THIS MAP IS OFFICIAL AS OF 2005, as you can see there are places where over 1000 is allowed/.

http://www.miami-airport.com/pdfdoc/MIA-AHZAMz_11X17-MIA_HEIGHT_RESTRICTION_MAP_11x17.pdf

THIS MAP IS OFFICIAL AS OF 2005, as you can see there are places where over 1000 is allowed/.

http://www.miami-airport.com/pdfdoc/MIA-AHZAMz_11X17-MIA_HEIGHT_RESTRICTION_MAP_11x17.pdf

Yes but the areas where buildings over 1000 feet are allowed are where they are never going to happen. The tallest it gets in the downtown area is 949. It doesnt help that the county would allow 1000 footers on the beach if Miami Beach doesn't. 1000 footers in Dadeland maybe?

Now we know that Brickell Financial Center and Met 3 probably both have been approved by the FAA, if Brickell Financial Center has yet to go up for approval, then it most likely will get approved when it does. Both buildings are in the "949 foot area". Interestingly enough the site of the Empire World Towers, farther north, has a much lower height limit, which probably is part of the reason why those towers won't be built.

Yeah...I'm seeing the same thing you guys are. Supertalls are only allowed on the Beach (which obviously ain't gonna happen) unless somebody plans on putting one in the middle of Biscayne Bay.

949 looks like it for downtown, which is a little disappointing but at least we finally have something definitive to go by. And hey---in a city that currently has nothing even close to that height who wouldn't be happy to see something rise to that level even if supertall is just out of reach?

(kudos again to Architek for posting the info)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/BornInTheGrove/MIA_HL.jpg

judging by the picture, the trapezoid area covering, pretty much the heart of the city, lies the potential for a supertall. i mean lets face it, that area can house at least a couple supertalls. If this is the area that has to date the highest allowable limit, then this is the furthest a plane will be from buildings.

I really think the FAA should lighten up on the restrictions. I mean, come on... in all fairness, it all boils down to seniority; the city was here first.

Now we know that Brickell Financial Center and Met 3 probably both have been approved by the FAA, if Brickell Financial Center has yet to go up for approval, then it most likely will get approved when it does. Both buildings are in the "949 foot area". Interestingly enough the site of the Empire World Towers, farther north, has a much lower height limit, which probably is part of the reason why those towers won't be built.

Again lets not start spreading rumors about what has and hasn't been approved,until I see an article saying met3 was cleared as a nonhazard it has not been approved.

and the interesting fact i foundout was the miami dade aviation is the one responsible for the height limits in the end there in charge of maintaining the municipal airspace. While the faa is just notified and usually brought in just to check things out.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/BornInTheGrove/MIA_HL.jpg

judging by the picture, the trapezoid area covering, pretty much the heart of the city, lies the potential for a supertall. i mean lets face it, that area can house at least a couple supertalls. If this is the area that has to date the highest allowable limit, then this is the furthest a plane will be from buildings.

I really think the FAA should lighten up on the restrictions. I mean, come on... in all fairness, it all boils down to seniority; the city was here first.

I agree, that area is the most likely for a supertall, or even just a tower between 900-1000 feet, something we don't have now. I think that in 20 years there will be 4-5 towers over 900 feet in that trapezoid, and if the FAA were to loosen height restrictions, that would be the area that a supertall would get built, NOT farther north near the Empire World Tower site (Park West) where many people think one will be built first.

Coruna you need to read what i write more often, the decision comes down to the miami dade aviation depaprtment, the faa just steps in,in extreme cases.

FAA IS INCHARGE OF ANYTHING OVER 1000 FT

FAA STEPS IN TO GIVE CLEARANCE ON PROJECTS BUT CITY CAN ALLOW CLEARANCE IF NO HAZAARD IS FOUND IN WHICH FAA HAS NO SAY ASLONG AS ITS UNDER 1000FT ANYTHING OVER 1000FT HAS TO HAVE FAA APROVAL AND IS UNDER GOVT JURISDICTION...

