Height Restrictions For Downtown?

[H-TownChris2]

I'm really disappointed that Houston has height restrictions....

[Montrose1100]

I'm really disappointed that Houston has height restrictions....

I think the only areas that have height restrictions are close to the airports.

[ArchFan]

It would be good to know whether the "height restrictions" are real, implied, or only live on in people's minds.  In my memory, the public mention of anything like that dates from local newspaper articles that cited FAA objections to the heights originallly proposed for the Texas Commerce Tower (Chase) and the unbuilt Bank of the Southwest Tower.  

 

It seems as if those newspaper articles spawned an idea that continues today:  that somehow a federal agency put a height limit on buildings in downtown Houston.  I would like to know whether that really happened and if such a thing would be enforced (or enforceable) today.

Edited March 15, 2015 by ArchFan

[Luminare]

From my understanding we have no deed restrictions or restrictions of any kind when it comes to a buildings height especially in Downtown. The FAA merely gave objections and recommendations, but that would be all they can do. They have no authority over height limits in any city. That falls onto the lap of the City of Houston. The only time the Federal government would be involved is if a military base is involved. Downtown shouldn't even be in any flight path and now that we live in a post 9-11 world I would imagine that any near flights over a downtown area would be a huge no-no. The reason why we haven't seen a building go taller is simply economics. While conspiracy theories are more entertaining, they are just that, conspiracy. You have to understand that for ever floor that goes higher and higher into the air you adding exponential costs to a project and unless you have a real need to go that high then you won't. Though I think we will start seeing taller buildings due to the movement of cities going towards more mixed use buildings to maximize living space so would then need to build higher. The problem with Houston is that we have so much land that unless we put restraints upon our own growth outward and more towards a growth upward then you won't see a "supertall" (sorry I hate that. just call it a darn skyscraper!) unless you have someone with deep pockets, someone with a massive ego, or a Fortune 500 company moving an entire HQ. Plus whats the problem with 58 stories??? Omg I can't believe that doesn't satisfy people at all -.- Be thankful they are even considering a building that tall!

[Luminare]

*double post*

Edited March 15, 2015 by Luminare

[toxtethogrady]

The FAA may have no power to stop anything, but they do have influence. For one thing, they can make insuring the building difficult by declaring it a hazard to air navigation. For another, they could reroute the approaches to Hobby Airport, which the airlines would hate, leading to complaints to the City that the new tower is Bad For Business. The height restrictions are de facto.

[nativehoustonion]

I don't think there are height restrictions for Hobby.  I live in the Upper Kirby District and can see planes approaching Hobby.  They are coming in over the Huntingdon high rise.  At peaks times one plane every 5 minutes.  I think Hobby has two runways and I have seen planes go around downtown but not over it.  Now Dallas Love Field does have height restrictions.  They cannot build a skyscraper taller then 30 floors in the Uptown District. 

[Luminare]

The FAA may have no power to stop anything, but they do have influence. For one thing, they can make insuring the building difficult by declaring it a hazard to air navigation. For another, they could reroute the approaches to Hobby Airport, which the airlines would hate, leading to complaints to the City that the new tower is Bad For Business. The height restrictions are de facto.

 

Look dude, I'm not going to debate this any longer. I don't really care much for the abundance of ABC type regulators that we have everywhere, but you need to take whatever fishing rod and bait that you are using and take it to another pond because you are fishing in the wrong lake. Believe whatever you want. You are actually making this much more complicated than it really is. Maybe stop watching Game of Thrones or House of Cards because not all politics or even government is like what you are portraying. Plus if you have evidence of the FAA bullying corporations and airliners then why are on this forum telling us this! Let people know about this overbearing influence the FAA has on our fair city! Height restrictions are not de facto....maybe in your mind. The only de facto restriction is set by the free market not some FAA suits sitting in some star chamber plotting how to swing their Big government weight on the little helpless corporation. If you had a sensible argument then I would give it some merit, but this is just silly.

