Downtown Orlando Height Limit Discussion

[Tim3167]

Maybe we can have a mod make a sticky for us later but let's at least create a new thread for this! Last year I actually e mailed Buddy Dyer abouth the height limit and he responded that city staff were looking into ways to allow taller buildings in the CBD.

Sounded at least a little promising...but then he got arrested...maybe he forgot

[pip]

thanks for the thread.. in hopes of redirecting the discussion here..i'll re-post this here..

Having worked as a consultant for the FAA for many years, one thing i've learned is very clear. They are very slow and cautious in making changes to rules and procedures. It's just its nature because their primary purpose and reason for existence is safety in the air. Can the height limits be changed? of course. And controllers will be able to deal with it and keep the airspace safe. I've been impressed for years by controllers ability to direct traffic under any circumstance, its quite amazing to watch. But changing height limits will effect controllers flexibility in vectoring aircraft, and if they have a choice, as they currently do, they have no motive to change current rules. A mountain near an approach and departure pattern is not exactly something they can regulate, so they deal with it.

But i think it will eventually be adjusted some day. Economics drives all and will dictate when, as everything else. Believe me, when there is an obvious economic benefit for the city and the airport, this topic will be seriously discussed. we're just not there yet.

[shardoon]

thanks for the thread.. in hopes of redirecting the discussion here..i'll re-post this here..

Having worked as a consultant for the FAA for many years, one thing i've learned is very clear. They are very slow and cautious in making changes to rules and procedures. It's just its nature because their primary purpose and reason for existence is safety in the air. Can the height limits be changed? of course. And controllers will be able to deal with it and keep the airspace safe. I've been impressed for years by controllers ability to direct traffic under any circumstance, its quite amazing to watch. But changing height limits will effect controllers flexibility in vectoring aircraft, and if they have a choice, as they currently do, they have no motive to change current rules. A mountain near an approach and departure pattern is not exactly something they can regulate, so they deal with it.

But i think it will eventually be adjusted some day. Economics drives all and will dictate when, as everything else. Believe me, when there is an obvious economic benefit for the city and the airport, this topic will be seriously discussed. we're just not there yet.

well said. its amazing, but i think getting a change may be easier than we all think. a study needs to be done and im sure the faa doesnt want to spend a dime on it. its going to come down to the city, and if they finance one...... i think the faa may budge quite easily.

[Magicfan95]

Glenda Hood wouldn't do it for Pizzuti, maybe Dyer will. I still think it's a limit that is stuck for awhile because of the cost to actually run such a survey.

[shardoon]

Glenda Hood wouldn't do it for Pizzuti, maybe Dyer will. I still think it's a limit that is stuck for awhile because of the cost to actually run such a survey.

lets start a charity

[bulldogger]

I think we will have to wait for this round of buildings to go up and the residents to acclimate themselves. See if the retail can sustain itself for a few years. Then, when the next crop of highrises is ready to come into the New Orlando, we may be ready for some taller buildings to stand out. There is still plenty of land in downtown Orlando to be developed. It's not like we're out of space.

[demon]

I think we will have to wait for this round of buildings to go up and the residents to acclimate themselves. See if the retail can sustain itself for a few years. Then, when the next crop of highrises is ready to come into the New Orlando, we may be ready for some taller buildings to stand out. There is still plenty of land in downtown Orlando to be developed. It's not like we're out of space.

I agree. We have some gaping holes in downtown to fill, and until we do that I don't think we'll see a change in the height restrictions. Has any developer even asked to build something over 441 (with the exception of Pizutti)?

[bobdreamz]

why doesn't somebody buy that airport & shut it down!...seriously why is it so close to downtown?

[illliterate02]

why doesn't somebody buy that airport & shut it down!...seriously why is it so close to downtown?

I dont think they ever thought that downtown would become what is has nor what it could be when they first made that space. Eventually that land will become so expensive and they will sell it off. Maybe not for a couple decades... But that land is just too valueble for not really dealing with commercial airliners

[gibby]

Someone will have to explain the landing pattern thing to me. I don't quite understand. The runways are not exactly east-west at Herndon. I had to get an FAA approval about 9 years ago for a hotel near MCO and I asked them about the downtown restriction. I was told that the restriction was as much for safe MCO landings as it was for the executive airport. Also, the City of Miami has been deeply involved in helping developers with tall tall buildings in Miami and they still are not making much progress. Their airport is a little further from downtown than Herndon but their proposed buildings are clearly in the way but they are still over 600 feet tall.

