Official Height Zoning Map (Height limits)

[Architek]

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/..._MAP_11x17.pdf

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Architek

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/..._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?

[Miami-#1]

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.

[spellbound]

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)

[BornInTheGrove]

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.

[Architek]

Originally Posted by Miami-#1

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.

[coruna]

Originally Posted by BornInTheGrove

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.

[Architek]

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.

[Rx727sfl2002]

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.

[FTL Beach Bum]

Originally Posted by Architek

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

Originally Posted by Rx727sfl2002

FAA IS INCHARGE OF ANYTHING OVER 1000 FT

Really?

FAA Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA)

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:


Advisory Circular 70/7460-2K


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

[arch photographer]

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!

[floridian-will]

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.

[Rx727sfl2002]

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

[MiamiMike]

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

[Bobdreamz]

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

[theDirector]

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.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by theDirector

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.

[theDirector]

Originally Posted by brickell

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.

[FTL Beach Bum]

Originally Posted by floridian-will

Couldnt the airplanes just make a steeper climb?

Originally Posted by theDirector

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.

Originally Posted by brickell

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/showpo...&postcount=340
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=345
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=349

Warning...NOT for the Technically-Challenged.

[brickell]

Thanks for the info... again.