daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 13th, 2007, 02:52 AM   #801
BarbaricManchurian
来了就是深圳人
 
BarbaricManchurian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Worcester
Posts: 5,505
Likes (Received): 6894

Cool. IMO, 2 1,150 ft towers is better than 1 1888 ft tower. More density! But it would look less dramatic. Oh well, it's what the FAA wants (I'm sure they'll approve these, the stratosphere is across the street and is the same height).

Last edited by BarbaricManchurian; November 13th, 2007 at 04:38 AM. Reason: added some shit
BarbaricManchurian no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 13th, 2007, 06:35 AM   #802
-Corey-
Je suis tout ā vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,227
Likes (Received): 5227

YEah, two crown las vegas would be awesome.
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2007, 06:41 AM   #803
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

Those reporters probably just got the 142 floor number from this site. There is no possible way that a 350 meter tower could have 142 floors. That would be less than 2.5 meters per floor. After wiring and air conditioning and floor plates, my friend Tony couldn't even stand up straight in such a floor. And that's not even counting a podium, mechanical floors, or any kind of a roof structure.
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 08:18 PM   #804
mdiederi
Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 162

FAA caps height of planned Crown Las Vegas resort

Associated Press - November 20, 2007 12:25 PM ET

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration has put a damper on a Texas-based developer's dream of building the tallest building west of the Mississippi River.

The FAA says the proposed Crown Las Vegas casino-hotel on the Las Vegas Strip can only be 1,064 feet high.

The decision undercuts developer Christopher Milam's original plan to build a tower 1,888 feet high.

The Stratosphere hotel-casino tower in Las Vegas, topped with a restaurant, observation platform and thrill rides, is currently the tallest structure in the West, at 1,149 feet.

An FAA spokesman said a tower higher than 1,064 feet would pose a hazard to air traffic at Clark County airports including McCarran International and Nellis Air Force Base.

Milam declined to comment on the FAA decision. He has until Dec. 19 to appeal.
mdiederi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 09:47 PM   #805
BarbaricManchurian
来了就是深圳人
 
BarbaricManchurian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Worcester
Posts: 5,505
Likes (Received): 6894

Wow this sux. Hopefully he'll win the appeal. Why are they capping it at 1,064 feet when the stratosphere is across the street and almost 100 feet taller and hasn't posed any threat to planes? The FAA doesn't take context into approving buildings, they even admit it.
BarbaricManchurian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 09:51 PM   #806
-Corey-
Je suis tout ā vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,227
Likes (Received): 5227

WHy dont they just move the tower to another place in Las Vegas? Outside the city limit?
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 10:15 PM   #807
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,530
Likes (Received): 6560

probably not as easy as it sounds
ZZ-II está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 11:07 PM   #808
Gaeus
500-Internal Server Error
 
Gaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,498
Likes (Received): 87


Yeah. The closer it gets, the more people will come and be entertain. I have a suspicion that FAA might got paid to say something like this though.
Gaeus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 11:46 PM   #809
mdiederi
Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 162

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrysxy View Post
WHy dont they just move the tower to another place in Las Vegas? Outside the city limit?
It is outside the city limits. If it were in the city limits it would have a better chance because the city ignores the FAA. The Stratosphere tower is in the city limits and the FAA never approved it. The Crown site is in the county and the county doesn't overrule the FAA as a matter of policy.
mdiederi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 04:46 AM   #810
-Corey-
Je suis tout ā vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,227
Likes (Received): 5227

Oh, then they should move the tower ( if it gest built) right next to Stratosphere Tower..
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 04:56 AM   #811
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrysxy View Post
Oh, then they should move the tower ( if it gest built) right next to Stratosphere Tower..
There's this funny little thing about towers: they require UNOCCUPIED LAND on which to be built....
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 06:04 AM   #812
foadi
oh my buddha
 
foadi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: bangkok thailand
Posts: 691
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollie Maea View Post
There's this funny little thing about towers: they require UNOCCUPIED LAND on which to be built....
the area around the stratosphere is a dump anyway. tear it down.
foadi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 06:43 AM   #813
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

What is this omnipotent entity that crashes through, moves projects around at will, tears down "dumpy" buildings, ignores the dictates of the FAA, etc. This isn't Dubai. This thread seems to have an unusual amount of staggering unrealistic statements.
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 08:45 AM   #814
Ebola
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,658
Likes (Received): 94

Lol, a lot of people seem to be in a different world. I love comments like "thy shoud make it 500 feet taller," and "get rid of it," or "then build it somewhere else if it cant be there," and "this wont ever be build, dont built it, it looks horrible" and of course, "this is stupid." The rest of the world isn't a place where there's a few people with all power over everything and all money and slaves who get hard from building showy buildings for no reason and with no thought or benefit to all types of people.