[uncreativeusername]

I agree with pip on this one - economics will solve this. We don't really need to worry about this study being done/getting financed. When there is significant demand for the height (i.e. land resources downtown get tight) developers have enough leverage with the 440' precedent to be looked at seriously.

Until then, I'm happy with increasing density

[bobdreamz]

Someone will have to explain the landing pattern thing to me. I don't quite understand. The runways are not exactly east-west at Herndon. I had to get an FAA approval about 9 years ago for a hotel near MCO and I asked them about the downtown restriction. I was told that the restriction was as much for safe MCO landings as it was for the executive airport. Also, the City of Miami has been deeply involved in helping developers with tall tall buildings in Miami and they still are not making much progress. Their airport is a little further from downtown than Herndon but their proposed buildings are clearly in the way but they are still over 600 feet tall.

well I'm from Miami but living here temporarily and the FAA has managed to chop a lot of heights for buildings in Miami even in the CBD which isn't even in their flight pattern. As for the airport near downtown Orlando I just find it bizzare to have an airport that close...eventually it will become very valuable developable land if it isn't already.

[Magicfan95]

Bob that was THE airport in Orlando until around 30 years ago (give or take a few years). The current Int'l airport was McCoy Air Force (thus MCO) base, which was converted amongst other reasons to handle more incomming traffic as the tourist industry grew.

As for selling it, it won't happen the city makes WAY too much money charging people to use it privately. It's a very economicly well off airport.

[Camillo Sitte]

Someone will have to explain the landing pattern thing to me. I don't quite understand. The runways are not exactly east-west at Herndon. I had to get an FAA approval about 9 years ago for a hotel near MCO and I asked them about the downtown restriction. I was told that the restriction was as much for safe MCO landings as it was for the executive airport. Also, the City of Miami has been deeply involved in helping developers with tall tall buildings in Miami and they still are not making much progress. Their airport is a little further from downtown than Herndon but their proposed buildings are clearly in the way but they are still over 600 feet tall.

Here is a little bit of background and info...

Folks, the issue with the height restriction in downtown Orlando is this: Actually there isn

[Tim3167]

Great post Camiilo, Very informative.

I've mentioned this before but I thought I'd include again an e mail I received from Budy Dyer on 2/21/2005 replying to me about the "Height Limit". Unless I'm missing some differences in semantics it seems to be along the same lines as what was just stated.

"First, I would like to thank you for your positive feedback about development in downtown. I understand your concerns about the possibility of a homogeneous looking skyline.

The FAA does not actually set a limit for the buildings in downtown. However, they do make advisories about possible unsafe obstructions. It is ultimately the decision of the local joint airport zoning boards for OIA and the Executive Airport.

City staff is studying ways to allow for taller structures however this may require modifications of landing procedures at the Orlando Executive Airport.

As these studies progress I will keep citizens informed. Thank you for your inquiry and I hope I was able to answer your questions.

Sincerely,

Buddy Dyer

Mayor "

[Camillo Sitte]

Great post Camiilo, Very informative.

I've mentioned this before but I thought I'd include again an e mail I received from Budy Dyer on 2/21/2005 replying to me about the "Height Limit". Unless I'm missing some differences in semantics it seems to be along the same lines as what was just stated.

"First, I would like to thank you for your positive feedback about development in downtown. I understand your concerns about the possibility of a homogeneous looking skyline.

The FAA does not actually set a limit for the buildings in downtown. However, they do make advisories about possible unsafe obstructions. It is ultimately the decision of the local joint airport zoning boards for OIA and the Executive Airport.

City staff is studying ways to allow for taller structures however this may require modifications of landing procedures at the Orlando Executive Airport.

As these studies progress I will keep citizens informed. Thank you for your inquiry and I hope I was able to answer your questions.

Sincerely,

Buddy Dyer

Mayor "

Yup.

