The High Cost of Short Buildings
I said something last weekend about how it was a shame that Newark, New Jersey has a more impressive skline than does our nation’s capital and that Washington ought to revisit its extremely stringent restrictions on the allowed height of downtown office buildings. This prompted a reply about how it’s nice that the DC streets get a lot of sunlight. I was going to fire back that New York is hardly full of Morlocks and it’s not like there are a ton of people taking leisurely strolls through Downtown DC anyway (it’s mostly people working, it’s an office district) but the whole argument about aesthetics really misses the mark.
The first thing I would like for defenders of the status quo situation in DC to do is not to offer some things about the status quo that they like, but to try to grapple a bit with the concrete, practical costs of the status quo. There are issues, of course, about building size restrictions in residential neighborhoods, but let’s just talk for now about the main office district.
If you were allowed to build taller buildings in DC, then a higher proportion of the metro area’s office jobs would be located in the District. In addition to the white collar professionals working in those offices, an expanded quantity of offices in DC would create additional low-skilled jobs located in the District that would be easier for low-skilled District residents to obtain. That would lead to somewhat lower levels of unemployment in the city’s poor neighborhoods. That would mean that people would need fewer social services and would pay more in taxes. It would also, at the margin, decrease the level of crime in the city. The additional white collar jobs would mean that more professionals were spending their days in the city (through some combination of more suburbanites commuting to the District and fewer Districters reverse-commuting to the suburbs) which would mean higher levels of spending at downtown retail establishments. Again, that’s more tax revenue (via sales tax) and also more low-skill jobs. And, of course, the land downtown would be more valuable if you could build taller buildings on it, which would lead to higher tax revenues without the need to raise tax rates.
Long story short, along a whole number of dimensions the DC government would have considerably more revenue at its disposal and a somewhat lower level of demand for services. This would allow for both somewhat lower tax rates for DC residents, and for more generous provision of key city services—more cops, better-paved roads and sidewalks.
On top of that, the tendency would be toward less “job sprawl” and therefore less total mileage driven, meaning that taller buildings would be good for the environment. And this environmental benefit would be part of an overall improvement in the economic efficiency of resource-allocation throughout the metro area. It’d be something you can do for the environment that would also boost growth, in other words, rather than hinder it. When you add it up, it seems to me not that there are no positive attributes to the current policy—the view from my building’s roof is very nice in a way that would probably be ruined over the long term if they started building skyscrapers downtown—but that we’re paying a dramatically higher price than people realize in exchange for a relatively trivial aesthetic advantage.
115 Responses to “The High Cost of Short Buildings”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 17th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
MattY, people are more comfortable with the shithole they know rather than the promise of a slightly improved shithole that they don’t.
They have, consciously or unconsciously, thought about the what they like and what they don’t and concluded that the problems you wish to solve could be solved by other means while at the same time staying within the framework of how they prefer to live.
If you give people the promise of liberation, they’ll run you out of town for disrupting their lives.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Couldn’t much the same thing be said about any restriction on density? The cost of lawns and standalone houses is even higher (and has lower-hanging fruit in the same kind of way that improving the fuel efficiency of a gas guzzler matters more).
One potential drawback, though – higher demand for transit would require either more trains/buses on existing routes, addition of new routes, or both. If transit doesn’t fill the need, traffic and parking would get even worse than they already are. (Cars and density don’t mix, but if you can’t get enough mass transit or can’t get enough people to use it…)
April 17th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Re “I was going to fire back that New York is hardly full of Morlocks ”
—————-
That’s right. The Morlocks are over in Hoboken.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
This post would be improved by using a few numbers. What’s tall? 30 stories? 40 stories? 10? What? Taller vs shorter is too fuzzy.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
And Queens.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I guess I’m just not seeing how the downtown is lacking space to build offices. The development of the Downtown has been pretty rapid and mostly in the last ten years. Your building (if it’s the one I think it is) only opened in the last year or so. Huge swaths of the city that are on Metro lines are basically undeveloped. It costs less than ten dollars and takes less than 15 minutes to take a cab pretty much anywhere in what one might term the Business District.
I just think the city has a ways to go before the only reasonable option is to raise the height limit.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
The thing is that DC already has a huge concentration of office space downtown.
Height and density are not the same thing. Newark may have a more impressive skyline in terms of height (and I’d argue in terms of deign, DC’s low rise skyline is actually quite attractive and striking), but the core of tall buildings is surrounded by surface parking lots. DC’s height restriction is no small reason for the fact that the city has excellent lot coverage and few surface parking lots.
Let’s not also pretend that DC’s urban design is without value.
I’d like to see DC implement a transfer of development rights system, where downtown landowners can sell development rights within the height-restricted monumental core to transit oriented receiving zones. The net effect would be that downtown DC stays as is, and areas around the core grow a la Rosslyn with more height.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I’ll set aside the notion that “more tall buildings = more impressive skyline” as inevitable NYC chauvinism.
Given the experience of Baltimore just a few miles up I-95 from DC, you’ll have to forgive my scepticism toward the idea that taller buildings downtown will create some kind of urban utopia of low unemployment and less need for government services. There are other reasons to support more downtown development, but that particular set doesn’t cut it.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
The post is all about why this would be good for DC… Unfortunately, the decision is not DC’s to make. Congress has control on this front, and they, quite frankly, don’t care about what is good for DC.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Paris and London have similar building height restrictions. It seems to work out OK for them. DC’s may be more restrictive–I don’t really know. But building height is not the be-all/end-all of urbanism. In fact, often tall building are distinctly anti-urban in their consequences.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Taller buildings and higher job density would mean more congestion, longer commute times, and higher costs for businesses. Please substantiate your claim that “taller buildings would be good for the environment.”
The trend is towards decentralization of jobs rather than the reverse. The recent Brookings Institution study on job sprawl classifies the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria MSA as “rapidly decentralizing.” Between 1998 and 2006, the share of the region’s jobs within 3 miles of downtown fell by 2.1%, while the share more than 10 miles from downtown rose by 4.6%.
As jobs decentralize, it will be increasingly hard for mass transit to compete with cars for commutes.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
They already allow something like 14 or 15 stories. Most of the time the sun is already blocked out. I think we lost the “cozy small town” feel a long time ago. I can understand height restrictions for aesthetic reasons in some places, but the downtown of a major metropolitan center? Wouldn’t everyone agree that the soaring skyscrapers of Manhattan are more pleasing to the eye than the mini-towers of downtown dc?
April 17th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
i’m sorry. can you explain how taller buildings will decrease the crime rate? i don’t see the connection…
April 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
We in Boulder used to have a height restriction, but it’s been violated enough times to render it meaningless. I’m not even sure if the law is still in effect, but it doesn’t matter. If you have enough money, you are free to violate the law.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I think comment #6 gets this right. DC has no shortage of areas around Metro stops that could be built up along the same lines as the city’s existing development. There are plenty of zoning/regulatory reforms that would improve urban development in the District, but I don’t think the height restriction is at or near the top of the list.
