Question of the Day - 07 February 2024

The history of the Fremont Street Experience is a long and convoluted one, stretching back more than 30 years.

By 1992, downtown Las Vegas had lost the bulk of its gambling income to the Las Vegas Strip and something, city fathers concluded, had to be done to lure tourists back to Glitter Gulch. One idea, floated by Steve Wynn, was to flood downtown with Venetian-style canals that would ply Fremont Street. A meeting of casino executives was convened at the Golden Nugget, owned by Wynn at the time. When he unveiled his grand scheme, Jack Binion (according to an eyewitness), gently told him, “You’re talking to a bunch of guys who couldn’t get twenty bucks together for the second coming of Christ. What I’m trying to say, Steve, is ‘slow down.’”

Another concept, this one from a theme-park creator, was for a life-size replica of the starship Enterprise from "Star Trek," which would have dwarfed all existing buildings along Fremont Street. Then-Paramount CEO Stanley Jaffe nixed the idea. 

Enter local architect Jon Jerde. His first thought was an aerial parade, suspended by a canopy (shades of the Sky Carnival at the Rio). This went over well with both the Fremont Street Experience — an eight-casino consortium — and city leadership, but Jerde subsequently abandoned the sky-ride idea. The canopy notion, however, stuck. 

Why did Jerde’s original concept not fly? Three reasons were cited by architect Mary Kozlowski. One, it couldn’t be seen to advantage from street level. Two, the canopy would be (in effect) a wind tunnel, imperiling the aerial floats. Third, it would be a beast to maintain, given the amount of desert sand blowing through the air (see Two) and getting into the fine mechanical parts needed to make the concept work.

With time pressing, Kozlowski quickly brainstormed the idea for the Experience as we know it today, the world’s biggest light show. Jerde, FSE, and the city of Las Vegas all bought in. Casino owners pledged $18 million toward the projected $63 million tab, most of which was raised through a 2% levy on downtown room rates. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority also kicked in $6 million on what would turn out to be a wise investment. 

Work began on September 16, 1994, and continued through December 1995, when the light show went live on the 14th. The canopy required 16 columns, each weighing 13 tons, plus 43,000 struts, supporting 200 tons of erector sets for the lights. Initially illuminated with 2.1 million wedge-based bulbs (some of which cost $15 apiece), the FSE switched over to LED lighting in a $17 million conversion that went live on June 14, 2004.

Another $32 million was invested in 2019 to improve the brightness of the LEDs fourfold and give them seven times more resolution. At first, the Experience was driven by 32 computers concealed in on-site kiosks. These were subsequently condensed to one central location and 10 computers.

In recent years, the FSE has been enhanced (though some would say marred) by SlotZilla, an enormous two-tier zip line that runs the length of the five-block mall. It's quite a thrill to soar high above the pedestrian mall, but it's a little distracting for people trying to watch the displays on the canopy. 

As for casinos reticent to pay their fair share, in May 2010, Fremont Street Experience LLC sued Plaza Hotel & Casino and Tamares Group, the Lichtenstein-based conglomerate that owns the Plaza. Both were charged with failing to pay their share of the electric bill, $429,990, toward the cost of keeping the Fremont Street Experience’s lights burning. FSE claimed that Tamares Real Estate Investments had been delinquent since June 2009.

The Plaza/FSE relationship is a two-way street. "As a member of the Fremont Street Experience, Tamares is included in the attraction’s print advertising, website, and overhead Viva Vision display, the lawsuit stated," according to Las Vegas Sun coverage of the litigation.

On Nov. 1, 2011, a summary judgment was entered in FSE’s favor and Tamares paid a settlement. The resolution of the case received no news coverage in the dailies and to this day, the amount of the settlement remains unknown.