more feedsFontainebleau pet peeves
In the Fontainebleau photo below (sent in by Greg Clarke a few days ago), there are a few things worthy of pointing out.
Being a (self appointed) conceptual architect, I love pointing out things that bug me.
We all know from watching Wynn and Trump build their glass meccas, dirty glass during construction often creates illusions which appear to be discolorations and irregularities. These are all cured after the first bath. some of these can be seen in the photo and are not part of my pet observances.
Arrows 1: Pick a size and go with it. Cladding the taller ceiling-height of the upper floors could have been handled cleaner with taller glass panels instead of taking the cost cutting route of inserting smaller pieces to take up the space. So, in lieu of using the same colored glass, they choose to make it look more like a design choice - creating stripes in a darker color. It's the three different thicknesses of these stripes that I dislike.
Besides these two colors, the whole tower is slightly darker above the notch (marked by arrow 4). The color difference is so slight, it looks more like a oops than a design element. There's a dark stripe one floor above the notch. this makes the whole stripe thing look even more random.
Arrow 2: The translucent white glass crown will probably be back-lit by flood-lights and look glorious at night, but daylight reveals the infrastructure which I find unsightly.
Arrow 3: OK, this one isn't a peeve, but rather a cool clear-glass section framed by frosted glass - Strat-View Nightclub, anyone?
Talk me down.
Click the photo to enlarge it.
Being a (self appointed) conceptual architect, I love pointing out things that bug me.
We all know from watching Wynn and Trump build their glass meccas, dirty glass during construction often creates illusions which appear to be discolorations and irregularities. These are all cured after the first bath. some of these can be seen in the photo and are not part of my pet observances.
Arrows 1: Pick a size and go with it. Cladding the taller ceiling-height of the upper floors could have been handled cleaner with taller glass panels instead of taking the cost cutting route of inserting smaller pieces to take up the space. So, in lieu of using the same colored glass, they choose to make it look more like a design choice - creating stripes in a darker color. It's the three different thicknesses of these stripes that I dislike.
Besides these two colors, the whole tower is slightly darker above the notch (marked by arrow 4). The color difference is so slight, it looks more like a oops than a design element. There's a dark stripe one floor above the notch. this makes the whole stripe thing look even more random.
Arrow 2: The translucent white glass crown will probably be back-lit by flood-lights and look glorious at night, but daylight reveals the infrastructure which I find unsightly.
Arrow 3: OK, this one isn't a peeve, but rather a cool clear-glass section framed by frosted glass - Strat-View Nightclub, anyone?
Talk me down.
Click the photo to enlarge it.
Posted by Mark Adams at 5/9/2009 12:11 AM 
Categories: Mark's Commentary,Vegas Project Updates
Tags: photos fontainebleau construction
Categories: Mark's Commentary,Vegas Project Updates
Tags: photos fontainebleau construction
The difference between the darker blue is certainly odd--also at the exact same divider line (between dark/light) the glass extends out a bit further on the right side--but does not continue on around the building to bulge out on the left. If you look at views of the opposite side (front) you can also see the glass is out a bit further on one side--but does not extend all the way around the face....why?
Reply to this
I understand what you are saying Mark, but I personally don't mind the 'detailing' on the upper floors. It provides a bit of visual interest to what is otherwise just acres of glass. I applaud the architects at City Center for using various colors in the glass, especially on Veer and Harmon.
The different-color 'stripes' on the upper 6 floors at Fontainebleu attracts one's eyes. I believe that a design which polarizes opinions is best. Wouldn't you rather have people discuss your building, be it good or bad, than not at all? How much conversation has there been about the design of the Trump hotel? It's a pretty safe design that is pleasing but certainly not imaginative.
Reply to this
i just read your pet peeves, i would like to say that i do not like the way the whole building looks. i am from milwaukee, wi and i have a thing for vegas ever since my wife and i started going there on vacation. i like to collect casino chips and other stuff. but i hate the way the fontainebleau looks. to me this should not be in the vegas skyline. it is bad enough when i drive down the strip i have to look at trumps big gold piece of crap now i have to look at that also. i know times change and so do designs, but why did they have to make it look like a office building in detroit. in my opinion it would look better if it was more like the bellagio or palazzo. but it is just my opinion. i really like your website it keeps me in touch with vegas even when i am not there. thank you.
