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 21st, 2007, 09:40 PM   #821
rossie1977
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 220
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizzato 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?
twin towers would have a striking impact on the north strip, as it currently stands the stratosphere is kind of isolated looking standing alone at 1150 feet to the extreme right of this photo

[IMG]http://i15.************/8170uog.jpg[/IMG]
source:http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/378650599/

if you add in the currently under construction 735 ft Fontainebleau (in red) and the 800 ft Allure (in blue) which will be finished in 2010-11ish as well as two 1000 foot twin towers, they really fill in the gaps, MGM are going to build across the road from crown and i would expect something in the 800ft area from them but seeing as crown now have got permission to go >1000ft they may attempt that too.

[IMG]http://i8.************/6txyhau.jpg[/IMG]
rossie1977 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 21st, 2007, 09:55 PM   #822
Superfish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 163
Likes (Received): 2

Nice skyline diagram there.

Like you said, I agree the Strat has been alone for far too long, the area around Sahara will indeed be the true core in terms of skyscraper height and possibly density. It's only natural.

Even if Crown is never built for some reason, what they did with the FAA certainly helped set new heights there.
Superfish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 11:59 PM   #823
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10141

this was big news in australia today. james hasnt got the same touch his father had. everything he touches turns to shit.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...013605,00.html
__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 12:05 AM   #824
-Corey-
Je suis tout à vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,221
Likes (Received): 5223

Is it going to be 100 floors?
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 12:06 AM   #825
DingoBingo
Es lebe RAMMSTEIN
 
DingoBingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 556
Likes (Received): 15

Wow, gotta love the design!
DingoBingo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 12:07 AM   #826
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6526

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrysxy View Post
Is it going to be 100 floors?

nobody knows
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 12:11 AM   #827
-Corey-
Je suis tout à vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,221
Likes (Received): 5223

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZ-II View Post
nobody knows
So it's just a guess..
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 12:48 AM   #828
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10141

if its going to be a hotel with 350m height, that would equate to 3m/10ft per floor?
thus 350m div by 3m = 116fl. then takeway approx 20m for lobby, 20m for top feature? plant ect. so more like 300m of actually floors div by 3m= 100floors? lol
__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 06:17 PM   #829
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6526

we've no design yet
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 10:21 PM   #830
Second City
Loyola University
 
Second City's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 907
Likes (Received): 3

Did they lower the height on this one? Because I thought that it was 1800 ft....
__________________
“Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world.” Frank Lloyd Wright
Second City no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2007, 10:26 PM   #831
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6526

, yes they lowered it because the FAA didn't approve 1800ft
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2007, 02:59 AM   #832
VegasCharlie
Registered User
 
VegasCharlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 65
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Second City View Post
Did they lower the height on this one? Because I thought that it was 1800 ft....
It's approved for 1064 ft... and, hopefully we get twin towers that are both 1064!!!
__________________
Viva Lost Wages!!!
VegasCharlie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2007, 04:00 AM   #833
alejoaoa
Registered User
 
alejoaoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Medellin
Posts: 10,042
Likes (Received): 860

So now the height is 1150 ft?? That sucks, although its still a goog height anyway.
__________________


Bogotá | Medellín | Cartagena | Eje Cafetero | Santa Marta

Instagram:
alejoaoa
alejoaoa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2007, 06:21 AM   #834
Rizzato
Blue Collar
 
Rizzato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 899
Likes (Received): 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superfish View Post
. 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. .
That's whats up. I know there's still more hurdles and changes could be made, but I just hope that number stays up there in the 4 digits range.
__________________
B O S T O N
Rizzato no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 02:42 AM   #835
gpz137
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 1

Well, Wednesday is the "big day". We'll see if there is any new information that comes out of the planning meeting. http://dsnet.co.clark.nv.us/dsnetapp...a/P0199112.htm
I guess the planners will comment on their reviewing of the FAA Determination letter. Maybe we'll get an indication on where Clark County stands on the 1064 foot allowance or whether the developers will just start moving forward with this new height or go to appeal. Or maybe it will just be postponed once again and we'll all just go back to sleep.
gpz137 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 04:49 AM   #836
mdiederi
Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 162

If they are thinking of appealing the FAA ruling by December 17, then it will be held over again. It will probably have to be held over anyway because they have to come up with a new design and those will need to be approved. If they go with two towers or a wider tower they'll probably need to get a setback deviation approval. The original 1,888 foot tower plan was within the setback ratio allowed for that site. But the setback is a small issue and those usually get approved on the Strip.
mdiederi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 06:08 AM   #837
gpz137
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 1

Right. It would sure be nice to hear Clark County accept the FAA's max 1064 foot height. I'm sure there's not much risk to the county turning down what the FAA has already agreed to, but you never know. I guess the other issue is; does it still make economic sense to build a tower that hight versus 1888 feet. My hunch is that it does. Fingers crossed that this thing is a go. It sure takes guts to go forward with a project of this magnitude with so much competition coming on line and the little economic downturn that we're in. But, five years is an eternity when it comes to economic cycles. We might have come out of it and be heading into another one by the time this thing gets done!
gpz137 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 09:15 AM   #838
mdiederi
Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 162

Yeah, it is pretty mind boggling how much money is tied up for such a long time building one of these things. Anyway, Crown was just split off of PBL as a totally separate pure casino company. They have over $2 billion in cash to put into new casino developments and today was their first day on the stock market in Austrailia and the price had a healthy surge showing confidence in the market. I think they're fully behind this project and are eager to get it going.

Last edited by mdiederi; December 4th, 2007 at 09:23 AM.
mdiederi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 10:43 PM   #839
mdiederi
Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 162

It was not held over today and they actually finally appeared before the Clark County Planning Commission.

I was watching it on closed circuit TV and they said they are going to go ahead with the 1,064 foot height approved by the FAA and they said that the airport approved it too.

They also said it will probably now be twin towers, but that they will have to come back for another design review on that later.

Then I was rudely interupted and missed the last part of the hearing and didn't see if the planning commission actually voted for approval or not. Did anyone catch the last part of the hearing?

Edit: I found the recorded video of the meeting and will replay it, but it's only available in streaming mode, so I have to wait through the first three hours before item 44 comes up.

Last edited by mdiederi; December 6th, 2007 at 02:53 AM.
mdiederi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 11:19 PM   #840
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6526

1064ft is not much but better than no supertall for Las Vegas
ZZ-II 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 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu