daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 16th, 2011, 01:17 AM   #19801
EddieB317
DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
 
EddieB317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 722
Likes (Received): 33

Just to clarify HR 7428 did not pass, and this is not even a rule. It is a policy statement from 1965, and it explicitly states that towers can be built above 2,000 feet if it is in the public interest.

"Only in the exceptional case, where the Commission concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that there are public interest reasons requiring a tower higher than 2,000 feet above ground, and after the parties have complied with applicable FAA procedures,andfullCommission coordination with FAA on the question of menace to air navigation, will a grant be made."

Here is the current codified law concerning tower heights and regulations.

47 CFR § 17. Construction, Marking, and Lighting of Antenna Structures

§ 17.7 Antenna structures requiring notification to the FAA.

A notification to the Federal Aviation Administration is required, except as set forth in § 17.14, for any of the following construction or alteration:

(a) Any construction or alteration of more than 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above ground level at its site.

(b) Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes:

(1) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 6.10 kilometers (20,000 feet) from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport specified in paragraph (d) of this section with at least one runway more than 0.98 kilometers (3,200 feet) in actual length, excluding heliports.

(2) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 3.05 kilometers (10,000 feet) from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport specified in paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway no more than 0.98 kilometers (3,200 feet) in actual length, excluding heliports.

(3) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 1.52 kilometers (5,000 feet) from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) When requested by the FAA, any construction or alteration that would be in an instrument approach area (defined in the FAA standards governing instrument approach procedures) and available information indicates it might exceed an obstruction standard of the FAA.


§ 17.10 Antenna structures over 304.80 meters (1,000 feet) in height.

Where one or more antenna farm areas have been designated for a community or communities (see § 17.9), the Commission will not accept for filing an application to construct a new station or to increase height or change antenna location of an existing station proposing the erection of an antenna structure over 304.80 meters (1,000 feet) above ground unless:

(a) It is proposed to locate the antenna structure in a designated antenna farm area, or

(b) It is accompanied by a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration that the proposed structure will not constitute a menace to air navigation, or

(c) It is accompanied by a request for waiver setting forth reasons sufficient, if true, to justify such a waiver.



§ 17.14 Certain antenna structures exempt from notification to the FAA.


A notification to the Federal Aviation Administration is not required for any of the following construction or alteration:

(a) Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. Applicants claiming such exemption under § 17.14(a) shall submit a statement with their application to the FCC explaining basis in detail for their finding.

(b) Any antenna structure of 6.10 meters (20 feet) or less in height except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure.

(c) Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the location and height of which is fixed by its functional purpose.


There is no law, code, rule, or regulation creating a national height limitation in the United States.
__________________

I happen to think that things are going to happen for Indianapolis...

Last edited by EddieB317; February 16th, 2011 at 01:28 AM.
EddieB317 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 16th, 2011, 01:28 AM   #19802
EddieB317
DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
 
EddieB317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 722
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Medi...ion/65-455.pdf

The impoprtant paragraph starts at the bottom of the first page and goes to the second, now drop this. It's the rule, is it a law? No. It's just a pronouncement and one which to our knowledge has not been challenged or requested to be waived. Could you get around it if you wanted to? maybe, maybe not. Will they change it someday? maybe, maybe not. The point is, they don't want anything built over 2,000 feet, end of story.
BTW, this document only concerns antenna towers, not buildings without antennas. They are specifically talking about what is necessary to provide broadcast service, not aviation and building safety. Its not that they don't want anything to be built above 2000 feet, just specifically antenna towers. Now Im done...
__________________

I happen to think that things are going to happen for Indianapolis...
EddieB317 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 02:45 AM   #19803
Dexter Morgan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rutherford, NJ
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 85

Is the freedom tower the same witch as the twin towers once were? from the picture i see.. the free tower is pretty skinny. a co worker of mine use to work in the twin towers who said the twin towers would sway in heavy wind.
Dexter Morgan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 03:00 AM   #19804
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

There was nothing skinning about the twin towers. And the twins were bigger.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 03:34 AM   #19805
pnapp1
Die-Hard New Yorker!
 
pnapp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LI, New York
Posts: 302
Likes (Received): 353

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan View Post
Is the freedom tower the same witch as the twin towers once were? from the picture i see.. the free tower is pretty skinny. a co worker of mine use to work in the twin towers who said the twin towers would sway in heavy wind.
Footprints for both the original twins and WTC 1 are 1 acre. (208.7 feet on a side). WTC 1 will be thinner at the top though.
pnapp1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 03:44 AM   #19806
pnapp1
Die-Hard New Yorker!
 
pnapp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LI, New York
Posts: 302
Likes (Received): 353

Construction Photos Updated at WTC.com.

http://www.wtc.com/media/images/construction
pnapp1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 04:11 AM   #19807
Dominance
Registered User
 
Dominance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 5

One question, I remember on the original 1 WTC there were tracks on the side of the building to wash the building, BUT on The New Tower 1 WTC how are they going to wash the window with no tracks what so ever?