The FAA seems to be a major pain for medium-sized US cities which are maturing and want to build their first supertalls.


It's great to know that Las Vegas may be getting two new supertalls now.

Last edited by Ebola; November 21st, 2007 at 08:55 AM.
Ebola no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 08:55 AM   #815
Hollie Maea
Registered User
 
Hollie Maea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,403
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebola View Post

The FAA seems to be a major pain for medium-sized US cities which are maturing and want to build their first supertalls.
Especially for a city like Las Vegas that is wedged between two airports (civilian and military). Until one or both of them move, Las Vegas should just forget about having tall buildings. They're darn lucky to even have gotten the Stratosphere Tower.
Hollie Maea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 05:55 PM   #816
44p
build the NWTC
 
44p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Houston
Posts: 696
Likes (Received): 18

it's still not approved! Darn
44p no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 06:23 PM   #817
rossie1977
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 220
Likes (Received): 7

Hollie Maea you obviously work for the FAA or you are from chicago looking at your comments, how you can defend them after the last few months is incredible. first they claimed anything over 700 feet on the site is a hazard, now they say its ok to build 1064 feet

there is no proof that a tall building near an airport is a hazard, if taipei 101 is not a hazard and its basically right next door an international airport, then nothing is. I do remember a plane crashing into a hanger in brazil a while back, maybe they should do away with hazardous aircraft hangers

you seem to forget Crown is outside the faa restricted zone and the county are only "taking the advice" of the faa and the military; remember the county don't have to take that advice on board, they could easily go ahead and let them build it.
rossie1977 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 07:48 PM   #818
BarbaricManchurian
来了就是深圳人
 
BarbaricManchurian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Worcester
Posts: 5,505
Likes (Received): 6894

Las Vegas city should just annex the site where Crown Las Vegas is going to be built and let them build it. Cities all across America annex land to allow developers to build more easily, why shouldn't they do it in this case (or is it forbidden for Las Vegas to annex more land)?
BarbaricManchurian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 08:30 PM   #819
Rizzato
Blue Collar
 
Rizzato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 899
Likes (Received): 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiederi View Post
Well, the way Mdiederi bolded the text, it looks like twin supertalls is a possibility.
Upon further review, it says that if a 1100 ft + scraper fails to be approved, 2 shorter twin towers might be built.
If the twin towers version is approved, will that make an impact on the skyline. Or will it simply blend in with the rest of Las Vegas?
__________________
B O S T O N
Rizzato no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 08:47 PM   #820
Superfish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 163
Likes (Received): 2

No, he bolded it simply to make it easier to see the number, but that article is already outdated. The new FAA number is 1064 ft. Whether this mean two towers of this height or not remains to be seen or even if the design will be completely changed. 1064 is taller then anything outside the big cities like NYC, Chicago. It is also taller than Nashville's Signature Tower if they build that.

Which still comes as a shocker to me quite frankly. Why was it only 700ft before? Obviously these numbers arn't set in stone.

Remember when they said they had former FAA officials on their side to try and challenge the height? I think that may have had something to do with this.

We can't rule out as someone said back in the beginning that they did this on purpose, knowing that 1888ft was was to farfetched, but FAA would eventually cut it down, still leaving them with a tower far taller then any other hotel building on the strip.

Of coruse this may bold well for that portion of the strip, as a precedent, the new hieghts may make the future MGM project across the street even taller than it would've been. In addition, any future towers near the Stratosphere in the City, could be even taller as well since the city won't listen to the FAA and there already being a 1000ft tower further south nearer the airport.

Fontainebleau at 735ft to the south would look tiny next to a 1000 footer.




BarbaricManchurian, annexing is impossible, per the laws of the county. The whole reason the strip isn't in the City is because they didn't want to pay taxes back in the early days, so they (them ruling force, aka mafia) influenced the county commission and created an "unincorporated township" called Paradise where the strip now is. Under law, townships cannot be annexed by any existing city.

Last edited by Superfish; November 21st, 2007 at 08:53 PM.
Superfish no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium