FAA Eyes Lower Building Height Limit Near Airports

EastSideHBG · #1 Posted **Jun 26, 2014, 11:45 PM**

WASHINGTON — Jun 26, 2014, 6:16 PM ET
By JOAN LOWY Associated Press

The government wants to dramatically reduce the allowable height of potentially thousands buildings near airports around the country — a proposal that is drawing fire from real estate developers and members of Congress who say it will hurt property values.

The Federal Aviation Administration proposal, supported by airports and airlines, is driven by encroaching development that limits safe flight paths for planes that might lose power in an engine during takeoff. Planes can fly with only one engine, but they have less power to climb quickly over obstacles.

Local business leaders, who see airports as a means to attract development, say they fear office towers and condominium complexes will have to be put on hold until developers and zoning boards can figure out what the agency's proposal means for their communities. In Tempe, Arizona, for example, local Chamber of Commerce President Mary Ann Miller said she fears almost any new building in the city's downtown would face new restrictions because the community is located near the edge of Phoenix Sky Harbor's runways.

"Coming out of a very long recession, we hate the idea of stopping some growth," she said.

But airlines have to plan for the possibility that a plane could lose the use of an engine during takeoff even though that doesn't happen very often. As more buildings, cellphone towers, wind turbines and other tall structures go up near airports, there are fewer safe flight paths available. Current regulations effectively limit building heights based on the amount of clearance needed by planes with two operating engines.

Airlines already must sometimes cut down on the number of passengers and the amount of cargo carried by planes taking off from airports in Burbank and San Jose in California, and in Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and near Washington, D.C., among others, so they will be light enough to clear obstructions if only one engine is available, said Chris Oswald, vice president of the Airports Council International-North America.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...ports-24325307

bobdreamz · #2 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 4:16 AM**

The FAA is the reason why Miami can't get towers over 1,000 feet approved except for a small sliver of land in downtown.
Screw you FAA!
With Love,
Miami

Buckeye Native 001 · #3 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 4:16 AM**

There's a damn good reason the tallest building in Arizona is only 483 feet.

In Sky Harbor's defense, when it opened in the 1920's, it was pretty much out in the middle of nowhere.

fflint · #4 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 6:42 AM**

^Same reason there's nothing over 286' in downtown San Jose, which is by far the biggest CBD so proximate to landing aircraft.

Illithid Dude · #5 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 7:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

^Same reason there's nothing over 286' in downtown San Jose, which is by far the biggest CBD so proximate to landing aircraft.

Is it actually? I always thought San Diego was.

tech12 · #6 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Is it actually? I always thought San Diego was.

I always thought SD's airport was slightly closer to downtown, and that seems true looking at google maps. But the flight path in SJ goes directly over downtown, while in SD it's just north of downtown, so the height limit isn't quite as low in SD.

Boisebro · #7 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 4:27 PM**

yeah, well, that won't fly.

HA! see what i did there? i said it won't fl-…

never mind.

anyway, back on topic, i recently flew into san jose, and i was surprised at how close the plane was to the top of the downtown high-rises, and that was flying in. i can see why san jose has such strict height restrictions.

however, cities like phoenix are a different story. i've flown in and out of the phoenix airport and never went directly over the CBD, so i'm not sure why there would need to be height restrictions if both inbound and outbound planes are routed away from downtown.

chris08876 · #8 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

The FAA is the reason why Miami can't get towers over 1,000 feet approved except for a small sliver of land in downtown.
Screw you FAA!
With Love,
Miami

They are such a royal pain in the ass when it comes to projects. Remember Empire World Towers? O man, what could've been...

More height restrictions for D.C.? The city is short enough already. It needs a height increase.

creamcityleo79 · #9 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

They are such a royal pain in the ass when it comes to projects. Remember Empire World Towers? O man, what could've been...

More height restrictions for D.C.? The city is short enough already. It needs a height increase.

Unlike some cities (Dubai, Riyadh, Jeddah), DC doesn't need height to be grand (and powerful)! No offense meant to those cities. I'm just saying....DC is great already!

Buckeye Native 001 · #10 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boisebro

however, cities like phoenix are a different story. i've flown in and out of the phoenix airport and never went directly over the CBD, so i'm not sure why there would need to be height restrictions if both inbound and outbound planes are routed away from downtown.

