U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–367 PDF 2012

CHANGES TO THE HEIGHTS ACT: SHAPING 

WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE FUTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 19, 2012 

Serial No. 112–184 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE

NATIONAL ARCHIVES

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona, Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois, Ranking Minority 

Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 19, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Harriet Tregoning, Director, District of Columbia Office of Planning 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Natwar M. Gandhi, Ph.D., Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Mr. Marcel C. Acosta, Executive Director, National Capital Planning Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Mr. Roger K. Lewis, Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland School of 

Architecture 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Mr. Christopher H. Collins, Counsel, District of Columbia Building Industry 

Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Ms. Laura M. Richards, Member, Board of Trustees, and Past Chairman, 

Committee of 100 on the Federal City 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Member of Congress from the State of South 

Carolina, Opening Statement .............................................................................. 69 

Mr. Charles Wilson, Historic Anacostia Block Association, Retain the Height 

of Buildings Act of 1910 ....................................................................................... 70 

(1) 

CHANGES TO THE HEIGHTS ACT: SHAPING 

WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE FUTURE 

Thursday, July 19, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CENSUS, AND

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:34 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Issa (ex officio), Davis and Norton. 

Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Communications Advisor; Molly Boyl, 

Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; Howard A. 

Denis, Senior Counsel; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Mary Pritchau, 

Professional Staff Member; James Robertson, Professional Staff 

Member; Noelle Turbitt, Assistant Clerk; Peter Warren, Legislative 

Policy Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; 

Kevin Corbin, Minority Deputy Clerk; Yvette Cravins, Minority 

Counsel; Devon Hill, Minority Staff Assistant; William Miles, Minority Professional Staff Member; Suzanne Owen, Minority Health 

Policy Advisor; and Safiya Simmons, Minority Press Secretary. 

Mr. GOWDY. This is a hearing entitled ‘‘Changes to the Heights 

Act: Shaping Washington, D.C., for the Future.’’ The committee 

will come to order, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. 

This hearing is important to the residents of the District of Columbia, as well as all Americans who come to the Nation’s Capital. 

We are here to examine the 100-year-old law that governs building 

heights in the District to determine what, comma, emphasis, if any, 

comma, modifications should be made to it. 

Passed in 1910 to address public safety concerns, the Heights Act 

generally limits building heights to the width of the street on 

which it is located, with a maximum limit of 90 feet, and residential areas at 130 feet, and commercial ones with a few exceptions 

throughout the city. The District was not unique in limiting the 

size of its structures; however, when other cities eased their laws, 

D.C. held firm to the limitations. This has helped shape our Capital City, but, as some have argued, may have also stunted its potential. 

While significant technological improvements have been made 

over the years to address 20th century safety issues, it is vital to 

this debate that we look at every potential ramification of opening 

2 

this law. For instance, it is a sad fact that D.C. is a terrorist target. 

I understand the Secret Service and Capitol Police have had concerns in the past about the height of certain buildings near the 

White House and Capitol complexes respectively. Before any modifications are considered, the safety concerns of our Federal city 

must be addressed. 

In addition, we need to look at the overall economic impact any 

proposal to raise limits would have on the District. There are obvious potential fiscal benefits to the city and the construction community. Higher buildings could also help make housing more affordable, especially for low-income families and younger residents 

who seek to make D.C. their adopted home. 

Finally, I want to be clear, this committee has no desire to turn 

D.C. Into the next New York. Our Nation’s monuments and memorials will not be overshadowed by condos and co-ops. 

With that in mind, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

We have a very distinguished panel. We are grateful, all of us, for 

your presence. We look forward to hearing from you on what may 

potentially come from this hearing. 

I want to thank everyone for being with us today and sharing 

your expertise. And now it is my great pleasure to recognize the 

gentlelady from the District of Columbia, who will be serving as 

the ranking member for purposes of this hearing, Ms. Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Gowdy. And 

you’re right, I love New York, but this is the District of Columbia. 

I particularly want to thank you for this hearing, though, because it’s the first hearing in decades about the Height Act. We 

know that it sets limits. If you were to hear those dimensions, they 

wouldn’t mean a lot to you, and we could not find in the record 

what they were based on. Perhaps some of the witnesses know. The 

only basis we can come upon for the present limits really are by 

adoption from other cities or something to that effect. 

The record does not show that when these standards were adopted, there were hearings and the like. Now, of course, this was before home rule, and I don’t know much about the commissioners, 

but I imagine that somebody must have sat down to decide about 

these dimensions. In any case, in over 100 years, we cannot find 

any evidence that the Height Act has been seriously analyzed. 

I looked for changes in the Height Act and found that there had 

been seven amendments. Most of those seem to have been special 

exceptions; only two were of general applicability. I also don’t know 

the reason for those changes, both to residential buildings, one to 

increase the limit by 5 feet, and the other to permit buildings to 

have 10 floors rather than 8. I don’t know the basis for that, but 

those were the only changes we could find. 

Now, we are well aware of the Federal interest in protecting the 

views of its signature buildings and historic sites. Those, of course, 

are located in the monumental core. There is little information, 

however, on the public record concerning the uses and purposes of 

the Height Act today apart from that important purpose. 

We do know this, that the discipline on height of buildings that 

is embedded in the Height Act seems to flow naturally enough from 

the original vision of the city from the L’Enfant plan and the McVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:02 Nov 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76367.TXT APRIL
3 

Millan plan. We have the Height Act to thank for the livable scale 

of this city that is so apprised; and, for that matter, for the vistas 

that give our city its unique place in the world, and that draw visitors and, if I may so, revenue to the District as well. 

Something interesting seems to have happened, though, over the 

years. There seems to have developed a nearly common understanding that our identity as a city is wrapped up in part in the 

Height Act. That’s the only reason I can think of that in my service 

in the Congress for over 20 years, no one has ever approached my 

office for changes in the Height Act. 

The only specific change I know of is one that would call for 

human occupancy of a space already on the top of buildings, and 

that space is now occupied by mechanical equipment. It’s known as 

the mechanical penthouse. Now, on its face this change would appear to offer some benefit if you could occupy that space without 

interrupting the current views or vistas that are so prized. 

At the same time, I certainly, for me, have no information on 

what the effects of this change would be. I don’t even know why 

the decision was made to place the mechanical equipment on the 

top of buildings. I am told that elevators pulled up, and therefore 

it was on the top of buildings. I don’t know whether if that space 

was not used for mechanical equipment, but was occupied, whether 

the mechanical equipment could go elsewhere. I don’t know what 

the cost of that, what it would do to the attractiveness of buildings. 

In other words, this hearing, for me, is largely technical. 

The Height Act is like a symbol. It’s discussed, it’s even revered, 

but I don’t know many people, expert or not, in this city who know 

very much about the Height Act or have spent any considerable 

time understanding it. It’s very much worth understanding if the 

identity of your city may be closely aligned with the Height Act. 

Far more difficult than this single notion of occupying the space 

that’s already allowed on buildings is the notion of whether there 

should be any further relaxation of the Height Act. That, of course, 

implicates almost exclusively residential D.C. That is an issue that 

I would approach with caution. The city would ask itself does it feel 

a need for relaxation of the Height Act? It would ask itself what 

are the implications, economic implications, planning implications, 

and particularly what are the neighborhood-by-neighborhood implications? The topography of the city is very different. It’s hard to 

imagine that, as with today’s Height Act, which is uniform, you 

could have a change in the Height Act that treated the rest of the 

city uniformly. 

As someone who has supported smart growth, I would be interested to know how the city, which also encourages smart growth, 

squares smart growth with the existing Height Act constraints. 

I think that no matter how you view the Height Act, its effect 

on the city at large would need to bear in mind many factors: the 

identity of the city, its shape, its history, its future. And my only 

sense is that if in residential D.C. one wanted to alter the Height 

Act, one would require extensive comprehensive studies and hearings involving the full range of actors, from many experts to many 

residents. That’s a very weighty task beyond the full measure of 

this hearing, but I thought it should be raised. 

4 

In any case, I will be very satisfied if I can feel comfortable with 

the single notion, the single idea that has been raised of occupying 

the space that’s already allowed at the top of buildings. 

Mr. Chairman, one resident, the advisory neighborhood commissioner and president of the Historic Anacostia Block Association, 

has submitted a statement, and I ask that it be included in the 

record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. NORTON. I thank today’s witnesses and look forward to 

learning from each them. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia. 

I also would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr. 

Davis, who is joining us today, and on behalf of all three of us and 

anyone else who may come, we welcome our distinguished panel of 

witnesses. 

Other Members who wish to may have 7 days to submit opening 

statements and extraneous material for the record. 

I will introduce you from my left to right, your right to left, and 

I will introduce you en bloc, and then you will have 5 minutes for 

your opening statement. There is a light system. Red means stop; 

yellow, go as fast as you can; and green means go. 

So it is my pleasure on behalf of all of us to welcome our panel, 

and I apologize in advance if I mispronounce anyone’s name. You 

are welcomed to correct me. I have three sisters, so I am used to 

it. 

Ms. Harriet Tregoning is the director of the D.C. Office of Planning. 

Dr. Natwar Gandhi is the chief financial officer of the District of 

Columbia. I read recently that Robert Griffin signed a contract for 

4 years with the Washington Redskins. I know Bryce Harper was 

signed by the Nationals. I believe you may also have re-upped for 

a period of time? 

Mr. GANDHI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. It may not have been done with as much fanfare as 

those two, but ultimately for the health of the city, yours may well 

be the most important of all three of those. So we congratulate you 

and welcome you. 

Mr. GANDHI. Thank you, sir. That is very kind of you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Marcel Acosta is the executive director of the 

National Capital Planning Commission. 

