New tallest building FINALLY coming to Phoenix! (Douglas: city hall, hotels)

[Guerilla]

Wow. A tower at 525 feet tall is Phoenix's new tallest? That is pretty short. I do like the development, though.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I live in a city of 189,000 people on the coast in californis and we have only 2 towers in town. One is 14 stories and the other 22 stories. They are now proposing a project that will build 3 towers that are in the 45 story range. And that is in a city that only has 189,000 people. I would have figured that Phoenix would have had taller buildings than the proposal we are taliking about. Phoenix being a large city as it is. To tell you the truth I have never been downtown. About the only places I have been are the west side of the area, Surprise, Peoria. I do love it there.

[uconn99]

Hartford, Ct has 3 towers over 500 feet with only 123,000 people. However Hartford is a large insurance/financial center and has been for almost 100 years. Phoenix really has no major downtown HQ's besides regional ones.

[exit2lef]

One of the reasons for the lack of towers over 500 feet it the proximity of Sky Harbor Airport to Downtown Phoenix.

Based on a report in this morning's paper (broken link), it looks like this may be an issue for the CityScape project. As much as I like vertical development, Sky Harbor Airport is an asset that must be protected. I hope that something is worked out.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by silverbear

One of the reasons for the lack of towers over 500 feet it the proximity of Sky Harbor Airport to Downtown Phoenix.

Based on a report in this morning's paper (broken link), it looks like this may be an issue for the CityScape project. As much as I like vertical development, Sky Harbor Airport is an asset that must be protected. I hope that something is worked out.

I agree. The Airport is a very needed part of the Phoenix infrastructure. With all the available land I am thinking that there is room to build out anyway. It is cool to have tall buildings though.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by silverbear

One of the reasons for the lack of towers over 500 feet it the proximity of Sky Harbor Airport to Downtown Phoenix.

Based on a report in this morning's paper (broken link), it looks like this may be an issue for the CityScape project. As much as I like vertical development, Sky Harbor Airport is an asset that must be protected. I hope that something is worked out.

I saw that article in the paper ... and my immediate reaction was, "What the hell is the FAA thinking?!" The FAA apparently didn't have an issue back in the early '70s when the Chase Tower (formerly Valley Bank) was built at just under 500 feet. Why are they squawking now AFTER CityScape was approved by the city?

There are other cities with airports close to downtown, and they've allowed highrises at or above 500 feet. San Diego is a perfect example. Their airport is even closer to their downtown area than Sky Harbor is to Phoenix's downtown ... yet, there are 500 foot tall structures which have gone up without any problem. San Diego has a great skyline now compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

The Las Vegas airport is within close proximity to the Strip. The Luxor has a skyward laser beam shooting into the night sky ... didn't seem to pose a problem for the FAA. Many 50, 60, and 70 story hotel/casino towers have recently been built, or are planned for the Vegas Strip ... apparently no problem for the FAA.

Screw the FAA! Why should a questionable government agency be the deciding factor over a mere 500 foot tall highrise anyway? With today's technology that has been used for better airline safety and landing/takeoff, there's no reason why CityScape can't go through entirely as planned. It's not like the developers are planning to build a replica of the twin WTC towers!

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I saw that article in the paper ... and my immediate reaction was, "What the hell is the FAA thinking?!" The FAA apparently didn't have an issue back in the early '70s when the Chase Tower (formerly Valley Bank) was built at just under 500 feet. Why are they squawking now AFTER CityScape was approved by the city?

There are other cities with airports close to downtown, and they've allowed highrises at or above 500 feet. San Diego is a perfect example. Their airport is even closer to their downtown area than Sky Harbor is to Phoenix's downtown ... yet, there are 500 foot tall structures which have gone up without any problem. San Diego has a great skyline now compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

The Las Vegas airport is within close proximity to the Strip. The Luxor has a skyward laser beam shooting into the night sky ... didn't seem to pose a problem for the FAA. Many 50, 60, and 70 story hotel/casino towers have recently been built, or are planned for the Vegas Strip ... apparently no problem for the FAA.