It’s a shame that the densely-packed skyscraper hub sprung up in Rosslyn instead of, say, along the Anacostia, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Improving the number of walkable neighborhoods with decent retail and transit options in the poorer sections of town strikes me as a far more worthy goal than building high-rises on K Street.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Take a look across the river from downtown DC, and what do you see? Skyscrapers like the former Gannett building and others in Rosslyn, VA. They can also do the same in high density areas outside of the DC boundary in Silver Spring or Bethesda. It serves the same purpose.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
The Boulder height limit is utterly asinine, and far more restrictive than Washington’s. The downtown DC buildings that we’re all calling short would be thought of as skyscrapers in downtown Boulder.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Taller buildings and higher job density would mean more congestion, longer commute times, and higher costs for businesses. Please substantiate your claim that “taller buildings would be good for the environment.”
Manhattan is (more or less) the lowest carbon footprint city in the country. I don’t think MY is the one with the burden of proof here.
Matt actually makes a pretty good argument here. DC is a place with a natural supply of jobs and a strong center of gravity – for any given business that is DC-based, there are likely benefits to being nearer government and the agencies/departments (if there’s no reason for them to be proximate to gov’t, why are they in the DC region at all? Obvs, for defense business, the Pentagon is the center of gravity, but I’m speaking broadly). OTOH, once you’re out of the core CBD, I’m not sure there’s much proximity benefit to being in the city vs. being in VA or MD.
That said, my question about this issue has always been: is the height-limited district 90% built-out to the limit? If it’s not, then I have questions about the demand. Yes, there are inefficiencies to assembling pricey CBD parcels only to build them up 7 stories, but if the demand is there, you should be able to get plenty of rent to make it profitable, even if not as profitable as a 30 story building (square foot costs are a lot lower for the former than for the latter).
April 17th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
On top of that, the tendency would be toward less “job sprawl” and therefore less total mileage driven, meaning that taller buildings would be good for the environment.
I don’t know if that is true. My understanding was that there is a turnover point where taller buildings start becoming less green on a per usable square foot basis–thanks to the need for increasingly robust structures, more elevators, beefier HVAC, and so on–as you build up. Now maybe other environmental advantages to taller buildings would outweigh this issue, but it certainly isn’t obvious to me that is correct.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
19: You’re right that, ceteris paribus, 2 20 story buildings are “greener ” than 1 40 story building, but they’re all better than a huge 10 story building in the suburbs surrounded by (literally) acres of parking.
I do wonder whether, as others have brought up, there’s an ironclad reason that DC doesn’t have any second CBDs within city limits. I suggest one factor in 18, but I don’t necessarily buy it.
Does DC have an active redevelopment authority that does things like assemble parcels and market them? Seems to me the biggest reason not to pick a Metro stop 10 minutes from the CBD and build a great big office building there is that land assembly is such a hassle that you may as well go another 20 minutes down the line to the ‘burbs. But I don’t know that much about the specifics.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Speaking as a non-native (and, full disclos. a Chicagoan), what I find unappealing about downtown DC is the sterility; there isn’t really streetlife, some benefits or which MY is sort of describing from his hi-rise pov. Yes, there are people walking during the day, and I know you have poor and homeless people around a lot, but those aren’t sufficient for street life. I mean, in that area after dark or on weekends, you can’t walk a block or two and buy anything – a meal, a soda, etc – very easily, and you don’t see people around at all. You can’t walk from one part of town to another, in many cases. Without street life, it’s not really a city – more like a large suburb, despite having relatively good pub. trans. If natives like it that way, fine with me. To be fair, a lot of downtowns are deserted after dark, but the ones in major US cities – and other big capitol cities – aren’t. I like cities and don’t care for the suburban vision of civilization, but that’s just me.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
JRoth,
Manhattan is (more or less) the lowest carbon footprint city in the country.
I don’t know what that means. “Lowest carbon footprint” as measured by what?
Thanks to its hyperdense concentration of jobs in Manhattan, New York has the most expensive office space in the country, the longest average commute time in the country, the highest share of “extreme” commutes taking 90 minutes or more, and the second-worst level of road congestion.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Thank you Andrew – you got the point I was going to make.
There can be good reasons for higher buildings in terms of economics, aesthetics etc. But the talk is all academic so I just can’t get overly interested.
I would bet people a substantial amount of money if the city seriously tried to change the code so that buildings could get significantly taller that someone member of Congress would be all “this will ruin the National Capital” etc. that the proposals and talk would stop dead in their tracks. I would hazard a guess that is one of the reasons that building codes were never rewritten post WWII when most of the modern downtown building were built. (And now I am sure height restrictions especially around the White House would be even more stringent – the Secret Service would have puppies if many downtown offices had an unobstructed view of the White House).
Personally I like the shorter buildings but I am not passionate lover of the old (other than the newer building are just flat out ugly for the most part – no matter the height).
April 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I hate to take the Mixner bait, but comment #11 is possibly the single mind-fuckingly stupidest attempt at a rational argument that I’ve ever seen in my entire life.
Taller buildings would mean more car traffic congestion, therefore we can’t do it. (Because I don’t want to upgrade mass transit). The current trend toward decentralization of jobs from downtown to suburban hubs will reduce mass transit ridership (Because I don’t want to build mass transit connections between hubs.)
There is literally nothing there except question-begging, and an attempt to weasel around the solid, incontrovertible fact that Metro ridership soared during the past decade *while this decentralization in office space was taking place.*
April 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
close italics
April 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
jonnybutter – DC is no different from Chicago in that regard. There are parts of downtown with lots of night time activity (like Chinatown and Connecticut Ave), while other parts are office ghettos, like much of the Loop. The last time I was in downtown Chicago I couldn’t find a meal on Sunday evening until I stumbled into a hotel bar.
Not suggesting what you bring up isn’t a problem; it is. Just suggesting that skyscrapers are not necessarily going to fix that problem, because Chicago and New York and every other city in the world have areas that suffer from it as well.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
JRoth,
19: You’re right that, ceteris paribus, 2 20 story buildings are “greener ” than 1 40 story building, but they’re all better than a huge 10 story building in the suburbs surrounded by (literally) acres of parking.
The EIA publishes energy intensity (consumption per square foot) data for commercial buildings by building type.
The most energy-efficient building type by number of floors is buildings with either 2 or 3 floors, depending on the total building size.
The least energy-efficient building type by number of floors is buildings with 10 floors or more.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Someone mentioned Paris and London. Aside from some developments at the periphery (La Defense, Canary Wharf) and some things that slipped through (Montparnasse tower, Postal tower, etc.) they’re much lower height than Manhattan. Perhaps the difference is that London and Paris both have excellent and dense urban rail systems compared to, say, DC, which is rather sparse. The lower height does increase the amount of the street not in shadow. It’s perhaps not necessary to build skyscraper density, but rather, build high enough (i.e. 6 floors) density and not segment things via zoning as much, and also, use the existing space better, i.e. smaller retail spaces, smaller office spaces, smaller living spaces. New York is perhaps the only city in the US that seems to have reasonable-scale retail and living spaces (aside from the insane high end).