Reply to this
An office building in Detroit?
Sorry but I don't think so.
Why would it be better if it looked like the Palazzo or Bellagio? Those buildings are both horrible examples of basically a FOAM facade that is attempting to replicate a previous architectural style.
Say what you will about the Fontainebleau I suppose... maybe it's not for everyone - but the Palazzo? As an example of what to do? That is one of the most poorly proportioned buildings I've ever seen. Vegas doesn't need more of VEGAS...Vegas needs more diversity of architecture (like City Center and F
Replication does NOT equal success in architecture.
If we were to replicate over and over....we'd stay stuck. Go back to Milwaukee and study Calatrava's museum on your lakefront... study it for days...and watch it open and close...and it's beauty on the lake... And then ask yourself if it would have made more sense to COPY an older style.
If there is ANY place to experiment with architecture...Vegas...here and now...is probably the best place to do so.
PLEASE - no more requests for cheesy themed buildings.
Reply to this
FB is a big boxy glass building. No more, no less. Solid walls of reflective glass may have been innovative in the '50s, but are passe now. This is Business Complex Architecture 101. Hello, Irvine! Yawn.
Reply to this
you never got to #4 thats what i have been wondering about.
Reply to this
I reference #4 in the description for #1.
Reply to this
no you didn't. why does it look like an over hang? was there a screw up?
Reply to this
I work on the site, and this over hanging slab is a pet peeve of mine. The added section is where a new style of suite begins, but the extension of the slab beyond the bottom structure is ugly. I don't see a graceful way of tying it into the building. (maybe painting the concrete blue and hoping nobody notices!)
Reply to this
The smaller window panes up top are probably an optical illusion used to make the building look taller than it actually is. Walt Disney used this technique in a lot of the Disneyland buildings -- using smaller bricks up top and larger bricks down low creates the illusion of a taller building.
Reply to this
Mark--you mentioned that "the translucent white glass crown will probably be back-lit by flood-lights"--I think a part of it already is--look closely at the extreme left at the end of the "wing"....the white glass there appears to indeed be backlit....another even slightly closer pic from that day shows it too....
Reply to this
I believe that's the morning sun
Reply to this
Hey Mark... naw...definitely NOT the morning sun....I shot that pic at twilight--it was a cloudy afternoon and I shot it from the Sahara garage right after sundown....plus it was still illuminated there later in total dark.....
Reply to this
I stand corrected.
How do you feel about the visible framework?
Reply to this
The framework....yea...they need to work on that a bit--right now it does not look too appealing with backlight. Perhaps there will be some backing added for a silhouette effect later on? Probably just too early to tell at this point...
Reply to this
I am always on your site.. First of all thanks for all your hard work and everyone else for keeping me informed on what's happening in Las Vegas. I am now living in Orlando, Fl and miss it there a lot. I'm wondering about the whole glass issue too - same thing with the Wynn that concerned me. I was wondering if anyone knows when they're going to start hiring for positions at Fontainebleau and if anyone has an insider connections. Please help me out!
Reply to this
Hiring at Fontainebleau is going to be far off considering the project is kind of at a stand still. Funding is a huge issue, banks and lawsuits are the biggest thing going on there right now. Sorry!
Reply to this
Hey thanks for your input! I really appreciate you answering my post.. I'm also wondering about Project City Center.. Do you know when and if they'll be hiring there? I just really want to be in a nice new resort out there really.
Reply to this
Hiring for City Center has already started. It has been for about a month now. It will be on going too. Good luck!
Reply to this
Mark, do you think the top eight or so
floors could be bigger in height. Maybe
that's why the glass is different from the other floors. Many of the big resorts on the strip have high roller suites on top of the building.
Reply to this
I was told that the glass company they were using had gone out of business due to the economic downturn before finishing the project. The new glass company couldn't match it perfectly and therefore we have two different shades of glass. I think they tried to make it look like it was done intentionally.
Reply to this
Yes the glass company was changed, I worked there. The glass is from the same supplier. The reason for the color difference is because of the building height the thickness of the glass had to be changed in different areas.Someone did overlook that when glass thickness changes so does the color.
Reply to this
This is not true.
The same glass company supplied all the tower glass. There are technical issues related to why the glass is slightly darker on the upper portion of the building - but it was the architect's intention to have a variation all along. You can debate it's success - but the rumors you've heard are false.
I was the project architect for the building.
The rumors out there are ridiculous.
Reply to this
I am wondering why some the windows, randomly, are not in place yet?
Reply to this
While strange, the assorted width darkened lines at the top don't bother me as much as the seemingly random darkened line about ten floors below them. It's like they are going for something in between 'understated glass' and 'Vegas flash'. The Wynn/Encore design managed to pull that off with the much darker separation lines and sweep crown. Fontainebleau seems to be going for something similar, but falls short.
Unrelated, but the M Resort on the south side is all sorts of awesome inside and out. It's got all the style of the newer strip properties with a more inviting off-strip vibe that's notably more comfortable for blowing through cash...
Reply to this
great, now everytime i look at the tower i'm going to notice #1. thanks mark...
Reply to this
lol
you're welcome?
Reply to this
Personally, i like a building that has some symmetry, and the FB is oblong on the east side of the building (although optically when viewing the tower from the strip both sides of the tower look somewhat proportionate based on the perspective). Also, it was relayed to me from some comments via a contractor at the FB that the windows are made in china, and that the windows on the top floors (not sure how many) are actually a different tint of blue then the cohesive color on the lower part of the building, & it would take atleast 4 million to fix the issue.....overall there are some uncanny design issues/flaws that will probably be masked during the night.
Reply to this
Mark great observations about the building. The plain truth about the Fontainebleau is that it is an ugly monstrosity. There is just nothing compelling or beautiful about its design. When I am driving down the strip from the south, the building looks like it has its back to the street. I hope it gets finished some day and maybe then we can judge the final version.
Reply to this
My thoughts exactly, Jay. I was in Las Vegas last week. I saw this construction for the first time and was confounded that companies spend millions on huge hulking ugly boxes. This building in no way reflects the elegance the name Fontainebleau suggests, and it indeed appears to be turning its back on the Strip. Even in this unfinished state, it's uninviting and offputting. Time will tell, but many of the comments here contain more common sense and design sensibility than the folks who designed this cold mess.
Reply to this
My thoughts exactly.
Let's not kid ourselves. It's 3 ugly boxes glued together. The conceptual design is nonexistent.
Mark is right in that if you're going to make a building out of boxes, then you should definitely pay more attention to the details.
Reply to this
The building is NOT YET FINISHED....
The podium has some amazing features. Do you know what the conceptual design was?
I do. And while it is indeed a different end result - that is not at all uncommon from the unfortunate process that often results in larger projects - particularly here in Las Vegas.
Reply to this
The FB is not an ugly monstrosity. It is quite a difficult thing to find a way to deal with the demands of a HUGE program on a relatively small site.
There is always room for improvement - and with budget cuts and a now stalled construction schedule..this is in a difficult position - but I'd like to know what buildings in Las Vegas you prefer to this? Those that are in the same size-range... The Palazzo? A hulking faux-historic style made of foam? The Trump? A solid gold box? The Wynn and Encore? A bronze box? Mandalay Bay?....a gold box with foam "trim"?
Look around you - this city is filled with terrible examples of architecture. All of which chart highly on a scale of ridiculousness. Perhaps the FB is a big blue box - but until it's FINISHED - can you hold off on judgment?
I am amazed to see how many people are so eagerly critical of things regarding the Fontainebleau. The most exciting parts of this project have yet to be completed. If nothing else - it shakes up an awkward standard in Vegas...which is to create massive themed monuments.
The building's earlier iterations were far more successful - I'll give you that - but the demand for certain room counts, casino size, parking, convention space, etc all weigh into these massive developments.
I ask all of you on this blog... would you be more satisfied with ...oh... a 700' tall colonial style facade? Or perhaps...maybe something of Baroque style... Because - that would be...what....? More appropriate?
