In a recent article on Market Urbanism, writer Stephen Smith addresses the issue of Washington, D.C.'s up-and-coming neighborhood of NoMa and the city's height restrictions. He states due to the height restrictions outlined in the city's zoning ordinance forces developers to "fill every inch of space...Lift the height restrictions, and I think you’d see some more experimentation with taller towers and more green space." Though I realize height restrictions can be too strict in some intensely-developed commercial areas, I have a hard time believe they're the reason behind the lack of green space in our cities. I believe it's entirely plausible to restrict buildings from being taller than 85 feet and still have an adequate, ample supply of parks/public space.
Some of my personal favorite cities are those with more strict height restrictions. Grand Rapids, for example, does not allow anything taller than 45 feet outside of its central business district and even inside of it, it's very difficult to get anything approved over 85 feet. Author Alan Jacobs has also always been in favor of height restrictions which preserve the human-scale of cities and their streets. I've griped about this in terms of downtown Chicago all the time with friends. Many of the buildings are so tall they almost entirely block your vision of the sky above you, and with the "L", holy shit--you've suddenly found yourself in an outdoor cave. City streets need to be open and free yet with a strong definition. A one-to-four ratio between street width to building height is ideal according to Mr. Jacobs; however, I think even a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio accomplishes this same goal. In the case of Grand Rapids, the development is spread out in several 3-10 story mixed-use office/retail/apartments structures for several blocks in the downtown. Many people make the claim that high-rises decrease sprawl by concentrating development and height restrictions encourage sprawl. However high-rise structures, like in the case of Indianapolis, simply end up being these inhuman monstrosities conglomerated together in about a half square mile that ends up being surrounded by a sea of parking lots. Now which would you rather have? This (as well as this)--both taken in Grand Rapids where you can see the few tall structures but also the pedestrian-scale development on each side of the road forming a nice urban "wall"--or this Bing Maps bird's eye view of Indianapolis. I'm not trying to say Grand Rapids is better or throw Indy under the bus, but one city has a massive disparity between the high-rises in the core and the parking lots that surround it while the other city has a more smooth, even pattern.
Many European cities have preserved this design. When I studied abroad in London, I learned one of the more controversial issues with the development of the city was the allowance of high-rise skyscrapers being built in the Canary Wharf district near the historic city center. London preserved its old law that no building shall obstruct anyone's view of the nearest church steeple. Finally market forces invoked the relaxation of this law.
I'm still a strong proponent of height restrictions. Large high-rises are simply inhumane and do not contribute to the overall ambience of the street. Mentioned earlier, Grand Rapids still has very tall structures over 85 feet such as the Varnum Building and the J.W. Marriott Hotel. There are certainly instances when they are appropriate or where the economic benefit derived from the building is very great.