April 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
You’re right that, ceteris paribus, 2 20 story buildings are “greener ” than 1 40 story building, but they’re all better than a huge 10 story building in the suburbs surrounded by (literally) acres of parking.
Sure, but as others pointed out, right now DC actually has lots of medium-sized office buildings in its business district, all conveniently accessible by public transit. So I guess it isn’t clear to me that DC, as it stands, is not in fact pretty close to the ideal environmental balance between area density and verticality.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Very tall buildings use a great deal of energy and require enormous, ultra-high-tech maintenance. Paris does not have tall buildings. Berlin has a limited number.
I agree that there is something the matter with downtown Washington, D.C., but am not sure it is the lack of tall buildings.
Just off the bat, in D.C., the large, low buildings seem to be spaced too far apart, for one thing. For another, there is an air of deadness and desolation, despite the rather tasteful plantings. The whole atmosphere seems to designed to be planned for tanks, missiles, and military formations on parade, not for people.
They need to call in that famous Scandinavian planner to tell them how to encourage bicycling and pedestrian friendly street-life. Maybe they should also consider putting in a few more ponds and canals. Mixed tall and short and lots of public green space, inexpensive trolleys, pony rides, and water is the right way.
(I have been to mainland China and (Hong Kong) and thousands of skyscrapers per square block feels like the wrong way.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I agree with DTM. You’re making a huge leap in logic here. A typical commuter’s job-related mileage driven is basically the distance between his front door and his place of work. Whether he works in the same building as 10 or 10,000 other people doesn’t come into play at all.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Newark’s most vibrant neighborhood is the Iron Bound, an area of low, small buildings.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
There is literally nothing there except question-begging, and an attempt to weasel around the solid, incontrovertible fact that Metro ridership soared during the past decade *while this decentralization in office space was taking place.*
This is possibly the single most mind-fuckingly stupid comment made in the history of human civilization.
The absolute increase in metro ridership is irrelevant to the point of mine you are responding to. That increase was driven by total job growth. The increase would likely have been LARGER if jobs were not decentralizing. The more jobs become spatially dispersed throughout the Washington MSA, the harder it will be for workers to reach those jobs by metro.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
As pointed out in other posts, Paris has a sringent building height restriction, with two or three exceptions. The commercial district, and sky scrapers are in the suburbs.I was told they feel strongly this is necessary to protect the beauty of their city, and its attraction for tourists. I understand it is the top tourist attraction in the world. Doesn’t D.C.rely heavily on tourism? Do tourists ever go to Newark?
April 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
All you say is true, Matt, but downtown DC has a symbolic and cultural role, the value of which may equal or exceed valid concerns about economics and efficiency.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Jan Gehl
April 17th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Do tourists ever go to Newark?
I have been to Ironbound several times as a tourist and also to the Concert Hall in Newark. More people should go there, it’s potentially a great city.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
so nobody can tell me how taller buildings will reduce the crime rate?
April 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
jonnybutter – DC is no different from Chicago in that regard. There are parts of downtown with lots of night time activity (like Chinatown and Connecticut Ave), while other parts are office ghettos, like much of the Loop.
Not quite the same. Parts of the Loop are indeed almost completely dead night/wkends, but parts (of the Loop proper) aren’t. Then there’s the South Loop, which is near and walkable, which isn’t dead; and the near north side is a few blocks away, and isn’t dead. Do people typically walk to get to the enclaves of activity in DC? I know that may seem like an arbitrary criterion, but it isn’t to me. Street life is about walking and being on the street, and the activity that promotes, both good and bad, but far more good than bad. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to drive or hop on pub trans. to go somewhere specific in a big city, but in DC it’s not a choice – you pretty much always have to, no? To me, going to Chinatown or Con. Ave or Georgetown is more like going to the next town. It’s the suburban model: get in a vehicle, go shopping at a mall; get in a vehicle, go to a place which is well known for having people actually walk around on a street; get in a vehicle and go home, etc. It doesn’t feel like a coherent city to me. Things seem to be cut off from each other.
I’ll probably live in DC one of these days, and come to like it. But I don’t think I’ll ever love it.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
New York is perhaps the only city in the US that seems to have reasonable-scale retail and living spaces (aside from the insane high end).
If “reasonable-scale” means tiny and cramped, completely true. A 500 sq ft apartment for $3,000 a month is such a deal.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Да, есть над чем задуматься. Спасибо!
April 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
As pointed out in other posts, Paris has a sringent building height restriction
Are Paris and DC really comparable in any way other than their both being capitol cities? Not to dis DC, but…Bwa ha ha. Pretty poor reasoning there, dude.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The Bricks is a pretty underrated locale.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“I said something last weekend about how it was a shame that Newark, New Jersey has a more impressive skline[sic] than does our nation’s capital…”
WHAT’S WRONG WITH NEWARK, YOU JERK?
April 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Dubai has no height restrictions; must be MattY’s dream city. : )
April 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
About 40 years ago, Kirkpatrick Sale wrote a book titled: Human Scale. It is a bit dated in many ways, but the core concept is still valid. The short story is that he looks at the Greek concept of beauty and human scale. I suggest you folks try to find a copy and read it. Perhaps then you will understand that our founding fathers were not looking for, nor desiring, a national capital groaning under the weight of huge numbers of people and overly large and unstately buildings.
I know that I am in the minority here, but turning the capital into another Dubai just doesn’t appeal to me.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Let’s not also pretend that DC’s urban design is without value.
There’s no need to pretend! DC’s urban architecture is famously boring and meritless. I say this as a District resident and fan of the city. But really, the downtown boxes are hideous. The one I’m writing this from at least has a rowhouse facade, but if you look up past the fourth floor it’s pretty ugly. Here’s the view from my window (excuse the lousy laptop photography):
http://skitch.com/sbma44/bcdym/cam
Saying that folks can just move their offices to green line stations in Anacostia is idiotic. There are concerns about distance, travel time, crime, proximity to other businesses and agencies — there are good reasons for wanting to be in the relatively small patch of office space between Dupont, GW and Chinatown. Commercial rents in that area are extremely high. Speaking as someone who actually lives and works here, I don’t give a damn about how nice the nation’s DC postcards look if it’s at the expense of my city’s commercial and cultural vibrancy. Learn to use photoshop like the rest of us.
By all means let’s fix zoning in other parts of the city! But lowering rents in the downtown area is worth doing, too.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
The environmental case for New York-like density is airtight, but as for providing an economic boost to poor neighborhoods and low-skilled workers… um, are you sure? Ooops I forgot, it’s not like vast numbers of desperately poor people live in the Bronx, Upper Manhattan or Bedford-Sty or anything.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“The absolute increase in metro ridership is irrelevant to the point of mine you are responding to. That increase was driven by total job growth. The increase would likely have been LARGER if jobs were not decentralizing.”
Shorter Mixner/Charles: The facts are irrelevant to my point. My unsupported counterfactual hypothesis is the only thing that’s relevant to my point.
