Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
sonicruiser
Topic Author
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:13 pm

I was reading recently that some years ago, the FAA rejected a plan to build a supertall 1,000ft skyscraper of architect Renzo Piano in downtown Boston because of its proximity to Logan Airport just to the east. Apologize for the dumb question but does this basically mean the FAA will never allow any kind of serious skyscraper in downtown Boston?

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... 4b45d075e6
شما می توانید مردم را تحریم کنید ، اما نمی توانید سبک تحریم را اعمال کنید

You can sanction people, but you can't sanction style
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5659
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:17 pm

Possibly, it depends. Boston doesn’t need a “serious” skyscraper, anyway.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:19 pm

I know they wanted a recent development below 700.

I've seen the BA morning flight go over downtown Boston too.

https://apps.bostonglobe.com/business/g ... buildings/

Boston will not have 1000 foot buildings in it's immediate future though many under 500 are being built.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN

2019: CX BOS-HKG, WE HKG-HKT, CA HKT-PEK-EWR, B6 EWR-BOS
 
MO11
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:28 pm

Any structure 200 feet or more in height (lower near an airport) needs to pass an FAA evaluation. The evaluation criteria considers approach and departure paths and circling approach areas.
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:51 pm

Two things came to mind:

1) Runway 32 cannot ever be used for take-offs due to the Hyatt Regency built at the end of the runway. Landings, yes, but take-offs, no. I seem to remember this was 100% intentional, so it has happened before.

2) Lots of cities have height restrictions around the airport. San Diego, for example, has a height limit of 500 feet, of which several buildings are exactly.
 
timpdx
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:54 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:06 pm

Building height is very much an issue at MIA. Many ‘supertall’ proposals there and the FAA has only allowed a few to proceed. You can see the pronounced dip in skyscraper height on the east approach to MIA. The height dramatically shortens as you go north from downtown.

Probably MIA and SAN are most affected due to the desire of developers and buyers to have ocean views, and where that conflicts most with airport approaches. I havent heard that Boston wants to build anything that tall.
Flown 2018: LAX, ARN, DXB, ALA, TAS, UCG, ASB, MYP, GYD, TBS, KUT, BER, TLS, SVO, CCF, DUB, LGW, MEX, BUR, PDX, ORD, SLC, SNA
Upcoming 2018: STL, MIA, BZE, IAH, BHM, LHR, DFW, PHX
 
MO11
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:06 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
Two things came to mind:

1) Runway 32 cannot ever be used for take-offs due to the Hyatt Regency built at the end of the runway. Landings, yes, but take-offs, no. I seem to remember this was 100% intentional, so it has happened before.

2) Lots of cities have height restrictions around the airport. San Diego, for example, has a height limit of 500 feet, of which several buildings are exactly.


1) No landings on 9, either.

2) I was told that some of the approvals for existing buildings in San Diego were made in error.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3181
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:30 pm

The biggest consideration is a one engine out departure for runway 27. If runway 9-27 didn’t exist you could probably get it approved.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
Wacko55
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:59 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:34 pm

In Austin there was discussion about FAA height restrictions related to 6 X Guadalupe which is currently under construction. The building will be 65 stories and rise 848 feet. It was rumored to be taller but the FAA reduced the height.
 
AKL321NX
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:35 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:54 pm

Auckland's second CBD - Manukau - is right under the approach for 23L and I understand we've got height limits as well
 
FGITD
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:05 pm

One look at the skyline/construction in south Boston and you notice that every building maxes out at exactly the same height.
 
canyonblue17
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:22 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:14 pm

Doesn't Seattle also have building height restrictions because of nearby Boeing Field?
negative ghostrider the pattern is full
 
zuckie13
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Possibly, it depends. Boston doesn’t need a “serious” skyscraper, anyway.


Of course not, it's Boston, the need a "wicked" skyscraper.
 
