This past week, Washington D.C. has been hosting the Department of Energy-sponsored Solar Decathalon, a competition that pits 20 colleges and universities in a battle to build the most attractive and most energy efficient solar-powered home. Perhaps as the capital hosts this array of high tech green building designs, however, it should consider lifting its own restriction on the height of buildings as an obvious low-tech, market-oriented means to green the city.
The height restriction came into existence in 1899, in response to the construction of the 160-foot-tall Cairo apartment building, which was largely seen as an aesthetic threat to D.C.’s cosmopolitan feel. The restrictions are codified under D.C. law, however to make any major revision to the building code would require revision of the Heights of Building Act of 1910, which was passed by Congress. Lifting building height restrictions would presumably channel the high price of office space and real estate into vertical construction, allowing for the accommodation of increased density in the Distrct.
Numerous studies and intuitive wisdom indicate that densely populated urban areas are, in many ways, more environmentally friendly than those that are less dense, and Environmental Protection Agency and National Association of Realtors guidance to cities lauds the benefits of dense building. Case in point: New York City may have the most skyscrapers of any city in the country, but it also has one of the lowest per-capita carbon footprints in the nation. With more dense growth, people are able to live closer to their places of work and to shopping areas, encouraging more walking and discouraging the use of cars. In the District, putting people closer to whether they need to be, dense growth could also alleviate some of the strains on the crowded and much-maligned metro system.
The height restriction has another non-environmental consequence, however: it keeps office prices at an artificially high level and pushes growth and economic prosperity outside the city’s borders. The District’s close neighbor of Arlington, Virginia has clearly benefited from this, as seen by the growth of buildings taller than those allowed in D.C. and low office vacancies during the recession.
While the height restriction may serve an aesthetic purpose, it seems as if the opportunity cost of wasted real-estate may be pretty steep. More fundamentally, the decision to grow vertically should lie with the D.C. government, and not with Congress. The District should be free to pursue policies that enhance consumer choice that would naturally improve environmental conditions and to serve as an example to other cities around the country.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with leading thinkers and entrepreneurs from the world of technology. The most recent episode features 