Locations Of Old TV Transmission Towers

[technoevil]

I was curious about something, have most of the Houston radio and TV towers always located near Missouri City and if not when did they move them there? Also how did they determine that was a good location for them?

[MaxConcrete]

I was curious about something, have most of the Houston radio and TV towers always located near Missouri City and if not when did they move them there? Also how did they determine that was a good location for them?

I have no information on the history, but my suspicion is that the Blue Ridge oil field and salt dome played a role in the location of the towers. The old oilfield was probably not suitable for development due to the wells, potential contamination, and possible odors. So the land was cheap and transmission towers was an ideal land use. There are still plenty of abandoned stripper wells around the towers. I don't know if the salt mine is operative anymore.

I looked on an old map and it appears that the towers are just west of the old Blue Ridge prison farm. So I don't think the prison farm had any role in the towers.

[musicman]

I was curious about something, have most of the Houston radio and TV towers always located near Missouri City and if not when did they move them there? Also how did they determine that was a good location for them?

Ideally for most coverage, the antennae would be placed in the central business district (CBD). Houston has height limitations (1000 ft) due to the flight paths of Hobby Airport. Since most TV antennae are taller than that, another location had to be chosen to allow for optimal broadcast strength.

I've got to make the assumption that the engineers felt that that location was physically best because radially, it reaches the majority of the metropolitan population. Also interference from surrounding structures is nil since it isn't in the CBD.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well. Perhaps the power grid in the area was easily accessible which is needed to transmit the high bandwidths required in television.

[MidtownCoog]

We call them Tower Farms.

Remember the one that collapsed in the 80s?

What station was that?

[musicman]

We call them Tower Farms.

Remember the one that collapsed in the 80s?

What station was that?

TV tower collapse A&M research.

excellent website which discusses ethics of the whole incident. included still photos and a few mpegs, including the collapse. hard to believe that this happened in 1982. I remember it as if it was in the last 10 yrs not 25. I remember that channel 13 had the video exclusively when this happened.

[editor]

Ideally for most coverage, the antennae would be placed in the central business district (CBD). Houston has height limitations (1000 ft) due to the flight paths of Hobby Airport. Since most TV antennae are taller than that, another location had to be chosen to allow for optimal broadcast strength.

I've got to make the assumption that the engineers felt that that location was physically best because radially, it reaches the majority of the metropolitan population. Also interference from surrounding structures is nil since it isn't in the CBD.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well. Perhaps the power grid in the area was easily accessible which is needed to transmit the high bandwidths required in television.

Actually, CBD is the worst place for TV signals. Buildings cause horrible multipath (ghosting) problems on analog television. It's one of the big reasons for getting HDTV in urban areas. The reason cities like New York and Chicago have their TV antennae in the CBD is because that's where the tallest buildings are, so it makes economic sense. When TV started taking off, New York already had the Empire State Building, so it made sense to put their transmitters there. Just like in LA and San Francisco they take advantage of the terrain and put their tower on top of tall hills -- it makes economic sense, and multipath issues are reduced significantly.

At the time the Houston TV stations started putting up their towers there were no huge skyscrapers to piggyback on, so they built stand-alone towers on the outskirts of the city. They were built to the southwest because there was cheap land, and it moved them farther away from other VHF signals in Beaumont and Dallas, so they could increase their signal strength, and hopefully saturate the coast, where it was assumed development would spread.

For more information on TV tower clustering, see this incredibly insightful post written by one of the best looking people in the world.

[musicman]

Actually, CBD is the worst place for TV signals. Buildings cause horrible multipath (ghosting) problems on analog television. It's one of the big reasons for getting HDTV in urban areas.

...interference from surrounding structures is nil since it isn't in the CBD.

Guess i didn't emphasize that enough.

[Highway6]

Ideally for most coverage, the antennae would be placed in the central business district (CBD). Houston has height limitations (1000 ft) due to the flight paths of Hobby Airport. Since most TV antennae are taller than that, another location had to be chosen to allow for optimal broadcast strength.

I know this is getting off topic..

but Downtown has a height restriction ?

Chase tower is 1002 ft.

From a pilot friend of mine ---

Pretty much everything from Conroe to Galveston and about 30 miles out from each of BUsh and Hobby is restricted airspace of one sort or another, some from 10,000 ft to the ground, some down to 2000 ft - like that little VFR corridor we flew thru just north of I10 where you have to skirt thru the corridor below 2000ft................ looks like most of downtown is in that area that starts at 2000 and up and it also looks like some buildings are more than 1000 ft tall........ there are rules which say you have to be at least 1000 ft away (above and to the side) of structures........

