Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-06-28

UdolC dlLu Vi IIlelT DOWNTOWN
coming is to limit the number of
additional people who can be
employed in the central area.
They contend that overcrowd-
ing and lack of parking, which
they say will be intensified by
increasing use of automobiles
and dwindling mass-transit use
are major threats to the eco
nomic health of the critically
important downtown business
and shopping areas. So, they
argue, new coming controls
should try to minimize these
threats.
Business and real estate
groups, organized to fight these
proposals, contend this is the
wrong answer to the downtown
problem. They contend the Lewis
restrictions are so excessive that
they would make it impossible to
put up the kind of buildings
needed to keep the downtown
strong, and make development of
virtually any kind economically
impractical.
40 Acres Left
Mr.. Lewis says there are only
about 40 acres of "developable
land" left downtown, and that
there would be no real effect on
existing buildings. On these 40.
acres, however, it would be the
oretically possible under existing
coming to put up buildings that
would house an additional lOO.-
600 employees downtown. his firm
says.
The business groups counter
that. in order to survive, the
downtown must continue to re-
place old existing buildings, and
expand the present business and
shopping districts. Both, they
say, Mr.. Lewis would make i'm |
possible.
Other Restrictions
Among the new restrictions in
volved are:
/. Limits on the number of |
people who can occupy buildings,
through new controls on build
tngs' total floor space.
In the main retail district (the
big area just north of Pennsyl-
vania avenue, marked CA on the |
adjoining map, for example, the
biggest new building Mr.. Lewis
would allow could have only five
times as much floor space as the
size of that buildings lot. In
the big central business" district |
(C-5 on map), no buildings floor |
space could exceed seven times
its lot size.
These restrictions amount toI
only about half of the maximum (
size permitted on some streets |
in these areas under existing |
coming.
2. Rigid new off-street parking |
requirements. which would have
to be provided by the builders
OF any new structure.
Critics contend these require
mentS are unnecessarily high. |
Their effects. they say, would be |
to add so much to cost of build
ing that development would stop. |
In addition, they argue, much |
of the permitted floor space in
Office buildings would be eaten |
up in parking space.
3. Controls on the height and
floors of buildings which further
restrict their size.
Uses Governed
4. Zoning area arie 81
which restrict the kind of uses
to which buildings can be put
in each part of the downtown.
The Lewis firm argues that
the main shopping area. particu-
larly. must be more compact and
as free from congestion and
attractive as possible" If more
shoppers are to be lured from
the suburbs.
The opponents contend it is
wrong to say there shall be no.
more large Office buildings in the
big shopping CA area, or to
set rigid boundaries for certain
types of development and there
by prevent expansion.
The coming consultants deny
their restrictions would remove
the incentive for building down.
town. While the value of some
land parcels would drop. they
say the tax loss involved would
be small in comparison to the
benefits they foresee.
The areas marked C-3 on the
map represent Mr.. Lewis ideas
for smaller concentrated "busi-