case surprises me, we should fix this and repeal this binding and oppressing act on our city.. . . />
James Huang
Read more
—James R. Huang, From Washington D.C. Studying abroad in London (November 26, 2013)
James Huang
Read more
—James R. Huang, From Washington D.C. Studying abroad in London (November 26, 2013)
As Dc native I believe that the city of dc should set heights to 250 ft in the Lefant city. We should look to European cities to see how not having a federaly mandated height act has mas made the construction of some of their most beautiful buildings possible, without turning these cities into. . . Ne York. These cities Include London, Barcelona, Madris, Hamburg, Berlin, Brussels. All of these cities have beautiful and iconic skylines distinct from New York or Philadelphia with out a federally mandated height act.
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic,social, and cultural growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic,social, and cultural growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
Thank you for having my previous input displayed.
I would like to add that I hold the firm belief that the Dc Height act should be comply repealed. My reasons for this is that they serve as barrier that hinder our capital from becoming more dynamic, as well as its economic,. . . cultural, and social well being.
Sincerley
H.G
Read more
—Henry Gruber, DC Native living in London, England. (November 26, 2013)
I would like to add that I hold the firm belief that the Dc Height act should be comply repealed. My reasons for this is that they serve as barrier that hinder our capital from becoming more dynamic, as well as its economic,. . . cultural, and social well being.
Sincerley
H.G
Read more
—Henry Gruber, DC Native living in London, England. (November 26, 2013)
After cautiously analyzing the implications of the height act I have finally arrived to a conclusion. I am adding my voice to the complete repeal of the act in District.
—Martin Johnson, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
—Martin Johnson, Washington DC (November 26, 2013)
I am a dc native who has been residing in the city of London for the past two years. Here i have seen how not having uniform city height act does not mean the city will turn into New York. London has done a faboulous job, of growing upward and at the same time maintaining. . . the identy and beuty of its city. I belive that dc should follow in example and not have a uniform height act. All we should have is a rule that states that the capitol and Washington monuments will remain visible parts of our skyline and leave the rest to zoning. In doing this we will be doing something similar to what Lodon has done with st pauls cathedral and its other land marks.
Read more
—Henry Gruber, London, England (November 23, 2013)
Read more
—Henry Gruber, London, England (November 23, 2013)
I reviewed the NCPC Draft Final Recommendations on the Height Master Plan on Monday prior to the Commission Meeting on Tuesday, November 19th. I am a city and regional planner by training. It was refreshing to see the NPCP analysis that went into the development of the recommendations. I have saved the report.. . .
Read more
—Muriel Watkins , Washignton, DC (November 21, 2013)
Read more
—Muriel Watkins , Washignton, DC (November 21, 2013)
Not only are NCPC actions wrong and are harming our city, but ncpc study was porely constructed it offers a very poor and irealistic rendering of how buildings would look if heights were relaxed. Skidmore and Merrill and Owings the firm that NCPC sought out for the study has conducted other studies. . . for other cities and as this this link shows our models are primitive to say the least. Attached is model of height modifications in Fushan china. SOM made a design for Fusham that would maintain their historic buidings in their city while still being able to foster growth.
https://www.som.com/node/546?overlay=true
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr, DC (November 20, 2013)
https://www.som.com/node/546?overlay=true
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr, DC (November 20, 2013)
Well done.
Thank you for preserving the integrity and human scale of L'Enfant's design.
The fabric of Washington is expressed in the relationship of boulevard width to building height. That is nothing less than art.
—James Lee, Unknown (November 20, 2013)
Thank you for preserving the integrity and human scale of L'Enfant's design.
The fabric of Washington is expressed in the relationship of boulevard width to building height. That is nothing less than art.
—James Lee, Unknown (November 20, 2013)
Changes are obviously needed to the height act. DC has the most expensive downtown office prices in the country - because of supply constraints. This makes operating the federal government more expensive for all of us!
—Matthew Dickens, Washington, DC (November 19, 2013)
—Matthew Dickens, Washington, DC (November 19, 2013)
The Executive Director’s Staff Report concerning The National Capitol Planning Commission’s final recommendations to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government reform concerning the Height Act Master Plan for Washington D.C. is now before this Commission. The recommendation about whether and how to amend the Height of Building Act for areas inside the L’Enfant City. . . are contained in Recommendation 1. The Recommendation about whether and how to amend the Act outside the L’Enfant City are contained in recommendation 2.
I support Recommendation 1 and I oppose Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 1. This is concerned with both the federal interests within the L’Enfant City and the form and character of the nation’s capitol. It recommends no change in the Height of Buildings Act. It discusses proposed formulas and approaches for calculating the allowable height and explains that the proposed Ratio Approach would add height where it is least appropriate, where building heights should be lower to emphasize views of the Capitol and White House. It also examined the need for additional development capacity and determined that the city would not realize much additional capacity under the Ratio Approach.
I agree with the recommendation that the Height of Buildings Act should remain in place within the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Recommendation 2. This is concerned with the areas outside the L’Enfant City and is purported to balance the long-term potential growth needs with the importance of protecting the integrity of the form and character of the nation’s capitol, including federal interests and local communities. In the first place, there is no data to support the need to accommodate growth, but the recommendation sidesteps this deficiency and concentrates on what process should be used if it becomes necessary to accommodate a dialogue about growth and building heights. In other words, the recommendation concedes that is no need for a change to accommodate growth now, but nonetheless, recommends a process if and when the need arises.
The process that is recommended would allow amendments to the law outside the L’Enfant City to permit “targeted exceptions" through the Comprehensive Plan process. As explained in the recommendation that process appears to provide safeguards, but in practice, the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, as we saw in the last round, results in opaque amendments from Office of Planning and further unexpected amendments at the whim of individual Council members.
Do you recall the last major round of OP amendments about four years ago? The number of Office of Planning amendments amounted to over a hundred.
Were any of them â€vetoed†by NCPC? Or rejected by Congress during the 30-day layover period?
We have seen the tax deferments that have been offered to developers. Do we expect the “targeted exceptions†to the Height Act would be any different? Recommendation 2 will result in spot zoning by the Office of Planning and the Council, because the Zoning Commission will have to implements the “targeted exceptions†in order that zoning is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
I oppose Recommendation 2. The Height of Buildings Act should remain in place outside the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Read more
View attachment
—Monte Edwards, DC, Capitol Hill (November 19, 2013)
I support Recommendation 1 and I oppose Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 1. This is concerned with both the federal interests within the L’Enfant City and the form and character of the nation’s capitol. It recommends no change in the Height of Buildings Act. It discusses proposed formulas and approaches for calculating the allowable height and explains that the proposed Ratio Approach would add height where it is least appropriate, where building heights should be lower to emphasize views of the Capitol and White House. It also examined the need for additional development capacity and determined that the city would not realize much additional capacity under the Ratio Approach.
I agree with the recommendation that the Height of Buildings Act should remain in place within the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Recommendation 2. This is concerned with the areas outside the L’Enfant City and is purported to balance the long-term potential growth needs with the importance of protecting the integrity of the form and character of the nation’s capitol, including federal interests and local communities. In the first place, there is no data to support the need to accommodate growth, but the recommendation sidesteps this deficiency and concentrates on what process should be used if it becomes necessary to accommodate a dialogue about growth and building heights. In other words, the recommendation concedes that is no need for a change to accommodate growth now, but nonetheless, recommends a process if and when the need arises.
The process that is recommended would allow amendments to the law outside the L’Enfant City to permit “targeted exceptions" through the Comprehensive Plan process. As explained in the recommendation that process appears to provide safeguards, but in practice, the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, as we saw in the last round, results in opaque amendments from Office of Planning and further unexpected amendments at the whim of individual Council members.
Do you recall the last major round of OP amendments about four years ago? The number of Office of Planning amendments amounted to over a hundred.
Were any of them â€vetoed†by NCPC? Or rejected by Congress during the 30-day layover period?
We have seen the tax deferments that have been offered to developers. Do we expect the “targeted exceptions†to the Height Act would be any different? Recommendation 2 will result in spot zoning by the Office of Planning and the Council, because the Zoning Commission will have to implements the “targeted exceptions†in order that zoning is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
I oppose Recommendation 2. The Height of Buildings Act should remain in place outside the L’Enfant City and no change should be made.
Read more
View attachment
—Monte Edwards, DC, Capitol Hill (November 19, 2013)
Please do not support any change that loosens the Height Act outside of the Federal City. This will lead to de-stabilization of our communities and destruction of historic districts. The historic districts in DC are a unique and wonderful hybrid of a planned city and organic growth. The Height Act is an important protection against impulsive. . . development. People moving into DC are attracted by the wonderful housing stock, the trees, the light, and multimodal transportation. They are willing to pay top dollar for real neighborhoods. Loosening the Height Act in the greater city area will create an irreversible shift in policy, sending a message to DC's Office of Planning and private developers that density trumps preservation.
Read more
—Susan Taylor, Washington DC (November 19, 2013)
Read more
—Susan Taylor, Washington DC (November 19, 2013)
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/20681/no-dc-is-not-going-to-be-like-paris/
—Ricardo Espinoza Pujol, Paris, France (November 13, 2013)
—Ricardo Espinoza Pujol, Paris, France (November 13, 2013)
I completely support the OP plan. It seems like a very reasonable plan that 1) preserves the low slung nature of the skyline 2)doesn't allow high rises (it only raises building heights by 30 to 40 ft downtown) 3) specifically protects views of the Capitol, White House, and Washington Monument and 4) provides DC with more. . . room to grow in the walkable, urban core.
As for outside the L'Enfant Core I strongly believe that the regulation of height be left to the zoning regulations. Hopefully NCPC can agree to the mayors proposal and the recommendation to congress sent as one.
Read more
—Martin A. Lawrence, Dupont Circle (November 11, 2013)
As for outside the L'Enfant Core I strongly believe that the regulation of height be left to the zoning regulations. Hopefully NCPC can agree to the mayors proposal and the recommendation to congress sent as one.
Read more
—Martin A. Lawrence, Dupont Circle (November 11, 2013)
The Kingman Park Civic Association strongly supports the height limit restrictions in the District of Columbia. The historic character of the city, and the national memorials must be protected from over-development and unsightly appearances of towering buildings and blocked views of the city's beautiful vistas.
The height limits provide a teachable moment. . . for students of history, architecture and science. Preserve the city for future generations, and please don't allow over zealous developers to dictate the future of our city and nation.
Thank you,
Frazer Walton, President
Kingman Park Civic Association
Read more
—Frazer Walton for the Kingman Park Civic Association, Washinton DC (November 05, 2013)
The height limits provide a teachable moment. . . for students of history, architecture and science. Preserve the city for future generations, and please don't allow over zealous developers to dictate the future of our city and nation.
Thank you,
Frazer Walton, President
Kingman Park Civic Association
Read more
—Frazer Walton for the Kingman Park Civic Association, Washinton DC (November 05, 2013)
I have lived in DC for 44 years. Thank you for the opportunity to present.
Raising the height limit in the District is a drastic measure that would radically alter quality of life but which cannot provide any assurance whatsoever that we will maintain economic diversity in our population.
If economic. . . diversity is truly the concern, we should be requiring developers - NOW -to set aside portions of any new development for lower-income residents and not allow - buy-outs. The existing provisions in the District code don't protect moderate and/or low income housing.
There is no assurance that most developers won't take advantage of the housing buy-out and result in a NW Washington that is all upper-middle and upper income residents. Adding stories doesn't change the story
Harriett Tregoning herself has said many times that taller buildings will likely not have affordable housing because it is so expensive to build tall, and luxury housing would be the expected outcome.
Read more
—Kindy French, Washignton, DC (November 05, 2013)
Raising the height limit in the District is a drastic measure that would radically alter quality of life but which cannot provide any assurance whatsoever that we will maintain economic diversity in our population.
If economic. . . diversity is truly the concern, we should be requiring developers - NOW -to set aside portions of any new development for lower-income residents and not allow - buy-outs. The existing provisions in the District code don't protect moderate and/or low income housing.
There is no assurance that most developers won't take advantage of the housing buy-out and result in a NW Washington that is all upper-middle and upper income residents. Adding stories doesn't change the story
Harriett Tregoning herself has said many times that taller buildings will likely not have affordable housing because it is so expensive to build tall, and luxury housing would be the expected outcome.
Read more
—Kindy French, Washignton, DC (November 05, 2013)
I support retaining the Height Act in DC -- There's still room for development within the existing regulations and the low heights are one of DC's major characteristics.
—Ellen Maxwell, Washington, DC 20016 (November 04, 2013)
—Ellen Maxwell, Washington, DC 20016 (November 04, 2013)
Without reservation, I support NCPC’s position on preserving the Height Act.
—Bernard Ries, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
—Bernard Ries, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Thank you for allowing DC residents to comment on the proposed change to the DC Height Act.
I strongly support the NCPC's recommendation not to change the provisions of the Height Act. Washington is a beautiful city in large part because of the vistas, green spaces, and scale of its buildings. . . . It holds a unique and special place among large metropolitan areas on the East Coast because it is not densely packed with tall buildings that are not welcoming and obscure views of the sky, trees, and water. Washington's special character and historic architecture would be greatly diminished if the height limit on buildings were raised. I believe the city can continue to develop without destroying its uniqueness and beauty in the process. Thank you for all the time and effort you have expended on the study regarding building heights and for your wise recommendation.
Read more
—Susan McCarty, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
I strongly support the NCPC's recommendation not to change the provisions of the Height Act. Washington is a beautiful city in large part because of the vistas, green spaces, and scale of its buildings. . . . It holds a unique and special place among large metropolitan areas on the East Coast because it is not densely packed with tall buildings that are not welcoming and obscure views of the sky, trees, and water. Washington's special character and historic architecture would be greatly diminished if the height limit on buildings were raised. I believe the city can continue to develop without destroying its uniqueness and beauty in the process. Thank you for all the time and effort you have expended on the study regarding building heights and for your wise recommendation.
Read more
—Susan McCarty, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
Please find attached my testimony on the Height Master Plan for Washington, D.C., in connection with today’s hearing at the NCPC. I regret that I cannot present it in person.
View attachment
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, D.C. 20015 (November 04, 2013)
View attachment
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, D.C. 20015 (November 04, 2013)
As district residents for more than 20 years, my family and I welcomed the National Capitol Planning Commission’s determination that the District has not adequately justified its efforts to circumvent Height Act restrictions. A critical part of what makes the District the livable and distinct city that it is, is the low profile of our. . . buildings. It contributes to highlighting the monumental and government core of our capital city, brings in light, and fosters pedestrian and commercial friendly avenues. There is plenty of space that can be developed within the city to support future growth, and we have seen what senseless building can do to destroy the appeal and people scale of places like Bethesda and Silver Spring. The current and appropriate Height Act limits provide a necessary constraint to developers to plan and design their projects in a manner that is consistent with the unique low profile character of our city rather than taking tall building shortcuts that would forever change Washington’s enviable cityscape. I hope you continue in your efforts to hold the City Planning Office accountable for and resist its unjustified efforts to amend the Height Act.
Read more
—Cliff Johnson, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
Read more
—Cliff Johnson, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
My family has lived in this city since the turn of the last century. We've seen many changes -- good and bad -- in a hundred years of DC residency. I was born and raised in the area and as a young adult, lived in Paris, Brussels, London and Houston, Texas before choosing to. . . return to DC some ten years ago. One of the many wonderful things about DC is the human scale of our buildings. We only have to look across the river to Rosslyn and Crystal City to see what could happen if the Height Limit was eliminated -- towering buildings hovering over sidewalks, contributing to overwhelming traffic and a dearth of green space, interesting street-scapes or pedestrian-friendly areas. I urge you to adhere to the current restrictions which have served this city so well for so long and have contributed to it's beauty and elegance.
Read more
—Mary Emerson Slimp, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Read more
—Mary Emerson Slimp, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Please keep the building height as it is. An increase would be disastrous for the city.
—Unknown, Unknown (November 04, 2013)
—Unknown, Unknown (November 04, 2013)
Please reject the District’s attempt to set aside the height requirements for buildings in the District of Columbia.
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
I strongly endorse the NCPC position that the Height Act be retained. Your recommendations are well researched and well supported. I cannot say the same for proposals the eliminate or modify the Act. Please let citizens know what they can do to help keep our iconic city the beautiful place it is.
—Ann Hamilton, Washington, DC (Cleveland Park) (November 04, 2013)
—Ann Hamilton, Washington, DC (Cleveland Park) (November 04, 2013)
Please reject the District’s attempt to set aside the height requirements for buildings in the District of Columbia.
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
This is a federal city, and its character and symbolism need to reflect its 200 year purpose and convey its uniqueness to future generations. The is room for whatever growth may come throughout the metro area. But. . . the shape and character of the city, once lost a higher-tighter-denser growth model, can never be recaptured. It will be gone forever.
Please do not let that happen.
Read more
—David E. Leslie, Washington, DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
Re: Executive Director's Recommendatio on the eNCPC Staff Height Act Study, presented on September 12, 2013,
to the NCPC Commission Meeting:
One of the advantages of individual comment is that almost necessarily it simplifies oppositions, and is very often theerefore unfair to one side of a complex argument or the other. My own reading of both. . . draft reports makes the central opoasition between OP and NCPC over-simple. 1
On the one side is OP, an agency of the government of the Federal Distric, with an agenda which postulates the desirability of autonomy for that government, and castingit therefore in terms of the fiscal resources it would have if things were different enough that an extension of height in the central business disrict (defined around the most obvious concentration of that area around K st., the new Convention Center and the Hotels and apparatus of a renewed and more elevated set of buildings in which the lobbyists and business people associated with the Board of Trade and analogous groups could so expand the tax-returns to government to make more plausible the prospect of a home-rule which could then graduate at some point in time into a genuine statehood, and free itself from the shackles (as they are often termed) of an objectionable dependence on Congressional permissions and consultations, at least for the non-Federal parts of the District.
On the other side is the agency of the NCPC which I simplify very considerably into an idealised version of an interdependent region, once oriented by the Year 2000 Plan to represent the undoubted utility of collaboration between virtually all the jurisdictions and agencies of constitutional States, and a hierarchy of cooperative things to comprehend not merely the area of the Constituional District but the variety of formerly suburban Counties in two States and asked to meter and in some sense to express the enormous variety of material and symbolic interests of rivals for significance (as surrogates for political and social power) reaching almost to Baltimore on its northern reach, to Front Royal and Charlottesville on the other, gathering the consequences of demographic change into an immense conurbation, and resulting in many forms of definition of inter-questions of population and class outside the bounds of the Federal District and interacting with it in an intimate and complicated weave of the commuter journies to work (no longer simply towards the District, but in many interwoven and cross-jurisdictional lines of traffic, both by quasi-freeway and private car, but the deviations of three airports and several mostly-suburban shopping centers (such as Tyson's Corner and Shirley Highway, Rockville Pike and 270, the north-south route of 95, and the like. There is an active competition for busines centers for new business district building, a great variety of building heights and concentrations, interacting with a complicated weave of dependency and rivalry---exemplified by the building up of Arlington just on the other side of the Potomac from Washington itself, and without some of the prohibitions on building-height and use that the city of Washington is constrained by, such as the Height Act of 1910. This is interactive with the provision of housing in the same area, increasingly by much taller apartment houses in an area which is only constrained by the necessof crossing the barrier of the Potomac by a limited number of bridges.
The suburbs of Washington were created by the social process of white-flight in the complex period which followed Brown vs. Education in 1954, and very large and scattered new centers of rather well-to do groups in suburbs, which embodied all the tensions of a both more concentrated, more similar USA now electronic and not variegaated simply by the facts of space or the difficulties of moving large elements of commuting populations by means of the private car.
The whole embodies a complicated whole of space, communication, transportation and electronics and to a certain extent, the rivalries of potential advantage for places and jurisdictions. These are not soluble by the resources of any one piece, but invoke the necessity of all of them. They do not ever achieve the ideal of mutual benefit, but they represent an ideal of collaboration to bring together the so-called stakeholders of any single problem (such as that of the Height Limitation Act in the Federal District of Washington) in an often-untidy mixture of elements and impulses, such as the allocation of a joint report to OP and to NCPC, when the basic thrust of either component is virrtually certain to reveal (and constitute) patterns of incompatibility between them.
1There are, after all, more than one form of parochialism than those of the parish-pump, since I suppose that there is also a form of it in time, the notion that our own times and those of our 'history' and our ' futures' are the only ones that exist,, have existed, and will exist. This is at least one of the things to be learned from the study of history.
Read more
—William Haskett, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
to the NCPC Commission Meeting:
One of the advantages of individual comment is that almost necessarily it simplifies oppositions, and is very often theerefore unfair to one side of a complex argument or the other. My own reading of both. . . draft reports makes the central opoasition between OP and NCPC over-simple. 1
On the one side is OP, an agency of the government of the Federal Distric, with an agenda which postulates the desirability of autonomy for that government, and castingit therefore in terms of the fiscal resources it would have if things were different enough that an extension of height in the central business disrict (defined around the most obvious concentration of that area around K st., the new Convention Center and the Hotels and apparatus of a renewed and more elevated set of buildings in which the lobbyists and business people associated with the Board of Trade and analogous groups could so expand the tax-returns to government to make more plausible the prospect of a home-rule which could then graduate at some point in time into a genuine statehood, and free itself from the shackles (as they are often termed) of an objectionable dependence on Congressional permissions and consultations, at least for the non-Federal parts of the District.
On the other side is the agency of the NCPC which I simplify very considerably into an idealised version of an interdependent region, once oriented by the Year 2000 Plan to represent the undoubted utility of collaboration between virtually all the jurisdictions and agencies of constitutional States, and a hierarchy of cooperative things to comprehend not merely the area of the Constituional District but the variety of formerly suburban Counties in two States and asked to meter and in some sense to express the enormous variety of material and symbolic interests of rivals for significance (as surrogates for political and social power) reaching almost to Baltimore on its northern reach, to Front Royal and Charlottesville on the other, gathering the consequences of demographic change into an immense conurbation, and resulting in many forms of definition of inter-questions of population and class outside the bounds of the Federal District and interacting with it in an intimate and complicated weave of the commuter journies to work (no longer simply towards the District, but in many interwoven and cross-jurisdictional lines of traffic, both by quasi-freeway and private car, but the deviations of three airports and several mostly-suburban shopping centers (such as Tyson's Corner and Shirley Highway, Rockville Pike and 270, the north-south route of 95, and the like. There is an active competition for busines centers for new business district building, a great variety of building heights and concentrations, interacting with a complicated weave of dependency and rivalry---exemplified by the building up of Arlington just on the other side of the Potomac from Washington itself, and without some of the prohibitions on building-height and use that the city of Washington is constrained by, such as the Height Act of 1910. This is interactive with the provision of housing in the same area, increasingly by much taller apartment houses in an area which is only constrained by the necessof crossing the barrier of the Potomac by a limited number of bridges.
The suburbs of Washington were created by the social process of white-flight in the complex period which followed Brown vs. Education in 1954, and very large and scattered new centers of rather well-to do groups in suburbs, which embodied all the tensions of a both more concentrated, more similar USA now electronic and not variegaated simply by the facts of space or the difficulties of moving large elements of commuting populations by means of the private car.
The whole embodies a complicated whole of space, communication, transportation and electronics and to a certain extent, the rivalries of potential advantage for places and jurisdictions. These are not soluble by the resources of any one piece, but invoke the necessity of all of them. They do not ever achieve the ideal of mutual benefit, but they represent an ideal of collaboration to bring together the so-called stakeholders of any single problem (such as that of the Height Limitation Act in the Federal District of Washington) in an often-untidy mixture of elements and impulses, such as the allocation of a joint report to OP and to NCPC, when the basic thrust of either component is virrtually certain to reveal (and constitute) patterns of incompatibility between them.
1There are, after all, more than one form of parochialism than those of the parish-pump, since I suppose that there is also a form of it in time, the notion that our own times and those of our 'history' and our ' futures' are the only ones that exist,, have existed, and will exist. This is at least one of the things to be learned from the study of history.
Read more
—William Haskett, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
Kudos to the NCPC for their thoughtful Height Act recommendations. My family goes back generations in DC and has seen the unique air-filled, green, non-shadowy city for 100 years. Visitors to DC do not simply note the downtown areas of the city, but the overall feel of the Federal City. At the Maryland. . . border at Wisconsin Avenue, the National Cathedral stands out straight ahead among lower rise buildings. In the same sight line, buildings are framed by trees because the limit for many large trees around 100 feet is proportional to the height of buildings. The same trees would be overshadowed in many areas with even a small change in height limits.
Regardless of why the Height Act was originally implemented, the impact has been a very airy, light-filled Washington that is quite unique versus other cities. The entire development pattern of DC was dictated by the Height Act, not just the areas near the memorials and downtown but everywhere across the city. In lower density wards, homes were built in very close proximity to limited height apartment buildings while still maintaining light and air. That adds charm and livability to many neighborhoods across the city that contrasts sharply with other cities. Raising heights in parts of the city even far from the core downtown can have disastrous impacts on the character of those areas and the city as a whole.
The Height Act has already been chipped away over time via dishonest interpretation and enforcement of the Height Act that is contrary to the intent and literal language of the Act. So now 90-foot height limited residential neighborhoods, many newer buildings actually stand 100-120 feet tall from the widest street plus an 18.5 foot penthouse. Extra height means extra shadows for adjacent buildings. Even in peak sunlight hours during winter, a 90 foot building casts a shadow many times that far. So when developers and planners claim that taller buildings and taller penthouses will have little impact on surrounding streets and buildings, it is not true.
Much of the value of higher zoned land simply accrues to the owner of such land. It does not provide broad societal benefit. It also has very limited, if any, reduction in housing costs for the same reason, the value (above construction costs and minimum investment return) always accrues to the land and high rise construction is expensive. The goal of DC should be to be the best city, a unique city, not the largest city with the most cranes and infrastructure not designed for it. Past generations’ wisdom gave DC its unique character. Let’s not ruin it in the blink of an eye, particularly when there is massive FAR available in the City without any changes to the Height Act. The light filled, lower density neighborhoods of DC are among its best.
Having DC become just like every other city is not in the Federal interest, or the local interest.
Read more
—Richard Graham, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
Regardless of why the Height Act was originally implemented, the impact has been a very airy, light-filled Washington that is quite unique versus other cities. The entire development pattern of DC was dictated by the Height Act, not just the areas near the memorials and downtown but everywhere across the city. In lower density wards, homes were built in very close proximity to limited height apartment buildings while still maintaining light and air. That adds charm and livability to many neighborhoods across the city that contrasts sharply with other cities. Raising heights in parts of the city even far from the core downtown can have disastrous impacts on the character of those areas and the city as a whole.
The Height Act has already been chipped away over time via dishonest interpretation and enforcement of the Height Act that is contrary to the intent and literal language of the Act. So now 90-foot height limited residential neighborhoods, many newer buildings actually stand 100-120 feet tall from the widest street plus an 18.5 foot penthouse. Extra height means extra shadows for adjacent buildings. Even in peak sunlight hours during winter, a 90 foot building casts a shadow many times that far. So when developers and planners claim that taller buildings and taller penthouses will have little impact on surrounding streets and buildings, it is not true.
Much of the value of higher zoned land simply accrues to the owner of such land. It does not provide broad societal benefit. It also has very limited, if any, reduction in housing costs for the same reason, the value (above construction costs and minimum investment return) always accrues to the land and high rise construction is expensive. The goal of DC should be to be the best city, a unique city, not the largest city with the most cranes and infrastructure not designed for it. Past generations’ wisdom gave DC its unique character. Let’s not ruin it in the blink of an eye, particularly when there is massive FAR available in the City without any changes to the Height Act. The light filled, lower density neighborhoods of DC are among its best.
Having DC become just like every other city is not in the Federal interest, or the local interest.
Read more
—Richard Graham, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
A friend just e-mailed me that the building heights limit in Washington is again under discussion and the deadline to submit comments is today. Because I was alerted so late this will be a brief note but I definitely want to voice my strong support for maintaining height.
I am fifth-generation Washingtonian who lived in. . . quite a few other U.S. cities in my young adulthood (Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York, and Portland, OR) but have been back home now for 17 years. A change in the height limits would substantially change much of what I love about this city and it seems to me that economic growth here is taking place at a sufficient pace.
Oddly, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I was in Wilmington, Delaware on business and as I walked from the train station to the office where my meeting was being held I was aware (not for the first time) that Wilmington felt a bit like Washington in the ‘80s/’90s, a bit depressed but filled with history and evident change on the way. It was a pleasant walk until I hit the “downtown†area where tall buildings had eradicated whatever history may have been there and left the sidewalks in deep shadows so nobody was lingering or strolling outside; I thought to myself, thank goodness we haven’t done this in Washington!
When I returned from Wilmington I walked from Union Station to Dupont Circle loving this city, its architecture, its trees, its light. Being forced to cross Massachusetts Avenue in several places where sidewalks were closed due to large construction projects, I was thankful that whatever was being built was not going to fundamentally change the feel of the city. And later in the evening, as I rode a bikeshare from Dupont Circle home, I had that same gratitude as I passed the rubble which used to be the Ontario Theater and will, I suppose, soon become “luxury condos†but not as many stories as I’m sure the developer would like.
I am right now writing this from my fourth-floor apartment in Mount Pleasant and looking out my front window at rooftops and church spires and people on the sidewalks enjoying the fall sunshine, in the far distance the tip of the Washington Monument can be seen. From my side window I have a view of Rock Creek Park and soon, when the tall tree a few blocks away loses its leaves, I’ll have my seasonal view of the National Cathedral.
I hope that greed or some misguided idea about what Washington needs will not alter the unique and wonderful character created by the building heights limit. It is one of the things that I believe make this the “fairest city in the greatest land of all.â€
Read more
—Katharine MacKaye, Washington DC (Mount Pleasant) (November 04, 2013)
I am fifth-generation Washingtonian who lived in. . . quite a few other U.S. cities in my young adulthood (Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York, and Portland, OR) but have been back home now for 17 years. A change in the height limits would substantially change much of what I love about this city and it seems to me that economic growth here is taking place at a sufficient pace.
Oddly, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I was in Wilmington, Delaware on business and as I walked from the train station to the office where my meeting was being held I was aware (not for the first time) that Wilmington felt a bit like Washington in the ‘80s/’90s, a bit depressed but filled with history and evident change on the way. It was a pleasant walk until I hit the “downtown†area where tall buildings had eradicated whatever history may have been there and left the sidewalks in deep shadows so nobody was lingering or strolling outside; I thought to myself, thank goodness we haven’t done this in Washington!
When I returned from Wilmington I walked from Union Station to Dupont Circle loving this city, its architecture, its trees, its light. Being forced to cross Massachusetts Avenue in several places where sidewalks were closed due to large construction projects, I was thankful that whatever was being built was not going to fundamentally change the feel of the city. And later in the evening, as I rode a bikeshare from Dupont Circle home, I had that same gratitude as I passed the rubble which used to be the Ontario Theater and will, I suppose, soon become “luxury condos†but not as many stories as I’m sure the developer would like.
I am right now writing this from my fourth-floor apartment in Mount Pleasant and looking out my front window at rooftops and church spires and people on the sidewalks enjoying the fall sunshine, in the far distance the tip of the Washington Monument can be seen. From my side window I have a view of Rock Creek Park and soon, when the tall tree a few blocks away loses its leaves, I’ll have my seasonal view of the National Cathedral.
I hope that greed or some misguided idea about what Washington needs will not alter the unique and wonderful character created by the building heights limit. It is one of the things that I believe make this the “fairest city in the greatest land of all.â€
Read more
—Katharine MacKaye, Washington DC (Mount Pleasant) (November 04, 2013)
I am opposed to any changes to the Height Act.
NCPC report: I agree with the NCPC finding that "changes to the Height Act within the L’Enfant City and within the topographic bowl may have a significant adverse effect on federal interests" and that "The Height Act continues to meet the essential interests and needs. . . of the federal government and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so in the future. There is no specific federal interest in raising heights to meet future federal space needs."
D.C. Government report: The pdf of the District government report located at: http://www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/docs/092013_DC_Height_Master_Plan_Draft_Recommendations_Report_FINAL.pdf is an incomplete version and only contains even-numbered pages. Therefore, the public does not have full access to this report for the purposes of reviewing and commenting. The Commission needs to provide full information to the public to ensure a credible public comment process.
Based on the incomplete information provided on the website, I oppose the District government's recommendations. While I oppose changes in the height limits District-wide, I want to point out that I live between Buzzard Point and the Waterfront Station, and I am opposed to any changes in those locations.
New development in the District should focus on communities near metro stations that need positive neighborhood investment and where it is affordable for families to live and for residents to open small business, such as Deanwood, Benning Road, and Capitol Heights. The average family cannot afford to live in the many new high rise buildings in the District. But they may not feel safe in some neighborhoods that are affordable and near metro. These areas in the district would greatly benefit from low or medium-rise development that would encourage neighborhood vitality and livable communities.
We need more neighborhoods with locally owned shops of all types, from bakeries and coffee shops to card stores to day care, yoga studios and local artists--not more high rise buildings with yet another CVS, Subway restaurant, and bank in the commercial spaces because no one else can afford to locate there. Instead, moderate density development in other neighborhoods will help improve their safety and community stability. I don't see any benefit in cramming more expensive, sterile, high-rise housing into the small center city, already overwhelmed with traffic.
One of the primary reasons I live in Washington, D.C. is because of our open skies, unique among major American cities. The heigh limit makes D.C. special. The bottom line is that seeing the sky and the sun makes people happy, even when downtown. And they allow the beautiful trees we have in the District to thrive. The sun, the sky, and the trees fill D.C. with glimpses of nature--feeding our souls in a way that most cities cannot. And seeing the stunning vistas of the Capitol dome, the Library of Congress, the Washington Monument, and the wide avenues can also bring a smile to many faces.
When has a concrete canyon, blocking the sky, casting shadows and creating a gray landscape, ever made anyone smile?
Read more
—Amy Mall, Washington, DC (20024) (November 04, 2013)
NCPC report: I agree with the NCPC finding that "changes to the Height Act within the L’Enfant City and within the topographic bowl may have a significant adverse effect on federal interests" and that "The Height Act continues to meet the essential interests and needs. . . of the federal government and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so in the future. There is no specific federal interest in raising heights to meet future federal space needs."
D.C. Government report: The pdf of the District government report located at: http://www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/docs/092013_DC_Height_Master_Plan_Draft_Recommendations_Report_FINAL.pdf is an incomplete version and only contains even-numbered pages. Therefore, the public does not have full access to this report for the purposes of reviewing and commenting. The Commission needs to provide full information to the public to ensure a credible public comment process.
Based on the incomplete information provided on the website, I oppose the District government's recommendations. While I oppose changes in the height limits District-wide, I want to point out that I live between Buzzard Point and the Waterfront Station, and I am opposed to any changes in those locations.
New development in the District should focus on communities near metro stations that need positive neighborhood investment and where it is affordable for families to live and for residents to open small business, such as Deanwood, Benning Road, and Capitol Heights. The average family cannot afford to live in the many new high rise buildings in the District. But they may not feel safe in some neighborhoods that are affordable and near metro. These areas in the district would greatly benefit from low or medium-rise development that would encourage neighborhood vitality and livable communities.
We need more neighborhoods with locally owned shops of all types, from bakeries and coffee shops to card stores to day care, yoga studios and local artists--not more high rise buildings with yet another CVS, Subway restaurant, and bank in the commercial spaces because no one else can afford to locate there. Instead, moderate density development in other neighborhoods will help improve their safety and community stability. I don't see any benefit in cramming more expensive, sterile, high-rise housing into the small center city, already overwhelmed with traffic.
One of the primary reasons I live in Washington, D.C. is because of our open skies, unique among major American cities. The heigh limit makes D.C. special. The bottom line is that seeing the sky and the sun makes people happy, even when downtown. And they allow the beautiful trees we have in the District to thrive. The sun, the sky, and the trees fill D.C. with glimpses of nature--feeding our souls in a way that most cities cannot. And seeing the stunning vistas of the Capitol dome, the Library of Congress, the Washington Monument, and the wide avenues can also bring a smile to many faces.
When has a concrete canyon, blocking the sky, casting shadows and creating a gray landscape, ever made anyone smile?
Read more
—Amy Mall, Washington, DC (20024) (November 04, 2013)
Please consider this note my support for ending all Federal regulation of heights in the District of Columbia.
While I recognize that the Federal Government has an interest in Federally owned properties as well as the view sheds in the monumental core I don’t believe either of those interests are threatened or even impacted by. . . allowing the District of Columbia self determination when it comes to what heights are appropriate for the District.
I also find it absurd that across the river in Virginia or across Western and Eastern Avenues in MD there are much taller buildings and it is illustrative that the sky has not fallen and our Nation’s Capital is in no discernible way diminished by these taller buildings located across otherwise invisible political boundaries.
While I am not sure what, if any, changes should be made to the zoning laws of the District of Columbia I strongly believe those decisions (including those concerning height limits) should be left to the residents of the District of Columbia and their elected representatives.
I appreciate the great amount of thought and time that NCPC has put into this issue but hope you will agree these decisions belong in the hands of the citizens of our Nation’s Capital.
Read more
—Tom Quinn, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
While I recognize that the Federal Government has an interest in Federally owned properties as well as the view sheds in the monumental core I don’t believe either of those interests are threatened or even impacted by. . . allowing the District of Columbia self determination when it comes to what heights are appropriate for the District.
I also find it absurd that across the river in Virginia or across Western and Eastern Avenues in MD there are much taller buildings and it is illustrative that the sky has not fallen and our Nation’s Capital is in no discernible way diminished by these taller buildings located across otherwise invisible political boundaries.
While I am not sure what, if any, changes should be made to the zoning laws of the District of Columbia I strongly believe those decisions (including those concerning height limits) should be left to the residents of the District of Columbia and their elected representatives.
I appreciate the great amount of thought and time that NCPC has put into this issue but hope you will agree these decisions belong in the hands of the citizens of our Nation’s Capital.
Read more
—Tom Quinn, Washington DC 20015 (November 04, 2013)
While there are many -- MANY -- pressures on you to allow the building height regulations to be shifted, i.e. raised to greater heights, I strongly urge you to either say "no" or add a five-year moratorium for more consideration. Our city's horizon now sparkles with the monuments and buildings that are the heart of this. . . city. Just as Paris looks to its Eiffel Tower (with higher buildings far out of the city center), residents and visitors look to the Washington Monument and the other monuments and the Capitol as the core of the nation's capital.
Developers are building more small studios, which suit many of the new young workers in town. Let those fill. There is no likelihood in rents or purchase prices going down. Add to that the additional costs of transportation infrastructures and headaches.
PLEASE VOTE NO.
Read more
—Carolyn Lieberg, Washington, DC 20024 (November 04, 2013)
Developers are building more small studios, which suit many of the new young workers in town. Let those fill. There is no likelihood in rents or purchase prices going down. Add to that the additional costs of transportation infrastructures and headaches.
PLEASE VOTE NO.
Read more
—Carolyn Lieberg, Washington, DC 20024 (November 04, 2013)
> From: SHARON LIGHT [mailto:sharonlight@me.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:59 AM
> To: Young, Deborah B.
Keep building height limits
Please maintain the building height limits for all of Washington DC. Do not cave in to developers who want to destroy the beauty of our city.
—Sharon Light, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:59 AM
> To: Young, Deborah B.
Keep building height limits
Please maintain the building height limits for all of Washington DC. Do not cave in to developers who want to destroy the beauty of our city.
—Sharon Light, Washington, DC (November 04, 2013)
I've just learned about your interest in citizen opinion about whether there is a desire to raise the height limits.
I hope my opinion not being sent too late. I am opposed to increasing height. Believe there are other ways to increase density.
—Celeste Regan, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
I hope my opinion not being sent too late. I am opposed to increasing height. Believe there are other ways to increase density.
—Celeste Regan, Washington, DC (20015) (November 04, 2013)
I am Howard University graduate from Congress heights with a BA in economics. Increased economic development is great, but they're not the only thing. DC's skyline view of the Capitol and Washington Monument is one of the world's most iconic, thus should of with out a doubt be preserved.
But taller buildings in Farragut Square. . . or Brookland or Anacostia wouldn't impede that view any more than they do in Rosslyn. One thing that bothers me particularly is why can't the land east of the anacostia build up if rosslyn is able to do so. There should be not a fedreal law dictating heights outside the lefant city just zooning regulations placed by the committee, espacialy east of the anacostia river.
Read more
—Devon Smith, D. C. (October 31, 2013)
But taller buildings in Farragut Square. . . or Brookland or Anacostia wouldn't impede that view any more than they do in Rosslyn. One thing that bothers me particularly is why can't the land east of the anacostia build up if rosslyn is able to do so. There should be not a fedreal law dictating heights outside the lefant city just zooning regulations placed by the committee, espacialy east of the anacostia river.
Read more
—Devon Smith, D. C. (October 31, 2013)
PLEASE keep the building height restrictions intact in Washington. The lower building heights in our city only lend to it's beauty . As a city, we have certainly gotten along without taller buildings until now. Certainly it is not necessary to change this restriction.
—Nancy Ann , Unknown (October 31, 2013)
—Nancy Ann , Unknown (October 31, 2013)
See Attached
Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez
View attachment
—Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez, Friendship Heights (October 31, 2013)
Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez
View attachment
—Jose Alberto De la Fuentes Chavez, Friendship Heights (October 31, 2013)
I'm adding my voice to those who oppose any increase in the height limitations for new buildings in the District. We have a beautiful city with buildings constructed on a human scale, rather than looming over pedestrians and residents. San Francisco used to be beautiful as well; while it still retains some of its. . . charm, it no longer has the gracious, low-level skyline it used to have. Why must the District look like every other city in the nation? I don't favor paranoia, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that this push to allow taller and taller buildings is driven largely by the financial interests of developers and construction companies. We need to focus on aesthetics and livability as well.
Read more
—Nancy Stanley, Washington DC (October 31, 2013)
Read more
—Nancy Stanley, Washington DC (October 31, 2013)
There is plenty of room for growth WITHOUT raising building heights in Washington, DC. Washington is not - and should never be -- a typical high-rise mega city. Washington, DC is the capital of the United States, and should be focused, in every way and in every neighborhood, on its original purpose -- focused on the. . . governing and the government of the people, by the people and for the people, the buildings that house the government of the people, and the buildings that memorialize the spirit of the people.
Our neighborhoods should support the spirit of DC with quiet residences and low key retail areas.
All growth must include growth of the spirit as well as the physical. "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36
Keep the unique spirit and purpose of Washington, DC; keep Washington, DC low-rise.
Read more
—Hannah Family, Washington, DC (20015) (October 31, 2013)
Our neighborhoods should support the spirit of DC with quiet residences and low key retail areas.
All growth must include growth of the spirit as well as the physical. "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36
Keep the unique spirit and purpose of Washington, DC; keep Washington, DC low-rise.
Read more
—Hannah Family, Washington, DC (20015) (October 31, 2013)
Please maintain the building height limits for all of Washington DC. Do not cave in to developers who want to destroy the beauty of our city.
—Sharon Light, Unknown (October 31, 2013)
—Sharon Light, Unknown (October 31, 2013)
I understand you're seeking opinions re raising the building height limit in DC.
I'm opposed to raising the limit because our neighborhoods are truly neighborhoods, where we can stroll on the sidewalks in the sun and recognize our neighbors, as well as the people who work in our neighborhood. Look at. . . NY or Chicago, both of which are unacceptably noisy and dirty because of the density of their populations, which leads to anonymity on the streets - an atmosphere in which crime can flourish.
Read more
—Davida Perry, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
I'm opposed to raising the limit because our neighborhoods are truly neighborhoods, where we can stroll on the sidewalks in the sun and recognize our neighbors, as well as the people who work in our neighborhood. Look at. . . NY or Chicago, both of which are unacceptably noisy and dirty because of the density of their populations, which leads to anonymity on the streets - an atmosphere in which crime can flourish.
Read more
—Davida Perry, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
I'm writing to support your efforts to retain the Height Act. As a citizen of DC for over 25 years, I feel it is very important to maintain the cohesiveness and character of our neighborhoods and not threaten them with the creation of additional high rise buildings and developments.
—Dr Phyllis Stubbs, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
—Dr Phyllis Stubbs, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
Please don't raise the height limit for DC buildings. That limit has kept Washington a pleasant and livable city we can be proud of.
We don't want the "canyons" you find in New York, where the sidewalk is in shadow. We don't want to destroy the feel of. . . space and air one gets along Connecticut , Wisconsin Avenue and even much of downtown. That is what makes Washington a city of distinction for residents and tourists.
Read more
—Marjorie Rachlin, Washignton, DC (20008) (October 31, 2013)
We don't want the "canyons" you find in New York, where the sidewalk is in shadow. We don't want to destroy the feel of. . . space and air one gets along Connecticut , Wisconsin Avenue and even much of downtown. That is what makes Washington a city of distinction for residents and tourists.
Read more
—Marjorie Rachlin, Washignton, DC (20008) (October 31, 2013)
I am a DC resident that is also concerned about the proposed changes to the 1910 Height Act and height limitation. As a leading planning agency for the region, I hope that the National Capitol Planning Commission will use the latest planning and design principles and analytics to review the proposal and reach a reasoned decision.. . . With respect to linking the height increases to the creation of affordable housing, there are alternative measures, including the Districts inclusionary zoning program.
Montgomery County, our neighboring jurisdiction, is a leader in advancing affordable and mixed-use housing, having established the nation’s first inclusionary zoning program to develop Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU) in 1976. Since the IZ Program development, the county developed over 13,246 MPDU units: 9,290 off sale units (condominium and townhouse) and 3,956 rental units. See “Number of MPDUs Produced Since 1976†-http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/housing/singlefamily/mpdu/produced.html Montgomery County’s inclusionary zoning program has been recognized in a number of publications and has been replication by other jurisdictions. An increasing number of mixed-income properties have capitalized on their proximity and access to Metro stations, again putting Montgomery County in the lead in developing mixed-income transit oriented development (TOD) properties.
The District of Columbia Government passed Bill 16-952 "Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Act of 2006." With the emergency zoning rule change to the city’s inclusionary zoning program, Cheryl Cort, Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth noted the following in an article published by Greater Greater Washington, Inclusionary zoning will soon be making a difference in DC.
“Nearly 3 years after regulations were finalized, DC's inclusionary zoning (IZ) program is beginning to have a positive effect on affordable housing stock in the city.... While the program has suffered a slow start up because of grandfathering and the recession's effect on residential development, the program’s 3rd annual report suggests that IZ in DC will follow the success of neighboring Montgomery County.†July 12, 2012.
Read more
—Muriel Watkins, Washington, DC (October 31, 2013)
Montgomery County, our neighboring jurisdiction, is a leader in advancing affordable and mixed-use housing, having established the nation’s first inclusionary zoning program to develop Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU) in 1976. Since the IZ Program development, the county developed over 13,246 MPDU units: 9,290 off sale units (condominium and townhouse) and 3,956 rental units. See “Number of MPDUs Produced Since 1976†-http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/housing/singlefamily/mpdu/produced.html Montgomery County’s inclusionary zoning program has been recognized in a number of publications and has been replication by other jurisdictions. An increasing number of mixed-income properties have capitalized on their proximity and access to Metro stations, again putting Montgomery County in the lead in developing mixed-income transit oriented development (TOD) properties.
The District of Columbia Government passed Bill 16-952 "Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Act of 2006." With the emergency zoning rule change to the city’s inclusionary zoning program, Cheryl Cort, Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth noted the following in an article published by Greater Greater Washington, Inclusionary zoning will soon be making a difference in DC.
“Nearly 3 years after regulations were finalized, DC's inclusionary zoning (IZ) program is beginning to have a positive effect on affordable housing stock in the city.... While the program has suffered a slow start up because of grandfathering and the recession's effect on residential development, the program’s 3rd annual report suggests that IZ in DC will follow the success of neighboring Montgomery County.†July 12, 2012.
Read more
—Muriel Watkins, Washington, DC (October 31, 2013)
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. I am DC born and raised; my grandparents came here in 1933 when times were pretty bad elsewhere. DC was good to them and their progeny, myself included. Good example of how in bad times DC draws people. I believe the current uptick. . . in population follows the same trend, recession-driven. Some will stay, some will go. When the economy improves elsewhere DC will lose its draw. The ups and downs of population growth are not, I believe, as dramatic as the city planners would argue, despite their excitement about “millenlials.†It was interesting to read a study reported in the Post (9/12/12, Kathy Orton) that as many people are moving out of DC as are moving in.
As a native, the scale of the city has been important to me personally. I believe in democracy, the voice of the common man (as in this statement), and the sense that citizenry has responsibility for and dominion over the laws of the land. The scale of the city, the low rise buildings, encourages this conviction. Our city streets and avenues do not overwhelm, intimidate or alienate. This is best appreciated by contrast with other cities, where tall buildings diminish the individual, dominating the pedestrian and making one fearful or at least cautious. Those cities do not encourage an expansive view, a “we can do it†attitude or a sense of “we’re in it together.†They engender a myopic view of self protection rather than the confidence and strength our city’s profile creates all across the city, downtown as well as in neighborhoods.
I absolutely support the NCPC recommendation not to remove the Height Act. And I recoil from the shenanigans of the Office of Planning whose unilateral recommendation to Congressman Issa was high-handed and autocratic. It was typical of an office who would undermine the common man in a city of towering fortresses.
If anything, the NCPC has gained stature in my eyes. Thank you for your work.
Read more
—Linda Schmitt, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
As a native, the scale of the city has been important to me personally. I believe in democracy, the voice of the common man (as in this statement), and the sense that citizenry has responsibility for and dominion over the laws of the land. The scale of the city, the low rise buildings, encourages this conviction. Our city streets and avenues do not overwhelm, intimidate or alienate. This is best appreciated by contrast with other cities, where tall buildings diminish the individual, dominating the pedestrian and making one fearful or at least cautious. Those cities do not encourage an expansive view, a “we can do it†attitude or a sense of “we’re in it together.†They engender a myopic view of self protection rather than the confidence and strength our city’s profile creates all across the city, downtown as well as in neighborhoods.
I absolutely support the NCPC recommendation not to remove the Height Act. And I recoil from the shenanigans of the Office of Planning whose unilateral recommendation to Congressman Issa was high-handed and autocratic. It was typical of an office who would undermine the common man in a city of towering fortresses.
If anything, the NCPC has gained stature in my eyes. Thank you for your work.
Read more
—Linda Schmitt, Washington, DC 20015 (October 31, 2013)
Dear National Capital Planning Commision,
My name is Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr. I am a dc native as well as a senior at University of Maryland studying economics. First of I would like to congratulate the Districts office of planning on their suggestions on the modification of the height act. I completely agree that. . . it is essential for the district to update this 100 yr old legislation in order to foster growth, and to avoid turning the entire city into nothing but 130 ft boxes in the upcoming decades. I am for a modification that will allow for growth and ensure that national landmarks such as the Capitol remain a part of the iconic dc skyline. A skyline that with careful planning has the potential even be more beautiful. Thus I approve of the district's office of planning recommendation of increasing the height to a ratio of 1 to 1.25 in the l'effant city and to make areas outside the leFant city to be subject solely to zoning regulations. I am in favor of this recommendation. However I have an additional suggestion of making the ratio change as well as allowing for a couple of tr strategically placed buildings along Pennsylvania avea, the Warf deveolopment, as well main transit points.
First of I approve of the districts suggestion because it allows the city to grow while taking into consideration the city's landmarks. This so in that this modification would make only stubble changes in that some roads will stay the same while others will only have an increment of a couple stories. This modification will make it so 200ft buildings will be allowed in the current 160 ft max stretch of pensylvania ave. In other words an addition of two to three stories. Outside the lefant I agree with the office recommendation of of leaving the assignment of height subject to zoning. Thismakes perfect sense because there are parts outside the lefant city near metrostations in which 15 to 20 story buildings could exist for example why can should there be a restriction of areas such as friendship heights when right across western avenue there are an assortment of buildings ranging from 2 story boutiques to 20 story buildings 275 ft. buildings. Also there is no reason why high demand areas in upper north west and north east could have some taller development being that currently there are radio towers that exceed 500 ft and one tower that is taller than the Washington monument.
Read more
—Luis ASanchez, DC (October 31, 2013)
My name is Luis Alberto Sanchez Jr. I am a dc native as well as a senior at University of Maryland studying economics. First of I would like to congratulate the Districts office of planning on their suggestions on the modification of the height act. I completely agree that. . . it is essential for the district to update this 100 yr old legislation in order to foster growth, and to avoid turning the entire city into nothing but 130 ft boxes in the upcoming decades. I am for a modification that will allow for growth and ensure that national landmarks such as the Capitol remain a part of the iconic dc skyline. A skyline that with careful planning has the potential even be more beautiful. Thus I approve of the district's office of planning recommendation of increasing the height to a ratio of 1 to 1.25 in the l'effant city and to make areas outside the leFant city to be subject solely to zoning regulations. I am in favor of this recommendation. However I have an additional suggestion of making the ratio change as well as allowing for a couple of tr strategically placed buildings along Pennsylvania avea, the Warf deveolopment, as well main transit points.
First of I approve of the districts suggestion because it allows the city to grow while taking into consideration the city's landmarks. This so in that this modification would make only stubble changes in that some roads will stay the same while others will only have an increment of a couple stories. This modification will make it so 200ft buildings will be allowed in the current 160 ft max stretch of pensylvania ave. In other words an addition of two to three stories. Outside the lefant I agree with the office recommendation of of leaving the assignment of height subject to zoning. Thismakes perfect sense because there are parts outside the lefant city near metrostations in which 15 to 20 story buildings could exist for example why can should there be a restriction of areas such as friendship heights when right across western avenue there are an assortment of buildings ranging from 2 story boutiques to 20 story buildings 275 ft. buildings. Also there is no reason why high demand areas in upper north west and north east could have some taller development being that currently there are radio towers that exceed 500 ft and one tower that is taller than the Washington monument.
Read more
—Luis ASanchez, DC (October 31, 2013)
Capitol Hill Restoration Society testimony on OP report at City Council, held 10/28/2013.
View attachment
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
View attachment
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
Gene Solon’s Testimony on the National Capital Planning Commission Draft Federal Interest Report and Findings for the Height Master Plan for Washington, DC, Submitted October 30, 2013
Commissioners:
1. As you know, my neighborhood, the Near Southwest/Southeast community, is experiencing an ongoing building boom. The development pattern here includes not only our existing high-rise. . . residences, hotels and commuter-filled office buildings and the visitor-attracting Nationals’ baseball stadium - but also the proposed multipurpose waterfront Wharf project’s130-foot-plus high rise buildings (and unsafe, unnecessary proposed pier extensions into the Washington Channel blocking emergency evacuation by boat), and now, a proposed soccer stadium.
2. The development pattern’s impact upon Near Southwest/Southeast roadway congestion is already of major concern. DDOT has promised to periodically monitor car, truck, tour-bus and other traffic along Maine Avenue, M Street, 4th Street and other area roadways – but DDOT has refused to say what it will do if its monitoring program shows that the development-generated congestion will be too much for our roadway and subway systems to bear. Let’s face reality: it is no secret that Increased building height produces increased traffic.
3. The development pattern now looming will constrict treasured northward views we waterfront housing complex homeowners have had of the height of the Washington Monument (as well as the views we’ve had of Washington Channel water expanses).
4. Car and bus passengers’ views of our capital city’s unique features, including the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial the Capitol and other area attractions, will be constricted by buildings taller than current law allows.
5. A nation’s capital - our nation’s capital – must continue to be a special place, one that provides and protects open spaces, reflects history, respects its residents as well as visitors, and honors a nation’s most humane aspirations.
6. Washington, D.C. must not be allowed to become just another congested, cramped collection of tall towers!
Read more
—Gene Solon, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Capitol Hill Restoration Society comments on Office of Planning's 9/20/13 report. Thank you.
View attachment
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
View attachment
—Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
Capitol Hill Restoration Society testimony for public meeting 10-30-13 is attached. Thank you.
View attachment
—Janet Quigley, CHRS, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
View attachment
—Janet Quigley, CHRS, Capitol Hill, DC (October 30, 2013)
Attached is a revised copy of my original statement.
View attachment
—Ferrial H. Lanton , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
View attachment
—Ferrial H. Lanton , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Thank you for providing this opportunity to testify. I am opposed to any changes to the federal height act for the District of Columbia. I live in NE next to the McMillan Sand Filtration site and changing the height act would dramatically alter the character of our neighborhood.
—Cheryl Wagner, 3013 Hawthorne Dr NE Washington DC (October 30, 2013)
—Cheryl Wagner, 3013 Hawthorne Dr NE Washington DC (October 30, 2013)
As a professor of US architecture and urbanism and a District resident for over thirty years, I would like to go on record as adamantly opposing the D.C. Office of Planning's proposal to raise the height limit. The is the most sweeping proposal to occur, in my estimation, since the Senate Park Commission Plan in 1901-02.. . . In every other respect, it is cut of an entirely different cloth. While the SPC Plan was sweeping in its breadth to the degree that it became a major catalyst for establishing the field of city planning and provided a sound matrix for development for decades, the city's proposal is not planning at all, but rather a one-dimensional agenda-driven scheme. It fails to take into serious consideration any of the numerous ramifications its implementation would have -- on residential land values citywide, on infrastructure,on transportation, on the stability of the existing business center, and on the appearance of the city. Washington is an extraordinary, singular place that has benefitted from generations of enlightened planning. This proposal threatens to ruin that legacy. The city planning office should focus on the complex issue of how to foster growth in a responsible multi-faceted way. The fact that it has not done that and, characteristically, ignores public opinion ads insult to injury. I hope your deliberations of this crucial manner are as reasoned and responsible as they typically have been. We can ill-afford to have this radical, ill-conceived proposal take concrete form.
Read more
—Richard Longstreth, Washington, D.C. (October 30, 2013)
Read more
—Richard Longstreth, Washington, D.C. (October 30, 2013)
I support raising the height limit. Raising the height limit is the only viable way to create a more sustainable efficient city. Increasing the height limit will also create much needed tax revenue to fund new mass transit options.
—Eugene Dudink, Penn Quarter, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
—Eugene Dudink, Penn Quarter, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I support increases to height limits in the District of Columbia. I fell this is a greener form of urban development. A good compromise is to allow increased heights east of the Anacostia River if there is popular support for height limits west of the Anacostia River.
—David Anspach, Clinton, MD (October 30, 2013)
—David Anspach, Clinton, MD (October 30, 2013)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the significant issue of changing (or retaining) height limits in the District. I reside in the 3rd ward, and one of the reasons that attracted us to the district was the distinct character of the city – a very real and human scale city, without being. . . overwhelmed in a canyon of tall buildings, and with distinct neighborhoods that are essentially like a collection of villages. Each of these communities in the district has a genuine charm, with small businesses and a solid feeling of community. I have watched this city change and rehabilitate over the past twenty or more years (I have worked here for many years but was only able to move to the district permanently 3 ½ years ago) – with neighborhoods being rebuilt, small businesses opening, and a vibrant street life that was once non-existent. I see this process continuing, and with (hopefully) more attention to immediate needs such as improving jobs and neighborhoods in areas struck by poverty. Raising the height limits would benefit developers – not the population of our nation’s capital, or the attractiveness of this city to the huge numbers of visitors from our country and from abroad. The district would lose this character, without any apparent relatively greater benefit.
We regularly walk to small restaurants and shops near our home, housed in one and two story buildings – which would be in danger of being razed in favor of high rises if the height limits were changed. We like this scale. We also think that this change would ruin the desirability of exploring other areas of the district, including the downtown section. This beautiful city would become just another American high rise enclave, and not the distinct and attractive representation of our country to the world. We enjoy walking in different parts of the city, and part of the charm is watching small businesses open, and a feeling of a village – rather than a sterile and crowded city of high rises. The city economy is improving, and improving in a way that provides broader benefits and greater public good than turning it over to predatory developers. To be clear, I am not opposed to responsible development (and redevelopment) within the context of the existing heightline restrictions. There are many opportunities for business growth – including incubators, technology companies, start-ups, biotechnology, service companies, small shops, restaurants – promoting small businesses that could not afford the rental costs of a luxury high rise. To lose this base would both deprive the city of meaningful job prospects across the spectrum, and the diverse business base that makes this city such a great place to live.
I travel – extensively, within the US and broadly across the rest of the world. I find that cities that have given way to high rise development become empty, and desolate on weekends, with no character. Small shops and businesses are nonexistent (other than lunch places), and there is no reason to walk or spend time in this type of environment. Nor would DC be as attractive as it is now, or as representative of our nation. Let’s not let this happen here. Some have said that a change in the height limit would not impact zoning laws and therefore of no danger to the outlying areas – I don’t believe this. This would be a first step towards creeping large building development – now that a high rise has been built, there is no reason not to change the zoning for surrounding properties – and so it goes throughout the city.
I should also comment that I do not believe that a vote by the ANC in our ward (not to support opposition to a change) was representative of the community’s feelings. Recent votes by some members of the 3rd ward ANC not to oppose development were cast despite overwhelming opposition from a very large turnout of community members present. In speaking with other residents in the area (a broad range), there is a complete failure to grasp why these members were taking these positions.
Thank you very much for your efforts to oppose this change.
Read more
—Donald Crane, Washington, DC 20015 (October 30, 2013)
We regularly walk to small restaurants and shops near our home, housed in one and two story buildings – which would be in danger of being razed in favor of high rises if the height limits were changed. We like this scale. We also think that this change would ruin the desirability of exploring other areas of the district, including the downtown section. This beautiful city would become just another American high rise enclave, and not the distinct and attractive representation of our country to the world. We enjoy walking in different parts of the city, and part of the charm is watching small businesses open, and a feeling of a village – rather than a sterile and crowded city of high rises. The city economy is improving, and improving in a way that provides broader benefits and greater public good than turning it over to predatory developers. To be clear, I am not opposed to responsible development (and redevelopment) within the context of the existing heightline restrictions. There are many opportunities for business growth – including incubators, technology companies, start-ups, biotechnology, service companies, small shops, restaurants – promoting small businesses that could not afford the rental costs of a luxury high rise. To lose this base would both deprive the city of meaningful job prospects across the spectrum, and the diverse business base that makes this city such a great place to live.
