Jump to content

      



























Photo

Height Challenged


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 Urbalist

Urbalist
  • Member
  • 58 posts

Posted 06 February 2007 - 11:42 PM

A Tall Order for the D.C. Office Market

By Dana Hedgpeth Washington Post Monday, February 5, 2007




Skyscrapers in Washington? Well, not quite. But Christopher B. Leinberger, a land-use expert at the Brookings Institution, last week brought up the prospect of raising the height limit on buildings in the District. He didn't specify a height but encouraged community leaders, planners and developers to at least entertain the idea.

"Things have changed," he told a standing-room-only crowd of about 130 people at the National Building Museum as he played the 1960s song "Downtown."

"We have an office market that needs to go someplace," he said. "Density is critical. We're running out of land. We need to build up."

But changing the height rule would require an act of Congress, which in the early 1900s passed an act prohibiting buildings from being more than 130 feet tall, according to former city planning director Ellen McCarthy.

Leinberger spoke about the demand to move back into cities at an event sponsored by the National Building Museum and the D.C. Office of Planning.

In the past 60 years, Leinberger explained, the District has lost some of its share of leased office space to Tysons Corner and Montgomery and Loudoun counties as companies built offices "near where the boss lived." At the beginning of 2005, one-third of the leased office space in the region was in the District.

But then more people and companies came back to the cities, and in 2006, 46% of the office space leased was in the District.

Leinberger said the city is running out of land and is expected to be built out in 10 years. He said raising the height limit could take pressure off developing in and around historic districts, lower rents that are upward of $60 a square foot downtown and increase tax revenue for the city.

"Ten years ago the air rights above NoMa were worthless," Leinberger said of the area north of Massachusetts Avenue. He said that if developers could build in the air rights of NoMa, $320 million worth of value and $120 million in tax revenue annually could be generated from the projects. He estimates that 16 million square feet of space could be built there.

"There's value sitting out there," Leinberger said. He said there is also potential to build in the air rights of other developing areas, including Anacostia and along the Potomac River.

Developer Bruce Baschuk, who is working on projects in NoMa, said he would welcome the opportunity to build more densely, if the community thought it "could benefit from more robust growth." In exchange, he said, developers should be required to put in such amenities as parks and community centers.

Raising the height limit should be considered "where you have underutilized land or vacant land," Baschuk said. "Most of the people who bought land in NoMa bought there with the existing height limits. But if they came to us and said, 'You can build more,' we'd do it. It would be more lucrative, but we should have to horse-trade and give something in exchange for it."

Baschuk said raising the height limit in certain areas wouldn't lead to a glut of space or lower rents because not every developer would do it at once.

Raising the height limits has come up before, according to David Maloney, deputy state historic preservation officer for the District, but has never gone anywhere. "It's come up from time to time, sometimes seriously and sometimes not so seriously."

Some in the audience agreed that raising the limit would create denser neighborhoods. But not everyone was interested in the idea.

"Rosslyn has tall buildings and views of the city, but if you change the height limit and someone builds in the air rights above the Watergate then you've blocked that view," said Don Kreuzer, a dentist who has lived in Foggy Bottom for 35 years. "D.C. is beautiful because of the height limits. If you change that you're going to ruin the view."

#2 Urbalist

Urbalist
  • Member
  • 58 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 12:31 AM

What's the view worth?

Lisa Falkenberg Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — It is a blushing canvas in the sunset. A loyal companion to the University of Texas tower. A guiding star to lost motorists. A vigil bathed in moon glow. The pink-domed Texas Capitol, viewed from dozens of points around the capital city, is one of the most powerful symbols of Texas heritage. But for all its permanence on the ground, the Capitol's place in the sky appears to be up in the air.

The view of the 1888 Capitol, from Congress Avenue and from two dozen other locations, has been protected since the 1980s by state-required "view corridors."