Mr. Roger Lewis is professor emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Architecture. 

Mr. Christopher Collins is counsel to the District of Columbia 

Building Industry Association. 

Ms. Laura Richards is a member of the board of trustees and 

past chairman of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City. 

We welcome all of you. 

And I will, pursuant to committee rules, need to ask if you would 

stand and please take the oath. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

5 

May the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You may be seated. Thank you. 

With that, we will recognize Ms. Tregoning for her opening statement. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HARRIET TREGONING 

Ms. TREGONING. Thank you very much. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Davis, members and staff of the subcommittee. I am 

Harriet Tregoning. I am the director of the D.C. Office of Planning. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before your 

subcommittee on behalf of Mayor Vincent C. Gray in support of 

modest proposed changes to the 1910 Federal Height Act. 

As you may know, rooftop structures, as Congresswoman Norton 

mentioned, are already permitted under the Height Act. While allowed, these roof structures have been limited in their use to mechanical equipment, elevator overrides, building mechanicals, and 

are currently prohibited from any use that qualifies as human occupancy, like a recreational room or an office space. Allowing their 

use for more active purposes will have no real impact on the overall maximum height of buildings as permitted by the 1910 Height 

Act, and will not impact the District’s recognizable and historic 

skyline. 

The Height Act has been a defining element in creating the city’s 

skyline, and has resulted in an iconic form in the Nation’s Capital. 

I believe that the District of Columbia will always limit the height 

of buildings, whatever the fate of a Federal Height Act. This relationship between the width of streets and the height of buildings 

is a very important one. But let me underscore something that 

Congresswoman Norton said, that there is nothing particularly sacred about the numbers that were selected—the width of the street, 

plus 10 feet for residential streets; the width plus 20 for commercial streets; rather, that there is a notion and a relationship between the height of the buildings and the scale of the streets so it 

gives you something that’s human and pedestrian scaled and is relatively unique among cities. 

In fact, on Pennsylvania Avenue, which, as the Presidential inaugural route is one of the most symbolic streets of public avenue 

anywhere in the country, it actually already hosts buildings of 160 

feet, and many of those have on top of the 160 feet additional roof 

structures. And the additional 30 feet is not particularly noticeable, 

and that’s within the Federal city. 

This human-scaled city that’s been created through an intimate 

relationship between the width of streets and boulevards and the 

corresponding heights of buildings on those streets is a more 

walkable, I think, more beautiful, more unique place as a result. 

Allowing other uses of rooftop structures wouldn’t change any of 

that. 

The act has created great views and vistas that are underscored 

by the city’s wonderful topography. Restricting the use of roof 

structures to purely mechanical purposes actually forbids people’s 

6 

enjoyment of some of the city’s greatest spaces and most striking 

views. 

These views and these amazing spaces might also be among the 

city’s most valuable, given their scarcity and their largely unobstructed vistas. With almost 40 percent of the District’s land tax 

exempt or otherwise off our city’s tax rolls, this is an opportunity 

to increase the tax base and our fiscal stability by allowing this 

building area to be occupied with no impact on land, height, or 

neighborhood character. 

I will note that a Federal action to amend the Height Act will 

need to be followed by local action to consider amendments to the 

District’s zoning code to allow such a change in use, with all of the 

public notice and public input that such an action would entail. 

While not prejudging the outcome of the process at the local 

level, we do urge your support of a Federal action to permit use of 

roof structures for other than mechanical purposes, which would 

then allow the home rule and self-governance determinations of the 

District of Columbia to proceed. 

In conclusion, I respectfully ask for your support for this modest 

proposal to change the Height Act, one that has the potential to 

substantially enhance the District of Columbia’s tax base, while 

continuing to respect the city’s existing horizontal and human 

scale. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, ma’am. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Tregoning follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 1 here 76367.001
8 


Insert offset folio 2 here 76367.002
9 


Insert offset folio 3 here 76367.003
10 

Mr. GOWDY. Dr. Gandhi. 

STATEMENT OF NATWAR M. GANDHI 

Mr. GANDHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy, Ms. Norton, Mr. Davis, and 

members of the subcommittee. I am Natwar Gandhi, chief financial 

officer of the District of Columbia Government, and I’m pleased to 

be here for the committee’s hearing on the proposed changes to the 

Congressional Heights of Buildings Act of 1910, the so-called 

Heights Act. 

The District of Columbia is a dynamic and growing city. Since 

1996, despite 2 recessions, the District’s population increased by 8 

percent by adding 46,000 residents. In 2011, the District added 

more than 1,000 residents per month, the greatest annual increase 

in D.C.’s population since 1946. From April 2010 to July 2011, the 

2.7 percentage growth in population was three times the U.S. population growth rate, and the District was among the top-gaining 

large U.S. cities. Yet our potential for growth is nowhere near exhausted. At 618,000 residents, we are still considerably short of our 

750,000 population level in the early 1970s. 

Since 1996, the District’s economy has grown significantly. Jobs 

located in the city increased by 112,100, or about 18 percent, and 

the average personal income of D.C. residents now stands at 

$73,105, or 175 percent of national average. This growth has been 

accompanied by a strong expansion in construction. In 2011, the 

District had 7.5 percent more apartments units and 26.6 percent 

more commercial office space than in 2001. Over 8,000 residential 

units are currently under construction. 

With a small footprint of 46 square miles, the District already 

commands the second highest commercial office rental rates in the 

Nation, and has only a 4.7 percent vacancy rate for Class A apartments. The District’s limited real property base is further constrained by height and density restrictions, which pose a risk to the 

city’s ability to accommodate further growth in population and jobs. 

Today, in my testimony, I would like to focus on three points. 

First, Federal legislation that eases the city’s building height restriction is necessary, but not sufficient to expand building capacity 

beyond what is currently allowed in the District of Columbia. 

Amendments to the city’s zoning regulations must accompany such 

Federal legislation. 

Second, while the relaxing or eliminating height and density restrictions could eventually have positive financial implications on 

the city’s future tax revenues, the policy is especially important for 

the city’s continued growth. By allowing the District to support 

more residential units and office space, this change would afford 

more flexibility to the District in accommodating growing jobs and 

population. To be clear, changes in the height and density restrictions would increase the value of the real property tax base, which 

accounts for over $1.8 billion in annual tax revenues. But these increases would also be tempered by local property tax relief policies, 

such as residential and commercial property tax caps. 

Third, real property tax revenues are ultimately determined by 

economic factors such as number of jobs, office rents, and household incomes, which may or may not be immediately affected by 

11 

changes in the height limits. Accordingly, the realization of higher 

taxes from increased density will take time, especially given the 

slow recovery from the great recession and the underlying economic 

uncertainty. Additionally, we are facing the possibility of Federal 

automatic spending cuts, known as a sequestration, totaling $1.2 

trillion over the next 10 years beginning January 1, 2013. For the 

District, where Federal spending is around 60 percent of the city’s 

gross domestic product, Federal cutbacks could drastically slow job 

and income growth in the District. 

Within the congressional parameters, it is the District’s zoning 

commission, with significant input from residents, that set the specific building height and density restriction for every building. 

Even the few federally initiated exceptions to the height restrictions, such as the Basilica and the Old Post Office Pavilion, were 

followed by enabling amendments to the city’s zoning regulations. 

Given the extensive public hearings that characterize the zoning 

commission’s operations, the rezoning process can be long and contentious. It is only after these complementary legislative and administrative changes are fully implemented that the District of Columbia could realize the full benefit of the changes to this land use 

policy that has been in place over 100 years. 

While the policy change would be historic, the immediate effects 

of this change may be small. The assessors will recognize that the 

market response may be slow, especially in parts of the city such 

as the downtown area, where the buildings are already fully leased 

at relatively high prices, and the developers would likely delay rebuilding until factors other than the zoning rules, such as the condition of the building, become relevant. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, despite these uncertainties, elimination of the height and density restrictions on the District’s already limited real property base could be an important step towards maintaining the city’s long-term ability to accommodate further growth in population and jobs. This proposal would allow the 

city more flexibility in its future growth path, and we look forward 

to working with you on this matter. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gandhi follows:] 

12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 76367.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 76367.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 76367.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 76367.007
16 


Insert offset folio 8 here 76367.008
17 


Insert offset folio 9 here 76367.009
18 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Acosta. 

STATEMENT OF MARCEL C. ACOSTA 

Mr. ACOSTA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton and Mr. 

Davis. My name is Marcel Acosta. I am the executive director of 

the National Capital Planning Commission. 

I am very pleased today to take this opportunity to speak with 

you about NCPC’s perspective on the Height of Buildings Act of 

1910. As you know, as you described today, the Height Act regulates the maximum height of buildings in the District of Columbia, 

and its limits are generally based on the relationship of the building to the width of the street in which it is located. 

We also talked today a little bit about some of the other functional requirements of buildings which allow them to project above 

the maximum heights, including penthouses, spires, domes, and 

other unoccupied rooftop structures. It has also been discussed 

today, within the framework of the Height Act, the District of Columbia zoning regulations also guide heights. These zoning regulations, which respond to local planning objectives, are often more restrictive than the Height Act itself. 

The Height Act is now over 100 years old, and its impact on 

Washington’s urban form and economy has been the subject of 

much public debate over the years. NCPC supports preserving the 

overall building limits established in the Height Act because of its 

extraordinary contributions to the city’s distinctive character, particularly the area known as the L’Enfant City. However, as the 

Height Act’s regulations also affect a building’s functional elements, consideration of certain technical adjustments may be appropriate. Adjusting prescribed locations of mechanical equipment 

or rooftop structures may be necessary to accommodate contemporary building technology or new environmental measures that 

improve a building’s efficiency; however, even such technical adjustments to the law may have impacts on the character of the 

Capital City, and we urge cautious review of any modifications. 

