NEW YORK | ABC Headquarters redevelopment | (1,250 - 420) FT | 86 & 25 FLOORS

[Magnitudes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

This is so frustrating. No matter how hard I try to understand the restrictions, I just can't wrap my head around the priorities being set here. Why should air traffic—which by its very nature is adaptable—take precedence over high-rise construction in such a limited space and dictate terms to it? Sometimes it feels more like a bureaucratic turf war than an actual effort to manage society's needs. Damn it, we're talking about Manhattan—it was already reaching for the sky before airplanes even existed.

[Zapatan]

Agreed, the height is not that out of place in Manhattan.

I wonder by how much it exceeds their threshold and if this means they'll have to shorten it (or negotiate with the FAA).

[Magnitudes]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Agreed, the height is not that out of place in Manhattan.

I wonder by how much it exceeds their threshold and if this means they'll have to shorten it (or negotiate with the FAA).

To be honest, I'm not saying this just because of this specific case. I actually don't know if this particular area affects a flight path. And sure, maybe what they're looking for here is some sort of 'negotiation'. I meant it more in a general sense, to avoid this constantly recurring issue. From my point of view, unless it's an extraordinary circumstance, the priority should be development, and everything else should adapt to it.

[Crawford]

There is no reported FAA issue here, besides the usual submission for all towers. Given this is basically Billionaires Row, and nowhere near any airport, I doubt there would be an issue for any structure unless it surpassed 2,000 ft.

If you're asking in the theoretical, I mean, it makes sense to have the FAA review structures protruding into the sky, no?

[Magnitudes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There is no reported FAA issue here, besides the usual submission for all towers. Given this is basically Billionaires Row, and nowhere near any airport, I doubt there would be an issue for any structure unless it surpassed 2,000 ft.

If you're asking in the theoretical, I mean, it makes sense to have the FAA review structures protruding into the sky, no?

Fair point, I didn't express myself clearly. What I mean is that, generally speaking, the FAA should take a back seat to the island's development interests. In fact, if you press me on it—even if it sounds radical—I'd say the FAA shouldn't have any say in this at all, because absolutely no flights should be routed directly over it in the first place.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Magnitudes

This is so frustrating. No matter how hard I try to understand the restrictions, I just can't wrap my head around the priorities being set here. Why should air traffic—which by its very nature is adaptable—take precedence over high-rise construction in such a limited space and dictate terms to it? Sometimes it feels more like a bureaucratic turf war than an actual effort to manage society's needs. Damn it, we're talking about Manhattan—it was already reaching for the sky before airplanes even existed.

There is no restriction on height here. All buildings above a minimal height have to submit plans to the FAA for safety (obstruction) reasons. The information given comes directly from the developers. There is nothing unusual here. People in other cities would have more to complain about.

[Magnitudes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

There is no restriction on height here. All buildings above a minimal height have to submit plans to the FAA for safety (obstruction) reasons. The information given comes directly from the developers. There is nothing unusual here. People in other cities would have more to complain about.

Spot on, NYGuy. I agree completely on the process. My main gripe isn't with this preliminary stage, but rather the fact that the FAA ultimately holds the scissors to cut down projects like 175 Park Avenue and the Skyline Tower. Taking a step back... Honestly, the most sensible and safe route would be relocating the airports further out and establishing cutting-edge connections to key areas. You get safety, efficiency, and above all, development. But this is NYC—there are too many hands in the pot, and nobody is going to just hand over their piece of the pie.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Magnitudes

Spot on, NYGuy. I agree completely on the process. My main gripe isn't with this preliminary stage, but rather the fact that the FAA ultimately holds the scissors to cut down projects like 175 Park Avenue and the Skyline Tower. Taking a step back... Honestly, the most sensible and safe route would be relocating the airports further out and establishing cutting-edge connections to key areas. You get safety, efficiency, and above all, development. But this is NYC—there are too many hands in the pot, and nobody is going to just hand over their piece of the pie.

There's no way that any new airport will be built. Airports are the ultimate NIMBY nightmare and funding is already difficult with existing infrastructure projects. The last major airport that was built was Denver's in 1995. NYC doesn't have it bad at all with their FAA limits compared to many other cities (for example Miami, Fort Lauderdale, San Diego, San Jose...)

[mrnyc]

cuomo blew the chance to close lga and move operations upstate to an expanded and rail connected stewart. of course that was never going to err, fly with his long island constituancy especially and tbh it was probably cheaper to just rehab lga anyway and save money for jfk work. anyway, that plane has flown.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

cuomo blew the chance to close lga and move operations upstate to an expanded and rail connected stewart. of course that was never going to err, fly with his long island constituancy especially and tbh it was probably cheaper to just rehab lga anyway and save money for jfk work. anyway, that plane has flown.

That was a dumb idea anyway.


The fact is, the FAA is an arm of safety, and we do need that. There are many areas in NY where you can't build anything tall, but luckily, the pockets where you can are in the right locations. Barnett was previously going to build as high as 1,500 ft here, but realized he didn't need that. I think 1,200 ft is high enough for this particular location in the skyline. For one thing, it helps balance out CPT, which will be further balanced out by the likes of 175 Park. I like the highest peak to be somewhat centrally located, even though in reality, it depens on where you are viewing the skyling from.