[Purdueenginerd]

For what its worth, the law ( states that you  must file with the FAA if your structure meets one of the following:

 

14 CFR Part 77.9 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA:

• any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft above ground level
• any construction or alteration:
  • within 20,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 ft
  • within 10,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft
  • within 5,000 ft of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface
• any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above noted standards
• when requested by the FAA
• any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location.

Source https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp

Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA)

 

 

200 ft. above ground level is pretty much every mid level and major skyscraper in Houston Proper. I think the so-called "defacto" height restrictions by the FAA some are proposing here appears to me to be more of an urban legend. Especially if the structure is in downtown... surrounded by several 800 foot plus skyscrapers. I think you'd have more truth to the argument if Hobby was closer to downtown. But theres a lot of cities with airports, closer to their respective downtowns and they don't have issues with large structures going up. Midway airport is 10.2 miles from Downtown Chicago. Hobby airport is 11.2. La Gaurdia Airport is 8.1 miles from Manhattan (more specifically central park). Logan Airport is 4 miles from downtown Boston. The list goes on...

 

The reason supertall skyscrapers dont get built in Houston, I'd opine, probably has more to do with the economics of the region than with a small(er) international airpot 12 miles away. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2015 by Purdueenginerd

[wxman]

Can we take the FAA discussion to the planes thread? I want to know about THIS building, not the elusive height restrictions.

[tigereye]

How bout this: Since today is 3:16, fv*k the FAA and their so-called restrictions or recommendations. AND THATS THE BOTTOM LINNNNEEEE, CAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!

Edited March 16, 2015 by tigereye

[H-TownChris2]

I think the only areas that have height restrictions are close to the airports.

Yea, I know that, but in downtown I meant

[H-TownChris2]

From my understanding we have no deed restrictions or restrictions of any kind when it comes to a buildings height especially in Downtown. The FAA merely gave objections and recommendations, but that would be all they can do. They have no authority over height limits in any city. That falls onto the lap of the City of Houston. The only time the Federal government would be involved is if a military base is involved. Downtown shouldn't even be in any flight path and now that we live in a post 9-11 world I would imagine that any near flights over a downtown area would be a huge no-no. The reason why we haven't seen a building go taller is simply economics. While conspiracy theories are more entertaining, they are just that, conspiracy. You have to understand that for ever floor that goes higher and higher into the air you adding exponential costs to a project and unless you have a real need to go that high then you won't. Though I think we will start seeing taller buildings due to the movement of cities going towards more mixed use buildings to maximize living space so would then need to build higher. The problem with Houston is that we have so much land that unless we put restraints upon our own growth outward and more towards a growth upward then you won't see a "supertall" (sorry I hate that. just call it a darn skyscraper!) unless you have someone with deep pockets, someone with a massive ego, or a Fortune 500 company moving an entire HQ. Plus whats the problem with 58 stories??? Omg I can't believe that doesn't satisfy people at all -.- Be thankful they are even considering a building that tall!

I don't have a problem with it, I'm just saying, and in Shenzhen, the Pingan International Finance Centre, had to take away the spire because the FAA cut it down. I think it was 48M, I'm not sure, but somewhere around there.

[cspwal]

Why would the FAA have any say in Shenzhen?

 

The FAA has to be notified about any tall structures not so much for approval but so that it can be included on aeronautical charts and when planning instrument approaches.  I could see that if a tall building would interrupt one approach or the other, they would file a complaint, but in this age of GPS approaches, they can still do approaches that do the proper step downs while avoiding the taller obstacles (next time you're in downtown/midtown, watch for a Southwest plane on approach - it will be making turns - they're to avoid flying directly over obstacles such as downtown.)\

 

There is a low flying corridor due north of downtown (1500 ft) but it is only used in nice weather where you'll notice a giant building directly in front of you.

 

I saw a rendering in another thread of the Chevron building with the crown looking like the Chevron logo - was that ever considered?