Although fire safety was a central factor in the Height Act’s enactment, its legacy is a uniquely appropriate character that suits 

the city’s role as the National Capital. This character includes 

broad, sunlit streets; carefully framed parks and memorials; and a 

city skyline that is not defined by commercial skyscrapers, but important national civic monuments and landmarks such as the Capitol Building and the Washington Monument that are important to 

the American people. Major changes to the Height Act could have 

profound consequences for these civic and design qualities in Washington’s most historic settings, including the L’Enfant City. 

Increasing building heights in District neighborhoods and communities beyond the L’Enfant City may have less impact on the 

character of the Federal establishment; however, these changes 

should also be assessed for their impact on Washington’s distinctive skyline, residential neighborhoods and their adjacent business 

districts. Allowing tall, private buildings directly on the edge outside of L’Enfant City and around what’s know as the topographic 

bowl would degrade the public character of the Washington skyline. 

If technical changes are not carefully crafted, what may seem to 

be minor modifications to the Height Act could have unintended 

19 

consequences for the urban design of the city. For example, the 

Height Act, along with the District of Columbia zoning regulations, 

regulates the number and placement of mechanical structures and 

penthouses on building roofs. These structures often house elevator 

equipment and heating, ventilation and cooling systems. While 

usually not critical to the overall design and appearance of a building, these structures can be seen from public spaces and from the 

streets, and these could also appear on the skyline if not properly 

placed or set back. Hence, any tweaks to the regulations of such 

penthouses should be mindful of the potential impact these structures could have on the city’s character. 

In addition to urban design consideration, we also believe that 

the Height Act has provided unique economic opportunity to the 

District of Columbia. The Height Act has kept new development 

from being concentrated in a few extraordinarily tall buildings, and 

allowed real estate activity to be spread throughout the city. For 

example, areas north of Massachusetts Avenue, such as NoMa, and 

The Yards, which is M Street near the Navy Yard and the U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters, have emerged as new 

business districts in recent years, and also have benefited from the 

dispersal of development activity that the Height Act has helped 

create. 

Despite the restrictions established in the Height Act and the 

zoning regulations, the District of Columbia possesses developable 

land that could accommodate new growth. Through the Federal 

and District of Columbia Government Real Estate Property Act of 

2006, the Federal Government has also provided opportunities for 

the District of Columbia to develop Federal lands at Poplar Point 

and Reservation 13 for private, taxable development. There are 

other examples, including the Southeast Federal Center, which is 

known as The Yards, and portions of the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home, which the Federal Government is working with the private 

sector to develop, as well as the Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

and St. Elizabeth’s East Campus, which are other former Federal 

facilities. We do believe that these projects will provide the District 

with additional opportunities to increase the tax base without requiring major alterations to the Height Act. 

Finally, security does play a fundamental role in how we plan 

and develop Federal buildings and their settings. In the past, the 

Federal security community has expressed some concerns about 

proposed increases in heights in areas adjacent to sensitive buildings, such as the U.S. Capitol and the White House. So any discussions about the Height Act changes should be done in consultation 

with security officials, including the GSA, U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. 

Park Police, Secret Service, Architect of the Capitol, Department of 

Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. 

Our commission is comprised of both Federal and District members, and we are in a capable position to lead a study of any Height 

Act alterations that the committee may want to pursue. 

We do thank you for inviting us to give our views today, and I 

look forward to answering any questions that you might have. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Acosta follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 76367.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 76367.011
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 76367.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 76367.013
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 76367.014
25 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Lewis. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER K. LEWIS 

Mr. LEWIS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members and staff of 

the subcommittee. My name is Roger K. Lewis, and I thank you for 

inviting me to address this subcommittee. 

I am a practicing architect, urban designer, and professor emeritus of architecture at the University of Maryland. Since 1984, I 

have within the Washington Post’s ‘‘Shaping the City’’ column, and 

since 2007 I have been a regular guest on WAMU–FM’s Kojo 

Nnamdi radio show. In both of these venues, we have frequently 

talked about height limits. 

I believe that some modifications to the 1910 statute with appropriate zoning changes in carefully chosen areas are needed and 

should be considered. 

In America building height limits were based initially on four 

considerations: One, recognizing firefighting, structural and other 

technical constraints; two, ensuring adequate light, air, ventilation 

and views desirable for public streets, civic spaces and abutting private properties; three, respecting historically prevalent building 

heights in established neighborhoods that preexisted zoning; and, 

four, and finally, and most important, making necessary aesthetic 

value judgments about urban design and architectural form. Yet inevitably height limits are arbitrary. For example, why 90 feet rather than 85 or 95 feet? In fact, there are no formulas or universal 

standards for exactly setting height limits. 

In the District of Columbia, since 1910, these considerations have 

constituted the basis for stipulating and maintaining height limits. 

Thanks to these historic limits, the Nation’s Capital has remained 

a uniquely memorable low- and midrise city. From many places in 

the city, views of America’s most iconic, symbolically significant 

structures have been preserved because downtown skyscrapers cannot be erected. 

Yet there are places in the District of Columbia, I believe, where 

height limits established decades ago are today inappropriate and 

unnecessarily constraining, a reflection of outdated planning and 

zoning practices. These practices were characterized most notably 

by designation of large areas, land use zones, limited to predominantly one use and uniform height limits. 

Broad-brush, one-size-fits-all planning and zoning fail to take 

into account locational variations in topography, soil orientation, 

views and vistas, proximity to parks, adjacency to civic open 

spaces, and infrastructure, present and future, especially transit. It 

did not differentiate, for example, between midblock properties and 

properties at the corners of major intersections. 

Today’s city planning, urban design, and architectural principles 

and techniques are far more sophisticated and effective. Broadbrush strategies of the past are obsolete. We now can engage in 

fine-grain planning, urban design and zoning. We can identify, analyze and designate specific areas and sites in the city where increased building height and density make great sense aesthetically, 

environmentally, functionally, socially and economically. This 

‘‘smart growth’’ approach can enhance the city’s urban and architectural qualities while yielding fiscal benefits for the city, as has 

26 

already been pointed out. Furthermore, enacted as an incentive 

bonus overlaying existing zoning in appropriate locations, increased 

building height limits and density can engender development of 

much-needed affordable housing. 

Where should height limits change? In the downtown L’Enfant 

plan area of the District, including traditional residential neighborhoods, height limits should remain substantially unchanged to preserve the center city’s dominant character and skyline. But there 

are specific sites, such as the Southwest and Anacostia River waterfronts where upward adjustments of height limits would be beneficial without jeopardizing the city’s historic profile. Outside the 

L’Enfant plan area, many sites could be suitable for higher buildings, especially near Metro stations and major roadways. 

Most important, the only equitable, professionally responsible 

method for identifying places to raise height limits and for determining height limits is to create a detailed, citywide plan prior to 

any rezoning based on a rigorous, comprehensive study. This is essential to avoid piecemeal, property-by-property relaxation of 

height limits through variances, exceptions, and ad hoc rezonings, 

a process too often influenced by political and financial pressures. 

Because municipal and Federal interests are involved, the building 

height study and plan should be prepared collaboratively and 

transparently by the D.C. Office of Planning and the National Capital Planning Commission. 

Many Washingtonians are apprehensive when anyone suggests 

modifying D.C. Height limits. They envision Rosslyn-like skyscrapers rising all over town, ruining the capital’s historic image. 

Some believe that raising D.C. Height limits anywhere would set 

precedents, invariably opening the proverbial barn door to greedy 

developers in league with corrupt politicians, enabling high-rise 

buildings throughout the city. 

But skeptical citizens need to understand that through fine-grain 

urban design, prudent legislation, and precisely targeted, well-enforced land use regulation, the barn door will not and cannot be 

thrown open. 

Therefore, in conclusion, revising D.C. height limits requires not 

only a credible citywide planning effort, but also an ongoing public 

education effort to help citizens recognize that legislation adopted 

over a century ago can be improved. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

27 


Insert offset folio 15 here 76367.015
28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 76367.016
29 


Insert offset folio 17 here 76367.017
30 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Collins. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER H. COLLINS 

Mr. COLLINS. Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy and members of 

the subcommittee. I am Christopher Collins, and I am testifying 

today as counsel to the District of Columbia Building Industry Association. You have a copy of my full testimony, which I will summarize. 

The 1910 Height Act, the specific requirements for—in section 5, 

which are the subject of our discussion today, that section is the 

one that limits the height to 130 feet generally on a business street 

and 90 feet on a resident street—minus 10 feet, actually. 

Above the maximum height of a building itself, section 5 of the 

act allows two additional types of structures: number one, architectural embellishments; and, number two, roof structures, which in 

the 1910 Height Act are listed as penthouses over elevator shafts, 

ventilation shafts, chimneys, smokestacks and fire sprinkler tanks. 

With the advent of central heating, ventilation, and air conditioning in multistory buildings, this equipment is now placed on 

the roof as the modern version of ventilation shafts, chimneys, and 

smokestacks. 

Congress set no limitation on the height of architectural elements, and they can be located anywhere on the roof of a building. 

Likewise, Congress set no limit on the height of roof structures, except that they must be set back from the exterior walls of the 

building a distance equal to their height above the roof, and they 

are prohibited from being used for human occupancy. 

DCBIA believes that the horizontal nature of our city’s skyline 

is an important component of the city’s beauty and special character. We also understand that there are a wide variety of views 

on the wisdom and importance of the 1910 Height Act and whether 

the established heights limits should be retained or modified. 

