[Dave Coe]

Originally Posted by BBMW

^
Let's be a little real here. Downtown Las Vegas isn't really the prime real estate in the Vegas Valley, hasn't been so in a long time, and likely never will be again.

Things change. Also the Strip which is prime real estate is mostly built up except for it's northern fringes. Eventually there will be no where left to expand but towards downtown.

[Merrily Gather]

I remember what I was going to say earlier. On my first trip here for my bachelorette party in October 2006 we took the Deuce all the way from where the Excalibur is on furthest South part of the Strip to Fremont Street to see the historic Las Vegas downtown area.

I remember with those fresh wide eyes I wasn't scared of that part of Las Vegas and I didn't think it was seedy either. I got that the area was historic, meaning older structures with some in disrepair, so it didn't seem bad to me. The thing that struck me the most about the trip was that it took a very long time. Much longer than I expected and that there must have been a mile of little neon wedding chapels between where the strip noticeably ends and you reach the historic downtown. I was like, "so this is where all those Las Vegas weddings happen." That was kind of neat for me.

I really loved Fremont Street and the canopy of lights and seeing the hotel casinos of historic Las Vegas. That to me was the most memorable part of the trip besides walking around these huge hotel casinos on the Strip trying to see as much of it as possible in the time we had left.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

Oscar Goodman proposed Redlight District Downtown


https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ma...t_in_sin_city/

Conservative Las Vegas will always be a follower, never a leader or trendsetter, and that goes for the entire state of NV.

Just like medical marijuana, we waited for others for us to follow, same with legal marijuana, we follow, others lead. Same with light rail, we wait until someone comes along and embarrasses us for being stuck-in-the-60's. No different with bike lanes. Physician-assisted suicide, not ready yet to follow.

If other cities, to try and run up their tourist numbers, cave in to red light districts, then we follow, and certainly not by choice. It will go like this:

"Hey Sin City! NYC, L.A., San Francisco, Chicago all have some Bangkok-style red light districts, what's holding things up?"

Or, our tourists numbers plummet, for some reason, perhaps due to a terrorist strike in one of the hotel casino's, and desperate to regain tourists:

"Well, let's se now! The Milennials don't gamble so in went the expensive Disco's to attract that crowd, so let's try a red light district, let's see what that does for the numbers!"

I've always wished downtown would be for adults only (no children allowed, let the families stay on the Strip), and with a red light district a la Bangkok's Pat Pong district. Yes, do it up right, Bangkok style! Sex capital of the world!

Entailing, numerous establishments with female hookers and numerous establishments with male hookers. Been there 3X, I should know!

Nah! I don't think conservative Las Vegans could wrap their conservative heads around that one: establishments with male hookers! Sheesh! This city is too conservative for hunky, Chippendale types to serve cocktails at the casinos!

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

Things change. Also the Strip which is prime real estate is mostly built up except for it's northern fringes. Eventually there will be no where left to expand but towards downtown.

Las Vegas Boulevard goes on for miles heading South, still plenty of land to develop.

[BBMW]

Until the Feds legalize Marijuana, state initiatives are limited. CO is having a lot of issues. It doesn't help that, even though the legalization was passed by voter initiative, the state and may localities don't want it and are making it difficult.

As far as red light districts, the only state that has had legal prostitution in the last fifty years was NV, and then only on a limited basis out in the Styx. No other state or locality is even vaguely considering legalizing it.

Originally Posted by tijlover

Conservative Las Vegas will always be a follower, never a leader or trendsetter, and that goes for the entire state of NV.

And Vegas is the Party capital of the country for Millennials (and pretty much everyone else.)

Just like medical marijuana, we waited for others for us to follow, same with legal marijuana, we follow, others lead. Same with light rail, we wait until someone comes along and embarrasses us for being stuck-in-the-60's. No different with bike lanes. Physician-assisted suicide, not ready yet to follow.

If other cities, to try and run up their tourist numbers, cave in to red light districts, then we follow, and certainly not by choice. It will go like this:

"Hey Sin City! NYC, L.A., San Francisco, Chicago all have some Bangkok-style red light districts, what's holding things up?"

Or, our tourists numbers plummet, for some reason, perhaps due to a terrorist strike in one of the hotel casino's, and desperate to regain tourists:

"Well, let's se now! The Milennials don't gamble so in went the expensive Disco's to attract that crowd, so let's try a red light district, let's see what that does for the numbers!"

