I hope the reason is more than simply “Because they want one”
I just read a Slate.com story about possible changing height limits, and went to the Wiki to read about the building height act. They talk about what building spurred it, and what the law states, but not why.
Who cares if there are tall buildings in DC? Who’s got a problem with that?
I think it’s a matter of overshadowing the monuments and historic buildings. If they approve a skyscraper law, it needs to be in contained area away from the Capitol/WH/monument end.
So you can see the Capitol building better.
To preserve the famous skyline in which the Capitol dome and Washington Monument predominate. A side benefit is that it lowers the density in the city center; traffic is bad enough as it is, imagine if there were skyscrapers to fill!
According to Wikipedia Downtown (Washington, D.C.) - Wikipedia the initial restriction was to maintain a “European feel” to the city.
That seems really petty and inefficient. Does any other big American city have such a law?
This. Downtown Paris has few tall buildings, and the ones that are there stick out in a bad way. DC is ringed with skyscrapers in the surrounding counties, especially Arlington, but a property anywhere in the vicinity is worth more if you can see the Capitol or Washington Monument from it.
Many historic cities have or had height limits to preserve their character. In Philadelphia until very recently no building could be taller than the statue of William Penn atop City Hall. Paris kept all of its skyscrapers in the suburbs, like La Défense, except for the Tour Montparnasse, which was so hated that the city passed a 120-foot height limit not rescinded until 2010. London had a 100-foot height limit until 1954 and even today most skyscrapers are in one small section away from Buckingham Palace.
The historic character of a city is usually a major plus for both residents and tourists. You can build a historic character around skyscrapers, as New York and Chicago did, but national capitals tend to feature monuments of a different scale that lose value by being overshadowed.
Presumably people who live in and visit DC.
I, for one, would be sad to see the gorgeous stone buildings - to say nothing of the monuments and the Capitol - overshadowed by glass towers.
Why is it petty and inefficient? Washington is unlike any other big American city, so there’s no real reason to run it the same way.
Well, petty because people have some problems against taller buildings, as if they can’t imagine a gleaming skyscraper to be nice looking too and that it’ll somehow affect the monuments they’re used to seeing. I like skyscrapers and I like interesting architecture, I would love to have one of those weirdo-looking buildings in LA like the Taipei 101, or Burj Dubai, or Chrysler Building.
Inefficient because they’re not maximizing their use of space and businesses have to spread out more. I imagine its easier for businesses to concentrate their offices instead of spreading it out
Madison, WI. Nothing can be taller than the capitol within a certain radius. Of course, the Capitol Square is the tallest piece of land in the area, so you’d have to go pretty big anyway.
You can see the Capitol building for miles, especially down Hwy 14 from Oregon. (WI)
Santa Fe, NM ??
Height & style??
Somewhat aside, but a few years back someone was trying to fight San Francisco’s height/setback law (intended to preserve the city character and not overshadow things like City Hall and the CA Supreme Court buildings). They used a photo of the state capitol as an example - a tiny slice of the dome, framed in by ugly commercial buildings.
Now… downtown Sacramento is pretty built up but there are beautiful views of the recently-restored Capitol from many angles. The photographer had gone out of his way to find an angle from an adjacent block that made it look as if near-slummage had boxed in the building.
(One of several reasons I finally gave up the SF Chron…)
Portland, OR. Density is an issue, certainly. Also, in a city where winters are gray for six months, very tall buildings shut out what little sunlight there is, creating a gloomier aspect than normal, thus discouraging casual use of downtown. Portland additionally demands that buildings not present a blank front to the sidewalk, as it discourages pedestrian traffic in the downtown area. Designs for taller buildings now must include a provision for storefronts on the ground floor. As a result, Portland’s downtown is vibrant and active, with many parks and lots of trees, and not a weekend wasteland. If your idea of a beautiful and functional city is skyscrapers, and deserted canyons on the weekends, Portland is not for you.
Yes, lots of cities, both in America and in other countries. It’s a very common situation, as Exapno Mapcase said.
There are no such limits outside the District, remember - Arlington and all of its high rises are closer to downtown than much of DC, for instance.
Washington is ringed by suburban concentrations of skyscrapers and offices that feature all that, just as Paris is. If you want those things they are in easy reach, with far more parking. There’s no need for them to be next to the Mall.
Very tall buildings are vanity projects that seldom provide the same return on investment as a number of lower buildings. Most of them function more as visual monuments. Washington already has visual monuments by the score. There’s no economic point to a 1000-foot tower there.
The Washington metro area has 6 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US. The District gets close to 20 million tourists each year. Every city doesn’t have to fit a single model to be successful. Uniqueness is a great selling point.
Note that the original purpose of Portland’s restriction was to avoid obscuring views of Mount Hood. The other benefits reflect other aspects of Portland’s urban planning.
Snicker.
Robert Heinlein was stationed on a ship docked in Portland around 1928-9. (I believe they might have been using the ship’s generator to power critical facilities after a storm.) As he put it, “We were there two weeks. One morning, we got up to find someone had erected a HUGE mountain.”