Lapplander800
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:56 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:36 pm

It isn't only the height, but also the shape and location. The FAA vetoed some of the Los Angeles NFL stadium proposals because it could cause radar reflections resulting in a change of geometry and sinking the structure by 100ft.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nf ... story.html
 
Jonathanxxxx
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:06 pm

Lapplander800 wrote:
It isn't only the height, but also the shape and location. The FAA vetoed some of the Los Angeles NFL stadium proposals because it could cause radar reflections resulting in a change of geometry and sinking the structure by 100ft.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nf ... story.html


If any of you have seen the guitar hotel that was built in Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale FL, the thing sits just under 500 feet tall right next to the final approach for both 10R at FLL. The hotel’s windows all have LEDs which light up the sky at night and can be seen from miles away. I have no idea how it doesn’t bother pilots.
 
ArchGuy1
Posts: 1418
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 6:02 am

Have there been any plans to replace Logan Airport with a new airport further from the city.
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3638
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 6:34 am

canyonblue17 wrote:
Doesn't Seattle also have building height restrictions because of nearby Boeing Field?


Not just for BFI, SEA as well. When Columbia Center (current tallest building in Seattle) was proposed, it was initially planned for a height of 1,006 feet but was reduced to a height of 933 feet at the insistence of the FAA because of it's proximity to the final approaches to SEA. A somewhat recently proposed project next door (named 4/C) was initially set at 1,111 but has already been issued notice from the FAA to drop it below the 1,000 foot mark for approval. It seems pretty unlikely that the project will go forward given our current economic climate, but there you go...the FAA gets way out in front of this stuff and if they're looking at building heights in downtown Seattle (ten miles from SEA) for buildings that only exist on paper, you can bet they keep an eye on what's being proposed in Boston where the city center is much closer to the airport.
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1659
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 6:37 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Possibly, it depends. Boston doesn’t need a “serious” skyscraper, anyway.


What a weird post.

What city needs a serious skyscraper?? If any it would be Boston given how densely populated the city is and lack of land. All you can do is build up.
 
ArchGuy1
Posts: 1418
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 6:46 am

gunsontheroof wrote:
canyonblue17 wrote:
Doesn't Seattle also have building height restrictions because of nearby Boeing Field?


Not just for BFI, SEA as well. When Columbia Center (current tallest building in Seattle) was proposed, it was initially planned for a height of 1,006 feet but was reduced to a height of 933 feet at the insistence of the FAA because of it's proximity to the final approaches to SEA. A somewhat recently proposed project next door (named 4/C) was initially set at 1,111 but has already been issued notice from the FAA to drop it below the 1,000 foot mark for approval. It seems pretty unlikely that the project will go forward given our current economic climate, but there you go...the FAA gets way out in front of this stuff and if they're looking at building heights in downtown Seattle (ten miles from SEA) for buildings that only exist on paper, you can bet they keep an eye on what's being proposed in Boston where the city center is much closer to the airport.

New York City and Chicago allow for 2000 feet, even though LaGuardia is 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan and Midway is 8 miles from Downtown Chicago.
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3638
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 7:15 am

ArchGuy1 wrote:
gunsontheroof wrote:
canyonblue17 wrote:
Doesn't Seattle also have building height restrictions because of nearby Boeing Field?


Not just for BFI, SEA as well. When Columbia Center (current tallest building in Seattle) was proposed, it was initially planned for a height of 1,006 feet but was reduced to a height of 933 feet at the insistence of the FAA because of it's proximity to the final approaches to SEA. A somewhat recently proposed project next door (named 4/C) was initially set at 1,111 but has already been issued notice from the FAA to drop it below the 1,000 foot mark for approval. It seems pretty unlikely that the project will go forward given our current economic climate, but there you go...the FAA gets way out in front of this stuff and if they're looking at building heights in downtown Seattle (ten miles from SEA) for buildings that only exist on paper, you can bet they keep an eye on what's being proposed in Boston where the city center is much closer to the airport.

New York City and Chicago allow for 2000 feet, even though LaGuardia is 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan and Midway is 8 miles from Downtown Chicago.


