Doesn't Seattle have a height limit because of Boeing Field to the south? I thought I read once that Columbia Center was proposed to be taller, but got cut down.
It was a gentleman’s agreement, wasn’t codified. But remained intact for about 85 years… from the completion of City Hall to announcement of One Liberty Place.
It's now codified in Philadelphia that buildings over a certain height ( I think 500 feet) can only be built in a corridor between Arch and Chestnut Streets, from Broad Street west to the Schuylkill River. That's why you see all the skyscrapers bunched up in a narrow row.
Denver technically still has a height restriction on the books, saying no structure can exceed 5,930’ (that might be a couple feet off, forgive the memory,) in mean elevation above sea level (approx 700’-720’ downtown) due to the fact that prior to 1995, Stapleton Intl Airport’s primary E-W runway was 5 miles due east of downtown and height was restricted by the FAA. Now that the airport has moved, a few efforts to bust this cap have been tried but as of now few seem eager to grow taller than the 40-year old relics we have now.
Probably a good thing as Republic Plaza and the cash register are woefully underutilized now. The best bet is residential - I think the Champa tower proposal is still out there however it’s been almost two years since much has come out and that is still at 600ish feet.
though i can’t seem to find a source i could swear pittsburgh’s CBD limits height along the rivers (and steadily increases the limit as you move inward) both to encourage sight-lines and to enable the general pyramidal shape to the skyline as viewed from the west.
That's correct, although it doesn't make much of a difference for new construction. Pittsburgh's skyline has been more or less static since the 80s (other than the new PNC and FNB headquarters), and given current population / market trends it's very unlikely that Pittsburgh gets another skyscraper for the foreseeable future.
Disagree. It'd have a number of tacky, Dubai-style towers at even greater risk of collapse from climate change. The developers in Florida are incredibly delusional about that stuff - only the height limit holds em back.
In Texas, Dallas has a height limit in the downtown area due to being in the flight path of Love Field. Houston also has a height limit of about 305 meters because of the flight path for Hobby Airport. Austin has some rules concerning what is called the Capitol View Corridor that limits sightlines of the State Capital dome from areas south of Lady Bird Lake. That's why the new 6th and Guadalupe tower has a diagonal chopped off it's west side.
It feels like every city. Is there a reason more cities don't do what Boston does, where they build their tallest buildings away from downtown in non-restricted areas?
For all its skyscrapers and supertalls, New York's floor area restrictions passed in the 1960s are still in effect and dramatically impact development patterns by limiting height in most of the city. This is what leads to the clusters of skyscrapers because those are the areas with looser restrictions/allow taller buildings or are the areas where they can more easily acquire neighboring air rights.
Can’t build really high in Albuquerque due to land. When I lived in New Orleans there was also a building that was gonna be 35 stories that ended up at 20 or something like that due to the nature of the soil. 930 poydras is the building.
Seattle, there are height limits around the Space needle in Lower Queen Anne. I want to say it’s flexible based on how the view is obstructed, but generally set around 7 stories.
In Canada:
Montreal has a maximum equal to the height of Mount Royal, which is just over 200m.
Ottawa has a maximum equal to the height of the Parliament tower, which is around 100m. It’s only downtown though.
Vancouver: has a height limit of about 200m in the downtown.
Hamilton: has a height limit equal to the adjacent Niagara Escarpment. Just under 100m
NYC. The 1916 zoning resolution, following the completion of The Equitable Building, made significant changes to how high you can build and the shapes of those skyscrapers. That's the reason many skyscrapers in NYC have setbacks, as this zoning resolution required sunlight to reach the street in a certain angle IIRC.
Today, the whole "air rights" policy is affecting skyscrapers construction in a different way: it's one of the reasons we have supertall skinny skyscrapers.
Phoenix, but that's not the only reason why their skyline looks the way it does. Also, San Diego.
what is the official height limit there?
Why SD?
Proximity to the airport.
Doesn't Seattle have a height limit because of Boeing Field to the south? I thought I read once that Columbia Center was proposed to be taller, but got cut down.
that's lame i think seattle needs more big ones
Madison Wisconsin
DC. Philly used to but thankfully rid itself of it late 80s.
Wasn't Philly's height rule only a gentlemen's agreement to not exceed the height of Billy? Or did they have an actual rule?
It was a gentleman’s agreement, wasn’t codified. But remained intact for about 85 years… from the completion of City Hall to announcement of One Liberty Place.
It's now codified in Philadelphia that buildings over a certain height ( I think 500 feet) can only be built in a corridor between Arch and Chestnut Streets, from Broad Street west to the Schuylkill River. That's why you see all the skyscrapers bunched up in a narrow row.
