HOUSTON | Development Thread II

[Dale]

Originally Posted by CALMSP

using our skyline as an excuse to limit our height is pathetic. If HKG could land 747 jumbos at the old Kai Tak airport, our little737's can land at HOU with a higher skyline.

I agree, but those Chinese are crazy people.

[toxteth o'grady]

Originally Posted by Cuzco1

Although I myself don't have a definite source, there has been an article that was discussing a past supertall skyscraper for Houston and it implied there was no longer any height restriction because airplanes are no longer allowed to come close to the central district especially after 9/11.

I think that's also incorrect, but you can verify it easily by driving downtown and watching the Southwest 737's come overhead. It's awfully hard to deviate that flight track; you're less than six miles from Downtown, which is the minimum length of a final approach. And that runway with the approaches from the Northwest is still in the same location and still points the same direction.

[toxteth o'grady]

Originally Posted by CALMSP

using our skyline as an excuse to limit our height is pathetic. If HKG could land 747 jumbos at the old Kai Tak airport, our little737's can land at HOU with a higher skyline.

That operation at Kai Tak was never safe. A.net has dozens of pictures and more than one video of just how crazy it was to land at that airport.

And since the airport got moved to Chep Lap Kok, the supertalls have really started rising in Hong Kong...

[rdavis4559]

So is the height restriction just for downtown? Could the Galleria build a supertall with few worries?

[weatherguru18]

Look, I'm pretty sure there are no height restrictions anymore. Chase was built at 75 stories because the FAA simply asked them if they could. (Like 5 floors really makes that much difference). It wasn't a demand. Somebody posted an article on here, I believe in the "World's Tallest Building" thread on HAIF that the height restrictions were no longer in place. I'm not saying they don't have them, and I'm not saying they do. I could be wrong...however, I did see the article that mentioned that height restrictions were no longer in place.

[toxteth o'grady]

Originally Posted by weatherguru18

Look, I'm pretty sure there are no height restrictions anymore. Chase was built at 75 stories because the FAA simply asked them if they could.

The truth is the FAA has no enforcement powers. About all they can do is declare a structure a hazard, which makes it tougher to insure.

The Galleria, being out west, is not under any approaches to any runways and is less subject to restriction...

[rdavis4559]

Maybe this will help:
Chase Tower's website states "JPMorgan Chase Tower was originally planned to be 80 stories tall, but the Federal Aviation Administration limited this and future buildings to 75 stories; anything higher would be labeled by the federal agency as hazardous to air navigation. JPMorgan Chase Tower has an emergency helipad on the rooftop, but has never been utilized and the rooftop is now an antenna site."

http://www.chasetower.com/buildinghistory.htm

How quickly do you think Chase would update their website once said FAA regulation had been abolished?

Also, this article from 11/01/1981:

"The FAA could change the rule by declaring the air space above the downtown area to be off limits for airling flights. No such change is reported in the offing at the moment."

I couldn't find anything on the FAA's website to contradict these assertions.

[Complex01]

They should close Hobby, i dont like that air port anyhow. But yeah that wont happen anytime soon.

If anything there is still plenty of parking lots downtown that could be used for something TALL, thats for sure...

[weatherguru18]

Originally Posted by rdavis4559

Maybe this will help:
Chase Tower's website states "JPMorgan Chase Tower was originally planned to be 80 stories tall, but the Federal Aviation Administration limited this and future buildings to 75 stories; anything higher would be labeled by the federal agency as hazardous to air navigation. JPMorgan Chase Tower has an emergency helipad on the rooftop, but has never been utilized and the rooftop is now an antenna site."

http://www.chasetower.com/buildinghistory.htm

How quickly do you think Chase would update their website once said FAA regulation had been abolished?

Also, this article from 11/01/1981:

"The FAA could change the rule by declaring the air space above the downtown area to be off limits for airling flights. No such change is reported in the offing at the moment."

I couldn't find anything on the FAA's website to contradict these assertions.

This coming from an article that states the Chase Tower is 998 ft. tall. Enough said.

[Wattleigh]

Originally Posted by weatherguru18

This coming from an article that states the Chase Tower is 998 ft. tall. Enough said.

It is, to the ceiling of the 75th floor at least. Hooper's Columns are a goldmine when it comes to info on these projects, so I don't think the fact is incorrect. The building was still UNDER CONSTRUCTION at the time the article was written as well, so the actual height wasn't determined. There's also the raised helipad + antenna farm atop the building... wonder what that raises the height to?

Toxeth O'Grady's point is accurate. The Bank of the Southwest Center was around 1400 ft to the spire, and it was indeed approved. Financing is the only thing that slayed that project. Contrary to popular belief, it remained a proposal well into the late 80s, only dropping off around 1989. The reason? The hunt for backers when the well was dry.

[photoLith]

I cant believe back in the 70's downtown Houston was so crappy. I have never seen a photo of it from the air until I saw that newspaper article up there. Look at all those parking lots, weve come a long way, thats for sure since then. About half of them parking lots are still there though, most should be gone I would imagine within the next 30-40 years.

