Article on the Harmon Tower
Motley Fool Article
One interesting claim that came out of the court battles by the MGM side is that the city of Las Vegas sits on 7 different earth faults and that the structure would not survive a direct hit large scale earthquake. As if they KNOW that any of those strip structures would. LOL. By the way, Las vegas has never been hit by an earthquake of any real magnitude (not counting the frequent tummy rumble kind) despite sitting on active earthquake land.
Whatever the story is, it just breaks my heart to see hundreds of millions and billions of dollars (Fountaine Bleu) in construction projects almost 100 complete and then taken down, never have been used. The same fate likely awaits the Bleu.
Corporations take a shot and seven out sometimes as well.
As for the theory advanced above: are you kidding me?
With all the discovery involved in the lawsuit such a claim would be smoked out and easily debunked.
No, somebody simply screwed the pooch, big time: either the architect / designer for not providing for correct, safe placement of the rebar, or the contractor for not following plans correctly.
Should be pretty easy to sort out, one would think, but when you bring in platoons of lawyers and experts, sanity and logic take an extended holiday.
Quote: MrV
As for the theory advanced above: are you kidding me?
Not my theory and I wasn't advancing anything. I don't have a dog in this fight. Just sharing a commonly discussed aspect that the members here might not have known about.
But the theory is asinine.
Put it in the same box with "we never landed a man on the moon" and "the gov't did WTC, not terrorists."
But yes, thanks for posting: I had a good laugh.
Quote: kewljhundreds of millions and billions of dollars (Fountaine Bleu) in construction projects almost 100 complete and then taken down, never have been used. The same fate likely awaits the Bleu.
Somebody gets left holding the bag, whether it is the bank, private investors, others, or all of the above. Why someone wouldn't come in and buy the Fontaine Bleu when it was still a viable project to finish is also beyone me.
The Harmon Tower DE-construction had started last summer when we were in LV.
My understanding is that rebar spacing is a code mandated issue, its nothing complex or difficult ... if the law says every one foot and you do every two feet, you save yourself time, labor and cost of rebar.. until such time as you are caught which should have been pretty promptly with so many people marching around that site.Quote: MrV
No, somebody simply screwed the pooch, big time: either the architect / designer for not providing for correct, safe placement of the rebar, or the contractor for not following plans correctly.
I just don't think a few cheating union workers were the full story.
I know a woman who bought a 1+1 condo in Vagas for 37K about 4 years ago at the low point of the market. Restrictions in the CC & Rs stated that the purchase could not be used as a rental. (Not City Center, of course.)
However it would seem difficult to enforce some of those restrictions. Many resort condos have guests of owners who arrive secretively, make use of the facilities and are really guests in competition with the resort itself that caters to short term guests of their own.
When prices plummeted, buyers often tried to back out of paying so much for properties that are suddenly worth far less than the purchase price. Excuses such as "misrepresented" the square footage or the size of the pool didn't really hold water when the real reason was we don't want to be forced to pay a high price.
Quote: FleaStiffAll condo developments want owners not investors who will rent out their units to either short term or long term tenants.
However it would seem difficult to enforce some of those restrictions. Many resort condos have guests of owners who arrive secretively, make use of the facilities and are really guests in competition with the resort itself that caters to short term guests of their own.
When prices plummeted, buyers often tried to back out of paying so much for properties that are suddenly worth far less than the purchase price. Excuses such as "misrepresented" the square footage or the size of the pool didn't really hold water when the real reason was we don't want to be forced to pay a high price.
I was talking about traditional condo projects, not hotel-style-strip high rises. The lady I was referring to purchased her unit with the stipulation that it was going to be "owner occupied". The association didn't want speculators buying rental units.
Quote: GreasyjohnQuote: GreasyjohnQuote: FleaStiffAll condo developments want owners not investors who will rent out their units to either short term or long term tenants.
However it would seem difficult to enforce some of those restrictions. Many resort condos have guests of owners who arrive secretively, make use of the facilities and are really guests in competition with the resort itself that caters to short term guests of their own.
When prices plummeted, buyers often tried to back out of paying so much for properties that are suddenly worth far less than the purchase price. Excuses such as "misrepresented" the square footage or the size of the pool didn't really hold water when the real reason was we don't want to be forced to pay a high price.[/q
I was talking about traditional condo projects, not hotel-style-strip high rises. The lady I was referring to purchased her unit with the stipulation that it was going to be "owner occupied". The association didn't want speculators buying rental units.
Mods: somehow my post became the last paragraph of FleaStiff's post. ??
Fixed, GJ; if you look at the quote, after "forced to pay a high price", there's a [/q . The closing bracket ] got lost somewhere, so I simply put it back in. Note: my putting the brackets in my answer to you causes a very similar problem - it's looking for the end.If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