DCBIA has examined this issue, and we believe there is a practical 

approach for a minor change in the act that would have absolutely 

no impact up on the skyline of the city as currently permitted by 

the act. Simply stated, as previously mentioned by others, that is 

to remove the restriction on human occupancy above the top story 

of a building. 

Allowing habitable space in a roof structure, in addition to the 

normal rooftop machinery, while retaining the current roof structure setback requirements would allow a wide variety of uses, such 

as restaurants and lounges, health clubs, community rooms, enclosed swimming pools, and other residential and nonresidential 

uses. Allowing such use of roof structure space would also likely 

promote a greater use of rooftops outside of these roof structures 

for active and passive outdoor recreation and rooftop landscaping. 

We believe that this proposal will have a positive benefit on the 

quality of life for those using those facilities, and will also help to 

enhance the beauty of the skyline of our horizontal city. I have attached to my testimony an article which provides more detail on 

this proposal. 

On behalf of DCBIA, I thank you for the opportunity to appear 

today. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

31 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:] 

32 


Insert offset folio 18 here 76367.018
33 


Insert offset folio 19 here 76367.019
34 


Insert offset folio 20 here 76367.020
35 


Insert offset folio 21 here 76367.021
36 


Insert offset folio 22 here 76367.022
37 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Richards. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA M. RICHARDS 

Ms. RICHARDS. Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy and members 

of the subcommittee. I’m Laura Richards, appearing on behalf of 

the Committee of 100 on the Federal City. 

For 90 years, the committee has worked to safeguard and advance Washington’s historic distinction, natural beauty, and livability. We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the important 

issue of building heights in the city. 

We emphasize two points: First, the Height Act of 1910 plays a 

positive, powerful role in shaping the cityscape and the experience 

of living in D.C. Second, it is not necessary to change the Height 

Act in order to achieve additional residential capacity or to stimulate economic development. 

The Height Act shapes national and local D.C. As international 

planner Larry Beasley said during the act’s centennial, the height 

limit allows the national symbols of the Capital to stand out and 

prevail over all other massing of the city, and brings into focus the 

dramatic dome of the Capitol and the spire of the Washington 

Monument. 

The act is not just about expressing national power; it is about 

the joyful pleasure of walking down a gently scaled street, of unexpectedly coming upon a magnificent public edifice. It is about the 

frantic life of our modern world being made more bearable. 

Beasley’s enthusiasm is shared by residents across the city. Our 

Capital stands as the identifying focus for the country as a whole 

and our commitment to freedom as a society. Its unique history, 

physical design and aesthetic character are integral parts of that 

essential role. The Committee of 100, therefore, objects to proposed 

changes. 

One idea under discussion would allow space surrounding rooftop 

mechanical penthouses to be used for residential, commercial, or 

other purposes. Penthouses are excluded when a building’s height 

is measured. They are ancillary features whose impact is minimized as much as possible by setbacks. Building heights should be 

determined by neighborhood context and zone purposes. Letting 

the penthouse drive height decisions puts the cart before the horse. 

Also, during task force meetings held in conjunction with the 

city’s rewrite of its zoning rules, pools and party rooms were often 

mentioned as desirable uses of roof space. Are these amenities a 

sufficient reason to disturb the Height Act? 

Some proponents for higher buildings agree that the Height Act’s 

limitations should apply to the central monumental core, but urge 

that higher buildings should be allowed elsewhere. This would 

sever the physical unity between national Washington and local 

Washington, to the detriment of both. The monumental core derives its impact from the fact that is dominant. Surrounding it with 

a ring of high-rises could result in the ‘‘Disneyfication’’ of our national icons. 

A separate proposal to create a single high-rise sector, as Paris 

has done, presents a different negative outcome. Most sites mentioned as candidates for such a sector are east of the Anacostia 

River, possibly Poplar Point. Creating a high-rise sector east of the 

38 

river would result in displacement of a significant part of Washington’s African American community, again, and would further exacerbate the city’s racial divide. 

Washington can grow its economy and house its residents without raising height limit. Indeed, the Height Act has been credited 

with driving some of the development that has occurred outside the 

central city—NoMa, for example—and for attracting foreign real 

estate investors because buildings are likely to hold their value. 

The city overall is experiencing sustained growth. On a day several months ago, 32 cranes were in the air. In addition to visible 

construction activity, there is a growing small-business sector led 

by the two fastest growing population groups, young singles and 

empty nesters. Notwithstanding these favorable trends, there is 

persistent double-digit structural unemployment east of the Anacostia River. Structural unemployment is a problem that must be 

solved, but raising the height limit is not the answer. 

Since the 1970s, the District has seen successive development 

booms, but none of these waves—none—led to meaningful shortterm or long-term employment opportunities directly or indirectly 

for African American residents, especially those east of the river. 

Any suggestion that raising the height limit is a cure for structural 

unemployment is wishful thinking at best and disingenuous at 

worst. 

As to housing, the city’s own numbers indicate that the housing 

supply does not need a boost from raising the height limit. In 2001, 

the city adopted Alice Rivlin’s proposal to grow Washington by 

100,000 new residents over the next 10 years. To accommodate this 

increase, the city designated large tracts for intensive residential 

development and another 30,000 smaller sites for 120,000 residents 

total. We have now got 46,000 new residents, and we haven’t developed most of those sites. 

There is a shortage of acceptable, affordable housing, but that’s 

not really a good way to—raising the height limit won’t accommodate that because that’s the most expensive housing to build. 

I think my time’s up, so I will conclude with just to be cautious. 

As Beasley said, be very careful as you gamble with a 100-year-old 

legacy of the Height Act. Take care not to open up things too casually. I daresay that the height limits may be the single most powerful thing that has made this city so amazingly fulfilling. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Richards follows:] 

39 


Insert offset folio 23 here 76367.023
40 


Insert offset folio 24 here 76367.024
41 


Insert offset folio 25 here 76367.025
42 


Insert offset folio 26 here 76367.026
43 


Insert offset folio 27 here 76367.027
44 


Insert offset folio 28 here 76367.028
45 


Insert offset folio 29 here 76367.029
46 


Insert offset folio 30 here 76367.030
47 


Insert offset folio 31 here 76367.031
48 


Insert offset folio 32 here 76367.032
49 


Insert offset folio 33 here 76367.033
50 


Insert offset folio 34 here 76367.034
51 


Insert offset folio 35 here 76367.035
52 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank all of our witnesses for your opening statements, and especially for your adherence to our time limits that 

even sometimes we don’t always adhere to. 

I am going to stand down on my questions and recognize the 

gentlelady from the District of Columbia and allow her to go first 

if she would like. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me go first to the technical questions. Have any of you—perhaps Mr. Lewis, Mr. Collins, any of the others of you—Ms. 

Tregoning—any of you looked at the technical questions of the feasibility of occupancy of the present space and where the existing 

mechanical equipment would go? Would it share that space? Could 

it go elsewhere? 

Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. The answer is that the reason there are mechanical 

penthouses—not just to accommodate elevators, but all of the mechanical equipment on the roofs of buildings—is driven largely by 

the fact that much of the basement space that you can build under 

buildings is used for parking. So from a constructional—from a design constructional point of view, the penthouse, the mechanical 

penthouse, on the roofs of buildings is very, very commonplace in 

this city, particularly with the type of construction that we have. 

If the roof, if that additional level—I think it’s approximately 17 

feet that we’re allowed for a penthouse—if that becomes occupied 

space, mechanical equipment then has to go somewhere, and it 

takes up, I should say, a lot of space. The equipment is not just 

10 percent occupancy of the roofscape. Probably the only place you 

can put it, if you don’t put it up on the roof, is somewhere, again, 

down in a basement, which then takes away space for parking and 

creates some other problems that have to do with running duct 

work and so forth. So there is a trade-off. 

Again, I don’t think there’s just one way to do it, but there are 

pressures that put mechanical equipment on the roofs of buildings. 

Ms. NORTON. So a developer, Mr. Collins, would have to consider 

whether he wins or loses by adding space one place in a city where 

parking is at a premium, if you would have to take it from parking. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I don’t think that you would have to move the 

rooftop equipment elsewhere in all instances. I think that this proposal to use roof structures for habitable space would work best in 

larger-footprint buildings. Smaller buildings, in-fill buildings, 

midblock buildings may not work. 

There is a certain amount of mechanical equipment that must be 

up there. If you have an elevator that is pulled from the top, you’ve 

got to have your elevator penthouse on the roof. If you have access 

to the roof by stairways or elevators, you need to have that space 

as well. 

A lot of the mechanical equipment for buildings must be air 

cooled. So that has to be—it works most efficiently on the roof. It 

can be elsewhere, but then it has to be cooled. 

So you will always have a certain amount of the roof structure 

equipment on the roof, and given the larger the building footprint 

is, the more usable, occupiable, habitable space you will have on a 

rooftop. It won’t work in all instances. 

53 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Tregoning raises the interesting notion that occupying that space could actually add to the vistas. It is interesting, because many of us go to a part of the city where there is 

a vista in order to get a vista because the city does not have as 

many natural vistas as some large cities. So she says it could add 

to the vistas, and Ms. Richards says it could create some kind of 

pockmark of some buildings with and some without. 

So to try to reconcile these two views, how is it different from 

most cities today where some buildings are tall, and some buildings 

are not as tall? Are you saying it would mar the view from some 

heights to have some buildings with and some buildings without? 

Ms. RICHARDS. It is going to depend on the street wall for a particular street. And we’re talking now about raising the Height Act 

to do this, not zoning regulations. So to the extent that you need 

to amend the Height Act to accommodate this, you’re talking about 

buildings that are already at their natural height, their maximum 

height. 

Ms. NORTON. Or new buildings that could be built to that height. 