I travel – extensively, within the US and broadly across the rest of the world. I find that cities that have given way to high rise development become empty, and desolate on weekends, with no character. Small shops and businesses are nonexistent (other than lunch places), and there is no reason to walk or spend time in this type of environment. Nor would DC be as attractive as it is now, or as representative of our nation. Let’s not let this happen here. Some have said that a change in the height limit would not impact zoning laws and therefore of no danger to the outlying areas – I don’t believe this. This would be a first step towards creeping large building development – now that a high rise has been built, there is no reason not to change the zoning for surrounding properties – and so it goes throughout the city.
I should also comment that I do not believe that a vote by the ANC in our ward (not to support opposition to a change) was representative of the community’s feelings. Recent votes by some members of the 3rd ward ANC not to oppose development were cast despite overwhelming opposition from a very large turnout of community members present. In speaking with other residents in the area (a broad range), there is a complete failure to grasp why these members were taking these positions.
Thank you very much for your efforts to oppose this change.
Read more
—Donald Crane, Washington, DC 20015 (October 30, 2013)
I support altering the height of buildings act in Washington DC.
The analysis of the remaining room for development in DC from the Office of Planning is persuasive; more room is needed to allow for the continued growth of the city in a healthy manner, allowing for revitalization and growth without widespread displacement.. . . />
Cities and urban economies are akin to living organisms; they grow and change all the time. And given the tremendous pressure for growth in the District, the most responsible reaction is to liberalize some of the rules that govern growth in the city and allow the market to provide for the demand to live and work in the city.
The role of planners should be to roughly shape that growth, not stymie it all together. I am fearful that NCPC's embrace of the anachronistic height limits in DC will do just that.
Unfortunately, the NCPC assertion of the Federal interest is both too broad and too limiting to realistically apply. If one were to take NCPC's broad declaration of interest to the logical conclusion, you would end up with a Federal interest in only maintaining the status quo; and an interest that is so broad as to crowd out any local interest.
The irony of this would be that such a broad interpretation of the federal interest would thus require running roughshod over other American virtues, such as private property rights; local government control; and the local democratic process.
As an alternative for the Federal Interst, I would argue that the jointly-agreed upon principles that framed this study are an excellent definition of the Federal Interest: maintaining a horizontal skyline, maintaining certain vistas and viewsheds, and maintaining historic assets within the city.
Even the most aggressive of the scenarios modeled as a part of this process is still consistent with these broadly stated interests; strong physical planning can maintain a taller, yet still horizontal skyline; view corridors and vistas will remain; the additional growth capacity from added height and density will help relieve development pressure on historic resources worthy of preservation.
Finally, it is important to note that any changes to actual building heights will be subject to extensive planning work; alteration of the federal law is just the first step in that process. Given the large impact on local conditions from the federal law, as a supporter of home rule for the District of Columbia, I support a full repeal of the federal height limit law, and remanding decisions on building heights back to the government agencies that help craft our current hybrid federal/local planning process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important planning study.
Read more
—Alex Block, Washington, DC - Ward 6 (October 30, 2013)
The analysis of the remaining room for development in DC from the Office of Planning is persuasive; more room is needed to allow for the continued growth of the city in a healthy manner, allowing for revitalization and growth without widespread displacement.
Cities and urban economies are akin to living organisms; they grow and change all the time. And given the tremendous pressure for growth in the District, the most responsible reaction is to liberalize some of the rules that govern growth in the city and allow the market to provide for the demand to live and work in the city.
The role of planners should be to roughly shape that growth, not stymie it all together. I am fearful that NCPC's embrace of the anachronistic height limits in DC will do just that.
Unfortunately, the NCPC assertion of the Federal interest is both too broad and too limiting to realistically apply. If one were to take NCPC's broad declaration of interest to the logical conclusion, you would end up with a Federal interest in only maintaining the status quo; and an interest that is so broad as to crowd out any local interest.
The irony of this would be that such a broad interpretation of the federal interest would thus require running roughshod over other American virtues, such as private property rights; local government control; and the local democratic process.
As an alternative for the Federal Interst, I would argue that the jointly-agreed upon principles that framed this study are an excellent definition of the Federal Interest: maintaining a horizontal skyline, maintaining certain vistas and viewsheds, and maintaining historic assets within the city.
Even the most aggressive of the scenarios modeled as a part of this process is still consistent with these broadly stated interests; strong physical planning can maintain a taller, yet still horizontal skyline; view corridors and vistas will remain; the additional growth capacity from added height and density will help relieve development pressure on historic resources worthy of preservation.
Finally, it is important to note that any changes to actual building heights will be subject to extensive planning work; alteration of the federal law is just the first step in that process. Given the large impact on local conditions from the federal law, as a supporter of home rule for the District of Columbia, I support a full repeal of the federal height limit law, and remanding decisions on building heights back to the government agencies that help craft our current hybrid federal/local planning process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important planning study.
Read more
—Alex Block, Washington, DC - Ward 6 (October 30, 2013)
I am writing in support of your recommendations to retain the Height Act.
I do NOT support development projects that do not comply with the Height Act.
—Tony Martinez, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I do NOT support development projects that do not comply with the Height Act.
—Tony Martinez, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
provided in attached Word document.
View attachment
—Steve Schulte, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
View attachment
—Steve Schulte, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I strongly support substantial revisions to the Height Act, as long as they respect the topography and horizontality that define the city's skyline.
Doing so will:
- add substantial flexibility to local architecture
- reduce the supply constraints that needlessly raise local prices and reduce the capital's economic competitiveness
- enhance the city's tax base. . . />
- improve the city's local market and thus ability to provide innovative urban services
- make better use of existing infrastructure investments, and mitigate demand for unaffordably costly infrastructure extensions
- reinstate some degree of local control over land use decisions, which is where such decisions should be made (not at the federal level)
Almost all of the many hours of arguments that I have heard in opposition to such a change have been grounded in emotion and fear of change rather than in fact or reasoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
PC
Read more
—Payton Chung, Washington (October 30, 2013)
Doing so will:
- add substantial flexibility to local architecture
- reduce the supply constraints that needlessly raise local prices and reduce the capital's economic competitiveness
- enhance the city's tax base
- make better use of existing infrastructure investments, and mitigate demand for unaffordably costly infrastructure extensions
- reinstate some degree of local control over land use decisions, which is where such decisions should be made (not at the federal level)
Almost all of the many hours of arguments that I have heard in opposition to such a change have been grounded in emotion and fear of change rather than in fact or reasoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
PC
Read more
—Payton Chung, Washington (October 30, 2013)
This message is to voice my support to retain the Height Act.
—Isabelle Barres, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
(2 of 2) Attached are written statements from the DC Federation of Civic Associations and from Penn-Branch Citizens/Civic Association that were presented yesterday at the D.C. Council's Committee of the Whole hearing on the Height Act. Both statements strongly oppose the District's "modest" proposal, especially its complete repeal of the Height Act outside the L'Enfant. . . City. These organizations would like to see no change to the Act, but do not strongly object to NCPC's reasoned approach as presented. We would not like NCPC to endorse changes beyond those that it already has presented.
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
View attachment
—Laura Richards, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
View attachment
—Laura Richards, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
(1 of 2) Attached are written statements from the DC Federation of Civic Associations and from Penn-Branch Citizens/Civic Association that were presented yesterday at the D.C. Council's Committee of the Whole hearing on the Height Act. Both statements strongly oppose the District's "modest" proposal, especially its complete repeal of the Height Act outside the L'Enfant. . . City. These organizations would like to see no change to the Act, but do not strongly object to NCPC's reasoned approach as presented. We would not like NCPC to endorse changes beyond those that it already has presented.
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
View attachment
—Laura Richards , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
Please accept these statement into your record.
Read more
View attachment
—Laura Richards , Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
My name is Gale Barron Black, I am a native Washingtonian and reside in northwest DC, on Crestwood Drive. I also serve as the Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner for the single-member district 4A08, which covers census tract 26 (Crestwood). I support preserving the Height Act, without any changes to it. DC is unique. . . and beautiful because we can see the sky and enjoy the panoramic views. The Federal Elements better protect my interest, and this local resident hopes that the NCPC will hold steady on this one. It is a matter of national importance. We have the capability of accommodating newcomers, as DC did in the 1940s and 1950s. We don't need to build up. We need to protect what's here already. Plus, without adequate infrastructure, it would be an unwise investment and a departure from the grand plans that have guided us thus far.
Read more
—Gale Barron Black, Washingotn, DC (ANC 4A08) (October 30, 2013)
Read more
—Gale Barron Black, Washingotn, DC (ANC 4A08) (October 30, 2013)
I am writing to request you Retain the Height Act.
Increasing prevalence of tall buildings is changing the character of DC. All over the city I see neighborhoods I no longer recognize because they have been taken over by buildings three, four, sometimes five times the height of what they replaced. These areas lose their. . . small town within a big city feel.
I made a deliberate choice when I moved to DC in 1999 at age 31 with the intent to spend my working life here. I lived near New York City at the time but found the idea of living in the city, or even commuting there to work every day amongst sun blocking buildings, suffocating. I choose DC because of the lower buildings and the atmosphere that comes with them.
DO NOT raise the height limits. Not all growth is positive, especially if the cost is the soul of the city.
Read more
—Angela Carpenter Gildner, Washington, DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
Increasing prevalence of tall buildings is changing the character of DC. All over the city I see neighborhoods I no longer recognize because they have been taken over by buildings three, four, sometimes five times the height of what they replaced. These areas lose their. . . small town within a big city feel.
I made a deliberate choice when I moved to DC in 1999 at age 31 with the intent to spend my working life here. I lived near New York City at the time but found the idea of living in the city, or even commuting there to work every day amongst sun blocking buildings, suffocating. I choose DC because of the lower buildings and the atmosphere that comes with them.
DO NOT raise the height limits. Not all growth is positive, especially if the cost is the soul of the city.
Read more
—Angela Carpenter Gildner, Washington, DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
This is a plea to protect the Height Act as is. The Chevy Chase, D.C. community has learned the painful way that developers already have plenty -- I would argue too much -- flexibility to build under the law as it stands. Jane and Calvin Cafritz are in the midst of erecting a building a. . . half block from my family's house that, together with its immense penthouse, will tower 125 feet above the 25-foot and 30-foot single-family homes immediately adjacent to it. What more do they want?
The law has been key to preserving Washington's understated profile, one of the central things that makes this place unique among American cities. Please don't let that be lost.
Read more
—Peter Gosselin, Washington DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
The law has been key to preserving Washington's understated profile, one of the central things that makes this place unique among American cities. Please don't let that be lost.
Read more
—Peter Gosselin, Washington DC (20015) (October 30, 2013)
I would like to submit the attached comments on the Height Act recommendations for the record. Thank you.
View attachment
—Carol Aten, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
View attachment
—Carol Aten, Washington, DC (October 30, 2013)
I worked in Washington for many years. At one time I had a co-worker who had traveled a lot in Western Europe. I asked him which great capital city he thought was the most beautiful, expecting him to say Paris or Rome. He immediately said, "Washington." I laughed and accused him of being. . . too nationalistic. He replied that Washington alone had controlled the height of its buildings so that its great vistas and monuments stood out and left the clearest imprint on anyone visiting. That's why the height limits in the city should not be changed
Read more
—Georgia K. Cannady, Alexandria, VA 22301 (October 30, 2013)
Read more
—Georgia K. Cannady, Alexandria, VA 22301 (October 30, 2013)
I support basic conclusions of the Height Study, that some increase in building height allowed in District of Columbia will benefit our city. “Both federal and our local interests will be served by having a vibrant, economically healthy, livable Capital City.†I accept DC studies projections regarding development capacity to accommodate future growth. . . .
I do have strong reservations regarding proposed heights of up to 200’ in certain areas and on streets with 160’ ROW. The modeling study images confirm that 1:1.25 ratios of street width to building height retain human scaled streetscapes. The images of the city from the distance tell a different story. Figure 13, L’Enfant city at 200’ height from Fredric Douglas House, and Figure 18, Illustrative clusters at 200’ both demonstrate dramatic change in views of the city. WHERE IS THE CAPITOL DOME?
Iconic images of our city include those views of Washington Monument AND Capitol Dome from some distance and from the streets and houses on the edge of topographic bowl. Those view sheds do not appear to be sufficiently protected in the proposed approach.
And sincere thanks to NCPC and DC DOP for excellent work on this study and for sharing it with all of us citizens and residents of Capitol City.
Read more
View attachment
—Joanna Kendig, Washington, DC Hill East (October 30, 2013)
I do have strong reservations regarding proposed heights of up to 200’ in certain areas and on streets with 160’ ROW. The modeling study images confirm that 1:1.25 ratios of street width to building height retain human scaled streetscapes. The images of the city from the distance tell a different story. Figure 13, L’Enfant city at 200’ height from Fredric Douglas House, and Figure 18, Illustrative clusters at 200’ both demonstrate dramatic change in views of the city. WHERE IS THE CAPITOL DOME?
Iconic images of our city include those views of Washington Monument AND Capitol Dome from some distance and from the streets and houses on the edge of topographic bowl. Those view sheds do not appear to be sufficiently protected in the proposed approach.
And sincere thanks to NCPC and DC DOP for excellent work on this study and for sharing it with all of us citizens and residents of Capitol City.
Read more
View attachment
—Joanna Kendig, Washington, DC Hill East (October 30, 2013)
I prefer the current limits. The Washington cityscape is unique, and belongs in part, to the American People. If development pressures are affecting the height limits, there are numerous opportunties for development laterally, without extending development upward.
—Connie Graham, Alexandria VA (October 30, 2013)
—Connie Graham, Alexandria VA (October 30, 2013)
Leave the height restrictions as they are for D.C. This city doesn't need to be come another New York City with towering buildings blocking out views of the mall and its inspiring monuments!
—Elaine F. Graves, Washington, DC 20024 (October 30, 2013)
—Elaine F. Graves, Washington, DC 20024 (October 30, 2013)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Height Master Plan, which reflects much effort and hard work.
Regarding the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the National Register of Historic Places notes that
“The landscape values for the George Washington Memorial Parkway have always been the preservation of scenic and esthetic qualities associated. . . with the Potomac River valley. Extending from the coastal plain past the fail line to the piedmont, the valley area is of continuing concern including the palisades and the tree covered slopes, flowering understory, steep-sided creek valleys (runs), and hilltop vistas. THE LATTER PROVIDES A GLIMPSE OF THE MONUMENTAL CORE OF WASHINGTON D.C., A CENTRAL PURPOSE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUING PROTECTION OF THE PARKWAY.†(Capital letters Added for emphasis)
Every visitor, every commuter, every driver, and every person who has ever driven on the George Washington Memorial Highway has seen this superb glimpse of the City, which because of its magnificence, is forever etched in their memory. The magnificence of the Parkway, forever embracing the Potomac River, provides an extremely dignified and monumental character that is in keeping with the restrained dignity of George Washington as described by three different authors Paul Longmore, Arthur Schaeffer and Alistair Cooke.
Upon viewing the Parkway, one’s impressions and emotions are intertwined, but they are not created by accident, but by a significant effort brought about by deliberate thought and investments in creating such an entrance. One of these being restraining the height limit in the view shed.
Although the Report talks about opportunities beyond the “edge of the topographic bowl,†this is suggestive of a narrow geographic interpretation. A more realistic approach is a circular view, to which the George Washington Memorial Parkway offers a good example. The Parkway gives almost a 180 degree viewing as one drives in either direction because of the unobstructed perspectives afforded by the current height restrictions. A good example is the view from the Dangerfield Island, National Airport area, The President Johnson Memorial, and Arlington Cemetery. There are numerous sites on the other side of the “edge of the topographic bowl†which also would impacted by the proposed changes.
Alistair Cooke wrote that regarding George Washington “there were several things about him the unquestioned leader of the new nation. A pervasive sense of responsibility, an unflagging impression of shrewd judgment, and total integrity. It can best be summed up in what critics call “presenceâ€. But, it was nothing rehearsed. It was the presence of nothing but character.â€
In similar manner, the City bearing his name has evoked the dignified presence of the Father of our Country as a memorial for all time through the limits imposed on building heights. Let us not sully the magnificent cityscape of Washington with outliers interjected for the sake of commerce. For if we do, that special sense will be gone forever.
Read more
View attachment
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria Virginia (October 29, 2013)
Regarding the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the National Register of Historic Places notes that
“The landscape values for the George Washington Memorial Parkway have always been the preservation of scenic and esthetic qualities associated. . . with the Potomac River valley. Extending from the coastal plain past the fail line to the piedmont, the valley area is of continuing concern including the palisades and the tree covered slopes, flowering understory, steep-sided creek valleys (runs), and hilltop vistas. THE LATTER PROVIDES A GLIMPSE OF THE MONUMENTAL CORE OF WASHINGTON D.C., A CENTRAL PURPOSE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUING PROTECTION OF THE PARKWAY.†(Capital letters Added for emphasis)
Every visitor, every commuter, every driver, and every person who has ever driven on the George Washington Memorial Highway has seen this superb glimpse of the City, which because of its magnificence, is forever etched in their memory. The magnificence of the Parkway, forever embracing the Potomac River, provides an extremely dignified and monumental character that is in keeping with the restrained dignity of George Washington as described by three different authors Paul Longmore, Arthur Schaeffer and Alistair Cooke.
Upon viewing the Parkway, one’s impressions and emotions are intertwined, but they are not created by accident, but by a significant effort brought about by deliberate thought and investments in creating such an entrance. One of these being restraining the height limit in the view shed.
Although the Report talks about opportunities beyond the “edge of the topographic bowl,†this is suggestive of a narrow geographic interpretation. A more realistic approach is a circular view, to which the George Washington Memorial Parkway offers a good example. The Parkway gives almost a 180 degree viewing as one drives in either direction because of the unobstructed perspectives afforded by the current height restrictions. A good example is the view from the Dangerfield Island, National Airport area, The President Johnson Memorial, and Arlington Cemetery. There are numerous sites on the other side of the “edge of the topographic bowl†which also would impacted by the proposed changes.
Alistair Cooke wrote that regarding George Washington “there were several things about him the unquestioned leader of the new nation. A pervasive sense of responsibility, an unflagging impression of shrewd judgment, and total integrity. It can best be summed up in what critics call “presenceâ€. But, it was nothing rehearsed. It was the presence of nothing but character.â€
In similar manner, the City bearing his name has evoked the dignified presence of the Father of our Country as a memorial for all time through the limits imposed on building heights. Let us not sully the magnificent cityscape of Washington with outliers interjected for the sake of commerce. For if we do, that special sense will be gone forever.
Read more
View attachment
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria Virginia (October 29, 2013)
I am a local architectural professional who lives and works in the District of Columbia and I am in favor of the District having the ability to make its own height decisions.
As a district resident and homeowner, I support height change because I want to have a continued future as a homeowner and perhaps. . . one day raise a family in the District and not be priced out of the city I've grown to love. While new buildings will certainly come with high price tags, it will have a trickle down effect to existing (ageing) structures, creating more affordable middle-class housing. Also, as a district resident, I am a believer of independent rights for the District and believe that DC is capable, like many things else, of determining what is best for its own residents without Congress's approval.
As a local architectural professional, I believe the height limit can change in certain areas without the adverse effects that many are fearful of. With proper zoning setbacks, it is quite possible to achieve tall(er) buildings that still allow light and air to reach the street (most cities in the US and world are able to achieve this, why not us). I also think that height uniformity is a moot point - most buildings in the older portions of the city are in fact not uniform in height, and areas that are like the Golden Triangle suffer in architectural quality, partly due to this restriction. Modest additional height (with proper zoning setbacks) could provide an opportunity to rebuild many of the maxed-out 'boxy' buildings with better architecture that could achieve better building form through massing modification. It could also be an opportunity to make office areas more lively, by having them include residential components that would give the city more life presence at night. Adding height downtown could also alleviate pressure to redevelop historical residential neighborhoods.
I believe that this study's graphics were premature and have scared many people into envisioning expanded building height that is simply not modeled realistically.
Read more
—Nathan Alberg, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
As a district resident and homeowner, I support height change because I want to have a continued future as a homeowner and perhaps. . . one day raise a family in the District and not be priced out of the city I've grown to love. While new buildings will certainly come with high price tags, it will have a trickle down effect to existing (ageing) structures, creating more affordable middle-class housing. Also, as a district resident, I am a believer of independent rights for the District and believe that DC is capable, like many things else, of determining what is best for its own residents without Congress's approval.
As a local architectural professional, I believe the height limit can change in certain areas without the adverse effects that many are fearful of. With proper zoning setbacks, it is quite possible to achieve tall(er) buildings that still allow light and air to reach the street (most cities in the US and world are able to achieve this, why not us). I also think that height uniformity is a moot point - most buildings in the older portions of the city are in fact not uniform in height, and areas that are like the Golden Triangle suffer in architectural quality, partly due to this restriction. Modest additional height (with proper zoning setbacks) could provide an opportunity to rebuild many of the maxed-out 'boxy' buildings with better architecture that could achieve better building form through massing modification. It could also be an opportunity to make office areas more lively, by having them include residential components that would give the city more life presence at night. Adding height downtown could also alleviate pressure to redevelop historical residential neighborhoods.
I believe that this study's graphics were premature and have scared many people into envisioning expanded building height that is simply not modeled realistically.
Read more
—Nathan Alberg, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Hello, We support retaining the building height restrictions in the current Height Act. There is plenty of room to expand within the city without raising height restrictions.
—Nancy & David Hammond, Washington, DC 20016 (October 29, 2013)
—Nancy & David Hammond, Washington, DC 20016 (October 29, 2013)
Please do not raise the height of city buildings! As a native Washingtonian, I firmly believe that this low height currently no higher than 200 ft ( think) should not be increased because
1. I want to continue to see and enjoy the sunshine and clouds,
2. if I wanted to be among tall. . . buildings, I could have moved to New York,
3. this city is unique and should retain this low height density,
4. there is room to increase living density without going upward,
5. I do not want the voice of the few to dictate to the many what the future of this city should be, especially folks who just moved into the city in the past five-ten years. and
6. this city is too beautiful, neighbor friendly, and with a great deal of scenic value and purpose to be changed.
Please do not let this proposal go forward!!!
Read more
—Ferial Bishop, PRP, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
1. I want to continue to see and enjoy the sunshine and clouds,
2. if I wanted to be among tall. . . buildings, I could have moved to New York,
3. this city is unique and should retain this low height density,
4. there is room to increase living density without going upward,
5. I do not want the voice of the few to dictate to the many what the future of this city should be, especially folks who just moved into the city in the past five-ten years. and
6. this city is too beautiful, neighbor friendly, and with a great deal of scenic value and purpose to be changed.
Please do not let this proposal go forward!!!
Read more
—Ferial Bishop, PRP, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I am opposed to height limit increases. The ability to see the sky and appreciated the beautiful un-shadowed architecture of Washington, DC is one the reasons so many tourists visit each year – generating tax revenues. DC IS NOT New York and should stop trying to replicate its buildings. Maybe incentives to more. . . creative developers would encourage construction of more affordable/family based housing, since the same old ones don’t seem to be interested in solving the District’s ongoing affordable housing problem.
Suzanne Johnson, native Washingtonian and resident
Read more
—Suzanne Johnson, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Suzanne Johnson, native Washingtonian and resident
Read more
—Suzanne Johnson, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
This e-mail is to register my opposition to the Office of Planning’s (OP’s) proposed major changes in the Height Act which would adversely affect many residential areas of DC, including Foggy Bottom-West End, where I live. I also wanted to register my thanks for NCPC’s modest proposed changes. – Barbara Kahlow, 800-25th Street, NW, WDC. . . 20037
Read more
—Barbara Kahlow, Washington, DC (Foggy Bottom-West End) (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Barbara Kahlow, Washington, DC (Foggy Bottom-West End) (October 29, 2013)
I am writing to say that I very strongly support retaining the Height Act. I was born and raised in Washington DC and have lived the majority of my life in this city, in large part because it is one of the most beautiful, livable cities in the world, and I believe that the height. . . restrictions contribute significantly to its beauty. Washington DC is far more than just the downtown/mall area. Many many neighborhoods throughout this city are lovely and the lower density allows people to know their neighbors and build true communities.
I lived in Manhattan for a few years and found that the high rises blocked the views - other than for the wealthiest people who could live at the top of the high rises. They also blocked the sun, and caused very unpleasant wind tunnels. Furthermore, the extreme density of people living in the high rises meant that most people didn't know their neighbors.
There is plenty of under-developed land in DC, which can accommodate growth in DC for many many years. Please retain this city's phenomenal beauty and sense of community.
Read more
—Tory Ruttenberg, Washington DC (20016) (October 29, 2013)
I lived in Manhattan for a few years and found that the high rises blocked the views - other than for the wealthiest people who could live at the top of the high rises. They also blocked the sun, and caused very unpleasant wind tunnels. Furthermore, the extreme density of people living in the high rises meant that most people didn't know their neighbors.
There is plenty of under-developed land in DC, which can accommodate growth in DC for many many years. Please retain this city's phenomenal beauty and sense of community.
Read more
—Tory Ruttenberg, Washington DC (20016) (October 29, 2013)
Please add the attached document to the public record.
Thanks!
Sue Hemberger
View attachment
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Thanks!
Sue Hemberger
View attachment
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I have lived in the same house in Washington for 54 years! Please, as a concerned citizen, I beg you to leave the height act as it now exists! It is part of what makes Washington unique!
—Bob Asman, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
—Bob Asman, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I wish to endorse Charles W. McMillion's thoughtful comparison of the economic and budgetary impacts of retaining the building height limits, as argued by NCPC, or increasing them, as proposed by the Office of Planning. [Comment by Charles W. McMillion (PhD), Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)]
As McMillion makes clear,. . . the NCPC's solid analysis demonstrates the many economic and budgetary reasons for retaining the building height limit. Whereas the Office of Planning's limited analysis asserts the desirability of increasing building height limits but fails to make a solid budgetary case for doing so.
Furthermore, I find it distressing that OP has used a request initiated by a single Congressperson -- Darrell Issa -- as a springboard for putting forth its proposal to change DC's building height limits. One can only wonder whether OP was just waiting for such a (flimsy) basis in order to put forward this proposal.
Read more
—Pat Taylor ( Ph.D.), Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
As McMillion makes clear,. . . the NCPC's solid analysis demonstrates the many economic and budgetary reasons for retaining the building height limit. Whereas the Office of Planning's limited analysis asserts the desirability of increasing building height limits but fails to make a solid budgetary case for doing so.
Furthermore, I find it distressing that OP has used a request initiated by a single Congressperson -- Darrell Issa -- as a springboard for putting forth its proposal to change DC's building height limits. One can only wonder whether OP was just waiting for such a (flimsy) basis in order to put forward this proposal.
Read more
—Pat Taylor ( Ph.D.), Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I am aware, from discussions on the Chevy Chase listserve, that many of my neighbors have weighed in strongly against changes to the city's height limit. Please understand that this sentiment is not universal.
Affordable housing is clearly a problem in the city, and we need more density to help make it possible. Washington is,. . . after all, a city--not a suburb or rural area.
Some of us would like to see our neighborhood participate more fully in the changes that are making the city a more vibrant and interesting place to spend time. I am one of them, and I am not alone.
Read more
—Linda McIntyre , Washington DC (20015) (October 29, 2013)
Affordable housing is clearly a problem in the city, and we need more density to help make it possible. Washington is,. . . after all, a city--not a suburb or rural area.
Some of us would like to see our neighborhood participate more fully in the changes that are making the city a more vibrant and interesting place to spend time. I am one of them, and I am not alone.
Read more
—Linda McIntyre , Washington DC (20015) (October 29, 2013)
Keep low rise bldgs in DC. The first thing out of town visitors comment on is the beauty of our skyline without marring tall buildings. We are fortunate for the Height Act limitations and don't need higher buildings. Developers -- not residents -- are behind the aggressive movement to increase building height. DC has no research. . . to justify raising heights. Hopefully the National Capitol Planning Commission will do the right thing and prevent the DC city planning office from removing our status quo height limits.
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Please, both of you and the NCPC, hear the pleas of those of us who have lived in this beautiful city for 40 years and more: Do NOT allow the Planning Dept. or the BZA or any other District or Federal agency intent on raising the height maximums to do so!
—Carol Zachary and Jon Axelrod, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
—Carol Zachary and Jon Axelrod, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Keep low rise bldgs in DC. Please include my voice as one who would like to retain the Height Act and who readily supports the NCPC's recommendations.
—Beth Campbell, Washington DC (October 29, 2013)
—Beth Campbell, Washington DC (October 29, 2013)
NCPC's Height Master Plan offers a sensible approach to accommodating growth in our great city. This visionary plan recognizes that our existing urban form offers many benefits, which result in a distinctive, walkable, and sustainable environment unique among American cities. It also stands in sharp contrast with a drastic proposal by the DC Office of Planning. . . proposal that would irreparably change our prominent skyline, one which simply cannot be defended with a rational justification, let alone on the basis of economic development.
Read more
—Brad Gudzinas, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Brad Gudzinas, Washington, DC (October 29, 2013)
I am surprised at the thought of changing the Height Limits in the District. They are there for a
reason and we citizens appreciate their value and depend on the idea of having normal neighborhoods.
Please leave them alone. Put your energy towards solving problems not creating them.
Is the District. . . government going to support as many stupid things in this town by changing those limits
as the Congress does is in this town by not doing anything?
Read more
—Diann Heine , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
reason and we citizens appreciate their value and depend on the idea of having normal neighborhoods.
Please leave them alone. Put your energy towards solving problems not creating them.
Is the District. . . government going to support as many stupid things in this town by changing those limits
as the Congress does is in this town by not doing anything?
Read more
—Diann Heine , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
This note is a request to keep the current height restrictions. When I first came to Washington in the mid 1970ies, I felt so much at home, one reason being that I could see the SUN! I never liked New York City as I felt overwhelmed by the tall buildings. Even now, I skip past Bethesda/Wisconsin. . . Ave. and shop at Westfield Mall where I feel more comfortable. PLEASE, don't let us become another New York City. D.C. is special. Our monuments and our people should not feel overwhelmed. Thank you for you attention.
Read more
—Elaine Vande Hei, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
Read more
—Elaine Vande Hei, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
I write in support of keeping DC’s height restrictions throughout the city. These restrictions are critical to maintaining the quality of life and appearance of our beautiful city.
As far as I’m concerned, the City’s Office of Planning has not made the case for lifting the restrictions, and is unduly influenced by commercial. . . interests.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Read more
—Greg Ferenbach, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
As far as I’m concerned, the City’s Office of Planning has not made the case for lifting the restrictions, and is unduly influenced by commercial. . . interests.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Read more
—Greg Ferenbach, Washington, DC (NW) (October 29, 2013)
I would like to make two points regarding the Height Act.
The first is that the current debate is about modifying the federal Height Act. Even if we eliminated the federal Height Act entirely, there wouldn't necessarily be taller buildings built in DC, because we would still have local zoning and land use policies.. . . DC doesn't need Congress micromanaging its affairs; we should be able to make our own decisions about urban form.
Of course, if there was no reason to ever build taller buildings in DC, we wouldn't need to change the Height Act. My second point is that DC should have taller buildings, but that we should be careful in doing so. DC has an affordability crisis, particularly in the residential market. If we want DC to be anything other than a playground for the rich and powerful, we need to preserve affordable housing -- not just subsidized housing, but also affordable market rate housing. There are only ways to do that: decrease demand (make DC a less desirable place to live), reduce housing quality (allow homes to fall into disrepair), or increase supply. Obviously, increasing supply is the only one of these we would intentionally pursue. If we increase housing supply without allowing tall buildings, we end up with boring, boxy 8 story buildings all over the place. If we allowed taller, slimmer buildings, we could have more open space at ground level. More importantly, building a few tall buildings in select locations would relieve the pent-up market demand that is affecting lower density neighborhoods. If we retain repressive height limits, neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Shaw, Petworth, and Brookland will either 1. become even less affordable, displacing longtime residents or 2. see more and townhouses and beautiful historic homes torn down to create 6 story condo buildings. We would be far better served by allowing higher density construction around metro stations and retaining the existing character of some of DC's most special neighborhoods.
The NCPC proposal for changing the Height Act is timid and pathetic. The proposal from DC's Office of Planning, which would allow slightly taller buildings in the L'Enfant city and significantly ease restrictions further out, is much bolder and would make DC a more affordable, economically vibrant, and sustainable city.
Read more
—Paul Joice , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
The first is that the current debate is about modifying the federal Height Act. Even if we eliminated the federal Height Act entirely, there wouldn't necessarily be taller buildings built in DC, because we would still have local zoning and land use policies.. . . DC doesn't need Congress micromanaging its affairs; we should be able to make our own decisions about urban form.
Of course, if there was no reason to ever build taller buildings in DC, we wouldn't need to change the Height Act. My second point is that DC should have taller buildings, but that we should be careful in doing so. DC has an affordability crisis, particularly in the residential market. If we want DC to be anything other than a playground for the rich and powerful, we need to preserve affordable housing -- not just subsidized housing, but also affordable market rate housing. There are only ways to do that: decrease demand (make DC a less desirable place to live), reduce housing quality (allow homes to fall into disrepair), or increase supply. Obviously, increasing supply is the only one of these we would intentionally pursue. If we increase housing supply without allowing tall buildings, we end up with boring, boxy 8 story buildings all over the place. If we allowed taller, slimmer buildings, we could have more open space at ground level. More importantly, building a few tall buildings in select locations would relieve the pent-up market demand that is affecting lower density neighborhoods. If we retain repressive height limits, neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Shaw, Petworth, and Brookland will either 1. become even less affordable, displacing longtime residents or 2. see more and townhouses and beautiful historic homes torn down to create 6 story condo buildings. We would be far better served by allowing higher density construction around metro stations and retaining the existing character of some of DC's most special neighborhoods.
The NCPC proposal for changing the Height Act is timid and pathetic. The proposal from DC's Office of Planning, which would allow slightly taller buildings in the L'Enfant city and significantly ease restrictions further out, is much bolder and would make DC a more affordable, economically vibrant, and sustainable city.
Read more
—Paul Joice , Unknown (October 29, 2013)
I am a metropolitan development trends specialist and am a resident of Washington, DC. My experience includes owning and running the country's largest real estate consulting firm for 20 years, a former real estate developer, an author of 12 books on urbanism and numerous articles for national publications. In addition, I am a professor. . . at George Washington University and a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
I urge the adoption of the District of Columbia recommendations to ease the height restrictions outside of the L'Enfant old city boundaries and slight easing within the original L'Enfant boundaries to reflect changing fire suppression technologies.
The major reason for this recommendation is that following 60 years of losing relative job, office, retail and residential growth to the suburbs, the District in @ 2004 economically turned around and began to relatively grow. This was one of the first center cities in the country to turn itself around and it has provided residents with more opportunity, the District with a healthy balance sheet, a safer and more vibrant city and a model for center cities across the country.
The problem is that the L'Enfant city is running out of developable land and square footage that can be developed, mainly due to the height limit and the appropriate desire to preserve historic buildings. The L'Enfant city is probably 15-25 years from running out of developable land based upon current growth rates.
However, the District needs the ability to continue to grow. It would be a major shame to lose the advantage of offering walkable urban places to grow jobs and families due to not having enough land and building development potential.
In addition, the city is a leading model of environmental sustainability since walkable urban development is essential to reducing green house emissions. The City is also providing a model of green building, lower green house gas emissions as well. Having the early 20th century limitations of building heights maintained will reduce the ability of the District on reducing climate change forces, especially since the built environment (buildings and transportation) is the largest category of emissions, contribute nearly 75% of all green house gases.
Keeping an early 20th century law or provide a national model of reducing green house gases is not a difficult decision for me. We should let the nation's capital be an environmental model by selectively raising the height limit.
Finally, little is said about the financial implications of raising the height limit. In the District today, the value of a floor area ratio (FAR) square foot is between $100 and $200 per foot. The air rights above the current limit belongs to the citizens of the District. They are worth billions of dollars that could build the new streetcar system, affordable housing, redevelop our schools and many other positive things. The citizens of DC, whom I am one, would like to take advantage of this significant asset we own.
No one wants to disturb the sacred view corridors or character of the L'Enfant city. However, outside Boundary Street (generally Florida Avenue) the city government should have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate height. Economic growth will go to the predominantly minority northeast and southeast parts of the city that have rarely in 220 years received its fair share of economic opportunity. Raising the height limits will encourage racial and social equity.
Please accept the District's recommendations for modifying this arbitrary law outside the L'Enfant city while making minor adjustments within the old city.
Thank you,
Christopher B. Leinberger
Read more
—Christopher B. Leinberger, Washington, DC (October 28, 2013)
I urge the adoption of the District of Columbia recommendations to ease the height restrictions outside of the L'Enfant old city boundaries and slight easing within the original L'Enfant boundaries to reflect changing fire suppression technologies.
The major reason for this recommendation is that following 60 years of losing relative job, office, retail and residential growth to the suburbs, the District in @ 2004 economically turned around and began to relatively grow. This was one of the first center cities in the country to turn itself around and it has provided residents with more opportunity, the District with a healthy balance sheet, a safer and more vibrant city and a model for center cities across the country.
The problem is that the L'Enfant city is running out of developable land and square footage that can be developed, mainly due to the height limit and the appropriate desire to preserve historic buildings. The L'Enfant city is probably 15-25 years from running out of developable land based upon current growth rates.
However, the District needs the ability to continue to grow. It would be a major shame to lose the advantage of offering walkable urban places to grow jobs and families due to not having enough land and building development potential.
In addition, the city is a leading model of environmental sustainability since walkable urban development is essential to reducing green house emissions. The City is also providing a model of green building, lower green house gas emissions as well. Having the early 20th century limitations of building heights maintained will reduce the ability of the District on reducing climate change forces, especially since the built environment (buildings and transportation) is the largest category of emissions, contribute nearly 75% of all green house gases.
Keeping an early 20th century law or provide a national model of reducing green house gases is not a difficult decision for me. We should let the nation's capital be an environmental model by selectively raising the height limit.
Finally, little is said about the financial implications of raising the height limit. In the District today, the value of a floor area ratio (FAR) square foot is between $100 and $200 per foot. The air rights above the current limit belongs to the citizens of the District. They are worth billions of dollars that could build the new streetcar system, affordable housing, redevelop our schools and many other positive things. The citizens of DC, whom I am one, would like to take advantage of this significant asset we own.
No one wants to disturb the sacred view corridors or character of the L'Enfant city. However, outside Boundary Street (generally Florida Avenue) the city government should have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate height. Economic growth will go to the predominantly minority northeast and southeast parts of the city that have rarely in 220 years received its fair share of economic opportunity. Raising the height limits will encourage racial and social equity.
Please accept the District's recommendations for modifying this arbitrary law outside the L'Enfant city while making minor adjustments within the old city.
Thank you,
Christopher B. Leinberger
Read more
—Christopher B. Leinberger, Washington, DC (October 28, 2013)
I am a community activist from Southwest Washington, DC, and a former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner.
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or. . . through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
U.S. Citizen
Resident of Southwest Washington, DC
I am a community activist from Southwest Washington, DC, and a former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner.
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
Read more
—David C. Sobelsohn, SW Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or. . . through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
U.S. Citizen
Resident of Southwest Washington, DC
I am a community activist from Southwest Washington, DC, and a former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner.
I express no opinion on what height limit Washington, DC, should have for buildings.
As an American citizen and a resident of Washington, DC, I’m testifying only to one point: that the citizens of Washington, DC, either ourselves or through our elected representatives, should decide the limit to building height in our city. It is intolerable to have a federal law, passed by a Congress in which we have no voting representation, determine the height of our buildings.
Therefore, I strongly support radical revision of the federal Height Act. Congress should either repeal it altogether, or limit it to the same borders statehood proponents call for a new federal district to be formed after Washington, DC, achieves statehood.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. If we don’t trust our own elected representatives to make the right decision about local building heights, let’s have a popular referendum on the proper heights for buildings in DC.
Democracy means the right to make our own mistakes. We will never achieve self-government, let alone statehood, in this city if we make exceptions to our right to self-government for any issue on which we expect to disagree with the result of a democratic process--whatever that issue. If we let Congress tell us the limit to our building heights, we can’t tell Congress that how we spend our tax dollars, or how we regulate drugs, is none of their business.
Read more
—David C. Sobelsohn, SW Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
Dear Sirs,as a resident of the District,I see no reason to adjust the Height Act. There is plenty of developable land in the District for commercial and residential use that is underutilized. Developing commercial space outside of the core would do wonders for neighborhood economies and infrastructure relief.
—James Church, Washingotn, DC (20002) (October 25, 2013)
—James Church, Washingotn, DC (20002) (October 25, 2013)
My name is Ben Klemens. I live in a house at the North end of L'Enfant's plan. My day job is as a manager in a federal agency, working at the federal center in Suitland, Maryland.
My understanding of federal administration is that its central problem is how to attract and retain talented. . . people. It is the key to efficient government.
In the segment of the NCPC draft report on the location of federal agencies, where I had expected discussion of this central federal interest, the report instead states that recent federal office developments "outside of traditional downtown federal enclaves [are] often serving as catalysts in distressed or emerging markets and anchoring development around Metrorail stations." The discussion in this section of the report is therefore not about federal interests, but about how the federal government can encourage local growth. Further, from my perspective in Suitland, the statements in this segment ring false: if anything, the Suitland Federal Center, off limits to not-federally-employed local residents, has had a deadening effect on the area around the Suitland Metro.
What that means for us as federal workers is that we are effectively trapped in the bubble of our building from clock-in to clock-out. In other places I have worked, my coworkers and I have often gone out to lunch, which naturally made us a better team and helped us to enjoy work a little bit more. If we had an interviewee that the bosses were especially interested in, we'd go out for dinner with him or her. All of that is largely impossible from Suitland, Maryland. My agency has a strong workforce, but I have also seen coworkers leave, complaining of the problems with working at a geographically isolated agency. I've listened to interviewees---suburbanites and urbanites alike---wonder aloud whether they could make the commute every day.
The report as written gives several examples showing that new federal office space continues to be developed at a regular pace, and points out that the trend has been toward building more Suitland-like campuses. But it fails to make the link that this trend can be detrimental to the key federal interest of hiring good people and helping them to enjoy coming to work every day.
I have noticed that, although the option has always been open to them, the NCPC has never chosen to relocate to Suitland, Maryland. There, they would have bigger offices at a lower land-use cost, thus freeing up budget for new or expanded programs. The fact that the NCPC has not made such a move to less dense pastures indicates that it has found value in its current location, perhaps from easier transportation, better amenities, or proximity to other agencies or businesses. Whatever it is that the NCPC has at its current location, other federal managers like myself need as well, so that we too can attract and retain the best and the brightest.
Because the problem of attracting and retaining talented people is absolutely central to federal administration, I believe it is vitally in the federal interest to take steps to expand the availability of central DC office space where federal agencies can locate.
Read more
—Ben Klemens, Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
My understanding of federal administration is that its central problem is how to attract and retain talented. . . people. It is the key to efficient government.
In the segment of the NCPC draft report on the location of federal agencies, where I had expected discussion of this central federal interest, the report instead states that recent federal office developments "outside of traditional downtown federal enclaves [are] often serving as catalysts in distressed or emerging markets and anchoring development around Metrorail stations." The discussion in this section of the report is therefore not about federal interests, but about how the federal government can encourage local growth. Further, from my perspective in Suitland, the statements in this segment ring false: if anything, the Suitland Federal Center, off limits to not-federally-employed local residents, has had a deadening effect on the area around the Suitland Metro.
What that means for us as federal workers is that we are effectively trapped in the bubble of our building from clock-in to clock-out. In other places I have worked, my coworkers and I have often gone out to lunch, which naturally made us a better team and helped us to enjoy work a little bit more. If we had an interviewee that the bosses were especially interested in, we'd go out for dinner with him or her. All of that is largely impossible from Suitland, Maryland. My agency has a strong workforce, but I have also seen coworkers leave, complaining of the problems with working at a geographically isolated agency. I've listened to interviewees---suburbanites and urbanites alike---wonder aloud whether they could make the commute every day.
The report as written gives several examples showing that new federal office space continues to be developed at a regular pace, and points out that the trend has been toward building more Suitland-like campuses. But it fails to make the link that this trend can be detrimental to the key federal interest of hiring good people and helping them to enjoy coming to work every day.
I have noticed that, although the option has always been open to them, the NCPC has never chosen to relocate to Suitland, Maryland. There, they would have bigger offices at a lower land-use cost, thus freeing up budget for new or expanded programs. The fact that the NCPC has not made such a move to less dense pastures indicates that it has found value in its current location, perhaps from easier transportation, better amenities, or proximity to other agencies or businesses. Whatever it is that the NCPC has at its current location, other federal managers like myself need as well, so that we too can attract and retain the best and the brightest.
Because the problem of attracting and retaining talented people is absolutely central to federal administration, I believe it is vitally in the federal interest to take steps to expand the availability of central DC office space where federal agencies can locate.
Read more
—Ben Klemens, Washington, DC (October 25, 2013)
No change to the District’s height limits should be considered in the name of greater density without first developing and putting into place a comprehensive plan for the infrastructure to support it. Anyone who has ridden on Metro during rush hour or driven down its streets knows we are currently experiencing gridlock. Making room for more. . . people without the means to move them around, much less providing the parks, schools, libraries, police, and firehouses to serve them is a formula for an expensive deterioration of this city’s quality of life.
Read more
—R. Rhinehart, Washignton, DC (October 25, 2013)
Read more
—R. Rhinehart, Washignton, DC (October 25, 2013)
Keep the law as it now stands. It has worked for years to keep DC a city with world-renowned beauty. We do not need to shroud our unique historic buildings as well as DC's well-designed contemporary buildings with over-sized structures that hide the magnificence of the Federal monuments and architecture as well as the historic neighborhoods.. . .
Read more
—Penny Jones, Alexandria, VA (October 24, 2013)
Read more
—Penny Jones, Alexandria, VA (October 24, 2013)
Please see the attached file.
View attachment
—David Haresign & Mary Fitch, Washington DC (October 21, 2013)
View attachment
—David Haresign & Mary Fitch, Washington DC (October 21, 2013)
Identity is a extremely fragile value in built environment because we cant, or don´t, measure it. Nor do we have any economic calculations for "subjective" values like identity, charm or livability. And this despite that we know that these values create the best prerequisites for economic values in built environments! Be aware of the subjective values. . . you have! And select a reasonable size piece of land within (or beside) the existing urban area and let new buildings create new values without choking existing.
Read more
—Erika Wörman, Stockholm, Sweden (September 30, 2013)
Read more
—Erika Wörman, Stockholm, Sweden (September 30, 2013)
A city like Washington benefits from height controls in many ways. They help sunlight reach windows and green spaces, air move on dank summer days and sun warm surfaces in frigid months, pollution dissipate, and trees and plants survive. Our lower density has helped manage our population, helped spread development laterally across the city,. . . and led to Washington being one of the most beautiful and livable cities in the country. These benefits are immeasurably positive and should be protected. However, the height rules, as written now, do not address increases in height to create more green space, seem arbitrary such as where a portion of one side of Pennsylvania Avenue has a higher height limit than the rest of the city, and do not allow for higher density nodes of live-work development to be created in the east and north sides of the city. Walkable live-work cities require increased density that is best captured through managed and thoughtful increases in height with controls on overall density to limit overwhelming embedded infrastructure. We should be looking at massing models of the city to create density contours that protect our treasured viewsheds and greenness while fostering opportunities for more sustainable live-work neighborhoods and greater freedom of architectural expression. The process of allowing taller building must be deliberative, open, and well-studied for each taller building. Aesthetics and sun angles at the scale of the neighborhood and greater viewshed need to be factored each time. Washington is a city for its citizens and a city for the nation - it has two parents. We need to develop new rules that make sense and protect the interests of both.
Read more
—D. Wauters, McLean, VA (September 30, 2013)
Read more
—D. Wauters, McLean, VA (September 30, 2013)
Except for the "no change" approach, I believe that all of the proposed approaches to manage height in the District FAIL to protect the "light and air" and views of District residents, and unfairly favor commercial development at the expense of quality of life for residents. OP has already established a de facto policy of. . . waiving the height limit and ignoring the District's Master Plan as illustrated by the recent approval of ultra-high density 11-story buildings with little or no open space in my own neighborhood.
Perhaps DC's tax base could be increased by greater density, but the potential for increased revenue should not be driving changes to the character of the District at the expense of its beauty and inviting charm. DC is not Manhattan. While demand for commercial space in DC may well outstrip supply sometime in the future, that is demonstrably not the case today in the Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast quadrants, and I do not perceive any urgency that justifies altering the very character of the city. Today, I see vacant commercial buildings (some of which were constructed in the past 5 years); I see vacant lots; I see boarded up buildings. The problem is not lack of adequate density, the problem is lack of transportation access and/or a desire for a prestigious Northwest address. The majority of these vacant or dilapidated buildings are in areas where renewal is needed, and that need should be addressed first. That need should not be treated as an invitation to alter the general character of DC's neighborhoods.
Pierre L'Enfant's vision included a focus on vistas, which highlight Federal structures and thereby indicate the power and prestige of the national government and visible open space, which indicates room for the interaction of citizens in a democratic society. [1] The construction of ever-taller buildings, which will unavoidably block the very vistas which L'Enfant sought to preserve, will alter the very character of the District to the detriment of its residents and visitors, and to the primary benefit of developers.
DC remains very much residential and the wants and desires of its residents need to be respected. The proposed approaches FAIL to adequately address impacts on residents and visitors. I would urge OP to directly canvass residents and obtain meaningful input on the impacts of increased height and density before proceeding further.
Read more
—Robert Weller, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Perhaps DC's tax base could be increased by greater density, but the potential for increased revenue should not be driving changes to the character of the District at the expense of its beauty and inviting charm. DC is not Manhattan. While demand for commercial space in DC may well outstrip supply sometime in the future, that is demonstrably not the case today in the Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast quadrants, and I do not perceive any urgency that justifies altering the very character of the city. Today, I see vacant commercial buildings (some of which were constructed in the past 5 years); I see vacant lots; I see boarded up buildings. The problem is not lack of adequate density, the problem is lack of transportation access and/or a desire for a prestigious Northwest address. The majority of these vacant or dilapidated buildings are in areas where renewal is needed, and that need should be addressed first. That need should not be treated as an invitation to alter the general character of DC's neighborhoods.
Pierre L'Enfant's vision included a focus on vistas, which highlight Federal structures and thereby indicate the power and prestige of the national government and visible open space, which indicates room for the interaction of citizens in a democratic society. [1] The construction of ever-taller buildings, which will unavoidably block the very vistas which L'Enfant sought to preserve, will alter the very character of the District to the detriment of its residents and visitors, and to the primary benefit of developers.
DC remains very much residential and the wants and desires of its residents need to be respected. The proposed approaches FAIL to adequately address impacts on residents and visitors. I would urge OP to directly canvass residents and obtain meaningful input on the impacts of increased height and density before proceeding further.
Read more
—Robert Weller, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Attached please find the National Trust’s 9/25/2013 preliminary comments and requests for clarification regarding the Height Study. During the public information session, Ms. Tregoning said, I believe, that the positions of some groups participating in the session are already known to the agencies. Speaking for the National Trust, I don’t understand this comment. The National Trust. . . has raised questions, requested additional information and maps, expressed concern about potential impacts to historic properties, and advised caution. However, we have not taken a position regarding NCPC’s 9/12/2013 draft recommendations or DC-OP’s 9/24/2013 draft recommendations. Thank you in advance for considering the National Trust’s preliminary comments as you seek to reach consensus regarding where height changes would be appropriate.
Read more
View attachment
—Rob Nieweg (National Trust for Hist. Preservation), Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Read more
View attachment
—Rob Nieweg (National Trust for Hist. Preservation), Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
I think the building height restriction in Washington DC should be lifted for limited areas of the city.
Building height in the downtown area of NW/SW Washington, roughly bounded by 24th St, NW, North/South Capitol and M Streets (NW and SW) should be limited as current law specifies.
However, outside of those bounds, building. . . height restrictions should be lifted to permit buildings of up to 50 stories or 500 feet.
Read more
—Alvin Hutchinson, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Building height in the downtown area of NW/SW Washington, roughly bounded by 24th St, NW, North/South Capitol and M Streets (NW and SW) should be limited as current law specifies.
However, outside of those bounds, building. . . height restrictions should be lifted to permit buildings of up to 50 stories or 500 feet.
Read more
—Alvin Hutchinson, Washington, DC (September 30, 2013)
Raising the height limit in a control area could create a focal point for the city, but instead of focusing on a aesthetics should be interesting in analyzing the demand space for, residential, office space , commercial, and understand what are the city's internal needs.
In our case Tegucigalpa, is experiencing gentrification on the. . . outskirts due to the land in the city's center with the greater value is developing into modern office and residential buildings, not much have been done for urban space to accommodate all influx of upper class and workers. Our buildings aren't that tall, but have an excellent and appealing design.
This started to create well define boundaries between downtown- historic district and modern area and the rest of the city.
Read more
—Jonathan Mendoza, Honduras (September 30, 2013)
In our case Tegucigalpa, is experiencing gentrification on the. . . outskirts due to the land in the city's center with the greater value is developing into modern office and residential buildings, not much have been done for urban space to accommodate all influx of upper class and workers. Our buildings aren't that tall, but have an excellent and appealing design.
This started to create well define boundaries between downtown- historic district and modern area and the rest of the city.
Read more
—Jonathan Mendoza, Honduras (September 30, 2013)
I have lived in Washington, DC since 1991. I attended the briefing on alternatives to the current Height Act presented at the Tenley library in early August. After careful consideration of the pros and cons to each approach,I urge that the National Capital Planning Commission adopt Approach 1B. This approach allows no height. . . increase but does allow penthouse occupancy with or without setback.
The reasons for my recommendation include:
1. The distinctive beauty of Washington, D.C. is attributable not only to federal monuments and buildings but also to its warm and welcoming skyline. As the nation's capital, Washington, DC is unlike other cities. Hence a careful decision must take into consideration its national role as well as its role as a comfortable home to its residents. The very human dimensions of the city allow it to excel in both roles. This alone should be sufficient to retain the current Height Act, with the modest modification contained in 1B.
2. The depiction of various height increases in drawings presented at the briefing showed box like structures atop existing buildings to illustrate the changes in street width to height. Unfortunately, they seemed all too realistic. Few of the new buildings in DC are architecturally interesting. Most look like the new big box structures along New York Ave and H Streets--relatively cheap to build but which bring big profits. They do nothing to enhance the visual charm of the city. Therefore, any increase in height limit for buildings in the District are likely to produce more of the same, only taller. This is not an inviting picture.
3. There is currently plenty of unoccupied new construction in the city offering both office space and apartments/condominiums. Moreover, the District currently enjoys a budget surplus which deflates the argument emphasizing the need for increased tax revenue. Improvements DC government ethics policies and practices as well as robust enforcement of anti-corruption and oversight measures should only improve the DC government's revenue situation.
When all current structures are occupied and there is no more space to develop, then the Height Act can be revisited. There is no need to do this now. Once this genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the National Capital Planning Commission to retain the current Height Act with the modest penthouse modification. Retaining the current act will ensure that the District of Columbia continues to be a beautiful and livable city.
Read more
—Ann Phillips, Washington, DC (September 29, 2013)
The reasons for my recommendation include:
1. The distinctive beauty of Washington, D.C. is attributable not only to federal monuments and buildings but also to its warm and welcoming skyline. As the nation's capital, Washington, DC is unlike other cities. Hence a careful decision must take into consideration its national role as well as its role as a comfortable home to its residents. The very human dimensions of the city allow it to excel in both roles. This alone should be sufficient to retain the current Height Act, with the modest modification contained in 1B.
2. The depiction of various height increases in drawings presented at the briefing showed box like structures atop existing buildings to illustrate the changes in street width to height. Unfortunately, they seemed all too realistic. Few of the new buildings in DC are architecturally interesting. Most look like the new big box structures along New York Ave and H Streets--relatively cheap to build but which bring big profits. They do nothing to enhance the visual charm of the city. Therefore, any increase in height limit for buildings in the District are likely to produce more of the same, only taller. This is not an inviting picture.
3. There is currently plenty of unoccupied new construction in the city offering both office space and apartments/condominiums. Moreover, the District currently enjoys a budget surplus which deflates the argument emphasizing the need for increased tax revenue. Improvements DC government ethics policies and practices as well as robust enforcement of anti-corruption and oversight measures should only improve the DC government's revenue situation.
When all current structures are occupied and there is no more space to develop, then the Height Act can be revisited. There is no need to do this now. Once this genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the National Capital Planning Commission to retain the current Height Act with the modest penthouse modification. Retaining the current act will ensure that the District of Columbia continues to be a beautiful and livable city.
Read more
—Ann Phillips, Washington, DC (September 29, 2013)
I suppose I would ask exactly what is meant by a thriving city; what are the larger goals of the city? Some cities have begun to use measures of 'density', though this can be misleading. I would tend to disagree that just increasing the FAR will make a city 'thrive'. Paris has relatively low building heights,. . . very high density, and a lot of vibrancy. Compare that with some cities like Dallas, which while definitely on the up-swing, have a lot more height and large swathes of dead zones in the downtown. (Or look at the financial district in New York, but don't go there at night.)
I think the solution is likely much more nuanced than height. Mixed use is all the rage in many circles, but there is some legitimacy to it. Activities that keep people on the streets at all times of day, not just office towers that close at 6pm are safer and attract more residents. There also need to be areas for people congregate, 'democratic' spaces where the public interacts and that are useful. People here have mentioned Barcelona, while the Sagrada Familia is great, Las Ramblas, a wide boulevard, is the attraction for many people and activities.
Now to pull in investment to the city, an increased FAR could definitely help. That investment then may help to support other investments in the city through a TIF, but I would think this would need a careful study of the cost-impact and the nature of the development. With the cost of housing in DC, I think the limits of market saturation for housing units would be extremely difficult to reach, so I doubt one could hold costs down through increased height limits -if in fact rental costs are a factor.
I would say creating a vibrant city is much different than the nature of the skyline and view corridors of the capitol that deserve a bigger discussion about what makes a city thrive.
Read more
—Joshua Palmer, Austin, Texas (September 29, 2013)
I think the solution is likely much more nuanced than height. Mixed use is all the rage in many circles, but there is some legitimacy to it. Activities that keep people on the streets at all times of day, not just office towers that close at 6pm are safer and attract more residents. There also need to be areas for people congregate, 'democratic' spaces where the public interacts and that are useful. People here have mentioned Barcelona, while the Sagrada Familia is great, Las Ramblas, a wide boulevard, is the attraction for many people and activities.
Now to pull in investment to the city, an increased FAR could definitely help. That investment then may help to support other investments in the city through a TIF, but I would think this would need a careful study of the cost-impact and the nature of the development. With the cost of housing in DC, I think the limits of market saturation for housing units would be extremely difficult to reach, so I doubt one could hold costs down through increased height limits -if in fact rental costs are a factor.
I would say creating a vibrant city is much different than the nature of the skyline and view corridors of the capitol that deserve a bigger discussion about what makes a city thrive.
Read more
—Joshua Palmer, Austin, Texas (September 29, 2013)
ou will loose the existing character of the city if you do away with the height restriction. The existing structures will suddenly become so insignificant and many will disappear from the residents and visitors mind. On the ground, it will also become a different place all together. Be it that it may have more surprises- old. . . small buildings amount huge structures- Tokyo.
My suggestion is to select a reasonable size piece of land within the existing urban area that is not of good condition now and do away with the height restriction there. It will help to accommodate the space requirements and reduces the pressure on the other parts of the city. It will also add another layer of time and character to the city.
Read more
—Siah Gim Lim, Tokyo, Japan (September 29, 2013)
My suggestion is to select a reasonable size piece of land within the existing urban area that is not of good condition now and do away with the height restriction there. It will help to accommodate the space requirements and reduces the pressure on the other parts of the city. It will also add another layer of time and character to the city.
Read more
—Siah Gim Lim, Tokyo, Japan (September 29, 2013)
I've been driving down N. Capitol Street for many, many years. Although the route has been less than visually appealing for that time, when the sight of the Capitol dome came into view it was a clear and exciting perspective of the horizon. Already someone's approval of a tall, bulky new building at M Street has. . . destroyed that experience. See for yourself in the attached photos. Now you are considering relaxing the rules to do away with height limits that provide the city's vistas and character. Please don't do it, please don't do more harm than this.
Read more
View attachment
—Eileen Emmet, Silver Spring Md (September 28, 2013)
Read more
View attachment
—Eileen Emmet, Silver Spring Md (September 28, 2013)
I am submitting this statement on behalf of the Sheridan-Kalorams Neighborhood Council (SKNC) in support of the Historic Districts Coalition and in opposition to changing the DC Height Act. Sincerely, Christopher Chapin
View attachment
—Christopher K. Chapin, Washington, DC (September 28, 2013)
View attachment
—Christopher K. Chapin, Washington, DC (September 28, 2013)
From my experience in Barcelona the vibrant city needs walkable streets and provide all needs within the same neighborhood. Car-based cities would never be vibrant but sometimes and under certain circumstances inside malls.
—Joan Valls Fantova, Barcelona, Spain (September 28, 2013)
—Joan Valls Fantova, Barcelona, Spain (September 28, 2013)
DC should increase the height limit but create incentives where additional floors can only be added if they include residential (particularly low income), a public amenity or institution (library, school, etc), or demonstrated need. I think this would make more affordable housing available in the downtown core and make the area more dynamic with people using. . . buildings 7 days a week, for all uses.