I have no idea how the FAA decides to pick these battles, only providing insight on what I know. My first thought with NYC and Chicago would be that the FAA has expected taller buildings to be in those two cities from the very beginning of their authority whereas smaller cities like Boston and Seattle didn't see any kind of significant skyline growth until well after their primary airports were established. Would certainly be interested to hear any insight as to how these matters have been dealt with at the federal level if anyone has insight!
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 7:17 am

Downtown Denver has a height limit still in place from the old Stapleton Airport (DEN). Probably too much hassle to change the rules now that it closed with the opening of DIA, nothing has been built up near the maximum elevation since Republic Plaza opened in 1984. I spent 2 years of my life working on site as the Project Engineer for PCL Construction. It is a 56 story concrete frame tower rising 717 feet from its base right across from the historic Brown Palace Hotel, made famous by the 'unsinkable Molly Brown that survived the Titanic'. We were within a foot of the maximum FAA limit and had to be certified as being below that by licensed surveyors.

Republic is one of the few buildings with Otis double decker elevators, the elevator has a double floor car with dual lobbies at the base of the building, the concourse level served even floors, the Plaza level (with its 29' high lobby) served odd floors. It allowed for 21 elevators to serve the building (except for a 4 story suite at the top of the building with separate elevators) instead of 28. Well Otis paid for 8 of us to go to New York on a 4 day junket to see one going up in the Phillip Morris building there. Got the inside tour of the elevators in the World Trade Center. Those huge shuttle elevators had massive direct drive motors with car speeds of 1,600 FPM. The elevator motor coils seriously tugged at your watch as they accelerated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Plaza_(Denver)
 
Max Q
Posts: 8285
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 7:21 am

Haven’t been there in years but from my 727/ MD80 days I remember at least one runway had higher minimums when there were ‘ships in the channel’ on the approach path
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
aaway
Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 10:02 am

San Jose (SJC) is another city that has height restrictions as a result of the approaches to the 30s passing over downtown.
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
airbazar
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 11:02 am

gunsontheroof wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
New York City and Chicago allow for 2000 feet, even though LaGuardia is 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan and Midway is 8 miles from Downtown Chicago.


I have no idea how the FAA decides to pick these battles, only providing insight on what I know. My first thought with NYC and Chicago would be that the FAA has expected taller buildings to be in those two cities from the very beginning of their authority whereas smaller cities like Boston and Seattle didn't see any kind of significant skyline growth until well after their primary airports were established. Would certainly be interested to hear any insight as to how these matters have been dealt with at the federal level if anyone has insight!


It's the Federal Government. The rules don't have to make sense :)
My suspicion is that those cities probably already had taller buildings before this rule was enacted and so they are grandfathered in.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 11:06 am

Jonathanxxxx wrote:
Lapplander800 wrote:
It isn't only the height, but also the shape and location. The FAA vetoed some of the Los Angeles NFL stadium proposals because it could cause radar reflections resulting in a change of geometry and sinking the structure by 100ft.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nf ... story.html


If any of you have seen the guitar hotel that was built in Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale FL, the thing sits just under 500 feet tall right next to the final approach for both 10R at FLL. The hotel’s windows all have LEDs which light up the sky at night and can be seen from miles away. I have no idea how it doesn’t bother pilots.


It is a beautiful building but it is several miles south of the final approach course for 10R

It also looks unfinished

Top of the guitar is missing… And I wonder if the FAA played a role in that
 
pmanni1
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:17 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 11:47 am

Same with Phoenix. Tallest building is only 483 ft. Flying into PHX you feel like you're only a few hundred feet above downtown.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 12:09 pm

Like bigger planes cost more than mid sized planes, with typical downtown / high end suburban land values the optimum building size is 18 to 36 stories. 18 utilizes usually a single bank of elevators, 18 floors of stops is about the maximum. 36 is the limit Usof the 2nd bank. Over 36 and a 3rd bank of elevators is needed, causing the bottom 2/3 of the building give up 24'x30' of each floor for the elevator bank. Above 36 the structure starts getting heavier fast as the moment is a square function of the height. Below that concrete shear walls around the elevators and stairs is usually sufficient, above that the exterior needs to be a tube (with lots of window holes) to handle this.
 
blockski
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 12:27 pm

Fun fact - the FAA doesn't actually have any real veto power over anything. They can object if something will be a hazard, and that can have serious consequences for a project/city that decides to push forward.

