# Height Restrictions



## Sea-Roc (Jul 3, 2005)

Height limits. Basically every city has got them, in some form or another. Europe of course can provide some of the more extreme examples. Some cities, like Madison, WI and formerly Philadelphia don't allow buildings taller than a certain landmark (WI State Capital, City Hall, respectively). Others like San Diego are constrained by proximity to an airport. Even the skyscraper capital of the world (arguably), Hong Kong, won't allow buildings heigher than Victoria Peak. I believe the entire United States has a national height limit of 2000 feet that prevented the Chicago Spire from being even taller. So obviously height restrictions vary considerably from place to place, but they are an important topic for us skyscraper nerds.

So what are the height restrictions like in you city? What are some of the specific reasons for them? Are exceptions ever made? And what kind of effects do you think they have had in your city the way they have been implemented?


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

I highly doubt that the US has a limit at 2000 ft - or even a limit at all. That, I'm thinking is a bit silly.

Edmonton's height restriction is due to the airport overlay. The current tallest building is 143 m or so however, there is a building or two planned to be taller than that as they are further from the airport.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

When Kai-Tak airport was still operational, Kowloon had some height restriction. Today, skyscraper walls are being built within this area.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> When Kai-Tak airport was still operational, Kowloon had some height restriction. Today, skyscraper walls are being built within this area.


That's not really true. Although height limits were around during the Kai Tak era, today's skyscraper walls are actually concentrated in *West Kowloon*, and not around the Kai Tak area. There are 2 massive new redevelopments just southwest of the Kai Tak terminal building, but the whole swath of area around it still remains fairly short.

Meanwhile, the reclaimed areas along West Kowloon have seen enormous development, especially since it is right on the subway line. Recently, a plot was sold next to One SilverSea, which prompted concerns a skyscraper wall will emerge in Tai Kok Tsui, blocking air flow into the older areas. Same goes to the waterfront areas of Lai Chi Kok where a series of new buildings have popped up.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

In Budapest, 65m is the height limit.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

in my city, most areas have four floors, some even three. One avenue is 8 floors. And in the towers are, even in there it is restrictive, the last highest tower built in the 21st century is only 16 floors, despite being close to a tower built in 1979 that has about 30 floors (85 metres).

But the most extreme case in Portugal is Lisbon, they planned really beautiful towers there, but they don't allow any. What a pitty, but some areas shouldn't have towers, like old neighbourhoods. Skyscraper heaven is some country in Eastern Europe and Asia, and this further harms the view over skyscrapers, it is starting to be a third world feature.


----------



## ignoramus (Jun 16, 2004)

In Singapore, height limits are imposed because of the proximity to airforce bases (a couple) and commercial airports (2) on such a small island.

The maximum height limit can be found in the Central Business District, at 280 metres (3 skyscrapers are of this height). No new 280m building has been added in quite a few years. Recent additions have only been 245m.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In many Dutch cities, it is usual not building higher than the highest churchtower. However, not all cities do that, like Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague, Zwolle, Eindhoven etc. But i think it's silly to have height restrictions, unless there is something important (like an airport nearby).


----------



## Sea-Roc (Jul 3, 2005)

Xelebes said:


> I highly doubt that the US has a limit at 2000 ft - or even a limit at all. That, I'm thinking is a bit silly.
> 
> Edmonton's height restriction is due to the airport overlay. The current tallest building is 143 m or so however, there is a building or two planned to be taller than that as they are further from the airport.


The 2000 foot limit is an FAA regulation one can apply for permission to exceed, but its probably not easy. Only three radio towers in the country exceed 2000 feet, two in North Dakota and one in the California desert, but there are countless towers at 2000 ft. I found this in the Chicago Development Forums about the Chicago Spire, and its on the FAA website:

14 CFR 77.13

(c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued.

-So it seems that aviation is one of the biggest reasons for height restrictions all over. It affects downtown San Diego, Edmonton, Kowloon, Singapore, probably pretty much everywhere there's an airport. Where else?


----------



## sk (Dec 6, 2005)

Here in cyprus rules differ according to the city.
For example in Nicosia there is a limit of 16 fl. while in Paphos the limit is only 5fl.(according to a newspaper)!!!!!


----------



## pedang (Dec 3, 2005)

*height restriction zone in Kuala Lumpur*

source : http://www.dbkl.gov.my/pskl2020/english/urban_design_and_landscape/index.htm


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Sea-Roc said:


> I believe the entire United States has a national height limit of 2000 feet that prevented the Chicago Spire from being even taller.


:dunno:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

The height limit for the California's second and United statates' sixth largest city, San Diego is 500 ft(152 meters) because of the fu%#% airport, the tallest building in San Diego is exactly 500 ft or 152 meters...


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

^^ I still don't get that. Surely not the entire city is in close enough proximity to the airport to warrant a height restriction?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

gladisimo said:


> ^^ I still don't get that. Surely not the entire city is in close enough proximity to the airport to warrant a height restriction?


Singapore for example has a height limit of 280 metres. That's why the city's tallest buildings are around this height. But the CBD is quite a distance from the airport.


----------



## LondonBVE (Jul 19, 2007)

If I am not wrong the CBD was aligned diagonally straight towards the Paya Lebar Airbase near Hougang. As Singapore is small the airplane has to lower down when reaching the Bugis and Lavender Area but CBD is not far from Bugis for safety concern they have to do this.

Here is what I mean if you move your mouse from the red light bulb to the green light bulb straight you will find that it is diagonally across. The green light bulb is Paya Lebar Airbase while the red one is the CBD.


----------



## ignoramus (Jun 16, 2004)

WANCH said:


> Singapore for example has a height limit of 280 metres. That's why the city's tallest buildings are around this height. But the CBD is quite a distance from the airport.


What's often a misconception is that Singapore's Changi Airport is far enough from the City Center and thus should not warrant a height limit.

What should be understood is that there are other airports (namely airforce bases) in Singapore. Flight paths into these airbases simply do not allow taller buildings to be built. Planes cannot simply fly above a tall skyscraper and suddenly decend into a runway just below, not a distance away.

Why the airforce base hasn't been relocated, I have no idea, but it can only be more strategic military reasons.


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

On mexico city some parts are up to 200 meters other parts are up to 8 meters or 3 flors and it's very difficult to build here because if you want to build 8 floors on a 3 floors zone you must pay like US$100,000 - US$200,000 more to build thae building


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

New York has 3 major airports that surround Manhattan, and the flight paths all skirt above the skyscrapers, yet the flight ban will likely come for the smaller jets instead.


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

hkskyline said:


> That's not really true. Although height limits were around during the Kai Tak era, today's skyscraper walls are actually concentrated in *West Kowloon*, and not around the Kai Tak area. There are 2 massive new redevelopments just southwest of the Kai Tak terminal building, but the whole swath of area around it still remains fairly short.
> 
> Meanwhile, the reclaimed areas along West Kowloon have seen enormous development, especially since it is right on the subway line.


The restriction was applied over the entire Kowloon Peninsula and Northeastern Hong Kong Island back in the days. One reason for those buildings in West Kowloon popped up first because it's fresh open land there comparing to the built-up area around Kai Tak. It takes time to do demolition and cleaning up the site before new buildings can be constructed. There are a few buildings have been built around Kai Tak today.


----------

