Todos
← Back to Squawk list
102-story Seattle skyscraper plan deemed a 'hazard' to aircraft
(CNN)With skyscrapers reaching higher each year, it seems the sky's the limit -- unless that sky is full of airplanes. That's the problem facing developers in Seattle who have had plans to build a mighty 102-story tower rejected by authorities. Their proposal for a super tall office, apartment, hotel and retail skyscraper in the city's downtown represents a "presumed hazard" to air traffic, says the Federal Aviation Administration. (www.cnn.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I live in Seattle, and I've read news reports alleging the building will not receive approval due to the city's proclivity to earthquakes. We'll see.
It may hinge on the dependability of the leases the developers took out on the politicians responsible for the sign-offs.
This happens almost every time a new "tallest" building is proposed in a city. I don't know the specifics of this, but it is not unusual, upon appeal, for the FAA to grant permission, revise their charts and move on. Sometimes the erection cranes are the problem because they will be 100+' or so taller than the building even if they are temporary.
The FAA is a LOT easier to deal with on these issues than the military.
The FAA is a LOT easier to deal with on these issues than the military.
It is hard to tell what really happened with a case unless you are following it at the time.
The FAA’s OE/AAA website: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp only shows the latest determination.
There are a lot of cases. At that web site, in the column on the left side, select “Circle Search for Cases” and put in your favorite airport and see what comes up.
In cases I have been involved in the developer and the FAA went back and forth with the developer modifying the plans until the FAA gave a “DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION”. If you look at that case now you would have no idea that happened. And even though the building is not a hazard the FAA may well mark it on the charts.
The FAA’s OE/AAA website: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp only shows the latest determination.
There are a lot of cases. At that web site, in the column on the left side, select “Circle Search for Cases” and put in your favorite airport and see what comes up.
In cases I have been involved in the developer and the FAA went back and forth with the developer modifying the plans until the FAA gave a “DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION”. If you look at that case now you would have no idea that happened. And even though the building is not a hazard the FAA may well mark it on the charts.
OK the plan but only if the developer and his entire family are required to live on the top floor.
B- The Seattle skyline is an obstacle for both SEA-TAC and KBFI-Boeing Field so this is a completely sensible ruling...if you disagree, look at a map before you post. It's a valid concern, not government meddling or Port of Seattle peddling to the FAA.
C- The 499 feet height limit is a standard Seattle DPD zoning limit, which means any development approved for going above that height incurs a "bonus" payment (which is then used to pay for in-city low-income housing, btw). The current height of Columbia Center is 967 feet.