Lots of cities adjust their zoning laws in accordance with the FAA's airspace restrictions, because they want to harmonize their regulations - a perfectly sensible approach.

Here's a good overview of the process - you'll note that nowhere in the process does the FAA have a veto. But they do have substantial leverage and political pressure they can apply.

https://www.wsdot.gov/aviation/Planning ... onEval.htm
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 12:59 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Possibly, it depends. Boston doesn’t need a “serious” skyscraper, anyway.

What a weird post.

What city needs a serious skyscraper?? If any it would be Boston given how densely populated the city is and lack of land. All you can do is build up.

You don't need serious skyscrapers for that. You can start by replacing older relatively low buildings by structures that have twenty to thirty floors. No need for 1,000 foot skyscrapers.

Off topic: if there were no entry restrictions for the United States in place, I would have been in Boston right now! As my last visit to the city was twenty years ago, I was really looking forward to it. Hopefully next year we all get second chances.
 
FGITD
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 1:02 pm

Max Q wrote:
Haven’t been there in years but from my 727/ MD80 days I remember at least one runway had higher minimums when there were ‘ships in the channel’ on the approach path


sounds like 4R/L. The ATIS will actually give a warning about "high masted ship on short final" usually in the summer when cruise ships are docked across the way. I believe the FAA also temporarily will reroute arrivals when one of the ships is on the way in or out
 
trueblew
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 1:36 pm

ArchGuy1 wrote:
gunsontheroof wrote:
canyonblue17 wrote:
Doesn't Seattle also have building height restrictions because of nearby Boeing Field?


Not just for BFI, SEA as well. When Columbia Center (current tallest building in Seattle) was proposed, it was initially planned for a height of 1,006 feet but was reduced to a height of 933 feet at the insistence of the FAA because of it's proximity to the final approaches to SEA. A somewhat recently proposed project next door (named 4/C) was initially set at 1,111 but has already been issued notice from the FAA to drop it below the 1,000 foot mark for approval. It seems pretty unlikely that the project will go forward given our current economic climate, but there you go...the FAA gets way out in front of this stuff and if they're looking at building heights in downtown Seattle (ten miles from SEA) for buildings that only exist on paper, you can bet they keep an eye on what's being proposed in Boston where the city center is much closer to the airport.

New York City and Chicago allow for 2000 feet, even though LaGuardia is 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan and Midway is 8 miles from Downtown Chicago.


Unlike Seattle and Boston, the typical approach paths into the NYC and Chicago airports don't cross over or next to the skyscrapers (MDW 22L and JFK 13L being the exceptions, and they have instrument approaches tailored for this).
 
airbazar
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 1:48 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Possibly, it depends. Boston doesn’t need a “serious” skyscraper, anyway.

What a weird post.

What city needs a serious skyscraper?? If any it would be Boston given how densely populated the city is and lack of land. All you can do is build up.

You don't need serious skyscrapers for that. You can start by replacing older relatively low buildings by structures that have twenty to thirty floors. No need for 1,000 foot skyscrapers.


That only works if the incumbent property owner wants to do it which is not very likely. By keeping supply low, rental prices are higher which has the added effect that if someone new comes along the only way to get a good ROI for its new building is to build it as high as possible in order to maximize the footprint. But if we have a height limit, that is very difficult to achieve. This is why places like NY, San Francisco, and Boston have the highest property prices in the country. They are restricted both in space to build and how high they can build (each one for their own reasons).
 
Elementalism
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 1:58 pm

gunsontheroof wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
gunsontheroof wrote:

Not just for BFI, SEA as well. When Columbia Center (current tallest building in Seattle) was proposed, it was initially planned for a height of 1,006 feet but was reduced to a height of 933 feet at the insistence of the FAA because of it's proximity to the final approaches to SEA. A somewhat recently proposed project next door (named 4/C) was initially set at 1,111 but has already been issued notice from the FAA to drop it below the 1,000 foot mark for approval. It seems pretty unlikely that the project will go forward given our current economic climate, but there you go...the FAA gets way out in front of this stuff and if they're looking at building heights in downtown Seattle (ten miles from SEA) for buildings that only exist on paper, you can bet they keep an eye on what's being proposed in Boston where the city center is much closer to the airport.

