Tallest building in the USA
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:45:24 PM
permalink
On March 9, 2005 Donald Trump decided that he wasn't going to mess with the spire on top of his hotel tower in Chicago to make the building the tallest in the USA. Architecture critics dislike the spire anyway, saying that it is spindly and unattractive.
The building got a a 27 foot height increase last Thanksgiving, because the council that determines heights decided to use a lower level pedestrian plaza instead of the main entrace. The spire is only 62' short of making it the highest building in the USA.
I think he should redesign the entire spire to something more attractive and replace it. It does look pretty gangly. Of course once the Freedom Tower is completed (sometime in the next three years) that will exceed both buildings by a lot (1776 feet).
If he just pulled the spire down (as some critics have suggested), it would still be the second tallest building in Chicago, but it would rank below the Empire State Building and the tip of the spire of the Bank of America building in NYC.
June 24th, 2010 at 7:20:07 AM
permalink
I know spires are taken into account in the official heights of buildings, but they shouldn't be. Often they add nothing to the design and are just tacked on to gain height. Transmission towers, when added to tall buildings, don't count in the official height, either.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 24th, 2010 at 7:49:48 AM
permalink
Spires are part of the architectural design, and in some older buildings, were part of the intended function of the building, and a consumer use for the building.
For example, the spire on the Empire State Building was designed as a mooring point for dirigibles. (Although I shudder to think of what mechanism would be used to get from the gondola to the building...)
Transmission towers are different in that they don't add to the purpose of the building. They are merely taking advantage of the building's height for an unrelated purpose.
For example, the spire on the Empire State Building was designed as a mooring point for dirigibles. (Although I shudder to think of what mechanism would be used to get from the gondola to the building...)
Transmission towers are different in that they don't add to the purpose of the building. They are merely taking advantage of the building's height for an unrelated purpose.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
June 24th, 2010 at 8:00:26 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearSpires are part of the architectural design, and in some older buildings, were part of the intended function of the building, and a consumer use for the building.
For example, the spire on the Empire State Building was designed as a mooring point for dirigibles. (Although I shudder to think of what mechanism would be used to get from the gondola to the building...)
Transmission towers are different in that they don't add to the purpose of the building. They are merely taking advantage of the building's height for an unrelated purpose.
1) Sometimes they complement the design. Most often, particularly in newer buildings, they're just added to increase height. Measuring them when considering height is almost like measuring a hat when considering a man's height.
2) I've heard that about the Empire State Building, but don't know that it's true. Side note, a plane crashed on the side of the building back in the late 30s or early 40s. it was an Army air core plane.
3) While transmission towers are indeed a way of taking advantage of a tall building, they serve a useful purpose. One most spires simply do not. BTW the transmission towers are incorporated into a building's design, not just tacked on once it's finished (there are aerodynamic loads to consider).
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 24th, 2010 at 11:26:59 AM
permalink
Burj Khalifi was designed to shatter every world record at once. If the USA were to build something that high they would have to petition the FAA from lifting it's ban (since 1963) of any structure over 2063' high.
Incidentally, the Burj Khalifi cost about the same as the Echelon project that was shut down in Vegas.
Incidentally, the Burj Khalifi cost about the same as the Echelon project that was shut down in Vegas.
June 24th, 2010 at 11:47:16 AM
permalink
Washington DC is the only American city completely without a substantial high rise. The tallest commercial building is only 12 stories, and the tallest residential building is only 14 stories. Historic buildings do not rise higher than 329'.
June 24th, 2010 at 5:13:53 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedI know spires are taken into account in the official heights of buildings, but they shouldn't be. Often they add nothing to the design and are just tacked on to gain height. Transmission towers, when added to tall buildings, don't count in the official height, either.
They actually changes that somewhat in the late 1990s. They made 4 catagories of "tallest." Total-height including ariels; top height including spires, highest occupied floor, and I forget the other. Simple towers, like the CN Tower in Toronto, don't count the same way.
I say use top-occupied floor since that shows more engeneering know-how.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
June 24th, 2010 at 5:40:14 PM
permalink
In my opinion the record should go by the distance from the floor of the first floor above ground level to the legitimate ceiling of the top floor. So this would not count floors under the entry level, nor spires. The building should also be continuously occupied, disqualifying buildings like the Stratopshere or Space Needle.
I think that is because there is a law that no building can be taller than the statue on top of the captitol. I'm not sure if there is an exception for the Washington Monument, or if that even is taller.
