# Skyscrapers for Washington DC?



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Scarce land could mean skyscrapers in Washington, company in DC skyline for monument, Capitol *
11 October 2008










WASHINGTON (AP) - No skyscrapers jut from this low-lying federal city, allowing iconic buildings like the Washington Monument and U.S. Capitol to dominate the horizon.

However, the historically sparse skyline might not stay that way.

As vacant land disappears in Washington, concerns about high real estate prices are fueling debate on whether developers should be allowed to build taller, which is prevented under a century-old law.

Land scarcity and concerns about the need to curb suburban sprawl have even spawned talk of eventually bringing office towers to a city long known for its picturesque views, sunlit streets and compact buildings. Within 15 years, according to one analysis, no more space will be available in a 3.5-mile stretch from Georgetown to Capitol Hill.

Christopher Leinberger, a land use strategist and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, warns that unless more room is found, the artificial cap on space will further inflate already soaring downtown real estate prices, which rank second behind Manhattan.

As a result, only the wealthiest businesses and residents will be able to stay in Washington, stunting the city's tax base.

Contrary to popular lore, the city's low-lying skyline has nothing to do with preserving the prominence of the Washington Monument's 555-foot stone obelisk.

In fact, Congress -- which has oversight over the capital -- passed the Height Act of 1910 in response to residents' outrage over the 14-story Cairo apartment building erected in 1894 near Dupont Circle, towering over nearby rowhouses. Besides concerns about aesthetics, there also was a desire to prevent buildings from becoming too tall for fire engine ladders.

The law limits building heights to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet. There have been several exceptions to allow for construction of the National Cathedral and Georgetown University Hospital. Otherwise, the Height Act has capped most buildings at 130 feet, though heights of 160 feet are permitted on certain areas of Pennsylvania Avenue.

For plenty of influential Washington planners, the idea of altering the city's skyline borders on blasphemy.

"I think it's very important to recognize the real uniqueness of Washington's physical character, certainly compared to any other American city," said Thomas Luebke, the secretary of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. He called the city's skyline "a national symbol."

Critics also include Marcel Acosta, executive director of the National Capital Planning Commission. He argues that unlike parts of New York and Chicago, Washington's streets are much more welcoming to pedestrians, thanks to plentiful sunlight.

"In a world of cookie-cutter cities, this is one of our great advantages," he said.

Still, Gerry Widdicombe, director of economic development for the Downtown DC Business Improvement District, said the city's height restrictions will get increasing attention as space for new development continues to shrink.

The nonprofit group projects that 57 million square feet of space remains for offices, shops and apartments in central Washington. Whether that space vanishes in 15 years, or perhaps 30, could depend on how badly the city is affected by an economic downturn, Widdicombe said.

Washington wouldn't be the first traditionally low-lying city to see its skyline go vertical. Many European cities have created high-rise districts, such as London's Canary Wharf. And the Paris city council recently voted to consider erecting tall buildings on the edge of the French capital.

In the U.S., Los Angeles limited most buildings to 150 feet until 1957 because of concerns about earthquakes, said Witold Rybczynski, an architecture critic and professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And Philadelphia had an informal rule until the 1980s that buildings remain lower than the 548-foot William Penn statue atop City Hall.

Besides lowering prices and slowing sprawl, proponents of taller buildings in D.C. note another upside -- moving away from what's been dubbed "The Washington Box." Many of the city's office buildings have long been disparaged for their low ceilings and square, unimaginative facades that seek to use every possible square foot rather than dazzling passers-by with elegant designs.

David Garrison, who has lived in Washington for 30 years, is among those who complain about the drab architecture, particularly along the high-powered K Street corridor. Yet for him, tall buildings marring the skyline would be even worse.

"I like the look and feel of the city," he said. "I'm used to it."

Whayne Quin, a lawyer who specializes in land use and urban planning, points to poor architecture, not the city's height limit, for the boxy buildings. He notes that many newer buildings are a vast improvement over those built decades ago.

Though Quin opposes wholesale changes to Washington's height limit, he is open to small modifications. He said one possibility could include allowing for higher density near mass transit, such as Metrorail.

In Leinberger's view, though, tinkering with the Height Act to allow a few extra floors here and there won't solve anything.

"The options are either out or up," he said. "At some point, either we're gong to deal with it or our children are going to deal with it."