New York City and Chicago allow for 2000 feet, even though LaGuardia is 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan and Midway is 8 miles from Downtown Chicago.


I have no idea how the FAA decides to pick these battles, only providing insight on what I know. My first thought with NYC and Chicago would be that the FAA has expected taller buildings to be in those two cities from the very beginning of their authority whereas smaller cities like Boston and Seattle didn't see any kind of significant skyline growth until well after their primary airports were established. Would certainly be interested to hear any insight as to how these matters have been dealt with at the federal level if anyone has insight!


Maybe it also depend on the departure route? Even when taking off towards the city, which seemed rare, we immediately turned east to heat out over lake Michigan. Maybe in other cities there isnt enough distance to funnel traffic away from the city vs Chicago?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5659
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 2:14 pm

FGITD wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Haven’t been there in years but from my 727/ MD80 days I remember at least one runway had higher minimums when there were ‘ships in the channel’ on the approach path


sounds like 4R/L. The ATIS will actually give a warning about "high masted ship on short final" usually in the summer when cruise ships are docked across the way. I believe the FAA also temporarily will reroute arrivals when one of the ships is on the way in or out


Yes, the “04” used to have that restriction, have to go open my company iPad to check current. Heck, KFLL used to have a restriction for “.train on track” departing off 09.
 
blockski
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 2:20 pm

Elementalism wrote:
gunsontheroof wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
New York City and Chicago allow for 2000 feet, even though LaGuardia is 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan and Midway is 8 miles from Downtown Chicago.


I have no idea how the FAA decides to pick these battles, only providing insight on what I know. My first thought with NYC and Chicago would be that the FAA has expected taller buildings to be in those two cities from the very beginning of their authority whereas smaller cities like Boston and Seattle didn't see any kind of significant skyline growth until well after their primary airports were established. Would certainly be interested to hear any insight as to how these matters have been dealt with at the federal level if anyone has insight!


Maybe it also depend on the departure route? Even when taking off towards the city, which seemed rare, we immediately turned east to heat out over lake Michigan. Maybe in other cities there isnt enough distance to funnel traffic away from the city vs Chicago?


BOS is much closer to downtown (and tall buildings) than either MDW or ORD.

MDW is about 8 miles from the Loop; ORD is about 15 miles as the crow flies. BOS, by comparison, is less than 2 miles away.

All of those skyscrapers in Chicago are, by definition, obstructions - hence they are required to be marked with red lights, etc. The FAA's role is to determine if an obstruction becomes a hazard.
 
N47
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:38 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 5:36 pm

It's called Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OEAAA)

Its the group within the FAA that evaluates if certain structures will have any safety/operation impact on the NAS. The most important consideration is what we call the part 77 surfaces, which are derived from a combination of approach gradients and the minimum gradient aircraft can climb with one engine INOP. Here is what it looks like:

3D

Image

Plan View

Image

Source: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/AERO/oisspec.html

Then there is also NAVAID/radar/comm performance consideration. A structure can cause interference for ILS, VORs, DMEs, and radars. When the FAA evaluates structures they take all of this into account to make sure a structure will not hinder performance of crucial safety sensitive equipment. You wouldn't want your CAT II/III ILS to guide you to the grass right? Or miss a go-around instruction because the new hangar caused interference on the COMM antennas?

Some people here already mentioned some high profile cases such as the stadium in LA. A NASCAR track in Florida also caused issues with a radar which ended up being raised to mitigate issues. Often times the FAA raises issues then the proponent goes back to change the design to make it work.

For the interested reader you can find more info here: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp
Feel free to message me too.

Now days wind turbines are the big thing especially in fly-over country where a lot of NAVAIDs are off airport and close to them.

