Washington, DC height limit: fed gov considers raising, many reasons not to. What are yours?

Screen Shot 2012-11-19 at 9.36.50 AMThe US federal government is considering raising Washington, DC's height limit, which has sparked several articles pro and con.  One of the better articles (not just because it favors lower height) is from Atlantic Cities writer Kaid Benfield, who responds to several pro-tall arguments, including affordability and sustainability Limiting supply reduces affordability?  "Maybe the reason developers say we 'can’t grow' is because we may be running out of large, undeveloped sites suitable for mega-projects. Personally, I don’t see why that’s a bad thing: I think it would be better for the city (if not for large developers) to add new buildings in a more incremental, fine-grained way on smaller parcels as their current uses go out of service.

Increasing density helps the environment?  "There is little additional benefit to these environmental indicators, for example, as density increases beyond about 60 homes per acre, as one might find in a three- or four-story apartment building.  In any event, denser doesn’t necessarily mean taller.  These numbers may surprise you: Barcelona is denser than New York City, housing 41,000 people per square mile compared to New York’s 27,000.  It does not have buildings taller than Washington’s."  (Image credit: Flickr user Schodts.)