----------



## sovman (Aug 8, 2008)

I personally wouldn't like seeing 50+ story buildings pop up all over DC, but allowing for ones that are a little taller, like in Arlington, would be good.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Exactly. Raise the height limits in surrounding cities (like in Rosslyn, bethesda,etc) instead of ruining DC.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

i'm a very big skyscraperfan...but i don't think washington should get skyscrapers. the city looks great without towers


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Perhaps in the suburbs like in Paris.


----------



## Gaeus (Mar 21, 2007)

Arlington(Rosslyn), Alexandria(Old Town), Tyson's Corner and Bethesda is a good choice. Putting Skyscrapers in downtown DC will just destroy the beauty of the the Capitol and the Washington Monument. I love seeing the Capitol from far away. Its totally unique. It reminds people that this is truly "The Capital" or "The Center". Imagine how people feel if the Capitol is covered by the Skyscrapers. I will be totally disappointed if its me.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Do you have a link to that article? I'd like to send it to some friends.

Mike


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

mgk920 said:


> Do you have a link to that article? I'd like to send it to some friends.
> 
> Mike


http://www.startribune.com/nation/30841244.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciatkEP7DhU


----------



## cityscapes (Feb 17, 2007)

There is plenty of areas in DC that could be demolished and redeveloped instead of building upwards or spreading out.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

The whole idea of the height limits was to make sure all the monuments were what dominated the skyline. Why not make a non-central district into DC's skyscraper district, or set them back from the mall a ways?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Bad idea. The aesthetic appeal of Washington would be compromised by allowing skyscrapers. 

They allowed them in Ottawa and it's turned much of the city into a cookie cutter replica of every other city in Canada. Ottawa should have insisted on large, but low rise buildings that complimented the Canadian Parliament buildings, Supreme Court, and Chateau Laurier. 

Washington should learn from Ottawa's mistakes. Don't do it!


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Give the people what they want!


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

skyscrapers in washington would destroy the flair of the city IMO


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

A few buildings can't take away the character of a city. It will change the view from outside of the city, but not from the streets. D.C. will still be D.C.

Let them eat cake!


----------



## indiekid (Aug 19, 2008)

Its difficult to say, in one respect its preserving the city's beauty, in the other it is restricting the city's growth. Edinburgh suffers from this conundrum aswell, with Heritage freaks complaining about anything remotely modern looking.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

WeimieLvr said:


> Give the people what they want!


Exactly. People want Washington preserved for future generations instead of turned into just another cookie cutter city.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

bleh


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

hkskyline said:


> http://www.startribune.com/nation/30841244.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciatkEP7DhU


Thanx!

Mike


----------



## backupcoolm3n (Oct 12, 2008)

they should allow a quarter mile of land in DC for construction of buildings of unlimited height


----------



## Canadian Chocho (May 18, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Bad idea. The aesthetic appeal of Washington would be compromised by allowing skyscrapers.
> 
> They allowed them in Ottawa and it's turned much of the city into a cookie cutter replica of every other city in Canada. Ottawa should have insisted on large, but low rise buildings that complimented the Canadian Parliament buildings, Supreme Court, and Chateau Laurier.
> 
> Washington should learn from Ottawa's mistakes. Don't do it!


Ottawa's "skyscrapers" hardly scrape the sky.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

cachen said:


> oh right, its so significant and historic. being a fake city constructed barely over 200 years ago and all.
> 
> its kind of funny that a website filled with hatred towards alleged "nimbys" has all these posts. but mostly its just pathetic.
> 
> ...


Ok...well...200 years is a significant historical period of time - but history doesn't need to be of a certain "old age" to be significant or real. 

The discussion was not about politics, but about the importance of preservation rather than your solution. The beauty of the structures and the reasons behind their existence have a lot to do with them being widely accepted and admired...there was no mention of government. The memorials and monuments in D.C. are just as iconic and important as any others throughout the world.

I'm not sure where you picked up any "hatred for the evil U.S. government", but I certainly don't hate it - although I'm not fond of the current administration. Intelligent people don't just throw in the towel when they are unhappy with leadership in a democracy...but that is headed off-topic.


----------



## manila_eye (Aug 12, 2008)

leave dc alone. put those boxes in new york.


----------



## Skyscrapers 2009 (Jul 30, 2008)

^^New York has way too many boxes.


----------



## ames (Aug 10, 2007)

skyscraper for Washington bad idea, washington is one of the beautifull city for what the city has.