Ms. RICHARDS. If you’re going to build a new building, you can 

accommodate these desired kind of roof structures by simply putting them at the existing height level and just do a trade-off. It’s 

really only going to affect existing buildings that are at their maximum height. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Collins, do you believe that some developers 

would want to add to their—or Mr. Lewis— to add to their existing 

buildings? Would there be some kind of an incentive to do that? 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, there have been instances in the District in 

a different context where owners have added on to their buildings 

in certain parts of downtown that are designated as receiving zones 

in the downtown development district where developers have added 

three and four stories on top of existing buildings. 

Ms. NORTON. Because they hadn’t reached their height limits? 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, because under—well, there are two height 

limits in the District. There is the 1910 Height Act, the absolute 

limit; and then there is zoning, which is sometimes less. Many 

times it’s less. 

But in the downtown development district, which Ms. Tregoning 

may want to explain in more detail, there are—in exchange for providing certain amenities and benefits in the downtown area, residential, theaters, different types of uses, retail, you get bonus density, which can be transferred to areas surrounding the downtown, 

and that has been done in some instances, and it’s been done very 

successfully. It may not be financially feasible in all instances, and 

it may not be financially feasible especially if the building is not 

structurally loaded to add three or four more floors, but it has been 

done. 

To get directly to your question, I would think that what may 

happen is on some larger-footprint buildings where there is a roof 

structure, that may be set back a greater amount than is required. 

There may be more space used on the roof by the roof structure if 

it’s able to be used for habitable purposes. 

There are some instances that I’m aware of in the District where 

the technology has resulted in the mechanical equipment on the 

roof being downsized to such an extent that there’s a vast amount 

54 

of unused space in the roof structure that might be able to be used, 

for instance, for a health club or for a community room or something of that nature that is going vacant because of this limitation. 

Ms. NORTON. My time is up, but I would like to come back after 

everyone has had an opportunity. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr. 

Davis for his 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Gandhi, is there an economic impact to be realized should 

the height be increased? 

Mr. GANDHI. Yes, sir. Eventually there will be economic impact 

in terms of expanding of our tax base. We do have a fundamental 

problem of having a very limited, narrow tax base in the District. 

It is very well known, but I must reiterate that roughly two-thirds 

of our income is not taxed in the city. For every $100 that are owed 

in the city, we get to tax only $34; $66 is taxed in Maryland and 

Virginia, roughly. It’s like going to a restaurant. We would say that 

of all of the people who are eating here, one-third will pay, and 

two-thirds will not pay, and everybody would complain about bad 

food and bad service. Similarly, roughly 40 percent of our commercial real property values are tax exempt. 

So what we have here, the problem, is a limited tax base. Indeed, 

only 2 of the 30 largest employers pay our taxes, real property 

taxes, and only 1 of the largest 13 employers pay our business 

taxes. So we do have a problem of a very limited tax base. And 

eventually what this will do is to accommodate a growing population and most likely increase our tax base. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Lewis, how do you balance the aesthetic value of 

the buildings, the property, the city and at the same time realize 

the opportunity to expand the tax base a bit? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, that’s a very good question, but it’s also the 

question that almost every jurisdiction that I have worked in asks, 

because it’s invariably an unavoidable dilemma. 

Growth, if you accept the notion that growth is inevitable, that 

there will be growth, people will want to live here, then the question arises, where do you accommodate the growth? 

My fear about a lot of the discourse we’re hearing of, let’s say, 

allowing some of the buildings to go up one more story is not addressing that issue at all. It’s a tweak, frankly. And tweaking—in 

fact, I would argue, being an architect and urban designer, that 

adding another 15 feet to a number of the buildings won’t significantly change the character, the profile of the District of Columbia’s downtown or its historic areas. 

I think that what I’m proposing is, in fact, an answer to your 

question, which is that I’m worried about our dying this death by 

1,000 cuts; that we will come in, we will add a story here, a story 

there, and it won’t add up to anything when it is all done, or that 

it might add up to something quite negative. That is why I have 

advocated to address, to answer the question, we really need to 

look at the whole city. 

I believe there are places in this city, many of them quite distant 

from the monumental core, by the way, where taller buildings—and 

not skyscrapers. I really want to correct the impression that many 

55 

people in the city have, that when we talk about lifting the height 

limits, they shouldn’t be envisioning Chicago or New York or 

Rosslyn. We are talking about maybe going—allowing buildings, instead of being 90 feet, allowing them to be 140 feet or 150 feet. 

Even that is still an—at some point is an arbitrary value judgment 

that must be made. 

I believe that a lot of what we’re talking about is about value 

judgment; that is, what is the right balance? How do we find the 

balance between accommodating growth in a prudent and aesthetically appropriate way while preserving the historic aesthetic qualities of the city as a whole? I think that can be done. It’s been done 

in many other cities—in districts, in areas, not necessarily for the 

whole city. 

In this case, in the District of Columbia’s case, I think the only 

prudent way to do this, as I said in my testimony, is to look at the 

city comprehensively and identify places. 

Let me give you an example: the McMillan Reservoir. Here is a 

place, next to the Washington Hospital Center, where there is a 

tremendous sentiment on the part of the community to make a lot 

of that space park. It would be very easy to accommodate some of 

the density that I think the city would like to see there by allowing 

slightly higher buildings facing Michigan Avenue or along North 

Capitol Street. 

That’s what I was talking about earlier when I said there are 

places that should be targeted well outside of the monumental core, 

a long way from downtown, where, again, buildings, instead of 

being 60 or 90 feet high, might go to 120 or 140 feet. I don’t advocate, by the way, that we start building 30- and 40-story buildings, 

which is what we have in Rosslyn. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GANDHI. If I may comment on what Mr. Lewis is saying, yes, 

every jurisdiction does have a problem of limited tax base, but nowhere would you see the problem as serious as in the District. For 

example, I used to have an office on the 11th floor of the Judiciary 

Square building when we had the city hall there. I looked outside 

at museums, monuments, galleries. Beautiful. Nothing I could tax. 

And ultimately, when you have a large chunk of a commercial real 

property that is tax exempt for a variety of reasons, you really have 

to wonder where do we get enough resources, enough tax base to 

take care of the city’s needs? 

Mr. GOWDY. Dr. Gandhi, I’m reluctant to use the phrase ‘‘trust 

me’’ because I went to law school, but I’m going to give you a 

chance when I’m questioning to go into exactly what you were just 

alluding to. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California who has joined us, and recognize him. Chairman Issa. 

Mr ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being in another hearing. 

Dr. Gandhi, you are one of my heroes in town. A lot of people 

around here trust the fact that you get your numbers right, that 

we can count on you to be an honest broker. 

Isn’t, though, part of the revenue of the city the green space, that 

untaxed space that is in abundance in the District of Columbia? 

56 

Mr. GANDHI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. And if we’re looking at trying to make the District of 

Columbia a success, we’re going to obviously preserve the Mall, the 

space and so on. But you also on occasions, like myself, I am sure, 

drive up to Northeast, don’t you? 

Mr. GANDHI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Do you notice that you drive far longer up into Northeast before you leave the District than it would take for you to get 

over the river to some of those 30- and 40-story buildings that represent considerable revenue; is that correct? 

Mr. GANDHI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. So is there any city in America in which its State prohibits a city from self-determination of that 30- or 40-story building 

when there are 30- or 40-story buildings closer, that are simply in 

another city? 

Mr. GANDHI. I understand your point, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. I’ll take that as a yes. 

Mr. GANDHI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. And, Ms. Lewis, that’s one of my questions, and I think 

for Ms. Richards, too. Today’s hearing is primarily on the small 

step, the baby step, the deliberate incremental step of simply asking whether the building is more aesthetically pleasing, modern, 

and acceptable to the best practices by having an elevator shaft 

and a bunch of air conditioning conduits on its roof, or whether a 

rim of similar or slightly different offices, meeting rooms, or whatever on the top floor with no visible mechanicals; which one is more 

appropriate for a 21st century city to the extent that you have 

these buildings, Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. There’s no question that I think most people would 

agree looking up at the top of a building and seeing it meeting the 

sky with occupied space is better than seeing it meet the sky with 

penthouses and mechanical equipment. 

I mean, I think, I sit on a design review board in Alexandria 

where we have been dealing with this for 20 years in the development of Carlyle, and we have very specific design guidelines for 

penthouses for just that reason. We don’t—the people in Alexandria 

don’t want to see the penthouses. And if they do see them, they 

want them finished with something other than fake stucco. 

So I have to agree completely that—— 

Mr. ISSA. Or plastic trees, what have you. 

Mr. LEWIS. Whatever. Exactly. 

On the other hand, I’d also be the first to tell you, since I’m an 

architect, that half the battle is having a good architect. I mean, 

I think that—— 

Mr. ISSA. My lawyer says a good lawyer is good, too. 

Mr. LEWIS. One of the challenges in D.C. has a lot to do with the 

proportions of buildings. When you talk to architects practicing in 

Chicago or New York or, for that matter, Frankfurt, Germany, 

they’re baffled. They can’t understand why we have this phobia 

about going a little bit higher or going much higher. I don’t advocate going a whole lot higher, but I do think as one does drive 

around D.C. or walk around D.C., you certainly can’t help noticing 

a lot of the buildings that have been built, commercial and otherwise, are not exactly architectural award-winners. 

57 

So that’s a long answer to your short question. I do think 

that—— 

Mr. ISSA. So in the short answer, getting rid of ugly appliance 

floors and replacing them with an—approved by the city, local control, letting them decide what aesthetically fits on existing buildings, with an existing height cap that currently gets to the top 

floor, and it’s sort of—basically it’s pipes and shafts, rather than 

a rim of hopefully the most aesthetically pleasing top to a roof, the 

short answer is yes, if we were to support that, and ultimately the 

city would decide, that would be good for the economic base, it 

would be good for the aesthetics, and it would have absolutely no 

change in the maximum height of a building in the District of Columbia. 