But with Austin's downtown developers clamoring for bigger pieces of sky, the City Council has asked a committee to evaluate the protected viewpoints for the first time since they were created to determine if they are still worthy of protection.

Though the view from South Congress, the tower and other sacred vantage points aren't at risk, other corridors such as the upper deck of Interstate 35 or streets where trees have grown up to obstruct the view may be vulnerable if the city finds they're preventing lucrative developments from taking root.

Preservationists strongly oppose the study, saying that modifying or removing even a few more viewpoints would erode the enjoyment of one of the state's precious treasures.

"We don't want Austin to turn into Chicago," said Julian Read, an executive committee member of the half-century-old Heritage Society of Austin. "The thing that has made Austin what it is, is its openness, its charm. We don't want it to become a cold canyon of high-rises. We have high-rises popping up like weeds."

Robert Knight, chairman of the downtown development committee studying the issue, said preserving everything isn't an option in fast-growing Austin, which hopes to quadruple its downtown population over the next decade.

"A city is a growing organism, and if you preserve everything you stop all growth," Knight said. "The best way to do it is to strike a balance and to preserve the most important things."

The committee will take several months to study the issue, he said, touring the city and evaluating the views, grading each one and determining how much each costs the city to preserve.

Knight said one example of a questionable view corridor is the upper deck of southbound I-35. It's a stunning view, but he said highway construction projects may eventually eliminate the upper deck, so Austin has to decide if it needs to keep protecting a view that may not exist in another decade.

"There are people out there who are wringing their hands and thinking, 'Oh, these people are going to destroy our heritage,' and that's not true. All we're going to do is collect the information and pass it to the council and start the discussion," Knight said. "We of course expect this will be, like anything else in Austin, a lively discussion."

He noted the city can't eliminate a protected view unilaterally; any change ordered by the council would have to be approved by the Legislature.

Though the granite and limestone Capitol was completed in 1888, views of it around Austin weren't protected by state law until the 1980s, when former state Sen. Craig Washington of Houston got a bill passed establishing building height restrictions that protected certain view corridors. During the 2001 Legislature, the protections were added to the government code, which dictates the longitude and latitude of Capitol views just as it does the design of the Texas flag.

Washington, now practicing law in Houston, said he was moved to protect Capitol views after a controversy over construction of a tall bank building in the 1980s. Washington said that his news conference announcing the legislation featured a picture of the Capitol smothered in dollar bills.

"It was money against beauty, and I thought it was wrong," said Washington, also a former congressman. "I wanted to preserve it for future generations so you wouldn't have to stand a block away from the Capitol to be able to see it."

He even went so far as to sponsor a bill that would have created a "District of Travis," similar to the District of Columbia that encompasses the nation's Capitol. The bill didn't get far.

But Washington said it made a point: "It's not just the city of Austin and its citizens who are harmed by the unbridled growth and development of buildings that obscure and obliterate the majestic view of the Capitol. That view belongs to all Texans."

He said city officials have been good stewards of the Capitol views so far, but he's suspicious of any plan that weighs the value of views against development.

"It sounds like the argument they made before," he said. "What price do you put on it? It's priceless. And if they're doing it for money, shame on them. One day people will look back and say, 'Why didn't somebody stand up and do something about it?' when all the views of the Capitol are blocked, one by one, rationalization after rationalization."

Since the view protections were created, the Legislature has allowed three exceptions, including the upper deck of the Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, street redevelopment in East Austin and redevelopment of a municipal airport, according to Julie Fields, public information coordinator at the state Preservation Board.

And that's quite enough, said Read, the preservationist, who remembers "the most magnificent view you could imagine" of the Capitol when coming over the hill from San Antonio onto Riverside years ago.
"You drive that drive today and you are confronted with an ugly blob of concrete," he said. He also argues that modifying view corridors now would punish the developers and owners of other buildings who played by the past rules.

Any corridor changes would likely affect East Austin, where the pink dome overlooks restaurants, small frame houses and public playgrounds.

