Washington high-rise district

[NovaWolverine]

Originally Posted by paytonc

NCPC's Southwest EcoDistrict planning scenarios* for the blocks surrounding L'Enfant Promenade outline a potential 67% increase in square footage just by infilling completely empty windswept expanses of concrete, with no increase in zoning.

The area is currently zoned C-3-C, or 6.5 FAR with a 90' height.** The C-5 zoning, DC's highest density, allows 12 FAR and 160' high. L'Enfant is 180' wide, so in theory under the Height Act it could be lined with 200' tall buildings! That's taller than the 160' maximum under C-5. Combine an 85% density increase from upzoning + the 67% increase from infill and you have almost 23 million square feet of potential new building, over and above what's there already, all in just 16 blocks of mostly obsolete and unloved buildings. The whole of Tyson's Corner currently has 26 million square feet of office.

That's probably the corner of downtown with the greatest potential -- two more include Federal Center SW (just east) and the Judiciary Square area -- but there is a LOT of space to grow within the existing Height Act. DC can do a lot without asking Congress for any favors.

I've seen the scenarios for the ecodistrict, and the increases in sq. ft. I've seen are more in the 30-40% range. And this area has a number of tenants with security requirements that will effect the ground-level experience, so I'm not sure super high density is the main priority for this area. I think having some urban green space in this area would be great as well.

Judiciary Square is mostly built-out, unless you're talking about land-rights over 395, or further towards the Mt. Vernon triangle, which is mostly spoken for and should be shorter because it's closer to predominantly residential neighborhoods. There are historic buildings in that area that probably aren't going anywhere. And the Federal Center SW area has some room to grow but it's still not enough.

My problem is that the C-5 zoning as a maximum doesn't need to exist. The Height Act doesn't need to exist. If people were pissed about the Cairo Hotel, than it should have been a matter for that neighborhood and not dictate what the rest of the city does in perpetuity. One Franklin Square is a very handsome building that was given an exception, and we'd have plenty more attractive buildings, with interesting features near their top, if we were more relaxed.

Originally Posted by paytonc

If I were to ask Congress for a favor, it would be to relinquish the blocks of surface parking south and north of the Capitol. You'd think the would-be free-marketeers under that dome would be in favor of that.

I completely agree, not the mention that the Capitol Power Plant uses coal. Those areas are not very pedestrian friendly, as well. I wouldn't be favor of building those lots up all that high, though. I think ten stories or so is a reasonable height for that neighborhood and tapering down from there as you get closer to the residential homes in Capitol Hill and the Capitol South metro stop.

Originally Posted by paytonc

The current trend in zoning ("form based codes") moves away from using FAR and returns to using a building-envelope approach. FAR is a very poor way of regulating the shape of a building, since there's a big incentive to just leave space at the ground floor and go up instead. Many of Vancouver's residential tower developments have similar FAR (often in the 2-3 FAR range) as the 3-flat neighborhoods of Boston or Chicago or San Francisco.

I'm a big proponent of form based code; we should be concerned with buildings fitting in with their surroundings and filling their space, but I'm talking about the height of buildings 100 or more years down the road. We may be able to get by, but is it worth the headache?

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by NovaWolverine

I've seen the scenarios for the ecodistrict, and the increases in sq. ft. I've seen are more in the 30-40% range. And this area has a number of tenants with security requirements that will effect the ground-level experience, so I'm not sure super high density is the main priority for this area....

Judiciary Square is mostly built-out...

My problem is that the C-5 zoning as a maximum doesn't need to exist. The Height Act doesn't need to exist....

I completely agree, not the mention that the Capitol Power Plant uses coal...

Just some clarifications:
1. You're correct; NCPC's "Repurpose" (highest-build) scenario proposes a 45% increase in density. I'm not sure which tenants still require a lot of security there; there's a DHS building but it has no big barriers. USPS may have to downsize anyways, which opens up its site. Also, the area has better transportation access (L'Enfant metro, VRE, I-395) than any other site in the region besides Union Station, so it sounds like a super place for high density to me.

The point remains that substantial new development is still possible within city limits, and within the existing legal framework. Not much needs to happen to allow the District's office capacity to grow by 20-30% (an entire new CBD!) in already transit-rich locations that are ripe for re-redevelopment.

2. There are obsolete office buildings in the broader "Judiciary Square" area (anything between Chinatown and Union Station) which are already being reskinned or redeveloped. Now would be a prime opportunity to capture additional density in that process.

3. You're correct about C-5 being artificial, and I'm not sure what the new zoning code will say about it. In any case, it's something City Council could easily change.

Technically, yes, the Height Act doesn't need to exist, but undoing it will require Congressional action -- and Congress is really good at doing nothing. In the meantime, saying that the Height Act is the primary limit on density in DC is wrong. In almost all instances, the zoning code is more restrictive than the Height Act.