The downtown core is not for DC residents now. It is for office workers - a significant number of whom come from Virginia and Maryland- and for tourists staying in hotels located there. THe height act will help it become a living part of the city.
In the meantime, DC could look to help developers add office to key areas such as along the Anacostia river, McMillan Reservoir area, Old Soldier's Home, and Walter Reed to add mixed usage to areas that currently are only residential.
Read more
—Adam, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
The downtown core is not for DC residents now. It is for office workers - a significant number of whom come from Virginia and Maryland- and for tourists staying in hotels located there. THe height act will help it become a living part of the city.
In the meantime, DC could look to help developers add office to key areas such as along the Anacostia river, McMillan Reservoir area, Old Soldier's Home, and Walter Reed to add mixed usage to areas that currently are only residential.
Read more
—Adam, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
Two comments:
Op recommendations were supposed to take into account public input. If one reviews the comments presented at the OP meetings and posted later concerning the research and proposal for Height Act changes, one finds NO evidence at all that the public's voice was heard.
The OP website says "These work products,. . . public comments, and other background materials will be the basis for the recommendations from the National Capital Planning Commission to the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform in fall 2013."
Harriet Tregoning sent OP’s DRAFT proposal to Issa before hearing public testimlony to NCPC and conferring with them, even tho Issa specifically asked for the two agencies to submit a consensus plan to him. Words fail me.
Read more
—Claudia Phelps, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
Op recommendations were supposed to take into account public input. If one reviews the comments presented at the OP meetings and posted later concerning the research and proposal for Height Act changes, one finds NO evidence at all that the public's voice was heard.
The OP website says "These work products,. . . public comments, and other background materials will be the basis for the recommendations from the National Capital Planning Commission to the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform in fall 2013."
Harriet Tregoning sent OP’s DRAFT proposal to Issa before hearing public testimlony to NCPC and conferring with them, even tho Issa specifically asked for the two agencies to submit a consensus plan to him. Words fail me.
Read more
—Claudia Phelps, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I think the Office of Planning's recommendations to modify the height limit in DC is an excellent idea. Creating a denser, more amenity rich and varied urban environment is a positive move as we proceed to keep DC a world class city. The constraints currently imposed on architects has resulted in a skyline and street. . . front of boring boxes.
Read more
—Alice giancola, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
Read more
—Alice giancola, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I'm disappointed by how timid NCPC's recommendations are.
I appreciate that low buildings have an aesthetic appeal and contribute to the character of DC. But they have a cost. Limiting the supply of housing and commercial space drives up prices and makes DC less affordable for low income households. Also, urban areas are a key. . . to the fight against climate change; enabling more people to live and work in DC will reduce per capita energy use.
I prefer the recommendations of DC's Office of Planning. I think it is a reasonable compromise to continue to have a federal limit on heights in the L'Enfant City, but to allow taller buildings in other parts of the city.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I appreciate that low buildings have an aesthetic appeal and contribute to the character of DC. But they have a cost. Limiting the supply of housing and commercial space drives up prices and makes DC less affordable for low income households. Also, urban areas are a key. . . to the fight against climate change; enabling more people to live and work in DC will reduce per capita energy use.
I prefer the recommendations of DC's Office of Planning. I think it is a reasonable compromise to continue to have a federal limit on heights in the L'Enfant City, but to allow taller buildings in other parts of the city.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I write to compliment the careful Height Act assessment of the NCPC’s “Federal Interest Report and Findings,†but also to draw attention to the premature and even reckless recommendations of the DCOP based on its incomplete “Height Master Plan for the District of Columbia – Evaluation and Draft Recommendations.â€
A telling contrast between the two. . . approaches is that NCPC accurately observes: “The District of Columbia has had one of the nation’s strongest commercial and residential development markets, and its stability has made it consistently one of the most desirable real estate investment markets.†(p. 13) By contrast, OP refers back to a 1997 study “…that our tax burden results in at least a 25-percent higher cost of doing business than in the surrounding area, discouraging location in the District and undermining our competitiveness.†(p. 4) While acknowledging “demonstrable improvements over the past decade,†OP and their consultant PES and its two developer partners, continually suggest DC is now somehow not “competitive†and insists DC “is literally constrained by the Height Act.†(p. 8)
In fact, of course, as NCPC notes, DC has long been one of the strongest commercial and residential markets in the country, gaining population for the past 15 years since 1998. In fact, according to the BLS and BEA, DC now provides more jobs than ever before on record; 730,000 payroll jobs – and another perhaps 85,000 entrepreneurs/self-employed. The total number of jobs in DC is far higher than even the resurgent total 640,000 men, women, children and seniors who live in DC much less than the 340,000 working-age DC residents who are employed and pay DC income taxes. This remarkable, unique-in-the-nation imbalance between offices and housing is why DC has over 500,000 in-and-out commuters each day bidding up housing prices to unaffordable levels, over-taxing our daytime commercial infrastructure and creating the worst congestion in the nation.
These half-million daily commuters leave each evening with $1.5 billion in annual state/local income tax payments sent outside DC along with most of their spending and investing. The huge commercial infrastructure demands and revenue losses – despite a strong economy -- are key reasons why DC’s residential infrastructure – schools, affordable housing, resident-oriented businesses, safe streets, playgrounds… have been so badly neglected. OP claims to have looked at other cities but NO other city but DC is prohibited by law from capturing any portion of tax revenue from commuter income earned here.
Major policy changes must always be considered in light of potential budgetary impacts but this is absolutely vital for DC with its unique revenue constraints. NCPC takes budgetary concerns seriously; OP does not.
NCPC points out in 3.3 Infrastructure Overview: “Taller buildings could impact infrastructure capacity if they result in greater density. These impacts may affect services ranging from sewer and water, storm water management, road and transit capacity and other utilities. Like many American cities, Washington’s infrastructure is aging and requires repair or replacement. Particularly in various locations in the L’Enfant City/downtown, road, transit and sewer infrastructure is at capacity and efforts are underway to fund improvements to these systems. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), for example, has an $11 billion Capital Needs Inventory to upgrade and maintain current infrastructure. In addition, many of these systems have costs, customer demand, and operational considerations that are regional in scale.â€
And NCPC states in Key Findings 3.3.a: Infrastructure in the National Capital Region, including transportation, is a federal interest. Large or uniform increases in height may impact the city’s infrastructure. Due to timing and funding constraints, this study does not specifically analyze infrastructure impacts nor provide recommendations to mitigate those impacts. Representatives from federal agencies and local residents alike expressed strong concerns about impacts to infrastructure from increases in height.
That is, NCPC finds that DC is doing well and until it can be shown that raising the iconic Height Limit will likely result in more benefits than costs, there is no need for major change to the height limit.
OP, on the other hand, limits its contracted “Economic Feasibility Analysis†largely to builders’ costs, and the imagined need to become more “competitive†and capture even more office building to maintain or even worsen the current worst-in-the-nation office/residential imbalance, congestion and bidding-up of housing prices. OP barely mentions DC’s already deeply stressed infrastructure and ignores entirely its many billions of dollars in unfunded maintenance and modernization needs and yet OP recommends raising the 130 foot height limit by 54% to 200 feet. How would this enormous addition to density affect car traffic and road maintenance, Metro crowding and breakdowns, our vulnerable power grid, water, sewer…?
OP’s Feasibility Analysis finds that 80% of construction jobs will go to more commuters but that new tax revenue associated with much taller buildings may bring in about $100 million/yr. compared to about $6 billion in current DC tax revenue. Since OP fails to offer any consideration of the very significant added cost for infrastructure and other services associated with much taller buildings, it is not possible to know whether its added height recommendation would likely be a net benefit or loss to the DC budget. I suspect such additional demands on DC’s aged infrastructure would result in public expenditures far exceeding the meager tax revenues gained. (And it is hard to imagine neighboring jurisdictions or Congress rushing to pay a larger share of DC’s bills.) So why would OP make such a reckless recommendation to raise the height limit before assessing the likely budgetary impact?
One final, perhaps minor point that has annoyed me about OP’s relentless selling of this project from the beginning: If you read carefully you can find places where OP does admit that this challenge to the Height Act comes from one “Tea Party†Congressman from California, not usually considered a friend of DC, Darrell Issa, He was appointed Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform which has jurisdiction over DC matters. Issa called a Subcommittee hearing in July 2012 which he did not attend and, in fact only three members of the 39 member full Committee attended any part of the hearing much less did any of the other 435 members of the full House attend. The letter requesting this project was sent on Oversight Committee stationary but by Mr. Issa (as Chairman) alone; neither the Ranking Committee Democrat nor anyone else signed. There was never a vote on this project, by anyone – anywhere. And yet, OP has constantly referred to this project as “requested by Congress†as is done again in the Press Release of Sept. 24, 2013 announcing OP’s draft recommendations. However, there is absolutely no indication of significant interest in Congress or among DC or US residents to raise DC’s height limit.
I am disappointed in OP’s reckless recommendation and do not believe that it is “smart†or good for DC. I hope it goes no further.
Read more
—Charles W. McMillion (PhD), Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
A telling contrast between the two. . . approaches is that NCPC accurately observes: “The District of Columbia has had one of the nation’s strongest commercial and residential development markets, and its stability has made it consistently one of the most desirable real estate investment markets.†(p. 13) By contrast, OP refers back to a 1997 study “…that our tax burden results in at least a 25-percent higher cost of doing business than in the surrounding area, discouraging location in the District and undermining our competitiveness.†(p. 4) While acknowledging “demonstrable improvements over the past decade,†OP and their consultant PES and its two developer partners, continually suggest DC is now somehow not “competitive†and insists DC “is literally constrained by the Height Act.†(p. 8)
In fact, of course, as NCPC notes, DC has long been one of the strongest commercial and residential markets in the country, gaining population for the past 15 years since 1998. In fact, according to the BLS and BEA, DC now provides more jobs than ever before on record; 730,000 payroll jobs – and another perhaps 85,000 entrepreneurs/self-employed. The total number of jobs in DC is far higher than even the resurgent total 640,000 men, women, children and seniors who live in DC much less than the 340,000 working-age DC residents who are employed and pay DC income taxes. This remarkable, unique-in-the-nation imbalance between offices and housing is why DC has over 500,000 in-and-out commuters each day bidding up housing prices to unaffordable levels, over-taxing our daytime commercial infrastructure and creating the worst congestion in the nation.
These half-million daily commuters leave each evening with $1.5 billion in annual state/local income tax payments sent outside DC along with most of their spending and investing. The huge commercial infrastructure demands and revenue losses – despite a strong economy -- are key reasons why DC’s residential infrastructure – schools, affordable housing, resident-oriented businesses, safe streets, playgrounds… have been so badly neglected. OP claims to have looked at other cities but NO other city but DC is prohibited by law from capturing any portion of tax revenue from commuter income earned here.
Major policy changes must always be considered in light of potential budgetary impacts but this is absolutely vital for DC with its unique revenue constraints. NCPC takes budgetary concerns seriously; OP does not.
NCPC points out in 3.3 Infrastructure Overview: “Taller buildings could impact infrastructure capacity if they result in greater density. These impacts may affect services ranging from sewer and water, storm water management, road and transit capacity and other utilities. Like many American cities, Washington’s infrastructure is aging and requires repair or replacement. Particularly in various locations in the L’Enfant City/downtown, road, transit and sewer infrastructure is at capacity and efforts are underway to fund improvements to these systems. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), for example, has an $11 billion Capital Needs Inventory to upgrade and maintain current infrastructure. In addition, many of these systems have costs, customer demand, and operational considerations that are regional in scale.â€
And NCPC states in Key Findings 3.3.a: Infrastructure in the National Capital Region, including transportation, is a federal interest. Large or uniform increases in height may impact the city’s infrastructure. Due to timing and funding constraints, this study does not specifically analyze infrastructure impacts nor provide recommendations to mitigate those impacts. Representatives from federal agencies and local residents alike expressed strong concerns about impacts to infrastructure from increases in height.
That is, NCPC finds that DC is doing well and until it can be shown that raising the iconic Height Limit will likely result in more benefits than costs, there is no need for major change to the height limit.
OP, on the other hand, limits its contracted “Economic Feasibility Analysis†largely to builders’ costs, and the imagined need to become more “competitive†and capture even more office building to maintain or even worsen the current worst-in-the-nation office/residential imbalance, congestion and bidding-up of housing prices. OP barely mentions DC’s already deeply stressed infrastructure and ignores entirely its many billions of dollars in unfunded maintenance and modernization needs and yet OP recommends raising the 130 foot height limit by 54% to 200 feet. How would this enormous addition to density affect car traffic and road maintenance, Metro crowding and breakdowns, our vulnerable power grid, water, sewer…?
OP’s Feasibility Analysis finds that 80% of construction jobs will go to more commuters but that new tax revenue associated with much taller buildings may bring in about $100 million/yr. compared to about $6 billion in current DC tax revenue. Since OP fails to offer any consideration of the very significant added cost for infrastructure and other services associated with much taller buildings, it is not possible to know whether its added height recommendation would likely be a net benefit or loss to the DC budget. I suspect such additional demands on DC’s aged infrastructure would result in public expenditures far exceeding the meager tax revenues gained. (And it is hard to imagine neighboring jurisdictions or Congress rushing to pay a larger share of DC’s bills.) So why would OP make such a reckless recommendation to raise the height limit before assessing the likely budgetary impact?
One final, perhaps minor point that has annoyed me about OP’s relentless selling of this project from the beginning: If you read carefully you can find places where OP does admit that this challenge to the Height Act comes from one “Tea Party†Congressman from California, not usually considered a friend of DC, Darrell Issa, He was appointed Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform which has jurisdiction over DC matters. Issa called a Subcommittee hearing in July 2012 which he did not attend and, in fact only three members of the 39 member full Committee attended any part of the hearing much less did any of the other 435 members of the full House attend. The letter requesting this project was sent on Oversight Committee stationary but by Mr. Issa (as Chairman) alone; neither the Ranking Committee Democrat nor anyone else signed. There was never a vote on this project, by anyone – anywhere. And yet, OP has constantly referred to this project as “requested by Congress†as is done again in the Press Release of Sept. 24, 2013 announcing OP’s draft recommendations. However, there is absolutely no indication of significant interest in Congress or among DC or US residents to raise DC’s height limit.
I am disappointed in OP’s reckless recommendation and do not believe that it is “smart†or good for DC. I hope it goes no further.
Read more
—Charles W. McMillion (PhD), Washington, DC (September 27, 2013)
I would like to support the continuance of the Height Act and protect L’Enfant’s view of our federal city. There are plenty of places beyond the federal city where penthouses can be built. It is only in the interest of the developers to extend the height limits so I would like to maintain our Height Act. . . as it now stands.
Read more
—Anne Vinson, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
Read more
—Anne Vinson, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
I'm a DC property owner and would like to testify in regard to #HeightDC: Please do NOT lift the height restrictions. Minor modifications are fine, but to practically wipe them out would be a great disservice to this wonderful city.
In addition to the view of the monuments, a big part of DC's appeal is the. . . manageable, "small town feel." Plus, the low height restriction helps to prompt economic expansion in blighted neighborhoods rather than concentrate wealth in a few areas.
Again, please do not make any significant changes to the current rules.
Read more
—Phil Piga, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
In addition to the view of the monuments, a big part of DC's appeal is the. . . manageable, "small town feel." Plus, the low height restriction helps to prompt economic expansion in blighted neighborhoods rather than concentrate wealth in a few areas.
Again, please do not make any significant changes to the current rules.
Read more
—Phil Piga, Washington, DC (September 26, 2013)
An example of similar restriction for Height is set in Building Constructions in Barcelona
In our city we also have several iconic buildings and only some of the are allowed to avoid restriction
In my opinion, WDC shouldn't look for skyscrapers and, if needed, provide more space for business and living within. . . very delimited areas at least 5 kilometers from downtown
and, of course, always linking both the new area and downtown thorough rail connections.
Read more
—Joan Valls Fantova , Barcelona, Spain (September 26, 2013)
In our city we also have several iconic buildings and only some of the are allowed to avoid restriction
In my opinion, WDC shouldn't look for skyscrapers and, if needed, provide more space for business and living within. . . very delimited areas at least 5 kilometers from downtown
and, of course, always linking both the new area and downtown thorough rail connections.
Read more
—Joan Valls Fantova , Barcelona, Spain (September 26, 2013)
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City responds to the Mayor's Height Act recommendations (see attached)
View attachment
—Committee of 100, Nancy MacWood, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
View attachment
—Committee of 100, Nancy MacWood, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
I attended the final Phase 2 meeting hosted by OP's Harriet Tregoning, and my sense of the crowd’s input was, keep the Height Act intact; there is presently much unexploited vertical and horizontal space in the city for development.
Given the already overtaxed, inadequately built-out public transportation system and ongoing reductions in parking,. . . I question how increasing density benefits sustainability, livability, or economic development for D.C. residents. I already know many people who live in the suburbs and in D.C. who decline to shop or dine in town because they find the combination of heavy traffic and scarce parking daunting. There are probably people who also choose to work elsewhere for the same reasons. At the same time, public transportation is so underdeveloped, and declines so precipitously on weekends, that using it requires driving to a transport node, like a Metro station, and then hunting for a place to stow one’s car so it won’t be ticketed. To add vitality to a city, public transportation must run frequently, dependably, and extensively. That doesn’t describe our current system.
The city has much under-utilized space at present; our population is still well below its peak of 800,000 in the 1950s. If we want economic vitality to push its way out of the pockets where it took refuge in and has been holed up since the 1960s, why would we build commercial and residential space in the already gentrified areas of the city? As to the notion that adding commercial and residential space brings down commercial and residential prices, then Manhattan--where relatively speaking, the sky is the limit--would be one of the least expensive housing and business markets in the U.S.
If casting off the Height Act limits is the best we can expect from our city planners, it is even more discouraging to contemplate what they will do if Congress grants the D.C. government the complete freedom from Height Act constraints that OP seeks outside the L’Enfant City. (If this is what Statehood would look like, I may lose my zeal for it.) I understand that the city’s own zoning regulations are in many neighborhoods more stringent than the Height Act’s restrictions, but I have no doubt that OP and the Zoning Commission will figure out how to jerry-rig those as well.
Read more
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, DC (Ward 4, Chevy Chase) (September 25, 2013)
Given the already overtaxed, inadequately built-out public transportation system and ongoing reductions in parking,. . . I question how increasing density benefits sustainability, livability, or economic development for D.C. residents. I already know many people who live in the suburbs and in D.C. who decline to shop or dine in town because they find the combination of heavy traffic and scarce parking daunting. There are probably people who also choose to work elsewhere for the same reasons. At the same time, public transportation is so underdeveloped, and declines so precipitously on weekends, that using it requires driving to a transport node, like a Metro station, and then hunting for a place to stow one’s car so it won’t be ticketed. To add vitality to a city, public transportation must run frequently, dependably, and extensively. That doesn’t describe our current system.
The city has much under-utilized space at present; our population is still well below its peak of 800,000 in the 1950s. If we want economic vitality to push its way out of the pockets where it took refuge in and has been holed up since the 1960s, why would we build commercial and residential space in the already gentrified areas of the city? As to the notion that adding commercial and residential space brings down commercial and residential prices, then Manhattan--where relatively speaking, the sky is the limit--would be one of the least expensive housing and business markets in the U.S.
If casting off the Height Act limits is the best we can expect from our city planners, it is even more discouraging to contemplate what they will do if Congress grants the D.C. government the complete freedom from Height Act constraints that OP seeks outside the L’Enfant City. (If this is what Statehood would look like, I may lose my zeal for it.) I understand that the city’s own zoning regulations are in many neighborhoods more stringent than the Height Act’s restrictions, but I have no doubt that OP and the Zoning Commission will figure out how to jerry-rig those as well.
Read more
—Andrea Rosen, Washington, DC (Ward 4, Chevy Chase) (September 25, 2013)
The DC Government has failed to complete their assignment. Issa's request was to "...examine the extent to which the Height of Buildings Act of 1910 continues to serve federal and local interests, and how changes to the law could affect the future of the city."
The very first sentence in DC's report states "The. . . central question that this report attempts to answer is whether changes to the federal Height Act can be accomplished in a way that allows the federal government and the District of Columbia to reap the economic, fiscal and social benefits of additional height."
In other words, they went at this activity with the predetermined conclusion that they wanted to raise the Height Limit in some way - thus rendering this entire report instead as a one-sided vehicle for supporting their position.
I also find it disturbing that this report has been publicized without taking into account the comments provided at the public hearings, and without consultation with City Council.
Read more
—Erik Hein, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
The very first sentence in DC's report states "The. . . central question that this report attempts to answer is whether changes to the federal Height Act can be accomplished in a way that allows the federal government and the District of Columbia to reap the economic, fiscal and social benefits of additional height."
In other words, they went at this activity with the predetermined conclusion that they wanted to raise the Height Limit in some way - thus rendering this entire report instead as a one-sided vehicle for supporting their position.
I also find it disturbing that this report has been publicized without taking into account the comments provided at the public hearings, and without consultation with City Council.
Read more
—Erik Hein, Washington, DC (September 25, 2013)
I think the Office of Planning's recommendations to modify the height limit in DC is an excellent idea. The economic benefits, coupled with creating a denser and more amenity rich urban environment, far outweigh any possible drawbacks. I'm all for it!
—John Bradley Papp, Astoria, NY (September 25, 2013)
—John Bradley Papp, Astoria, NY (September 25, 2013)
My fear is that the decision will simply go the way of the developers drooling their money over 69sq/mi of airspace currently guarded by the mayor and the city council. This is the same DC government that could not even stand up against Walmart and its promise of jobs calibrated to swell the class of. . . working poor.
The decision should be according to what we want Washington DC proper to look like and to feel like. If we want a skyline the level it is, the height restrictions should stay as they are. Do we want skyscrapers? Do we want to look like other high-rise cities? Maybe. It’s a decision.
Of course, in a high-rise DC, there will eventually be a well-dressed, security cleared person, licensed to own rocket launchers and assault weapons, sitting by his/her window on the 35th floor overlooking the White House, waiting for the right moment to shoot.
Read more
—B. Becker, Unknown (September 25, 2013)
The decision should be according to what we want Washington DC proper to look like and to feel like. If we want a skyline the level it is, the height restrictions should stay as they are. Do we want skyscrapers? Do we want to look like other high-rise cities? Maybe. It’s a decision.
Of course, in a high-rise DC, there will eventually be a well-dressed, security cleared person, licensed to own rocket launchers and assault weapons, sitting by his/her window on the 35th floor overlooking the White House, waiting for the right moment to shoot.
Read more
—B. Becker, Unknown (September 25, 2013)
I've reviewed both NCPC and DC inputs. It appears that there is no intent to provide Congress with a joint recommendation, which puts both parties at risk because it forces Congress to integrate the two inputs. Recommend NCPC and DC develop a jointly acceptable recommendation, in accordance with Congressional intent.
With regard. . . to DC's input: the District goes to great lengths to explain that they need to grow their tax base, so they can continue to provide city services and affordable housing to all District residents. However, their recommendation to increase heights to accommodate further high-rise development would seem to attract only high-income residents and high-paying businesses. That this influx of wealth could somehow prevent rising living costs seems misguided at best, or a blatant attempt at wealth redistribution (tax the rich so we can buy affordable housing!) at worst. At least in the media, DC has been reported to be running an annual surplus anyway, so this rationale for height increases is unconvincing as currently structured.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (September 25, 2013)
With regard. . . to DC's input: the District goes to great lengths to explain that they need to grow their tax base, so they can continue to provide city services and affordable housing to all District residents. However, their recommendation to increase heights to accommodate further high-rise development would seem to attract only high-income residents and high-paying businesses. That this influx of wealth could somehow prevent rising living costs seems misguided at best, or a blatant attempt at wealth redistribution (tax the rich so we can buy affordable housing!) at worst. At least in the media, DC has been reported to be running an annual surplus anyway, so this rationale for height increases is unconvincing as currently structured.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (September 25, 2013)
I am looking for the DCOP draft Height findings and report. I understand that it was to be posted on the NCPC website this week.
—Eleanor Budic, Washington, DC (September 21, 2013)
—Eleanor Budic, Washington, DC (September 21, 2013)
At ANC 2D's September 16th Meeting, the following action was taken endorsing the Coalitions efforts. As always, David Bender, PhD (ANC 2D, Chair/Secretary)
8.2 Height of Buildings Act….Sally Berk; Following a presentation and brief discussion; Commissioner Lamar moved that; ANC 2D agrees to support The Historic Districts Coalition endorsement to “Make. . . No Changes to the Height Act†and agrees to be a signatory on future correspondence which states this position. Seconded Approved
Read more
—David Bender, PhD (ANC 2D, Chair/Secretary), Washington, DC (ANC 2D) (September 18, 2013)
8.2 Height of Buildings Act….Sally Berk; Following a presentation and brief discussion; Commissioner Lamar moved that; ANC 2D agrees to support The Historic Districts Coalition endorsement to “Make. . . No Changes to the Height Act†and agrees to be a signatory on future correspondence which states this position. Seconded Approved
Read more
—David Bender, PhD (ANC 2D, Chair/Secretary), Washington, DC (ANC 2D) (September 18, 2013)
Please don't raise the height limit on buildings in the District. The relatively low building heights are part of the charm of the nation's capital, much as is true in another livable capital, Paris. As Paris has constructed its high rises across the river at La Defense, so let us have ours in Rosslyn, Arlington and. . . Crystal City. Adding air space to increase income is a bad idea.
Read more
—Alison Daifuku, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
Read more
—Alison Daifuku, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
I am a DC resident who relocated from Toronto twenty years ago, and am very much opposed to tinkering with Washington DC building height restrictions. The height restrictions have served the city extremely well over the years. Thanks to the farsightedness of the creators of these restrictions, Washington DC doesn't have dark canyons, but is illuminated. . . with natural light. Plus, it has a distinct, unique and beautiful skyline.
Moreover, it isn't scarred with buildings that were once de rigeur, but failed to age gracefully - like Chicago's infamous Robert Taylor Homes. Its neighborhoods are also protected from developers erecting high rise apartments that tower over smaller homes and leave old time residents in the shadows.
Finally, to those who claim that the height restrictions need to be lifted to accommodate growth - do some basic research. In 1950, Washington DC was home to 800,000 people, who all lived here WITH the existing height restrictions. That is nearly 200,000 MORE people than currently reside in the District.
The height restriction is part of what makes Washington, DC such a special place. ALL Washingtonians - rich and poor, enjoy bright skies and an abundance of natural light. Don't jeopardize this priceless amenity so a select few developers can blot the landscape and ruin it forever.
To those that want to live in Manhattan, Dubai or Hong Kong - please move there now. But don't ruin our city because you have height-envy.
Read more
—AK, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
Moreover, it isn't scarred with buildings that were once de rigeur, but failed to age gracefully - like Chicago's infamous Robert Taylor Homes. Its neighborhoods are also protected from developers erecting high rise apartments that tower over smaller homes and leave old time residents in the shadows.
Finally, to those who claim that the height restrictions need to be lifted to accommodate growth - do some basic research. In 1950, Washington DC was home to 800,000 people, who all lived here WITH the existing height restrictions. That is nearly 200,000 MORE people than currently reside in the District.
The height restriction is part of what makes Washington, DC such a special place. ALL Washingtonians - rich and poor, enjoy bright skies and an abundance of natural light. Don't jeopardize this priceless amenity so a select few developers can blot the landscape and ruin it forever.
To those that want to live in Manhattan, Dubai or Hong Kong - please move there now. But don't ruin our city because you have height-envy.
Read more
—AK, Washington, DC (September 17, 2013)
If we can have what the person below me calls a La Defense across the river in Virginia why not have it across the river in SE dc. The answer is it makes no sense what so ever. Also there are 21 buildings in la defense which exceed the Roslyn height limit witch is 400 feet.. . .
Read more
—Trevon Agustin Johnson, Washington DC (September 15, 2013)
Read more
—Trevon Agustin Johnson, Washington DC (September 15, 2013)
While I'm not currently a D.C. resident, I have been following the debate about the D.C. height limits for a long time. I feel the Height of Buildings Act is very outdated and harmful to both the United States and for residents of the capital. The restrictive limit makes D.C. an unnecessarily expensive place to live. . . and to work. It even makes hotel prices much higher, which restricts the accessibility for our of town visitors and tourist to enjoy the city. Having taller buildings will not diminish or denigrate the views of our public monuments. Central Park is not harmed by being surrounded by tall buildings, nor are other historic monuments and buildings. They retain their importance, and tall buildings allow even more people to enjoy those monuments.
Taller buildings will bring more jobs to D.C. and make it a more appealing place to live. It would also be likely to help the government attract better civil servants, and therefore improve our government. I am currently a law student, and I hope to live and work in D.C. soon. The city will be much more vibrant, accessible, attractive, and enjoyable to all if the outdated restrictions on heights is drastically liberalized. Thank you for your time!
Read more
—Zachary Ferguson, Chapel Hill, NC (September 14, 2013)
Taller buildings will bring more jobs to D.C. and make it a more appealing place to live. It would also be likely to help the government attract better civil servants, and therefore improve our government. I am currently a law student, and I hope to live and work in D.C. soon. The city will be much more vibrant, accessible, attractive, and enjoyable to all if the outdated restrictions on heights is drastically liberalized. Thank you for your time!
Read more
—Zachary Ferguson, Chapel Hill, NC (September 14, 2013)
Dear Commissioners,
I must voice my strong opposition to the proposal to undo the 1910 Height Act.
There has been steady drum beat for this for years from developers and District officials.
One of the perfections of Washington is the height of the buildings.
This proposal seems to be motivated by nothing. . . but greed, increasing the value of buildings in certain parts of the city and the taxes and emoluments that will be available to officials.
It is a toe in the door. DC has been wonderfully served by the Act, which has helped make the city one of the most beautiful in the US. I beg you not to aid those who wish to change it. Kind regards, Peter Waddell.
Read more
—Peter Waddell, Washington DC (September 14, 2013)
I must voice my strong opposition to the proposal to undo the 1910 Height Act.
There has been steady drum beat for this for years from developers and District officials.
One of the perfections of Washington is the height of the buildings.
This proposal seems to be motivated by nothing. . . but greed, increasing the value of buildings in certain parts of the city and the taxes and emoluments that will be available to officials.
It is a toe in the door. DC has been wonderfully served by the Act, which has helped make the city one of the most beautiful in the US. I beg you not to aid those who wish to change it. Kind regards, Peter Waddell.
Read more
—Peter Waddell, Washington DC (September 14, 2013)
I think D.C should follow the way London is building and changing their city around. London has done a good job of keeping the views of their landmarks viewable while building skyscrapers around them. I think raising the height act in the city would benefit Washington in the long run. IF passed the building coeds could. . . be strict in certain parts of the city so that important landmarks wont be blocked. It would be nice to see 20 to 30 something story buildings scattered through the city but at the same time not OVER doing it. I am all for change and if D.C wants the population to continue to raise changing the height act is what they should do.
Read more
—Reggie, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
Read more
—Reggie, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
Please raise the height in DC. I feel as though the city is due for a change and also having taller buildings would lower the rent rates for apartments and office space due to the fact that more units would be able to go into office/residential buildings. For the longest time London, England had the same. . . height restriction and now they are building skyscrapers that actually enhances cities beauty. It would also attract major company's and businesses to build in DC. We don't need New York City size skyscrapers but it wouldn't hurt to build 20 to 30 story buildings in certain parts of city. RASIE THE HEIGHT ACT!!
Read more
—unknown, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
Read more
—unknown, washington dc (September 14, 2013)
The first thing out of town visitors express is delight at the low rise character of our city. It is wonderful to not be overwhelmed with tall buildings that block the sky.
Please do not cave in to real estate developer money and pressure to raise height limits and create an over crowded, congested. . . environment.
Lets show pride in our nation's capitol city and continue with height restrictions as envisioned by city planners with foresight and good judgement.
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (September 13, 2013)
Please do not cave in to real estate developer money and pressure to raise height limits and create an over crowded, congested. . . environment.
Lets show pride in our nation's capitol city and continue with height restrictions as envisioned by city planners with foresight and good judgement.
Read more
—Deborah Kavruck, Washington, DC (September 13, 2013)
One of the most beautiful and livable cities in the world is Paris. They have a height limit about like DC's. It is a city on a human scale, like DC is now. Citizens love it, tourists love it. Increasing the height limit will drown the monuments, the White House, the Congress and every other beautiful. . . building. Changing the height limit will result in wholesale demolition of the buildings that make Washington Washington. I will then be just another city with developeritis.
n
Read more
—Severne Johnson, Kingston, WA (September 12, 2013)
n
Read more
—Severne Johnson, Kingston, WA (September 12, 2013)
Having attended Phases 2 & 3 Public Meetings I am convinced that Approach 1: No height increase is the best course of action for D.C. now and for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, the Zoning Board has made many exceptions to existing height limit and they have produced a poor precedent. Even in the vicintity of Metro. . . and other transit centers height limits beyond 110 ft. and 130 ft. are unnecessary. They produce a congested city environment rather than one with open vistas and the hope of reducing population densities; they increase temperatures in summer and lower them in winter. They add to greenhouse gases that are producing a thermal blanketwith high CO2 levels in the mid-atlantic instead of reducing them and placing our efforts behind truly "going green" in deed and not just in rhetoric. Limiting the density of brick, concrete, mortar, stone and glass will help to keep Washington a model of responsible and attractive architecture long into the future.
Read more
—Eugene Abravanel, D.C. (September 10, 2013)
Read more
—Eugene Abravanel, D.C. (September 10, 2013)
Based on the earlier presentations, utilizing Approach 2 Street-to-Height Relation seems the more promising approach for certain commercial areas of the District. The most successful commercial corridors appear to be those with commercial uses lining both sides of the street or right-of-way. Each side of the street benefits from the vitality of other. . . . This relationship tends to weaken as the right-of-way widen. The “canyon†effect of significantly increasing the height along narrower rights-of-way could actual detract from that vitality. It would also be more difficult for pedestrians at street level to truly appreciate the taller structures. Instituting a street-to-height to 1:1.2 or greater along wider rights-of-way (perhaps wider than 90 feet?) would have less impact because each side of the street is less dependent on the other. It would also be important to institute a comprehensive program of streetscape improvements such as trees other street furnitures at the same time to create or reinforce the pedestrian experience at street level (i.e., below the third floor).
Read more
—Arthur Jackson, Silver Spring, MD (August 30, 2013)
Read more
—Arthur Jackson, Silver Spring, MD (August 30, 2013)
TENLEYTOWN NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION
Revising the Height Act of 1910
WHEREAS the Height Act of 1910 is a federal statute governing the District of Columbia, which restricts residential buildings to 90 feet and business to a height equal to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet (generally totaling 130 feet), plus some heights are. . . extended to 160 feet along portions of Pennsylvania Avenue.
WHEREAS reviewing the Height Act to determine whether any revisions are desirable or necessary is understandable but that does not automatically mean amendments are necessary.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of monuments that should continue to be showcased through zoning and height restrictions.
WHEREAS in the areas around the White House, Capitol and federal agencies, height restrictions have been praised as enhancing security for the federal government.
WHEREAS Washington is one of the most attractive and lovely cities in America not only because of its monuments but also because of its tree canopy and open spaces and because pedestrians can see the sun, the sky and the stars.
WHEREAS some have proposed increasing heights from “L’Enfant to Tenleytownâ€, which would include neighborhoods across the entire spectrum of density and existing height.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of neighborhoods and each neighborhood has different and, in many instances, very desirable characteristics, which should be recognized and preserved in any consideration of amendments to the Height Act.
WHEREAS proposals to increase height along the main Avenues, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, New York, and others would dwarf residences abutting the avenues that are two story single family detached in some areas but might be harmonious with multi-story office buildings and warehouses in others.
WHEREAS any increase in height for buildings does not solely increase tax revenue it also would result in new infrastructure demands on services, such as schools, public transit, sewer, and water.
WHEREAS incentives through increased heights everywhere would not result in encouraging development in any particular area but rather would merely allow taller buildings wherever a greater profit might be realized in already flourishing areas.
WHEREAS increased heights may result in a few very tall buildings with large capacity absorbing such a large percent of the demand that development would be deterred across the rest of the city, which has benefited from a dispersal of development activity throughout the city.
WHEREAS there is unused potential available now that can accommodate new growth without any amendments to the Act or to DC zoning because current height restrictions allow more development in many areas.
Be it RESOLVED that the Tenleytown Neighbors Association supports preserving the overall building limits established in the Height Act because of the extraordinary contributions these restrictions have made to the distinctive character of the city of Washington.
TNA Sept. 17, 2012
Read more
—TENLEYTOWN NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, Tenleytown, Washington, DC (August 30, 2013)
Revising the Height Act of 1910
WHEREAS the Height Act of 1910 is a federal statute governing the District of Columbia, which restricts residential buildings to 90 feet and business to a height equal to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet (generally totaling 130 feet), plus some heights are. . . extended to 160 feet along portions of Pennsylvania Avenue.
WHEREAS reviewing the Height Act to determine whether any revisions are desirable or necessary is understandable but that does not automatically mean amendments are necessary.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of monuments that should continue to be showcased through zoning and height restrictions.
WHEREAS in the areas around the White House, Capitol and federal agencies, height restrictions have been praised as enhancing security for the federal government.
WHEREAS Washington is one of the most attractive and lovely cities in America not only because of its monuments but also because of its tree canopy and open spaces and because pedestrians can see the sun, the sky and the stars.
WHEREAS some have proposed increasing heights from “L’Enfant to Tenleytownâ€, which would include neighborhoods across the entire spectrum of density and existing height.
WHEREAS Washington is a city of neighborhoods and each neighborhood has different and, in many instances, very desirable characteristics, which should be recognized and preserved in any consideration of amendments to the Height Act.
WHEREAS proposals to increase height along the main Avenues, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, New York, and others would dwarf residences abutting the avenues that are two story single family detached in some areas but might be harmonious with multi-story office buildings and warehouses in others.
WHEREAS any increase in height for buildings does not solely increase tax revenue it also would result in new infrastructure demands on services, such as schools, public transit, sewer, and water.
WHEREAS incentives through increased heights everywhere would not result in encouraging development in any particular area but rather would merely allow taller buildings wherever a greater profit might be realized in already flourishing areas.
WHEREAS increased heights may result in a few very tall buildings with large capacity absorbing such a large percent of the demand that development would be deterred across the rest of the city, which has benefited from a dispersal of development activity throughout the city.
WHEREAS there is unused potential available now that can accommodate new growth without any amendments to the Act or to DC zoning because current height restrictions allow more development in many areas.
Be it RESOLVED that the Tenleytown Neighbors Association supports preserving the overall building limits established in the Height Act because of the extraordinary contributions these restrictions have made to the distinctive character of the city of Washington.
TNA Sept. 17, 2012
Read more
—TENLEYTOWN NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, Tenleytown, Washington, DC (August 30, 2013)
One of the main reasons I chose DC as my home is because the buildings are the height that they are. Very few urban places have this unique characteristic, of enabling its residents to see the sky even while in the heart of the city. If this were to go through, I and my. . . family would move - it means that much to us.
Read more
—Kendra Moesle, Washington, DC (August 29, 2013)
Read more
—Kendra Moesle, Washington, DC (August 29, 2013)
When and where will the September 2013 public meetings be held? It's time to get the word out!
—Eleanor Budic, Washington DC NW (August 23, 2013)
—Eleanor Budic, Washington DC NW (August 23, 2013)
DC height limit should be modified.
One reason is that is that it makes no sense for the limit to be city wide.For instance
"There are 500 foot radio towers in tenley and these don’t seem to have ruined the views of the Capitol, Washington Monument or other important landmarks one bit. We have invested. . . billions of dollars in metro-rail—I don’t understand why we can’t have 15-20 story buildings in places like Friendship Heights, Georgia Avenue and within walking distance of some of the other more distant metro stations in DC. There are already 15-20 story buildings directly across the street on the Maryland side of Friendship Heights. The buildings on the DC side should be able to be that tall.
This would not impact views one bit but it would allow more people to live within walking distance of transit, it would encourage more economic activity, and it would expand DC’s tax-base." (Urban Turf Blog Comment)
Read more
—Eugenia Navaro, Washington DC (August 21, 2013)
One reason is that is that it makes no sense for the limit to be city wide.For instance
"There are 500 foot radio towers in tenley and these don’t seem to have ruined the views of the Capitol, Washington Monument or other important landmarks one bit. We have invested. . . billions of dollars in metro-rail—I don’t understand why we can’t have 15-20 story buildings in places like Friendship Heights, Georgia Avenue and within walking distance of some of the other more distant metro stations in DC. There are already 15-20 story buildings directly across the street on the Maryland side of Friendship Heights. The buildings on the DC side should be able to be that tall.
This would not impact views one bit but it would allow more people to live within walking distance of transit, it would encourage more economic activity, and it would expand DC’s tax-base." (Urban Turf Blog Comment)
Read more
—Eugenia Navaro, Washington DC (August 21, 2013)
I believe that the current Washington DC skyline regulations - keeping maximum building heights below the heights of the Capitol Building and other monuments (obviously we leave the Washington Monument out of this discussion) are the correct standards and should be maintained. I do not want my nation's capital to become a mass of coolie. . . cutter buildings all reaching the same height and destroying the uniqueness and views of the current capital city.
Read more
—Bill Nierstedt, Garwood, NJ 07027 (August 20, 2013)
Read more
—Bill Nierstedt, Garwood, NJ 07027 (August 20, 2013)
The comments below were copied off the Urban Turf blog and express my views about the blandness of commercial architecture in DC as a result of the height limit.
"When you don't have the height issue, it's much easier to make a building that has different forms," architect Eric Colbert, who has designed dozens of. . . multifamily buildings throughout the District, told UrbanTurf.
The problem, explained Colbert, is related not just to the height restriction, but also the floor area ratio (FAR). Because the cost of the land is based on the amount of square footage that one is allowed to build, developers feel compelled to build to the full FAR, which often means building out to the property line and up to the maximum height. This creates the box effect that is so common in new DC buildings.
"There is an incredible amount of pressure on the architect to design something that maximizes the salable or leasable square footage," shared Colbert. "If you were to raise the height but not change FAR, it would allow more sculpting in the facade."
Read more
—Steve Strauss, Washington, DC (August 20, 2013)
"When you don't have the height issue, it's much easier to make a building that has different forms," architect Eric Colbert, who has designed dozens of. . . multifamily buildings throughout the District, told UrbanTurf.
The problem, explained Colbert, is related not just to the height restriction, but also the floor area ratio (FAR). Because the cost of the land is based on the amount of square footage that one is allowed to build, developers feel compelled to build to the full FAR, which often means building out to the property line and up to the maximum height. This creates the box effect that is so common in new DC buildings.
"There is an incredible amount of pressure on the architect to design something that maximizes the salable or leasable square footage," shared Colbert. "If you were to raise the height but not change FAR, it would allow more sculpting in the facade."
Read more
—Steve Strauss, Washington, DC (August 20, 2013)
I would like to say that I believe the height city's areas should have their own restrictions but that this should not be through a federal law that applies city wide. I believe that this should be addressed by the people of DC. Like it is in other capitals around the world. This way. . . we would determine what heights specific areas should have because not every part of the city is the same. London has done good job in that each district has different zoning laws for each of its 32 districts. For intance in westmister (where big ben is heights are relatively low where as near st pauls cathedral there are taaller bulidings but this is in way that the views of St pauls are protected. Also there beutifull buidings along hyde park that are taller than what is permited by our height and yet this dosent make London feel like new York. Also it sis important to note that even if this act where to be removed the citys heights would depend on a particular neighboorhods zonning laws and desires. Which has been the case even under this act in many areas buildings have remained lower than the allowable height limit due to zonning laws take m street in goergetown the current zooning laws are what govern here. So it is safe to say what ever happens to the height act this dosent mean that georgetown will have a burj kahalifa for aesthetic reason as well as economic and it does not mean that the city will have a skysline will turn into new york. I believe if analyse this carefully we can find ways to allow the city to raise heights in particular areas thus having an increment in anual tax revenue with out hindering the city sklyine.
Read more
—Stephen Rivers, Congress Heights (August 20, 2013)
Read more
—Stephen Rivers, Congress Heights (August 20, 2013)
Who in Congress has come up with this lamebrain idea of changing the height restrictions in Washington,DC? Who is trying to despoil one of the most beautiful "horizontal" cities in the world? Did this come from lobbyists supporting the construction industry or what? There is plenty of room to grow without this move. I. . . love the beauty of our nation's capitol. Don't let the politicians -whomsoever they may be - ruin it! Virgil Miedema
Read more
—Virgil Miedema, Hanover, New Hampshire (August 20, 2013)
Read more
—Virgil Miedema, Hanover, New Hampshire (August 20, 2013)
I am strongly opposed to any changes in the Height Act, and I also have several serious concerns about the work that has been presented to the public in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 meetings.
When I first came to Washington, after having lived and worked in New York City, I was immediately struck. . . by the difference in the scale and how refreshing it was to work in downtown Washington, with its openness, light and air. The ability to see the sky as one walks through downtown, walking along streets where trees can thrive, and our iconic horizontal skyline should not sacrificed.
The October 3, 2012 letter from Chairman Issa to Mayor Gray and Chairman Bryant called for the exploration of strategic changes in the Height Act to take into account the impact on “compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods,†along with other factors. Consideration of compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods appears to have been ignored as a guiding principle. This is an important consideration and must be addressed.
I find the Economic Feasibility Study to be problematic. I can only comment on the PowerPoint presentation, since the actual study is still not available, so it is impossible to critique the assumptions or methodology. The study seems to be looking at whether increased heights in various sections of the District would be profitable. The potential for increased profits then seems to be the basis for choosing areas for increased heights and density, without consideration of the compatibility with the nearby neighborhoods, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or whether the infrastructure can support the increased density. While it is useful to know whether developers are likely to build taller buildings in certain areas if the allowed heights were increased citywide, and that might help to ascertain the impact on development patterns in the District of a citywide change in the height limit, the potential for increased profits in the listed areas should not be the basis for determining where the height limit should be raised. The analysis only seems to take into account whether the current rents and market demand can support the increased costs associated with increased heights, and does not consider whether increased heights in those areas would have a negative impact on surrounding neighborhoods and stress an already strained infrastructure, or whether allowing increased heights in those areas might divert development from other areas which might benefit from some increased development within the current zoning and Height Act envelopes, as NoMa has benefited from the current height limits.
In the presentation, initially, it was stated that only areas designated as high density in the Comprehensive Plan land use map would be considered, but the presentation included both high density and medium density areas, a point that was made explicit later in the presentation. Yet, it is clear from the descriptions of the medium density residential and commercial Comprehensive Plan land use categories, that medium-density areas should never have been considered as candidates for increases in the allowable heights. The Comprehensive Plan describes the medium density residential areas as “neighborhoods and areas where mid-rise (4-7 stories) apartment buildings are the predominant use. Pockets of low and moderate density housing might also exist within these areas.†[225.5] The Medium Density Commercial category is described as having “buildings generally larger and/or taller than those in moderate density commercial areas, but generally do not exceed eight stories in height,†[225.11] where the height in the moderate density commercial designation is described as generally not exceeding five stories in height [225.10]. Clearly, the areas designated as Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan should not have been included in the analysis and, for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the discussion should be limited to areas designated as High Density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Further, there seems to be no substantiated justification for increasing the height limit even in those areas designated as High Density on the Comprehensive Plan land use map. There are ample development opportunities within the envelope of the current Height Act, and even with the current zoning envelope. There is no need to increase the heights allowable by the Height Act in order to accommodate anticipated growth.
Read more
—Marilyn Simon, Friendship Heights, DC (August 18, 2013)
When I first came to Washington, after having lived and worked in New York City, I was immediately struck. . . by the difference in the scale and how refreshing it was to work in downtown Washington, with its openness, light and air. The ability to see the sky as one walks through downtown, walking along streets where trees can thrive, and our iconic horizontal skyline should not sacrificed.
The October 3, 2012 letter from Chairman Issa to Mayor Gray and Chairman Bryant called for the exploration of strategic changes in the Height Act to take into account the impact on “compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods,†along with other factors. Consideration of compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods appears to have been ignored as a guiding principle. This is an important consideration and must be addressed.
I find the Economic Feasibility Study to be problematic. I can only comment on the PowerPoint presentation, since the actual study is still not available, so it is impossible to critique the assumptions or methodology. The study seems to be looking at whether increased heights in various sections of the District would be profitable. The potential for increased profits then seems to be the basis for choosing areas for increased heights and density, without consideration of the compatibility with the nearby neighborhoods, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or whether the infrastructure can support the increased density. While it is useful to know whether developers are likely to build taller buildings in certain areas if the allowed heights were increased citywide, and that might help to ascertain the impact on development patterns in the District of a citywide change in the height limit, the potential for increased profits in the listed areas should not be the basis for determining where the height limit should be raised. The analysis only seems to take into account whether the current rents and market demand can support the increased costs associated with increased heights, and does not consider whether increased heights in those areas would have a negative impact on surrounding neighborhoods and stress an already strained infrastructure, or whether allowing increased heights in those areas might divert development from other areas which might benefit from some increased development within the current zoning and Height Act envelopes, as NoMa has benefited from the current height limits.
In the presentation, initially, it was stated that only areas designated as high density in the Comprehensive Plan land use map would be considered, but the presentation included both high density and medium density areas, a point that was made explicit later in the presentation. Yet, it is clear from the descriptions of the medium density residential and commercial Comprehensive Plan land use categories, that medium-density areas should never have been considered as candidates for increases in the allowable heights. The Comprehensive Plan describes the medium density residential areas as “neighborhoods and areas where mid-rise (4-7 stories) apartment buildings are the predominant use. Pockets of low and moderate density housing might also exist within these areas.†[225.5] The Medium Density Commercial category is described as having “buildings generally larger and/or taller than those in moderate density commercial areas, but generally do not exceed eight stories in height,†[225.11] where the height in the moderate density commercial designation is described as generally not exceeding five stories in height [225.10]. Clearly, the areas designated as Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan should not have been included in the analysis and, for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the discussion should be limited to areas designated as High Density in the Comprehensive Plan.
Further, there seems to be no substantiated justification for increasing the height limit even in those areas designated as High Density on the Comprehensive Plan land use map. There are ample development opportunities within the envelope of the current Height Act, and even with the current zoning envelope. There is no need to increase the heights allowable by the Height Act in order to accommodate anticipated growth.
Read more
—Marilyn Simon, Friendship Heights, DC (August 18, 2013)
As Dc native I belive that 225 ft under Aproach 3c is better than our current one size fits all law. Yet I belive that a 250ft. limit should apply in the Lefant city with consideration to viewshed as previously mentioned. I belive London had done a great job in maintaing the precence of its symbolic. . . buildings and being able to buid high while ensuring this.
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence , Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
Outside the Lefant city as se dc native I belive that across the anacostia dc should be able to build free of height restrictions. We have to remember that zoning laws still exist regardless of what is done to the height act. So if we remove it from across the river it is the city that will have option of rasing heights higher in this area if need be. This area is has been neglected for years slowing it to build up will enable dc to generate more revenue, it will alow the city to reap the benefits that Arlington has been having with out affecting the skyline. If arlington has been able to benefit greatly economically due to no height restriction why cant dc do the same to areas of undeveloped land across the anacostia.
Please take this in into consideration and permit our city to have greater economic growth.
Read more
—Devin Lawrence , Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
Heights can and should be raised in DC with out hindering the character of our city. This can done even by rasing heights with in the Lefant city to 275ft. Especially is a view shed study is performed is done in addition. In add buildings have all ready tall towers have been built . . . arcross the river in Arlington and this has not changed the character of the Lefant city so why would raising heights in areas in dc that further away from the monumental core not be ok aswell.
Given that having taller buildings across the river has not changed the skyline of the Lefant city why not let dc grow east of the anacostia. Having been raised there I can say that there's undeveloped land that could be used wisely. Raising here would enable our city to have greater growth while not having our skyline of monumental dc loosing its character. Why not have tall buildings in areas such as Poplar Point and other areas south east. This would help generate revenue revenue that could be used to further improve parks, schools, transportation among other things.
Read more
—Martin Murphy, Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
Given that having taller buildings across the river has not changed the skyline of the Lefant city why not let dc grow east of the anacostia. Having been raised there I can say that there's undeveloped land that could be used wisely. Raising here would enable our city to have greater growth while not having our skyline of monumental dc loosing its character. Why not have tall buildings in areas such as Poplar Point and other areas south east. This would help generate revenue revenue that could be used to further improve parks, schools, transportation among other things.
Read more
—Martin Murphy, Washington DC (August 18, 2013)
The current Height Limit should be retained as is with no changes. The city will look like Rosslyn and worse if there is a break in the tradition and the city will be much less livable if there is a change.
—R Palmer, DC (August 15, 2013)
—R Palmer, DC (August 15, 2013)
I grew up in Northern Virginia, and was constantly in DC, and used to wander as a youth in the corridors of the Capitol, the Smithsonian, etc. My mother was a docent at the White House. The city has great symbolic meaning for me, and that includes our view of it.
What I. . . didn't see in the comments I read is the perspective that this city, and the view of this city commonly presented, such as in photographs and on television, is almost invariably the view from heights of Virginia across the expanse of the L'Enfant grid.
It is a view of our "government." Ordered. Equivalent, with notable exceptions (The Washington Monument, Capitol Hill). It is a "beautiful" and symbolic view in its own right. Let's not forget it was modeled after Paris, at least at the macroscopic level (would that L'Enfant had included the "quiet backs" of, say, the Latin quarter. C'est dommage. . .)
To interpose tall commercial structures within that view (say by developing Chinatown, or SE, or north of H street, or east of the Supreme Court), subordinates the world's perspective of our national government, as inferior to commercial things. Sleek tall shiny glass buildings of 40, 50, 80 stories; humble government crawling about the floor at their feet. Which is important now? The answer, psychologically, is obvious. Without the commercialism, we are all humble, as we should be, in service to our larger country.
That perspective (both literally and figuratively), that commercial things are more important than our government, should never be permitted to exist in the American or World public's sense of "Washington."
It is a cost to our prestige that is unrecoverable and reduces the city to "ordinary-ness." We would do ourselves a grave disservice, and damage our "brand" in the world at a cost which could never be recovered in the short range economics of "density" and "home rule."
We're playing the Long Game here. This is about a perspective and posture that must perform on behalf of the Nation and endure, not as architectural form, but as a defining idea, for centuries. Play the Short Game to appease nattering local residents or corporate interests, or feel good planners (my profession), and we lose the ability of the city, the mission of the city, to project the idea of America, the sense of what we value in America to our ever renewing, every accreting citizenry and to those who would aspire to join us in our mission throughout the world.
Don't raise the height limit. It is a choice from which we could never recover. It would be the death knell of our deserved sense of American Exceptionalism.
Daniel Peterson, PE
formerally of McLean, Va
now South Orange, NJ
Read more
—Daniel Peterson, South Orange, NJ (August 15, 2013)
What I. . . didn't see in the comments I read is the perspective that this city, and the view of this city commonly presented, such as in photographs and on television, is almost invariably the view from heights of Virginia across the expanse of the L'Enfant grid.
It is a view of our "government." Ordered. Equivalent, with notable exceptions (The Washington Monument, Capitol Hill). It is a "beautiful" and symbolic view in its own right. Let's not forget it was modeled after Paris, at least at the macroscopic level (would that L'Enfant had included the "quiet backs" of, say, the Latin quarter. C'est dommage. . .)
To interpose tall commercial structures within that view (say by developing Chinatown, or SE, or north of H street, or east of the Supreme Court), subordinates the world's perspective of our national government, as inferior to commercial things. Sleek tall shiny glass buildings of 40, 50, 80 stories; humble government crawling about the floor at their feet. Which is important now? The answer, psychologically, is obvious. Without the commercialism, we are all humble, as we should be, in service to our larger country.
That perspective (both literally and figuratively), that commercial things are more important than our government, should never be permitted to exist in the American or World public's sense of "Washington."
It is a cost to our prestige that is unrecoverable and reduces the city to "ordinary-ness." We would do ourselves a grave disservice, and damage our "brand" in the world at a cost which could never be recovered in the short range economics of "density" and "home rule."
We're playing the Long Game here. This is about a perspective and posture that must perform on behalf of the Nation and endure, not as architectural form, but as a defining idea, for centuries. Play the Short Game to appease nattering local residents or corporate interests, or feel good planners (my profession), and we lose the ability of the city, the mission of the city, to project the idea of America, the sense of what we value in America to our ever renewing, every accreting citizenry and to those who would aspire to join us in our mission throughout the world.
Don't raise the height limit. It is a choice from which we could never recover. It would be the death knell of our deserved sense of American Exceptionalism.
Daniel Peterson, PE
formerally of McLean, Va
now South Orange, NJ
Read more
—Daniel Peterson, South Orange, NJ (August 15, 2013)
The Office of Planning had significant omissions in its final phase 2 meeting for the Height Master Plan of DC last night. These glaring omissions need to be corrected, and public comment allowed, before OP moves on to Draft Recommendations for changing the Height Act.
Although the Office of Planning was tasked. . . by Congress to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods, national security concerns, input from local residents...," OP did not provide a single slide in its presentation, nor could staffers direct me to a single image in its modeling study, from the ground level of a single-family residential street showing what our neighborhoods would look like if areas identified as medium or high density in the Comprehensive Plan were allowed to build up to heights allowed under the Height Act now or a more relaxed Height Act in the future. In other words, OP completely avoided showing any direct impact of height increases on single-family areas.
OP showed multiple slides of models of the city with various permutations of increased height that might possibly occur either under the existing Height Act or with a more relaxed Height Act. Attendees saw many vista-type images, eg. from Meridian Hill Park, or the Air Force Memorial. We saw also long street view images, eg. looking down PA Ave towards the Capitol. OP boasted that it had hundreds more images in its modeling study.
This glaring absence of modeling images from the residents' street-level perspective is inexcusable. I have confirmed with NCPC that the choice of images created for the modeling study was up to OP, and was not limited or dictated by NCPC. I can only conclude that either OP inadvertently left out the residents' point of view, or OP deliberately chose not to include images of the immediate impact of increased heights in residential areas. In either case, whether by an act of omission or commission, OP has shown a disregard for residents in single-family neighborhoods.
(OP might suggest that the slide from the Frederick Douglass House offers impact on a residential area. However, I would suggest that because the Frederick Douglass House is up on a hill, the modeling does not match the conditions in a residential area. The Frederick Douglass House offers more of a vista. Neighborhoods where the ground level of the new construction and existing homes are at the same levels would have a very different look.)
Before OP goes forward with the Phase 3 Draft Recommendations, it needs to provide residents the opportunity to see models of changes to current heights in streets adjacent to residential areas. The models should do what they did for vistas and long streetscapes, that is, show changes that could result from allowing maximum heights under the Height Act and from building to increased heights under a relaxed Height Act.
Here is a sampling of locations that could give Ward 3 and 4 residents a sense of what the new heights would mean to single-family homes near high or medium-density areas. I used Wards 3 and 4 only because those are the areas with which I am most familiar, having lived there for 14 years.
1. Harrison and 45th St NW
2. Harrison and 44th St NW
3. Fessenden and 43rd NW
4. 43rd St NW between Jennifer and Military
5. 42nd St between Garrison and Fessenden
6. Military and 38th St NW
7. Alton and 35th St NW
8. Van Ness and Reno Road NW
9. Cumberland and 36th St NW
10. Holly and 12th St NW
11. 9th and Hemlock NW
12. Aspen and 13th Pl NW
Other wards should also have the opportunity to suggest locations for models, so that they may have a sense of the possible changes to residential streets that are only one or two blocks off a high or medium-density designation on the Comprehensive Plan.
Please do not allow OP to go forward with its Phase 3 Draft Recommendations until it has provided such models and ample time for public presentation and comment. Otherwise, OP will be ignoring not only its citizens, but also Congress' request to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods...[and] input from local residents."
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Chevy Chase, DC (August 15, 2013)
Although the Office of Planning was tasked. . . by Congress to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods, national security concerns, input from local residents...," OP did not provide a single slide in its presentation, nor could staffers direct me to a single image in its modeling study, from the ground level of a single-family residential street showing what our neighborhoods would look like if areas identified as medium or high density in the Comprehensive Plan were allowed to build up to heights allowed under the Height Act now or a more relaxed Height Act in the future. In other words, OP completely avoided showing any direct impact of height increases on single-family areas.
OP showed multiple slides of models of the city with various permutations of increased height that might possibly occur either under the existing Height Act or with a more relaxed Height Act. Attendees saw many vista-type images, eg. from Meridian Hill Park, or the Air Force Memorial. We saw also long street view images, eg. looking down PA Ave towards the Capitol. OP boasted that it had hundreds more images in its modeling study.
This glaring absence of modeling images from the residents' street-level perspective is inexcusable. I have confirmed with NCPC that the choice of images created for the modeling study was up to OP, and was not limited or dictated by NCPC. I can only conclude that either OP inadvertently left out the residents' point of view, or OP deliberately chose not to include images of the immediate impact of increased heights in residential areas. In either case, whether by an act of omission or commission, OP has shown a disregard for residents in single-family neighborhoods.
(OP might suggest that the slide from the Frederick Douglass House offers impact on a residential area. However, I would suggest that because the Frederick Douglass House is up on a hill, the modeling does not match the conditions in a residential area. The Frederick Douglass House offers more of a vista. Neighborhoods where the ground level of the new construction and existing homes are at the same levels would have a very different look.)
Before OP goes forward with the Phase 3 Draft Recommendations, it needs to provide residents the opportunity to see models of changes to current heights in streets adjacent to residential areas. The models should do what they did for vistas and long streetscapes, that is, show changes that could result from allowing maximum heights under the Height Act and from building to increased heights under a relaxed Height Act.