I've always wished downtown would be for adults only (no children allowed, let the families stay on the Strip), and with a red light district a la Bangkok's Pat Pong district. Yes, do it up right, Bangkok style! Sex capital of the world!

Entailing, numerous establishments with female hookers and numerous establishments with male hookers. Been there 3X, I should know!

Nah! I don't think conservative Las Vegans could wrap their conservative heads around that one: establishments with male hookers! Sheesh! This city is too conservative for hunky, Chippendale types to serve cocktails at the casinos!

[BBMW]

There's lots of land to develop on the north end of strip south of Sahara. It would take a number of new casino/resorts (or other large developments) to swallow that up.

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

Things change. Also the Strip which is prime real estate is mostly built up except for it's northern fringes. Eventually there will be no where left to expand but towards downtown.

The problem going south is McCarren, with it's runways ending right at LV Blvd, cutting off any high rise development. Trying to continue the major resort development south of this would mean having a huge hole in the the strip across from the airport.

I've come up with a plan to solve that, by closing McCarran as an airport, and building a new airport at the Ivanpah site where they were going to build the second airport. I'd run high speed rail from that back to the main terminal at McCarran as a ground transport hub. This would not only remove the obstacle that McCarran is to development, but would also open up a huge amount of land for development. So does anyone have $25 billion laying around to fun this?

Originally Posted by Clarkcty

Las Vegas Boulevard goes on for miles heading South, still plenty of land to develop.

[007 license to sell]

Here is an article in our local Sun Paper regarding what the different things are being tried to bring Downtown Vegas back.


Click link below to view:
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/oct/12/finally-deciding-on-a-vision-for-downtown-las-vega/#.Vhu1YnK2ghk.email


Here's another article that address's more housing for Downtown, click link below to view.


https://shar.es/1uQ9Cc

Those hoping for a shorter stumble home from Atomic Liquors could soon be in luck. Las Vegas leaders last week unanimously approved a five-story, 226-unit mixed-use housing development just west of the storied, popular watering hole on Fremont Street.

[von949]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

That would be great. But it would just end up being like the San Gennaro fest -- a bunch of overpriced crapola and carnival rides.

What we need is a populace who would appreciate the real deal.

I have not had the chance to experience the San Gennaro festival. I want to go at least once even if it has a ton of bad reviews.

[Willy702]

Originally Posted by BBMW

There's lots of land to develop on the north end of strip south of Sahara. It would take a number of new casino/resorts (or other large developments) to swallow that up.



The problem going south is McCarren, with it's runways ending right at LV Blvd, cutting off any high rise development. Trying to continue the major resort development south of this would mean having a huge hole in the the strip across from the airport.

I've come up with a plan to solve that, by closing McCarran as an airport, and building a new airport at the Ivanpah site where they were going to build the second airport. I'd run high speed rail from that back to the main terminal at McCarran as a ground transport hub. This would not only remove the obstacle that McCarran is to development, but would also open up a huge amount of land for development. So does anyone have $25 billion laying around to fun this?

There is no demand for more resort development at the cost of land and construction today. Frankly there is no demand for more of almost anything except rooms, and even that can be easily remedied with higher rates. It will continue to be an improve and renovate market, the visitors tire of certain things and trends change. I think the local operations have a really good sense of where the returns are and do their best in maximizing returns within the cost and timing constraints they have.

I agree with moving the airport, but there is no appetite for that with the local population so it won't happen. No one will pay for it and outside of taxis no one wants to drive or take a train far. It has its perks and serves the community well so it won't change. At some point a second can be built to enlarge capacity and drive business south, but no way they close existing just for the land.

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by BBMW

There's lots of land to develop on the north end of strip south of Sahara. It would take a number of new casino/resorts (or other large developments) to swallow that up.



The problem going south is McCarren, with it's runways ending right at LV Blvd, cutting off any high rise development. Trying to continue the major resort development south of this would mean having a huge hole in the the strip across from the airport.

I've come up with a plan to solve that, by closing McCarran as an airport, and building a new airport at the Ivanpah site where they were going to build the second airport. I'd run high speed rail from that back to the main terminal at McCarran as a ground transport hub. This would not only remove the obstacle that McCarran is to development, but would also open up a huge amount of land for development. So does anyone have $25 billion laying around to fun this?

How high do you want the building to go up? Stratosphere is high enough and not far from McCarran. By the way, Ivanpah is not far at all and will have the same effect as McCarran. Mandalay Bay is probably around 60 floors, the mothballed Fontainbebleau around 70 and Stratosphere over 100 and they are all within the flight path at McCarran.