Seeing that the runway at London City Airport points in a westwards direction almost straight at the tall buildings of Canary Wharf and the distance between the runway end and the buildings is only about two miles, here's two questions:

How was it that the airport was allowed to be built in the first place? Or, if it was proposed before the Isle of Dogs development, how was the latter allowed to go ahead?

How many close 'close shaves' have there been between aeroplanes taking off to or landing from the west and the tall buildings? A work colleague travelling into City Airport recently told me that she was alarmed at the closeness of her plane to the buildings.

The airport opened before Canary Wharf began construction. I belive the glide path is to the north of the estate. The same glide path restricts building heights in the City and the Isle of dogs.

It shouldn't be too dangerous, what might look quite close to a passanger will be a tough but acceptable landing to a pilot.

I believe the main Airport in Iceland for example, is like flying into a mountain, but pulling out just at the last minute.

I think London City Airport was built before the Canary Wharf so they must have studied if any plane routes are passing by the Canary Wharf area...

No need to worry about the planes, mate... :) It wasn't until a couple of decades ago (1988, to be exact) that the Canary Wharf complex started to be built, and I'm sure they had in mind the situation of the City Airport before they began construction of the 3 main skyscrapers. And as this guy said above, it might look quite close from the building or the ground, but not close enough for pilots not to do a perfect, non-challenging and safe landing :)

Anyway, security is always a concern, and that's why the descent path into the airport was designed to have a very steep angle (5.5°, which means almost 600ft/nm) compared to other airports (i.e. Gatwick, 3°). The distance between the runway and the buildings is almost 3.5 nautical miles, which means that, aircrafts operating and complying with security standars, would be at around 2,000 feet when they fly above Canary Wharf, and that's more than 1,200 ft!! above the tallest building in the complex. As you can see, there's still plenty of room for pilots' errors ;)

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b66/alz237/eglcwharf.jpg

From: http://icthewharf.icnetwork.co.uk/thisweek/news/tm_objectid=16940648%26method=full%26siteid=71670%26headline=jobs%2dboost%2dfrom%2dairport%2dgrowth-name_page.html
______________________
JOBS BOOST FROM AIRPORT GROWTH
Apr 13 2006

Alan Lodge

LONDON City Airport (LCA) is aiming to maintain its status as Britain's fastest-growing airport and create more than 4,000 jobs by 2030.

The Royal Docks-based airport also aims to increase its passenger numbers to eight million a year, according to the recently-published Master Plan.

Despite the impressive figures, LCA will continue to operate as normal, closing at night and for 24 hours over the weekend in order to give its Docks neighbours a break from the roar of overhead engines.

Significantly, 66 per cent of the 1,445 jobs supported by the airport are held by people who live in Docklands.

If a similar pattern continues until 2030, more than 2,700 jobs will be available for Docklands residents at the airport by the end of the plan. The airport estimates that by 2015 passenger numbers will grow from 2million passengers per year to 3.5m, and will reach 8m by 2030.

The forecasts are based on the economic growth projections for east London within the Greater London Authority's London Plan.

The Master Plan predicts that the London Olympic Games in 2012 will mean the growth in passenger numbers at LCA will be particularly strong during the early stages of the plan, seeing as it is just two miles from the main Games site, which will be served by new Docklands Light Railway links from the airport.

It's a shame the airport is located where it is. Otherwise there would be no height limit at Canary Wharf.

I reside in the development next to City Airport (near the bridge) and all planes come in from the East straight onto the runway. During peak times, I guess there's a plane every 120 seconds.

One particular tower came to our attention for restrictions: the Columbus Tower, which I think is being abandoned due to the project proprietors death. IIRC, it was put back to 237 meters still meeting fierce opposition due to playing with safety of the planes take off. What I don't understand is, the building was set for Hertsmere Road, which is actually further from Canada Tower!

The height limit at Canary Wharf is on a case-by-case basis I believe. It was - 'let us build' as we give London City Airport business. Restricting building height is damaging London City.