Metrorail Average Daily Ridership
1997: 503,000
2007: 726,000
Change: +44.3%
Washington DC Metro Population
1997: 4,603,030
2007: 5,306,565
Change: +15.3%
April 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
The environmental case for New York-like density is airtight
So airtight, apparently, that no one can actually make it. Did you see the information I posted on commercial building energy intensity? Tall buildings are the least energy-efficient.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
charles very effectively models a very common mistake that crops up in discussions about regional development.
We know that the urban core of the DC metro area has a hard building height limit, which serves to limit the number of square feet, and therefore jobs, in that urban core.
We know there is demand for additional square feet in centrally-located, transit-accessible parts of the region, as transit-accessible places without that height restriction (Arlington, Rosslyn, etc.) are throwing up skyscrapers left and right near the metro stops.
We know that there is also “job sprawl,” as square feet get built in suburban areas.
The reasonable conclusion here is that the development restrictions are driving job sprawl, as square feet that would be build in downtown DC are built somewhere else instead.
However, charles ignores the regulatory impetus for this development pattern, and chooses to treat the sprawl induced by DC’s regulation as if it were the natural and inevitable pattern of development.
Oddly enough, you see this logical failure most commonly among libertarians, who can usually be counted to hype or even invent government-driven explanations for everything. Reason Online, for example, has never run a single piece about the effects of suburban snob/sprawl zoning on development patterns, yet can be counted on to howl in outrage whenever a smart growther starts talking about the subject.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
dale,
Building height is not the primary driver of whether an urban area has a human scale. Boston has no height restrictions, for example, and I’d submit that downtown Boston is perhaps the definition of a human scale American urban core.
For a person walking down a city street, the difference between a corridor of 8-story buildings and a corridor of 60-story buildings is very minimal, visually. The buildings on either side are simply “tall,” extending up beyond the pedestrian or driver’s field of vision.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Matt – the aesthetics of the district are pretty special (the human scale of most buildings except perhaps for the Speerian buildings in the Federal Triangle) and the sprawl on a grid with diagonal avenues is unique. Compare that to the high rise goofiness of Bethesda, Roslyn etc. I am not if there is an efficiency argument. The District’s big tax problem is so much of its property is not taxable with the Federal Government giving it transfers in lieu of taxes which are full of conditions.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The facts are irrelevant to my point.
No, your claim is irrelevant to my point. The more jobs sprawl, the harder it will be to provide a competitive mass transit option for commuters, and the smaller the share of commutes by mass transit is likely to become.
The fact that the absolute number of metro riders has increased is completely irrelevant to this point.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
So airtight, apparently, that no one can actually make it. Did you see the information I posted on commercial building energy intensity? Tall buildings are the least energy-efficient.
So let’s see… one large, inefficient building where 1000 people live versus 250 small, efficient buildings where 4 people live…
April 17th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
The reasonable conclusion here is that the development restrictions are driving job sprawl, as square feet that would be build in downtown DC are built somewhere else instead.
There are probably multiple factors driving job sprawl. Development restrictions may be one of them. Development restrictions are the outcome of the democratic process. If Washingtonians wanted to loosen their development restrictions, they are free to vote accordingly. Be sure and let us know when that happens. If you’re still alive.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
So let’s see… one large, inefficient building where 1000 people live versus 250 small, efficient buildings where 4 people live…
People don’t tend to “live” in commercial buildings. But your post would still be incoherent even if they did.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Boston may not have height restrictions, but there’s a level of NIMBYism and red brick fans that is off the charts. Not to go off-topic but it seems to me that zoning is as much an issue as height. By allowing more businesses in more places, then you’d increase street life, reduce crime, create jobs.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
And yet, the facts show that even during the period of “job sprawl” that charles mentions, metro ridership has risen significantly – you know, exactly the opposite of what you asserted would happen. In fact, Metro ridership has increases much faster than regional population growth.
But, nonetheless, as you say, if new job sq. ft. keep being built in transit-inaccessible locations, it will become feasible for a declining share of the population to stay off the already-clogged roads and take the Metro. Hence, Matt’s desire to remove restrictions which prevent or constrain development in the Metro-accessible urban core the DC region.
1. Odd sentiment for a libertarian. Minimum wages and California emissions standards are the outcome of the Democratic process, too. Anybody ever see any libertarians defending them on those grounds? Sprawl-inducing zoning regulations are always treated differently by small-government conservatives.
Which brings us to 2. The height restriction in the district was NOT created by the residents of Washington, DC, who would probably drop it in a heartbeat for the CBD if given the chance. Rather, it was imposed on their city by Congress, a body in which the residents of DC have no voice.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
central squared,
Heh. Nice handle.
When you write By allowing more businesses in more places, then you’d increase street life, reduce crime, create jobs., are you talking about within the City of Boston? Allowing more businesses in sections of Boston that do not currently have them – as in, purely residential sections? Because that would make sense.
Or are you talking about regionally? Because allowing more single-story strip malls to be built in the ‘burbs isn’t going to increase street life and reduce crime.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
The fact that the absolute number of metro riders has increased is completely irrelevant to this point.
And the fact that the absolute number of Metro riders increased at nearly three times the rate of population growth during a time period when jobs were sprawling demonstrates that you don’t have a point at all.
Jobs are spreading from downtown DC, but they aren’t moving to the edges of the metro area. They’re moving to increasingly urbanized hubs in Montgomery, Arlington, and Fairfax Counties, mostly along the highways and near metro stations.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
ok so i’ll ask a third time.
yglesias claims taller buildings will lead to lower crime rates. does anybody know, or can anyone explain to me, what he bases this claim on? building size seems pretty irrelevant to crime rates. new york city has a lot of tall building and their crime rate in the 80s was (excuse the pun) sky high. NYC STILL has a lot of tall buildings today and the crime rate is much lower.
so what exactly is the correlation?
April 17th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
charles, you’re big on quantitative evidence.
Care to provide a link for your assertion that 2-story buildings are more energy efficient than high-rises? Because that doesn’t make any sense at all. You’re vastly increasing the % of the interior space that is adjacent to more than one exterior surface (wall or roof). You’re eliminating all of the economies of scale when it comes to heating and cooling. And that’s just taking into account building systems.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
freaktown,
Matt isn’t postulating a general rule about tall buildings producing lower crime. Rather, he’s observing that increasing the number of jobs in DC – which will be possible if the height restriction is lifted, and more commercial sq. feet can be built – will provide greater economic opportunity for the residents of DC’s low-income residential neighborhoods.
You mention NYC: imagine if tomorrow half the office space in Manhattan, and all the jobs there, vanished. That would result in massive job losses in the South Bronx, for example, so crime would go up there.
The tool for reducing crime that Matt mentions is the provision of more jobs that are accessible for residents of poor, high-crime neighborhoods. It just so happens that, in this situation, one way of accomplishing that is to allow taller buildings in downtown DC.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
freaktown, in the context of what he was discussing, I got the impression that he thought that the improving economy and greater availability of jobs for low-income people would cause a reduction in the crime rate “at the margins.”