The flight paths in/out of Sky Harbor might not take jets directly over the central business district, but they're pretty damn close to it:

Source

The airport itself is only about three miles east of Downtown (smack dab in the middle of a major metropolitan area) and has no north/south runways which, like its brethren in San Jose and San Diego, doesn't leave for much room for error if anything were to happen during a takeoff or landing.

dave8721 · #11 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 8:08 PM**

MIA's proximity to Downtown Miami gives interesting views during take offs and landings at least. The airport isn't that close compared to others, its just that the flight paths go right over parts of Downtown:

CSC_0013 by QuantumX

flickr

Private Dick · #12 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 8:44 PM**

I've never quite understood the issue people on here have with this. I'm not a pilot and have no aviation experience whatsoever... so, I don't know why... but for some reason, I guess I am going to defer to the safety guidelines recommended by the the airlines, airports, pilots, and the FAA. Maybe it's just that I happen to see higher value in supporting the decreased risk of catastrophe or something like that... than in an 850' condo tower not being allowed to be 1000'. Boo hoo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

More height restrictions for D.C.? The city is short enough already. It needs a height increase.

I like tall buildings as much as the next guy on here, but DC is pretty nice the way it is. I'll take density over height any day. And I imagine any height restrictions based on air travel safety would affect Arlington and Alexandria, not DC proper.

bobdreamz · #13 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Dick

I've never quite understood the issue people on here have with this. I'm not a pilot and have no aviation experience whatsoever... so, I don't know why... but for some reason, I guess I am going to defer to the safety guidelines recommended by the the airlines, airports, pilots, and the FAA. Maybe it's just that I happen to see higher value in supporting the decreased risk of catastrophe or something like that..]b]. than in an 850' condo tower not being allowed to be 1000'. Boo hoo.[/b]

I like tall buildings as much as the next guy on here, but DC is pretty nice the way it is. I'll take density over height any day. And I imagine any height restrictions based on air travel safety would affect Arlington and Alexandria, not DC proper.

Well in the last pic above that dave8721 posted you can see the Four Seasons tower (blue with white top) that the FAA cut from 850 feet to 789 feet. Like an extra 61 feet would have been a hazard to aircraft or for that matter and extra 150 feet from 850' to 1000' is a serious risk?

fflint · #14 Posted **Jun 27, 2014, 9:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Is it actually? I always thought San Diego was.

The flight path into San Diego puts jets alongside its (larger) CBD skyline, but the flightpath into San Jose has jets flying directly above the city's tallest buildings. You can't normally even see the heart of downtown San Jose from the windows of a landing jet, because it is directly below.

plinko · #15 Posted **Jun 29, 2014, 5:58 AM**

The north runway alignment at Sky Harbor is nearly 1/4 mile south of the 'end' of the taller buildings in downtown Phoenix (essentially aligned with Grant Street). However, as we all know, if there is an emergency engine failure, the plane has to turn to the right to avoid takeoff traffic from the south runway. That would put it DIRECTLY over downtown.

When you land from the west on the northern runway, here's what it looks like:

San Jose is way worse.

jd3189 · #16 Posted **Jun 29, 2014, 6:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave8721

MIA's proximity to Downtown Miami gives interesting views during take offs and landings at least. The airport isn't that close compared to others, its just that the flight paths go right over parts of Downtown:

CSC_0013 by QuantumX

flickr

I'll have to find it, but there was an article saying that if MIA's runaways were shifted by 7 or 8 degrees, planes would avoid Downtown Miami by a wide margin. The FAA might as well focus its efforts on fixing airports runways so that growing downtown areas are not effected. However, with less height, there's more potential for widespread density.

Roadcruiser1 · #17 Posted **Jun 29, 2014, 8:23 AM**

How about this? We build airports in better locations, and literally close the ones that is located in bad places.....

untitledreality · #18 Posted **Jun 29, 2014, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

How about this? We build airports in better locations, and literally close the ones that is located in bad places.....

Sure, because most metropolitan areas have an extra $10 billion dollars laying around for such a task. Not to mention the billions of dollars of existing infrastructure supporting current airport locations, or the billions of dollars in private investment purposefully built airport adjacent.

Height caps on little CBDs like Miami, Phoenix, or San Jose mean nothing in the grand scheme. Learn to live with it.

chris08876 · #19 Posted **Jun 29, 2014, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Unlike some cities (Dubai, Riyadh, Jeddah), DC doesn't need height to be grand (and powerful)! No offense meant to those cities. I'm just saying....DC is great already!

I think with DC, a height increase of maybe 100 feet all throughout the city would be beneficial. DC is great, but there is demand in that city. The suburbs do sport the large highrises, and I'm fine with that. Its actually kinda cool having that effect on the landscape. But, the district itself would benefit from a slight height increase.

N830MH · #20 Posted **Jun 30, 2014, 6:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Is it actually? I always thought San Diego was.

Yes, San Diego is a shortest height restrictions. They don't have a supertall tower. Only 100 or 200 feet is enough. Not even more than 200 feet high.