THESE THINGS CAN BE BATTLED AND IF NO HAZAARD IS SHOWN FAA ALLOWS THE PROJECT (GOOD LIGHTING ONTOP OF TOWERS, CLUSTER OF TALL TOWERS TOGETHER) THESE ARE EXCUSES FOR A TOWER TO BE ALLOWED CLEARANCE.

the decision comes down to the miami dade aviation depaprtment, the faa just steps in,in extreme cases.

FAA IS INCHARGE OF ANYTHING OVER 1000 FT

Really? ;)

FAA Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) (https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp)

In administering Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations CFR Part 77, the prime objectives of the FAA are to promote air safety and the efficient use of the navigable airspace.

OE/AAA Filing Process

If your organization is planning to sponsor any construction or alterations which may affect navigable airspace, you must file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) with the FAA.

---

Who Needs to File:

CFR Title 14 Part 77.13 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 (100 feet horizontally for each foot vertically) surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one 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 that 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.


In other words, with regard to that last emboldened line, if your intended construction or alteration even so much as breaks a 100:1 plane within 20,000 feet (~3.8 miles) of an airport such as Miami, you need to notify the FAA for obstruction evaluation:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8285/untitled1ui8.jpg
Advisory Circular 70/7460-2K (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/22990146db0931f186256c2a00721867/$FILE/ac70-7460-2K.pdf)


That said, even though downtown Miami lies just outside this particular distance threshold, it *still* must comply with the notation stating that any construction or alteration proposal exceeding 200 feet AGL (above ground level) must first be submitted to the FAA for Obstruction Evaluation, regardless of how far away from an airport its intended location may be.


Let's squash any other rumors once and for all.

Bum

It's so unfortunate that one of the great elements of Miami, the easy commute to the airport, also creates a condition of limitations on its great buildings. I want my cake and to eat it too!

Couldnt the airplanes just make a steeper climb? Is this just a percaution in case of a crash or something? If that happens than I dont think a few hundred feet would make a difference. What plane flies at 1k feet anyway? Thats kinda low. The MIA is still pretty far away from downtown.

just wait and see what happens when the tower goes for approval then lets continue the 1000ft discussion...

i always said that would be the first spot a 1000 ft tower would be built and i predicted 2007 im still 99.9 percent accurate on that one

Will your prediction of super-talls behind the Biscayne wall suffice though?

Born in the Grove thanks for posting the map...it's great to know we can build supertalls in the middle of Biscayne Bay....:ohno:

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the burning of fuel. If you go up to fast you burn a lot more fuel. However, when I go on a plane, I've flow over DT so many times, coming in and out of Miami. We never get close to any building. By that time we are at least 5000 ft. So I really don't know what the problem is. There is something else here that is the defining factor about height of buildings. Some other political game.

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the burning of fuel. If you go up to fast you burn a lot more fuel.


From what I've read, it is about the fuel, but also a safety issue. Normal take offs and landings aren't affected as much, but these heights are based on worst case scenarios, not perfect conditions. If they lose an engine on takeoff, we don't want it to end up in the back of EWT.

From what I've read, it is about the fuel, but also a safety issue. Normal take offs and landings aren't affected as much, but these heights are based on worst case scenarios, not perfect conditions. If they lose an engine on takeoff, we don't want it to end up in the back of EWT.



Very true. I didn't consider that.

Couldnt the airplanes just make a steeper climb?

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the burning of fuel. If you go up to fast you burn a lot more fuel.

From what I've read, it is about the fuel, but also a safety issue. Normal take offs and landings aren't affected as much, but these heights are based on worst case scenarios, not perfect conditions. If they lose an engine on takeoff, we don't want it to end up in the back of EWT.


Guess it's time for another refresher around here...

If you truly want to understand why MIA provides the woes of short-heightedness it does to downtown Miami, you will read these 3 posts to learn that it's not about the takeoffs, but the landings.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10899865&postcount=340
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10903014&postcount=345
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10924819&postcount=349

Warning...NOT for the Technically-Challenged. ;)

Thanks for the info... again.

The purpose of that green trapezoid downtown seems to give more precise, interpolated heights, but does anyone know why the max. is all 949' instead of higher (if the diagonal 1000' and 1100' lines on the east side were extended.)