Quote: pacomartinWashington DC is the only American city completely without a substantial high rise. The tallest commercial building is only 12 stories, and the tallest residential building is only 14 stories. Historic buildings do not rise higher than 329'.
I think that is because there is a law that no building can be taller than the statue on top of the captitol. I'm not sure if there is an exception for the Washington Monument, or if that even is taller.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
June 24th, 2010 at 7:51:53 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardIn my opinion the record should go by the distance from the floor of the first floor above ground level to the legitimate ceiling of the top floor. So this would not count floors under the entry level, nor spires. The building should also be continuously occupied, disqualifying buildings like the Stratopshere or Space Needle.
I think that is because there is a law that no building can be taller than the statue on top of the captitol. I'm not sure if there is an exception for the Washington Monument, or if that even is taller.
Here's a quote from a DC tourism site:
"There are no skyscrapers in DC. Many people believe that this is because of a law saying that the Capitol was to be the tallest in the city. In fact, the fire department put limits on building heights in 1894 because their firefighting equipment wouldn’t reach high enough to keep tall buildings safe. Congress later set limits on the heights of buildings in DC, 90 feet for homes and apartments and 110 feet for office buildings. In 1989, the Height of Buildings Act was passed, ensuring that the city skyline wouldn’t be dominated by skyscrapers."
June 25th, 2010 at 6:50:52 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardIn my opinion the record should go by the distance from the floor of the first floor above ground level to the legitimate ceiling of the top floor. So this would not count floors under the entry level, nor spires.
I would count from street level, most buildings being placed on streets after all, to the ceiling of the top floor. But I'd take your measurement as valid, too.
Quote:The building should also be continuously occupied, disqualifying buildings like the Stratopshere or Space Needle.
I think of those as observation towers, not buildings. The height should be measured from street level to the uppermost observation area commonly used.
Anyway within fifty years or so all will be dwarfed by a space elevator, a mere 40,000 kilometers tall ;)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 25th, 2010 at 1:03:07 PM
permalink
I think height should be measured from side walk in front of the building, to the tip of the tallest man made structure permanently attached to the building. Doesn't matter if it is a radio tower, spire, observation deck or piece of pipe used as a flagpole. When we try to define "roof" or "occupied floor", we lose what makes this competition great... "Tallest" and "Man Made".
It's like the incredible steps taken by many sports organizations to detect and punish participants who use "performance enhancing substances". Why not just open it up to anyone? I would love to see someone ride a bike 100 miles in an hour, or run 100 meters in 7 seconds.
It's like the incredible steps taken by many sports organizations to detect and punish participants who use "performance enhancing substances". Why not just open it up to anyone? I would love to see someone ride a bike 100 miles in an hour, or run 100 meters in 7 seconds.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
June 25th, 2010 at 1:31:58 PM
permalink
It certainly seems like the 278' antennas on the Willis Tower (Sears Tower) in Chicago are more substantial than some of the other architectural spires. I think they should spend $3 million and build a spire that houses an antenna, fly it up via helicopter and make it 1776' (or 1775' out of deference to One World Trade Center). It will hold the second place in the world for a few more years until the new hotel in Mecca is completed.
They also have that technique that they use with building cranes where the cranes sort of build themselves. They raise up on an interval using special hydraulic lifts, then they add a segment.
===============
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
(1) One World Trade Center, currently under-construction in New York City, will be the tallest building in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. Also, it will become the world´s tallest all-office building. Its spire will top out at 1,776 ft (541 m).
(2) The Abraj Al Bait Towers are under construction in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The tallest tower is expected to be 595 m (1,952 ft) tall when completed in 2010, becoming second-tallest building in the world when completed. It will also be the largest building in the world with a floor area of 1,500,000 m2 (1.61E+7 sq ft) and the tallest hotel in the world.
(1 tower)The Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower, under construction in Guangzhou, China, is topped-out at 610 m (2,000 ft). Construction began in November 2005 and completion is expected in 2010.
(2 tower) The Tokyo Sky Tree under construction in Tokyo's Sumida district, is expected to be 634 m (2,080 ft) tall. It will be a broadcasting tower to replace the old Tokyo Tower. Construction began in 2008 and completion is expected in 2011, with public access in the spring of 2012.
They also have that technique that they use with building cranes where the cranes sort of build themselves. They raise up on an interval using special hydraulic lifts, then they add a segment.
===============
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
(1) One World Trade Center, currently under-construction in New York City, will be the tallest building in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. Also, it will become the world´s tallest all-office building. Its spire will top out at 1,776 ft (541 m).