----------



## cornish pasty (May 29, 2008)

Create a CBD on the outskirts of the city, like Paris has. Skyscrapers haven't ruined Paris.

Building up is always better than building out.


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

cornish pasty said:


> Create a CBD on the outskirts of the city, like Paris has. Skyscrapers haven't ruined Paris.
> 
> Building up is always better than building out.


That's actually what DC is doing with transit oriented developments. DC has multiple skylines scattered around it's suburbs very close to the city. Probably the most famous being Rossyln in Arlington or Silver Springs in Maryland.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

lol silver springs


----------



## sovman (Aug 8, 2008)

I dunno why so many people pluralize spring hno:


----------



## Taiki24 (Dec 1, 2008)

This is an interesting connundrum. Putting skyscrapers in the suberbs wouldnt really work, since then DC wouldnt get any tax money from that, i think... DC itself is quite a paradox. It was never really supposed to have people in it year round, and now they dont have representation in congress. Ah well, its a beautiful place though!


----------



## lunarCarpet (Feb 8, 2008)

NO... DC has it's own beauty and style vs other USA cities. I would love a bit of more density, but within the current style of architecture.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Skyscrapers would look out of place in DC. 

If there's space nearby for a proper cluster of highrises I say go for it. There nothing I hate more than skyscrapers scattered throughout a city...except for black licorice, I hate black licorice.


----------



## Chong (Jun 27, 2008)

i gess skyscrapers ruin the, "historic" beauty and heritage of D.C.

Imagine skyscrapers jotting out from behind the Lincoln center, white house, the capitol, the monument? it would completely ruin the view.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^^ I know Madrid has made the same mistake before. hno:


----------



## Chong (Jun 27, 2008)

now, really, they should limit the height of buildings in the city. Or, if possible, locate a central CBD away from D.C.'s landmarks. Like Paris's le Defense CBD built just outside the city to avoid Paris's rich cultural architecture.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^^ The Montparnasse tower in Paris is so poorly located also. hno:


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Chong said:


> now, really, they should limit the height of buildings in the city. Or, if possible, locate a central CBD away from D.C.'s landmarks. Like Paris's le Defense CBD built just outside the city to avoid Paris's rich cultural architecture.


that's already been done in several locations outside the city


----------



## Taiki24 (Dec 1, 2008)

MDguy said:


> that's already been done in several locations outside the city


Where? Baltimore seems to be the closest city with any sort of skyline.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Taiki24 said:


> Where? Baltimore seems to be the closest city with any sort of skyline.


Have you ever been to DC?

..and looked across the river (rosslyn)








http://flickr.com/photos/imagesbyaj/1024562794/

or went a little outside..(silver spring)








(posted on cd)

Bethesda








(posted on cd)

Ballston








(posted on cd)

tysons Corner (horrible photo)








http://images.google.com/imgres?img...channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N

Rockville








(from CD)

Gaithsburg








(from CD)

The New National Harbor








(posted at cd)

etc etc theres so many suburban areas of offices and retail etc


----------



## jCav (Sep 20, 2008)

It seems that the only option for D.C is to densify to a point where it restricts business. Then maybe we should see how the law stands up. There is still plenty of land to the east and south to develop into a higher density, right?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Space Available
Firms looking at leases' end find friendly D.C. market. *
10 May 2010
The National Law Journal

It's a good year to be a law firm near the end of its lease in Washington. Commercial vacancy rates have hit double digits for the first time in more than a decade, driving landlords to make valuable concessions.

Some of Washington's largest law offices could profit. With leases expiring in the next few years, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Arnold & Porter; Covington & Burling; and McDermott Will & Emery are among those considering a move.

But even a tenant-friendly real estate market has its limits. In Washington, where skyscrapers are barred by law, buildings that can house firms needing 200,000 square feet of space or more are fairly few. And the vacancy rates are not nearly as favorable in Washington's central business district, which has prompted some firms to think outside the borders.

Bobby Burchfield, co-managing partner of McDermott's Washington office, said he would consider moving at least part of his firm across the river to Virginia if the price were right. "Keeping the option of opening at least a satellite office in Virginia on the table really opens up the competition," Burchfield said. McDermott's lease expires in 2012.