Another thought, instead of in Biscayne Bay, why not have a massive building on the Port of Miami property? Ok, it doesn't really promote street-level urban development and is a bit too far to be integrated with downtown. But it would surely look like a monument or icon tower alone by itself in the middle of the bay, with great views from all around. They could call it the Miami Lighthouse, and it could have an obnoxious circulating neon light on top, as a symbol how Miami welcomes all. :) haha, maybe not

believe it or not... I've thought of that idea myself

Another thought, instead of in Biscayne Bay, why not have a massive building on the Port of Miami property? Ok, it doesn't really promote street-level urban development and is a bit too far to be integrated with downtown. But it would surely look like a monument or icon tower alone by itself in the middle of the bay, with great views from all around. They could call it the Miami Lighthouse, and it could have an obnoxious circulating neon light on top, as a symbol how Miami welcomes all. :) haha, maybe not

Hmmm...maybe a 1200-foot Julia Tuttle with laser beams emanating from her eyes (on a revolving head, of course). I could live with that.

Actually, you guys remember the long-ago proposal to build a Christopher Columbus statue in the bay? The damn thing was supposed to straddle Miami Beach and Fisher Island if I remember correctly...with boaters and cruise ships passing through his legs (insert obvious joke here).

The entire thing was nonsense, obviously, but I actually WANTED to see the stupid thing built. It would have been so damn ridiculous that it would have made the leap to greatness.

Here's a pretty relevant pic that I just came across, taken in April:



http://us.airliners.net/photos/small/6/5/5/1214556.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1214556/L/)
(click for larger)


Certainly puts the height limits into perspective.

Certainly puts the height limits into perspective.

Yes it does. Cool pic, though.

I was thinking, what if they built a tower here...

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1908/towerlocationju7.jpg

the obvious white areas being the parts to build, the line being a road/pathway to the tower, and the circle being the tower base/tower itself.

I've always though of an observation tower, I made a concept:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8759/toweryw5.png
(This, of course, would not be its final colors, this is just a model. Also, probably not to scale, but you get the general idea.)

Basically there would be a road and a path leading to the tower, the path would go uphill and then be over the road. The path would lead directly to a lobby, the road would lead to the lower levels, which would be a parking garage.

At the top of this tower there would be an inner sphere, then an outer sphere made of glass and framework. In the outer sphere, there would be two levels, the lower level a restaurant, the upper level a waiting area for an IMAX theater, which would be in the inner sphere.

At night, lights on the inside of the outer sphere would light up the outside of the inner sphere, and a beam of light would shoot up towards the sky from the tip of the spire at the top. The framework on the midsection of the tower would also light up at night, different colors, possibly changing every few seconds.

You're very creative^^ You might, however, have some people here disagree with you wheter an observation tower should go up in Miami.

On May 15th a new height ordinance made its way to the "Governmental Operations and Environment Committee" of the MD Commission.

On page 15 of the document below you'll find this tidbit:
HSA or High structure set-aside district. A "high structure set-aside district" is established which identifies an area where tall buildings and other structures may be permitted with limited impact on the capacity and operation of Miami International Airport....This district shall be known as the 1010-foot AMSL boundary district. It shall have a maximum allowable height of 1010 feet AMSL."

It then goes on to list a bunch of latitude-longitude points. Anyone want to plot those out and see exactly where they lie? I plotted one (approximately) and it is in the middle of downtown Miami.

Here is the ordinace:
http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/legistarfiles/Matters/Y2007/070870.pdf

By the way it says the new ordinance passed 11-0.

Anyone want to plot those out and see exactly where they lie?

If I remember, I'll do it tonight.

I tried to plot them out on Google Maps, here's the result:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=25.765963,-80.184917&spn=0.036407,0.080338&z=14&om=1&msid=118351584801828161278.00000112e43fcd6e2ade3

MMMMmmmmmmm. How about a 1010 footer on Brickell Key!

