Ever since Congress granted home rule to the District of Columbia in 1973, the relationship between the city’s elected leaders and the denizens of Capitol Hill have been somewhat antagonistic. So it’s noteworthy when Mayor Vincent Gray, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House committee that oversees the district, all agree on something. In this case, it is that city planners should be freed from century-old building height restrictions. Congress should take advantage of this rare instance of bipartisan accord and grant their wish.
In 1899, Congress passed the Heights of Buildings Act, capping commercial buildings in the District at 110 feet and residential buildings at 90 feet. It came after residents complained about the Cairo, a 164-foot residential “skyscraper” designed by architect Thomas Franklin Schneider at 1615 Q St. NW.
Recommended Stories
Once known as “Schneider’s Folly” and considered unacceptably tall, the Cairo is now a Dupont Circle treasure, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It hardly strikes modern observers as the monstrosity it must have seemed a century ago.
In 1910, the law was amended to allow commercial buildings 130 feet tall. Since then, exemptions to the 1910 law have already been granted over the years, including one in 1959 for the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception — at 329 feet, currently the second tallest building, overshadowed only by the 555-foot Washington Monument. The 315-foot Old Post Office was grandfathered in when the Heights Act was passed, and another exemption was made in 1989 for the 210-foot One Franklin Square.
There are places in the District where the current height restrictions should probably remain as is. Tourist destinations such as Georgetown, the National Mall and the recently refurbished Penn Quarter are good examples. And it makes sense to restrict taller buildings around federal facilities such as the White House and the U.S. Capitol for security reasons, and in residential neighborhoods for aesthetic reasons. But if city planners are given more leeway to add height along the city’s major commercial thoroughfares — such as Connecticut or New York Avenues –they could add significantly to the city’s tax base without detracting at all from Washington’s well-known profile.
Although Congress has an important constitutional role to play in governing the District, it is heartening to see Issa and local leaders agree that some decisions are best made locally. It should be D.C. officials, acting as stewards of their city’s rich architectural heritage, who make the call on building heights.