As for BOS it seems that buildings are awfully close to the runways, plus being that BOS has runways pointing every which way that dictates what can be built where. The skyline at NYC is a bit further and situated differently with respect to the runways. For reference the closest runway to the downtown skyline at NYC is 29 at EWR at 6.5 nmi and slightly off from the runway center line. At BOS the closest runway is 09 at 1.9 nmi from the downtown area.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 5:52 pm

Both Tokyo and Los Angeles are massive cities, however LA probably has an average height less than 2 story. Tokyo average height is probably less than 3 story. On the Tokyo trains one is viewing 2-3 story buildings for most of the journey.
 
santi319
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:24 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 5:59 pm

Jonathanxxxx wrote:
Lapplander800 wrote:
It isn't only the height, but also the shape and location. The FAA vetoed some of the Los Angeles NFL stadium proposals because it could cause radar reflections resulting in a change of geometry and sinking the structure by 100ft.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nf ... story.html


If any of you have seen the guitar hotel that was built in Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale FL, the thing sits just under 500 feet tall right next to the final approach for both 10R at FLL. The hotel’s windows all have LEDs which light up the sky at night and can be seen from miles away. I have no idea how it doesn’t bother pilots.


It is not on the flight path. Its like 600+ feet from it...
 
ScottB
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 10:38 pm

FGITD wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Haven’t been there in years but from my 727/ MD80 days I remember at least one runway had higher minimums when there were ‘ships in the channel’ on the approach path


sounds like 4R/L. The ATIS will actually give a warning about "high masted ship on short final" usually in the summer when cruise ships are docked across the way. I believe the FAA also temporarily will reroute arrivals when one of the ships is on the way in or out


Yep, several years back I was on a flight into BOS which had to go around. The pilot announced it was due to a ship in the channel.

ArchGuy1 wrote:
Have there been any plans to replace Logan Airport with a new airport further from the city.


Hahahahahaha where?

FGITD wrote:
look at the skyline/construction in south Boston and you notice that every building maxes out at exactly the same height.


I suspect that's more a general function of Boston zoning than FAA involvement.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5659
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 10:50 pm

On 04R, the masts must not exceed 144’ or procedure is not authorized. Similarly, no CAT II/III procedures with ships in the harbor.
 
uconn99
Posts: 414
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:52 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Fri May 15, 2020 11:21 pm

pmanni1 wrote:
Same with Phoenix. Tallest building is only 483 ft. Flying into PHX you feel like you're only a few hundred feet above downtown.


Tempe as well along Tempe Town Lake and downtown Tempe.
 
ctrabs0114
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:09 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 1:22 am

ScottB wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
Have there been any plans to replace Logan Airport with a new airport further from the city.


Hahahahahaha where?


The closest site that could even come close to a "replacement" for BOS would have to be Hanscom Field (BED), but, other than charters (usually sports teams flying out or arriving into Boston), commercial flights at BED are limited to 60-seat RJs per MassPORT regulations. And even if you find a site, I'd expect NIMBY opposition to be fierce.
2019: DAL, MCI, PHX, LAS, DFW, SAT, ORD, SLC, SEA, DTW, PHL, MIA, LAX; B73G (WN x3), B738 (WN, AA, DL), A20N (NK), MD83 (AA), B788 (AA x2), CS1 (DL), B739 (DL), B712 (DL), B752 (AA), B763 (AA), B77W (AA), B789 (AA)
Next: TBA
 
cm642
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:16 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 4:22 am

Most cities have some sort of height restrictions due to downtown/skylines proximity to airports/flight paths, Phoenix and San Diego are probably the two best examples since neither have any highrise buildings over 500 feet due to height restrictions and proximity to the flight paths.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 5:20 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
You can start by replacing older relatively low buildings by structures that have twenty to thirty floors. No need for 1,000 foot skyscrapers.


How about coming back to us with that opinion when you get a job based in downtown San Francisco (where there's little new space and overwhelming demand for housing) and have to find housing there.
 
