Todos
← Back to Squawk list
FAA eyes lower building height limit near airports
WASHINGTON (AP) — The government wants to dramatically reduce the allowable height of buildings near hundreds of airports — a proposal that is drawing fire from real estate developers and members of Congress who say it will reduce property values. (news.yahoo.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Well, if they'll hang on to it, that will be fine but if memory serves correct, Stapleton was that way until one time, until the airport got in a cash crunch and started selling off with no restriction, and we see how that wound up.
Correct Preacher, but my understanding of deed restrictions during the original purchase of the land says something to the effect the land cannot be sold, only leased. This also provides them with a secondary income to support the airport.
Are you talking about Stapleton or KDEN?
That's all well and good, but we do need to consider that airports receive massive public funding for construction on the basis that they promote economic development. Airports like DEN stifle the very development that they were funded to support by pushing it too far from the site itself.
What the FAA is trying to do with the new rule change is to expand its rulemaking authority farther beyond airport properties - exercising authority far more widely. More drastically, the FAA wants to expand its authority to a wider range of existing structures. For years now, neighborhoods have put up tons of resistance to airport construction projects, so to some extent, I think the FAA is basically trying to turn the tables. They make it clear themselves through the wording of the proposed rules, "The FAA is not authorized to grant or deny construction projects. ...However, zoning authorities and private insurers may be reluctant to permit construction of the structure, given the FAA’s determination that it poses a hazard to navigation." What the FAA is saying is that they want broader latitude to nuke funding for urban development projects that they don't like.
For example, suppose a city wants to build an aerial structure as part of a transit link to a major airport. The FAA might claim that a massively more expensive underground structure is needed solely because of the potential that a plane could in a worst-case scenario run into the structure. Suddenly the city is on the hook for years of new environmental impact analysis, and will simply not build the transit line 99% of the time. There is a very real risk that the new FAA rules would be used less for making airports safe but instead as a power grab on the FAA's part to ensure they can dictate all development within large swaths of land around airports.
What the FAA is trying to do with the new rule change is to expand its rulemaking authority farther beyond airport properties - exercising authority far more widely. More drastically, the FAA wants to expand its authority to a wider range of existing structures. For years now, neighborhoods have put up tons of resistance to airport construction projects, so to some extent, I think the FAA is basically trying to turn the tables. They make it clear themselves through the wording of the proposed rules, "The FAA is not authorized to grant or deny construction projects. ...However, zoning authorities and private insurers may be reluctant to permit construction of the structure, given the FAA’s determination that it poses a hazard to navigation." What the FAA is saying is that they want broader latitude to nuke funding for urban development projects that they don't like.
For example, suppose a city wants to build an aerial structure as part of a transit link to a major airport. The FAA might claim that a massively more expensive underground structure is needed solely because of the potential that a plane could in a worst-case scenario run into the structure. Suddenly the city is on the hook for years of new environmental impact analysis, and will simply not build the transit line 99% of the time. There is a very real risk that the new FAA rules would be used less for making airports safe but instead as a power grab on the FAA's part to ensure they can dictate all development within large swaths of land around airports.
It is a catch 22 but I think ultimately the responsibility is with the local airport and community to maintain those clearances. An example of that going bad is San Diego and that parking garage. Granted that is primarily on approach but it still causes a seat pucker if you are in the pointey end. Not as bad as the old KaiTak but, that could just as well be on the departure end somewhere. Some communities have been successful in getting height easements on their departure paths. You really can't blame KDEN for doing as they did after they way they got boxed in at the old one
All new airports should be built like Mirabel CYMX. They had appropriated 97000ac for the airport and environs, using all but 17000ac. From t/o to six miles out, the structures were set in one mile rings - one mile out - one story.
Well, there again, I think it is all gonna go back to a local zoning type thing but probably the FAA is gonna need to have something for the locals to back it up with. There again it is gonna be a catch 22. Needful yes, whether practical or not, idk. I do think insurers and or those financing can have some influence. Developers are looking at making money. Insurers would have to pay it out if something did go sour. idk.
Sure, but in a worst case scenario, a moving plane hit a static object...the plane pays the claim.
And then we are back to that catch 22 and a bunch of I told you so's.
Somebody still dies and a plane and building(s) get tore up.
Somebody still dies and a plane and building(s) get tore up.
A fair point Preacher, but ultimately I think that there need to be limits on what the FAA does and doesn't have a say in. I read the proposed rulemaking and it's clear to me that the FAA is trying to make sure it has a say in a very broad range of projects throughout all of the urban environment, not just in close proximity to airports.
The existing rules are already effective, the primary change seems to be that the FAA wants to use its authority to "pick winners" in city planning. The propsed rulemaking lays it out quite clearly, "This proposed policy statement addresses the
different mandates of the FAA, while recognizing the right of developers to erect structures near airports and air navigation facilities." Another way of putting it is that from the FAA's perspective, developer and city planning rights are strictly in competition with FAA mandates.
More glaring, I think that the FAA may be doing this under airline pressure:
"As long as the aircraft could operate with altered flight tracks, the FAA has not considered other potentially costly impacts to the carriers. These include...greater fuel burn, reduced payload, or reduced numbers of passengers...and the carriers have noted they are experiencing a growing erosion of capacity because of the...obstructions near airports."
That's straight from the FAA's announcement of the proposal in the Federal Register. Ultimately, what the FAA is saying is that the private airlines should be able to use the FAA as a tool for enacting urban policies that ensure airport capacity is maximized.
Look, I'll be up-front: I'm going to start working on a Masters Degree in City Planning this fall. I have a bias here. The new rulemaking does nothing more than put the desires of the airlines above the needs of entire cities. It would be the tail wagging the dog on a massive scale.
The existing rules are already effective, the primary change seems to be that the FAA wants to use its authority to "pick winners" in city planning. The propsed rulemaking lays it out quite clearly, "This proposed policy statement addresses the
different mandates of the FAA, while recognizing the right of developers to erect structures near airports and air navigation facilities." Another way of putting it is that from the FAA's perspective, developer and city planning rights are strictly in competition with FAA mandates.
More glaring, I think that the FAA may be doing this under airline pressure:
"As long as the aircraft could operate with altered flight tracks, the FAA has not considered other potentially costly impacts to the carriers. These include...greater fuel burn, reduced payload, or reduced numbers of passengers...and the carriers have noted they are experiencing a growing erosion of capacity because of the...obstructions near airports."
That's straight from the FAA's announcement of the proposal in the Federal Register. Ultimately, what the FAA is saying is that the private airlines should be able to use the FAA as a tool for enacting urban policies that ensure airport capacity is maximized.
Look, I'll be up-front: I'm going to start working on a Masters Degree in City Planning this fall. I have a bias here. The new rulemaking does nothing more than put the desires of the airlines above the needs of entire cities. It would be the tail wagging the dog on a massive scale.
On the other hand most airports were built out in the middle of "no man's land" and now development has caught up to the area. ORD in the 1960's is a perfect example. Now the developers want to encroach on all the adjoining property which can now only be controlled by zoning regulations. Without strict enforcement a developer would build a skyscraper at the end of a runway. Who looses? The developer for getting what he wanted, the flying public who is now endangered, or the developer who looses everything because the airport decides to relocate due to massive encroachment?