(2) The Abraj Al Bait Towers are under construction in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The tallest tower is expected to be 595 m (1,952 ft) tall when completed in 2010, becoming second-tallest building in the world when completed. It will also be the largest building in the world with a floor area of 1,500,000 m2 (1.61E+7 sq ft) and the tallest hotel in the world.
(1 tower)The Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower, under construction in Guangzhou, China, is topped-out at 610 m (2,000 ft). Construction began in November 2005 and completion is expected in 2010.
(2 tower) The Tokyo Sky Tree under construction in Tokyo's Sumida district, is expected to be 634 m (2,080 ft) tall. It will be a broadcasting tower to replace the old Tokyo Tower. Construction began in 2008 and completion is expected in 2011, with public access in the spring of 2012.
June 25th, 2010 at 1:34:33 PM
permalink
Geek alert!
I was about to cry foul, since the destination of a space elevator would be in a geosynchronous orbit: 35,786km above the Earth's surface.
But according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator, there are a variety of forces at play, a counterweight at the end of the teather needs to be further out. So the 40,000km you quoted is more like it.
It's amazing the stuff you learn as a result of being friends with a bunch of hardcore gamblers....
And Wikipedia is a GREAT resource!
Quote: NareedAnyway within fifty years or so all will be dwarfed by a space elevator, a mere 40,000 kilometers tall ;)
I was about to cry foul, since the destination of a space elevator would be in a geosynchronous orbit: 35,786km above the Earth's surface.
But according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator, there are a variety of forces at play, a counterweight at the end of the teather needs to be further out. So the 40,000km you quoted is more like it.
It's amazing the stuff you learn as a result of being friends with a bunch of hardcore gamblers....
And Wikipedia is a GREAT resource!
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
June 25th, 2010 at 2:23:58 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearthere are a variety of forces at play, a counterweight at the end of the teather needs to be further out. So the 40,000km you quoted is more like it.
That's the height I recalled Arthur C. Clarke gave to his Space Elevator in "The Fountains of Paradise." Of course I haven't read that one in a while.
Also if you make the elevator taller, you can launch spacecraft using the Earth's rotation instead of fuel for propualsion. This slows down the Earth, but returning spacecraft would balance things out. Oh, and it's cheaper than using fuel.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 25th, 2010 at 4:58:04 PM
permalink
While as many as 100,000 people per day come in and out of the Willis tower in chicago, I don't think any single building has more than about 3000 people living in it.
The pyramid that they talk about for the Tokyo bay would have as many as 1 million people living it. But near the top you would be prone to dizziness from dehydration (not deadly, but certainly extremely uncomfortable). I imagine the cost of artificial environments would be a big issue.
Historically the attempts to build the biggest building in the world have long periods between record holders. I suspect that it will be decades before someone builds something bigger than Burj Khalifi (despite some plans of record)
The pyramid that they talk about for the Tokyo bay would have as many as 1 million people living it. But near the top you would be prone to dizziness from dehydration (not deadly, but certainly extremely uncomfortable). I imagine the cost of artificial environments would be a big issue.
Historically the attempts to build the biggest building in the world have long periods between record holders. I suspect that it will be decades before someone builds something bigger than Burj Khalifi (despite some plans of record)
June 27th, 2010 at 12:27:49 PM
permalink
The Palazzo is slightly bigger than the pentagon at about 160 acres of floor space. It is now the largest building in the USA by floor space.
June 27th, 2010 at 12:51:04 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThe Palazzo is slightly bigger than the pentagon at about 160 acres of floor space. It is now the largest building in the USA by floor space.
USAA used to clsim that their HQ in San Antonio was larger than the Pentagon, how they got that figure I am not sure.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
June 27th, 2010 at 1:05:04 PM
permalink
USAA building is 4.46 million sq ft, Pentagon is 6.6 million sq ft, and Palazzo is 6.9 million sq ft.
The USAA building may occupy a larger footprint on the earth than the other two buildings since there would be little incentive to have a lot of floors in suburban San Antonio decades ago.
The Venetian Macao is 10.5 million sq ft. On May 19, 2010, CentralWorld in Bangkok was severely damaged in riots, so that the Ventian Macao is now the largest building in the world that is not an airport terminal or the Aalsmeer Flower Auction (which is more of a warehouse than a building.
There was brief talk about building and 1888' tower on the Wet & Wild site, but the FAA ruled it as too high.
The Silver State Arena is currently being pushed for the site
An older idea had twin bizarre looking towers at over 1000' apiece.