With a vacancy rate of 11.5% in Washington, or about 13 million square feet of available commercial real estate, five Washington-based brokers said landlords are increasingly willing to make concessions that were unheard of three or four years ago. Matthew Levin, a vice president at the real estate firm West, Lane & Schlager, said that prospective tenants for the top-end office space can negotiate $100 per square foot or more in concessions in their lease agreement, including between six and eight months of free rent. Some landlords are also agreeing to swallow building-out costs worth between $60 and $70 per square foot. "These are the kinds of deals that you won't see again for a long, long time," Levin predicted.

Law firms are taking advantage, said Raymond Ritchey, executive vice president and national director of acquisitions and development at Boston Properties. Ritchey said he is seeing more and more firms sign longer-term leases to avoid "having to re-enter the market every 10 or 15 years." He said the trend has been to sign 15-to 20-year leases.

Those who might not be ready to lock in the firm for the next two decades still appreciate the sweeteners. In March, Wiley Rein inked the largest lease this year in Washington when it extended its stay at two linked properties for another 10 years, beginning in 2014. Wiley's lease renewal covers 191,314 square feet at 1776 K St. N.W. and 143,926 square feet at 1750 K St. N.W.

Richard Wiley, a name partner at Wiley Rein, said the firm had been looking at its options for the past two years and considered 12 different locations. "In the end, the partners voted almost unanimously to stay where we were," Wiley said. But the firm was able to broker a better deal than it had before. Wiley said the landlords agreed to improve the heating and cooling systems in both buildings.

Arthur Santry III, who leads the national law firm practice at real estate firm Cassidy Turley, said firms that stay in older buildings, like Wiley Rein, often pay significantly less. Wiley himself said the firm is paying about 25% less than it would for a newer building. That would put it at about $20 million a year in rent.

Other law firms have opted this year to explore leases in new buildings. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson has signed a 16-year lease, starting next year, for 102,000 square feet at 801 17th St. N.W., which is the first office building in Washington to achieve Platinum LEEDcertification, the highest level of "green" certification for new construction. Vinson & Elkins is negotiating to move into 70,000 square feet across the street at 800 17th St. N.W.

Real estate brokers said that, for new buildings, firms can expect to pay about $80 per square foot, meaning Fried Frank will likely pay about $8.16 million annually and Vinson & Elkins would likely pay about $5.6 million.

The biggest Washington law office known to be looking at a new building is Skadden. As reported by the Washington Business Journal, the firm has signed a letter of intent to lease 350,000 square feet in the new CityCenter D.C., down from the firm's 370,000 square feet at 1440 New York Ave. N.W. That deal is dependent on the project's developers, Hines Interests and Archstone Apartments, shoring up financing for the project, which is pegged at $800 million for the initial stage. The center, which would occupy the site of the old convention center, is designed for 500,000 square feet of office space, plus residential and retail space. If the financing comes through, the project could begin construction in 2011 with a movein date of mid-2013. Skadden's lease is up in 2013. Clifford "Mike" Naeve, managing partner of Skadden's Washington office, declined to comment on the deal.

NEW NEIGHBORHOODS

To reap the best deals, brokers suggest firms must be willing to relocate to the area north of Massachusetts Avenue or east to the Navy Yard neighborhood near Nationals Park.

"That's fine," said McDermott's Burchfield. He said McDermott would definitely consider moving to either locale. Burchfield added that moving out of the city could have benefits that far outweigh the ego boost that comes from being in the nation's capital. "If we moved at least part of our operation to Virginia, it would make the commute much easier for a lot of our lawyers," he said. Also, "It would be a way to show clients, who are all pushing firms to be more efficient so as not to pass higher costs along to them, that we are willing to look at all of the options out there."

McDermott, which rents more than 190,000 square feet at 600 13th St. N.W., will face some competition if and when it starts looking at particular spaces. In addition to the smaller law offices that, brokers said, are actively looking now—including Ballard Spahr and Baker & McKenzie— two of the city's longtime largest firms are in, or about to enter, the market.

Real estate brokers said that Arnold & Porter and Covington have begun interviewing candidates to represent them. Arnold & Porter's lease on 450,000 square feet at 555 12th St. N.W. expires in 2015. Covington has 300,000 square feet at 1201 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. and 100,000 square feet at 1275 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Its lease expires in 2016. Lawyers from both Arnold & Porter and Covington declined to comment.

Other law firms with leases coming to a close may want to get out there too. Santry predicted the market will begin to swing back in favor of landlords within the next 18 months to two years.

He said, "Now's the time to be thinking about your options."


----------

