Brief comment on the height limit

Within the last couple months, there was a forum somewhere, the Building Museum I think, about DC, and Christopher Leinberger, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and involved somehow in teaching real estate at the University of Michigan, commented about the height restriction in DC, that it should be lifted.

Yesterday, the Post (see "Growth Machine") ran a follow up story about this, "High-Level Debate On Future of D.C.," subtitled "With Land in Short Supply, Scholar Says Taller Buildings Should Be Permitted."

A small bone to pick would be calling Mr. Leinberger a scholar. He's a developer, who's always had a scholarly bent, writing quite prolifically as you'll see if you check out his website. But he's not quite the "independent" objective academic, he's part of the real estate industry. Granted that the Brookings website identifies him as a scholar, but Mr. Leinberger's own website describes himself as a "Urban Land Strategist and Developer."

Nevertheless, he raises a legitimate point, that the city's economic competitiveness is impacted by the height limit. This was mentioned in the O'Cleiricain (spelling) report from Brookings in the early 1990s about the structural problems with the DC budget, that the height restriction limits property tax revenues, and leads to higher rents (due to reduced supply and increased demand).

It's one of many reasons that justify the federal payment to DC, in response to revenues foregone in many ways (non-taxable land, non-sales taxable transactions, exemptions on the ability to tax certain businesses, such as Fannie Mae, etc.)

The reality is that submarkets in the region like Rosslyn, Bethesda, Tysons Corner, and Alexandria, which seems to specialize in attracting nonprofit associations, etc., can underprice DC rents because their buildings are taller, and therefore the cost per square foot is less when compared to DC.

However, Patti Gallagher, director of NCPC, reflects the concern of many in her quote in the article, referring to the important viewshed corridors afforded to the prominent buildings in the city as a result of the height restriction. You can see buildings and structures such as the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument, as well as the Basilica of the National Shrine of Immaculate Conception or the Washington Cathedral, or even well-located schools such as McKinley Tech or Cardozo High School from many points in the city because of this law.

Even so, buildings in certain locations are impinging views that I once took for granted. For example, the new condominiums at Senate Square--and I like the design quite a bit--obscure views of the Capitol from north of Florida Avenue.

Nonetheless, I think that the height restriction could be surgically modified. But the number of places where it could likely be done would be limited.

Go up to a prominent point like the grounds of McKinley Tech and look around the city from that point, and you'll see what I mean.

On the other hand, letting the traditional Downtown, formerly known as the "Central Business District" now being renamed and expanded and called the "Center City" could probably go up to 160 to 180 feet wouldn't have that much negative impact.

But I wouldn't necessarily say this about the adjoining areas that are being amalgamated into the "Center City." NoMa, M Street SE, South Capitol, because of their proximity to the Capitol especially, should retain fealty to the height restriction.

(Note: smaller buildings also contribute to the intra-city sprawl phenomenon that I have been writing about.)