The USAA building may occupy a larger footprint on the earth than the other two buildings since there would be little incentive to have a lot of floors in suburban San Antonio decades ago.
The Venetian Macao is 10.5 million sq ft. On May 19, 2010, CentralWorld in Bangkok was severely damaged in riots, so that the Ventian Macao is now the largest building in the world that is not an airport terminal or the Aalsmeer Flower Auction (which is more of a warehouse than a building.
There was brief talk about building and 1888' tower on the Wet & Wild site, but the FAA ruled it as too high.
The Silver State Arena is currently being pushed for the site
An older idea had twin bizarre looking towers at over 1000' apiece.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:25:28 PM
permalink
The Empire State Building : 1250' (built 1931) is currently ranked 15th tallest building in the world. Three more skyscrapers in the arab world should be completed this year that are taller than the ESB. Another 16 buildings currently under construction in Asia and the Middle East will be taller than the ESB, and more than a dozen additional ones are proposed.
In the USA the World Trade Center #1 (1776') and World Trade Center #2 ( 1348') when completed will be taller than the ESB. World Trade Center #3 will be 10' shorter than the ESB, and 57 Carnegie will just clear 1000', but none of these buildings will be done next year. There is a proposal to build another building in Chicago, but it is unlikely to be completed in the next decade.
Three buildings to be completed in 2011
(1) Mecca Royal Clock Tower Hotel: 1972'
Clock Faces will be 5 times area of Big Ben.
(2) Princess Tower in Dubai 1358'
(3) 23 Marine in Dubai 1276'
Although less than 900' (29th highest in the USA), Frank Gehry's Beekman Tower situated at the base of the Brooklyn bridge should be the most interesting building to open this year in the USA.
In the USA the World Trade Center #1 (1776') and World Trade Center #2 ( 1348') when completed will be taller than the ESB. World Trade Center #3 will be 10' shorter than the ESB, and 57 Carnegie will just clear 1000', but none of these buildings will be done next year. There is a proposal to build another building in Chicago, but it is unlikely to be completed in the next decade.
Three buildings to be completed in 2011
(1) Mecca Royal Clock Tower Hotel: 1972'
Clock Faces will be 5 times area of Big Ben.
(2) Princess Tower in Dubai 1358'
(3) 23 Marine in Dubai 1276'
Although less than 900' (29th highest in the USA), Frank Gehry's Beekman Tower situated at the base of the Brooklyn bridge should be the most interesting building to open this year in the USA.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:42:32 PM
permalink
All this will be moot once Harrah's completes the Gary Loveman Memorial Dildo. 3,500 feet high, and a revolving restaurant at the top.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 7th, 2011 at 4:51:04 PM
permalink
In the stopped construction category we have Fountainbleau Las Vegas at 735' and Revel Entertainment Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City at 709'. No one is taking bets on which one gets completed first.
There are actually six other residential towers over 700' that have also stopped construction in the Chicago, New York and Miami.
There are actually six other residential towers over 700' that have also stopped construction in the Chicago, New York and Miami.
January 7th, 2011 at 5:15:29 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321All this will be moot once Harrah's completes the Gary Loveman Memorial ... . 3,500 feet high, and a revolving restaurant at the top.
Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!Ceasars!
January 7th, 2011 at 5:15:42 PM
permalink
Given the financial crisis in Dubai, will their projects get finished?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
January 7th, 2011 at 5:39:15 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaGiven the financial crisis in Dubai, will their projects get finished?
The Princess Tower and 23 Marina that I mentioned earlier will be completed this year. No doubt many of the following will not get finished.
There are 18 topped out towers in Dubai from 440' to two that are 1234' (just 16' smaller than the Empire State Building).
There are 33 buildings under construction in Dubai.
Another 20 buildings have stopped construction including two that were designed to be taller than the ESB.
Another 50 buildings have been proposed and a final 3 are visionary.
The visionary buildings for Dubai are a luxury hotel on an island, a golden dome, and a tower 7874' tall.
January 7th, 2011 at 5:49:36 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin
The Gary Loveman Memorial Dildo perhaps?
[This space is intentionally left blank]
January 7th, 2011 at 5:57:01 PM
permalink
Frank LLoyd Wright designed a visionary mile high building in 1956 for Chicago. The design of the half mile high Burj Khalafi completed last year looks similar.
Vegas Vision
Vegas Vision
January 8th, 2011 at 3:39:05 PM
permalink
This photo of a model is dated 27 November 2006. I thought it was widely known that the FAA dictated the height of the Stratosphere. I am not sure how they thought they would get permission to build an even bigger tower closer to the airport.
