Affordable Housing Institute : US

 

Yesterday I reviewed Steven Pearlstein’s column seeking a regional solution, and finished by rhetorically asking what was the one feature that distinguishes Washington DC from its neighboring towns?

 

“I’m staying under the height restriction!”

 

The height restriction.

 

Virtually unique among US — at least, I know of no other — the District has forbidden buildings taller than 160 feet.  The reason, as anyone who’s spent time in Washington might suspect, dates back to Congressional ire:

 

The maintenance of Washington’s low architectural profile is enshrined in law, but not, as many who visit D.C. believe, because its planners wanted to ensure that the Capitol and the monument remained the tallest structures in the city. Rather, at the dawn of the 20th Century, residents were afraid Washington was about to lose its charm.

 

What was the atrocity that roused legislative wrath?

 

Height restrictions!

 

Why, the dreaded apartment block:

 

Although leaders as far back as Thomas Jefferson thought about restricting the height of Washington’s buildings, the law stems from anger over the height of a specific apartment building [The Cairo — Ed.]. By today’s standards, the Cairo is relatively short, a bit more than 160 feet.  The Capitol is more than 120 feet taller and Chicago’s Sears Tower is about nine times its size.

 

In Dupont Circle; now it’s condo

 

But in 1894, when the Cairo was built, it was tall for the U.S. — and very tall for Washington.  The limit that is still in place was passed by Congress in 1910 as the last revision of a law sparked in part by the Cairo.  

 

Washington is operating under an intangible — but entirely visible! — horizontal force field:

 

You’re not touching me, big boy

 

Now, no building can be more than 20 feet taller than the width of the street it sits on, limiting buildings on the widest streets to 160 feet tall.

 

Anyone who visits Washington knows it’s a lovely city to walk, and not just because of the plethora of monuments, museums, and historical buildings.  L’Enfant’s broad boulevards, Washington’s bounty of parks, and its commitment to green space all make it a truly pedestrian-friendly city.  But all that comes at a price — the city that cannot go up goes out. 

 

But now some are questioning whether the height limit is still the smartest thing for Washington. With property prices soaring and the possibilities for new office space running out, some think the only way Washington can grow is up.

 

The extrusion of demand beyond the District’s boundaries is readily visible in Rosslyn, just over the river, where the twin lozenge towers (formerly the headquarters of USA Today) bespeak value possibilities that, having been squelched in the District, have migrated laterally until they found their outlet.

 

You can’t build this in Washington … but you can in Virginia

 

A 2003 study conducted under then-Mayor Anthony Williams found that, if the limit were raised to 160 feet throughout the city, Washington would gain up to $10 billion in tax revenue over 20 years.

 

Because cities are economic entities, decisions they make to inhibit growth have a cost.  In this case, the cost is $500,000,000 annually (more or less; I’m oversimplifying the hidden net present values) — which dwarfs the Mayor’s $117 million contribution. 

 

Print one a year for twenty years

 

(Not to take anything away from the Mayor’s plan, you understand; it’s just that the invisible costs so often swamp the visible mitigations.)

 

“There are areas of the city where we could go higher, where I think more density would benefit the city,” said Eric Price, who was deputy mayor for planning and economic development under Williams. “I think it would benefit in jobs. I think it would benefit on the housing front.”

 

Of course it would.

 

Price is now vice president of Abdo Development, which builds apartment buildings and high-end condominiums.

 

No self-interest there!

 

Sean Madigan, the spokesman for Neil Albert, the current deputy mayor for planning and economic development, said the focus should be on construction in underdeveloped parts of the city rather than more development in higher-density neighborhoods.

 

All well and good, Mr. Madigan, but you’ve offered a false dichotomy.

 

 

Development isn’t either-or; it’s both-and. 

 

If Washington is really serious about tackling its affordable housing problem, then the Mayor needs to betake himself up to Capitol Hill, and get Congress to repeal its hundred-year-old law. 

 

Looking down on Washington for 100 years

 

Perhaps he can explain to the elected members that a few things relative to urbanization have happened since they indulged their fit of architectural pique.

 

“What do you guys think of repealing the Cairo bill?”

 

 

Send post as PDF to