[urbanactivist]

They're filling up pretty fast at the moment. But hopefully we'll keep one or two for "historical preservation" purposes.

[weatherguru18]

Originally Posted by Wattleigh

It is, to the ceiling of the 75th floor at least. Hooper's Columns are a goldmine when it comes to info on these projects, so I don't think the fact is incorrect. The building was still UNDER CONSTRUCTION at the time the article was written as well, so the actual height wasn't determined. There's also the raised helipad + antenna farm atop the building... wonder what that raises the height to?

Toxeth O'Grady's point is accurate. The Bank of the Southwest Center was around 1400 ft to the spire, and it was indeed approved. Financing is the only thing that slayed that project. Contrary to popular belief, it remained a proposal well into the late 80s, only dropping off around 1989. The reason? The hunt for backers when the well was dry.

Well on the Hines site, it states that the building is 1,049 ft. from street level to roof.

[JManc]

i'd rather have a few more 1000 footers than one really tall building which would throw off the balance of the skyline.

[KevinFromTexas]

Interesting about that 998 foot height for the JPMorgan Chase Tower. Emporis actually has a 993 foot height for the main roof. I checked the source on that, it's "Katherine Draw" something. I couldn't read all of it, because when a height field is locked you can't read the rest of it (kind of stupid actually). I've actually wondered before if the building is taller.

Originally Posted by Weatherguru18

Well on the Hines site, it states that the building is 1,049 ft. from street level to roof.

Interesting.

Emporis also lists the Wells Fargo Plaza at 992 feet tall, versus the old 972 foot height we used to hear. The 992 foot height came from the 1986 World Almanac. The 972 foot height may actually be the main roof.

Originally Posted by Wattleigh

There's also the raised helipad + antenna farm atop the building... wonder what that raises the height to?

Any antenna used for communication would not be counted in the official height of the building since they are not part of the design. As you mentioned the building originally had a helipad up there, (though I did not know this). Then later the antennas were added. So they were never intended as part of the design of the building. Quite different from a spire, antennae can have height added, removed or have the entire antenna removed if they aren't needed anymore. Of instance, the Empire State Building in New York didn't have an antenna until the 1950s, at least 20 years after the building was built. And after the WTC towers were destroyed they lost a communication mast that was atop one of them. So one other building in Midtown had its antenna increased in height to take its place. When that WTC tower was destroyed, several NYC area tv and radio stations were knocked off the air.

Originally Posted by JMancuso

i'd rather have a few more 1000 footers than one really tall building which would throw off the balance of the skyline.

Absolutely. I love the fact that Houston's skyline is so well proportioned. The view of it from a distance is amazing at times.

[rdavis4559]

Originally Posted by JMancuso

i'd rather have a few more 1000 footers than one really tall building which would throw off the balance of the skyline.

True but I would also thing that one really tall one would end up attracting more 1000 footers.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by rdavis4559

True but I would also thing that one really tall one would end up attracting more 1000 footers.

or detract. a big honkin' 1,500 footer means there's a lot more office space on the market and less need for other large buildings.

btw, chase is 1,002'

[rdavis4559]

The Burj Dubai is attracting a lot more tall buildings (though I half expect all of this Dubai craziness to crash pretty hard).

[rdavis4559]

Ashby high-rise set to go forward as planned
Developers say the city's inaction led them to begin permits process

By MIKE SNYDER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
TOOLS
Email

Get section feed
Print

Subscribe NOW
Comments (8)

Recommend
RESOURCES
TOWER PLANS ARE REVISED

Some key differences between the original Ashby high-rise plan and a new proposal:

Residential units

• Original : 232 apartments or 187 condominiums.
• Revised : 130 condo units in the tower, plus four detached townhouses on Ashby.

Height

• Original : 23 stories, including five parking levels above grade.
• Revised : 22 stories, with two underground parking levels and four above grade.

Design

• Original : two-tower design.
• Revised: single tower with smaller footprint.

The developers of the controversial Ashby high-rise said Monday they are moving forward with their long-delayed permit applications because city officials haven't responded to their compromise offer to build a smaller development.

The decision by developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners revives their original 23-story project that has been on hold since November, when the developers agreed to delay seeking permits after an outcry from surrounding neighborhoods led to discussions of new development regulations at City Hall.

Morgan and Kirton said their revised proposal calls for a 22-story building with a smaller footprint and fewer residential units — changes they said would eliminate any possibility the project would cause unacceptable traffic congestion.

The developers said they submitted this idea to city officials three weeks ago but had received no reply.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/5627792.html

[Trae]

Originally Posted by JMancuso

or detract. a big honkin' 1,500 footer means there's a lot more office space on the market and less need for other large buildings.

btw, chase is 1,002'

Not if it is a mixed-use tower and a 1500 foot tower won't look out of place in Downtown.