January 8th, 2011 at 3:56:52 PM
permalink
Full list of buildings in USA stopped construction.
| city | building name | feet | floors | use (top to bottom) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Las Vegas (US) | Fontainebleau Resort Hotel | 735 | 63 | hotel |
| Las Vegas (US) | The St. Regis Residences at the Venetian Palazzo | 632 | 43 | residential |
| Las Vegas (US) | Echelon Place Main Resort Tower | 650 | 57 | hotel |
| Las Vegas (US) | Echelon Suite Tower | 541 | 47 | hotel |
| Las Vegas (US) | Echelon Place Shangri-La Tower | 466 | - | hotel |
| Atlantic City (US) | Revel Entertainment Resort South Tower (topped) | 709 | 56 | hotel |
| New York City (US) | 30 Park Place | 912 | 68 | residential / hotel |
| New York City (US) | 56 Leonard Street | 821 | 57 | residential |
| New York City (US) | 50 West Street | 714 | 65 | residential / hotel |
| New York City (US) | Atelier II | 618 | 57 | residential |
| New York City (US) | 250 West 55th Street | 592 | 40 | office |
| New York City (US) | 388 Bridge Street | 528 | 49 | residential |
| New York City (US) | 823 United Nations Plaza | 520 | 40 | residential |
| New York City (US) | 303 East 51st Street | 504 | 43 | residential |
| New York City (US) | International Gem Tower | 460 | 32 | office |
| Charlotte (US) | 210 Trade | 601 | 53 | residential |
| Chicago (US) | Waterview Tower | 1047 | 89 | residential / hotel |
| Fort Myers (US) | The Cypress Club I | 357 | 32 | residential |
| Louisville (US) | Museum Plaza | 696 | 61 | office / residential / hotel |
| Miami (US) | The Capital at Brickell North Tower | 809 | 57 | residential |
| Miami (US) | The Capital at Brickell South Tower | 756 | 52 | residential |
| Portland (US) | Park Avenue West | 515 | 33 | residential / office |
| Raleigh (US) | Soliel Center | 480 | 43 | residential / hotel / office |
| Sunny Isles Beach (US) | Solis Resort Spa Residences | 584 | 53 | residential / hotel |
| Tempe (US) | Centerpoint Residential 2 | 345 | 30 | residential |
| Tempe (US) | Centerpoint Residential 1 | 258 | 22 | residential |
January 30th, 2011 at 5:24:56 AM
permalink
The top 10 completed in 2010.
January 30th, 2011 at 7:33:35 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThis photo of a model is dated 27 November 2006. I thought it was widely known that the FAA dictated the height of the Stratosphere. I am not sure how they thought they would get permission to build an even bigger tower closer to the airport.
Any chance that...
A) The FAA restricting the Stratosphere height was urban legend, and/or
B) The FAA was concerned with Nellis and not McCarren? Although somewhat distant, the Stratosphere is in line with the Nellis runways, not sure about this new tower..., and/or
C) Height restrictions changed, and/or
D) Additional runways were planned for McCarren which would have put the Stratosphere in the flight path, but those runways are no longer planned, so this new tower is acceptable?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
January 30th, 2011 at 8:42:11 AM
permalink
Hmmm...
The ILS runway for landing at Nellis is 3R. The approach path is 26 degrees. At 5.6 NM, the prescribed height is 3200 msl and at 8NM it's 3900 msl. The Stratosphere is at least one mile to the west of the approach path at 3189 msl. The flight path would take it (roughly) over the intersection of Harmon and Las Vegas Boulevard, over the MonteCarlo and the Signature at MGM Grand, so I am not sure whether this would be a factor.
For McCarran, planes taking off to the North using one departure pattern are to climb to 2681 MSL (500 feet), then take a sharp left to intersect a waypoint named BESSY. At 180 knots at a lift of 1800 ft/minutes, that turn would take place about 20 seconds into the flight at which point the plane is 3 miles north of the runway. This routing takes it pretty much over the properties just north of the Wynn (Echelon / Fountainebleau) and perhaps close enough to the Stratosphere. When we were staying at the Wynn last year, we saw a bunch of planes using this departure path. Since the instruction to turn left to intersect the waypoint is dependent on height and not velocity, planes would turn left at different points. That might make the Stratosphere come into play which is why it was limited in height.
For the Crown (which was the 1800 foot model proposed on the previous page), I believe that the FAA capped it at 1,064 feet (as of late 2007) and that height would be right in the flight path as described in the previous paragraph for that particular departure route.
