Do you think that Washington D.C .... Americas capitol deserves a good skyline or do you still wish for the capital building to be the dominant building in USA's capital?
- Ofcourse I say yes because I am skyscraper bias....Also Think about london without the Loyds building and the Gherkin building London would look far different

Washington-- Apart from the Monuments theres nothing else really to it so it need to have some more skyline!
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8874/250pxwashmonumentwhitehmg1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
London--
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4338/skyline19e23e5bd7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



.........See what I mean?

DC was designed and built specifically to be America's capitol. Skyscrapers would ruin it. It's just not the place for it. Maybe they can build a La Defense type area far away from city center and build up...

DC is perfectly fine without skyscrapers, it would just become an other generic east coast city if it had.

I think that what makes DC so good looking (imo) is the way they don't have tall buildings. like someone said, it would ruin it. And there are Many high rise districts in the area such as rosslyn, silver spring, bethesda, ect..

In short, no. It works.

I think it's better without. In fact, you could say it's an achievement for Washington NOT to have them, when virtually every other American city has built them in abundance. Anyway, Washington already has some amazing, world famous landmarks that beautify the city and define its image - it simply doesn't need a load of tall buildings. People associate skyscrapers with New York, Chicago, LA, etc. and that's where skyscrapers should stay.

D.C. doesnt need a huge skyline.

Take into account that London and Paris are like Washington AND NYC for their respective nations--the seat of government and the main financial/business centers. Aside from those two cities--the rest of the European capitols have pretty lowrise skylines. Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam, Athens, Brussels, Lisbon, Vienna, etc. have really no skylines to speak of. Nor do places like Canberra, Brasilia, Ottawa, Mexico City, etc. Even Bejing (which is starting to form a decent skyline) was always put to shame by Shanghai, Hong Kong, and other Chinese cities.

No, it works well for the city.

However, I don't see much of a reason for a height limit outside the city, in the suburbs.

ok so everybody who commented has said no but 4 people still put yes?

Remember that "minority report" movie?

I´d love to see D.C. as it is on the movie ;)

DC stays low :nocrook:

Nor do places like Canberra, Brasilia, Ottawa, Mexico City, etc.

Mexico City is full of tall buildings starting back in the 50's. The tallest is 755 feet tall, and there would be taller by now if it weren't financially restrictive to build taller in an earthquake zone on top of a soggy lake-bed.

DC was designed to be low and should stay low. And I've read somewhere that it stays low because of security reasons or something like that

Ilike DC like that. it is unique, so no tall buildings!

Mexico City is full of tall buildings starting back in the 50's. The tallest is 755 feet tall, and there would be taller by now if it weren't financially restrictive to build taller in an earthquake zone on top of a soggy lake-bed.

lets be honest....Mexico City does not have a great skyline.

I would leave the way Washington, DC is. It's got its own personality and the skyline would ruin the city for sure.

Our capital, Ottawa, has height restrictions specifically because of the parliament buildings. If taller structures were there, the parliament buildings would be hidden and they wouldn't be the centre of attention. Same goes for DC and the monument.

I would say no. DC has rather small boundries though and I would be up for building high just outside the city limits if there was the market for it.

I say no...DCs vibe would change if there were skyscrapers everywhere

The difference between Washington and London is, London is a global city and the biggest, most dominant city in the UK if not Europe, both financially and culturally. DC is America's capital but it isn't it's financial powerhouse. I think it's a very unique thing about DC that the capital building is the tallest building, good that it has something about it and isn't just another city of steel and glass. Another thing with London is that none of the tall buildings are allowed to intrude on to landmarks such as the Tower of London and St Paul's Cathedral.

You bias is definitely evident when you say 'do you think Washington DC deserves a good skyline' implying that a skyline of interestingly shaped but low-rise buildings is inferior to one of standardised but high buildings

Without it's tall buildings London would still be recognisably London, it isn't a skyscraper city, only a few New World, and Asian cities have truly image defining tall buildings.

DC is perfectly fine without skyscrapers, it would just become an other generic east coast city if it had.

Architecturally I find DC's old architecture quite beautiful, but the new is about as bland as you can get. There is plenty of post modern in D.C. and its all boxy and unattractive. It wouldn't be so bad if there were a few buildings but surprisingly there's so many. JW Marriot, Grand Hyatt, International Square, Hechts, all horrible imo. And around Conn. and K, the absolute worst. So yes after living there for over 25 years I think it would be great to lift the restriction.

I like skyline restrictions. My states capitol (Madison, Wisconsin) has one and I think it adds so much to the city. The capitol building is so bright and prominent at night.


http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3029/zmaddkv0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

there are tall buildings in arlington va. Its right across the river. I dont have a pic though.

D.C. has smaller skylines all around its metro--including some pretty decent ones in (obviously) Baltimore.

pwright, you compain about the low quality of DC's modern architecture, but do you think that lifting the restrictions will increase its quality, or will it just increase its height.