Singapore also has restrictions to 280m. Now that is funny, as that's the whole country.

This two videos clearly show the distance from the landing plane at LCY to Canary Wharf complex

eYphk9-Zw9M

and the second one (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2135381608394479217&q=london+city+airport) from google.video

This two videos clearly show the distance from the landing plane at LCY to Canary Wharf complex

eYphk9-Zw9M

and the second one (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2135381608394479217&q=london+city+airport) from google.video

An amazing video mate!

wow - can you imagine how impressive/scary that landing would be IF the buildings were any taller.

Nice one

from the riverside south thread-

ok, that makes it 2 (!) future buildings (the others were obviously not even going for that height and found it more economical to stay far below it) in the city that are restricted by that height limit. All I'm saying is that the costs of moving an airport into an area that's generally even less appropriate (the current location is quite ideal in terms of it's proximity to CW/the center while having hardly any direct neighbours) are not economically made up by a few buildings that would be built higher than that invisible ceiling

there are many more buildings that have been affected. someone can give you a better list than i can.
foster's 386 metre london millenium tower springs to mind.

# The London Millenium Tower was the original plan for the Baltic Exchange, the site of Swiss RE, which was gutted by an IRA bomb in 1992.

# It was finally cancelled due to concerns planes would fly into it.

if you take it by the numbers how many have been affected, you can then think how many weren't even proposed in the first place, due to the CAA limits.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/67LondonMillenniumTower_pic1.jpg

if you want to find any others just read down this list http://www.skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?city=London
and see which ones mention CAA limits. when you stop at about 230 metres this stops (i think) being the case? or has it affected shorter proposals?

I used to live in West Silvertown and the planes would come down across Victoria Dock towards the airport. The look low but couldn't have been as they still built Capital East and the building across from it. Being much smaller planes aswell they can move much easier then jumbo's ect.

from the riverside south thread-



there are many more buildings that have been affected. someone can give you a better list than i can.
foster's 386 metre london millenium tower springs to mind.



if you take it by the numbers how many have been affected, you can then think how many weren't even proposed in the first place, due to the CAA limits.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/67LondonMillenniumTower_pic1.jpg

if you want to find any others just read down this list http://www.skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?city=London
and see which ones mention CAA limits. when you stop at about 230 metres this stops (i think) being the case? or has it affected shorter proposals?

hmm, considering the city has limits only a bit above those in CW - would it even help that much to move city airport considering that Heathrow (from which as far as I found out the limit is resulting) is so far from the city and still leading to quite restrictive limits because of the not as steep descent angle compared to city airport. With CW being in a straight line behind the city from Heathrow and not that much further from Heathrow I guess this means we would gain not much more than those 60 meters the city's limit is higher. A reasonable gain for us skyscraper enthusiasts but in economic terms not a huge one and very far from allowing the super talls we would be dreaming of..

that's about all i know without doing research into it which i'd love to do if i had the time/ spare brain cells to absorb it all.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/skynews.php?qws=all&ktd=0&qw=civil+aviation&x=0&y=0
-that should keep you going. i've just remembered crossharbour was lopped.
i don't know the answer regarding heathrow's impact. but that is a good point. do you have a source?

that's about all i know without doing research into it which i'd love to do if i had the time/ spare brain cells to absorb it all.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/skynews.php?qws=all&ktd=0&qw=civil+aviation&x=0&y=0
-that should keep you going. i've just remembered crossharbour was lopped.
i don't know the answer regarding heathrow's impact. but that is a good point. do you have a source?

http://www.geocities.com/picketfence/4191/lonmil.html

Yes, the Millennium Tower proposed for the site of the Gherkin was turned down for being tall for the Heathrow flight path, or planes in general. It was twice the height of 10CS. Unless airplanes fly around buildings then it would seem there is a height maximum some where there.

