Patriot News Sunday Editorial March 12, 2006
HARRISBURG’S FUTURE IS LOOKING UP
For over 25 years I have run along the Susquehanna River and as a teenager I would run at night across the Harvey Taylor Bridge inspired by our shining Capitol and Lady Liberty. During this time, I often longed for Front Street to return to its idyllic past of gracious mansions along the tranquil currents of the mighty Susquehanna.
My dream of white picket fences and children playing in the front yards of Front Street is just that. The reality is the Front Street mansions, then and now are only suitable residences for select few or the Governor.
Most mansions have been converted to office buildings. Other structures along Front Street have no architectural or historical value. Raising the height restrictions on Front Street would change the highest and best use to demolition and redevelopment.
Harrisburg City Council is considering a proposal that would raise the height limit to 110-feet along a 12-blocks from Verbeke Street to MaClay Street. The changes should not block the view of the Capitol which reaches 272 foot into the sky.
Already there are a dozen buildings along Front, Second and Third Streets that exceed the height limit proposed. The proposed zone is a full seven blocks north of Forster Street and the Capitol Complex.
Ironically, the State Archive Building, which was built in 1965 to house and preserve our Commonwealth’s history, blocks the view of the Capitol Dome from the north of the City – including, in more irony, the view from Capital Street.
The only building more depressing than Archive Tower is the similarly windowless building on North Second and Pine – looks like it was designed in the Soviet Bloc circa 1975. I am guessing it is even more depressing for those inside than out.
The most notable academic studies into building height restrictions are Alain Bertaud’s report for the World Bank (2003) and MacKinnon Arnott’s (1977) general equilibrium model. Both concluded that height restrictions, for all their aesthetic benefits, increase the cost of housing and real estate, drive development to outer spatial rings and ultimately have a cost to society in areas of congestion and affordable housing.
Land-use decisions are affected by government action in real estate markets. Zoning rules and regulations aspire to minimize externalities by separating different types of uses, as well as greenbelt laws and urban growth boundaries, which limit the spatial expansion of cities.
Governments also exert control over the density of development. While minimum-lot-size rules and other regulations are designed to limit suburban development densities, a much used tool is the building-height restriction and FAR (floor area ratios), which govern development in the central district of cities.
The most obvious examples are Washington, D.C., where no building can be taller than the U.S. Capitol, and Paris, where height restrictions attempt to preserve the character of the central city. Although the use of height restrictions in both of these cities is driven by aesthetic considerations, building-height restrictions may also be imposed in an attempt to achieve other goals.
Washington, DC’s height restrictions, passed by Congress in 1899 enacted a height limit for the District prohibiting private buildings from being higher than the Capitol, which reaches 288 feet above Capitol Hill at the crest of the Statue of Freedom.
It was George Washington who issued the first height restriction on buildings in the Nation’s Capital. The Father of our Country wasn’t trying to protect the Capitol (built in 1793) or his monument (started in 1848 and completed in 1885 – interrupted by the Civil War). He was concerned about architectural design and fire safety.
The modern urban planning professionals and academics now believe that the only appropriate way to develop in constricted urban areas are to build up instead of out. Due to our Commonwealth’s arcane laws against annexation, the redevelopment of the City of Harrisburg will be confined to its 8.1 square miles.
Allowing development to go up will create less expensive residential and commercial real estate opportunities. By driving development out of the cities more farms are lost to sprawl. This spatial enlargement affects consumers both by raising their average commuting distance and by pushing up the housing prices they must pay.
Harrisburg’s tremendous rebirth over the last twenty years is reaching a critical point where demand exceeds supply. As it is said, “buy land, they ain’t making any more of it.” Modern Urban development sees new land in the redevelopment of under utilized building sites by building up – preserving farm land in the suburbs and lessening congestion into the region. The future of Harrisburg is looking up, City Council should continue to look there for inspiration and progress.
