Miami 3rd largest skyline in the USA

[1772]

Originally Posted by QuantumX

While you're at it, please do something with Brickell Key!

Phase 2.

[a001lan]

The question remains open, when will Miami get its first 1000+ ft building?

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by a001lan

The question remains open, when will Miami get its first 1000+ ft building?

Never maybe, FAA... Read curbed today.

[skyscraperhighrise]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Never maybe, FAA... Read curbed today.

The FAA Stinks.

[QuantumX]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Never maybe, FAA... Read curbed today.

But we just got these new height restrictions below a few years ago. On what basis does the FAA want to change them already? What I read on Curbed supposedly quoting exMiami quoting Miami Today is ridiculous. Brickell Citycentre is listed as one of the projects affected when the tallest building in the project is only 634 feet tall and it is the closest tower to Brickell Avenue. We already have several buildings over 634 feet, so that makes no sense.

The legal battle that ensued between the FAA, MIA and the City of Miami and developers resulted in the height restrictions being raised because from my understanding of the newspaper article that ran on the front page of the Herald is that such stringent height restriction applying to Miami were unnecessary with today's technology, so now my question would be what is the rationale in bringing back the old height restrictions. Where is this coming from all of a sudden after the legal battle we just had a few years ago?

image hosted on flickr

65404045xl8 by QuantumX, on Flickr

[BRobinson]

The FAA is only protecting for approaches in to MIA (and all other airports).... By rule aircraft have to be 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within 2000 ft radius.... Having 600 ft buildings in that area means the lowest that an aircraft can be is 1600 ft over Brickell if MIA is landing west (rwys 27, 26L, 26R).... If landing east, then it doesn't apply, nothing of significant height coming from that direction... Building taller buildings means there would have to be an even greater nose dive into MIA, which would make those runways unusable, which would cut the number of runways in half to one of the nations busiest airports.... Easiest option is to build higher further south, not in direct line of sight of the west runways...

[QuantumX]

Where buildings over 1,000 feet are allowed in downtown Miami right now is not directly in line with runways. That area is in-between the runways. I don't know where we could build farther south, but farther north, I think the 79th Street business district is a viable option.

[BRobinson]

Yeah, that's exactly why the 1000 footers are where they are... They don't conflict with the approaches... Or the departures which is extremely important for fully loaded planes that would need to top the highest building by 1000 feet, within 2000 ft laterally, for some planes (business jets) it's very easy, regional jets not as easy...

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by BRobinson

Yeah, that's exactly why the 1000 footers are where they are... They don't conflict with the approaches... Or the departures which is extremely important for fully loaded planes that would need to top the highest building by 1000 feet, within 2000 ft laterally, for some planes (business jets) it's very easy, regional jets not as easy...

Yea and the planes are getting bigger and bigger. The most realistic chance right now of a 1000 footer is One Bayfront Plaza. Last I heard they redesigned it with a target break ground date about 2 years from now.

[QuantumX]

Originally Posted by QuantumX

But we just got these new height restrictions a few years ago. On what basis does the FAA want to change them already?

This what I don't understand and what nobody is addressing. This is only in the Miami Today News and didn't make the Herald, so it has me wondering if somebody simply isn't trying to increase their readership. Edgewater is directly in line with MIA runways, thus nothing over 649 feet allowed there. South of Brickell is directly in line with an MIA runway, so nothing over 1,010 feet south of there. Brickell and part of the CBD are between the crosshairs of runway approaches, so 1,000 footers supposedly are allowed there. Why are we going backward in this regard rather than forward?

[Aceventura]

Originally Posted by spellbound

we could all argue 'best' skylines forever and nobody would ever be right OR wrong about any of it)

Unless we are arguing about Enid.


I wonder how far S.I.B. will move up the list after Jade III, Acqualina II, Dezer VII, and all the others are finished in a few years. Top 65 maybe?

[spellbound]

Originally Posted by Aceventura

Unless we are arguing about Enid.

What argument? Enid is the finest metropolis in the history of civilization. End of story.

[Aceventura]

Q's finest work yet!

[spellbound]

Originally Posted by Aceventura

Q's finest work yet!

Indeed. I'm glad for him even if still a bit hurt they turned down my Enid-themed air sickness bag.

[QuantumX]

In how many differenet places do I have to put all this stuff?

Skyline Rankings of the United States

Cities with the Most Skyscrapers Worldwide (Emporis)

THE WORLD'S BEST SKYLINES

[miami305]

Port St. Lucie MSA has been added to Miami's CSA.

10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL Combined Statistical Area: 6,276,370

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...013/b13-01.pdf

[QuantumX]

This is part of a conversation I had in the Southeast forum and wondered what you guys thought about this.

Originally Posted by gwiATLeman

I agree. Despite how impressive it is during the day, I don't really notice much an impact from the Miami skyline at night when I'm there due to the preponderance of residential towers.

Originally Posted by QuantumX

I really don't see how this is an excuse when much of the lighting is on residential towers, but if you don't find the Miami skyline all that impressive at night then you just don't find it all that impressive at night.

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Lighting for residential towers is much more subdued compared to corporate towers looking to use their crowns as a de facto billboard or to create a signature brand. Yes you're showing a variety of lit buildings but near the tops and throughout the bulk of each "column" the elements are relatively dark. Plenty of residual light so you do see the buildings, but there's not a heavy dose of designed lighting simply for the decorative effect.

But as we've implied, that's something in Miami's favor right now.

So what's the excuse with Houston's night skyline then? Anyway, how many cities are there with a night skyline that can do this? If you're not impressed with this shot, I'm sorry, but there is just no way to do it better.

image hosted on flickr

5325934677_af3d60e4f7_o by QuantumX, on Flickr

[DShoost88]

Originally Posted by QuantumX

Anyway, how many cities are there with a night skyline that can do this?
image hosted on flickr

5325934677_af3d60e4f7_o by QuantumX, on Flickr

In a 10-minute google search:

Boston





New York





Philadelphia



Calgary



Vancouver



Chicago



Toronto



Montreal



Portland



Seattle




This is just North America. Shall I keep going?

[saiholmes]

Originally Posted by VisionMIA

look at the LA picture you literally can count the buildings on that skyline..I don't see 768buildings, I maybe see a mere 24 on that skyline.. they are tall but only a hand full..Just like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta,Philadelphia, with the exception of San Fransisco and Seattle you can't really count their buildings on their skyline as easily...Like Miami
That is what the rating is all about...

LA is huge. Just check the following link.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1503034
Dexter was filmed in LA's Long Beach. You will find a pano of Long Beach in that thread.

[QuantumX]

No, DSshoost88, not all of the skylines in your 10-minute Google search are doing the same thing. They might be capable of it, but they have to do! A calm, shallow bay helps.

New York