[Dave Coe]

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.

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!

SF, LA, and NY don't have official redlight districts since prostitution is illegal. LA used to have a lot of street walkers around Hollywood prior to gentrification. SF has a strip club district in North Beach. NY used to in Time Square pre Giuliani.

[BBMW]

In the current time frame, I completely agree. But the type of project I'm talking about needs to be planned 10-20 years ahead. One more good casino boom, and the casino companies will suck up the slack at the north end of the strip, and will be pushing to get at the land the airport is both taking up and blocking. At that point, something like what I'm talking about could end up on the table.

Also, one more boom, and McCarran's capacity will be outstripped. They'll need to build Ivanpah. Once they start really looking at Ivanpah, they'll have to consider whether to build it as t 2 runway overflow/cargo airport, or something like a six runway McCarran replacement. At that point the concept of freeing up something like five miles of possible strip frontage for development will enter into the equation.

Originally Posted by Willy702

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.

[BBMW]

You're basic casino hotel tower is thirty to forty stories tall. you can't put this in the approach path of the airport runways. Look at a map of the south strip area, and see where the runway approaches are, there's nothing more than two stories or so along them. The current casino towers are not in the approach paths.

And Ivanpah is in open desert, twenty five miles south of the last major commercial development at the south end of the strip. Given that the entire length of the strip, from Sahara to Russel road is less than 4.5 miles, it's going to take a looooonnnnnnggggggg time for the strip to develop all the way out to Ivanpah.

Originally Posted by Clarkcty

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.

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by BBMW

You're basic casino hotel tower is thirty to forty stories tall. you can't put this in the approach path of the airport runways. Look at a map of the south strip area, and see where the runway approaches are, there's nothing more than two stories or so along them. The current casino towers are not in the approach paths.

And Ivanpah is in open desert, twenty five miles south of the last major commercial development at the south end of the strip. Given that the entire length of the strip, from Sahara to Russel road is less than 4.5 miles, it's going to take a looooonnnnnnggggggg time for the strip to develop all the way out to Ivanpah.

Mandalay Bay is taller than 40 stories and it is pretty much in front of the airport runways. Also planes regularly flies around and near the hotels on the Strip. There are already condo towers beyond the airport around Blue Diamond and Southpoint, only reason why no hotel towers/condo going up there is purely economics and not because it is near the airport. How tall do you want the buildings on the Strip?

[EA]

Resort world is adding rooms. The convention center expansion should add demand for rooms.

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by EA

Resort world is adding rooms. The convention center expansion should add demand for rooms.

We are talking about developments South of the airport.

[EA]

I am aware. Demand is still demand. Things getting built and doing well on the north end means more chances of things being built on the south end.
Things being built means more workers. More workers means they need places to eat and spend money.

[BBMW]

Completely incorrect. The Mandalay Bay tower is over a mile north of the line of runway 25R, the closest westerly runway. What's directly under that line of the two runways on the 25 orientation? A golf course and a warehouse. That's not an accident. Going south of the airport, the next even vaguely high rise development is One Las Vegas. That's over two miles south of 25L.

McCarran also has two crosswind runways on the 1-19 orientation. The flight paths of these cross LV Blvd at a fairly narrow angle requiring more clearance.

I'm pretty sure the FAA gets a veto on any development withing a certain distance of an airport (especially a major commercial airport.)

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp

Originally Posted by Clarkcty

Mandalay Bay is taller than 40 stories and it is pretty much in front of the airport runways. Also planes regularly flies around and near the hotels on the Strip. There are already condo towers beyond the airport around Blue Diamond and Southpoint, only reason why no hotel towers/condo going up there is purely economics and not because it is near the airport. How tall do you want the buildings on the Strip?

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by EA

I am aware. Demand is still demand. Things getting built and doing well on the north end means more chances of things being built on the south end.
Things being built means more workers. More workers means they need places to eat and spend money.

Well in that case and let us hope it continues, local visitation numbers broke last year's record so well have to wait and see how that translates to development South of the airport.

[Clarkcty]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Completely incorrect. The Mandalay Bay tower is over a mile north of the line of runway 25R, the closest westerly runway. What's directly under that line of the two runways on the 25 orientation? A golf course and a warehouse. That's not an accident. Going south of the airport, the next even vaguely high rise development is One Las Vegas. That's over two miles south of 25L.

McCarran also has two crosswind runways on the 1-19 orientation. The flight paths of these cross LV Blvd at a fairly narrow angle requiring more clearance.

I'm pretty sure the FAA gets a veto on any development withing a certain distance of an airport (especially a major commercial airport.)

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp

Do you know airplanes fly next to the strip and go around the strip. here are even airplanes flying close to the hotels of Paradise Rd. like the Hard Rock Hotel, Hyatt, Marriott.... There should be no problem if developers decide to build hotel towers South of the Strip and as I have said there are already condo towers built South of the Strip. Again how tall do you want skyscrapers South of the Airport?