Why did cities such as Washington D.C. (1910) and Los Angeles (until the 1950s) impose height restrictions?

Question

on buildings, mounments, and other structures? In Washington D.C., I believe buildings could not be more than 20 feet taller than the width of the adjacent street.

Answer 1

As stated - - - Washington wanted to preserve the view of its monuments and buildings such as the Capitol - - - and also for a time up to the 1960's there wasn't a need for truly tall buildings, there was enough land for the city to spread out.

Los Angeles was another place where the city could sprawl but what truly kept buildings 'short' by the standards of New York and Chicago was the fear of Earthquakes. Developers did not feel they could talk prospective tenants into occupying the top floors of a skyscraper in a region notorius for ground tremors.

Pax-------------------------------

Answer 2

The first two answers are exactly right! Many cities today still impose height restrictions, both to preserve character and to keep views open. I knew of building projects in the Seattle area which were stopped or their owners taken to court because they partially blocked the views from neighboring existing buildings. Each city has its own formula and criteria for calculating maximum heights.

Answer 3

The reason that there were height restrictions were 1) the limitations upon the building materials; 2) limitations upon the fire protection districts ability to put out fires and rescue people from tall buildings.

In addition, aesthetics and city building plans were to be followed.

whale

Answer 4

It was primarily a desire to keep the cities on a human, liveable scale. It also was designed to protect the prominence of existing structures. Washington didn't want large buildings to overwhelm its monuments, and LA wanted its skyline to be dominated by its city hall.