FlyingSicilian
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 6:28 am

As other noted fairly common. In Houston in the early 80 the now "Chase" tower which is just over 1,000 feet and 75 storeys was to be 80 storeys and around 1,100 feet but FAA cut it down due to Hobby airport traffic.
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1659
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 7:28 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
You can start by replacing older relatively low buildings by structures that have twenty to thirty floors. No need for 1,000 foot skyscrapers.


How about coming back to us with that opinion when you get a job based in downtown San Francisco (where there's little new space and overwhelming demand for housing) and have to find housing there.


You misquoted this. I didn’t post that comment you’re replying to. MartijnNL said it:

MartijnNL wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Possibly, it depends. Boston doesn’t need a “serious” skyscraper, anyway.

What a weird post.

What city needs a serious skyscraper?? If any it would be Boston given how densely populated the city is and lack of land. All you can do is build up.

You don't need serious skyscrapers for that. You can start by replacing older relatively low buildings by structures that have twenty to thirty floors. No need for 1,000 foot skyscrapers.

Off topic: if there were no entry restrictions for the United States in place, I would have been in Boston right now! As my last visit to the city was twenty years ago, I was really looking forward to it. Hopefully next year we all get second chances.
 
bob75013
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 8:02 pm

trueblew wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
gunsontheroof wrote:

Not just for BFI, SEA as well. When Columbia Center (current tallest building in Seattle) was proposed, it was initially planned for a height of 1,006 feet but was reduced to a height of 933 feet at the insistence of the FAA because of it's proximity to the final approaches to SEA. A somewhat recently proposed project next door (named 4/C) was initially set at 1,111 but has already been issued notice from the FAA to drop it below the 1,000 foot mark for approval. It seems pretty unlikely that the project will go forward given our current economic climate, but there you go...the FAA gets way out in front of this stuff and if they're looking at building heights in downtown Seattle (ten miles from SEA) for buildings that only exist on paper, you can bet they keep an eye on what's being proposed in Boston where the city center is much closer to the airport.

New York City and Chicago allow for 2000 feet, even though LaGuardia is 8 miles from Midtown Manhattan and Midway is 8 miles from Downtown Chicago.


Unlike Seattle and Boston, the typical approach paths into the NYC and Chicago airports don't cross over or next to the skyscrapers (MDW 22L and JFK 13L being the exceptions, and they have instrument approaches tailored for this).


Actually planes headed to MDW do not ever cross over or next to downtown Chicago. The typical approach to 22L starts over the lake and then heads west a bit south of Roosevelt Rd.. Then a left turn and heads to 22L. Planes are at least a mile south of downtown. I've flown this approach many, many times
 
ZazuPIT
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:32 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 8:42 pm

IINM, the developer for 'The 505' in downtown Nashville planned for it to be around 1,000 feet but the FAA nixed the idea.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sat May 16, 2020 8:53 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
You can start by replacing older relatively low buildings by structures that have twenty to thirty floors. No need for 1,000 foot skyscrapers.


SurlyBonds wrote:
How about coming back to us with that opinion when you get a job based in downtown San Francisco (where there's little new space and overwhelming demand for housing) and have to find housing there.

But are 1,000 foot skyscrapers really necessary? There are plenty three to six story buildings in San Francisco. I have seen this myself. Why not replace those with higher buildings first? What's wrong with demolishing old buildings and making new structures with ten or twenty extra floors? Instead of building one super tall skyscraper that might hamper air traffic?
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sun May 17, 2020 12:26 am

MartijnNL wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
You can start by replacing older relatively low buildings by structures that have twenty to thirty floors. No need for 1,000 foot skyscrapers.


SurlyBonds wrote:
How about coming back to us with that opinion when you get a job based in downtown San Francisco (where there's little new space and overwhelming demand for housing) and have to find housing there.

But are 1,000 foot skyscrapers really necessary? There are plenty three to six story buildings in San Francisco. I have seen this myself. Why not replace those with higher buildings first? What's wrong with demolishing old buildings and making new structures with ten or twenty extra floors? Instead of building one super tall skyscraper that might hamper air traffic?

If those buildings are used for residential purposes, how do you replace them. Evict everybody? And if so, where would you move them to.
Captain Kevin

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos