I remain mostly ignorant of the specifics of this project, referring to it for months as the "big blue thing".

“Inspired by architect Morris Lapidus whose daring design ideas defined Fontainebleau Miami Beach for more than half a century, the new Fontainebleau brand is equally bold, inventive and inspiring.” -Fontainebleau LLC Web Site

Formal comparison of the Lapidus designed Miami original to the Bergman Walls & Associates, Paul Steelman, and Zapata Associates designed Las Vegas knock-off:

Miami: 12 or so stories, gentle, consistent, curve-in-plan tower with expressed horizontal white balconies. A low-rise feel, the drive up sequence is simple, obvious. The space protected by the curve of the tower is directly adjacent to the beach/ocean views.

Las Vegas: 63 stories, bent, segmented, curve-in-plan tower, directionally neutral blue glazing,

no expressed balconies, no operable windows. The signature space adjacent to the curve faces North and the tower is much taller so the experience would be more like being at the base of a shear cliff. Definitely a vertical feel. The space “protected” by the tower indirectly connects to the Strip with a very strong view to the Stratosphere tower.

“I'd be interested in seeing the entire set of renderings for these, because it could go one of two ways: either its going to be very cramped, or its going to a well-planned counterpoint to the traditional sprawl of massive casino floors. I'd really want to see the project in its entirety before passing even preliminary judgement.” -comment by “Dave” in 2007 on the blog Two Way Hard Three

Financing estimates for the project -- not including equity investments -- have ranged up to $3.2 billion.

How much funding is necessary to finish the enclosure, to finish in general? (30% of 3.2 billion is .9 billion, so something less than 900 million ought to do it). The project is approx 70% complete according to a recent LVRJ article. It seems investors would want to complete the enclosure regardless of the project outcome to protect the interior.

It seems fair to say the funding structure (portions now in court-ordered mediation) for the project is complex. One assumes portions of the intact funding seem to be going to increasing legal/mediating costs rather than construction completion. It is not known what percentage of the project is legal fees and how that percentage compares to that originally budgeted for legal fees.

“interpretation of a key lending contract at the heart of the lawsuit” -LVRJ

Word use, language in the contract, is being argued to determine if there exists or does not exist default, and if bank(s) are justified in withholding portions of the financing.

The concept of default, in general, seems mostly to favor scavenger entities hoping to pick up projects/property at a price other than what the original venture participants committed to.

Questions: Will the work be completed? And if so by whom? If they build it will they come?

What caused the default(s) on the loan(s)? Stay tuned