The answer to your question is I really don't know - I can't imagine how the feds could impose building restrictions on downtown............ I'm sure they would have to be dealt with but then the feds would just redesign approaches into Hobby around whatever is there. A Southwest pilot once told me they are at about 4000 ft coming across downtown into Hobby and there are no southerly (over downtown) approaches in use into IAH that I know of.

Flying the corridor over I-10 around CBD

Edited April 28, 2006 by Highway6

[MidtownCoog]

I am also a pilot, and I have said before on this board that the building height restrictions for downtown is urban legend.

Now of course you can't build a skyscraper on the approach at IAH, but to say downtown building height is limited due to FAA restrictions is false.

Hobby and IAH are both Class B airspace.

The sky is the limit downtown.

Edited April 28, 2006 by MidtownCoog

[JasonDFW]

The sky is the limit downtown.

Not really. You have to have a damn good excuse to go above 2k feet in the US.

Jason

[Highway6]

Not really. You have to have a damn good excuse to go above 2k feet in the US.

Jason

I think he meant.. the sky is the limit as far as building heights...

[JasonDFW]

I think he meant.. the sky is the limit as far as building heights...

That's the way I read it too, I'm just saying if you tried to build a building like the one under construction in Dubai, they'd stop you.

Jason

[MidtownCoog]

Who is they?

[Highway6]

That's the way I read it too, I'm just saying if you tried to build a building like the one under construction in Dubai, they'd stop you.

Jason

They isn't the FAA is the point.

Whether anyone in the US or in Houston has the money and drive to build something that high might stop it from getting done...

But if there is no height restriction.. thats not conditional on the proposed height.. the FAA would have no say so.

[JasonDFW]

Who is they?

The FAA. They can be quite a pest at times. They've gotten so powerful in some areas they cover for other government agencies that have had cut backs over the years. Anyway here's a quote:

"A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. "

Jason

[Highway6]

The FAA. They can be quite a pest at times. They've gotten so powerful in some areas they cover for other government agencies that have had cut backs over the years. Anyway here's a quote:

"A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. "

Jason

But there either IS or ISN'T a building height restirciton downtown. There's no halfway.

We've determined there isn't... That Hobby flight patterns aren't affected...

So i fail to see, no matter how powerful they are, how the FAA would have that much say so, as far as downtown building heights is concerned.

...Unless you are saying, due to the FAA.. there is a federal law banning any structure over 2000 ft in the US, regardless of location.

Edited April 28, 2006 by Highway6

[JasonDFW]

...Unless you are saying, due to the FAA.. there is a federal law banning any structure over 2000 ft in the US, regardless of location.

No, there is no federal law that I know of. The FAA considers each building on a case by case basis not under a blanket rule for an area. In the end the FAA can't just do things like taking away your building permit. They can make life tough for you though. In the past they've even threatened to mark your building as a hazard which can run up insurance rates enough that you don't want to continue. My old company spent a lot of $ on lawyers trying to fight them and in the end gave up.

Jason

[musicman]

But there either IS or ISN'T a building height restirciton downtown. There's no halfway.

We've determined there isn't... That Hobby flight patterns aren't affected...

So i fail to see, no matter how powerful they are, how the FAA would have that much say so, as far as downtown building heights is concerned.

...Unless you are saying, due to the FAA.. there is a federal law banning any structure over 2000 ft in the US, regardless of location.

I sent an email to councilmember michael berry to see if he can provide any insight into the building height restrictions. from this thread i haven't seen any definitive information either way. one pilot says one thing and a different one says the complete opposite, just like members of this forum.

As far as legalities, federal law definitely has priority over local laws. They'll twist your arm one way or another like the speed limit laws. states that didn't comply with federal recommendations were denied funding

[nm5k]

I think case by case, and location vs the flight paths or airport

probably the biggest issues. I know that as a ham, I only start

dealing with the FAA if I'm close to an airport, or in a flight path.

I'd have to look at part 97, but they have set guidelines. If I'm

not close to an airport, or in a known flight path, I don't have to

tell the FAA squat about what I do. I'm not sure about the 2k ft

tower rule. That might be true, but not sure... If I remember right,

I think one or two of the Mo city towers are actually slightly higher

than 2000 ft, but I'd have to check. But if they are over 2k, it's only

a small amount. Over the years, many of our ham repeaters have

been mounted on those towers at various heights. But in recent

years, many of the tower owners have chased off the hams due

to insurance concerns, making $$$ off paying customers, etc..

