The External Benefit of Skyscrapers

Republican congressman Darrell Issa recently announced that he intends to hold hearings on amending the Height Act of 1910, a piece of legislation that limits the height of buildings and other structures in Washington, DC to 130 feet. Working with DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Issa has asked the National Capital Planning Commission and the DC government to conduct a study on raising the height limit outside of the city's federal core. 

While opponents argue that raising height limits would ruin Washington’s open skylines, those who support changing the law argue that limiting how tall buildings can be in the city stunts its economic development, while also driving prices for the limited housing and office space to some of the most expensive in the country. So, allowing for taller buildings in DC would promote economic activity and enable both regular residents and the government itself to save money – but that’s not all. In the Slate article, "Skyscrapers in DC Would Be Good For America," Matthew Yglesias raises another important possibility that decision makers considering this law should take into account:

“If housing in the DC area became cheaper, then in effect real compensation of DC-area federal employees would rise (allowing the government to attract better workers) at no cost to the taxpayer.”

Thus, the lowered cost of living that would result from allowing the construction of skyscrapers in DC would result in the important positive externality of drawing higher quality government workers to DC, benefiting not only those who live in the city, but the rest of the nation as well. This suggests that the current quantity of skyscrapers being demanded in DC is too low, since individuals fail to consider the added social benefit of more effective government workers that could result from constructing taller buildings. Perhaps if Issa's opponents looked at the issue in this way, they would be more willing to change their stance.