View Single Post
  #5  
Old Posted May 12, 2009, 3:14 PM
IMADreamer IMADreamer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by dachacon View Post
the FAA has legal clearance over all US territories to set height limits. the 2000ft. limit was enacted when airplanes became a major mode of transportation, and used to separate the use of high altitudes between planes and buildings(lobbying by the airline industry, before you could have built as high as you wanted). the conception of air rights are a result of this. the whole point was to prevent airplanes from crashing into buildings, planes cant cruise below 2000ft unless there taking off or landing. though that failed on sept 11th. and the world trade center collapse. the idea of the FAA allowing taller structures over the height limit is laughable, if anything im surprised they didn't lower the height limit. if any building challenges the height limit not only will they have to contend with an FAA that will not, under any circumstances gonna give an exception due to ample land area, the public outcry will be enough to kill the project before its even starts the entitlement process.

as long as there's fear of another plane crash, the height limit stays and there is no way to get around it. not even obama can change this.
I'm not sure what world you live in, but this is America where money changes EVERYTHING and I guarantee you any FAA ruling is no exception to that fact. The right guy with the right sized wallet could get that changed in a heart beat.

Not to mention that while 9-11 had an effect on America no doubt it certainly hasn't stopped us from building taller. Couple that with the fact that airplanes, particularly air liners fly much higher then 2000ft I don't see 2000ft as any significant barrier, but more as an arbitrary number.
Reply With Quote