Mr. LEWIS. No. I think it’s reasonable. But I think you should 

recognize there will be great pressure from many buildings, particularly, as Mr. Collins pointed out, small-footprint buildings— 

there will still be pressures to put things on the roof. I am quite 

convinced. 

Mr. ISSA. I live up in Northwest when I’m in the District. I’m 

very aware that every home in the District—and, Ms. Richards, I 

haven’t started on an opportunity for you to answer, so I want to, 

if I can have the time, make sure you get fully heard. 

Some of the most desirable and ugly things there are homes like 

the one I live in, but mine doesn’t happen to have it, in which we 

all find a way to put a balcony there, or we put some wood and 

a terrace because we all want to sit up on our roof at least on those 

few days that are just perfect. We all understand the desire, but 

currently we have a moratorium, we have a limit, and that limit 

induces, if you will, the crown of a building to be less desirable 

rather than inducing or encouraging it to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible, particularly in a day in which the mechanicals of 

buildings are getting smaller and smaller in modern buildings or 

remanufactured buildings. 

Ms. Richards, since I’ve been told that you’re somebody who, 

more than anyone else on the panel, has dedicated yourself to trying to preserve much of what we have in the District of Columbia, 

as a closing—you can answer any of the questions that others did— 

but aren’t we best off preserving as much of, if you will, old Washington and the homes and some of these buildings, and maintaining our concentration in K Street and those areas; make them as 

pretty as they are, but recognize that the buildings we’re talking 

about are not buildings built in the turn of the last century, they 

were built in the last half of the last century and so on? Wouldn’t 

you agree that we could make them prettier, even if we’re talking 

about no change in the top height? 

And separately, if there’s a second round, I would like to talk 

about the possibility that there be taller buildings outside of just 

that first step. 

Ms. Richards. 

Ms. RICHARDS. Speaking solely to the penthouse issue, it’s a 

highly desirable thing as mechanical penthouses have become 

smaller and smaller. And there are ways to deal with them to 

make them more attractive and the roofs more attractive, sort of 

turning them into like other kinds of spaces. 

58 

For instance, the new city buildings on Fourth Street have created kind of like decorative features around their mechanical penthouses, not just the little kind of like little boxy structures that you 

see. 

Mr. ISSA. So you are for them still being only mechanical, but 

being less ugly? 

Ms. RICHARDS. Less ugly. And also there’s a new green roof initiative in the city, so you can do marvelous things with green roofs 

that will provide greater masking and not the plastic pots. 

So I think that, yes, we’ve had to tolerate roof structures as an 

exception to the Height Act because they were necessary, like a 

smokestack was necessary. But now that we can find ways to either mask them or minimize them, this means that we can really 

more fully comply with the Height Act. So that is how the Committee of 100 would recommend addressing this. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Hopefully there will be a second round. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir, there will. 

And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. And then with the indulgence of our panelists, because we have just an eclectic amalgamation of expertise, we would like to go to a second round if your 

time permits. 

Dr. Gandhi, I’m going to pick on you, because, as Chairman Issa 

said, I have known you in the past. You have always given me 

thorough, accurate, fair information, and with that comes consequences. 

So I’m going to ask you, give me your three best pieces of evidence. You’re the prosecutor. You want to get the Height Act 

amended. What are your three best pieces of evidence to amend it? 

Mr. GANDHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind comment, 

and also Chairman Issa. 

I’m here not to advocate what Congress or the elected leaders 

should do about height limitations. All I’m suggesting here, as my 

goal as a chief financial officer, is to realize that we do have a limited tax base, a very constrained, narrow, limited tax base. At the 

same time, we are a city with great needs of infrastructure, of the 

human needs, and at some point, Federal Government has to recognize the city’s issues here. 

We are very proud to have the Federal Government in our midst. 

We are the Nation’s Capital. But at the same time, with the Federal Government comes the burden of the Federal Government. So 

it’s a mixed bag to some extent. 

So I would not recommend either way. It is not my duty. My 

duty here is to give you the numbers, as you pointed out, sir, and 

be as honest in the numbers that I give you. 

Mr. GOWDY. As you know, and as many other members of this 

panel are, I’m a big fan of your chief of police. So I like to think, 

how will her life be impacted? More residents; more service needs 

to be provided. Have you done any analysis of how your fire department would be impacted, your public safety, transportation? 

Mr. GANDHI. No, we have not done that work ourselves. 

Mr. GOWDY. You were, in response to a question maybe from 

Chairman Issa, maybe from Mr. Davis, talking about the lack of a 

tax base, and I want to make sure that you had as much time as 

you wanted to answer that. There are unique challenges. The 

59 

mayor of my hometown, former mayor, Bill Barnett, we have universities and churches in downtown Spartanburg. So we have the 

same issues, but on a much smaller scale. So go ahead and finish 

the answer to the extent you want to. 

Mr. GANDHI. Thank you very much for your kind comments and 

also for the time you are affording me. 

District of Columbia is the only place in this country where the 

income is not taxed at the source where it is earned. That is the 

problem that we face in this city. 

Second, we do not have a State to take care of the city. All central cities of America are subsidized by their States via suburbs. 

Our problem here is that our suburbs here are subsidizing Maryland, that is to say Baltimore and Richmond, not the District. And 

that is the fundamental problem we have. 

I think what we need here is a tax base that is enough to take 

care of profound needs that we have in the city. One-third of the 

city is Medicaid-eligible, one-third. West of the park, we have 

among the richest people in the country; but east of the river, we 

have among the poorest census tracks in the country. That is the 

fundamental problem. 

We have to take care of our people. And for that you need a tax 

base. And, as I pointed out, that being the seat of the Nation’s Capital gives us the great advantage in terms of our economic activity. 

And indeed it’s not 32 cranes; we have 42 cranes out there in terms 

of economic development ongoing. And it’s a great tribute to our 

elected leadership that makes it possible, and Ms. Tregoning. 

But at the end of the day, I have to balance the budget. We have 

to have tax revenue to take care of the needs of our people. And 

when we don’t have enough revenue, that is a problem. 

And if I may just take one more moment, that is why we have 

a profound problem on our infrastructure; schools, parks, recreation, library, technology. Thanks to the great help that we received from the Federal Government, we were able to take care of 

some of that problem over the last 10 years, but what we need here 

is recurring, continuing, predictable help in our budget. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Dr. Gandhi. 

My time has expended, so I will now recognize the gentlelady 

from the District of Columbia for round two and then go to the gentleman from California. 

Ms. Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lewis, I was interested that you indicated in your testimony—I’m looking, the case is not numbered—you discuss what 

you call the downtown L’Enfant plan area of the District, and you 

say that those areas should remain substantially unchanged. Then 

you say, but there are specific sites. And you site the Southwest 

and the Anacostia waterfronts where there might be upward adjustment that would be beneficial without jeopardizing the city’s 

profile. I am interested in both those areas. 

With the assistance of the chairman, we’ve just gotten out a 

major bill here to redevelop entirely the Southwest waterfront. 

That’s going to amount to a brand-new community in the District 

of Columbia. That’s going to mean that if you take a bill that I got 

out of the Congress 10 years ago on the Southeast waterfront, that 

60 

the city is going to have a continuous extraordinary 21st century 

waterfront with communities, with mixed use, extraordinary new 

revenue to the city. 

What interests me, though, in your citing of these waterfronts is 

you seem to see them as outside of the monumental core. Each is 

only a few blocks from the most precious monuments. One is not 

perhaps so precious on the east side. It is just blocks from the Capitol. But on the Southwest side, it’s a few blocks from the monuments and all of the historic buildings. So I was interested that you 

chose those two areas where you thought one could raise the height 

limit. 

Would that be any different from—who was it—the testimony of 

Mr. Acosta that warns allowing tall private buildings along the 

edges outside of L’Enfant City and around what’s known as the 

topographic bowl could degrade the public character of Washington’s skyline? So I am trying to reconcile those two views. 

Mr. LEWIS. Let me, first of all, clarify this. My comment about 

those waterfront sites, which are just examples, those are, in fact, 

sites in the L’Enfant plan area. I don’t switch to outside that until 

the following sentence. And the reason I mention them has a lot 

to do with topography. 

When you are on the waterfront, you’re down near elevation zero, 

and if you move five or six or eight blocks toward the center of the 

city, you might be up at an elevation that’s a good 20 or 30 or 40 

feet. That’s why I mention topography is one of the many variables 

that could be factored in there. 

I just cited those as places where, because they are waterfronts, 

they are very desirable, high-value real estate with wonderful 

views, that’s a place where you’re adjacent to a huge amount of 

open space. 

Ms. NORTON. On one side. On the other side, coming into the city 

or looking back into the city, what about those views? Will those 

views be interrupted? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, those views—if you’ve got 40-foot-high row 

houses, which you have to the north of the waterfront—I know the 

site very well—that once you build a building that’s 50 or 60 feet 

tall, nowhere near the height limit that we’re going to, in fact, 

apply on the waterfront, the views ultimately are determined by 

the spacing of buildings horizontally. This is just urban design 101. 

So to the person living, if you will, uphill, a little farther away 

from the waterfront, what affects that person’s viewscape is not the 

height of the buildings, it’s actually the spacing of the buildings, 

and the streetscape, and the public realm—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, then I have to ask Mr. Acosta what he meant 

about when he said, tall private buildings along the edges of 

L’Enfant City and the so-called topographical bowl. Is that what 

you mean? 