At least the Fontainebleau has tried to do something different.
Reply to this
The FB shakes up nothing, as the idea of a themed building has been foregone by many long-completed projects, several of which you've named. Encore and Wynn are cleanly sleek and add a sophisticated touch to LV's skyline. Yes, Trump Tower is his typical upended jewelry box. Venetian and Palazzo add a scrubbed and slightly airbrushed European flair, as does Paris. Caesars' towers are unquestionably architectural collisions but unashamedly strut their gaudiness in a bravura display of "We're the King of the Strip - go ahead, make my day" chutzpah. Even the blandly "where in America am I?" under-construction CityCenter has more exciting visual elements than FB. Las Vegas' over-the-top fauxness has been its hallmark and calling card for decades and I decry the current trend toward corporate beigeness, and when that mandate is coupled with a tendency to stuff an oversized project onto a relatively small plot of land it's as elegant as one of Cinderella's ugly stepsisters attempting to force her swollen, hairy, corned foot into a delicate glass slipper. FB is a big Baby Huey behemoth of a building - unwelcoming, awkward and ultimately tomorrow's teardown today.
Reply to this
How is it that you know what the FB does and does not do when 75% of the podium is currently unfinished? I don't take issue with your analysis of the buildings you mention or the notion of an oversized project on a small plot of land. However - I am still curious why people on this particular blog have already passed judgment on a building that is not finished. If your criticism is limited to the tower - so be it. It is mighty big...mighty blue...and since it's not themed or as "sleek" and "sophisticated" as...Encore and Wynn - you've written off.
I would suggest to you that Wynn and Encore are "sleek" only by virtue of being thoroughly boring...and upon a slightly more careful review - you'll find some bizarre things about those buildings...relative to their size and detailing. They don't really bother me to be honest...but to use them as a positive example...and render them "sleek and sophisticated" undermines the educated tone you seem to wish to portray in your comments.
The themed buildings are a disaster on every level. I won't even comment on this.
I would venture to say that all of the strip fit's into your big closer "tomorrow's teardown today"...What is permanent in this city? What is permanent in any city? What does permanence mean for architecture in the 21st century?
Shall we enter into a discussion on the unfinished Palazzo tower? How about Echelon... Since it's not yet finished...perhaps it's a great time to dig into it critically...
Can you not give the FB a chance to be completed first?
One thing the FB does is create a far more urban block than most other projects. The tower set back with "spectacle" out front is a tried and true Vegas "move"...but the FB has attempted to create a more urban street edge...one that is NOT YET FINISHED... So on that level alone - I would suggest that it has indeed shook up something. Whether you like the shake or not...it's all opinion....but one thing is for sure, your "Baby Huey"'s teardown date is a long way off...so it might be nice (as I've done with many projects in town) to try to find something positive about it.
Of course - we can try to out-prose ourselves here on this blog.
Reply to this
I'll take your word you are who you claim to be. My comments are about the building; many of yours are about the comments. Your closeness to FB is blinding you to the honest assessments here from the people for whom you are creating this hotel, and your professional challenges, personal attacks, condescension and title waving come across as whiny sour grapes (for a building so many here find unsatisfying). Your defensive pleas for patience and 'let's wait' are falling on deaf ears here, a site visited regularly by true lovers of Las Vegas. We are passionate about the city. The assessments and comments here on many subjects reflect the ideas of people who know what they like, appreciate, want and expect. You request respect for a hotel you're associated with, yet show not any when you trash other buildings, and therefore the architects and project managers of those hotels.
OK, let's discuss Echelon. I realize you were being sarcastic, since it's bare beams, girders and piles of materials, so it's not really possible to discuss the construction. Rather, the one issue I have with the project is the name, originally Echelon Place. It means nothing. Are we expected to believe we'll be in the upper echelon if we stay there? Probably, but it's that simplistic philosophy which robs the place of any authenticity. Is an Acura 'accurate"? A Precis "precise"? No. The owners of Echelon could have named the complex Stardust Place, and done at least 2 things at once: honored the history of the site and through that special name so tied to the Las Vegas Strip conveyed a sense of magic and possibility completely missing from the unoriginal, forced moniker, Echelon. With the halt in construction, it's still not too late for a change of heart (my fingers are crossed). That's the nutshell version of my feelings on Echelon.