I plotted them too and I concur with arch ... it stays east of N miami ave and south of 6 st southward enough to barely include 4 seasons and also out in the bay enough to encompass all of brickell key. It's a much larger area than I had imagined or hoped for but on the down side most of this area is already built out. Looking far into the future miami's tallest will probably be on the east side of north miami ave

I think 400 Brickell is the best spot for a supertall.

and with this ladies and gentlemen... i officially hope that met 3 never gets built.... i want something TALLER. And no more damn condos

and with this ladies and gentlemen... i officially hope that met 3 never gets built.... i want something TALLER. And no more damn condos

How about a taller met 3?

Yep, spot-on:

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/743/untitled1ha0.jpg


By the way, I think there's one thing that needs to be addressed, which seems everyone has lost sight of... The simple, yet all-important notion that this limitation is based on height above mean sea level (AMSL), not above ground level. Which means, for instance, if the elevation of the building at ground level is already 11 feet above mean sea level, then the building itself can only be 999 feet tall to remain within the 1,010-foot AMSL limitation!

I'm not sure how much of a factor this is within the above-outlined area, but I have to assume the ground-level elevations in that area bring it pretty damn close to disallowing even an *exact* 1,000-foot building...There's only a ≤ 10-foot margin in ground-level elevation to work with, in order to still allow a supertall. And considering the usual tidewaters are never lapping over onto Brickell Ave, I have to believe the surrounding area is up at least 7-10 feet above mean sea level by default.

Would be great if someone could post an elevations map of the vicinity. That'll let us know what we're really dealing with...

and with this ladies and gentlemen... i officially hope that met 3 never gets built.... i want something TALLER. And no more damn condos
^^
Born in the Grove:) ,
my friend, ITS too late,
My special sales lady at the MET 3 sales trailer has told me ,
they are over the 50 % sold on MET 3,
and It will be built AS IS :banana: !!! at over 820 feet, all 75 floors,
ALL Condos , a Whole Foods Market at the ground floor, and Completed by the end of 2011,
residents are going to start moving in by the Spring of 2012 !!!:cheers:

I say it Again,

GO CRANES !!!:banana2: :righton: :cheer: :nocrook: :cool: :pepper:

Would be great if someone could post an elevations map of the vicinity. That'll let us know what we're really dealing with...

Alright, I took the liberty myself. Here's the best elevation map I could find, with the 1,010' limitation box outlined in blue. The thin brown lines show equal lines of elevation (in multiples of 5), and the respective values are outlined in green:


http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2962/elevationtq3.jpg


Judging from the map, it looks like a good chunk of the CBD within the box is at or above 10' MSL (:ohno:), while most of Brickell stays between the 5'-10' MSL mark ( :) ).

Even still, it's gonna be pretty damn close.

It's all great news in all since empire world towers and one bayfront plaza are in the district, but has this been officially approved by the FAA and all the necessary people? Also i was hoping the limit would be at 1,030 since atlanta's tallest is 1,023 lol

but has this been officially approved by the FAA and all the necessary people?

Well, considering page 3 of the above proposal states the following:

To this end, height limitations for the high structure set-aside (HSA) height zoning district were developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the City of Miami.

...And according to Dave, it was passed unanimously:

By the way it says the new ordinance passed 11-0.

I'd say it's a go. :okay:

ASWOME! lol just making sure :). Now hopefully some of these office towers that havent started construction can increase a couple of hundred feet. ol just maybe. What can i say am a dreamer

It's all great news in all since empire world towers and one bayfront plaza are in the district, but has this been officially approved by the FAA and all the necessary people? Also i was hoping the limit would be at 1,030 since atlanta's tallest is 1,023 lol

I hear 'ya, but with so many cities erecting or planning buildings much higher than what is allowed in Miami I've stopped worrying about it and instead hope that Miami can be a center for QUALITY design even if it's not destined to be a nexus of supertalls.

It is what it is. The airport simply sits too close to the downtown core for the city to be a real player in the height game. It's an unlevel playing field and because of that places like Atlanta (and many others) will no doubt go ever higher in the future without the same kind of restrictions in place.

I guess it's OK to be envious of that but Miami still has a spectacular physical location that demands the highest quality of design. So there's not gonna be any 1200 footers in the future...maybe not even 1000 footers...but within those limitations Miami can still have a stunning array of buildings if the city holds developers feet to the fire and DEMANDS it.