I voted yes :cheers:

No )=

I think that the flat Washington reminds a bit about how Boston used to be, or any American city really. I dont think theres any practicall reason neither, i mean Washington doesnt have any serious urban sprawl like LA as far as im aware of.

D.C. has smaller skylines all around its metro--including some pretty decent ones in (obviously) Baltimore.

you can't consider baltimore in the metro. it's the Baltimore/Washington Metro, not just the DC metro. besides, Baltimore is larger than DC

DC was made to be the capital of the US, and its better that the US Capitol remains the tallest building.

you can't consider baltimore in the metro. it's the Baltimore/Washington Metro, not just the DC metro. besides, Baltimore is larger than DC

well, I mean that Balitmore and D.C. are the same metro area. No disprespect to Baltimore meant.

I apologize if someone has already mentioned this, but I think more recently the concerns about height restrictions have become more focused on national security. Not only that, but DC has a uniqueness that shouldn't be tarnished.

The reason for why the Dist of Columbia was created in the first place is that the US wanted to have a location that wasn't around when the British had the 13 Colonies. The reason why it kept on moving from NYC and then to Philly was b/c they didn't want another London. When the Presidents (now White) House was completed in 1800, it was finally declared the capital of the US, though John Adams was living there before it was finished. As for the name Washington, it wasn't orginally intented to be named after him, but it was b/c he died just a few months before the White House was completed, and that he was the only president never to reside there. BTW, the US Capitol isn't the tallest, the Washington Monument is the biggest, but it doesn't count b/c it's an observation tower rather than a building.

pwright, you compain about the low quality of DC's modern architecture, but do you think that lifting the restrictions will increase its quality, or will it just increase its height.

It would definately increase its quality. Honestly there isn't much you can do with the design of a 12 story 150ft box. There's just too many of the stuck together 150' flat top boxes.

I think the idea of having the height limit only apply to downtown D.C. and not the rest of the city is a good idea. The low-rises do add a certain feel to downtown D.C. that is unique, I don't think highrises would look good in that area.

And I agree with Cirrus, development in Anacostia would be a good idea. Last time I was in the city in 2001, I went through that neighborhood (I have relatives who lived there) and the shit looked like Berlin after World War II. It literally looked like a bomb hit it.


With that being said, I think D.C. needs to be changed completely anyway. I think the boundaries of the District of Columbia should be shrunken so that they only include the downtown area (i.e. the government buildings) and nothing else. The rest of the city should be given back to Maryland.


It's completely unfair for D.C. residents to have no representation in Congress (they have Eleanor Holmes Norton who does not vote, but particiaptes in debates, etc).


I think some of it is political - any elected official from D.C., whether a U.S. Representative or a U.S. senator, would almost be guaranteed to be black and Democratic. This would have more of an impact on the Senate than the House (2 new people among 100 makes more of a difference than 2 new people among 435 people).


D.C. is a great city (if I got a job there, I'd take it in a heartbeat). But it has a LOT of political issues it needs to work out.

It wasn't until 1961 that residents in DC finally got to vote in national elections after the 23rd amendment was passed in the US Constitution. The reason was that originally it wasn't a state, it was a district, and voting only applied to them, which is why the commonwealth never votes in national elections. When voting was finally allowed, it was given three electoral votes, which is the minium number for a state if they have just one member in the House of Representatives and two senators in the US Senate. Unfortunately, DC despite having electoral votes never their members of Congress, and this is b/c they aren't a state. However, they are allowed to have a mayor just like state capitols have, but no governor.

Their representation in Congress doesn't vote though.................yes, they can vote in presidential elections, but that's it. Their citizens still do not have full voting rights.

defenetlly NO! Washington is now just perfect for Political Capitol

Most capital cities usually are lowrise and the reason is to have most of government buildings be the biggest and most prominent within the city.

Their representation in Congress doesn't vote though.................yes, they can vote in presidential elections, but that's it. Their citizens still do not have full voting rights.

If they did get to vote in that DC isn't a state, then the commonwealth would be complaining about saying that they should have members in Congress as well.

I'd lift the height restrictions outside of the "monumental core". Even w/ the height restrictions, we're seeing some nice projects going up and planned.

This is usually the case for most European cities on preserving their cores.

SC is a beautiful city, and adding skyscrapers would ruin the view!.. anyway.. whats more important than government..

Keep the height restriction. It makes Washington different from other US cities and very unique. I wouldn't want skyscrapers right next to the National Mall.

There are plenty of taller buildings across the river in Virginia or in Montgomery County, MD (Bethesda and Silver Spring come to mind).

DC is a very good looking city up close at street level. The classic structures of the city do not need skyscrapers. And the tallest building in the city is not the Capitol building but the old Post Office on Penn. Ave. And it is short enough to not be intrusive.

But the reasons for raising the height limits are not just purely aesthetic. It's economics more than anything else. It makes D.C. real estate artificially inflate in value. If nobody can afford what little space is left, then that will force business to relocate in either Maryland or Virginia, and ultimately will hurt the city.