The ILS runway for landing at Nellis is 3R. The approach path is 26 degrees. At 5.6 NM, the prescribed height is 3200 msl and at 8NM it's 3900 msl. The Stratosphere is at least one mile to the west of the approach path at 3189 msl. The flight path would take it (roughly) over the intersection of Harmon and Las Vegas Boulevard, over the MonteCarlo and the Signature at MGM Grand, so I am not sure whether this would be a factor.
For McCarran, planes taking off to the North using one departure pattern are to climb to 2681 MSL (500 feet), then take a sharp left to intersect a waypoint named BESSY. At 180 knots at a lift of 1800 ft/minutes, that turn would take place about 20 seconds into the flight at which point the plane is 3 miles north of the runway. This routing takes it pretty much over the properties just north of the Wynn (Echelon / Fountainebleau) and perhaps close enough to the Stratosphere. When we were staying at the Wynn last year, we saw a bunch of planes using this departure path. Since the instruction to turn left to intersect the waypoint is dependent on height and not velocity, planes would turn left at different points. That might make the Stratosphere come into play which is why it was limited in height.
For the Crown (which was the 1800 foot model proposed on the previous page), I believe that the FAA capped it at 1,064 feet (as of late 2007) and that height would be right in the flight path as described in the previous paragraph for that particular departure route.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
January 30th, 2011 at 9:02:16 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Any chance that...
A) The FAA restricting the Stratosphere height was urban legend, and/or
On the TV show "Build it Bigger" they did an episode on City Center and said the FAA had given them a height restriction of 600 feet.
At Vegastodayandtomorrow.com they said on 10/24/07: Today, the Federal Aviation Administration denied the 1,888-foot Crown Las Vegas tower. They also said that on 12/6/07 the county and FAA approved it at 1,064 feet.
So, I don't have an answer for you, but it would appear they have different height restrictions based on where the property is.
January 31st, 2011 at 4:14:44 PM
permalink
Quote: PaulEWogOn the TV show "Build it Bigger" they did an episode on City Center and said the FAA had given them a height restriction of 600 feet.
At Vegastodayandtomorrow.com they said on 10/24/07: Today, the Federal Aviation Administration denied the 1,888-foot Crown Las Vegas tower. They also said that on 12/6/07 the county and FAA approved it at 1,064 feet.
So, I don't have an answer for you, but it would appear they have different height restrictions based on where the property is.
Is there anyplace near Las Vegas to build a 2,000 ft tower? Just having something that high sticking up in the middle of the flat desert is asking for trouble. However, it would be awesome to have the world's tallest building somewhere in the U.S. of A. I suggest moving the airport. There is still alot of desert south of the M, and the cabbies could use the additional fares.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
January 31st, 2011 at 6:15:03 PM
permalink
Huh. The world's tallest building is now over 2,700 feet tall and there is absolutely no chance that Vegas would be able to support something that tall or large given the market conditions today or in the foreseeable future for that matter. Let's get the Echelon and Fontainebleau completed first without the strip north of the Wynn and Downtown imploding first, then you can talk about another major project.
The strip will never be able to house anything taller than the Stratosphere. The geometry of Nelles and McCarren means that some flight traffic will always need to travel over the Strip during certain wind conditions. The southern strip is subject to incoming flights to Nelles and the northern strip is subject to outbound flights from McCarran.
The strip will never be able to house anything taller than the Stratosphere. The geometry of Nelles and McCarren means that some flight traffic will always need to travel over the Strip during certain wind conditions. The southern strip is subject to incoming flights to Nelles and the northern strip is subject to outbound flights from McCarran.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
January 31st, 2011 at 7:01:50 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboHuh. The world's tallest building is now over 2,700 feet tall and there is absolutely no chance that Vegas would be able to support something that tall or large given the market conditions today or in the foreseeable future for that matter. Let's get the Echelon and Fontainebleau completed first without the strip north of the Wynn and Downtown imploding first, then you can talk about another major project.
The strip will never be able to house anything taller than the Stratosphere. The geometry of Nelles and McCarren means that some flight traffic will always need to travel over the Strip during certain wind conditions. The southern strip is subject to incoming flights to Nelles and the northern strip is subject to outbound flights from McCarran.
Build it and they will come...
Hopefully, not falling out of sky in flaming balls of jet fuel.... Thanks for the details boymimbo.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
February 1st, 2011 at 3:50:49 AM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaI suggest moving the airport. There is still alot of desert south of the M, and the cabbies could use the additional fares.