Mr. ACOSTA. They are somewhat different areas of the city. When 

you talk about the topographical bowl, if you think about where the 

St. Elizabeth campus is and where they’re building the Coast 

Guard headquarters, that is on the topographical bowl. And GSA, 

when they developed that building and designed it, they took great 

care making sure that it followed the contours of the landscape and 

didn’t project out. 

61 

When we are talking about the edge of the topographical bowl, 

right on it, on the edge itself, you find landmarks like the National 

Cathedral, the Basilica and other images there. So I think the 

question there is, you know, you have to be careful when you insert 

another building within that realm. And there may be areas beyond that which you wouldn’t see from the L’Enfant City itself that 

may be more appropriate for, you know, higher-rise sort of developments. 

So, as Mr. Lewis said, you do have to do a very fine-grained 

urban design analysis and be very careful and very thoughtful in 

terms of where you place these things in order to protect the landscape and the surrounding setting of L’Enfant City. And I do think 

those are the sort of things I would look at. But I do think when 

we review projects and, on the Federal Government side, as we 

construct these projects, we take great care in making sure these 

things fit in appropriately into the design of the city. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Tregoning, D.C. has its own lower Height Act, 

and I am trying to figure out why and how that figures into this 

discussion. 

Ms. TREGONING. We don’t have a Height Act per se, but you’re 

right that some of our zoning certainly does not allow buildings to 

be built to the maximum height allowed by the Height Act. And 

that might be because the buildings in different parts of the city 

are actually already at a very much lower scale, so to allow a 90- 

foot building or a 130-foot building next to a 50-foot rowhouse 

wouldn’t necessarily be appropriate. But there are certainly parts 

of the city, especially the parts that have great transit access, 

where that could be accommodated. 

And I might actually differ a little bit with Mr. Lewis. I will 

point again to Pennsylvania Avenue at 160 feet, which is certainly 

in the core of Washington, and yet it’s not a noticeably injurious 

height. So I would think that there are parts of the city along K 

Street and other places where, in fact, it might make sense to look 

at higher limits, especially for a purpose. 

Dr. Gandhi talked about the tax base, but I would also argue 

that, you know, beyond the broad tax base, we have parts of the 

city that don’t enjoy some of the same liveliness and livability as 

other parts because they might be only office enclaves and have no 

residential. And because these parts of the city might already be 

fully built out, there’s not much of an opportunity to add that residential component in much of the downtown; whereas, on the east 

and west ends of downtown, where they have residential, it’s very 

different, very much more a mix of uses, very lively. So the opportunity to potentially add a little bit more height in parts of the city 

that are very much in demand might actually create the opportunity to do things like fund Metro and other transit and provide 

additional housing. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I’m past my 

time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from the District. 

The chair would now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

62 

Ms. Norton, I didn’t think you were past your time at all. I 

thought that you were on a roll. I’d be happy to let you continue 

with the line of questioning, so I’ll try to do that. 

Ms. Tregoning, if I hear correctly—and I think I’m hearing it 

from most of the folks that are witnesses here today—the arbitrariness of the Height Act is, in fact, just that; it’s arbitrary. There are 

places in which it is too high for the best interests of the city. 

There are places where we’re already above that height in other 

ways by our own decision. And there are places in which adding 

to it could be an economic boon to the city. 

We heard geographically or topographically that, in fact, in some 

places you’ve got a reason, down by the waterfront, to do one thing, 

where up in heights you have something else. And my example of 

in Northeast, far from the Mall, you really have a whole different 

world. It may not induce people wanting to go that high. But the 

arbitrariness of the limit really is just that, arbitrary. Would you 

agree? 

Ms. TREGONING. I would agree. And I think you heard actually 

from every single panelist that there’s an enormous value to the 

city of having a limit to the height, of having a relatively pedestrian-scaled city, a human-scaled city. And I don’t think any one 

of us is advocating getting rid of that, except maybe Dr. Gandhi. 

Mr. ISSA. He’s not advocating anything. He’s just counting the 

money. 

Ms. TREGONING. Exactly. 

Mr. GANDHI. But that’s my job, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, sir. 

Ms. TREGONING. But that being said, there is nothing magic 

about those particular numbers. We would love the ability to figure 

out what is the most appropriate thing in particular instances, and 

in some cases perhaps go higher than what the height limit allows. 

But I think for the most part, much of the city would have no 

changes whatsoever, and any changes that would be made would 

be things that we determine with our citizens about what’s appropriate. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, Mr. Acosta, I’m going to go to you and say if Congress wanted to modernize how we view the District of Columbia 

both from the standpoint of local control, but also to Mr. Lewis’ and 

other people’s desire to do the best in architecture, if we were, as 

an act of Congress, to open up the act, make it possible for a commission, a joint commission, to go through the process, to do the 

planning, to ask the questions of what areas for perpetuity should 

be one way, while other areas that could be opened up to at least 

application for amendments to a master plan versus areas that 

could be immediately modified, and then have it come back through 

a joint process for approval of Congress, would that at a minimum 

be a sensible thing to launch the basic—ask the question of, are 

there people who can produce a better master plan for the city if 

we empower that master plan to be considered favorably by Congress? Just that sort of question. I’m not defining the specifics, but 

I’m saying, should Congress look at passing a law that would empower local authority in concert with national figures to do a better 

job? 

63 

Mr. ACOSTA. This is a great conversation, because I think it is 

about the feature of the city both from a national perspective as 

well as a local perspective. 

Let me take first the Federal interest issues with respect to the 

Height Act. I think although the Height Act was constructed because of symbolic reasons, and, as we’ve gone through the presentations, it was really for public safety reasons, I do think one of our 

issues here from a Federal standpoint is stewardship over L’Enfant 

City. And if you kind of even go back into the history of this, it’s 

really sort of a notion of these symbols, like the Capitol, the Washington Monument, where really the notion—were from our Founding Fathers, essentially. 

Mr. ISSA. They intended on the Capitol Dome looking down on 

the White House with appropriate disdain, and a lot of construction 

has made that impossible. So I’m acutely aware that you cannot 

look from the Speaker’s balcony and see the President and look 

down on him, as the Founding Fathers clearly intended. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, there is some truth to that, but I also believe 

that from just a layout standpoint, from the design of the streets 

where they have selected the more prominent buildings should be 

located, like this is, on a hill, the Washington Monument should be 

a significantly tall building or structure, I think that was all intentional. And from a stewardship standpoint, I think that is our goal, 

to ensure that those national symbols remain very prominent in 

the skyline. And that also is affected by the aesthetics. And I think 

the issue here is because of the Height Act for two centuries, that 

setting has been consistent; that we’ve seen a low-scaled city that 

has allowed these very prominent symbols of civic architecture that 

are very important to our American people to be prominently displayed. 

So I think that one issue here is, as we’re going through this discussion, is really where do you draw that boundary? And we’ve 

heard different opinions about where those could be; I mean, 

whether it’s a few feet away or the entire city. I think that is the 

core question in terms of where we draw that Federal interest 

boundary. 

I also think that, as Mr. Lewis explained today, you do have to 

do very detailed, fine-grained urban design analysis and as a way 

to consider where these taller buildings could be appropriate. That 

will take effort. That will take a lot of conversations between both 

Federal stakeholders and, I think, more importantly, with the local 

community, because essentially what we have today is a prevailing 

height, and people are very used to and they are very comfortable 

with that today. And any change to that—and we’ve seen debates 

in communities about how one story may be too much. And I think 

those are the sort of issues that—especially on the District side— 

that they will have to deal with as they’re going through this. 

I have great respect for my counterparts at the Office of Planning at the city. And I think if Congress would like us to think 

through a process to do this, I think we would be happy to work 

with you and the city to do so. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, thank you. 

I come from a business background where, you know, if you don’t 

have a strategic plan, then you don’t have a plan. And I would 

64 

question today over all the years that we’ve had an arbitrary 

height limit, has it served us well? Perhaps. But it’s served us 

without a plan. So one of the reasons that Ms. Norton and I, I 

think, took interest in reviewing this is what if we said, let’s make 

a master plan and see if it would be better than what we have 

today. Perhaps Ms. Richards, looking at heights that are variable 

and for a purpose, could find that they would be better. Certainly 

I happen to know, as a resident during weekdays here in the District, that everybody wants the home next to theirs to not be taller 

than theirs, but few object to theirs being taller than their neighbor’s. 

With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from California. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr. 

Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Acosta, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Collins, are the structures designed 

in such a way that retrofitting could, not necessarily easily, but accomplish the goals that Dr. Gandhi sort of articulated and indicated? 

Mr. LEWIS. That’s a structural engineering question, which I’ll 

try to answer. I mean, that varies from building to building. There 

are some buildings in which the structure could accommodate some 

additional stories. We know we’ve seen some buildings downtown 

in which two or three more stories have been added. We also know 

that there are a lot of buildings in the District of Columbia that 

do not reach the height limit that’s allowed. 

There are ways of sistering on structural members to allow for 

buildings to be expanded. I would point out also that one of the virtues of taking an existing building and keeping it and expanding 

it is that it’s a very green strategy from a sustainability point of 

view because all of the resources that have been invested in that 

building are being saved. 

There are a lot of moving parts to this. That’s why I would second what Congressman Issa proposed. And the question to Mr. 

Acosta, I think, is exactly the right thing that we need to do. 

I have great fear that if we don’t have the master plan, if we 

don’t have the strategic plan—which, after all, is a plan not just 

for us and the voters of today; we’re talking about planning for our 

children, our grandchildren, and our greatgrandchildren. That’s 

what planning is about. It seems to me it would be irresponsible 

not to ask the District of Columbia and the Federal interests to, 

in fact, develop a strategic plan. 

