Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sun May 17, 2020 3:32 am

I’m aware of the 2000-foot lateral radius when flying over populated areas. I’m guessing this radius is larger sometimes?
 
trueblew
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sun May 17, 2020 3:41 pm

bob75013 wrote:
trueblew 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.


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


That was my point. The approach is tailored to avoid passing directly over downtown with that dogleg design.
 
IAHWorldflyer
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sun May 17, 2020 5:14 pm

Both Houston and Dallas have height restrictions imposed by the FAA on the central business districts. HOU and DAL have approaches that fly directly over these two CBD's. I think both Houston and Dallas have a max height of around 1000' or 300 meters.
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Sun May 17, 2020 11:30 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.


Lol.



Boston doesn’t give a damn about what you think they need.

The charm of Boston is the mix of old and new. And quite frankly, I wish they would stop turning some of these 200 year old houses and buildings into skyscrapers.

One thing I like is how they are putting some tall buildings basically on stilts above the original architecture. It keeps street level quaint while allowing the capacity to increase.
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3638
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Mon May 18, 2020 1:35 am

cm642 wrote:
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.


SJC would be my go-to example there. When you turn off the 12s after landing and look south, it almost looks like the city center is composed of the same building!
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.
 
cpl22586
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:39 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Mon May 18, 2020 9:02 am

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



I don't see them replacing Logan Airport with a airport outside the city. There is currently no land area that I can think of that would be suitable enough for a large airport and even if they did find the land the NIMBYS and environmentalist would have it tied up in the courts for decades.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Mon May 18, 2020 2:25 pm

ctrabs0114 wrote:
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.


Even then the footprint of BED is half the size of Logan and the longest runway at Hanscom is 7,000 ft, vs. a couple at BOS which are 10,000. Land acquisition would be incredibly expensive as the surrounding towns (Bedford, Lexington, Concord, Lincoln) are wealthy and I think calling the opposition "fierce" is like calling World War II a minor skirmish. Just look at MA Rt. 2, which should probably be a six-lane freeway through Lincoln and Concord. Instead it's a four-lane divided road with traffic lights because a freeway would "destroy the historic character of our towns."

D L X wrote:
I wish they would stop turning some of these 200 year old houses and buildings into skyscrapers.


I can't really think of many/any historic structures which have been torn down for skyscrapers in the past couple of decades. The Winthrop Sq. tower is replacing a condemned city-owned parking garage. Bulfinch Crossing is partially replacing the Government Center Garage. The development at North Station is on the footprint of the old Boston Garden which was torn down. Pretty much everything in the Seaport is replacing parking lots.
 
N766UA
Posts: 8316
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Mon May 18, 2020 3:43 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Possibly, it depends. Boston doesn’t need a “serious” skyscraper, anyway.


Of course not, it's Boston, the need a "wicked" skyscraper.


Wicked tall skyscraper. Wicked is an intensifier and must be followed by an adjective.
 
ctrabs0114
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:09 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue May 19, 2020 1:27 am

ScottB wrote:
Even then the footprint of BED is half the size of Logan and the longest runway at Hanscom is 7,000 ft, vs. a couple at BOS which are 10,000. Land acquisition would be incredibly expensive as the surrounding towns (Bedford, Lexington, Concord, Lincoln) are wealthy and I think calling the opposition "fierce" is like calling World War II a minor skirmish. Just look at MA Rt. 2, which should probably be a six-lane freeway through Lincoln and Concord. Instead it's a four-lane divided road with traffic lights because a freeway would "destroy the historic character of our towns."


I kind of suspected there were some obstacles with BED. I couldn't think of any other area within 128 or 495 which could even come close to being a suitable alternative to BOS.
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
 
ScottB
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue May 19, 2020 4:02 pm

ctrabs0114 wrote:
I couldn't think of any other area within 128 or 495 which could even come close to being a suitable alternative to BOS.


NAS South Weymouth might have been a possibility before the property was redeveloped for housing, but even there I think it would have been difficult to build a runway over 8,000' long without significant (expensive) property acquisitions. And even though access to Rt. 3 would be feasible, getting to and from downtown Boston on the SE Expressway would be a horrible mess. Fort Devens (~5 miles outside of 495) probably had enough space but it's 40 miles from Boston and the most direct route is Rt. 2. Plus Devens is hilly so getting the area flat enough for an airport would be incredibly expensive and there would be severe environmental impact on the Nashua River and Oxbow NWR.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue May 19, 2020 9:37 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:

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


Apologies.

I never am sure who I am quoting on A-net. Why on earth they can't implement a better user interface that quotes automatically is beyond me.
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

Re: Boston skyline height restrictions

Tue May 19, 2020 9:45 pm

Great article on this topic... https://apps.bostonglobe.com/business/g ... buildings/

Two things that don't allow tall buildings in Boston:
1) Faa Restrictions
2) City ordinances of not allowing shade over the Boston Common.
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, ASguy2012, Baidu [Spider], bmibaby737, CarbHeatIn, DUSZRH, FluidFlow, Goodbye, HECA, HPAEAA, KevinR571, majano, mig17, olle, strigon07, ThomasCook, vahancrazy, vhtje, YUAND and 391 guests

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