Washington's Battle With Building Height Restrictions

The battle against tall buildings in Washington DC began in the 19^th century when Cairo, a 12-storey, 160-foot tall hotel was erected. Architectural experts, technophobes and panegyrists of the past felt that the building is hideous and that such skyscrapers would topple. As a result, the local government passed a law that no building should be taller than 130 feet. In 1910, Height of Buildings Act of 1910 was imposed, stipulating that no building should be taller than 90 feet in residential areas and 130 feet. This is strange because even at that time many smaller cities in the United States have dozens of buildings that are hundreds of feet tall.

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in Washington DC now, it is good to observe that like in Mumbai and Delhi where building height restrictions were imposed decades ago, the Height of Buildings Act of 1910 was not periodically revised either. However, unlike in Indian cities, the Height of Buildings Act of 1910 was not imposed to decongest the city centre. It was a matter of aesthetic preferences and the fear that skyscrapers would fall down. This was unreasonable, as incomparably taller buildings were erected in the past 122 years, throughout the world.  But, this legislation is still in place. In 2013, a revision of the Height of Buildings Act of 1910 was proposed, but even then the height proposed was only 200 feet. This is much shorter than many buildings in smaller neighbouring cities.

In Indian cities, however, building height restrictions were imposed to decongest the centre of cities. There were, of course, other constraints, too, like the buildings would crumble down, and that tall buildings do not respect the nature of Indian cities. Tall buildings are opposed because they are seen as a sign of affluence, and because they would cast a shadow on shorter buildings. But, today, the same arguments are made in Washington. The proposal to raise the height of buildings in Washington are being opposed by long-time residents who think that the city is already too crowded. Now, the height of buildings should not be higher than the width of the roads plus 20 feet.

Even in other spheres of urban planning, Washington faces problems similar to that of Indian cities. Parking, for example, is underpriced. Vehicles sometimes remain on roads for weeks, months or even years. This is because the amount government charges for a yearly residential parking sticker is $25. In a private reserved spot, the charge is, however, $250 for a month. This is hundred times higher than what the government charges. Like in India, most cars on the roads on weekends are looking for parking spaces. This makes roads congested and more polluted. This also makes housing more expensive. Remember: We build tall buildings to save land. So, how much sense does it make to allow people to use land for $25 a year, when parking lots often consume far more space than human beings do?