You could hang around all day with project managers and architectural elites and design shut-ins, slapping yourselves on the backs about FB and other endeavors, but you're not building for them. You're building for the public, the folks here on this site, and maybe you'll be open to what they're saying here and keep it in mind for future work. Some of your insights are informative, but your allergy to criticism is silly and your disdain for themed buildings suggests a sense of unsmilingly severe superiority that leaves me dry.
"Can you not give the FB a chance to be completed first?" - No. As you said, "...it's all opinion..."
Reply to this
My comments are indeed about the comments...what kind of argument is this? I am responding to comments made about the building - and there are statements I'm making that reference the rationale for the decisions that were made. So I am responding to - or rebuking comments that are all associated with the building. I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest with your first sentence (above). I'm not here to argue for argument's sake....I saw the posts and was a bit taken aback by the nature of the comments regarding a building that is NOT completed.
I think the "personal attacks" you reference are merely my bewilderment that some of the nuances (albeit some very unfortunate ones!) that lie within the design of FB, are being picked apart BEFORE it's completion...while we exist in a town that has some tremendously bad examples of architecture. If that is an attack on my profession - so be it, do I not share the same right as you or anyone else on this board to make a statement of disdain towards a building?
I am passionate about this city-and I resent the implication you are making that I am not. I've lived here for 3.5 years and continue to be part of the design community, seek a better city via many avenues (research, contributions to the design community via teaching, etc). I want Las Vegas to continue to be a vibrant and challenging city. I do think that unfortunately, the pulse of this city is one that is fueled on vices - "sin city"...there is more to Las Vegas than the strip - that is VERY true - but the discourse here has focused on the strip. And my specific comments are related to the PASSION I feel about a project that I worked on for over 3 years and want to have it's fair "shake". I think there are SEVERAL great buildings in Las Vegas. I do not share the opinion that those that are benign boxes (TRUMP, WYNN) or historical replicas (PARIS / LUXOR) are of any serious merit from an architectural point of view. MY OPINION...am I not entitled to it? On the flip side - I DO actually like the original Eiffel Tower...Paris is a wonderful place...and I've always wanted to see the pyramids.
I won't even discuss the Echelon segment of your statements. The project is so far from completion...who knows what will happen with it.
For what it's worth...SO MUCH of the interesting (and quite smiley, non-superiority-ridden) portions of the building have YET TO BE COMPLETED....so - just give the building a chance! If you were such a fan of Vegas, I'd expect you to embrace a radically new idea...which DOES exist in the low-rise portion.
I love criticism and dialogue. I've entered INTO the discussion. If I felt "severe superiority" I would not have entered into this forum at all. And the buildings I've worked on ALWAYS take into account the specific user and community. Some are more challenging than others..and the FB is/was quite a challenge..but I still would politely request that you at LEAST try to curb your disdain for it it is done.
Reply to this
I wanted to further address your last paragraph.
Your statement has very obvious overtones of suggesting that I think that I (along with my colleagues) have some kind of superiority complex.
I am certain that my colleagues and I do very much try our best to create interesting work - buildings that inspire, enlighten, entertain, create safe-havens - whatever their purpose. I can't think of any architect that would purposefully create something that was in conflict with the well-being of the user / public.
However - you suggest that design professionals might best be suited to look towards a public consensus or "do to list" or even "don't do this" list as a means to design. I personally think this would be a total disaster. While I respect your opinions and support the forum here as a means to express one's opinion - CREATING by consensus or using some kind of public suggestion box as a methodology would surely muddy already difficult waters.
I can assure you that on the FB at least - we tried as best we could to retain the original concepts, to take into account issues of scale (given the VERY challenging program that was required), addressed issues of street-edge and the presence of a interesting facade, ideas about materials, patterns, daytime and night impacts...all of these things and more.
I would agree that many aspects of the FB could indeed be improved upon. You have the luxury of reviewing and critiquing this before the most exciting elements are put in place. I can assure you that the design teams involved with this project did their very best to champion many design elements in this building that simply were cut out.