There is a plan to open a new airport in Ivanpah, about 30 miles south of the current airport between Jean and Primm. It was originally scheduled to open in 2017, but it is now on hold. However, I don't believe the plan was to close McCarran so it wouldn't effect height restrictions.
May 19th, 2011 at 3:33:18 PM
permalink
Quote: PaulEWogHowever, I don't believe the plan was to close McCarran so it wouldn't effect height restrictions.
Paul is correct, the plan is not to close McCarran. However, as I have said earlier only that National government of USA in the Case of Dulles Airport, and the National government of Canada, in the case of Montreal has someone tried to build a reliever airport from scratch. In the case of Dulles Airport outside of Washington DC, it took 20 years to become profitable. In the case of Montreal the reliever airport was a decades long disaster which was eventually closed.
It is not possible to build a reliever airport from the ground up without more cash than any municipality can raise. You either build the new airport and close the old one (Denver and Austin) or you take an airport that has been operating for decades and increase it's capability (Ontario in the Los Angeles basin). If you try to build one from scratch you need to support it for at least a decade until it has enough traffic to support itself.
While brand new reliever airports do not make sound financial sense, there is serious questions about the financial viability of supertall skyscrapers. Most of them are relative disasters. The Empire State Building, despite it's fame, took decades to be profitable. The Burj Khalifi is a well concealed catastrophe. The question is why would you pay double the price of an apartment, with the danger of uncontrolled condominium fees, when you can get an equally luxurious apartment for half the price with a view of the Burj Khalifi?
Video of opening Cermony of Burj Khalifi
May 19th, 2011 at 4:40:34 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearFor example, the spire on the Empire State Building was designed as a mooring point for dirigibles. (Although I shudder to think of what mechanism would be used to get from the gondola to the building...)
Watch the TV Show Fringe and you'll see the trip from the Zeppelin down to the "Sky Lobby" is pretty painless at the Empire State Building in the Alt Universe.
(By the way, if you liked Lost, you should do yourself a favor and give Fringe a try. The first season was spotty, but it has become one of my favorites...)
May 19th, 2011 at 6:29:28 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinWashington DC is the only American city completely without a substantial high rise. The tallest commercial building is only 12 stories, and the tallest residential building is only 14 stories. Historic buildings do not rise higher than 329'.
There is an unofficial rule in St. Louis that no buildings exceed 600', so they don't top the Gateway Arch at 630'.
"Bite my Glorious Golden Ass!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
May 19th, 2011 at 6:56:12 PM
permalink
Quote: Toes14There is an unofficial rule in St. Louis that no buildings exceed 600', so they don't top the Gateway Arch at 630'.
There was also an unofficial rule in Philadelphia that no buildings would exceed William Penn's hat on City Hall at 547 feet. City Hall is possibly one of the greatest buildings of post civil war 19th century America. The limit held until 1987 when it was a new skyscraper was built.
From March 1987 construction of the One Liberty Place skyscraper until October 29, 2008 when the Philadelphia Phillies won the 2008 World Series the city of Philadelphia lost all sports championships. It became known as "The Curse of Billy Penn" for building higher than his hat.
Comcast (one of the largest Fortune 500 companies in the Philadelphia area) took credit for breaking the curse when they put a small tourist statue of William Penn on top of their building the year before. The Comcast building had just been topped out as the tallest building in Philadelphia (still under 1000').
Curse of Billy Penn Comcast commercial
San Diego prohibits buildings above 500' because of the airport, but they still manage to squeeze 43 stories into one residential building. No other city besides Washington DC keeps all buildings to 12-14 stories.
Given the worldwide rush to build high-rises, the USA has been relatively reserved, building only 8 buildings over 800' since 9-11.
870' New York by Gehry New York City { 76 floors} 2011
818' The Legacy at Millennium Park Chicago { 73 } 2010
859' Aqua Chicago { 86 } 2009
1200' Bank of America Tower New York City { 55 } 2009
1389' Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago { 98 } 2009
974' Comcast Center Philadelphia { 57 } 2008
1046' New York Times Tower New York City { 52 } 2007
806' Bloomberg Tower New York City { 54 } 2005
There are 5 more under construction in NYC including 2 in the WTC
May 20th, 2011 at 12:04:17 PM
permalink
What about Dallas Fort Worth airport? It was built from scratch to relieve the existing airport in Dallas. I imagine it to be fairly profitable. Texas did put in language to restrict flights to the existing airport but it was built from nothing in the 70s.
