SEATTLE | 701 Fourth Avenue | 1,020 FT | 91 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

The article mSeattle posted mentions 965 feet as the limit, but if 992 is the case that's still a great addition and officially a supertall! (Because meters runs the world not feet)

Either height would be great of course but 1100 would be just amazing.

[JiminyCricket II]

FAA ruling on 102-story tower: Don't count this 'presumed hazard' out

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/p...ount-this.html

Marc Stiles, PSBJ

Just because the Federal Aviation Administration sent a “notice of presumed hazard” to the developer of the 102-story tower planned for downtown Seattle doesn’t mean the project won’t get built.

The notice states that at 1,117 feet the tower could interfere with Boeing Field operations, and added that to get “a favorable determination” from the agency Crescent Heights would have to reduce the height of the building to 965 feet. That’s about the height of Seattle’s tallest tower, the 76-story Columbia Center.

FAA evaluations of tall buildings are not uncommon. In fact, the agency says it has evaluated every building over 200 feet tall in Seattle. In a statement, the agency said it will negotiate with tower developers for as long as required.

“Sometimes a compromise can be reached if the effects on aeronautical operations aren’t too severe and the FAA can live with them,” according to the statement. “Other times the FAA has to hold firm in order to protect one or more airports and the airspace and procedures serving those airports. Some negotiations have taken years.”

Crescent’s aviation consultant, David Ketchum, of T-O Engineers’ Boise, Idaho office, said initial responses from the FAA for tall structures almost always use the term “presumed hazard.” In a related statement, Crescent officials added that the FAA requires and in-depth study and once it’s done they anticipate that a “no hazard” determination will be reached.

[KevinFromTexas]

Tall is good and I like the design, of course, but there's also something especially cool about that number. 1,111 feet and 101 floors. Come on! How can you deny us that??

[InlandEmpire]

Does anyone know if it's officially 101 or 102 floors? I keep seeing both numbers. If 102, that's tied with the ESB and behind only Willis and One World Trade in the US for number of levels.

[chris08876]

JiminyCricket's artice is a good example of how the FAA and developers compromise. Lots of compromising occurs in Miami where towers often get these recommendations for a much lower height, but they have extensive studies, negotiate, and most of the time its a win-win for the developer. Seattle being no different. Exciting time. I hope Seattle joins the super tall ranks of SF, and LA. Good to see the West Coast building tall. It will be a change too from the dozens of 440' towers for Seattle. This, and the rising Mark will redefine the area.

[Zapatan]

That's good, my hatred of the FAA has subsided a little.

Hopefully similar compromise can be made for Dallas's proposed tallest.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That's good, my hatred of the FAA has subsided a little.

Hopefully similar compromise can be made for Dallas's proposed tallest.

They just approved Jersey City's new tallest. At 899 ft, which is a good compromise. I mean, its not 990 ft, but damn, can't complain. So there not that bad. Well... sometimes they are, but I can forgive them. Its Friday, some good news today with other towers, and all is well.

Same concept applies. A letter of no hazard.

[JiminyCricket II]

[urbanlife]

I am not sure how I feel about the shape of the building, but it will definitely have a massive impact on the skyline if it gets built.

[Zapatan]

I like it! Good for Seattle

[NYguy]

I like this design.

[chris08876]

From the design pdf:


DRProposal3020955AgendaID5784_Page_48 (1) by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr


DRProposal3020955AgendaID5784_Page_85 (1) by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr


DRProposal3020955AgendaID5784_Page_12 (1) by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr


DRProposal3020955AgendaID5784_Page_05 (1) by Christopher Estevez, on Flickr

[summersm343]

What are AGL and ASML? "Above ground level" and "above mean sea level?"

If AGL is "above ground level," does this mean it will be 959' if FAA does not approve height and 1029' if FAA approves height?

[chris08876]

They are seeking to build 1,029 ft as that's the proposal height for 4th and Colombia aka 4/c.

Amending it via FAA request from the current 959 max height. The site benefits from the sea level change giving it extra height when viewed from ground level a far.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by chris08876

They are seeking to build 1,029 ft as that's the proposal height for 4th and Colombia aka 4/c.

Amending it via FAA request from the current 959 max height. The site benefits from the sea level change giving it extra height when viewed from ground level a far.

Well let's hope they approve the 1,029 height then. The U.S. needs another Supertall and this is good for Seattle

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by summersm343

What are AGL and ASML? "Above ground level" and "above mean sea level?"

If AGL is "above ground level," does this mean it will be 959' if FAA does not approve height and 1029' if FAA approves height?

Yes. AGL means "above ground level" - while AMSL means "above mean sea level." I've seen it before listed on building elevations. The AMSL is typically only listed for cities that are at or very near sea level.

I do see the sea level heights listed on some projects in Austin, but not all. If you go look up FAA permits, though, they always list the mean sea level height for a project, plus the structure height in a separate row.

Anyway, it's a drag that it'll be shorter. I still really like the design. The facade looks like it could end up being beautiful.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II

Wow this looks absolutely fabulous in the skyline. I was a bit concerned, the Columbia Center is one of my favorites and the initial though of it loosing it's title worried me. However this possible new tallest couldn't be in a more perfect location. This, along with 888 2nd Avenue, will be great additions to the skyline. I've always admired how Seattle's tallest buildings sit on a hilltop on the edge of the skyline, these towers will only make the effect even more dramatic. I say BUILD IT!

BTW, it's interesting that they've included the never built antennas on the Columbia Center in those massing models, I never knew those were a thing.

[chris08876]

Its like a little baby Sears in that model.

I posted this in the Seattle compilation, but for the threads sake, and the record, the design pdf :

Design pdf: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/G...endaID5784.pdf

Lots of material. Should download quick too. The size for this one is much smaller than some that I've seen. I forget which one, but I once downloaded a 400mb pdf, and Chrome didn't like it for some reason when viewing it.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I like this design.

Me too--it's wonderful and will be a great addition for Seattle. I can't say I'm overly sad that our Salesforce Tower will remain the tallest for now, but I love our sister city to the north too.

[TallBob]

Nice tower Seattle....probably will be a while before anything gets built though!