That means no more garbage like One Miami, for starters.:cheers:

tell me about it, but with proposals like the new building next to the wolfson campus, i thinkthe city will move in the right direction

Exactly Spellbound, Thank You!

Miami is an extraordinary combination of geographical qualities, and natural phenomenon, (color light flora etc) and poised uniquely as a modern tropical American city, being so young it is not polluted with antiquated styles that restrict design for historical preservation, (not to say that the extraordinary FL history should not be preserved...it just shouldn't be limiting as it is in say NY or SF) all the qualities are attracting the worlds greatest architects who are foaming at the mouth for the opportunity make a mark on this very special environment, as it will go down in history as a design mecca.

SO LETS GET SOME BAD ASS 1000 foot TOWERS GOING HERE!

While Lynx was quite nice...I'm dreaming of a 1000 footer with the risky design level of MDC Wolfson!

The City of Miami gets a chance to ratify its side of the agreement on raised height limits during next thursday's commission meeting (June 14th).

http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/Legistarweb/Attachments/35316.pdf

That is crucial for One Bayfront Plaza.

THE CITY WANTS SOMEWHERE AROUND 1400-1700 FT
WHILE FAA IS TRYING TO LOW BALL AND STICK TO 1000-1200 FT

LAST I HEARD THEY WILL PROBABLY SETTLE AROUND 1200 FT ON BOTH SIDES

I'll take 1,200 feet. That would certainly allow for One Bayfront Plaza to get built and would also allow Empire World Towers if the developer was still interested. Sure, 1400-1700 feet would be nice, but a settlement at 1,200 feet would be great.

THE CITY WANTS SOMEWHERE AROUND 1400-1700 FT
WHILE FAA IS TRYING TO LOW BALL AND STICK TO 1000-1200 FT

LAST I HEARD THEY WILL PROBABLY SETTLE AROUND 1200 FT ON BOTH SIDES

Last I heard, dave already posted the details of the agreement and it's barely over 1000ft. Are you making stuff up again?

Yea i thought the height limit was only 1010ft. I also thought that it was already approved. I didn't know the FAA had yet to approve

I don't know what the height limit is or whether the FAA has approved it yet. All I know is that the ordinance posted by Dave says "buildings over 1,000 feet", which could mean many different things, could just mean slightly over 1,000 feet (something like 1,010 ft or 1,050 ft) or well over 1,000 feet as in 1,200-1,700 ft.

Could someone please clear this up if you know what you're talking about. I'm not so sure RX has it right either.

Regardless it's great to hear that the height limits are being relaxed in downtown Miami.

well the thing says 1000 plus, so were expecting like 1000-1100, but how nice would it be to have a 1700 foot tower

It would be crazy if the limit was 1,700ft. lol I just want atleast 1,030 so that miami could pass atlanta's 1,023 footer.

^^ If One Bayfront Plaza is approved at 1,049 feet then we will pass Atlanta's 1,023 feet. I just wanted to say that I was recently in Atlanta and their 1,023 footer has inflated stats in a way. It's a 55-story building not much taller than the Wachovia Tower that has a huge triangular-shaped cage of bars on top that raises the height by about 200-250 feet. One Bayfront Plaza would be more legitimate though even if they were around the same height because it would not get its height from an architectural feature or spire, but instead would have occupied space up to the very top of the building.

Yes coruna you are totally right. And i find one bayfront to be far more visualy impressive. A true signature building. In my opinion ofcourse

Here's a picture of the Atlanta building showing the huge cage of bars and spire on top that adds incredibly to its height....


http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/atlanta04.jpg

Yes coruna you are totally right. And i find one bayfront to be far more visualy impressive. A true signature building. In my opinion ofcourse

That's the key to me. Design and quality. The height part would be great but since cities like Atlanta have no height restriction it's just a matter of time before they have even taller structures. Can't worry about that, since the airport can't be moved. Instead, the focus needs to be on quality---and this building hits the mark, imo. Hopefully it will actually be built.

One Bayfront will truly be that signature building Miami needs, if it is approved.

that's one ugly building, what's with the browns? urgh!

that's one ugly building, what's with the browns? urgh!

Are you referring to One Bayfront Plaza or the Atlanta building?