[The Pragmatist]

In reference to the FAA junk, the story from the 600 Travis website is interesting:

 

 

 

JPMorgan Chase Tower was designed by I.M. Pei and associate architect 3D International. The building was completed in 1981 as Texas Commerce Tower. JPMorgan Chase Tower is 75 stories (1,049 feet) tall; just shy of three and a half football fields. The tower has 1.98 million square feet of gross office building space.

JPMorgan Chase Tower was originally planned to be 80 stories tall, but the Federal Aviation Administration limited this and future buildings to 75 stories; anything higher would be labeled by the federal agency as hazardous to air navigation. JPMorgan Chase Tower has an emergency helipad on the rooftop, but has never been utilized and the rooftop is now an antenna site. The office tower is clad in pale gray polished granite, stainless steel, and gray glass. The western corner of the tower has been sheared off to form a five-sided structure. The western facet of the tower is formed by an 85 foot wide free span of glass that ascends the full height of the building. The lobby of JPMorgan Chase Tower was designed to harmonize not only with the height of the structure, but also with the portico of Jones Hall. For that reason, a story glass wall supported by a stainless steel space frame spans the entire 85-foot width of the front entrance, making the lobby area light and airy and opening up the space to the plaza outside.

 

Source: http://www.chasetower.com/building.php?sect=1

 

Apologies for contributing to the off-topic part of this thread.

[strickn]

Speaking of the antenna site atop 600 Travis, here's a funny story:  in 2004, Houston Networks applied to the FAA to mount another antenna on the roof there, one which would have reached 1088 feet above ground level below.  In due time (within 30 days), the FAA wrote back with their determination --

If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 1000 feet above ground level (1049 feet above mean sea level), it would not exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued.

 

Any height exceeding 1000 feet above ground level (1049 feet above mean sea level), will result in a substantial adverse effect and would warrant a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation.

 

....

 

The last Determination of No Hazard which the FAA issued on the subject building and any appurtenances was for a height of 1001-feet AGL, 1049-feet AMSL. It is possible that parties have placed 20-foot antennae atop the building (referring to 14,CFR, part 77, section 77.15b.)without filing notice with the FAA. However, any height greater than 1049 feet AMSL will increase the minimum vectoring altitude for a portion of Houston Approach Control airspace an constitute a hazard to air navigation.

 

As all of us here know, 600 Travis is already above the regulators' maximum height;  Emporis, which measures from the sill of the front entry, measures 1002 feet for the tower, which sits on a four foot high plinth (accounting for why some almanacs say 1,006).  Add the mech penthouse and the many 20' fingerling antennae and we actually reach higher than the Library Tower in L.A. and the BoA Plaza in Atlanta, both of which were built to beat us.  But get out your hacksaws, friends, it's time for some regulatory compliance.  Let's take it down to 73 floors for safety's sake.

Edited June 21, 2015 by strickn

[astros148]

So i guess we arent ever getting a supertall again..

[BigFootsSocks]

What else does your crystal ball of the future tell you? Do I end up rich or homeless?

[strickn]

Those aren't mutually exclusive by any stretch of the imagination 

Bump

[houstontexasjack]

On 3/16/2015 at 4:10 PM, The Pragmatist said:

In reference to the FAA junk, the story from the 600 Travis website is interesting:

 

 

Source: http://www.chasetower.com/building.php?sect=1

 

Apologies for contributing to the off-topic part of this thread.

Apparently, Hines lore has it that the FAA wanted to do a 2-year review of the 80-story concept in the late 70’s but determined 75 stories was okay without such review. Gerald Hines didn’t want to risk a downturn killing the project and decided to proceed at 75 stories. Considering what happened in the oil bust, that was the right call.

A lot has changed in aviation since the late 1970’s. Engines in general are more reliable and shut down less (one of the fears is having an engine fail during takeoff from HOU, forcing the aircraft to have to return under power from only one engine) than those from the 1970’s. 

There just hasn’t been interest in even attempting to build something in that height range that would compel the FAA to do a new analysis as to the upper bound of what they might consider a “hazard to air navigation.” If one wanted to go higher, I think the issue would require new analysis by the FAA.