April 17th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
thanks for the responses, joe and tyro.
then it seems to have NOTHING at all to do with taller buildings. surely you can have economic growth and job opportunities WITHOUT building skyscrapers.
the whole premise seemed silly to me. one has nothing to do with the other.
while i’m sure skyscrapers can lead to job growth, certainly so can other types of buildings. so i’m not sure that there needs to be skyscrapers in DC to facilitate this kind of growth when other non-skyscraper buildings can achieve the same end without having to raise/eliminate the district’s height limitation.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
No one’s saying it’s the only economic development-friendly proposal for DC, but ultimately, you have to follow the market. There is demand for the construction of more office space downtown. We can hope that someone starts building around the Anacostia Metro station, but they don’t seem to be breaking down the doors of the Building Department to get permits for such projects.
Downtown is pretty full. Very little vacant land. If we want more square feet in which there will be more jobs, DC has to go up.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Building height is not the primary driver of whether an urban area has a human scale.
thank you.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
does anybody know, or can anyone explain to me, what he bases this claim on?
Matt has made a lot of assumptions without any foundation in this post, so don’t waste too much time trying to puzzle this one out.
He’s created a fantasy where D.C. will create both white- and blue-collar jobs, lower the unemployment rate of the city’s poor neighborhoods, increase tax revenue, increase property values, revitalize downtown retail, improve the environment and reduce crime simply by giving the green light for developers to build 20-story structures.
If you build it they will come, I guess.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
i’m not sure that there needs to be skyscrapers in DC to facilitate this kind of growth when other non-skyscraper buildings can achieve the same end without having to raise/eliminate the district’s height limitation.
The height limitation is a limitation. The burden is on you to argue why there should be such a thing. Good and interesting comments here, but I’m not convinced.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
And yet, the facts show that even during the period of “job sprawl” that charles mentions, metro ridership has risen significantly
So what?
- you know, exactly the opposite of what you asserted would happen.
I didn’t assert anything about the total number of metro riders. You are confused.
But, nonetheless, as you say, if new job sq. ft. keep being built in transit-inaccessible locations, it will become feasible for a declining share of the population to stay off the … roads and take the Metro.
Well done. You finally noticed the point.
Odd sentiment for a libertarian.
You call me a libertarian. I call you a fascist.
The height restriction in the district was NOT created by the residents of Washington, DC, who would probably drop it in a heartbeat for the CBD if given the chance.
“Probably?” Please produce your evidence for this claim.
Rather, it was imposed on their city by Congress, a body in which the residents of DC have no voice.
DC residents are free to lobby Congress to remove the height restriction and/or to grant the power to set height restrictions to their local government. Be sure and let us know when this happens. If you’re still alive.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
deregulation good?
UNPOSSIBLE
April 17th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
And the fact that the absolute number of Metro riders increased at nearly three times the rate of population growth during a time period when jobs were sprawling demonstrates that you don’t have a point at all.
No, the change in the absolute number of metro riders has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, as I have already explained to you.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Of course there would be job losses if their places of employment disappeared overnight. That would be true if every Walmart in the country vanished tomorrow, too. It has nothing to do with the size of the building itself.
And you can’t make the opposite claim. If tomorrow Manhattan suddenly had twice as much office space there wouldn’t be thousands of new jobs to magically fill the extra space. It’s a particular stretch to conclude that any new jobs would necessarily go to the poorest of the city rather than to interested candidates from the suburbs.
That’s the argument Matt is making – more square footage = more jobs with all the benefits going to D.C. itself.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
No, as has already been pointed out, there is very good evidence to support the notion that there is a strong demand for more job-creating office space in downtown DC. First, it is already almost completely built out to the existing limits. Second, space there is very expensive. Third, nearby locations with similar conditions – Rosslyn, for example, and other close-in suburban areas with Metro stops – are undergoing a building boom. The demand is there.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Care to provide a link for your assertion that 2-story buildings are more energy efficient than high-rises?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set10/2003pdf/c21.pdf
Because that doesn’t make any sense at all.
It doesn’t make sense to you because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even DTM managed to think of some reasons why tall buildings tend to be less energy-efficient than short ones.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
We know there is demand for additional square feet in centrally-located, transit-accessible parts of the region, as transit-accessible places without that height restriction (Arlington, Rosslyn, etc.) are throwing up skyscrapers left and right near the metro stops.
The thing is, most of those buildings are all that big by ’skyscraper’ standards. Rosslyn has the tallest at 25 to thirty stories. But the buildings around Ballston and Clarendon are all around 15 or so.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
And there’s still lots of one/two story buildings within walking distance of the Arlington stops (albeit fewer than there used to be – New Orleans Steak House, you will be missed)
I’m not per se against removing the height restiction. But I think this will be ‘de-regulation’ done poorly rather than well. The rich neighborhoods will still have the political clout to control their own destinies. The marginal neighborhoods though, will get imposed on them whatever an alliance of the city and the developers will want to do.
I know you like to say joe, that the lessons of the 60’s & 70’s urban renewal failures have been learned. But there’s a lot of lessons that seem to have been forgotten lately.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Oh, Jesus, now charles is playing dumb again. Always happens when he’s backed against the wall
I didn’t assert anything about the total number of metro riders. You asserted something about the share of commutes, which is why I and other commenters discussed total numbers of riders AND the population growth. Because, once again, ridership has been rising FASTER THAN POPULATION GROWTH, demonstrating a rising SHARE of commutes.
Well done. You finally noticed the point. Finally noticed? WTF? The fact that suburban sprawl makes transit infeasible is A CENTRAL POINT IN MATT’S ARGUMENT, AND MINE. That’s why Matt wrote On top of that, the tendency would be toward less “job sprawl” and therefore less total mileage driven, meaning that taller buildings would be good for the environment. in the very post at the top of this thread, and I brought up the point in my very first comment about the transportation implications of this policy proposal – because promoting transit-friendly development patterns is one of the central principles of our argument.
You call me a libertarian. I call you a fascist. And one of us (me) is right. More relevantly, one of us (you) has made an argument consistent with the principles of one of those ideologies.
Please produce your evidence for this claim. I lived in Washington, DC, and hostility to federal interference in local affairs is a defining characteristic of its political culture. Even setting aside the fact that DC politicos are extremely pro-development, the residents of DC would scrap the regulations imposed on them by Congress just on principle.
There, evidence, first-hand experience. I won’t bother to ask you for evidence, since 1) your position is false, and therefore cannot be supported by evidence, and 2) your understanding of DC politics is so limited that you think the height restriction was put in place by the DC voters.
But still, the burden of proof is on you, and you’ve done nothing to meet it.
DC residents are free to lobby Congress to remove the height restriction and/or to grant the power to set height restrictions to their local government. Be sure and let us know when this happens. If you’re still alive. DC residents are free to lobby Congress to let them decriminalize medicinal marijuana. It doesn’t work, though.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Oh, for the love of…
Here, Mixner, I’ll highlight the part that makes your “Total ridership numbers are irrelevant” argument pointless. Ready?
Did you catch that? Note especially the “r” word in that passage. If ridership numbers are growing faster than population growth, then the ____ of ridership in increasing. Fill in the blank. Rrrrr…come on, rrr….
And your masters in urban planning is from where, again? Seriously, everyone can read this thread, and see who knows what he’s talking about.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
The thing is, most of those buildings aren’t all that big
ftfm
April 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Jinchi,
Already answered. The patterns of new office space development – space which is filled with jobs! – as well as the cost and buildout of office space in downtown demonstrates that there is unmet demand for downtown DC office space.
The word, even the concept, of “All” appears nowhere in Matt’s post. Quite the opposite, he explicitly states The additional white collar jobs would mean that more professionals were spending their days in the city (through some combination of more suburbanites commuting to the District and fewer Districters reverse-commuting to the suburbs).
His argument, rather, is that SOME of the new jobs will go to poor DC residents, as he states here: In addition to the white collar professionals working in those offices, an expanded quantity of offices in DC would create additional low-skilled jobs located in the District that would be easier for low-skilled District residents to obtain.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Kolohe,
The thing is, most of those buildings are all that big by ’skyscraper’ standards. Rosslyn has the tallest at 25 to thirty stories. That is still twice as high as is allowed downtown.
And there’s still lots of one/two story buildings within walking distance of the Arlington stops Yes, changes in physical building types are implemented over time. So?
I’m not per se against removing the height restiction. But I think this will be ‘de-regulation’ done poorly rather than well. The rich neighborhoods will still have the political clout to control their own destinies. The marginal neighborhoods though, will get imposed on them whatever an alliance of the city and the developers will want to do. We’re not talking about neighborhoods; we’re talking about the downtown. Besides, there is no demand to build high-rises in the marginal neighborhoods. They aren’t even built out to their current maximums, because people don’t want to build there.
I know you like to say joe, that the lessons of the 60’s & 70’s urban renewal failures have been learned. But there’s a lot of lessons that seem to have been forgotten lately.
Eliminating height restrictions has nothing to do with urban renewal, and height in and of itself had nothing to do with the failure of urban renewal.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Oh, Jesus, now charles is playing dumb again.
Jesus H Christ. Josephine is determined to prove once again that she is too stupid to live.
Because, once again, ridership has been rising FASTER THAN POPULATION GROWTH, demonstrating a rising SHARE of commutes.
You really are just unbelievably stupid. Since when has “ridership” meant “commutes?” Think, girl, think!
Finally noticed?
Yes, you finally noticed that the more jobs sprawl, the lower the share of commutes by mass transit is likely to become.
And one of us (me) is right.
No, you really are a fascist, Josephine.
There, evidence, first-hand experience.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Unsubstantiated anecdotes are not evidence. Do you have evidence? No, of course you don’t. You’re just making stuff up. Same as you always do.
DC residents are free to lobby Congress to let them decriminalize medicinal marijuana. It doesn’t work, though.
So you and others who favor removing the height limitation have failed to achieve that goal through the democratic process. Too bad. Deal with it.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Oh, for the love of…
Jesus, Mary and Josephine! Oh, fer cryin’ out loud…
Did you catch that?
Yes. Did you catch that “number of riders” does not mean “share of commutes?” Think, girl, think!
Seriously, everyone can read this thread, and see who knows what he’s talking about.
Absolutely. And the fact that you couldn’t even think of a single reason why tall buildings tend to be less energy-efficient than short ones demonstrates your shocking ignorance of even basic facts about the nature of buildings and energy.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
When bested in an argument, chuckles engages in three characteristic behaviors:
1. Uncalled-for rudeness and petulance, Jesus H Christ. Josephine is determined to prove once again that she is too stupid to live.
2. Affecting an inability to understand the argument or evidence he can’t answer, no matter how clearly and repeatedly it’s explained, Jesus H Christ. Josephine is determined to prove once again that she is too stupid to live. Really, chuckles? Really? and
3. Arguing against a distorted version of the point he can’t answer. Yes. Did you catch that “number of riders” does not mean “share of commutes?”
OK then.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
As a matter of fact, they are. We can debate the strength of that evidence, but I have provided some, and you have provided none.
So you and others who favor removing the height limitation have failed to achieve that goal through the democratic process. Democratic process = process you have no representation in? PoliticalScience FAIL.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Since when has “ridership” meant “commutes?”
Ah yes. I see. Although total ridership has increased at nearly triple the rate of population growth, you are resting your case on an assumption that this increase has come almost entirely from non-commuting riders, based on… no evidence whatsoever.
Even if this were true (and it isn’t) this would prove… what, exactly? That people who live in the DC area are using public transportation for shopping, recreation, and nightlife during off-peak hours even when they can’t use it to get to work? And this is an argument against expanding mass transit?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Oops, my bad. chuckles didn’t demonstrate the he’s lost the debate by feigning an inability to understand a clear and obvious point with Jesus H Christ. Josephine is determined to prove once again that she is too stupid to live.
Rather, he (I really don’t feel compelled to use a feminine pronoun to refer to him; but then, nothing in the direction this argument has taken is causing me to feel insecure and resentful) demonstrated it by writing: No, the change in the absolute number of metro riders has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, as I have already explained to you in response to the absolute number of Metro riders increased at nearly three times the rate of population growth.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
As expected, charles’ evidence for the thesis that taller buildings are less energy efficient is based on the apples-to-oranges comparison of counting some of the users’ energy expenditures for transportation to the destination – that required for the use of elevators – in the energy use for taller buildings, while counting none of the energy use for transportation in the analysis of buildings without elevators.
Congratulations! If you assign some of the energy it takes to get a worker to his office as “building energy” for Building A, and none of it fore Building B, you can show that Building A uses more energy.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Uncalled-for rudeness and petulance
Delicious irony.
As a matter of fact, they are.
No, they’re not. Unsubstantiated anecdotes are not evidence. You have no evidence, of course. You’re just making stuff up. Same as you always do.
Democratic process = process you have no representation in?
No, democratic process = democratic process. I have no idea why you think you have no representation in that process. Even if you’re not a citizen and cannot vote you can still lobby your elected representatives and others. Just more of your shocking ignorance, I suppose.
As expected, charles’ evidence for the thesis that taller buildings are less energy efficient is based on the apples-to-oranges comparison of counting some of the users’ energy expenditures for transportation to the destination – that required for the use of elevators – in the energy use for taller buildings, while counting none of the energy use for transportation in the analysis of buildings without elevators.
More nonsense. My evidence is based on the contents of the Energy Information Administration document I provided you with. That document clearly reports that buildings with 10 or more floors are less energy-efficient than buildings with 2 or 3 floors. Did you miss it?
You asked for evidence. I provided it. Read it, girl, read it!
April 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Besides, there is no demand to build high-rises in the marginal neighborhoods
Balston was a ‘marginal neighborhood’ until Ballston Commons replaced it 1987. MattY’s neighborhood was a marginal area until the Verizon nee MCI arena was built and people realized the lower crime level was here to stay.
So?
I think it’s very time lag that makes the benefits of eliminating the height restiction suspect – lots of moving parts over a long time make the results nigh impossible to predict. Loosening it downtown is something I would support however. But ‘liberalizing’ by too much will likely make a new Century City type development around the new New York Avenue station or DC General (closed correct?) and RFK. As both have decent access to freeways – not quite as good as Ballston does, but close. Which is fine if you like that sort of development.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
For a sizable project, the marginal neighood may be prefered by the developer over a more establish commerical neighborhood precisely because the cost of acquition is cheaper and may make the project better financially. And note that marginal neighborhoods are just that – on the bubble. I didn’t say poor neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods are still going to be a relative desert regardless of height restrictions.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
follette
The Census Bureau does not appear to provide data that would allow for a comparison of journey to work mode shares over the period and PMSA of the Brookings study. However, it does provide data from the two most recent censuses in 1990 and 2000.
That data shows that the journey to work mode share of transit for the Washington-Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA declined by 18% between 1990 and 2000. You will notice that the same trend is evident in most other MSAs. For the U.S. as a whole, transit’s share of journey to work trips fell by about 10%. This is consistent with the longstanding trend of decentralization of jobs and housing.
See: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-jtw2000metro.htm
April 17th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Whatever, Mixner. You’re reduced no repeated “nuh-uhs” and “No, YOU ares.” The end stage of your inability to rebuts arguments.
I guess you’re granting my arguments, then. Have a good night. I know I will.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Kolohe,
What does any of this have to do with the proposal to eliminate height restrictions in the District? That’s the subject here. Were height restrictions eliminated before any of those projects took place?
This is just the opposite of your urban renewal comment. To the extent that urban renewal failed in the construction of commercial districts, its was because the area was cleared and replaced with projects that were grossly out of scale with the established city-scape, and oriented around automobile access instead of being pedestrian-oriented. Allowing taller buildings will do neither of these things. It is the gradual, piecemeal nature of organic building replacement that keeps a neighborhood aesthetically and functionally cohesive, and it was the comprehensive redefinition and altered layout of early urban renewal projects that created the awful places, when it “failed.”
In addition, increasing building heights doesn’t mean that other zoning protections that prevent ugly, self-contained developments from plopping down in neighborhoods need to be eliminated.
I take your point about marginal neighborhoods, though. I wouldn’t support a universal elimination of all height restrictions in one fell swoop, just the establishment of a more generous height standard downtown.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Fortunately, we have data showing both population growth and transit usage growth, from which we can draw a conclusion about the shift in shares of transit mode – ie, we can confidently conclude from the fact that transit usage is rising much faster than population usage that transit is increasing its share of regional commuter trips.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
we have data showing both population growth and transit usage growth,
As I have already explained to you, neither of those pieces of information tells you anything whatsoever about mode shares of commutes.
The Census Bureau journey-to-work data shows a decline in transit’s share of commute trips between 1990 and 2000, from 11.6% in 1990 to 9.4% in 2000. During that same period, however, average daily metrorail ridership increased from 382,000 to 577,000.
This data flatly contradicts your assumption that higher total metro ridership implies higher transit share of commute trips. Yet again, you prove that you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I’ve seen a couple of comments about height-restrictions in other cities so I’m happy at least some people are thinking outside of D.C. I think if one were to take a look at cities, both in the U.S. and globally, you’d find little correlation between building height and crime rates, tax bases and carbon emissions. It just doesn’t gel with my experience in a city like Dallas that lacks those restrictions yet has a pretty low occupancy of downtown 10-plus story buildings. One doesn’t directly follow the other and to assume so is actually a pretty dangerous assumption. Even if the demand were there, a city that suddenly sees a huge influx of tall buildings without a matching rise in the quantity and quality of mass transit then you’d have all of the downsides with few of the real benefits. It’s just silly. “Build more tall buildings. That’ll fix things.”
Oh, and the reason why Paris doesn’t have tall buildings in the city center is because the sheer amount of tunnels under the city can’t support such structures. It’s like swiss cheese down there.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
As I have already explained to you, neither of those pieces of information tells you anything whatsoever about mode shares of commutes.
Ladies and gentlemen, #2. Chuckles is not dumb enough to misunderstand the relationship between the growth in total trips, the growth in population, and changes in mode share. He’s also not dumb enough to believe that a statement about what has happened in the past five years can be contradicted by looking at Census data from 1990 and 2000.
He simply has no response to this point, since it refutes what he wants to believe, so he feigns confusion. “Transit ridership growing much faster than population? What does that have to do with mode share? Boy, you sure are dumb!”
Once again, charles, why do you do this? Anybody reading the thread will immediately see that the data demonstrates that transit’s share has grown. Do you imagine that they will cease to understand this obvious point if you keep writing “Nuh-uh?” Do you think that they will read you denying such an obvious point over and over and think “Wow, that charles is really on the ball!” and thereafter give you the benefit of the doubt?
This is really confusing behavior. It’s compulsive, isn’t it? You can’t help yourself, can you? It’s like someone who has to check the lock on the door one-two-three-four-five-six times whenever he leaves the house; if someone makes a point that rebuts your argument, you have to write a comment denying it, no matter how weak your argument is, or it will drive you crazy.
I’ve known people like this, but you’re the first I’ve seen whose OCD is expressed like this.
I’m going to have a lot of fun with you, boy.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
The Census Bureau journey-to-work data shows a decline in transit’s share of commute trips between 1990 and 2000, from 11.6% in 1990 to 9.4% in 2000. During that same period, however, average daily metrorail ridership increased from 382,000 to 577,000.
This data flatly contradicts your assumption that higher total metro ridership implies higher transit share of commute trips. Yet again, you prove that you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
joe from Lowell,
Even though noting this may open a hole in the space-time continuum, my understanding is that Mixner is quite right about the relative environmental characteristics of medium versus tall buildings.
Of course you are right that you then have to place the buildings in context and considering things like transportation. The thing is, my understanding is also that something like blocks full of 10-story buildings–indeed, blocks full of much lower buildings–would still be easily dense enough to support robust public transportation. And in fact we can observe that to be the case not only in DC, but places like Paris and such.
In that sense, it seems to me quite likely the observed existence of higher buildings in some locales isn’t necessarily proof that higher buildings are more environmentally sound, even considered in context.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
At least on my first read, that’s a compelling argument, with lots of synergy (bonus) points. I imagine there’s probably more than aesthetic reasons for arguing against higher buildings, but I’m not really up to date on them, and they would only serve as competition, not undermine or invalidate the sound arguments you’ve made.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:37 am
I’m a bit of a skeptic on this one — I seriously doubt high-rises are the panacea to the world’s (or DC’s) unemployment situation.
The fact is we have mid-rises across the river in Virginia — maybe the extra 15-20 minute commute limits the access to jobs for some District residents. If this is the case, then moving the jobs to DC MIGHT improve employment in the city, while resulting in increased unemployment in VA or MD. In a narrow sense, maybe that’s something to celebrate — although more than likely you just attract more unemployed people to the city seeking work.
Somehow you’d need to demonstrate that there is a ton of pent up economic capacity in the region that isn’t happening because of DC’s building height restrictions.
Never mind that there are large swaths of the city that have only recently been developed — it wasn’t height restrictions alone that were keeping development out. There just wasn’t an economic basis for the development (in part because dealing with the city service during the Berry era was a nightmare).