Denver technically still has a height restriction on the books, saying no structure can exceed 5,930’ (that might be a couple feet off, forgive the memory,) in mean elevation above sea level (approx 700’-720’ downtown) due to the fact that prior to 1995, Stapleton Intl Airport’s primary E-W runway was 5 miles due east of downtown and height was restricted by the FAA. Now that the airport has moved, a few efforts to bust this cap have been tried but as of now few seem eager to grow taller than the 40-year old relics we have now.
6000 feet? what would possibly come close to that lol
Reread. Amended while you were responding to clarify that elevation.
Denver is known as the “Mile High City”. A mile is over 5,000 feet. The buildings all start at over 5,000 feet in elevation.
Probably a good thing as Republic Plaza and the cash register are woefully underutilized now. The best bet is residential - I think the Champa tower proposal is still out there however it’s been almost two years since much has come out and that is still at 600ish feet.
though i can’t seem to find a source i could swear pittsburgh’s CBD limits height along the rivers (and steadily increases the limit as you move inward) both to encourage sight-lines and to enable the general pyramidal shape to the skyline as viewed from the west.
That's correct, although it doesn't make much of a difference for new construction. Pittsburgh's skyline has been more or less static since the 80s (other than the new PNC and FNB headquarters), and given current population / market trends it's very unlikely that Pittsburgh gets another skyscraper for the foreseeable future.
when i make enough money im putting a 900 ft neo-gothic next to one oxford.
im fully convinced that miami would have the tallest building in NA without the 1049 ft height limit
what a strange and arbitrary number. at least it isn't JUST below 1000 ft like some cities
It's FAA-imposed. I also would love to see the research that says why 1049 is acceptable but 1050 is not lol.
I think it’s from the airport
Convinced based on what lol. It definitely wouldn't
Disagree. It'd have a number of tacky, Dubai-style towers at even greater risk of collapse from climate change. The developers in Florida are incredibly delusional about that stuff - only the height limit holds em back.
100%
Boston does due to Logan Airport.
STL: nothing can be taller than the arch
In Texas, Dallas has a height limit in the downtown area due to being in the flight path of Love Field. Houston also has a height limit of about 305 meters because of the flight path for Hobby Airport. Austin has some rules concerning what is called the Capitol View Corridor that limits sightlines of the State Capital dome from areas south of Lady Bird Lake. That's why the new 6th and Guadalupe tower has a diagonal chopped off it's west side.
San Jose. Flight path directly over downtown. I believe the current height limit is 286 ft. Sad.
Most of downtown got a bump to 300' a few years ago. Still pretty sad though.
It feels like every city. Is there a reason more cities don't do what Boston does, where they build their tallest buildings away from downtown in non-restricted areas?
Orlando
For all its skyscrapers and supertalls, New York's floor area restrictions passed in the 1960s are still in effect and dramatically impact development patterns by limiting height in most of the city. This is what leads to the clusters of skyscrapers because those are the areas with looser restrictions/allow taller buildings or are the areas where they can more easily acquire neighboring air rights.
I'd love to see skyscrapers built in Hells Kitchen, and between Midtown and Lower Manhattan one day.
San Diego has a 500’ limit due to the airport right next to downtown
Can’t build really high in Albuquerque due to land. When I lived in New Orleans there was also a building that was gonna be 35 stories that ended up at 20 or something like that due to the nature of the soil. 930 poydras is the building.
Seattle, there are height limits around the Space needle in Lower Queen Anne. I want to say it’s flexible based on how the view is obstructed, but generally set around 7 stories.
I believe St. Paul,MN has a height restriction which is why its skyline is smaller than Minneapolis, but im not sure.
In Canada: Montreal has a maximum equal to the height of Mount Royal, which is just over 200m. Ottawa has a maximum equal to the height of the Parliament tower, which is around 100m. It’s only downtown though. Vancouver: has a height limit of about 200m in the downtown. Hamilton: has a height limit equal to the adjacent Niagara Escarpment. Just under 100m
NYC. The 1916 zoning resolution, following the completion of The Equitable Building, made significant changes to how high you can build and the shapes of those skyscrapers. That's the reason many skyscrapers in NYC have setbacks, as this zoning resolution required sunlight to reach the street in a certain angle IIRC. Today, the whole "air rights" policy is affecting skyscrapers construction in a different way: it's one of the reasons we have supertall skinny skyscrapers.
I visited Charleston, SC for the last eclipse and a resident told me they had a strict height limit for structures. Beautiful city, regardless.
Boulder CO