Oh Hi!

Flashback

Hey, Dietsch, remember when you got married? Remember? 'Cause I sure hope my date does.

Rerun

Dear 1,800,000 Cold People,

Sorry you missed the inauguration – better luck next time.

Love,
The Recipe

Up and Down

On January 8, The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) approved a $3.4 billion headquarters for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the now derelict grounds of St. Elizabeths Hospital in Anacostia. The proposed complex, due for completion in 2016, would “provide a secure workplace for 14,000 Homeland Security employees scattered across the Washington area.”

John V. Cogbill III, chairman of the NCPC, touts the plan “as an important step forward for Anacostia and for Washington.” In a statement released by the NCPC, Executive Director Marcel Costa said the project “exemplifies the positive impact federal facilities can have on District neighborhoods by serving as a catalyst for development, in this case in the surrounding Ward 8 neighborhood.”

But dissenting voices checked the NCPC’s approval, calling the future headquarters damaging to St. Elizabeths’ historical integrity, and separated from Ward 8 by countless security barriers. Davis Garrison of the Brookings Institute, once champion of the redevelopment of St. Elizabeths, testified that “DHS employees might as well be working on the moon for all their presence will benefit the city.”

In a study published by the Brookings Greater Washington Research Program, Garrison argued “it would be vastly better from the standpoint of the city if the plan for St. Elizabeths…returned to its earlier target as a place for a mixed use, mixed income, open and accessible new neighborhood.” In short, not a secure DHS facility.

Both sides of the argument are compelling, and both highlight a disturbing trend in Washington: The city is full.

In the early 2000s, then DC Mayor Anthony Williams drafted a long-term plan to increase the city’s population – and therefore tax base – by 100,000 permanent residents. By the standard of most major metropolitan areas, the goal was modest. A large urban redevelopment – say, Columbia Heights – would do the trick. Unless, of course, your city is mired in zoning, historic preservation, and, most importantly, building height regulations.

In 1899, Congress – the US Congress – passed the Heights of Buildings Act, which limited the height of buildings in the District of Columbia to not exceed the Capitol. Although the act has been amended since, the original form remains true. The District’s tallest non-federal building is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, a staggering 329 feet tall.

As the skylines of Chicago, New York, Houston and countless other cities can attest, it’s more beneficial for a city to go up – not sprawl out. We can blame the Heights of Building Acts for such monuments to (sub)urban sprawl as Tyson’s, Arlington, Bethesda, the Dulles Toll Road corridor, the I-270 corridor, and the expanding areas in between. Before long, DC will be surrounded by Maryland and Virginia’s mini-cities that don’t give a damn about lines-of-sight. The District has lost innumerable businesses and residents to an arbitrary restriction set by an outside government.

St. Elizabeths should be redeveloped, but first, the US Congress, in conjunction with the DC government, should revisit the Heights of Buildings Act. The plateaued St. Elizabeths grounds would be a fantastic starting point for a DC skyline visible for miles.

Hi, Allison

I know, people, I know.