[returnoftheyeti]

Originally Posted by orca17

[/b]
I may have to borrow that line.

Your post pretty much summarizes the way I feel about the plethora of condo towers going up on and near the Strip. People are being sold a lifestyle that, they will soon find out, is much different than the sales pitch, or anything they envision. The idea of living and working in the same complex is appealing on the surface, but the reality is that sooner or later you will have to venture into the rolling parking lot known as Las Vegas Boulevard to do something as simple and necessary as buying groceries. That job downstairs may totally evaporate, leaving you to find work in a totally different part of town. Also, that view you are being sold is impressive - until they build another condo tower right next to yours, and that is about all you can see out the window.

I stole that line from Tyler Durden.

[ClarkGrisowld]

Originally Posted by airics

i think that if you can actually afford one of these places, such as city center.. money is not an issue to you.. these people are going to use them for corporate gatherings, vacation spots, etc.. I doubt you would see a family living in city center.

Which is why it will be a modern day ghost town. I would guess 1/3 of those units will see the owner less than 30 days a year....Another 1/3 will take a very long time to finally sell....And much of the remainder will probably be around less than 5 months a year. I would guess, at any given time, there will normally be less than 20% of the residents around. And as far as some being rented as a hotel, I doubt it will be significant.

A ginormous hotel complex that will probably average less than 20% occupancy. And I wouldn't expect many locals. If they do, they will probably spend plenty of time in another primary residence somewhere in Vegas and possibly vacation homes in other places.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by ClarkGrisowld

Which is why it will be a modern day ghost town. I would guess 1/3 of those units will see the owner less than 30 days a year....Another 1/3 will take a very long time to finally sell....And much of the remainder will probably be around less than 5 months a year. I would guess, at any given time, there will normally be less than 20% of the residents around. And as far as some being rented as a hotel, I doubt it will be significant.

A ginormous hotel complex that will probably average less than 20% occupancy. And I wouldn't expect many locals. If they do, they will probably spend plenty of time in another primary residence somewhere in Vegas and possibly vacation homes in other places.

In general the condo places plan for a relatively low occupancy. 75 or 80% dark most nights. However on certain events and weeks they virtually fill up...Note that that there are also hotels which run mostly over 90% occupancy and the hotel condos...still waiting to see where they end up...

We still don't have an established resale market. Right now it is very hard if not impossible to sell one.

Going to be interesting to watch it work out for the next years...

[ClarkGrisowld]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Note that that there are also hotels which run mostly over 90% occupancy and the hotel condos...still waiting to see where they end up...

I understand that. Of course, a good chunk of that 90%+ is comped rooms.

As long as there is capacity on the Strip, I can't see hardly any of those hotel condos being booked. I don't know if MGM is managing it, but you think they'll book a single room before all their others are filled up?

I'd be interested to know what the contractual obligation is. I'm guessing the marketing (to attract hotel guests) will be awful and the booking process even worse.

As for planning to be 75-80% dark, I don't disagree. I'm looking at it from the sales perspective. Someone thinking they'll get the urban experience, the NY style of living, is going to be very disappointed.

[jfkIII]

There couldn't be worse economic conditions to hold a grand opening. It has boondoggle written all over it.

[sheriff]

Originally Posted by jfkIII

There couldn't be worse economic conditions to hold a grand opening. It has boondoggle written all over it.

I don't know what percentage of the property is for sale, but they are doing something like 125 units a month. City Center will be the measure of the new "mega-resort". In spite of the lame, "Cirque du Elvis", the MGM is still the standard for big-time special events, and wildly diverse customer base. Kerkorian + Dubai ===== success. Rumor has it, MGM wants to dump all but the MGM, Bellagio, and City Center. The "Harmon" corridor will no doubt match "Flamingo Blvd" in time. Kudos to Kerkorian for not building another "knock-off" project. In my humble opinion, what has "boondoggle" written all over it is "Encore"--------it has cannabilism written all over it. China is in the process of regulating Macau, next step will be "Bye, Bye" to American casinos.

[guinnessjim]

Originally Posted by sheriff

I don't know what percentage of the property is for sale, but they are doing something like 125 units a month. City Center will be the measure of the new "mega-resort". In spite of the lame, "Cirque du Elvis", the MGM is still the standard for big-time special events, and wildly diverse customer base. Kerkorian + Dubai ===== success. Rumor has it, MGM wants to dump all but the MGM, Bellagio, and City Center. The "Harmon" corridor will no doubt match "Flamingo Blvd" in time. Kudos to Kerkorian for not building another "knock-off" project. In my humble opinion, what has "boondoggle" written all over it is "Encore"--------it has cannabilism written all over it. China is in the process of regulating Macau, next step will be "Bye, Bye" to American casinos.

speaking from some inexperience here, you really think china will get rid of foreign casinos? i was in hong kong before the turn over, and there was a fuss over what would happen when it went back to china...but it seemed that china understood the benefit to leaving certain things untouched (aka the financial infrastructure).

i could see them imposing 'taxes', etc. to diverst $ to china itself but china is part of the global economy, and money is money. dunno, as i said, not really an area i have a great understanding of....but it'll definitely be interesting to watch.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by ClarkGrisowld

I understand that. Of course, a good chunk of that 90%+ is comped rooms.

As long as there is capacity on the Strip, I can't see hardly any of those hotel condos being booked. I don't know if MGM is managing it, but you think they'll book a single room before all their others are filled up?

I'd be interested to know what the contractual obligation is. I'm guessing the marketing (to attract hotel guests) will be awful and the booking process even worse.

As for planning to be 75-80% dark, I don't disagree. I'm looking at it from the sales perspective. Someone thinking they'll get the urban experience, the NY style of living, is going to be very disappointed.

Actually it looks like it is going the litigation route. Should get interesting. From what I have read most of the issue has been the level of discount rather the renting. The condo/hotels appear to be operating well discounted from the hotels. Owners claiming it is not meeting the numbers shown in the sales process.

Catch the stupp on Medidien - the fancy condo conversion. They were playing the hotel game without bothering to get the neccessary permits or pay the required taxes. Sounds like the whole thing is not feasible if they can't rent them hotel style and by law they can't. Should be fun to watch.

[jfkIII]

LV's next major implosion???? (financially, if not literally)

[ClarkGrisowld]

Originally Posted by guinnessjim

speaking from some inexperience here, you really think china will get rid of foreign casinos? i was in hong kong before the turn over, and there was a fuss over what would happen when it went back to china...but it seemed that china understood the benefit to leaving certain things untouched (aka the financial infrastructure).

i could see them imposing 'taxes', etc. to diverst $ to china itself but china is part of the global economy, and money is money. dunno, as i said, not really an area i have a great understanding of....but it'll definitely be interesting to watch.

Expropriation is a common risk when talking about setting up shop in foreign lands with less than democratic governments.

But, as it stands, they are collecting 40% of gaming revenues in tax. The junkets take another 40%, which I would guess they tax as well. The casinos are only getting 20% of gaming revenues before overhead, so there's not much left to gain by taking control. It DOES cost money to operate those places and it does require some expertise.

Clearly the most likely scenario is they raise taxes. There really is no incentive to take control because you just raise taxes until it's leaves no economic profit of running things. No need to take the business illegally when you can steal the profits legitimately.

The biggest issue would be political pressure. China joined the WTO in 2001 and that organization tends to frown on this sort of thing. They enjoy economic benefits as a member that would trump any potential gain from taking control of the casinos. Potential trade sanctions/penalties could completely dominate any economic gain they get from expropriation. Of course, that's not to say governments always make rational decisions.