Why is the airport so close to downtown? (building, about)

[JasonAnc]

Originally Posted by brinkofsunshine

I thought it was the executive airport that has forced a limitation on building heights, not MCO?

It is.

MCO, which is well southeast of downtown, doesn't impact DT Orlando at all really. Orlando Executive Airport just to the east does though.

Also, Tampa actually suffers from the same issue due to Peter O'Knight Airport not far to the south. Except instead of a height limit of roughly 350'-450' or so like over most of downtown Orlando, Tampa's limit goes from about 325' on the south end, to around 700' up on the north end.

There are numerous other cities around the US where there are such issues, with varying degrees of impact. DC, Phoenix, San Jose, San Diego, Anchorage all quickly come to mind.

[JasonAnc]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Most cities with a bunch of tall skyscrapers do so because land is limited, which is why you see them in urban areas. I'm pretty well traveled so when I think of tall skyscrapers, I think of Hong Kong, Tokyo, NYC. Orlando will never have that with or without a nearby airport. However, if he is just talking about a couple mid-size skyscrapers, I guess so...

There's another reason to built tall and dense in city centers. The more growth is directed inward, the less it's directed outwards to knock down SFH suburbs and encroach into rural and natural areas, which are just as vital to a cosmopolitan and livable city as the inner city density is. (each kinds of neighborhoods obviously draw different kinds of people into the mix) If you can't built dense in the city, then the city spreads and spreads and spreads.

And the more the infrastructure gets spread out, and the lower the density is, the more the infrastructure costs to build and maintain, and the less tax base there is to pay for it all.

[chopchop0]

The op is referring to the small commercial airport off the 408, not mco, the main airport which is nowhere near downtown. Vegas is a good example of an airport right near the main attractions

[GAtoFL]

Originally Posted by tricon7

I absolutely want skyscrapers. The taller the better. Usually the size of a city is defined by the height of its tallest buildings. Except for Orlando and Birmingham, AL.

But why??

[adamosgp]

MCO is about a half hour away from Downtown. That's not far or close.

It's the Executive Airport you're mentioning.

I don't have a problem with our skyline and most Orlando folks don't. Skyscrapers are overrated.

I lived in Conway for 24 years and I had no issues with the airplanes flying into MCO. It was pretty cool.

[WithDisp]

Originally Posted by tricon7

In all the other cities I've lived except for one, the main airport was well away from the city in order for the skyline to grow and just avoid plane noise traffic. I live north of the city and the planes are low; I can't imagine living south of town. Why would the city planners put the airport so close to downtown? That only put a mandatory cap on building heights, so we'll never have tall skyscrapers like Tampa and Jacksonville have.

The main airport in Orlando is not stopping buildings from being built- Orlando Executive Airport sets that tone, which is smaller and in theory could be moved or rearranged.

That said, there is no desire or need for incredibly tall buildings.
Orlando has excess land, and high buildings are liabilities when it comes to hurricanes costing more for construction.

Half the high rises we have now aren't filled to capacity either.

Jacksonville and Tampa have buildings that are taller than Orlando, but not by leaps and bounds.
I don't think any of these cities have particularly defined Skylines.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by tricon7

I absolutely want skyscrapers. The taller the better. Usually the size of a city is defined by the height of its tallest buildings. Except for Orlando and Birmingham, AL.

Many large cities to that.

Montreal has height regulations, yet anyone who visits the city will know that it is FAR from a small city.
Washington, DC has the same deal. Likewise, it is a huge city.
Most large European cities have relatively low skylines.

[Crane's Rooster]

Boston's financial district is fairly low because of nearby Logan, but as a result is very dense and impressive. If you go a little further out into Copely square you find the Prudential and the Hancock tower, Boston's 2 tallest buidlings. So it's almost as if there are 2 skylines.

[JennyMominRI]

Originally Posted by tricon7

I absolutely want skyscrapers. The taller the better. Usually the size of a city is defined by the height of its tallest buildings. Except for Orlando and Birmingham, AL.

And most of Europe

[Crane's Rooster]

Seriously, I think today's skyscrapers and the race to the top are just modern day fallic symbols. There are great cities such as Boston, San Francisco and DC that have no buildings even nearing a 1000 ft. yet I'm convinced these cities are of just as much global significance as the cities building into the heavens like Dubai, Kaula Luampur, etc. Even the worlds premier cities NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, Rio, etc are no longer home to the world's tallest nor do they aspire to be. Give me ground level activity any day over tall buildings with empty streets.