Brian Perkins, 39, who has lived in a 1940s bungalow in the area for nine years, before a wave of gentrification brought a construction boom to the historically black neighborhood, said the view of the Capitol has always been "one of the bragging rights" of East Austin.

"I always thought it was like engraved in granite," he said of the view.

His brother-in-law, Jeff Plowman, 42, who can see the Capitol from the front lawn of his 1918 Victorian house fitted with burglar bars, said replacing Capitol views with $300,000 condo high-rises would be sheer waste.

"I'd much rather see some of the state's history than some yahoo's big profit there," he said.

#3 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 08:46 AM

The view point that I miss the most, is the one that was lost when they built the Wang building near Douglas St and Carey Rd. The Q radio station was housed there for a while. When driving North on Douglas St. , there was a clear view of the white dome of the telescope at the Dominion astrophysical Observatory on little saanich mountain; the center of the universe no less.

#4 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 09:41 AM

A single landmark at a central location sure creates conrtols over a lot of land around it... Austin must be on a plain with little topographic variation...

Is that the only valued landmark that is protected there?

#5 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 09:58 AM

I have a big problem with any plan to develop as extensive a list of view corridors as is shown in Austin. I mean everywhere has a view of something. To me they come across as a means to argue against things not actually because you like the view.

I am not saying that all of them are unfounded but apart from perhaps legislature, Mount Baker, and Olympic Mountains we need to wary of the motives for any others.

I have big problems with the concerns for St. Andrews. I mean it is a beautiful church but there is no need to be able to see it from every direction.

Also who is to decide that a future building won't hold as much beauty as any building now. By restricting these buildings we may not see these buildings built.

Also who gets to decide what is on the list of potential view corridors?

For some the ability to see the Nissan Sahib pole of the Sikh Temple from many directions is I am sure an important one but would the community even consider it in its list, I doubt it. Why is it any less valid than another selection.

Anyways arbitrary decisions about views by a select portion of the population is dubious at best.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#6 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 01:24 PM

Funny you should start this thread, Urbalist. I just came across a couple of items from London, UK, about whether and/or how to build higher. The first, [url=http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/wales/government/cy/1115314829623.html:80b57]New tall building advice published for consultation[/url:80b57], where you can read, among other things:

Local planning authorities have been urged by the government's design and architectural advisers to include specific policies on tall buildings in their development plans.

That call has come from English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Building in a consultation draft of their newly updated Guidance on Tall Buildings.

As well as calling for a development-plan led approach the draft advice identifies opportunities offered by recent changes to the planning system to plan strategically for tall buildings and to control the quality of new developments.

The advisers have stressed that because of their high profile and local impact, tall buildings should set exemplary standards in design. The guidance is also explicit that proposals should exceed the latest regulations for minimising energy and reducing carbon emissions over the lifetime of the development.

(snip...)

Steve Bee, director of planning and development at English Heritage, said: "Planning decisions on tall buildings have to balance not just the economic benefits they may provide but the impact on the quality and significance of the surrounding area."

Meanwhile, in a related development, a row has erupted over two 50-storey "skyscrapers" which developers Land Securities are proposing for Victoria Station in central London which would affect the setting of Buckingham Palace. Westminster City Council is firmly against the tower plans while London Mayor Ken Livingstone is a supporter.


"Red" Ken supports highrises. Interesting.

This issue is also the subject of [url=http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1724:80b57]CABE and English Heritage urge local authorities to introduce tall buildings planning policy[/url:80b57].

Links found via [url=http://www.rudi.net/:80b57]RUDI[/url:80b57], which I "tried on" via a free 2-week trial, but am not quite willing to fork over the actual fees for. Anyone here a member?
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#7 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 09 February 2007 - 11:28 AM

Been following this thread (and the topic) for many years....

Here's an interesting perspective on the issue of view projection...

Mayor Seattle is quoted in 2001...