Screw the FAA! Why should a questionable government agency be the deciding factor over a mere 500 foot tall highrise anyway? With today's technology that has been used for better airline safety and landing/takeoff, there's no reason why CityScape can't go through entirely as planned. It's not like the developers are planning to build a replica of the twin WTC towers!

In reading the article in its entirety, it doesn't look like this is as big an issue as suggested by the headline. Apparently, issuance of this type of letter is routine, and does not necessarily mean the project is threatened.

[Magnum Mike]

From the AZ Republic article FAA officials say building heights proposed for a $900 million Phoenix development are too tall and could interfere with aircraft flying over downtown.

"The structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation," FAA analyst Robert van Haastert wrote in an October letter to Scottsdale-based RED Development, which is building CityScape in downtown Phoenix.

If further analysis confirms the FAA's initial findings, RED could be denied a building permit for the project, city officials said.

I saw the headline in the paper yesterday and I glanced at it briefly. That's a bunch of bull, aircraft taking off and landing on runways 26 and 8 (north section of Sky Harbor) are usually almost a mile away from the location of the 510-foot tower. That is the take-off and landing path for large jetliners, and they never get anywhere close to the location. They may be referring to small aircraft taking off and landing on the north runways. Sky harbor already has 2 shorter runways (25 L and 7 R) which are on the southern end of Sky Harbor. I've seen smaller class of aircraft taking off from runways 25 or 26 and turning north, and sometimes they turn into the direction of downtown, but they're usually way above the 510-foot proposed height of the tallest tower. If anything, they can change the initial climb-out path (right after take-off) for small aircraft taking off from runway 26 to go further west, past downtown before they can turn north or use the south runways.

I hope the FAA does not create an obstacle in this project.

[Magnum Mike]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I saw that article in the paper ... and my immediate reaction was, "What the hell is the FAA thinking?!" The FAA apparently didn't have an issue back in the early '70s when the Chase Tower (formerly Valley Bank) was built at just under 500 feet. Why are they squawking now AFTER CityScape was approved by the city?

There are other cities with airports close to downtown, and they've allowed highrises at or above 500 feet. San Diego is a perfect example. Their airport is even closer to their downtown area than Sky Harbor is to Phoenix's downtown ... yet, there are 500 foot tall structures which have gone up without any problem. San Diego has a great skyline now compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

The Las Vegas airport is within close proximity to the Strip. The Luxor has a skyward laser beam shooting into the night sky ... didn't seem to pose a problem for the FAA. Many 50, 60, and 70 story hotel/casino towers have recently been built, or are planned for the Vegas Strip ... apparently no problem for the FAA.

Screw the FAA! Why should a questionable government agency be the deciding factor over a mere 500 foot tall highrise anyway? With today's technology that has been used for better airline safety and landing/takeoff, there's no reason why CityScape can't go through entirely as planned. It's not like the developers are planning to build a replica of the twin WTC towers!

Good morning Valley Native.

It wouldn't surprise me if the FAA made their conclusion from outdated guidelines for building heights around Sky Harbor, and by outdated, I'm talking about from the mid 1950's, when propeller powered aircraft, like the Douglas DC-6 and the Lockheed 1049 Constellation were the airliners of the day.

See my previous message about smaller aircraft.

On Las Vegas McCarren and San Diego Lindberg Field, I haven't been to Las Vegas for almost 5 years, but the LV strip is about a mile directly north of the airport's north runways and I don't think flights taking off and landing on the north runways will go by any of the tall buildings, at least that was 5 years ago, but from what I understand, they built a few 60+ story towers since then, and if they're on the strip, then I'm suspicious of the FAA's conclusion about Sky Harbor's north runways proximity to downtown.

I was impressed with what I saw in San Diego when I went there in June of this year, compared to what it was 20 years ago. The only difference between San Diego's Lindbergh Field and Sky Harbor is all of the flights take off and land heading west because the wind direction is always from the west, so the take-off and climb-out path is further west of downtown San Diego, but the final approach path on Lindbergh's south runway has about the same distance as Sky Harbor's runway 8 from downtown and I can't see why that should be a problem.

I hope this project goes fully as planned without any disruptions from the FAA.

[vegaspilgrim]

Is Phoenix a city with an airport, or an airport that happens to have some buildings around it?