Here is a sampling of locations that could give Ward 3 and 4 residents a sense of what the new heights would mean to single-family homes near high or medium-density areas. I used Wards 3 and 4 only because those are the areas with which I am most familiar, having lived there for 14 years.
1. Harrison and 45th St NW
2. Harrison and 44th St NW
3. Fessenden and 43rd NW
4. 43rd St NW between Jennifer and Military
5. 42nd St between Garrison and Fessenden
6. Military and 38th St NW
7. Alton and 35th St NW
8. Van Ness and Reno Road NW
9. Cumberland and 36th St NW
10. Holly and 12th St NW
11. 9th and Hemlock NW
12. Aspen and 13th Pl NW
Other wards should also have the opportunity to suggest locations for models, so that they may have a sense of the possible changes to residential streets that are only one or two blocks off a high or medium-density designation on the Comprehensive Plan.
Please do not allow OP to go forward with its Phase 3 Draft Recommendations until it has provided such models and ample time for public presentation and comment. Otherwise, OP will be ignoring not only its citizens, but also Congress' request to take into account "compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods...[and] input from local residents."
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Chevy Chase, DC (August 15, 2013)
When I was a young girl around the age of 7, my parents took my siblings and me to Washington DC for the first time on a family vacation. I fell in love with the city and decided then that I would someday move from St. Louis to live in DC. and I did.. . . I came back for another family vacation and on a high school trip and for two college internships. I returned temporarily after college, and then, more than twenty years ago, I came back for good and bought a house in the city a few years later. As a young girl, I loved the uniqueness of the city with the interesting buildings that didn't tower over me. I still do. I am horrified to think that the Height Act might be lost. The Height Act makes DC extraordinary; it gives DC a special feel that no other major city in our country has. While developers may want to get rid of the Height Act to make money, we residents love the Height Act. Do not change it!
Read more
—C Engelhardt, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
Read more
—C Engelhardt, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
We should not pit historic districts or historic preservation against height.
The presentation at the public meeting indicates that the visual modeling study excludes all historic districts from potential height increases. As the study moves forward, a more nuanced approach to both discussing and studying height in historic districts should be considered and communicated.. . . Wholesale exclusion (or even implying wholesale exclusion) may have unintended consequences, such as furthering negative perceptions of historic districts as prohibitive or static designations. This could discourage future historic districts, when the primary purpose of the designation is not to limit development or height. We do not want what would otherwise seem a sensible and feasible parameter to hinder our use of historic districts as an effective planning tool in the future.
There are many reasons why an area of the city may have historic or cultural significance, and there are aspects of architecture and planning beyond building height that are considered during design review. Currently, there are historic districts that already or could potentially accommodate tall buildings without compromising the district's integrity. If we are taking the long view, we also have to consider that we may not fully understand how the idea of historic districts or preservation will evolve in the next 100 years. We may have future districts where scale is not a significant aspect of historic character or where taller buildings themselves become historic. We should ensure that we maintain the ability to decide whether height is appropriate on a district-by-district or case-by-case basis.
I understand that the nuanced approach to height in historic districts is something that would most likely be part of a potential reworking of the comprehensive plan, not in a change to the federal law. I also understand that the study may already be taking such an approach in actuality. However, this comment is more about how we discuss historic districts and preservation during the process. The Height Study is important to the future of the city, and these public discussions could have a significant effect on the perception of preservation. Therefore, upcoming presentations and recommendations during the next phase of the study should convey a less black and white approach to height and historic.
Read more
—Carrie Barton (PRESERVE/scapes), Arlington, VA (August 14, 2013)
The presentation at the public meeting indicates that the visual modeling study excludes all historic districts from potential height increases. As the study moves forward, a more nuanced approach to both discussing and studying height in historic districts should be considered and communicated.. . . Wholesale exclusion (or even implying wholesale exclusion) may have unintended consequences, such as furthering negative perceptions of historic districts as prohibitive or static designations. This could discourage future historic districts, when the primary purpose of the designation is not to limit development or height. We do not want what would otherwise seem a sensible and feasible parameter to hinder our use of historic districts as an effective planning tool in the future.
There are many reasons why an area of the city may have historic or cultural significance, and there are aspects of architecture and planning beyond building height that are considered during design review. Currently, there are historic districts that already or could potentially accommodate tall buildings without compromising the district's integrity. If we are taking the long view, we also have to consider that we may not fully understand how the idea of historic districts or preservation will evolve in the next 100 years. We may have future districts where scale is not a significant aspect of historic character or where taller buildings themselves become historic. We should ensure that we maintain the ability to decide whether height is appropriate on a district-by-district or case-by-case basis.
I understand that the nuanced approach to height in historic districts is something that would most likely be part of a potential reworking of the comprehensive plan, not in a change to the federal law. I also understand that the study may already be taking such an approach in actuality. However, this comment is more about how we discuss historic districts and preservation during the process. The Height Study is important to the future of the city, and these public discussions could have a significant effect on the perception of preservation. Therefore, upcoming presentations and recommendations during the next phase of the study should convey a less black and white approach to height and historic.
Read more
—Carrie Barton (PRESERVE/scapes), Arlington, VA (August 14, 2013)
I am a native local, I hate going to New York City and believe your proposal to raise the height to anything less than a 1:1 street ratio with step back requirements would change the character of DC. The height restrictions in place were meant to not exceed the height of trees when looking from. . . the GW parkway. The City blends in and the monuments stand out. A support the no change condition. I like the look and feel of the city the way it is, and will not frequent it if it looks like NYC.
Read more
—Kimberly Larkin, Alexandria, VA (August 14, 2013)
Read more
—Kimberly Larkin, Alexandria, VA (August 14, 2013)
Visual Modeling Study:
The models clearly show the importance of enforcing DC view-scapes and height limits that are relatively low compared with commercially-oriented cities in the US. Do not destroy our unique skyline. The Height Act can be tweaked - but not trashed - in the L'Enfant City. Outside the . . . City, the height can be higher, but strongly protecting the Avenue and Capitol Street views. In both cases density around transit nodes must be given priority.
Occupied penthouses with setback in L'EC is fine.
Rooftop amenities and hidden mechanical systems should be encouraged.
Frontage height vs. street width of 1:1 in L'EC is human-scale, allowing air and light at street-level.
Encourage zoning changes within the present or 1:1 height limit in L'EC to encourage density around transit. There are large areas that are under-developed that would allow needed growth.
River-fronts should be recreationally oriented, not highways and high buildings.
Read more
—Gene Imhoff, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
The models clearly show the importance of enforcing DC view-scapes and height limits that are relatively low compared with commercially-oriented cities in the US. Do not destroy our unique skyline. The Height Act can be tweaked - but not trashed - in the L'Enfant City. Outside the . . . City, the height can be higher, but strongly protecting the Avenue and Capitol Street views. In both cases density around transit nodes must be given priority.
Occupied penthouses with setback in L'EC is fine.
Rooftop amenities and hidden mechanical systems should be encouraged.
Frontage height vs. street width of 1:1 in L'EC is human-scale, allowing air and light at street-level.
Encourage zoning changes within the present or 1:1 height limit in L'EC to encourage density around transit. There are large areas that are under-developed that would allow needed growth.
River-fronts should be recreationally oriented, not highways and high buildings.
Read more
—Gene Imhoff, Washington, DC (August 14, 2013)
Please do not raise the height limit on building within the District. DC is beautiful and distinct. Raising the height limit would drastically alter the cities character, and is unnecessary. We are not yet utilizing well the PAC we already have available.
—Topaz Terry, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
—Topaz Terry, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
I welcome this study and the resulting conversation. I strongly believe that the federal height limit should be modified. It should not be eliminated entirely, because DC is the nation's capital and it is fair for the federal government to establish some parameters to guide the city's growth (that is why NCPC exists). However, DC deserves. . . to have more flexibility and autonomy to create a built environment that meets the needs of the people who live and work here.
It is very important to understand that changing the height limit would not automatically change DC. Development is guided by the city's zoning and comprehensive plan; it would be necessary to change these before any taller buildings are permitted, and changing those local policies would require extensive public debate and approval from elected officials.
There are three main reasons why I believe we should allow taller buildings in DC. First, limiting building heights limits housing supply, and limiting housing supply increases housing prices. DC desperately needs affordable housing; not just units that are explicitly subsidized (such as inclusionary zoning units) but affordable market rate units. Second, cities are one of the keys to preventing climate change. Living in an urban area is less energy intensive than living in far flung suburbs. Increasing housing opportunities in DC would reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Third, providing more housing (and more commercial space) in DC would enable economic growth. Some of this would be displaced from other cities, but some of it would be the result of increased efficiency and economies of scale that result from the concentration of economic activity.
There are two commonly cited reasons not to increase the height limit: concerns about congestion and aesthetic concerns about viewsheds and the appearance of tall buildings. People are entitled to their opinions on these matters, but I think it is extremely selfish and superficial to place these concerns above concerns about housing affordability, economic growth, and environmental sustainability.
Regarding the specific plans under consideration: I don't feel strongly, but I believe the best approach would be to allow clusters of taller buildings (approach 3) similar to what has been done in London, Paris, and Berlin. Identifying the specific areas would be difficult and would require public debate. I believe areas outside the topographic bowl (such as Tenleytown) would be good candidates. Some closer areas, such as Waterfront Station, or Columbia Heights, or along New York Avenue, would also be good candidates.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC, Southwest quadrant (August 13, 2013)
It is very important to understand that changing the height limit would not automatically change DC. Development is guided by the city's zoning and comprehensive plan; it would be necessary to change these before any taller buildings are permitted, and changing those local policies would require extensive public debate and approval from elected officials.
There are three main reasons why I believe we should allow taller buildings in DC. First, limiting building heights limits housing supply, and limiting housing supply increases housing prices. DC desperately needs affordable housing; not just units that are explicitly subsidized (such as inclusionary zoning units) but affordable market rate units. Second, cities are one of the keys to preventing climate change. Living in an urban area is less energy intensive than living in far flung suburbs. Increasing housing opportunities in DC would reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Third, providing more housing (and more commercial space) in DC would enable economic growth. Some of this would be displaced from other cities, but some of it would be the result of increased efficiency and economies of scale that result from the concentration of economic activity.
There are two commonly cited reasons not to increase the height limit: concerns about congestion and aesthetic concerns about viewsheds and the appearance of tall buildings. People are entitled to their opinions on these matters, but I think it is extremely selfish and superficial to place these concerns above concerns about housing affordability, economic growth, and environmental sustainability.
Regarding the specific plans under consideration: I don't feel strongly, but I believe the best approach would be to allow clusters of taller buildings (approach 3) similar to what has been done in London, Paris, and Berlin. Identifying the specific areas would be difficult and would require public debate. I believe areas outside the topographic bowl (such as Tenleytown) would be good candidates. Some closer areas, such as Waterfront Station, or Columbia Heights, or along New York Avenue, would also be good candidates.
Read more
—Paul Joice, Washington, DC, Southwest quadrant (August 13, 2013)
As a DC resident, I think that that it is essential to distinguish between the historic/local DC. DC is a little more than 60 square miles. Most of this is not "historic" in the same sense that the national mall is. There are unique local neighborhoods in DC, but preservation of these neighborhoods. . . is akin to preservation of neighborhoods of similar age and historical value outside of the District. For many from outside of DC, "DC" is only this national image, and outside the historic core, the interests of the local DC economy should trump all else.
To preserve the historic core - the national mall - is imperative. At the same time, to relegate the remainder of DC to height restrictions deprives the metropolitan area, and its residents, of the many benefits derived from urban life. Protectionist measures must always be weighed against the human toll. Each protected street in DC - protection for the few, the rich and the powerful - comes at the expense of commuters who cannot afford access to the urban core that DC offers.
I moved to the DC metropolitan area in the 6th grade, a member of a middle class family who never could have dreamed of living in the downtown core. We lived over an hour outside the city. My father commuted for over 10 hours each week. Now that I am a young attorney in a 2-income marriage (with no children), I can afford to rent an apartment in NW DC - 564 sq. ft. I can walk to work in less than 10 minutes and I believe that - in this respect - I have a very good quality of life.
In renewing my lease, like so many, I had to weigh the cost of increased taxes and the cost of my apartment against the cheaper options in VA. For me, the thumb is on the scale for staying, for now. That said, imagine supporting a family in the DC area. Until we can value people over structures, we will protect existing residents over commercial apartments and other developments that offer more individuals the benefits of dense, urban life, where walkability replaces the costs and environmental toll of a daily commuter existence.
The height restrictions are about the District facing the reality that it is losing potential residents, potential tax dollars and potential human well-being for the sake of existing interests. This is the city that had over 900k residents prior to white flight and the 1968 race riots, and now only has 600k (although growing). The city needs to encourage development and population growth to make DC a model city, with the economic, environmental and social benefits that accrue to urbanites.
Read more
—Evan Coleman, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
To preserve the historic core - the national mall - is imperative. At the same time, to relegate the remainder of DC to height restrictions deprives the metropolitan area, and its residents, of the many benefits derived from urban life. Protectionist measures must always be weighed against the human toll. Each protected street in DC - protection for the few, the rich and the powerful - comes at the expense of commuters who cannot afford access to the urban core that DC offers.
I moved to the DC metropolitan area in the 6th grade, a member of a middle class family who never could have dreamed of living in the downtown core. We lived over an hour outside the city. My father commuted for over 10 hours each week. Now that I am a young attorney in a 2-income marriage (with no children), I can afford to rent an apartment in NW DC - 564 sq. ft. I can walk to work in less than 10 minutes and I believe that - in this respect - I have a very good quality of life.
In renewing my lease, like so many, I had to weigh the cost of increased taxes and the cost of my apartment against the cheaper options in VA. For me, the thumb is on the scale for staying, for now. That said, imagine supporting a family in the DC area. Until we can value people over structures, we will protect existing residents over commercial apartments and other developments that offer more individuals the benefits of dense, urban life, where walkability replaces the costs and environmental toll of a daily commuter existence.
The height restrictions are about the District facing the reality that it is losing potential residents, potential tax dollars and potential human well-being for the sake of existing interests. This is the city that had over 900k residents prior to white flight and the 1968 race riots, and now only has 600k (although growing). The city needs to encourage development and population growth to make DC a model city, with the economic, environmental and social benefits that accrue to urbanites.
Read more
—Evan Coleman, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
I have yet to review the proposal(s) therefore I will
not comment at this time.
I will advise you that I am very uncomfortable with our
D.C. height restriction being challenged.
More as I learn more and seriously thing about the
many aspects of such a proposal.
—natalie marra, Kalorama Triangle (August 13, 2013)
not comment at this time.
I will advise you that I am very uncomfortable with our
D.C. height restriction being challenged.
More as I learn more and seriously thing about the
many aspects of such a proposal.
—natalie marra, Kalorama Triangle (August 13, 2013)
Let's face it, DC is not just another city, and therefore it shouldn't be treated as just another city. Allowing commercial interests to overshadow the government seat just does not seem right to me, not from a design point of view, but from an emotional POV. There is something very stirring about viewing DC from across. . . the river, or from the air, that would be irretrievably lost if you have to search among 10-16 story buildings to find the White House or the monuments. Let Arlington continue it upwards growth, and leave DC alone.
Read more
—Rich Roedner, Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (August 13, 2013)
Read more
—Rich Roedner, Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (August 13, 2013)
1. The full Economic Feasibility Study (“coming soonâ€) never made it online in time for the public to see and comment upon its methodology. But even the information contained in the presentation slides makes it clear that raising heights raises building costs and is economically viable only in areas that already command high rents.. . . So much for the affordability argument.
2. In her public presentation, Harriet Tregoning claimed that DC would be fully built out in 20 years. When asked how she reached that conclusion and where the analysis backing it up could be found, Tregoning was evasive. The Office of Planning doesn’t appear to have done any such study and the claim itself is not credible. DC has a number of large, undeveloped tracts and, even in developed areas, most buildings haven’t been built out to the limits of the zoning code, plus the zoning code itself doesn’t exploit the full envelope available to it under the current Height Act limits. There’s plenty of room to grow. DC government’s push for a relaxation of the Height Act isn't rooted in necessity -- it's more of a vanity project for the government (and a potential windfall for a handful of developers).
3. Tregoning has also repeatedly claimed in these public meetings that changing the Height Act would have no immediate effect on what could be built in DC because it would take a major revision of the zoning code to allow the new limits to take effect. But DC’s zoning code is currently being revised (the full text of the revision is already before the Zoning Commission) and the proposal is to tie building heights in most zones downtown (which would be expanded to include NOMA, SW, the area near the Nats stadium) to Height Act limits, and to allow unlimited FAR within those limits. And no on-site parking would be required in these zones either. I'd hate to see an expanded downtown replicating the pattern seen in so many US cities where a few tall buildings are surrounded by above-ground parking facilities.
The bottom line: DC government has been unable to offer any compelling reason for easing existing height restrictions and it has relied on misrepresentations in what appears to have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to garner support for the project.
Please leave the Height Act as it is.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
2. In her public presentation, Harriet Tregoning claimed that DC would be fully built out in 20 years. When asked how she reached that conclusion and where the analysis backing it up could be found, Tregoning was evasive. The Office of Planning doesn’t appear to have done any such study and the claim itself is not credible. DC has a number of large, undeveloped tracts and, even in developed areas, most buildings haven’t been built out to the limits of the zoning code, plus the zoning code itself doesn’t exploit the full envelope available to it under the current Height Act limits. There’s plenty of room to grow. DC government’s push for a relaxation of the Height Act isn't rooted in necessity -- it's more of a vanity project for the government (and a potential windfall for a handful of developers).
3. Tregoning has also repeatedly claimed in these public meetings that changing the Height Act would have no immediate effect on what could be built in DC because it would take a major revision of the zoning code to allow the new limits to take effect. But DC’s zoning code is currently being revised (the full text of the revision is already before the Zoning Commission) and the proposal is to tie building heights in most zones downtown (which would be expanded to include NOMA, SW, the area near the Nats stadium) to Height Act limits, and to allow unlimited FAR within those limits. And no on-site parking would be required in these zones either. I'd hate to see an expanded downtown replicating the pattern seen in so many US cities where a few tall buildings are surrounded by above-ground parking facilities.
The bottom line: DC government has been unable to offer any compelling reason for easing existing height restrictions and it has relied on misrepresentations in what appears to have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to garner support for the project.
Please leave the Height Act as it is.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Washington, DC (August 13, 2013)
As a native Washingtonian,i always felt that the height restriction, gave the city a rather Drab boring look,plus back in the day the thrill of the city was not trying to look out my window to see the monument or capitol, but to actually go down there.i believe a happy medium would be to keep the. . . mall area as is for the post card pic,expand the fringes up, at least as high as the structures in Baltimore and Richmond giving it a modern 21st century look.Friends of mine who've have visited, have always been intrigued by Rosslyn, and liked the look and feel.
Read more
—Dakarai, Washington, D.C. (August 12, 2013)
Read more
—Dakarai, Washington, D.C. (August 12, 2013)
Rasing the height in L'Enfant city with respects to a max of 200 ft view shed would enable us to grow while maintaining our panoramic views.
—Martin Johnson, Fort Totten, Washington D.C (August 12, 2013)
—Martin Johnson, Fort Totten, Washington D.C (August 12, 2013)
Several comments from the Phase 2 presentation:
1) Approach 1B penthouse occupancy is probably a false option. Penthouse floors of large commercial or residential properties are mostly occupied by elevator over-rides, stairs, and a lot of noisy mechanical equipment - it offers limited area and you would have to extend the elevator shaft to serve. . . it, thereby creating a height increase.
2) I think you should add corridors to the clusters that you have selected for possible height increases. There would seem to be a strong urban design correlation between the avenues of the L'Enfant plan and building height - think of the clear identity of Connecticut Ave. vs the fractured form of some other major avenues. Height increases could be used to reinforce the urban form of the L'Enfant plan.
3) Ultimately I think your study will require a very subjective interpretation of where height could be permitted based on proximity to landmarks, historic sites, avenues, etc. Height per se is not the only issue, it is a question of how it is done and its affect on adjacent properties. That will probably get you into very site specific issues and even some form of design review - similar to what Zoning Board, Historic Pres. Rev. Board, and Fine arts do now. I understand that your study must deal with the broad brush at this point, but any implementation will need to be a lot more refined.
Read more
—W. Etienne, Woodley Park, DC (August 12, 2013)
1) Approach 1B penthouse occupancy is probably a false option. Penthouse floors of large commercial or residential properties are mostly occupied by elevator over-rides, stairs, and a lot of noisy mechanical equipment - it offers limited area and you would have to extend the elevator shaft to serve. . . it, thereby creating a height increase.
2) I think you should add corridors to the clusters that you have selected for possible height increases. There would seem to be a strong urban design correlation between the avenues of the L'Enfant plan and building height - think of the clear identity of Connecticut Ave. vs the fractured form of some other major avenues. Height increases could be used to reinforce the urban form of the L'Enfant plan.
3) Ultimately I think your study will require a very subjective interpretation of where height could be permitted based on proximity to landmarks, historic sites, avenues, etc. Height per se is not the only issue, it is a question of how it is done and its affect on adjacent properties. That will probably get you into very site specific issues and even some form of design review - similar to what Zoning Board, Historic Pres. Rev. Board, and Fine arts do now. I understand that your study must deal with the broad brush at this point, but any implementation will need to be a lot more refined.
Read more
—W. Etienne, Woodley Park, DC (August 12, 2013)
Having looked through the information from the study, I can tell you that my wife and I would vote to approve your resolution if we were at the meeting. Similar to you, we would like to retain the neighborhoods at the density level they are now, and not see them become overdeveloped. Much of. . . what we enjoy about this area (and Washington in general) would be lost if the density of Kalorama is increased further. The high rise buildings in my mind should be kept to certain corridors (like 14th Street), and not allowed to infiltrate the other, more residential, areas.
Read more
—Gary Hoffman, Washington DC (August 12, 2013)
Read more
—Gary Hoffman, Washington DC (August 12, 2013)
DC is a city with a beautiful view, especially from the elevation of SE. Why make the skyline like such as NYC, Houston, Chicago, Hong Kong - all which are just dreadful! I want to see the city when I fly in; I don't want tall buildings hovering over me when I walk downtown and since. . . 9/11, I certainly don't want to live or work in a high rise building. Who in DC proposed this outlandish idea! I've attended 2 meetings and hope this idea is dropped.
Read more
—Mary Buckley, Washington, DC - SE (August 12, 2013)
Read more
—Mary Buckley, Washington, DC - SE (August 12, 2013)
I would like to thank everyone in NCPC for undergoing this study, as well as all those who have voiced their opinions. To start I would like to clarify that none of the models posed by this study will make the DC skyline resemble New York or even Chicago. Chicago's skyline has over 70 buildings. . . over 500Ft. Of which 64 are over 555ft(Washington Monument), 13 over 800 ft. and 5 over 1000ft. including the sears tower at 1451 ft. and the Trump International at 1389 ft. This study only goes to model changes to the height act from 130 ft to 200 in the L'Enfant city and 130-225 in select clusters outside the L'Enfant plan. So evidently even under highest height modeled in this study our buildings would be no where near the heights of Chicago's 64 buildings that tower our monument. In fact our under this scenario the Washington monument is almost 3 times the height of the buildings within the Lefant Plan and 105 ft over twice the height of our buildings in the designated high density areas outside the plan.
I would also like to point out that there are parts of Maryland bordering dc were taller buildings than what is allowed has been built. I am referring in particular to Silver Spring and Friendship Heights were 15-25 story buildings have been built without having changed the character of our skyline. This being so it makes sense to apply this the across the dc md border south of western ave along Wisconsin ave in Friendship Heights and south of eastern ave in the Water Reed area. In doing so we will be promoting economic growth in the city with out changing the character of our skyline.
As for the L'Enfant City I do believe that we need to raise heights within the L'Enfant plan but we can not have a one size fits all approach. Approach 3c of raising the height in strategic areas is more reasonable option. I would suggest to have a general max of 225ft. with view shed analysis of the taken into consideration.
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Cordero, Friendship Heights DC (August 12, 2013)
I would also like to point out that there are parts of Maryland bordering dc were taller buildings than what is allowed has been built. I am referring in particular to Silver Spring and Friendship Heights were 15-25 story buildings have been built without having changed the character of our skyline. This being so it makes sense to apply this the across the dc md border south of western ave along Wisconsin ave in Friendship Heights and south of eastern ave in the Water Reed area. In doing so we will be promoting economic growth in the city with out changing the character of our skyline.
As for the L'Enfant City I do believe that we need to raise heights within the L'Enfant plan but we can not have a one size fits all approach. Approach 3c of raising the height in strategic areas is more reasonable option. I would suggest to have a general max of 225ft. with view shed analysis of the taken into consideration.
Read more
—Luis Alberto Sanchez Cordero, Friendship Heights DC (August 12, 2013)
I attended the Phase II meeting at Catholic University, appreciate NCPC and DCOP's efforts to study this question exhaustively.
I believe some version of 3C, Illustrative Clusters, has the most promise as reason to consider legislative change.
I found it valuable to understand that Zoning/Master Planning limitations are in. . . most places more restrictive than the Congressional limitations on height. So if desired, many changes could be made without any Congressional intervention. NCPC/DCOP should only recommend legislative changes if there are planning goals they want to achieve, that they are unable to achieve within the existing Federal legislation.
As was noted at the briefing, the current height limits have served the city well by encouraging development in areas like NoMA and Mt Vernon Triangle that might not otherwise be considered. This spreads economic benefits over a larger area of the city.
If clusters were established at certain transit-friendly locations (Option 3C), to encourage further development outside the L'Enfant plan, it seems like it would minimize risk to horizontality, views, and light/airy aspects of DC, while continuing the economic and population growth trend the District appears to be on. Either the legislation or accompanying planning guidance should include:
1. No "by-rights" development in the clusters; would require approval of any proposed construction. This would ensure new structures are architecturally attractive and consistent with planning principles.
2. Developers in the clusters should (as noted in the meeting) be expected to contribute to utility/infrastructure/transportation upgrades required to support the developments, and also perhaps other amenities as appropriate (parks etc)
3. There would have to be Sector plans for the clusters, so that NCPC/DCOP could provide clear planning guidance up front for developers.
4. The clusters considered should be outside the L'Enfant plan. Preservation of the character and identity of this portion of DC is too important to take risks with it; regardless with existing height limitations the NCPC/DCOP have shown they are committed to preserving it.
As for the legislation, selection of the clusters may require some additional reporting to Congress. Recommend against including locations in the legislation, instead there would be authority to establish, with approval, x number of clusters. This will be the most difficult aspect.
As noted in my point #4 above, it seems like any legislation that affects the L'Enfant plan is not particularly needed or useful. The pictures of Pennsylvania Avenue SE looking towards the Capital highlight the risk of allowing increased heights on the geographic bowl (3B): that the vistas created by the topography are marred.
Summary: if there is any need to adjust existing legislation, 3C would be the best option of those presented.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (August 11, 2013)
I believe some version of 3C, Illustrative Clusters, has the most promise as reason to consider legislative change.
I found it valuable to understand that Zoning/Master Planning limitations are in. . . most places more restrictive than the Congressional limitations on height. So if desired, many changes could be made without any Congressional intervention. NCPC/DCOP should only recommend legislative changes if there are planning goals they want to achieve, that they are unable to achieve within the existing Federal legislation.
As was noted at the briefing, the current height limits have served the city well by encouraging development in areas like NoMA and Mt Vernon Triangle that might not otherwise be considered. This spreads economic benefits over a larger area of the city.
If clusters were established at certain transit-friendly locations (Option 3C), to encourage further development outside the L'Enfant plan, it seems like it would minimize risk to horizontality, views, and light/airy aspects of DC, while continuing the economic and population growth trend the District appears to be on. Either the legislation or accompanying planning guidance should include:
1. No "by-rights" development in the clusters; would require approval of any proposed construction. This would ensure new structures are architecturally attractive and consistent with planning principles.
2. Developers in the clusters should (as noted in the meeting) be expected to contribute to utility/infrastructure/transportation upgrades required to support the developments, and also perhaps other amenities as appropriate (parks etc)
3. There would have to be Sector plans for the clusters, so that NCPC/DCOP could provide clear planning guidance up front for developers.
4. The clusters considered should be outside the L'Enfant plan. Preservation of the character and identity of this portion of DC is too important to take risks with it; regardless with existing height limitations the NCPC/DCOP have shown they are committed to preserving it.
As for the legislation, selection of the clusters may require some additional reporting to Congress. Recommend against including locations in the legislation, instead there would be authority to establish, with approval, x number of clusters. This will be the most difficult aspect.
As noted in my point #4 above, it seems like any legislation that affects the L'Enfant plan is not particularly needed or useful. The pictures of Pennsylvania Avenue SE looking towards the Capital highlight the risk of allowing increased heights on the geographic bowl (3B): that the vistas created by the topography are marred.
Summary: if there is any need to adjust existing legislation, 3C would be the best option of those presented.
Read more
—Lowell Nelson, Arlington, VA (August 11, 2013)
Can it be in a zone, like Philadelphia?
—Michael Hirsch, |Newtown, PA (August 10, 2013)
—Michael Hirsch, |Newtown, PA (August 10, 2013)
I agree with Royce that it depends on the overall vision of DC. I'm not familiar with DC planning principles, goals or visions related to planning, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. In a general sense, allowing for taller or high rise buildings can both have negative and positive effects. If DC is. . . continually growing, building up, not out, is a good way to alleviate too much sprawl. I would be more concerned with how high rises (or taller building) could affect social class distribution. Typically, and I would assume, taller buildings (ie. apartments, condos) would cater to the wealthier portion of the DC population and, as such, could gentrify certain areas or push out the "middle class." Assuming there would be zones allowing taller buildings, there's the potential that those would be the areas that could draw higher classes of people which may segregate areas of the city that otherwise may not have been. For example, in San Francisco, most high rise residential buildings are out of reach for the 99 percenters and as a result there's social separation in those neighborhoods. Then, there's the safety issue. Would police and fire protection services be able to accommodate taller buildings? Would emergency staff need to be trained to perform high rise emergency services for example. It might be worth investing in various photo simulations in different areas that would be suitable for taller buildings and make determinations from there.
Read more
—Ricky Caperton, San Francisco, CA (August 10, 2013)
Read more
—Ricky Caperton, San Francisco, CA (August 10, 2013)
It depends on the vision for DC, its growth management strategy and whether a balance can be struck. Maybe DC already has this but perhaps the preservation of view corridors to buildings of interest from strategic locations can help dictate height maximums. This would allow other areas to infill more economically (read: higher). Ottawa and Vancouver. . . use view sheds to preserve points of interest rather than a absolute max height everywhere approach.
Read more
—Royce Fu, Ottawa, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Read more
—Royce Fu, Ottawa, Canada (August 09, 2013)
The highest building in Cologne is in North City, and following is the Date of the Building.