May 20th, 2011 at 12:43:06 PM
permalink
Quote: LoteWhat about Dallas Fort Worth airport? It was built from scratch to relieve the existing airport in Dallas. I imagine it to be fairly profitable. Texas did put in language to restrict flights to the existing airport but it was built from nothing in the 70s.
The restrictions on the old airport were very severe. They were only allowed to fly to destinations within Texas for roughly 20 years. Effectively, the only airline that could operate was Southwest. The new DFW airport immediately became the principal airport, and the old airport became the reliever. But the difficulties in Dallas have essentially set the standard.
Every time they do this (Denver, Hong Kong, Osaka, Montreal, etc.) people want to keep the original airport open for limited use (small jets, private jets). Each and every time the municipality closes the original airport and sells the land (which is usually worth a lot). Without massive restrictions, the airlines flying to the original airport have a huge competitive advantage.
National governments can bear the cost if necessary. In the USA, the federal government could subsidize Dulles for 20 years until it became profitable. Now it is a major airport. Japan could subsidize Narita until it became profitable. The original airport in the bay could keep operating for domestic flights. Now, after decades, they permit some short international flights to land at the old airport.
But no municipality can subsidize a new airport until it grows profitable. The fight in Denver was pretty rough since the new airport is so far from town. Many people thought it was a disaster, and wanted at least flights to other Colorado cities and ski resorts to operate out of the old airport.
July 6th, 2012 at 4:05:30 AM
permalink
The Woolworth building opened in USA in 1913 at 792'. Finally after 90 years, the UK has "topped out" a building bigger than the Woolworth building. The Shard is over 1000', and will open next year above the London Bridge train station.
July 6th, 2012 at 4:31:05 AM
permalink
Speaking of tall towers, I mentioned somewhere that there are some mysterious tall towers being constructed in the desert near Primm. I wondered what the heck was going on. It seems from this article it is a solar energy project. The kind with a field of mirrors pointed at a hot spot in the middle. Kind of like in the movie The Man with the Golden Gun.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 6th, 2012 at 5:27:29 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardSpeaking of tall towers, I mentioned somewhere that there are some mysterious tall towers being constructed in the desert near Primm. I wondered what the heck was going on. It seems from this article it is a solar energy project.
That article say "When complete, it could produce up to 370 megawatts of electricity". That is 18% of the power output of the Hoover Dam. I don't believe that stat. This complex can't produce that much power.
I have to believe that phrase up to uses a lot of speculative projection.
July 6th, 2012 at 6:53:01 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThat article say "When complete, it could produce up to 370 megawatts of electricity". That is 18% of the power output of the Hoover Dam. I don't believe that stat. This complex can't produce that much power.
Daily, hourly, weekly?
Just saying "megawatts" is pointless, regardless of the number attached. It's like saying a car uses up three gallons of fuel. Three gallons for what?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 6th, 2012 at 6:55:11 AM
permalink
solnova and andasol in spain are currently producing 150MW each from 3 units each.
ivanpah will be a collection of nine units.
i absolutely believe it will be capable of producing 350MW, if not 370.
ivanpah will be a collection of nine units.
i absolutely believe it will be capable of producing 350MW, if not 370.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
July 6th, 2012 at 7:54:07 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedDaily, hourly, weekly?
Just saying "megawatts" is pointless, regardless of the number attached. It's like saying a car uses up three gallons of fuel. Three gallons for what?
It is traditional in the USA to refer to a plant's baseload power or the Maximum it can product in an hour. That number is normally followed by a capacity factor which would be about 90% for nuclear, around 70% for coal depending on the age, and for photovoltaic solar in Arizona it is around 19% . I would assume that this plant in Vegas would also be around 19%.
I would imagine that it would be useful for taking care of peak air conditioning loads, as it operates in bright sunlight.
But you are correct, it is mostly of interest to know how many megawatt hours are produced in a month.
The number of houses you can reportedly serve is also a stretch as well. They are assuming that a house is using between 1+1/3 and 3+1/3 kWh. Which is actually pretty low usage.
There are 243,701 housing units in the city of Las Vegas. They report the upper limit of the number of houses this tower can serve as 277,500 . I think that is very misleading because it implies that the tower can meet the power requirements of the residences of the entire city.
July 6th, 2012 at 11:28:24 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThe Woolworth building opened in USA in 1913 at 792'. Finally after 90 years, the UK has "topped out" a building bigger than the Woolworth building. The Shard is over 1000', and will open next year above the London Bridge train station.
Paco,
Where is the "Eye" in this photo? Is it just out of view at the bottom?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
