LAS VEGAS | Crown Las Vegas | 1,064 FT / 324 M | NEVER BUILT - Page 19

aluminum · #**361** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 2:11 AM**

Airports and airplanes, the greatest foes of tall skyscrapers. I think LVT's dead. If not, it'll be, soon.

mdiederi · #**362** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 5:06 PM**

Okay, here's the latest proposal in a story in today's paper. 1,150 feet.
http://www.lvrj.com/business/10761231.html

Quote:

If the FAA issues a second notice of "presumed hazard," a new study could take another several months to complete.

...Crown Las Vegas' proposed 1,150-foot hotel tower for the 27-acre site would still be the tallest building west of the Mississippi River and a foot taller than the Stratosphere, which is less than a mile north on Las Vegas Boulevard.

DHamp · #**363** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdiederi

Okay, here's the latest proposal in a story in today's paper. 1,150 feet.
http://www.lvrj.com/business/10761231.html

We all should have known this was coming. They should (and probably already have) consider the two tower approach, however. Vegas hotels never seem to have a problem with add-ons if when the original proves successful.

Steely Dan · #**364** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 5:18 PM**

question: does the fact that this tower is now being referred to as a 1,150' project in newspaper articles mean that the title of this thread should be changed to reflect the shorter direction this project appears to be going in?

DHamp · #**365** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 5:21 PM**

^^ That is the question. I want to see a few more sources say the same thing before I accept it, but you usually make good judgments on these matters.

mdiederi · #**366** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 10:04 PM**

Yeah, I think so, the article says:

Quote:

Milam sent a letter [according to FAA spokesman Ian Gregor] formally reducing the project's proposed height on Sept. 14.

So that sound pretty official to me.

Steely Dan · #**367** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 10:13 PM**

good catch. i'll edit the thread title.

mdiederi · #**368** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 10:39 PM**

Also, the name was changed a few months ago to "Crown Las Vegas". Crown is the gaming division of PBL in Australia and will be managing the casino and hotel once it opens.

NYguy · #**369** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 10:40 PM**

The height change ups the chances of this one being built.

CHAPINM1 · #**370** Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 11:54 PM**

G*dd@mn FAA bastardizing yet another project...

CoolCzech · #**371** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 2:13 AM**

Edit - posted to wrong thread

FrancoRey · #**372** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

G*dd@mn FAA bastardizing yet another project...

What did you expect? Denver couldn't build over 720 feet for years because Stapleton was a mere 3 1/2 miles from downtown. If you guys move McCarren or get the airport 10 miles further out (don't know where since you're in the valley), you can start going more vertical like us. NO height limit in Denver anymore!

Alliance · #**373** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

G*dd@mn FAA bastardizing yet another project...

I don't think the FAA did anyhting. It sounds like the developer decided to reduce it.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the 1888' was just a ruse to garner media attention. The only reason it was 1888' was to allude to the Washington monument and "outdo" the mayby-one-day-constructed Freedowm Tower. The developer got the attention, massively reduces the height, and he still has a larger press base and a more achievable tower.

Canadian_Bacon · #**374** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 2:46 AM**

^ I wonder if that will be the case in the future. Las Vegas moving McCarren Airport. Since Las Vegas is growing so fast and could benefit from taller skyscrapers, they could eventually just move the airport to accommodate taller buildings, since more and more are being proposed.

It would take a very large amount of funding etc. To even think about such an idea. But it could be possible in the future.

aluminum · #**375** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 3:11 AM**

Miami and Las Vegas are undergoing a tremendous construction boom, and both of them have the goddamn airport problem. This sucks.

Northwest · #**376** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 3:21 AM**

Looks like the exact same design, only truncated to reduce height. Hopefully some thought will be put into how the reduced floor count will affect its appearance. Looking forward to some proper renderings...

mdiederi · #**377** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 6:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian_Bacon

^ I wonder if that will be the case in the future. Las Vegas moving McCarren Airport. Since Las Vegas is growing so fast and could benefit from taller skyscrapers, they could eventually just move the airport to accommodate taller buildings, since more and more are being proposed.

It would take a very large amount of funding etc. To even think about such an idea. But it could be possible in the future.

McCarran is fast reaching it's maximum capacity several years before anticipated. But IVP, the new airport, won't be up and running until 2017. It will be about thirty miles south in the Ivanpah valley. It will be international, but because of the large demand, it will supplement McCarran, not replace it. If only they could close the north-south runway, the smallest of the three runways. That's the runway that's the real problem because they take off right over the heart of the city when they use that runway.

SNT1 · #**378** Posted **Oct 25, 2007, 3:30 PM**

That's one massive nerf!

In any case, one 1150' is a lot more believable, and still a good step to improving the Vegas skyline

CHAPINM1 · #**379** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 4:48 AM**

If I'm am to be optimistic about this, I guess I could say that if it's now built at it's current height, it will definetly make way for a taller tower so it won't look so out of place.

ucsbgaucho · #**380** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 9:53 PM**

you guys are just lucky you're not San Diego, where the airport has resulted in a 500' height limit all over downtown. Now that's not 500' of building, that's 500' from sea level. Since the terrain slopes up from the bay, the bayfront buildings are the tallest, and every building that's built to maximum height is exactly as tall as every other building when you look at the rooftops. Lame!!!