I know many people that have rode up in those towers to work

on the repeaters, but I never got the chance myself. They say

you can see the gulf from up in those , no problem. They have

elevators running through them to ride up to various levels.

They often have to go up to do work on machines, or to change

the light bulbs out.

MK

[ClubQBall]

We call them Tower Farms.

Remember the one that collapsed in the 80s?

What station was that?

Channel 20 - KTXH

When the tower was under construction, the newly launched KTXH-TV used the tower for their local broadcasting. Months after the tower disaster, KTXH borrowed the transmitter located on the Allied Bank Plaza (now Wells Fargo Tower) in downtown Houston.

Heights:

• Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level: 24.1 m
  
• Overall Height Above Ground (AGL): 600.5 m
  
• Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level: 624.6 m
  
• Overall Height Above Ground w/o Appurtenances: 569.8 m
  

[SLTX]

Several of the towers in the Blue Ridge antenna farm are approx. 2,000 ft. The area was not really chosen because of "cheap land", but because it is a very low-lying, wet and swampy area. That type of soil is preferred for an ideal radiation pattern in TV and radio broadcasting.

[nm5k]

Several of the towers in the Blue Ridge antenna farm are approx. 2,000 ft. The area was not really chosen because of "cheap land", but because it is a very low-lying, wet and swampy area. That type of soil is preferred for an ideal radiation pattern in TV and radio broadcasting.

That would normally only apply to AM radio stations though. That frequency is quite low, and

the ground and radials under the tower provide the lower "half" of the antenna.

And the ground quality really doesn't matter that much because they will run radials

under the tower. The radials will improve the quality of the ground system, and provide

stability under changing moisture conditions, etc. So as long as you have a good radial

system, the quality of the ground really doesn't matter much.

On the VHF and UHF frequencies that are use for TV, FM radio, etc, they do not rely

on the ground or radials as part of the antenna. At those high frequencies the antennas

are much smaller, and they can build "complete" antenna systems which are mounted

to the towers. They do not rely on the ground at all to provide part of the antenna.

Myself, I think a large reason they chose that site was coverage. IE: they wanted to

be able to cover Galveston and the areas along the coast like Surfside, etc.

So I think that was probably part of the reason. In years past, there was plenty of

available land up north, but that would extend the coverage to the north towards

Conroe, etc, and they probably wanted to concentrate on the coast.

[JLWM8609]

From a pilot friend of mine ---

A Southwest pilot once told me they are at about 4000 ft coming across downtown into Hobby and there are no southerly (over downtown) approaches in use into IAH that I know of.

I know this response is 3 years late, but with you being a still active member, I figure you may see it. When there are unusually strong winds out of the NW, IAH will use runways 33R and 33L for landings, which will bring some planes over downtown. About two years ago, one such instance brought a KLM 747 and other international heavies over downtown at around what I guess was 3,000 to 4,000 feet.

[SLTX]

That would normally only apply to AM radio stations though. That frequency is quite low, and

the ground and radials under the tower provide the lower "half" of the antenna.

And the ground quality really doesn't matter that much because they will run radials

under the tower. The radials will improve the quality of the ground system, and provide

stability under changing moisture conditions, etc. So as long as you have a good radial

system, the quality of the ground really doesn't matter much.

On the VHF and UHF frequencies that are use for TV, FM radio, etc, they do not rely

on the ground or radials as part of the antenna. At those high frequencies the antennas

are much smaller, and they can build "complete" antenna systems which are mounted

to the towers. They do not rely on the ground at all to provide part of the antenna.

Myself, I think a large reason they chose that site was coverage. IE: they wanted to

be able to cover Galveston and the areas along the coast like Surfside, etc.

So I think that was probably part of the reason. In years past, there was plenty of

available land up north, but that would extend the coverage to the north towards

Conroe, etc, and they probably wanted to concentrate on the coast.

Whatever you say, but It's gonna be hard for me to tell the broadcast engineers I've worked with that all these years they were wasting their time seeking out low, wet areas for FM transmitter sites. They'll be crushed. LOL, sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm also a ham (NM5K sounds familiar actually) and former FM radio employee. Just wanted you to know I wasn't just making stuff up. Have spent some time out in one of those transmitter buildings at the base of one of the above mentioned 2,000 ft. towers. I'd say "catch you on the air", but sadly, all my equipment has been boxed up in a closet the last few years :-(