Last edited by Dominance; February 16th, 2011 at 04:12 AM. Reason: spelling
Dominance no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 05:21 AM   #19808
philaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 18
Likes (Received): 0

Height Restrictions

While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I am an attorney and have studied many a con-law principle. Thus, I am a reasonably credible source. Zoning ordinances, a municipality's "comprehensive plan," and the like are all the province of the State as independent sovereigns under the 10th Amendment. If the feds wanted to put a ceiling on building height, it would be a stretch (save for D.C.). They would either have to assert their authority under the Interstate Commerce clause, which I don't think would pass constitutional muster, or through the President's Commander-In-Chief powers as a national security issue. I'm not sure what laws are on the books, nor do I feel like looking - but if I ahd to guess, this is within the domain of the states.
philaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 06:13 AM   #19809
uakoops
Sidewalk Superintendent
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 644
Likes (Received): 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominance View Post
One question, I remember on the original 1 WTC there were tracks on the side of the building to wash the building, BUT on The New Tower 1 WTC how are they going to wash the window with no tracks what so ever?
There are tracks between the windows. They are only about 2 inches wide so you can't really see tham from afar. Zensteeldude once posted a cross-section of the window frame showing the tracks.

Last edited by uakoops; February 16th, 2011 at 06:19 AM.
uakoops no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 06:32 AM   #19810
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

I'm sick of Americans saying we can't build skyscrapers, over 2000 feet because it's against the law. Laws can be repealed.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 12:43 PM   #19811
trulsaal
Student in New York 2012
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Molde
Posts: 18
Likes (Received): 0

Does anybody know if the construction/ constructionworkers work at night? Or do they go home at eight and start of at seven?
trulsaal no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 02:01 PM   #19812
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsc View Post
I'm sick of Americans saying we can't build skyscrapers, over 2000 feet because it's against the law. Laws can be repealed.
I always thought of it more as a general guidline then a law, because the quote above said something about if the building over 2000 feet was within public interest, then itd be possible.

But lets face it guys, there wont be anything over 2000 feet in America for a while. Theres no need for it.
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 02:24 PM   #19813
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by azn_man12345 View Post
I always thought of it more as a general guidline then a law, because the quote above said something about if the building over 2000 feet was within public interest, then itd be possible.

But lets face it guys, there wont be anything over 2000 feet in America for a while. Theres no need for it.
We have a winner.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 04:19 PM   #19814
Dexter Morgan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rutherford, NJ
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 85

Does anyone know if the pools in the memorial are the exact same size of the footprints of the original Twin Towers?
Dexter Morgan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 04:22 PM   #19815
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,655
Likes (Received): 2603

Of course they are, that's the point.
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 04:27 PM   #19816
Dexter Morgan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rutherford, NJ
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
Of course they are, that's the point.
have you read that? because they look pretty small compared to the size of the towers.
Dexter Morgan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 04:42 PM   #19817
WTC18
Registered User
 
WTC18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pantego
Posts: 225
Likes (Received): 11

i think i just saw some new steel going up. or my mind is playing tricks on me
__________________
HAKUNA MATATA

Last edited by WTC18; February 16th, 2011 at 04:51 PM.
WTC18 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 04:54 PM   #19818
romanamerican
Registered User
 
romanamerican's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 583
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan View Post
Is the freedom tower the same witch as the twin towers once were? from the picture i see.. the free tower is pretty skinny. a co worker of mine use to work in the twin towers who said the twin towers would sway in heavy wind.
The "swaying" of the twin towers was given by the kind of structure they had. They were MEANT to act like that. If they didn't move in the wind like they did (completely rigid body rahter than elastic), they could have had serious damage to the structure.The same is not necessary (at least in major ways) with more modern materials/structures, reason why rarely skyscrapers today have any swaying at all (given similar wind strength).


Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
Of course they are, that's the point.

Actually no, the pools are slightly smaller. All information is on the WTC memorial thread.

No reason to bring up a topic that was already discussed.
romanamerican no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 04:56 PM   #19819
uakoops
Sidewalk Superintendent
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 644
Likes (Received): 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan View Post
Does anyone know if the pools in the memorial are the exact same size of the footprints of the original Twin Towers?
They are slightly smaller, the pools are 187' square, the towers were a bit over 200'.
uakoops no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 05:06 PM   #19820
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
We have a winner.
Yay! Ive never won anything before!
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
construction updates, development, ground zero, manhattan, new york city, nyc, port authority, supertall, world trade center

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu