LAS VEGAS | Crown Las Vegas | 1,064 FT / 324 M | NEVER BUILT - Page 14

igtrom10 · #**261** Posted **Jun 18, 2007, 12:00 PM**

Is there an FAA website that we can follow the approval process?

LMich · #**262** Posted **Jun 19, 2007, 1:31 AM**

I'd imagine that, at the most, the only thing you're going to find on the FAA website is when they meet. I can't imagine them having a page dedicated to following one project.

CoolCzech · #**263** Posted **Jun 23, 2007, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

Or, like others have done in Vegas, he could simply being proposing the structure so high and lrage to get the attention he needs to have people buy into his proposals (looks like he's already got that), and then subsequently scale down the project.

- Always a possibility... I can think of at least one other project that might turn out that way in the end.

Red UM Rebel · #**264** Posted **Jun 27, 2007, 3:50 PM**

There is no reason behind not building the Crown Las Vegas as tall as the CS. Then America will have two supertall towers

newstl2020 · #**265** Posted **Jun 27, 2007, 4:00 PM**

Well America allready has plenty more supertalls than 2...correct me I'm wrong here guys but supertalls are over 1000 ft? That leaves us with quite a few in chi and New York. And I believe there is a reason not to build to 2000, or even 1000 here, and that difference is that we're talking about Chicago and Las Vegas. There's something to be said about a 2000 building being built in a city that has numerous other supertalls (Sears, Trump, Aon, Hancock, Waterview, etc.) and a city that doesn't. That being said, if they can get it done, why not?

Green Jello · #**266** Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 3:08 PM**

http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com...egas_tower.htm

brian_b · #**267** Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red UM Rebel

There is no reason behind not building the Crown Las Vegas as tall as the CS. Then America will have two supertall towers

When people invest insane amounts of money, they look for a certain return on their money. The developer is not oblivious. He knows it's only 112 ft from being as tall as CS.

At 2000 ft, the investors might look at it and say "Meh, we'd be better off building three casinos in Macau"

aluminum · #**268** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 1:15 AM**

2000 feet or not, with this design its gonna ruin city's appearance !

TheOldMan · #**269** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 1:20 AM**

why would the design ruin the city's appearance ? yeah, its huge but not ugly or garish by any means. besides , there will be other large, tall structures around it (although only half the height). but still, it is better integrated into the city than Burj Dubai, which is all by itself on an island.

Dale · #**270** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 3:36 AM**

I just don't get the hating on this design. The more detailed renderings reveal an exquisite structure. Besides, what's this bit about ruining the aesthetics of Vegas ? LMAO

aluminum · #**271** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 4:48 AM**

I just meant that a 2000' dildo with no other comparable structure nearby may look a bit awkward.

Some people love the design, others just don't.

Dale · #**272** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 5:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

I just meant that a 2000' dildo with no other comparable structure nearby may look a bit awkward.

Some people love the design, others just don't.

And Stratosphere Tower doesn't look out of place ? I believe it's at least three times taller than any other structure in its immediate vicinity. I ain't buying it.

Lost Island · #**273** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 5:08 AM**

Would that make all observation towers "out of place" simply because they're much taller than surrounding structures? I don't think so. Besides, you seem to be arguing height while aluminum is arguing against the design, primarily. Apples and oranges.

LMich · #**274** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 5:11 AM**

He seems to be arguing both height "2000' dildo" and appearance/context "no other comparable structure nearby". Actually, he seems to be all over the board reading through further posts.

TheOldMan · #**275** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 5:14 AM**

i was arguing design-i think the design is perfect for Vegas. it is not a bad looking building.it soars but in my opinion, doesnt over power everything else as much as it could have . i dont know why other people dislike it. it is all a matter of personal taste i suppose.

Man. i hope this building gets built. i can imagine watching this giant loom taller and taller coming down I-15. and thats during the day. imagine what it will look like at night !

aluminum · #**276** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 5:17 AM**

I'm sayin' it flatly now: I don't like the design, and its too Dubai-ey

And I say again: Some people love the design, others just don't. Don't argue about it, we all are free to give our opinions.

Dale · #**277** Posted **Jun 30, 2007, 5:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost Island

Would that make all observation towers "out of place" simply because they're much taller than surrounding structures? I don't think so. Besides, you seem to be arguing height while aluminum is arguing against the design, primarily. Apples and oranges.

You missed my point entirely. I am arguing that you can't argue that LVT is out of place without first arguing that there are already structures in Vegas which, by that logic, fir that description.

And is this Middle-Island ?