Perhaps that is our failure. I will accept that - it is our job to do our best with a myriad of challenges and not make excuses.
All I have been asking, MANY times on these posts if for the people who are not "fans"...to at least get the facts together before creating rumors or forming final opinions.
Reply to this
Hey...some interesting points on FB regarding its incomplete status--fair is fair.
Just one question--You said the themed resorts are "a disaster at every level"... Why is that?
Vegas is a like an adult fantasy getaway--a place to escape reality. We all know that Caeasars Palace and Luxor are fake--they are supposed to be! You won't interview anyone walking the Strip who thinks Excalibur is a REAL medieval castle (depending on level of intoxication...).. The themed resorts are cool in that they are fake--and a total departure from regular corporate glass and steel.
Comparing these Vegas pleasure-palaces to standard office-building architecture is like comparing Disneyland's skyline to downtown LA..... If Vegas got rid of its themed places, it would be a far more boring experience.
Reply to this
The shape of F'bleau really bugs me. A building should either be symmetric or obviously and pleasingly asymmetric. F'bleau is neither. Aside from any glass issues, the shape of the building is awkward.
Great site, btw. Thanks.
Reply to this
The shape of FB is a testament to the Morris Lapidus building in South Beach Miami. Problem is that the original was only 15 stories and executed quite well. This not so much. I do agree that if the arc opened up to the strip as opposed to facing away from it, it would be more appealing
I'm a little worried at the prospects now. It only needs $770million to complete the project. Considering Dubai world owns half of FB Miami it seems like it would be pretty easy to come up with 3/4 of a billion but I don't know at this point.
Reply to this
I can comment on all of these statements since I was project architect for the firm that designed the building.
First of all - it's easy to take a building that is not finished (now stalled) and pick apart things.
I'll keep my comments limited to your grievances.
1. The glass banding is actually ceramic frit embedded in the glass. This reduces solar heat gain - and while it looks darker in some light - it is actually a gradient pattern of white ceramic that has interesting visual effects and appears WHITE / LIGHTER in certain light. The reason some of the floors have larger bands is that there is a larger floor to floor height. If we used larger glass panels as you suggested - it would not have met the deflection criteria due to wind load....so we opted to regularize the typical panels and allow the building's various floor to floor heights be expressed in a less regular fashion.
The variation in glass color was a desire to create some variation on this huge tower. Earlier versions were probably more successful visually - but, like every other project - cost considerations played a role. It corresponds with the "notch"...which used to be a curved piece of glass but was changed (again for cost reasons) to be an acute angle.
I suggest you view the tower during difference times of day...and you'll find that the dark "striping" as you put it - is actually lighter at night as it reflects ambient lighting.
2. The penthouse is not yet finished. The glass walls you see do not have the solid cavity behind them. The structural elements will not be visible. This is not completed yet - and any comment on this is pre-mature. I'm not going to discuss the lighting concept here...but it will take into account the internal structure.
3. This is clear glass for a space within the penthouse.
I worked on this building for 3+ years. It's design was modified along the way many times. The tower's original shape was quite different and none of the particular geometries are at all tied specifically to Morris Lapidus' original Fontainebleau Resort in Miami. The goal was to create a new style of resort, one that was interactive and not themed, one that was exuberant (perhaps this is the connection to Lapidus) and celebratory. I feel that the building has achieved this - and while there are certainly areas that we can all debate - I would politely request that this sort of specific criticism be held until the building is complete with all of the facade components installed.
If you had seen the St. Louis arch prior to them putting in the keystone - would you have complained that it should've been connected?
These are tough times here for big projects....let's try to stay positive everyone.
Thanks.
Reply to this
While I live the insight provided by this discussion....I have to agree with the negative opinions on FB. I love vegas, it bit me on a drive by trip in '88. I love the analytical discussions of all things vegas...fascinates me. Anyway...prior to a weekend trip in late june, I hadnt been to vegas for 2 years. As I drove in the from the north and the closer I got I couldnt help but be completely turned off by the hulking mass of the FB.(its not alone...those ceasers towers...) Personally the more serious vegas takes itself the less appealing it is. This whole de-theming thing is a joke, cheap meals and cheap rooms are what made vegas the experience it is/was. Im open to reserve final judgement until the walls are up and the lights are turned on so to speak....but it looks like a corporate beast and is further evidence of the fun being taken right out of vegas. Leave it to humans to ruin something as fun and original as Las Vegas.