Looks like we just have to wait until [a] CBD land becomes scarce [read more expensive] or a developer with deep enough pockets steps up and forces the issue.

Time will tell.

[pip]

why doesn't somebody buy that airport & shut it down!...seriously why is it so close to downtown?

Good question, but the cost of land is a big factor, plus as the city grows, this airport will be more busy, for example from people flying in on their private jets to stay at their Tradition Tower condos j/k

seriously though, this type of airport provides services for a city. Example, Teterboro Airport in NJ is a great example. It's an exectuive airport that serves NYC. The probability is that as Orlando grows, our economic stature as a city grows (hopefully), we're going to need somewhere for millionaires to land their private jets.

[illliterate02]

Good question, but the cost of land is a big factor, plus as the city grows, this airport will be more busy, for example from people flying in on their private jets to stay at their Tradition Tower condos j/k

seriously though, this type of airport provides services for a city. Example, Teterboro Airport in NJ is a great example. It's an exectuive airport that serves NYC. The probability is that as Orlando grows, our economic stature as a city grows (hopefully), we're going to need somewhere for millionaires to land their private jets.

They can fly to Kissimmee, it is closer to the stuff they want to go to anyways.

[uncreativeusername]

They can fly to Kissimmee, it is closer to the stuff they want to go to anyways.

Not for businesses. It's a huge asset for downtown in terms of luring companies.

Not that I can't wait for the day a building surpasses 441. I take some satisfaction in the fact that the airport supports businesses downtown, and by that logic, is actually hastening the point at which developers/the city will stand up to the FAA and build bigger buildings.

[AirJay78]

question... if 441 ft is the maximum, then why have there not been many other proposals for the same height. The closest to that I believe is the vue and I guess 55west and as for office towers, none that I know of. So overall, building just 400 footers alone seems to be something of little demand to this city as of date.

So why even bother thinking or even talking about lifting the height limit if we cant even get a sugnificant amount of 400 footers downtown?

[Tim3167]

I totally agree. I'm not convinced that the skyline would look any different today if there were not this "limit". I think economics has been the real cap to this point. It wasn't the FAA that killed the Pizutti project, it was lack of tenants.

That being said, I think it is starting to impact the newer proposals as developers don't want to challenge this established threshold.

[Magicfan95]

Not to mention the insurance on the building would be A LOT regardless of the challenge. The point is no one wants to spend the money to insure a building that height.

[dpalum]

question... if 441 ft is the maximum, then why have there not been many other proposals for the same height. The closest to that I believe is the vue and I guess 55west and as for office towers, none that I know of. So overall, building just 400 footers alone seems to be something of little demand to this city as of date.

So why even bother thinking or even talking about lifting the height limit if we cant even get a sugnificant amount of 400 footers downtown?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems like Riggley Manor, Flatrion, and Orlando City Place (+/- 460') all have towers that have approached the 400+ foot limit. We all know that Riggley Manor will not be built, Flatrion is too new of a proposal to guage its progress, and that Orlando City Place may be having some financing issues. I think that there may be a demand--or may have been a a demand--for these taller towers, but when the shorter ones go through less red tape and are subsequently financed more quickly (probably due to their expedience and less space to lease/sell to ensure construction) the 400+ towers are often pushed out of the market first.

Also, does anyone know if Orlando City Place is approved by the FAA/City? Because if it is, it would, of course, be a new tallest in Orlando.

[Tim3167]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems like Riggley Manor, Flatrion, and Orlando City Place (+/- 460') all have towers that have approached the 400+ foot limit. We all know that Riggley Manor will not be built, Flatrion is too new of a proposal to guage its progress, and that Orlando City Place may be having some financing issues. I think that there may be a demand--or may have been a a demand--for these taller towers, but when the shorter ones go through less red tape and are subsequently financed more quickly (probably due to their expedience and less space to lease/sell to ensure construction) the 400+ towers are often pushed out of the market first.

Also, does anyone know if Orlando City Place is approved by the FAA/City? Because if it is, it would, of course, be a new tallest in Orlando.

OK, what did I miss? What the heck is the Flatrion proposal?

[UPSDAN]

OK, what did I miss? What the heck is the Flatrion proposal?

Flatiron= 1000 North Orange