http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...timusprime.jpg

OPTIMUS PRIME!!!

Well, here's to hoping they break the law.

Also, design-wise, those buildings are SO San Diego.

^ I like it!

I'm so confused...

It has been a while since I reviewed the applicable language, BUT, I believe the southeastern portion of downtown is outside the 500-foot cap.

Also, the 500-foot cap is not a cast in stone cap. Basically, as I recall, the FAA provides criteria or guidelines for not penetrating the flight-zone. They don't say "no" to a development, but, retain the right/guidelines for certain aircraft landings/takeoffs. In their perspective, if they think there are certain criteria or guidelines being violated, then they'd re-look at the aircraft that would be permitted to land/take-off... and perhaps under certain weather related conditions.

I also believe that the General Plan, or Downtown Plan, indicates that the flight-zone should not be penetrated due to the implications to flight restrictions.

So, FAA would re-evaluate permissible use of Lindbergh, or, convey implications of this or that development, but they would not say 'no'.

Anyone is free to corrrect me... I am going from memory.

So is this building 519' at ground level or sea level?

If that's the case, and this block is outside the 500' cap, then why wouldn't the developer push the envelope to 550' or 600'? I mean 19' is a start, but come on, they could do better.

Still even 519' is progress and may open new doors for future taller buildings.

I love it.

Sure in most cities it would be ugly, but it is totally appropriate for a sunny, colorful, warm place like San Diego.

I mean, the ocean is a bright blue, the mountains are yellow and green, and the roofs of the houses are orange. Why can't the skyline have saturated colors?

If that's really 519', then send them back to the drawing board!

If they're going to be our new tallest then they better be almost as good as OAP!

Update on the Courthouse

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6045013_n.jpg

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._5492508_n.jpg

Is that all it's rising? :(

If those pics are recent, that looks like it's it: 16 stories/101.5m/333ft. They just topped out this week.

^^Really? I think it has a couple more to go before it reaches the 16 max point.

I don't honestly know the rules or regulations, but wasn't it the FAA that forced that developer to lop the top few floors off of the tower they were building near Montgomery Field a few years ago?

I think that building was penetrating a different kind of airspace since it was closer to the airfield. I think bmfarley is correct but I am also going by memory. If they breach the 500' cieling, then that will simply affect airplane operations at Lindbergh. I am assuming this means that the runway displacement threshold expands.

Correct-- I'll find the regulations tomorrow but the FAA has complete sovereignty over the navigable airspace and a building is a hazard, FAA can limit its height. Here in the DC area, two buildings in Rosslyn, VA, had to get FAA approval. The buildings are 380-400 ft and are near the flight path to Reagan-National.

Is office tower's height a hazard?
Sunroad told to halt work on building near city's Montgomery Field

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...n5tootall.html

I posted this a few yrs back about building heights (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169060)

This is from the FAA (https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp ).


CFR Title 14 Part 77.13 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA:

any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft above ground level
any construction or alteration:
within 20,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 ft
within 10,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft
within 5,000 ft of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface
any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above noted standards
when requested by the FAA
any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location.

The relevant regulation is 2004 CFR 14 Sec. 77.23, Standards for determining obstructions. The link is: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...14cfr77.23.pdf ). The following FAA order about objects affecting the navigable airspace is also useful: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...R/air0502.html. Figure 5-2-1 notes that a developer has to provide the FAA notice of proposed alteration or construction if the building or tower is more than 200 feet above ground level. The height of the ground level isn't at issue. Thus, if a developer built a 175 foot building on a mountain at 5,000feet above sea level, the developer not not be required to contact FAA.

Can someone give me some perspective on this: what does this recent action mean for the likelihood that the project will actually proceed to completion? Does it change the odds? And what are the odds?

Doug manchester is moving forward on the Navy Broadway Complex project.http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...eway-complex-/ Finally!

I'm interested to see what all these buildings end up looking like coming out of their "detailed designs." I'm guessing the design of most of the buildings will change from what we saw in the renderings.

No. The FAA told the city what the implications were to aviation. The city was compelled to act, otherwise Montgomery was screwed for air planes.