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by Magnitudes

This is so frustrating. No matter how hard I try to understand the restrictions, I just can't wrap my head around the priorities being set here. Why should air traffic—which by its very nature is adaptable—take precedence over high-rise construction in such a limited space and dictate terms to it? Sometimes it feels more like a bureaucratic turf war than an actual effort to manage society's needs. Damn it, we're talking about Manhattan—it was already reaching for the sky before airplanes even existed.

Investigate why this is needed.... upon review one realizes the "Magnitudes" of "safety first" .....



AI Overview
The FAA regulates building and tower heights in New York City primarily to protect planes from physical collisions during takeoff, landing, and low-altitude flying. Because NYC is densely packed with multiple major airports, the FAA manages height restrictions to ensure safe navigation and proper obstacle clearance.

Wikipedia
+4
Why the FAA Regulates Height
Obstruction Evaluation (Part 77): Under 14 CFR Part 77, the FAA establishes imaginary, sloping surfaces extending outward from airport runways. Buildings or towers that penetrate these protected airspaces—typically any structure over 200 feet or within specific approach paths—are legally presumed to be hazards to air navigation.

Federal Aviation Administration (.gov)
+4
Airport Proximity: NYC features major airports like LaGuardia (LGA), John F. Kennedy (JFK), and nearby Newark (EWR). The FAA requires developers to file a notice prior to construction so they can evaluate if a proposed skyscraper or antenna blocks safe instrument approach procedures or visual flight paths.

Federal Aviation Administration (.gov)
+3
Low-Altitude Routes: In addition to arriving and departing aircraft, NYC has designated low-altitude VFR (Visual Flight Rules) corridors, such as helicopter and small-plane routes over the Hudson and East rivers. Tall towers must be evaluated so they don't impede these paths.

Federal Aviation Administration (.gov)
+2
How It Impacts Local Building
Aeronautical Studies: If a proposed tower is deemed an obstruction, the FAA doesn't always issue an outright ban; instead, it conducts an aeronautical study to determine the exact impact.

Quora
+1
Zoning Integration: The FAA's airspace protections are tightly integrated into the city's own urban planning. The NYC Zoning Resolution explicitly codifies these "Flight Obstruction Areas" around major airports to prohibit development that penetrates the FAA’s protective surfaces.

NYC.gov
+1
Markings: If the FAA allows a very tall tower to be built, it may mandate specific red-and-white paint schemes or synchronized warning lights for pilot visibility.

Federal Communications Commission (.gov)
+1
If you are evaluating a specific project, let me know the approximate location or distance to the nearest airport. I can explain the specific height limitations that may apply to that site.

[Magnitudes]

At the end of the day, this is mostly just talking for the sake of talking; I don't think we're going to change city or national policy from a message board. And I'm not here to argue, just to share my point of view. From my perspective as someone deeply passionate about urban development and architecture, I want to see efficient cities. I’d like NYC to be able to keep growing along its only available axis, and if the airports limit that growth (and they do), they've outstayed their welcome. I see them as being in the way, just like the old setup in Hong Kong, for the exact same reason. If the city doesn't modernize and shed some of its baggage (and I'm definitely pointing at certain 'authorities' here), it's going to become a victim of its own success. But making that happen takes agreement, forward-thinking, and a massive amount of investment.

[NYguy]

^ No, they aren't. And I think when you're up there in a plane, you certainly want safety first. And likewise, if you're sitting in a building, office or residential, you also want to be assured of safety. There are regulations and checks and balances so that basically everyone is on board. You don't want a 500 ft tower popping up in the middle of nowhere in the middle of established flight patterns.

[Magnitudes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ No, they aren't. And I think when you're up there in a plane, you certainly want safety first. And likewise, if you're sitting in a building, office or residential, you also want to be assured of safety. There are regulations and checks and balances so that basically everyone is on board. You don't want a 500 ft tower popping up in the middle of nowhere in the middle of established flight patterns.

I hear you, but I think we're talking past each other here. We're not really debating safety—that's a given, we all want that. What we're talking about, or at least what I have in mind, is development, optimization, efficiency, and ultimately removing barriers of all kinds. And if it's being done elsewhere, it can absolutely be done in NYC too, unless there's a complete lack of big-picture thinking.

[Zapatan]

After this "study" I hope they can keep the 1,250' height which is normal in this area of Manhattan.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Magnitudes

What we're talking about, or at least what I have in mind, is development, optimization, efficiency, and ultimately removing barriers of all kinds. And if it's being done elsewhere, it can absolutely be done in NYC too, unless there's a complete lack of big-picture thinking.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Safety always trumps development, and that's in New York or anywhere else. Tall buildings go up in New York all the time, but just like anywhere else, there are stricter FAA height limits in some areas of the city than others. Luckily, the areas where New York builds skyscrapers aren't affected by it. There are cities that are (Miami, for example). No one building has the right to impede the safety of everyone else.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

After this "study" I hope they can keep the 1,250' height which is normal in this area of Manhattan.

I know you're not that slow. There are no flight patterns that will be impeded by this tower. It's why you have taller buildings nearby like CPT. They don't affect flight patterns. The study is a formality that confirms that.

[chitowncyclone]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

After this "study" I hope they can keep the 1,250' height which is normal in this area of Manhattan.

Central Park Tower is half a mile away and 300 ft taller. If this was a problem then by that logic Central Park Tower would be an even bigger one and thus not been allowed to be built at that height.