I think that I’ve answered not just the question you have asked, 

but the answer is that a lot of buildings can be expanded one way 

or the other. There are some that are not worth saving, and you 

demolish those. But that’s, again, a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Davis, as to your question about the aesthetics 

of that, yes, that can be achieved. I’m thinking along K Street, the 

western part of the downtown where K Street is, there are probably a half dozen buildings which have had additional stories put 

on. 

But also, you see the phenomenon around the city of reskinning 

a building, taking it down to just the slab, taking the walls off, takVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:02 Nov 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76367.TXT APRIL
65 

ing the systems out, and rebuilding essentially, but saving the 

slabs and adding on top. So that is happening around the city as 

well. So, yes, it can be achieved. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Tregoning, let me just ask you, from a planning, 

zoning perspective, would you anticipate a tremendous amount of 

zoning anxiety as individuals would prepare to make further or different use of structures and how that’s going to affect their neighbors and others who might be in pretty close proximity? 

Ms. TREGONING. I think there would be a combination of zoning 

anxiety and zoning euphoria. Yes, I think that you would have both 

depending on the interests. But just like the vast majority of the 

city comes nowhere near the limits of height, you know, I think we 

would want to say right off the bat that the vast majority of the 

city, particularly the residential areas of the city, would be unaffected by these changes, and we’d be looking probably to do something more surgical than blanket in terms of any changes that 

might be proposed, and, like I say, probably for our purpose. 

I would also say that even a small step, like the penthouse occupancy that we’ve been talking about, would probably result in more 

beautiful rooftops and more enjoyment by people of the wonderful 

skyline of Washington. If you’ve been on a rooftop in Washington— 

and there are many places where you can be on the roof—it is a 

wonderful experience with tremendous views. And if they were 

much more routinely used by people, the entire roof, not just the 

mechanical penthouse, would probably become more gardenlike 

and more beautiful, because that’s what people would expect to see 

as opposed to black tar paper or something like that on the top of 

a building. 

Mr. DAVIS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. I think Ms. Richards would like to make a comment, 

too. 

Ms. RICHARDS. If I may, I wanted to respond to your comment 

on the arbitrary nature of the Height Act and the absence of planning. I would say that there has been a good deal of planning. The 

District just revised its comprehensive plan extensively in the last 

2–1/2 years, and that was a multiyear process. And pursuant to 

that, the city has been undertaking since, I think, before the last 

4 years a major revision of its zoning regulations, and that is approaching completion. And that did entail substantial inquiry into 

how the heights of buildings are measured. And there are some 

proposed changes to the regulations that address in a very finegrained manner the operation of the Height Act. All of this has 

happened within the context of the existing Height Act. 

As everyone has noted, there is a substantial capacity within the 

Height Act envelope for increased height and density. And I would 

say that from a citizen’s perspective, there is substantial opposition 

to even going—building up to the existing height limit. I’m thinking now of a very aggressive opposition to adding a fourth story to 

a new building in historic Anacostia. It’s at three stories. I’m also 

thinking of a building that was proposed to be built to seven stories 

at Pennsylvania and Minnesota Avenues. The residents fought it, 

and it’s now going to be five stories. Examples abound. I’m sure 

you are familiar with the upper Wisconsin Avenue debate, where 

residents there finally were able to keep the existing heights. And 

66 

all of these are struggles that have existed within the Height Act 

envelope. 

There is no real public sentiment among these residents for going 

high. People want a horizontal city. So I would urge you to take 

that into account, and also to say that there is a good deal of planning that has been going on. So I just would hope you would take 

that into account. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, if I could have the indulgence to ask the 

ranking member something on the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. You may have all of the time that I was about to 

give myself to be used in whatever fashion you would like. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Eleanor, you, more than anyone else here on the dais, feel the 

pulse of the city. I think Ms. Richards certainly is probably right 

that there is a great deal of opposition. The question before us 

today that I hope we’re working on is should we empower the city 

to answer some of those questions itself? And would they appreciate the opportunity, even if they decide not to use that amendment to the Height Act? 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this is an important question because I treat it as a home rule question. Do you trust the city? And 

by the way, developers don’t come to the Congress with this stuff. 

We know what developers can do in the District of Columbia. 

That said, the District has—and I pay my respects here to Ms. 

Tregoning— has shown an extraordinarily expert and sensitive 

way to plan for what has been the most extraordinary expansion 

of the city in many decades, I think before I was born. I certainly 

trust the city and its citizens. As Ms. Richards says, you don’t play 

with citizens. You may have every reason to want a few stories, but 

you will bring down the citizens on you like nothing you’ve ever 

seen. They don’t have any power except the power of their residency and numbers. 

So I think the city would be hard-pressed to refuse to accept the 

ability to responsibly handle its own Height Act decisions, particularly in light of the fact that, through zoning, the District apparently has already lowered heights well below anything the Congress had in mind. 

Mr. Chairman, the chairman tends to think of solutions as he 

hears the testimony. I think it’s laudable. You kind of read his 

mind as he’s thinking. I think it’s a laudable process for Members 

of Congress to go through. He said, for example, in trying to think 

of how this would work, that we could still have Congress somewhat involved by some sort of joint process. And the District, who 

knows the city best, would have more to say about heights, instead 

of all of the discretion resting in the Congress. 

I just want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that as you were speaking, 

I thought about our own zoning process, which has Federal officials 

sitting right with local officials. So, in effect, there’s kind of a great 

wisdom to this process. Instead of having the Federal Government 

fight the city and the city fight the Federal Government, they’ve 

got to figure it out together, because officials, important officials, 

representing the Federal Government already sit as a part of the 

planning process. When you consider that that already happens, it 

seems to me we may already have the mechanism to ensure that 

67 

the Federal Government is involved in the right way without going 

to elected officials in the city or in the Congress. 

So I think the question you ask is truly a pregnant one the city 

would have to consider, particularly when you said, watch out, the 

chairman is from private business and very successfully, so he 

talks about a strategic plan. Well, it’s far more difficult, of course, 

when you’re thinking about this entire city and what it’s meant. 

Nevertheless, I think that—particularly in light, I think, of Mr. 

Lewis’ caution that you had better watch out about hit-and-miss 

stabs at what to do with the city. So one would have to have some 

vision, a vision that the city hasn’t had any reason to even try to 

get, since it hasn’t been within its jurisdiction. I would think that 

no opportunity could be more important than the opportunity to 

have the city look at the whole city. I cannot—I can’t envision that 

as we sat here, but I must say that I certainly agree with you. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, I don’t know who is responsible, I don’t know if it was you, but some member of the panel— 

it may have been Mr. Lewis himself, the architect, who criticized 

the architecture of the city. If you want to know what most disturbs me about this city, I have never seen such pedestrian architecture in my life. If you go to other cities, and you see this wonderful architecture, I am wondering if I am just looking at height 

and the variation that that brings, or if the way in which the 

Height Act, particularly in downtown and the monumental core, 

has been seen by architects and by people putting up buildings 

where many of our Federal structures are that said, just let me put 

up a box. And it seems not to have drawn the most creative instincts from architecture. 

We see some of it in the city as I speak in the new libraries. I’m 

flabbergasted, and I invite you all to look at some of the new libraries where architects, not having anything to do with Federal structures or Federal buildings or housing Federal buildings, have come 

up with the most extraordinary buildings I have ever seen anywhere, seeming to challenge the downtown to look more like it is 

the work of architects, rather than people who’ve just thrown up 

some buildings in order to make sure they can get a lease for some 

Federal workers. 

I would like to, in light of the chairman’s question—because if 

the city were to get this larger authority, I wonder if what we see 

in the libraries, and in the new public buildings, in the schools 

even—wonderfully new, different-looking, I think, prize-winning 

buildings—whether that would affect the architecture of the city so 

as to improve the architecture of the city if the city had more— 

what the chairman sees as more responsibility. Or is the look of 

these structures—except for these historic buildings, interestingly 

enough, which seem to be more creative—but the use of these 

structures that began to develop, I don’t know, in the 1940s and 

1950s, whether that was a function of the Height Act, or, if not, 

why in the world does downtown architecture look so 

undistinguished? And is the authority that the chairman spoke of 

relevant to thinking through a different look for downtown to keep 

it with the Height Act? 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentlelady. And I will make you one other 

pledge. Not only can we work together on the Height Act proposal, 

68 

but, for Mr. Gandhi’s pleasure, I think we should, after the election, start thinking about how we’re going to deal with the only 

place that doesn’t have the ability to tax people who earn their income in that place, a separate subject that Dr. Gandhi referred to 

only in passing. 

With that, I yield back and thank the chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, with that, on behalf of Chairman Issa and all 

of us on this subcommittee, I want to thank our witnesses for your 

expertise, for your collegiality, comity not only towards us on the 

committee, but particularly with one another. It’s been a very educational hearing and a delight to be part of. 

I was thinking as Ms. Holmes Norton, Mr. Davis and Chairman 

Issa were talking, this is a magnificent, beautiful city. It’s home to 

a lot of people, but it’s a national treasure to every single one of 

us that live in this country. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I just say one thing? 

The chairman in this hearing has just opened up a new idea to 

come from this hearing in the very same way that he did when, 

after listening to you, Mr. Gandhi, and the Mayor, and city officials, and his own witnesses, he literally, after that testimony, did 

something almost comparable to what he’s done this evening. He 

said he was for budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. And 

he and I are working together as I speak to try to bring the city 

budget autonomy. I thank you for that as well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. With that, our hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 76367.036
70 


Insert offset folio 37 here 76367.037
71 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 38 here 76367.038