HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive

    Crown Las Vegas in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Las Vegas Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 2:11 AM
aluminum's Avatar
aluminum aluminum is offline
I love boxes.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 637
Airports and airplanes, the greatest foes of tall skyscrapers. I think LVT's dead. If not, it'll be, soon.
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 5:06 PM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,932
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.
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 5:18 PM
DHamp DHamp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiederi View Post
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.
     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 5:18 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,294
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?
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 5:21 PM
DHamp DHamp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 195
^^ 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.
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 10:04 PM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,932
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.
     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 10:13 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,294
good catch. i'll edit the thread title.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 10:39 PM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,932
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.
     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 10:40 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 40,822
The height change ups the chances of this one being built.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 11:54 PM
CHAPINM1's Avatar
CHAPINM1 CHAPINM1 is offline
JoeCooper
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,365
G*dd@mn FAA bastardizing yet another project...
__________________
A voice for the fallen.
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 2:13 AM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,617
Edit - posted to wrong thread
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


I ❤️ NY
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 2:27 AM
FrancoRey's Avatar
FrancoRey FrancoRey is offline
Stay Thirsty.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHAPINM1 View Post
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!
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 2:41 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHAPINM1 View Post
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.
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 2:46 AM
Canadian_Bacon's Avatar
Canadian_Bacon Canadian_Bacon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 239
^ 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.
__________________
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 3:11 AM
aluminum's Avatar
aluminum aluminum is offline
I love boxes.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 637
Miami and Las Vegas are undergoing a tremendous construction boom, and both of them have the goddamn airport problem. This sucks.
     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 3:21 AM
Northwest Northwest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 400
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...
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 6:48 AM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_Bacon View Post
^ 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.
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 3:30 PM
SNT1 SNT1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 177
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
     
     
  #379  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2007, 4:48 AM
CHAPINM1's Avatar
CHAPINM1 CHAPINM1 is offline
JoeCooper
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,365
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.
__________________
A voice for the fallen.
     
     
  #380  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2007, 9:53 PM
ucsbgaucho ucsbgaucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 129
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!!!
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:10 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.