When asked for his opinion about protecting views, Mayor Paul Schell points out “we can’t save yesterday’s sunset.” That may be true but it’s tomorrow’s sunset we’re worried about.


There's some interesting thoughts here about the value of a view...

as well as the transfer of value from public benefit to private..

Here's the article... entitled...

Protecting views makes sense from every angle
By IRENE WALL

http://www.djc.com/n...e/11124625.html

#8 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 09 February 2007 - 11:35 AM

And..

Does someone publish a list of viewpoints as they do in Seattle...

Maybe another valuable contribution to a Vibrant Victoria...

Seattle, Washington
Viewpoints

http://www.gonorthwe... ... /views.htm

#9 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 09 February 2007 - 11:40 AM

While I have some sympathy for the mention of views from parks. I have almost none for a view from a car or a stadium seat. Anyways I think this all comes back to: Which views for who?

You can't satisfy everyone and everyone will differing assumptions on what is worthy. So in the end if we en up with a list of say five monuments / scenic vistas I think we have done well.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#10 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 09 February 2007 - 12:48 PM

The new buildings in Yaletown and Coal Harbour have become spectacular views unto themselves. Did anybody ever figure that would happen? Not too many, I bet, because the popular assumption is that new buildings will always be ugly buildings. There are numerous quotes in the article above that reflect this sentiment.

Beautiful new buildings can and do come along and they can become landmarks as cherished as the ones that already existed. Voila, new views. New landmarks are only new for a short time, afterwhich they are established and familiar.

If the Bay towers, Radius, and Gateway Green ever get built, they may well become landmarks themselves. Will people be fighting to preserve views of north downtown's landmarks one day, much like they fought to prevent those very landmarks from ever coming into existence in the first place?

#11 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 10:47 AM

From the front page of Vibrant Victoria:

The Right Height debate
The Urban Development Institute's Victoria chapter is hosting a debate on building height in Victoria. The debate will feature two Victorians expresing their viewpoints on the subject: Rob Randall, Chair of the Downtown Residents Association; and Franc d'Ambrosio, Principal of d'Ambrosio Architecture and Urbanism.

If you are a developer or development affiliate, heightophile or heightophobe, architect, planner, urbanist, downtown stakeholder, or citizen-activist interested in the future of our city, you will want to reserve now for this important presentation.

When: February 21, Noon
Where: Embassy Inn Dining Room, 520 Menzies
Cost: UDI members: $25; non-members: $35. A buffet lunch is included.
Register: send your name, company/affiliation, phone number, email address, membership status (member or non-member) and the amount of individuals in your party to mailto:udivictoria@shaw.ca. Payment by cash or credit card at the door.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#12 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 08:20 PM

Irked by editorial

Mar 09 2007

I am responding to your article “Going Higher” (editorial, March 2).

It would appear to me that you would applaud greater density in the downtown core for the sake of business.

What consideration has been taken for individuals like myself who live in the downtown area and who find no view of nature because it is obstructed by a 17-storey building which is in my view everyday.

Anyone can agree with the proposed high-density project of The Hudson with 18, 24 and upwards storeys if they do not want to live downtown and their view is not obstructed.

Elsie Pugh

Victoria

© Copyright 2007 Victoria News

----

I wonder who's view Elsie's building blocks?
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#13 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 09:05 PM

...individuals like myself who live in the downtown area and who find no view of nature...


I hate to be the one to break it to her, but the reason she finds no view of nature downtown is because there isn't any nature downtown. Hasn't been any nature downtown for a hundred years at least.

If she doesn't like downtown then why doesn't she move to an area that's half-decently close to the nature she seeks?

Upon further review I'm going to guess this writer lives in the Savoy or that other junior highrise beside it, and she's complaining about Belvedere because it blocks her view of Beacon Hill Park or possibly the Olympic Mountains.



#14 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 09:22 PM

No nature down town??

I just came back from a 1.5 hr paddle in a six person outrigger from Ocean River dock to Saxes Point and back..

