Evening star., 1928-05-05
Tall Buildings.

One or WaSnlngtonS growing pains
is evidenced by the recurring discus
sion. pro and con, over the height OF
buildings and whether this city is tC
be. or is not to be. city of Skyscrapers
With a height limitation of one hundred
and twenty feet above the street. and
provision allowing "SetbackS" to rise
to one hundred and thirty feet, one may
naturally wonder why there is any fear
| that Washington will have skyscrapers
The question. 1t would appear has been
settled in the negative long ago But
the Park and Planning Commission
scents cause for alarm in the fact that
the present regulations. allowing a
height OF one hundred and thirty feet
rental space" also allow pent houses,
stacks. minsrets and other superstruc-
ture appurtenances TO rise above the
one e-hundred-and-thirt limit, and
the commission wants an amendment
10 the coming regulations making the
maximum height of everything-smoke-
hundred and thirty feet The amend
ment is now under consideration by
the Zoning Commission after hearings
held this week.
Hearings on the amendment devel-
oped the usual pro and con arguments
on the Skyscraper. an American form
OF architecture that has come in for
more abuse and praise than any other
The builders, and one may include the
merchants. do not want the maximum
height restricted 10 one hundred and
thirty feet Their arguments are based,
for the most part. on economics. They
cite the fact that maximum height
Of one hundred and thirty feet for the
topmost portion Of the superstructure
would cut The height OF new buildings
about twenty feet below what it is now,
thus taking away as much as two
stories Of rental space With the in
creased value Of real estate. the de-
creased return from buildings by limit
ing the number of its occupants APP
pears to them q serious consideration,
In addition. there are buildings already
standing which we're erected under the
present coming regulations allowing one
hundred and thirty feet OF rental
space Why. it is asked, should the
owner of a new building be discrim-
mated against? There is also the archi-
tectural consideration lying in the con-
tention that a builder who must re-
strict the height of the superstructure
to one hundred and thirty feet is go
ing to build as high as he can for oc-
cupancy, and set his superstructure
parts willy-nilly and wherever he can
to crowd them into the space limita-
ton.
On the other hand. the skyscraper
Is denounced by members OF the Park
and Planning Commission, who point
to the evils Of congested streets as an
inevitable accompaniment of tall build
ings; who are fearful lest high COM
mercial buildings destroy their esthetic
relation to some Of the Government
buildings. and who argue against the
Jagged and unattractive skyline which
viii be produced If the present tendency
Of exceeding the height limitation with
towers, etc. Is continued. One build
ing design now calls for towers and
srnokestacks more than two hundred
feet high. This building, while meet
ing the present coming regulations. Is
cited as an example OF abuse Of height
regulations which viii manifest itself
frequently unless something Is done
now to prevent it.
The Zoning Commission has before
il a decision that Is always diff1cult--
decision between the vicissitudes OF
commerce and the viciSsitudes Of art.
The question is made knottier still. be-
cause commerce calls on art to back up
its arguments. and art calls on COM
merce 10 bolster its contentious. Com
merce wants high buildings because
they are productive OF greater earnings;
art wants lower buildings because high
buildings lam the streets and cut of
sunlight and air.
The zoning Commission might cut
the Gordian knot by making the
amendment effective within a time
which viii allow the completion Of
buildings now planned and designed.
II washington Is set against tall build
ines. the lid must be clamped down
and kept down before irreparable dam
age is done. Commerce viii adjust it.