Why don't they just make use of the building, upgrade it a little bit, like the stardust. It was a good building, it was build in 1992 and now theyre taring down.
Why don't they just make you of the building instead of imploding it?
2007-03-09 13:24:43 · 8 answers · asked by Chase 4 in Travel ➔ United States ➔ Las Vegas
With all due respect, the Stardust was not built in 1992. It was built in the 50's and is one of the oldest hotel/casinos on the strip. Being so old, it isn't really worth remodeling it. It makes more sense to use the property to build a new resort that can hold its own against the newer mega-resorts on the strip.
There are actually a few reasons to implode the Stardust... First - it sits on some of the most valuable property in Las Vegas right across the street from the new "Wynn" and next to the Fasion Place Mall. Second - they will stage a huge event with the implosion drawing thousands of spectators from out of state. Those spectators bring money with them which results in revenue for all of vegas. Lastly, the implosion will be filmed from every angle including from inside. The footage of the explosions is worth millions as Hollywood film companies will bid for the footage to use in movies.
2007-03-09 17:21:44 · answer #1 · answered by Skibum 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In Las Vegas it is always out with the old and in with the new. If they implode the old, they can build something bigger fancier and charge more for people to stay there. Every time I ever went to Vegas or even Lake Tahoe, I stayed at a motel 6 out of the main strip area of town and drove or walked to the strip. Much less expensive and had more to spend on shopping and shows. Never gambled more than a single roll of quarters in the slot machines.
2007-03-09 13:33:06 · answer #2 · answered by Country girl 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You know, it's always sad watching a casino/hotel go down in Las Vegas. I've lived here long enough to watch a few go down, myself....
However, if this experience has taught me anything, it's that every single time a casino goes down, another one will be erected in its place. One that'll be even bigger, and better than the one before it.
For example, the Dunes was pretty awesome. It was a relic of "Old Las Vegas." It was a quintessential part of the Strip, and an important part of Vegas history. Sure, it was sad to watch that particular casino go down, but if it hadn't, then we wouldn't have the Bellagio today.
So, if something goes down, don't throw yourself into despair watching something fade into the past, instead, look with hope towards the future of something even bigger, and better.
2007-03-09 13:34:51 · answer #3 · answered by RemyK 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You think ecologically, which is good. Developers are greedy and do not think too much about the impact their actions have on the environment, only about how much money they can make. It is far easier and cost productive for them to tear down history and build new rather then try to get an old servicable building up to code. I think though, even casinos have historical interest and at some point people are going to regret tearing them down *****-nilly.
2007-03-09 13:36:04 · answer #4 · answered by debisbooked 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There are tax advantages to the owners as long as they are in construction. This is one of the reasons there is constant construction going on - even on the new buildings. It's just business, baby. Las Vegas kind of business....
2007-03-10 04:02:11 · answer #5 · answered by Vivian D 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just cause a building is "old" doesn't make it historic.....I didn't like those old casinos at all they smelled moldy and no one wanted to pay to stay there. So now they will get nice new ones...
2007-03-09 14:16:59 · answer #6 · answered by Paris Hilton 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To make room in the right spots for bigger and better. Trust me, it is a good thing.
2007-03-10 11:06:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are making more resorts and time share places .
2007-03-09 16:11:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