and there was also a nice discussion on the whole height limit story following that message

The top of Canary Wharf is only 8ft short of the obstacle free zone for LCY's western approach.

that's about all i know without doing research into it which i'd love to do if i had the time/ spare brain cells to absorb it all.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/skynews.php?qws=all&ktd=0&qw=civil+aviation&x=0&y=0
-that should keep you going. i've just remembered crossharbour was lopped.
i don't know the answer regarding heathrow's impact. but that is a good point. do you have a source?

found another interesting option (obviously it is open to any potential investor in a CW skyscraper) in the following skyscraper news article on Columbus tower:

"The developers of Columbus Tower could pay off the owners of City Airport. Rumours have been flying for months that they have tried to buy the airport for half a billion pounds to shut them up."
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=24704222

actually makes quite some sense considering the enormous amount of prime residential construction ground one would get as a side effect of getting rid of the city airport induced height restrictions.

However the question remains how much one would actually gain in terms of height limit (see earlier posts about the probable influence of Heathrow) and if it would even be possible to get planning permission for something that would replace a very successful airport and in that a vital part of the London infrastructure especially for CW itself..

another thing, mace are saying the pinnacle is constricted by london city airport.
source http://www.macegroup.com/projects/project-library/the-pinnacle


Mace Group is project managing delivery of The Pinnacle, a 1.5 million ft2 commercial office tower situated on Bishopsgate in the heart of the city of London. At 300 metres high the tower will mark the capital's build ceiling, governed by the flight path into City Airport and with over 60 floors and one million ft2 of rentable space, it is also likely to be the city's largest single commercial office building.

Given the height of the tower, the piling phase is also set to be among the biggest such jobs undertaken in the UK. There will be 60 main 2.4m piles reaching a depth of 60 metres and each pile will require 13 hours of continuous concrete pour.

In addition to its project management role, Mace is also construction manager on the basement constrution, piling and enabling works and CDM coordinator across the project.

Logistical difficulties are posed by the close proximity of neighbours, noise constraints and limited access to the site.

Designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox architects with snakeskin effect cladding, The Pinnacle is sometimes referred to as ‘The Helter Skelter'. Completion is scheduled for 2012.

i see you posted the wrong link stefan- here it is http://skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=278
:)

it appears from that article that the rumour about columbus' developers was not that they wanted to move it but that they wanted to own the airport simply so they, the owner, would be able to remove the airport's objection.

anyway, here's another couple of interesting sentences:

These developments combined with Columbus Tower total approximately £3 billion pounds in value which raises a question on the economic viability of City Airport on the surrounding area.

To add to the riddle, City Airport mainly takes executive sized aircraft which carry passengers largely to Canary Wharf. Blocking office developments in the area hampers further passenger growth of the airport and restricts its own revenues.

another thought-
croydon's proposals wouldn't exist if london city airport was further out. i wonder if there's any truth to that.
if it is true, and indeed what is happening in stratford, how much are commuters, locals, government, businesses, etc paying for:
-transport to these far out areas
-congestion by more people making cross town journeys

http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/picturepage?pic=492000023&table=pictures

found this chart (everything more detailed has to be bought) which shows the different control zones for helicopter traffic around London which from what I read is affected by the same limitations as tall buildings

It matches with your MACE reference in that the city is only limited by city airport and not Heathrow unlike it was hinted at in those older sources (which anyways weren't that impressive) about the Millennium Tower

So getting rid of City airport in it's current position would indeed make a big difference for all the major skyscraper zones (CW+city) in London

it appears from that article that the rumour about columbus' developers was not that they wanted to move it but that they wanted to own the airport simply so they, the owner, would be able to remove the airport's objection.


that's true. However it seems at that time City airport was going a bit crazy (I think one can say so as there was nothing much to be gained anymore with the tallest building - 1CS - already standing) and putting in objections which were far more restrictive than the CAA limits (see eg. the RS ones mentioned in the text) and only those objections going further than CAA would be solvable by just taking over City airport and not removing/relocating it from it's current position. However later on it seems city airport either came to reason by itself or was brought so by the council because as we know not only Columbus tower went through planning but also those other projects like RS and HQW - and those even higher than proposed at the time.