W. Greg Rothman is President/CEO of RSR REALTORS® and was a founder of the Harrisburg Young Professionals.
For over 25 years I have run along the Susquehanna River and as a teenager I would run at night across the Harvey Taylor Bridge inspired by our shining Capitol and Lady Liberty. During this time, I often longed for Front Street to return to its idyllic past of gracious mansions along the tranquil currents of the mighty Susquehanna.
My dream of white picket fences and children playing in the front yards of Front Street is just that. The reality is the Front Street mansions, then and now are only suitable residences for select few or the Governor.
Most mansions have been converted to office buildings. Other structures along Front Street have no architectural or historical value. Raising the height restrictions on Front Street would change the highest and best use to demolition and redevelopment.
Harrisburg City Council is considering a proposal that would raise the height limit to 110-feet along a 12-blocks from Verbeke Street to MaClay Street. The changes should not block the view of the Capitol which reaches 272 foot into the sky.
Already there are a dozen buildings along Front, Second and Third Streets that exceed the height limit proposed. The proposed zone is a full seven blocks north of Forster Street and the Capitol Complex.
Ironically, the State Archive Building, which was built in 1965 to house and preserve our Commonwealth’s history, blocks the view of the Capitol Dome from the north of the City – including, in more irony, the view from Capital Street.
The only building more depressing than Archive Tower is the similarly windowless building on North Second and Pine – looks like it was designed in the Soviet Bloc circa 1975. I am guessing it is even more depressing for those inside than out.
The most notable academic studies into building height restrictions are Alain Bertaud’s report for the World Bank (2003) and MacKinnon Arnott’s (1977) general equilibrium model. Both concluded that height restrictions, for all their aesthetic benefits, increase the cost of housing and real estate, drive development to outer spatial rings and ultimately have a cost to society in areas of congestion and affordable housing.
Land-use decisions are affected by government action in real estate markets. Zoning rules and regulations aspire to minimize externalities by separating different types of uses, as well as greenbelt laws and urban growth boundaries, which limit the spatial expansion of cities.
Governments also exert control over the density of development. While minimum-lot-size rules and other regulations are designed to limit suburban development densities, a much used tool is the building-height restriction and FAR (floor area ratios), which govern development in the central district of cities.
The most obvious examples are Washington, D.C., where no building can be taller than the U.S. Capitol, and Paris, where height restrictions attempt to preserve the character of the central city. Although the use of height restrictions in both of these cities is driven by aesthetic considerations, building-height restrictions may also be imposed in an attempt to achieve other goals.
Washington, DC’s height restrictions, passed by Congress in 1899 enacted a height limit for the District prohibiting private buildings from being higher than the Capitol, which reaches 288 feet above Capitol Hill at the crest of the Statue of Freedom.
It was George Washington who issued the first height restriction on buildings in the Nation’s Capital. The Father of our Country wasn’t trying to protect the Capitol (built in 1793) or his monument (started in 1848 and completed in 1885 – interrupted by the Civil War). He was concerned about architectural design and fire safety.
The modern urban planning professionals and academics now believe that the only appropriate way to develop in constricted urban areas are to build up instead of out. Due to our Commonwealth’s arcane laws against annexation, the redevelopment of the City of Harrisburg will be confined to its 8.1 square miles.
Allowing development to go up will create less expensive residential and commercial real estate opportunities. By driving development out of the cities more farms are lost to sprawl. This spatial enlargement affects consumers both by raising their average commuting distance and by pushing up the housing prices they must pay.
Harrisburg’s tremendous rebirth over the last twenty years is reaching a critical point where demand exceeds supply. As it is said, “buy land, they ain’t making any more of it.” Modern Urban development sees new land in the redevelopment of under utilized building sites by building up – preserving farm land in the suburbs and lessening congestion into the region. The future of Harrisburg is looking up, City Council should continue to look there for inspiration and progress.
W. Greg Rothman is President/CEO of RSR REALTORS® and was a founder of the Harrisburg Young Professionals.
posted by Greg Rothman @ 8:40 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home