I saw basking seals.. and gulls.. and traversed 3-4 ft swells.. and rode the current...

I walked to the dock through St. Ann's Academy Grounds..(home to quite large and well fed racoons...) and made sure that I checked out the water conditions in the Inner Harbour as I went along Wharf Street..

Oh well... it's what you make of downtown living...

#15 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 09:36 PM

Ah, but the grounds of St. Ann's are not downtown.

And if we regard the harbour itself (the wet part) to be downtown then we should also regard the airspace above downtown to be raw wilderness (wild animals abound in it, and humans do not occupy it and rarely intrude into it).

In which case the writer has nothing to complain about because the nature she seeks has been right there all along, and always will be (until the technology of the domed city is perfected, of course).

#16 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 10:42 PM

That picture is just incredible. I followed it back to the Flickr static page but couldn't figure out where it came from! One of our winged forumers?

Your forgot to mention the squirrels, Icebergallery! And the starlings and the crows and the pigeons. And the blossoms everywhere and flowers bursting out of planter boxes and the trees... But then on top of that there is the homo sapient wildlife, some of it as inconvenient and predatory as cougars and bears, but most of it dynamic, vibrant and innovative... human nature.

Downtown is alive.

hehe
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#17 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 10 March 2007 - 06:59 AM

Forgot the ancient looking long bearded Blue Heron perched on the white buoy off the "Spinnaker's" dock..

Or the scat from the river? sea? otters that I've been flushing off the dock over the winter.. or seeing a family of them peeking out from an abandoned storm sewer outfall on the Gorge shoreline.. of the great fleets of duck families...

Or, the Bald eagles hovering high over McLauchin Point as the buffle heads or oyster catchers twittered about..

now I'n getting nostalgic..

Wonder what I'll see this am when I walk over to the dock and go out for another paddle in the Harbour..

#18 Barra

Barra
  • Member
  • 592 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 06:55 AM

Interesting that so many of these posts are about cities other than Victoria. You might be interested to know that victoria's Downtown Plan (yes, the existing one) aims to protect "view corridors" such as the views of the Inner Harbour when you're walking along Government. Every time you cross a cross street, you can look down and see the water. This will be a major issue for any developement that happens on the Reid site. (that is why any development on that site needs to stay below the level of Wharf Street!)

But as for tall buildings - There is a proposal for a downtown Art Gallery site on Belleville where the Crystal Court motel is (good idea) BUT in order to do that, the developer is asking for a 21 story residential tower at the east end of the site!
Try to picture the Empress from the Inner Harbour with this in the background!
Pieta VanDyke

#19 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 07:07 AM

Could not the harbour property be devloped with breaks in the buildings to be at the foot of where streets meet Wharf? This way the views are protected but the buildings could still come over the height of Wharf Street.

There is a thread on this subject somewhere. One forumer has done great little design that basically just extends old town scale buildings to the waters edge.

As for the Art Gallery proposal. I am not sure that from most angles you would be able to see a 21 storey tower behind the Empress. I mean you can't currently see the Astoria building from Government in front of the Empress. Still I am not for building anything just because it is tall. It would have to be a high quality design for me to approve of it. And part of me still likes the classic motel that is currently there.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#20 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 08:36 AM

But as for tall buildings - There is a proposal for a downtown Art Gallery site on Belleville where the Crystal Court motel is (good idea) BUT in order to do that, the developer is asking for a 21 story residential tower at the east end of the site!
Try to picture the Empress from the Inner Harbour with this in the background!


Good question to stir the pot....

Wonder if the members of the Planning Advisory Committee and the Advisory Design Committee, or the City officials are asking the applicant to demonstrate the impact of the proposal so that specific view points are illustrated... - top deck of the Coho? Songhees, steps of the Old Steamship Terminal, ends of Ship Point??? entries into the Downtown at Johnson Street Bridge, My outrigger canoe with a viewing level 1 metre above average water level in James Bay.. Top of Harbour Towers??

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users