While some of us are talking about DC, I noticed there's been a few posts in Atlantic Cities on the Heights Act, both pro and con. I totally get it, but it seems like beyond the touristy areas and the waterfront, there isn't much harm in going up, right? There are some nice neighborhoods with small rowhouses, but I'm assuming a lot of them are designated historic landmarks, and the diagonal avenues make true skyscrapers difficult in downtown. But I know there are posters here who are more familiar with Washington, so I'd like to get their views.
Nope, sorry. I am extremely opposed to doing away with the height restrictions. DC is beautiful the way that it is and it has no current need for more height. The population, though it's grown recently is still far lower than it was a few decades ago. There is a lot of infill capacity that should be utilized before they start going up and ruining people's views. Real estate developers would prefer to build new, tall buildings because that kind of development is cheaper. If I thought for a second that lifting height restrictions would result in affordable city-center housing, I might could be convinced. But there's no way that happens. The World's Greatest Blogger has a huge hard-on about this and it makes me crazy. He worships the Gods of Density and deplores the Devil Automobiles to the point that he's ridiculous. Maybe the restrictions can be lifted on the more unlovely edges without destroying DC's character, I don't know. But the vast majority of the middle of DC needs to be left the ******** alone.
No height restrictions needed in Colorado. No building in Denver, or any other city in the US for that matter, can rival the 54 majestic peaks of Colorado that rise above 14,000'. 9 of which I've climbed, and 2 of which I've driven to the top of.
Honestly, I don't see too many places in central DC where a high rise would make sense. The National Mall and the surrounding area are likely off-limits, and again, the circles and diagonal avenues would probably prevent a big enough footprint to support a tall tower. Maybe Foggy Bottom?
Atlantic Cities article on how Toronto Mayor Rob Ford got turfed. The 5-cent synopsis is this: In 2010, then-councillor Ford raises ~3K in donations solicited from lobbyists and the like using city letterhead for his personal football (gridiron) charity - which is a minor no-no. Integrity commissioner orders him to repay ~3k a half dozen times - these requests are ignored Ford elected mayor in 2010 City council passes a motion absolving Ford and does not require him to pay back the money Ford speaks and votes in favour of the motion (obvious conflict of interest) Local citizen identifies conflict - files charges under Municipal Act in question In his ham-handed defense Ford shows ignorance of conflict laws and is arrogant and willfully blind in his understanding of the law, judge applies only punishment available and vacates his mayoralty. The Daily Mail getting it spectacularly wrong The fun never ends with this buffoon, as he's likely to run in a by-election if council chooses that option.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nypd-boots-homeless-man-photo-145219581.html simply warms the heart...
I almost didn't click because the link can be read as "Cop Kicks Homeless Man," and I didn't really feel like seeing that.
I made the mistake of reading the comments for an article about Hope Solo. Good lord, it was like reading the soccer threads on BigSoccer.
Last time I read a Hope Solo article, half the comments defended her. That depressed me until I drank a bottle of wine, then I was alright.
As for Hope Solo...Its progress when women's athletics has moved past warm and fuzzy by its mere existence to having meathead jocks recognized as such.
The city, thousands words worth: Also, this chart is how much median-income earners of various cities spend on rent and commutes: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jo...-their-income-housng-and-transportation/4027/ Blue is housing, green is transportation, I think.