Reply to this
I like the quirks that you labeled on the picture. They make the design more interesting and differentiate it from an office tower. They remind me of the irregularities in the outfield of Fenway Park in Boston. Boston is also home to one of my favorite buildings, the John Hancock Tower, another blue glass giant.
I only went to Las Vegas once, in the early 2000's. At that time, my favorite building was the Lloyd D. George Federal District Courthouse. I also liked the original parts of Caesars that had a modernized classical style; I think it's sad that they replaced those sections with 'correct' classicism done in styrofoam.
The most attractive part of The Fontainebleau's design is the pool deck. If it looks like it does in the model, the hotel will be a hit. The tower is more of a backdrop, I don't think visitors will be bothered by the tower's quirks. However, if there are problems with the pool deck, i.e., if the pools leak, then I would bet against the project succeeding.
The Fontainebleau, when completed, will draw me back to Las Vegas. None of the other projects, including CityCenter (with its canoe cluster sculpture), appeal to me. How long will I have to wait to visit Las Vegas again?
Reply to this
Hello Everyone!
My two cents. I'm from Canada. I have been to Vegas maybe 15 times. I study & analyze Las Vegas casino companies. I have been investing in Casino compay stock for 10 years now. I'm very excited with the FB project. I'm truly amazed at what's been created on just 24 acers. This building stands out quietly. It screams "come and see what I'm all about". When this project opens, I know the naysayers are going to be eating their words. I cannot understand the negativity srounding this unique building, when the worst by far is the "Cosmopolition", or whatever the white elephant is called now. Built to leach off of City Center. It will likely end up becoming apartments for stip staff, as it has no other appeal. Let's not forget who owns it; The Bank Of Germany, oh yes folks the banks are trying to take over Las Vegas Casino's, and put in leased operators. Right now the banks are trying to take over FB through very shady, underhanded dealings. I call that compleation funding will flow from Crown, or Stanly Ho.
The next trip I take to Vegas I will be staying in the FB.
Reply to this
Hello Everyone!
My two cents. I'm from Canada. I have been to Vegas maybe 15 times. I study & analyze Las Vegas casino companies. I have been investing in Casino compay stock for 10 years now. I'm very excited with the FB project. I'm truly amazed at what's been created on just 24 acers. This building stands out quietly. It screams "come and see what I'm all about". When this project opens, I know the naysayers are going to be eating their words. I cannot understand the negativity srounding this unique building, when the worst by far is the "Cosmopolition", or whatever the white elephant is called now. Built to leach off of City Center. It will likely end up becoming apartments for stip staff, as it has no other appeal. Let's not forget who owns it; The Bank Of Germany, oh yes folks the banks are trying to take over Las Vegas Casino's, and put in leased operators. Right now the banks are trying to take over FB through very shady, underhanded dealings. I call that compleation funding will flow from Crown, or Stanly Ho.
The next trip I take to Vegas I will be staying in the FB.
Reply to this
do you know if FB is starting up again rumor has it that plumbers & elec are moving stuff back on the site. rumor also say echelon is starting back up do you know anything.
Reply to this
I, for one, really like the Fontainebleau. It looks imposing- which is good in Vegas. To me it has the same effect the Luxor had initially. Yes, the Luxor is "fake", but it's still impressive.
It makes complete sense that its shape isn't open toward the strip, that way there's no obstruction or bad rooms where you would be stuck seeing mostly the wing of the building instead of the strip.
I like that it's blue. The gold boxes have been overdone. The Mandalay Bay/THE Hotel look great; Trump, MGM towers etc. don't. Blue is a good choice that bring some sky tones to earth where desert color prevails.
I'm also intrigued by the hints of what they plan on doing when it's done, it all sounds pretty interesting. All in all, the Fontainebleau is what Vegas needs for a little variety.
Reply to this