Vegas Information
Las Vegas Strip skyscraper at Casino Royale site gets FAA approval | Las Vegas Review-Journal
Las Vegas Strip skyscraper at Casino Royale site gets FAA approval | Las Vegas Review-Journal

People walk past Casino Royale on the Strip in March 2020 in Las Vegas. (Ellen Schmidt/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

The Federal Aviation Administration has given the go ahead for a new 699-foot skyscraper to be constructed at the Casino Royale site on the Las Vegas Strip.

The FAA approved study — sponsored by Casino Royale, which is located at 3411 Las Vegas Blvd. — details that any “determination becomes final on August 30, 2023 unless a petition is timely filed.”

If approved and constructed, the new tower would be one of the largest buildings in Las Vegas, behind only the Strat and the yet to open Fontainebleau. Casino Royale, which is directly across the street from the Mirage Volcano, would have to be demolished to make way for the new building.

According to the approved aeronautical study, FAA’s approval for the building expires on Jan. 21, 2025, which means construction must begin before that date.

The 11-page public notice stated “the proposed structure is in close vicinity to substantial, frequent helicopter air tour operations at LAS (Harry Reid International Airport) and the Las Vegas Strip” and that this part was under investigation and seeking public input. The letter also notes another form must be filed with the FAA at least 10 days prior to start of construction, and within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height.

It doesn’t appear that plans for the proposed project have been filed with Clark County yet. A county spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Calls to both the sponsor’s name listed on the report, Craig Dudley, and the sponsor’s representative, Capitol Airspace Group, were not returned by press time. Casino Royale is owned by Best Western, which also couldn’t be reached for comment.

The name of the Federal Aviation Administration was corrected in this article.

This content was originally published here.