Still the idea remains in the open for developers to take over city airport and go even further meaning to close it down (in case they are allowed to do so which remains a big question mark) and therefore remove not only the over restrictive objections but all the restrictions posed by city airport.


anyway, here's another couple of interesting sentences:

These developments combined with Columbus Tower total approximately £3 billion pounds in value which raises a question on the economic viability of City Airport on the surrounding area.


I know this point quite goes along the line of your original argumentation. It has to be taken into consideration however that in the meantime (since this was written) all of those proposals successfully went through planing - as illustrated earlier some of them even higher than proposed at the time. Obviously we don't know what would happen without restrictions, but at least those 3 billion cannot be put forward anymore like they were here..


To add to the riddle, City Airport mainly takes executive sized aircraft which carry passengers largely to Canary Wharf. Blocking office developments in the area hampers further passenger growth of the airport and restricts its own revenues.


that point has to be seen also the other way around - CW and the City profiting from the infrastructure advantage brought to them by city airport..

I remember once flying into Hong Kong's Kai Tak Airport and that was regarded as one of the most dangerous airports to fly into due it being surrounded by either Mountains, sea or tall buildings.

Check out this link ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2885360669290137595&hl=en ) to see how close they are actually are - about 30 secs in.

Going back to the history of the area around CW and the airport. LCY was built during the first phase of development on the Isle of Dogs when it was designated as Enterprise Zone and most of the buildings in the area were no more than 5 floors - very few of these building now remain on the 'Dogs'. The Canary Wharf complex was created when the LDDC took over the LEZ and developed the site as a centre for business.

The airport itself was originally proposed and built by the LDDC chairman Reg Ward before the CW complex was built, and in many ways the airport could be said to be the deciding factor to build Canary Wharf where it is.

Incidentally...

In last weeks Wharf their main story was that the owners of City airport may be putting together a bid for Gatwick now that BAA have to sell it.

Not sure how that might affect City Airport and Docklands - maybe it'll mean they'll concentrate on expanding Gatwick and just have City Airport as a premium 'business class' airport - which would limit the number of flights going from there.

You do realise the city airport is planning to increase flights from 80,000 to 120,000 flights per year & have plans to redevelopment parts of the terminals & airport.

It is also more & more attractive to the major airlines who want to operate from thereas it attracts more business trade from Heathrow.

This airport ain't gonna close anytime soon.

I remember once flying into Hong Kong's Kai Tak Airport and that was regarded as one of the most dangerous airports to fly into due it being surrounded by either Mountains, sea or tall buildings.

Check out this link ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2885360669290137595&hl=en ) to see how close they are actually are - about 30 secs in.

holy cow! great video.
quite entertaining with some rock music played over itunes in the background.:cheers:

http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/picturepage?pic=492000023&table=pictures

found this chart (everything more detailed has to be bought) which shows the different control zones for helicopter traffic around London which from what I read is affected by the same limitations as tall buildings

It matches with your MACE reference in that the city is only limited by city airport and not Heathrow unlike it was hinted at in those older sources (which anyways weren't that impressive) about the Millennium Tower

So getting rid of City airport in it's current position would indeed make a big difference for all the major skyscraper zones (CW+city) in London

By thinking more about this - isn't the one thing that sounds irrationally strict the fact that the city is more than twice as far from city airport than CW but the height limit is only 20% higher? Maybe moving an extremely successful airport is asked a bit much - but having another thought about if that limit for the city is not a few hundred meters too strict wouldn't cost a dime..

I remember once flying into Hong Kong's Kai Tak Airport and that was regarded as one of the most dangerous airports to fly into due it being surrounded by either Mountains, sea or tall buildings.

