In general, I dont think we can apply a lot of conventional wisdom about urban or metropolitan economics to DC. I see DC as having kind of an artificial economy. There is no industrial, financial, or commercial base here. This city was built on the tax dollars extracted from across the country and largely horded here in Washington. Washington has always been a product of central state economic planning. Really, if the governement didnt happen to be here, or left 50 years ago, would this look like Detroit today? The fascinating thing to consider is that if the federal government refuses to raise height caps and housing costs subsequently rise, then government salaries in the DC area would rise (cost of living adjustment). Subsequently, federal taxes would/should probably have to rise. In this way, the building restrictions may have larger fiscal implications for the federal government. So I suppose as a DC resident and civil servant I like the height restrictions, as someone with libertarian leanings, I don’t so much.

After a careful analysis of the land in the city, they conclude the remaining large parcels could hold 3-5,000 units of new housing, vacant buildings and land could hold 11,000, and a variety of “underutilized” parcels could hold perhaps an additional 7,200 only if they were not used for commercial uses. This is TOTAL housing units, for the entire future of the city! Given current house size, unless this amount of land and the legal density for development is increased, the result is an effective cap on how many people will live in DC.

In comparison, the Census estimates Loudoun county has grown by over 85,000 people between 2000 and 2005, adding over 31,000 housing units. The region continues to grow, the question should be where do we want that growth to go?

I don’t have much sympathy for the hype about overbuilding. While it is true for high-end condos, the demand for rental housing and affordable housing remains very high – just check out craigs list. Why more of this type of housing doesn’t get built is another topic entirely …

Standing at Dupont Circle one morning, he gazed at the vista of low-lying modern buildings and said they could each be significantly higher without compromising the area’s architectural beauty.

The interesting thing is, Dupont Circle has a greater density than Crystal City or Ballston. The density of Dupont Circle in terms of jobs plus residents is 113, while the same measure for Crystal City is 109, and for Ballston is 97. Crystal City and Ballston have much taller buildings than Dupont Circle, with towers in the 19-24 story range (200-260 feet). Dupont Circle is mostly 3-5 story townhouses, with some 8-12 story buildings along the avenues.

So the density issue is not necessarily about height. It’s about the desired character of neighborhoods. One option is the Dupont Circle model. That would entail tearing down some of the 2-3 story single family houses, both attached and detached, that make up most of DC’s stock of buildings.

The other option is concentrations of tall towers along the avenues — the Ballston model. That would allow the 2-3 story houses to be preserved. And that is Leinberger’s point: If we want growth in DC and increased tax revenue and affordable commercial space and affordable housing and historic preservation and preservation of existing 2-3 story homes, then raising the height limit might be the only option.

I don’t really know how valid that argument is. It would be useful to see some rigorous analysis.