Ort: Neustadt-Nord, Köln
Bauzeit: 01.06.1999–21.11.2001
Eröffnung: 21. November 2001
Status: fertiggestellt
Architekten: Jean Nouvel, Paris
Kohl & Kohl Architekten, Essen
Nutzung/Rechtliches
Nutzung:. . . Bürogebäude, Restaurants, Konferenzräume, Radiostation
Hauptmieter: DekaBank
Bauherr: Hypothekenbank, Essen
Technische Daten
Höhe: 148,1[1] m
Höhe bis zur Spitze: 165,5[2] m
Etagen: 43
Aufzüge: 6 Stück (3x à 5 m/s, 3x à 6 m/s) mit Schindler Zielrufsteuerung
Geschossfläche: 36.430 m²
Umbauter Raum: 131.700 m³
Baustoff: Stahlbeton, Stahl, Glas
Konstruktion: Rahmenkonstruktion
Höhenvergleich
Köln: 1. (Liste)
Deutschland: 14. (Liste)
Anschrift
Stadt: Köln
Land: Deutschland
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Koelnturm_20050129.jpg/245px-Koelnturm_20050129.jpg
Read more
—Salah S., Cologne, Germany (August 09, 2013)
Ort: Neustadt-Nord, Köln
Bauzeit: 01.06.1999–21.11.2001
Eröffnung: 21. November 2001
Status: fertiggestellt
Architekten: Jean Nouvel, Paris
Kohl & Kohl Architekten, Essen
Nutzung/Rechtliches
Nutzung:. . . Bürogebäude, Restaurants, Konferenzräume, Radiostation
Hauptmieter: DekaBank
Bauherr: Hypothekenbank, Essen
Technische Daten
Höhe: 148,1[1] m
Höhe bis zur Spitze: 165,5[2] m
Etagen: 43
Aufzüge: 6 Stück (3x à 5 m/s, 3x à 6 m/s) mit Schindler Zielrufsteuerung
Geschossfläche: 36.430 m²
Umbauter Raum: 131.700 m³
Baustoff: Stahlbeton, Stahl, Glas
Konstruktion: Rahmenkonstruktion
Höhenvergleich
Köln: 1. (Liste)
Deutschland: 14. (Liste)
Anschrift
Stadt: Köln
Land: Deutschland
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Koelnturm_20050129.jpg/245px-Koelnturm_20050129.jpg
Read more
—Salah S., Cologne, Germany (August 09, 2013)
The skyline is all about a city's image; it is a modern American-led preoccupation based on image; it has nothing to do with the quality of urban environments. The greatest cities often have the most unimpressive skylines. It's what goes on at street level that matters (eye-level architectural qualities, availability and quality of public space, lively. . . and animated streets, etc).
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtedly be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtedly be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Ecologically speaking, tall buildings, and especially high-rises, are not the best choice. In an age where we have become conscious of our ecological footprint, skyscrapers are no longer a justifiable urban investment. If the argument for tall buildings comes from a desire to densify, then one should look more closely and learn from examples such as. . . Paris, Montreal, Brooklyn, where high densities and livable communities are created without high towers. If however, tall buildings are to be built, one can look to Vancouver for optimal design for height and human-scale streetscapes.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montreal, Canada (August 09, 2013)
The height limits should stay the same. They make DC unique, keeps tall building from looming over people on the streets, keeps sight lines clear, has symbolic value in terms of democratic respect for the nation's iconic governmental buildings, puts pressure on architects to do a better job rather than just build tall, and keeps DC. . . from being subject to the "tallest building" competition.
Read more
—Marc Brenman, Seattle, WA (August 09, 2013)
Read more
—Marc Brenman, Seattle, WA (August 09, 2013)
Well, based on the existing Height of Buildings Act and the presentation, which is quite informative, I have the following thought:
Residential Streets:
Width of street = Building height
Maximum height = 100'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20% of max height with min 10' setback
. . . Commercial Streets
Width of street = Building height + 20'
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 40' max with min 10' setback
Pennsylvania Ave
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20' max with min 20' setback
Read more
—Mitchell Austin, AICP, Punta Gorda, Florida (August 09, 2013)
Residential Streets:
Width of street = Building height
Maximum height = 100'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20% of max height with min 10' setback
. . . Commercial Streets
Width of street = Building height + 20'
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 40' max with min 10' setback
Pennsylvania Ave
Max height = 160'
Penthouse (habitable) = 20' max with min 20' setback
Read more
—Mitchell Austin, AICP, Punta Gorda, Florida (August 09, 2013)
Three comments:
1) Raising building heights may interfere with some segments of the city’s wireless infrastructure for fire/life/rescue services and telecommunications. The topographic bowl allows microwave based communication links to crisscross the city between hospitals, fire stations, police stations, downtown, and other communication nodes. Taller buildings that block the visibility of these nodes would have. . . costly impacts for either building tall-unsightly radio towers or acquiring new communication sights to re-route communications around any future obstructing building. Also, as urban canyons get deeper, there may be impacts to police and ambulance vehicle radios at street level, not to mention GPS. This is not to discourage taller buildings in general, but just to remind stakeholders that the space above some narrow point-to-point routes across the city is already heavily used today by the city and supporting federal entities.
2) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for mechanical penthouse sizes from a direct ratio (of 1:1 height to set back distance) to a building code permitting buildable space from the building face back at 45 degrees up to a height not exceeding the current limit of 18 feet. Such a building code change would permit more buildable volume without any additional visible impact at street level. This concept could apply to either mechanical spaces and/or potential future habitable spaces on the roof level. It would also provide leeway for owners of existing buildings to add roof-top accommodations (within the 45 degree envelop) to support roof-level enjoyment areas.
3) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for building heights to provide a waiver application process for small architecturally enhancing adornments and corner finials to be excluded from the measured building height. This would permit existing and future buildings to fully utilize their available building envelope without being forced to omit the type of architectural embellishments that are prevalent on historic structures and in architecturally rich neighborhoods.
Read more
—James Stevens, Alexandria, VA (August 09, 2013)
1) Raising building heights may interfere with some segments of the city’s wireless infrastructure for fire/life/rescue services and telecommunications. The topographic bowl allows microwave based communication links to crisscross the city between hospitals, fire stations, police stations, downtown, and other communication nodes. Taller buildings that block the visibility of these nodes would have. . . costly impacts for either building tall-unsightly radio towers or acquiring new communication sights to re-route communications around any future obstructing building. Also, as urban canyons get deeper, there may be impacts to police and ambulance vehicle radios at street level, not to mention GPS. This is not to discourage taller buildings in general, but just to remind stakeholders that the space above some narrow point-to-point routes across the city is already heavily used today by the city and supporting federal entities.
2) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for mechanical penthouse sizes from a direct ratio (of 1:1 height to set back distance) to a building code permitting buildable space from the building face back at 45 degrees up to a height not exceeding the current limit of 18 feet. Such a building code change would permit more buildable volume without any additional visible impact at street level. This concept could apply to either mechanical spaces and/or potential future habitable spaces on the roof level. It would also provide leeway for owners of existing buildings to add roof-top accommodations (within the 45 degree envelop) to support roof-level enjoyment areas.
3) The NCPC might consider amending the building codes for building heights to provide a waiver application process for small architecturally enhancing adornments and corner finials to be excluded from the measured building height. This would permit existing and future buildings to fully utilize their available building envelope without being forced to omit the type of architectural embellishments that are prevalent on historic structures and in architecturally rich neighborhoods.
Read more
—James Stevens, Alexandria, VA (August 09, 2013)
The low skyline contributes to the overall attractiveness of D.C.
Out of town visitors always comment on the openness of the city and how it adds to the experience.
There is more than enough undeveloped property in the District for economic growth especially in the northeast and southeast part of the city where development. . . would revitalize the neighborhoods
Read more
—chet hepburn, arlington,va (August 09, 2013)
Out of town visitors always comment on the openness of the city and how it adds to the experience.
There is more than enough undeveloped property in the District for economic growth especially in the northeast and southeast part of the city where development. . . would revitalize the neighborhoods
Read more
—chet hepburn, arlington,va (August 09, 2013)
The skyline is all about a city's image; it is a modern American-led preoccupation based on image; it has nothing to do with the quality of urban environements. The greatest cities often have the most unimpressive skylines. It's what goes on at street level that matters (eye-level archetectural qualities, availability and quality of public space, lively. . . and animated streets, etc).
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtely be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montréal, CA (August 09, 2013)
Cities should worry much more about quality of life for their residents than about their international image. And if a city is a great place to live and visit, its image will undoubtely be great, regardless of its skyline.
Read more
—Julia Lebedeva, Montréal, CA (August 09, 2013)
I don't think the height restrictions should be eased. First, it's very important to maintain the "view" which here is of our Nation's most symbolically important buildings. Second, there's already maybe too much congestion of people and vehicles on the ground level, especially outside. More is worse. Third, lower buildings are safer in emergencies. I'm sure. . . I agree heartily with many other people who've already said essentially the same things.
Read more
—Jean SmilingCoyote, Chicago, Illinois (August 08, 2013)
Read more
—Jean SmilingCoyote, Chicago, Illinois (August 08, 2013)
I attended the Phase Two meeting last evening (August 7, 2013) at the Mt. Pleasant library. Thank you for your thorough presentation! As a licensed Washington, DC tour guide, I especially love that so many more people will understand the true origin of the The Height Act! Maybe some day we can finally bury the myth. . . about the Washington Monument and/or the U.S. Capitol building being the catalyst for it. Thomas Franklin Schneider wanted to leave his mark on DC and he surely did with his Cairo building.
I am inclined to support your Approach 3, 3 C to be exact. I think raising the height limit in illustrative clusters in the city would be the most beneficial to both federal and local interests. I would enjoy seeing more varied architecture in the city. I would also love to see a surplus of housing options; being a person of lesser means, so to speak, I would like to be able to find a decent one bedroom apartment and not have to spend half my paycheck from my non profit job on rent. I am faced with moving out of my beloved Mt Pleasant due to sky rocketing home prices and am just devastated. I do not want to move out to the suburbs as I adore living in the District and walking pretty much everywhere. I definitely support the protecting of viewsheds around our more iconic structures so care should be taken to limit building heights within several blocks of the Capitol, the Cathedral, and the memorials. I support view corridors much like they have in Austin, TX around their capital building. Good luck with the study!
Read more
—Amy Kunz, Washington, DC (August 08, 2013)
I am inclined to support your Approach 3, 3 C to be exact. I think raising the height limit in illustrative clusters in the city would be the most beneficial to both federal and local interests. I would enjoy seeing more varied architecture in the city. I would also love to see a surplus of housing options; being a person of lesser means, so to speak, I would like to be able to find a decent one bedroom apartment and not have to spend half my paycheck from my non profit job on rent. I am faced with moving out of my beloved Mt Pleasant due to sky rocketing home prices and am just devastated. I do not want to move out to the suburbs as I adore living in the District and walking pretty much everywhere. I definitely support the protecting of viewsheds around our more iconic structures so care should be taken to limit building heights within several blocks of the Capitol, the Cathedral, and the memorials. I support view corridors much like they have in Austin, TX around their capital building. Good luck with the study!
Read more
—Amy Kunz, Washington, DC (August 08, 2013)
Ecologically speaking, tall buildings, and especially highrises, are not the best choice. In an age where we have become concious of our ecological footprint, skyscrapers are no longer a justifiable urban investment. If the argument for tall buildings comes from a desire to densify, then one should look more closely and learn from examples such as. . . Paris, Montreal, Brooklyn, where high densities and livable communities are created without high towers. If however, tall buildings are to be built, one can look to Vancouver for optimal design reconciliating height and human-scale streetscapes.
Read more
—Julia, Montreal, CA (August 08, 2013)
Read more
—Julia, Montreal, CA (August 08, 2013)
I find these planning ideas strange. So is the luxury condo / high-rise office real estate market so important as to ignore how drastic this affects the core of our Nation's Capital? Is the real estate development push so important to serve as to ignore the fact that more and more people will want to. . . work in these taller buildings and will be coming by way of car, bus, and metro meaning more congestion, broken trains, and longer bus lines while these transporation services are usually on the budget cutting room floor? What about the infrastructure -- water pipes that are more than a century old used to pumping at normal levels now being required to pump even more water to higher altitudes -- won't they burst and who pays the emergency repairs? What about sun and sky -- aren't this important economical factors in developing a City? Why not more analysis of bigger buildings at the fringes of DC, why upset the monument core? This unsupported idea creates more questions than what it may deliver.
Read more
—Chris Otten, Adams Morgan (August 07, 2013)
Read more
—Chris Otten, Adams Morgan (August 07, 2013)
I vehemently object to an increase in DC height limits. The fact that DC is exceptionally charming, bright, cheerful, livable and attractive to foreign visitors and residents alike is precisely due to the height limitations act. Please do not ruin our national heritage. There are already enough dark and dingy centers of pollution and congestion in. . . this country. DC is unique and the will of the people indicates that it should be kept that way.
Read more
—cecily kohler, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
Read more
—cecily kohler, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
Washington is a uniquely beautiful city. The lower building heights show off our iconic monuments and give them breathing room. It would be a shame to allow it to become just-another-city, USA.
—Jean Houghton, Southwest DC (August 06, 2013)
—Jean Houghton, Southwest DC (August 06, 2013)
No height increase.
—Megan, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
—Megan, Washington, DC (August 06, 2013)
My wife Joy, and I understand that Congress has asked the National Capitol Planning Commission to take a re-look at the 1910 Height of Building Act. This worries me enormously. I was thirteen years old when I first visited Washington DC as one of about 25,000 Boy Scouts attending the First National Jamboree. . . . One of the most lasting memories was that wonderful feeling of openness and straight-away views of that most impressive city, our nation's Capitol. Since that time I have visited or worked in Washington DC at least a hundred times: from 1946 as a university undergrad doing research, introducing small sons to its historic and architectural glory, and will at the close of my 89th year, as a surviving WWII combat trooper of the 10th Mountain Division, attend the Oct 11-14th National Reunion of the 10th.
Our Capitol's preservation from the terrible damage which will occur, should the 1910 law be relaxed, is so important to not only those of us now alive but to all of our children and grandchildren. I know that development projects are needed but those needs can be fully met just over the line in Virginia and Maryland. In fact those areas would welcome new buildings. Please act on behalf of ALL of us to preserve the wonderful openness of our National Capitol - and receive the gratitude of this old wartime soldier and patriot.
Read more
—Robert E. Jones, Colorado Springs, CO (August 06, 2013)
Our Capitol's preservation from the terrible damage which will occur, should the 1910 law be relaxed, is so important to not only those of us now alive but to all of our children and grandchildren. I know that development projects are needed but those needs can be fully met just over the line in Virginia and Maryland. In fact those areas would welcome new buildings. Please act on behalf of ALL of us to preserve the wonderful openness of our National Capitol - and receive the gratitude of this old wartime soldier and patriot.
Read more
—Robert E. Jones, Colorado Springs, CO (August 06, 2013)
The Height Act has rendered the city of Washington into a prosperous and vibrant city over the last 100+ years. There remain under served areas of the city where investment and development could provide affordable housing.
My vote is Approach 1 No height increase -- maintain existing height, that is 1A.
—Juliet G. Six, President Tenelytown Neighbors Association, Washington, DC (August 05, 2013)
My vote is Approach 1 No height increase -- maintain existing height, that is 1A.
—Juliet G. Six, President Tenelytown Neighbors Association, Washington, DC (August 05, 2013)
The only reason that cost per SF for residential construction seems to decrease when heights go above 200' is that the Ec Feasibility Study has assumed that garage size will be held constant even as height (SF/# of units) increases.
Take parking out of the equation entirely (or scale it to reflecting increases. . . in SF) and cost per SF increases with height -- and the increase is significantly more than the chart on the fourth page of the Ec Feasibility Presentation pdf indicates. Using the consultants' numbers, raising building heights from 130' to 250' would raise the construction costs of office space by $15/SF and the construction cost of residential space by $14/SF.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Friendship Heights (DC) (August 05, 2013)
Take parking out of the equation entirely (or scale it to reflecting increases. . . in SF) and cost per SF increases with height -- and the increase is significantly more than the chart on the fourth page of the Ec Feasibility Presentation pdf indicates. Using the consultants' numbers, raising building heights from 130' to 250' would raise the construction costs of office space by $15/SF and the construction cost of residential space by $14/SF.
Read more
—Sue Hemberger, Friendship Heights (DC) (August 05, 2013)
Suggestions are obviously tied to developments already contemplated - Walter Reed, Union Market, Soldiers Home, etc. Better to address individually than change the whole skyline so that developers have carte blanche. This is not planning, it is ceding to greed.
Why not look at raising the height limit in the third alphabet/ higher numbered streets,. . . all around - those would be some views, and let the sun shine in the city still. De-centralize worksites, traffic congestion, shorten commutes. Should not transit oriented development also have office/work space?
Read more
—Elizabeth McIntire, Washington, DC 20010 (August 04, 2013)
Why not look at raising the height limit in the third alphabet/ higher numbered streets,. . . all around - those would be some views, and let the sun shine in the city still. De-centralize worksites, traffic congestion, shorten commutes. Should not transit oriented development also have office/work space?
Read more
—Elizabeth McIntire, Washington, DC 20010 (August 04, 2013)
Thank you for the presentation.
My immediate concern is that the presentation does not show how the view from the George Washington Memorial Highway will be affected. The George Washington Memorial Highway frames the view of Washington for millions of drivers approaching the city. The George Washington Memorial Highway commemorates the nation’s first president,. . . it preserves a natural setting, and it provides a scenic entryway for visitors to the nation's capital. The proposed height changes will affect the current view that is enjoyed by all who drive on the George Washington Memorial Highway. Therefore, the presentation should include the effects on the view shed as seen from the George Washington Memorial Highway.
Poul Hertel
PS. Also include the effects on the LBJ memorial views. The memorial marks the spot where the former president would stop to look at Washington D.C. before driving home to Texas with his wife.
Read more
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria va 22314 (August 03, 2013)
My immediate concern is that the presentation does not show how the view from the George Washington Memorial Highway will be affected. The George Washington Memorial Highway frames the view of Washington for millions of drivers approaching the city. The George Washington Memorial Highway commemorates the nation’s first president,. . . it preserves a natural setting, and it provides a scenic entryway for visitors to the nation's capital. The proposed height changes will affect the current view that is enjoyed by all who drive on the George Washington Memorial Highway. Therefore, the presentation should include the effects on the view shed as seen from the George Washington Memorial Highway.
Poul Hertel
PS. Also include the effects on the LBJ memorial views. The memorial marks the spot where the former president would stop to look at Washington D.C. before driving home to Texas with his wife.
Read more
—Poul Hertel, Alexandria va 22314 (August 03, 2013)
DC is my second home and although I am a lover of modern skyscrapers, I do NOT want to see them in the nation's capitol. The beauty of the nation's architecture would be overwhelmed by the introduction of taller buildings.
Keep the height restrictions as they are. The people of this country want. . . the emphasis to be on the beauty and elegance of the original buildings. It makes the city unique and stunning.
Susan Kossiakoff
Susan Kossiakoff
Read more
—Susan Kossiakoff, Chicago, IL (August 03, 2013)
Keep the height restrictions as they are. The people of this country want. . . the emphasis to be on the beauty and elegance of the original buildings. It makes the city unique and stunning.
Susan Kossiakoff
Susan Kossiakoff
Read more
—Susan Kossiakoff, Chicago, IL (August 03, 2013)
I'm all for increasing the heights in D.C.
For any city to thrive it must grow it's population.
More people equates to more jobs and a more more diversified economy.
An increased population leads to more demand for housing. To make it reasonably affordable we must add housing units.
Going higher is. . . more efficient by doing more with what we already have. It's a great sustainable practice!
Changing technologies leads to changing space needs.
Lifting the height restrictions will make the city stronger in the future.
Read more
—Robert Tack, Tenleytown DC (August 03, 2013)
For any city to thrive it must grow it's population.
More people equates to more jobs and a more more diversified economy.
An increased population leads to more demand for housing. To make it reasonably affordable we must add housing units.
Going higher is. . . more efficient by doing more with what we already have. It's a great sustainable practice!
Changing technologies leads to changing space needs.
Lifting the height restrictions will make the city stronger in the future.
Read more
—Robert Tack, Tenleytown DC (August 03, 2013)
The Tenleytown session is timed so that the loudest critics of raising the heights limit are out of town on vacation. Doesn't inspite confidence in the process.
—Peter Gosselin , Chevy Chase D.C. (August 02, 2013)
—Peter Gosselin , Chevy Chase D.C. (August 02, 2013)
We recently bought at apartment in D.C. as a "second"home, and have often commented on how refreshing a contrast it offers to NYC. Its light, its air, its wonderful, old trees, its lack of congestion. As the capital, this is a city that should reflect a nation's values concerning the quality of life of. . . its urban dwellers. Increased building height may be the simplest and most obvious solution to the problem being addressed, but it is hardly creative or forward-looking or even thoughtful. Surely we deserve better; surely we can avoid repeating the disastrous errors of past city "planning."
Read more
—Marcia Welles, New York City and Washington D.C. (August 01, 2013)
Read more
—Marcia Welles, New York City and Washington D.C. (August 01, 2013)
I believe my submission may not have gone through. Thus I am repeating that I believe new height limits to be a poor idea for a unique city - a city whose current empty and underused spaces and buildings have yet to be addressed adequately before I accept that there is some sort of lack. . . of space.
Read more
—carol c ross, Washington DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
Read more
—carol c ross, Washington DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
What a rotten idea! I wish more attention would be paid to the imaginative renovation and development of areas and buildings that are currently vacant or underused. When that space is finally utilized using current height restrictions, then that would be the time to consider new needs.
—Carol C. Ross, Washington, DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
—Carol C. Ross, Washington, DC 20015 (August 01, 2013)
I do not think the DC height limit question is a purely local issue.
The entire nation would be affected by the damage done in relaxing the height limit restrictions, as its capital city would be irrevocably marred. I would think the entire nation would be interested in preserving the architectural integrity of. . . the nation's capital.
There is plenty of room just over the line in MD and VA for tall buildings. And there is zoning for them.
Do US citizens really want their leading city to be compromised, with the national monuments and the capitol building smothered and dwarfed by high-rise development projects?
I think it would be a shame for our nation's capital city to be permanently visually compromised just so a few people can enjoy a short-term gain.
I would think members of congress would also want the city's structural heritage preserved.
Read more
—Susan Lowell, washington, dc (July 30, 2013)
The entire nation would be affected by the damage done in relaxing the height limit restrictions, as its capital city would be irrevocably marred. I would think the entire nation would be interested in preserving the architectural integrity of. . . the nation's capital.
There is plenty of room just over the line in MD and VA for tall buildings. And there is zoning for them.
Do US citizens really want their leading city to be compromised, with the national monuments and the capitol building smothered and dwarfed by high-rise development projects?
I think it would be a shame for our nation's capital city to be permanently visually compromised just so a few people can enjoy a short-term gain.
I would think members of congress would also want the city's structural heritage preserved.
Read more
—Susan Lowell, washington, dc (July 30, 2013)
That height limits impact affordability of all uses, great that the District is exploring options. Good luck with your all's efforts.
—David Cristeal, Arlington (July 30, 2013)
—David Cristeal, Arlington (July 30, 2013)
The heighth limit should not be changed as there is no benefit to the city just the developers who want to make more money selling a larger office building or condo. If you raise the heighth limit DC could look and feel like NY with buildings blocking out the sun and creating caverns of windy. . . and dark streets. If you raise the limit even a small amount developers will use this as an opening to get more for there greedy selves. This does not benefit those living and working in the city. It could block the monuments that make DC the capitol and a special city. The focus would be on office buildings and that is simply the wrong direction. Use existing land to its max and try to improve current space with something attractive.
Read more
—Roberta Carroll, Washington, DC (July 30, 2013)
Read more
—Roberta Carroll, Washington, DC (July 30, 2013)
As a longtime District residents, I believe updating the height limits are in order to continue to allow for robust growth especially around transit. In order to protect historic viewsheds, some reasonable buffers (about half a mile) around the Capitol, White House, and The Mall could be put in place where the height limit will. . . remain unchanged. Raising the height limit will all for more jobs, residents, and encourage distinctive world class architecture.
Read more
—Alan Budde, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
Read more
—Alan Budde, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
I think heights in DC should not be raised. The lower height limit (compared to other metropolitan areas) preserves a feeling of openness that is consistent with the natural beauty of the mall, Rock Creek Park, etc. If someone wants to live in a denser area, they can move to New York or Boston.. . .
I also think the schedule for public meetings during the summer is unacceptable. Many citizens take vacations during the summer and so are not able to attend (I am one). These presentations need to be repeated at either ANC or Citizen Association meetings during the school year to provide opportunity for citizens to be there.
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
I also think the schedule for public meetings during the summer is unacceptable. Many citizens take vacations during the summer and so are not able to attend (I am one). These presentations need to be repeated at either ANC or Citizen Association meetings during the school year to provide opportunity for citizens to be there.
Read more
—Laura Phinizy, Washington DC (July 29, 2013)
The 10th Street Corridor is not a natural connector from the Mall to the SW Harbor. It is a long upward "hike". Adding periodic cultural events may draw people on that day only, but will not make a permanent impression.
What is needed is a strong, exciting attraction at the South terminus. The Banneker. . . Memorial, as presently constituted, is not magnetic enough. Something far more dramatic is needed or the 10th Street esplanade will remain a path to nowhere.
Read more
—Sandy Murdock, Washington, DC (June 21, 2013)
What is needed is a strong, exciting attraction at the South terminus. The Banneker. . . Memorial, as presently constituted, is not magnetic enough. Something far more dramatic is needed or the 10th Street esplanade will remain a path to nowhere.
Read more
—Sandy Murdock, Washington, DC (June 21, 2013)
While linking Banneker Park to the Waterfront, what about including a more appropriate (not along the freeway) connection for pedestrians and bicyclists to West Potomac Park at the same time?
Thank you.
—Martha Harmon, Washington DC (SW) (May 27, 2013)
Thank you.
—Martha Harmon, Washington DC (SW) (May 27, 2013)
Via Twitter: Softscape alternative looks like Commonwealth Ave with tree lawns and two roadways. One can close for events and keep other open. Softscape proposal's central mall would be best for that approach to accommodate interpretive panels along walkways.
I'm partial to the hardscape approach to 10th St. Lots of flexible shared space, like. . . Parisian blvd.
Banneker Stairs should be formal, but invite sitting/perching w river views. Material should be comfortable year-round.
Read more
—Payton Chung , Southwest, Washington DC (May 24, 2013)
I'm partial to the hardscape approach to 10th St. Lots of flexible shared space, like. . . Parisian blvd.
Banneker Stairs should be formal, but invite sitting/perching w river views. Material should be comfortable year-round.
Read more
—Payton Chung , Southwest, Washington DC (May 24, 2013)
I would love to see the connection of 10th street to the waterfront at Banneker Cicle be something like the cascading water feature at Meridian Hill Park. This would keep the water feature that is currenttly there and would really tie in with the waterfront. Wide steps on either side would encourage people to congregate and. . . would be a great place to sit with a lunch purchesed at the fish market.
Read more
View attachment
—Eric Gammill, Washington DC (May 24, 2013)
Read more
View attachment
—Eric Gammill, Washington DC (May 24, 2013)
I also second Sam's great comments...totally agree.
—Matthew Patterson, Washington, DC (May 23, 2013)
—Matthew Patterson, Washington, DC (May 23, 2013)
I believe there is potential for an "eco-trail" that could run from the Smithsonian, through Banneker, along the waterfront, through Yards Park, and up along the Anacostia to the Stadium-Armory area. This would be a natural extension of the connection and would create circulation all the way from NW and the mall, through the waterfront. . . and navy yard, and into and along anacostia riverwalk trail.
I think this kind of a feature would really help draw bikers, runners, dog-walkers, tourists, and would be sort of a "green ribbon" that could tie together the currently disconnected city, so to speak.
I attached a map of the concept with the green line showing the proposed ecotrail route. I think it would be a beautiful thing and could be a real asset for DC.
Read more
View attachment
—Matthew Patterson, Washington, DC (May 23, 2013)
I think this kind of a feature would really help draw bikers, runners, dog-walkers, tourists, and would be sort of a "green ribbon" that could tie together the currently disconnected city, so to speak.
I attached a map of the concept with the green line showing the proposed ecotrail route. I think it would be a beautiful thing and could be a real asset for DC.
Read more
View attachment
—Matthew Patterson, Washington, DC (May 23, 2013)
As a resident and civic leader in Southwest, I am thrilled about the ecodistrict developments along 10th Street SW. I feel the walkway’s relationship with the SW Waterfront Fish Market is crucial. After last night’s meeting, I think the Bridge’s development will only help the Fish market, especially in terms of encouraging and directing traffic in. . . its direction. Still, it’s important to acknowledge and consider the fact that the Fish Market is a local treasure and a unique, economically productive entity of our community. Please respect it in your plans.
I feel a historical nod to Benjamin Banneker’s legacy is important, perhaps a history walk of sorts? No need for a major monument.
To address the questions spelled-out in the (May 21, 2013) agenda:
A) Support Programming? YES! Programming, along the lines of street festivals and as big as the space can hold, would be welcomed with open arms.
B) Park or Street? Park is infinitely preferable to street. Cars are greatly undesired.
C) Reflect a more formal experience? Definitely do not want a formal experience. Southwest inhabitants are proud of their modernist architecture and public spaces. Our public spaces should be fun and functional.
D) Represent the SW Ecodistrict story? By all means please represent the SW Ecodistrict story! A historical nod to Benjamin Banneker, and SW’s proud history, must be acknowledged as well.
E & F) General Layout is definitely the right approach. Linear parks are very hip right now. See www.thehighline.org. But, the park should definitely be playful and allude to what the Waterfront has going for it locally...which is WATER.
How did you find out about the meeting? List serve invitation: Southwest Neighborhood Assembly Board member's email list & DC Waterfront Gateway email list.
Read more
—Sam Marrero, Washington, DC (May 23, 2013)
I feel a historical nod to Benjamin Banneker’s legacy is important, perhaps a history walk of sorts? No need for a major monument.
To address the questions spelled-out in the (May 21, 2013) agenda:
A) Support Programming? YES! Programming, along the lines of street festivals and as big as the space can hold, would be welcomed with open arms.
B) Park or Street? Park is infinitely preferable to street. Cars are greatly undesired.
C) Reflect a more formal experience? Definitely do not want a formal experience. Southwest inhabitants are proud of their modernist architecture and public spaces. Our public spaces should be fun and functional.
D) Represent the SW Ecodistrict story? By all means please represent the SW Ecodistrict story! A historical nod to Benjamin Banneker, and SW’s proud history, must be acknowledged as well.
E & F) General Layout is definitely the right approach. Linear parks are very hip right now. See www.thehighline.org. But, the park should definitely be playful and allude to what the Waterfront has going for it locally...which is WATER.
How did you find out about the meeting? List serve invitation: Southwest Neighborhood Assembly Board member's email list & DC Waterfront Gateway email list.
Read more
—Sam Marrero, Washington, DC (May 23, 2013)
Read more
—Nancy, Washington, DC (December 02, 2013)