Check out this link ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2885360669290137595&hl=en ) to see how close they are actually are - about 30 secs in.

Sorry to go OT, but thought you might enjoy this: Kai Tak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCOcyt7BPI)

Would changing the alignment of the runway by some degrees within the current site have any effect?

I imagine pilots find it already challenging landing on a straight runway parallel to two docks, I doubt they would be happy trying to land on one now at an angle to the waterside.

You do realise the city airport is planning to increase flights from 80,000 to 120,000 flights per year & have plans to redevelopment parts of the terminals & airport.

It is also more & more attractive to the major airlines who want to operate from thereas it attracts more business trade from Heathrow.

This airport ain't gonna close anytime soon.

That's kinda what I was wondering when I mentioned that they may be about to buy Gatwick.

If they did get their hands on there, would they postpone their plans for City Airport while they sorted out Gatwick first?

I believe the plans for upgrading LCY have already been accepted by the relevant bodies and is already underway. It's only because it was called back by Boris that its making all this news now.

The terminal plans were logged at Newham council a couple of years ago in the Airports 10 year Development plan. When they built the DLR extension they had to ensure the new route didn't affect the plans for the airport hence why a primary school was demolished instead of part of the airports buildings - ironically I think these are the ones that will be demolished and rebuilt as an extension to the passenger terminal building, if you look at the DLR station there is second entrance/exit to the platforms which would serve the extension but they are currently only used as escape routes incase of fire.

That's kinda what I was wondering when I mentioned that they may be about to buy Gatwick.

If they did get their hands on there, would they postpone their plans for City Airport while they sorted out Gatwick first?

I doubt they would. Gatwick & the City airport are two distinct markets. City airports mainly caters to business travellers & will continue to do so as the City & CW growths at the expense of Heathrow.

Mayor backs City Airport's plan to boost flights by half
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23554098-details/Mayor+backs+City+Airport%27s+plan+to+boost+flights+by+half/article.do)Pippa Crerar, City Hall Editor
11.09.08

Boris Johnson has given the "green light" to City Airport plans that could see a 50 per cent increase in flights.

Newham Council delayed a decision to grant planning permission last month after Mr Johnson intervened, saying he wanted the project to meet certain conditions first.

These included concerns that land earmarked for regeneration could be blighted and that the planning case for a Thames Gateway bridge damaged.

However, the Mayor's office confirmed that he was now happy to back the proposal, which would see an increase in the number of flights from 80,000 to 120,000 a year by 2010.

In a letter to airport bosses before the conditions were met, Mr Johnson said: "I strongly recognise and appreciate the contribution City Airport makes to London's world city status, and the benefits the airport offers to the City and Canary Wharf.

"I also recognise and support the economic contribution and employment opportunities it provides for Newham residents. These would be enhanced by the current proposals and, as such, I offer support for the expansion sought."

However, he warned that any further expansion would be "extremely difficult" to justify or support. The airport planning application will not cross his desk but his informal support could help its chances with the local authority and the Government.

Green Assembly member Darren Johnson criticised the Mayor for his "totally unbelievable" position on expanding City Airport.

"This flies in the face of any environmental commitment the Mayor has got and it's just going to add to noise problems," he said.

"We need to use that land in east London far more productively for housing and for green industries, not for an airport that is just going to cause environmental problems. It's unnecessary to have an airport there now and the scheduled flights it has are well served by the Channel Tunnel rail link."

City Airport chiefs have no plans to build a new runway, change the airport's hours of operation or to bring in night flights. Instead it would increase capacity during current working hours.

Bosses developed the plan for more flights in response to the Government's Aviation White Paper, which requires operators to maximise use of existing runways before building new ones.

Residents near the airport already say noise levels are unacceptable.

It's a shame the airport is located where it is. Otherwise there would be no height limit at Canary Wharf.

Totally agree - Very stupid planning indeed.

