[kcorbitt]

I generally agree but there is the concern that the higher buildings would take away from the prominence of the historical monuments that the city centers on.

A good example of this is the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. It appeared prominent and even formidable when it was built in the 18th century but modern construction has surrounded it on all sides and it's not even really part of the skyline anymore[1]. That's ok, but we have to decide whether the loss of emphasis on history is worth it.

[1] http://www.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/315661/3156... (You can just see the six spires over an office building in the left-hand side of the frame).

[mkr-hn]

The only reason these short buildings are considered historic is that important things happened in them before we learned how to make rebar, and before we rediscovered concrete.

We can build tall buildings now. Some of those will become historic, if we build them. Many of them will be very nice-looking, like the new WTC towers. Don't let old building methods stand in the way of progress. I'm not one of those growth-at-all-costs people, but there's a lot of benefit in finding ways to put a large number of people in a small space comfortably.

[msutherl]

New building methods create ugly, uncomfortable, temporary environments. If you've ever lived in, say, Paris or New York, you may understand the feeling of living in the hollowed-out shell of a once-great city.

The Freedom Tower is incredibly boring, not to mention dated, and will have the oppressive atmosphere of any modern office space inside.

[culturestate]

I live in the most skyscraper-crazy city on earth - Hong Kong - and I can attest that if done properly and with care, building skyward doesn't have to lead to a dystopian Fifth Element-style future.

[mkr-hn]

This is very subjective. I live in the hollowed out shell of a once so-so city. I've also lived in a lively city with big buildings. I liked the latter much more.

[rayiner]

> I generally agree but there is the concern that the higher buildings would take away from the prominence of the historical monuments that the city centers on.

Most of the monuments are within 0.5 miles north or south of Constitution Ave, while the business district centers around K street a mile north of that. In fact, I think it would look quite amazing, the way Central Park does in Manhattan.