Invisible obstacles in the sky

I live in Columbus, Ohio, U.S. and when you look at our skyline the tallest buildings all seem to be the same height and a lot of locals believe we have a height limit, when in fact we do not. There is no height limit (within the CBD) here according to official city documents. Most new development is more low to mid rise which is allowing for more sunlight in areas vs areas that are skyscraper canyons. I do think there should be a healthy balance of height and setbacks. I believe Stockhom has an ordinance in effect in the CBD that reads along the lines of a certain percentage of daylight must be allowed due to their northern latitude and short winter days.

Canada's Capital Views Protection

Ottawa has quite an extensive and detailed height restriction in the downtown core, which is based on several 'iconic' sight lines, intended to keep the parliament building spires prominent against the sky. Thus, sloping restrictive planes are over-layed throughout the core. Parliament Hill is... on a hill, so building heights a few blocks away are not too shabby, however on the close side buildings are limited to around 8-10 storeys.

In addition, several line-of-sight corridors must be maintained to the Peace Tower at the Centre Block of Parliament. Its very interesting around the city, you happen upon a monument or something and there's a clear view to the peace tower waaaay off in the distance.



http://ncc-ccn.gc.ca/documents/canadas-capital-views-protection







Downtown is relatively dense and completely built-out for several blocks surrounding Parliament. This has resulted in a semi-circular amphitheater effect that can be best appreciated from the sky.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/medias.photodeck.com/4a070587-751c-40d0-95e6-20e3b1d2370b/13-07-15-0163_xgaplus.jpg

There is also the imperative of not interfering with flight corridors, which to my knowledge has had a profound impact on La Défense.

alexandru.mircea said:

There is also the imperative of not interfering with flight corridors, which to my knowledge has had a profound impact on La Défense.

Click to expand...

Melbourne has a height limit of 320m approx and Brisbane around 270m as a result of airports near the two cities.

Melbourne also has strict overshadowing rules. You cannot overshadow the Yarra river and its banks.

Hence the shape of Collins Arch



And the shape of Zaha Hadid's tower



The black building next door was approved and built under our previous planning minister who approved almost everything in order to turn Melbourne into a 24/7 city.
The current planning minister is very strict.

AndyMEng said:

Downtown is relatively dense and completely built-out for several blocks surrounding Parliament. This has resulted in a semi-circular amphitheater effect that can be best appreciated from the sky.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/medias.photodeck.com/4a070587-751c-40d0-95e6-20e3b1d2370b/13-07-15-0163_xgaplus.jpg

Click to expand...

The "rules" are very obvious and easy to see wherever the majority of developers are building as high as they can go.
A lot of buildings in Australia at the moment are as tall as their sites allow.

I have a love hate relationship with height limits. I love tall skyscrapers, however, i also love the odd and unusual shapes we are getting. Plus our skylines will resemble natural mountain ranges making them more interesting than say a skyline that consists of buildings that are all the same height.

The ampitheatre effect is nice.

The Zoning Law of New York City (1916 Zoning Resolution) gave all its skyscrapers 1916-1950s their distinctive setbacks and soaring shapes everyone loves.
I think they should re-introduce it. Boxes are just so darned boring and ugly.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chrysler_Building_Midtown_Manhattan_New_York_City_1932.jpg

^ interesting, didn't know about that.

I once had an argument with someone here about Manhattan's density* and when "walking" around its street on Street View I noticed that even where there are many tall buildings, direct sunlight somehow seems to sneak in down to the ground. I didn't know if it's an unintended quirk or some sort of planning.

*he was saying that "right to light" legislation is incompatible with Manhattan type urbanism

London. Protected views.





London's little known protected view from Blackheath park.

Blackheath Park is home to one of London's eight protected views of St Paul's Cathedral, a series of visual corridors that have been quietly safeguarded since the 1930s.

Protecting London's landmarks

The London Building Acts of 1888 and 1894 ruled that architects should not be allowed to build structures in London higher than a fireman's ladder -- roughly 10 stories -- to ensure the city's finest landmarks, specifically St Paul's Cathedral, were not overshadowed or obscured.

This rule was not amended until 1956.

In the 1930s, however, skyscrapers taller than this began to shoot up in New York City, signaling a new era in architecture.

Across the pond in London, developers of buildings such as Unilever House (1933) started to skirt the London Building Acts by claiming the top floors of their towers were not for office or residential use.
Amid pressure from developers to be allowed to build taller buildings, in 1938 the City of London Corporation introduced London's "protected views" system -- to allow controlled construction that would not obscure views of St Paul's Cathedral.

Architect W Godfrey Allen, an adviser to St Paul's on the structure and setting of the cathedral, plotted multiple views of the iconic building from various vantage points in the city.

Allen outlined eight "protected view corridors".






CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/21/world/st-pauls-london-protected-views/index.html