National airport’s flight path is another impediment to the whole equation.
Another side of this — is the goal to increase commercial or residential development?
Isn’t a big part of the issue that commercial revenue — the city’s tax base leaves for the suburbs every evening?
How would building more high rises solve that problem?
There’s plenty of unsold real estate in the city — even with the expansion that’s taken place in recent years.
The issue in that case is attracting suburbanites who work in the city to LIVE in the city too (DC has been doing a much better job of this in recent years).
I don’t think the magic of high rises necessarily is what attracts people to a given area. If that was the case, Bailey’s Crossroad in Arlington, VA would have developed into the DC region’s main commercial center. Aesthetics count when you’re talking about creating spaces that people actually want to live in (location and price also matter — as does metro access).
April 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
The Census Bureau journey-to-work data shows a decline in transit’s share of commute trips between 1990 and 2000, from 11.6% in 1990 to 9.4% in 2000. During that same period, however, average daily metrorail ridership increased from 382,000 to 577,000.
1. Nice trick, pretending that “transit” and “metrorail” are interchangeable terms. You can then ignore the numbers for all other forms of transit.
2. Please note the complete absence of population figures from this argument.
My argument, once again is about transit usage growing faster than population. Unable to answer this point, you come back again and again with statements ignoring this factor – because you can’t answer it.
I’ve called you out on this a dozen times now. Anybody reading the threat will be familiar by now with this point, so yet another response ignoring the relative rates of population and transit ridership growth will only serve to confirm that you can’t rebut my argument.
But you do it anyway, because you just can’t help it.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
DTM,
Certainly, 10-story buildings are sufficient to support a robust transit system – look at the DC metro.
The point is, if an existing area with 10-story buildings accommodates the demand for new growth by turning into an area of 20-story buildings, it would require only a minimal increase in energy for the transit system to accommodate the extra riders. If, on the other hand, that growth comes in the form of a new area of 10-story buildings being built somewhere else, it would require a secondary transit system, doubling energy usage. If that growth is accommodated by building a mare more spread-out area of 2-story buildings, it will require an enormous increase in private car usage, resulting in energy use increasing several fold.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:44 am
If, on the other hand, that growth comes in the form of a new area of 10-story buildings being built somewhere else, it would require a secondary transit system, doubling energy usage.
If it was continuous with an existing business district that already linked in residential areas with a public transit system, I think it would be well less than double to extend that system to the new business area. But in any event, this is the balance I don’t think we can evaluate in the abstract: undoubtedly spreading horizontally will cause a bit more environmental impact when it comes to transportation (and other land-related impacts), but spreading vertical will also cause more environmental impact.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
1. Nice trick, pretending that “transit” and “metrorail” are interchangeable terms.
You’re still utterly confused, Josephine. The issue is the relationship between job sprawl and TRANSIT. It is Lafollete and you, his witless cheerleader, who think data on metrorail ridership supports a claim about transit usage.
2. Please note the complete absence of population figures from this argument.
Population of the Washington MSA also increased between 1990 and 2000.
My argument, once again is about transit usage growing faster than population.
Your argument keeps changing. You don’t have any clear argument. If your argument is about “transit,” why are you citing data on metrorail ridership? Utterly, utterly, confused.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
DTM,
Of course you are right that you then have to place the buildings in context and considering things like transportation.
Sorry, you’re not allowed to move the goalposts. The claim was about the energy efficiency of BUILDINGS. Matthew wrote “TALLER BUILDINGS would be good for the environment.” The EIA data indicates that high-rise buildings are less energy-efficient than 2- or 3-story buildings.
If you’re claiming that this lower energy efficiency of tall buildings is offset by higher transportation efficiency, then you need to produce evidence to support that claim. Wishful thinking is not evidence.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
A propos this discussion, this recently appeared on an urban-design site I belong to. The poster is an architect who’s adamantly opposed to tall buildings, but these aren’t his words; they’re those of British architect Michael Mehaffy in a paper called In the Quest for Sustainability, Is Modernism Modern Enough? He included a list of dos and don’ts for sustainable urban design; this is one of the don’ts:
Tall buildings. Not exclusively a modernist type, but certainly embraced by modernism, they have a number of serious drawbacks: high exposure of exteriors to sun and wind, high ratio of exteriors to common interior walls, tendency to promote heat island effects (which increases cooling demands), inefficient floorplates due to egress requirements, excessive shading of adjacent buildings, undesirable wind effects at ground, high embodied energy in construction, and expensive, high-energy maintenance. Tall residential buildings have also been criticized on social grounds as forming, in effect, “vertical gated communities” – isolated pods that do little to activate the street or energize the larger urban network. While they can provide helpful density, there are more efficient low-rise forms that can deliver suitable densities too.</I.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:04 am
There 2 serious problems with that suggestion:
1: It’s important to separate our fincial centers from our political center. The US is too influenced by Houston oil and NYC finance as it is. We’re not Bermuda or Texarabia where oil or banking is the sole reason for governing. Why let those guys run the show any more than they already do?
2: Today’s real estate situation, both commercial and residential, has no use for many more high-rises.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Albany is the capital of NY for a reason, and the same reasons stand for Austin and Sacramento. Government is here to govern the whole country, not just the bankers and oil princes.
Which raises a question, what DC job pays for all those mansions in McClean? Lobbyist or lawyer? Certainly not a Pentagon or State Dept employee, or any honest lawyer.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Your argument keeps changing.
Let’s go to the tape:
In fact, Metro ridership has increased much faster than regional population growth…
Because, once again, ridership has been rising FASTER THAN POPULATION GROWTH, demonstrating a rising SHARE of commutes…And the fact that the absolute number of Metro riders increased at nearly three times the rate of population growth during a time period when jobs were sprawling demonstrates that you don’t have a point at all.
Did you catch that? Note especially the “r” word in that passage. If ridership numbers are growing faster than population growth, then the ____ of ridership in increasing. Fill in the blank. Rrrrr…come on, rrr…Fortunately, we have data showing both population growth and transit usage growth, from which we can draw a conclusion about the shift in shares of transit mode – ie, we can confidently conclude from the fact that transit usage is rising much faster than population usage that transit is increasing its share of regional commuter trips…Chuckles is not dumb enough to misunderstand the relationship between the growth in total trips, the growth in population, and changes in mode share…My argument, once again is about transit usage growing faster than population.
Gee, I guess my argument really does keep changing. Where I started out talking about transit usage growing faster than population, I slyly shifted to an argument about transit usage growing faster than population.
Why do you do this, Mixner? Everyone who will read your last comment will have read through the thread, seen me making this argument over and over again, and seen you responding to it further upthread.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Of, for the love of…chuckles, do you think we can’t read the post? This the sentence you quoted – that is, this is the entirety of the sentence you chopped half and then quoted:
April 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
So tall buidlings equals enough cops, well paved roads and sidewalks. Really? NYC has those things? Or is it more realistic that those things will always to be barely good enough, regardless how big the urban coffers get from highrises. Highrises might bring more revenue, but they bring more maintenance expenses too. Saying tall buildings lead to perfectly paved roads is a bit silly.