4. The power plant was switched over to gas in 2009 (note the year). The Architect of the Capitol commissioned a 2050 plan to show how Capitol South could be infilled, including a few blocks over I-395, but I've never seen anything about the Senate side blocks. WCP had a blog post mentioning the House plan:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/b...t-the-capitol/

[NovaWolverine]

Originally Posted by paytonc

Just some clarifications:
1. You're correct; NCPC's "Repurpose" (highest-build) scenario proposes a 45% increase in density. I'm not sure which tenants still require a lot of security there; there's a DHS building but it has no big barriers. USPS may have to downsize anyways, which opens up its site. Also, the area has better transportation access (L'Enfant metro, VRE, I-395) than any other site in the region besides Union Station, so it sounds like a super place for high density to me.

The point remains that substantial new development is still possible within city limits, and within the existing legal framework. Not much needs to happen to allow the District's office capacity to grow by 20-30% (an entire new CBD!) in already transit-rich locations that are ripe for re-redevelopment.

2. There are obsolete office buildings in the broader "Judiciary Square" area (anything between Chinatown and Union Station) which are already being reskinned or redeveloped. Now would be a prime opportunity to capture additional density in that process.

3. You're correct about C-5 being artificial, and I'm not sure what the new zoning code will say about it. In any case, it's something City Council could easily change.

Technically, yes, the Height Act doesn't need to exist, but undoing it will require Congressional action -- and Congress is really good at doing nothing. In the meantime, saying that the Height Act is the primary limit on density in DC is wrong. In almost all instances, the zoning code is more restrictive than the Height Act.

4. The power plant was switched over to gas in 2009 (note the year). The Architect of the Capitol commissioned a 2050 plan to show how Capitol South could be infilled, including a few blocks over I-395, but I've never seen anything about the Senate side blocks. WCP had a blog post mentioning the House plan:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/b...t-the-capitol/

I believe the Capitol Power Plant still burns some coal and is a significant source of PM2.5 in the area.

And I'm not saying that the Height Limit is the primary limit on density in DC as a whole. I think we *should* have the full spectrum as far as density is concerned. I don't want to see buildings next to The Mall, Capitol Hill, Georgetown, Dupont Circle, and a host of other places much taller, if at all, than they are now. There is a lot of character that's worth preserving outside of our CBD that a lot of people would prefer get razed and become more like our current CBD is now, which is basically an office ghetto w/o enough diversity in uses and variety in designs, most of which are boxes. We've also lost a good bit of quality low-medium rise architecture that didn't maximize their zoning.

I don't think the footprint of the CBD needs to change at all. There are are areas that are limited by zoning, or not utilizing the zoning maximums of their location, right now in the areas we've mentioned, but the height limit and the aesthetic we have absolutely is a factor when it comes to going taller and denser in the most transit rich and demanded areas of the CBD. I don't prescribe to the idea that we need to utilize 100% of the volume of buildings that our current zoning allows, or would allow for if we raised areas like Judiciary Square, L'Enfant, Federal Center SW, etc., before deciding what to do next. I'm not saying taller buildings are the panacea to every problem, because downtown needs help in a number of ways, but I think there are plenty of negative externalities associated with the height limit that people overlook because all they're concerned about is the unique look.

[回回]

Originally Posted by paytonc

There are no areas of Chicago where density rivals the Loop's in terms of FAR. You may be referring to River North or Central Station, but the base zoning there is typically (IIRC) 5, 7, or 12 FAR, far below the 16 FAR base found in the Loop (and "West Loop" east of Clinton).

I doubt the Red Line ran at capacity when it opened. I don't know if it does today. Unlike the CTA, all of Metro was built to the same specifications, so 8-car trains are the maximum for all lines. Metro cars can fit about 50% more people than CTA cars.

The Silver Line is stuck with 10 trains per hour because it has to share the Rosslyn-Foggy tunnel with the Orange and Blue lines. A very-long-range proposal to split the Blue Line off into a new crosstown tunnel would fix that bottleneck, but 5+ miles of subway through rock would cost several billion dollars. (It would also widen the sizable gap in transit capacity between the core and the suburbs.)

Also, that BRT link was for Montgomery County's plans. I don't know of any BRT proposed for Tysons, although the Beltway HOT lanes may make such service possible. Comparisons with Japan are also completely spurious: those skyscrapers are serviced by train service with utterly mind-boggling capacity.

Fact of the matter is, one could build giant new towers in Tysons, but how is anyone going to get there? Over the course of an hour, the Silver Line can deliver a maximum of 15,000 people to Tysons. Those 15,000 people, if seated in 200 square foot cubicles, would fill only 3M square feet of offices. That's *two* Loop skyscrapers.

I'm mainly referring to the areas directly adjacent to the Loop like Streeterville. Within a one minute walk of my apartment there are at least three of each, residential, hotel, and office highrises, (so it feels quite dense to me) and a five storey mall, and a sports center, I don't need a train/bus/taxi etc. to get to where I usually want to go.

Washington can't have this level of live/work/play because it is mostly office, but I think places like Tysons are a clean canvas like my area once was.