City airport is only catering to very few people mostly working in CW so there must be a plan in place to shut it down once crossrail is complete so that all the air traffic goes to Heathrow or other airports.

Remove any height restrictions in CW and let if add bulk too by expanding into Isle of Dogs.

Totally agree - Very stupid planning indeed.

City airport is only catering to very few people mostly working in CW so there must be a plan in place to shut it down once crossrail is complete so that all the air traffic goes to Heathrow or other airports.

Remove any height restrictions in CW and let if add bulk too by expanding into Isle of Dogs.

I think there were plans to do just that at one point. Pretty sure that ideas been ditched now though.

There is surely nothing to prevent tall building construction further south on IOD away from the glidepath. Otherwise I would love to rotate the runway just 20 degrees clockwise or shift it 2 miles east.

Totally agree - Very stupid planning indeed.

City airport is only catering to very few people mostly working in CW so there must be a plan in place to shut it down once crossrail is complete so that all the air traffic goes to Heathrow or other airports.

Remove any height restrictions in CW and let if add bulk too by expanding into Isle of Dogs.

LCY predates most of the redevelopment in the Docklands area, so people whining about its existence need to be spayed to stop them breeding.

It's popular with the major businesses who prefer the convenience and high-class customer service.

These are the people who have conned entire nations into bailing out their "too big to fail" corporations and gotten away with it! They've even paid themselves handsome bonuses for doing so. How long do you think these poor, delicate lambs would survive if they had to mix with the hoi-polloi—the lowing cattle using Stansted, the braying masses at Gatwick, and the foreign gap year students at Heathrow?

These are people who are happy to spend £1000+ on flights to places like Zürich, Basel, Monaco or Luxembourg. These are not the kind of people who travel to work by Tube or DLR.

LCY predates most of the redevelopment in the Docklands area, so people whining about its existence need to be spayed to stop them breeding.

It's popular with the major businesses who prefer the convenience and high-class customer service.

These are the people who have conned entire nations into bailing out their "too big to fail" corporations and gotten away with it! They've even paid themselves handsome bonuses for doing so. How long do you think these poor, delicate lambs would survive if they had to mix with the hoi-polloi—the lowing cattle using Stansted, the braying masses at Gatwick, and the foreign gap year students at Heathrow?

These are people who are happy to spend £1000+ on flights to places like Zürich, Basel, Monaco or Luxembourg. These are not the kind of people who travel to work by Tube or DLR.

But preDating CW does not absolve the planners of their incompetence...
they should have had a plan to get rid of that airport when they allowed 1 Canada Square ..

And these people who use City Airport would most directly benefit if plannin g restrictions were lifted in CW.. They shud be able to see that.

Start a helicopter service to connect to heathrow if they cant travel in the tube / Crossrail

You may be right. My aunt has used the service from Paris once or twice though. She is 'none of the above'.

They should close City Airport once Crossrail is up and running, and turn the area into an experimentation to modern architecture. Starchitects can go crazy building designer skyscrapers right by the docks. It could be like Tokyo's Odaiba district. We can do something crazy here like build an indoor ski resort like in Dubai, and have beside it an artificial beach like Brisbane's Streets Beach (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Streetsbeachsouthbankparklands.jpg). And have the area lined up across the dock with glass-covered condominiums similar to Miami and Vancouver.

But preDating CW does not absolve the planners of their incompetence...
they should have had a plan to get rid of that airport when they allowed 1 Canada Square ..

LCY is one of the reasons CW exists at all! The people whose offices are right up at the top of those skybotherers are the ones who want a convenient little airport just for them!

Granted, the occasional pleb sometimes flies from LCY too, but its primary customer base is rich bastards with lots of money and a frequent, urgent need to travel to and from places in continental Europe. Time is money for these people.

Has anyone ever thought of moving/merging London City Airport with London Biggin Hill to avoid this problem? Obviously transport links would have to be improved and built to Canary Wharf.