[maxharris]

D.C. would look much more like a real city without the restrictions. This is a good thing!

Cities grow! The choice here is between upward and outward. You can keep buildings unnaturally short, which forces the city to spread out, increasing commute times (and a whole lot more). Or you can let things grow, and let the place be more livable for the people that actually live there.

[tedks]

As a lifelong DC resident, I have to admit I've thought about how DC doesn't look like a "real city" and how other places look so much cooler, but seeing this made me cringe. I really hope that the monuments in DC don't get blocked out by office buildings.

[Swizec]

Paris is often seen as one of the most beautiful cities in the world and totally does feel like a real city despite the height limit.

In fact the new financial district off to the side with its skyscrapers and, I imagine, no height limit, while modern and fancy, just doesn't feel as city-like as the rest of Paris. It feels like a dead place where people only come to work.

I've only spent a good week in Paris, so it might feel different when you're living there for a long time. But not-tall cities are totally cool.

[bane]

Paris also was built with a fairly unified style giving it beautiful sight-lines. D.C. wasn't and it's not very pretty in most of the non-tourist areas.

[busterarm]

> It feels like a dead place where people only come to work.

On that note, parts of Toronto like that feel the exact same way.

[adestefan]

Paris is also ~2000 sq miles while DC is only 60 sq miles.

[Swizec]

I doubt Paris was anywhere near 60sq miles when it started out as a trading settlement in 250 BC.

[adestefan]

DC is restricted to that 60 sq miles and can get no larger. It was actually a bit larger until they gave back all the land on the south side of the Potomac to Virginia.

[a8da6b0c91d]

Height restrictions or not the new development in DC is mostly garbage. Planners do not seem to understand the formula for making pleasant urban neighborhoods with multistory residential buildings is that the ground floor must be retail. The building facade and retail must be flush with the sidewalk.

I don't understand why this formula is so hard for urban planners to accept. You see it in every thriving city. It simply should not be allowed to make a 5+ story building that is purely housing and is recessed from the sidewalk. When it is allowed you get the alienating Corbusier style housing project vibe. This crap has been thrown up all over the DC area in recent years.

[fjk]

I would argue that planners do understand the formula for making pleasant urban neighborhoods - it's usually the developers who don't get the placemaking concepts.

That being said, I'm interested in the neighborhoods/buildings you mentioned being so bad. Could you share which locations you're referencing?

[eli]

There's an argument that forcing the city to "spread out" rather than "up" has been partly responsible for the rapid improvement in crime and livability in many parts of the city over the last decade. What would H St NE or Upper 16th St look like if one could just build huge buildings in Dupont and Adams Morgan.

[rayiner]

I don't think that dog will hunt. Some of the safest places in Chicago are also the densest (say River North with its towering residential skyscrapers). Same for New York (Manhattan is way denser than the Bronx).

The reason DC has gotten nicer lately isn't the sprawl. It's because it's become a major target for young professionals, which have driven the poor people out of many parts of the city.

[natrius]

Making it impossible for poor folks to live in a place does tend to reduce crime. Is it moral?

[eli]

Living in a city has become desirable again. People who can't afford to live in the city are being pushed out into the suburbs like Prince George's county. Is that immoral? I don't know.

[natrius]

Displacement isn't inherently immoral in my opinion, but using those people's government to exacerbate the process is.