[coolcanadian]

There's going to be a competition. Best design/sales pitch wins. However, it will probably end up going to the public through a vote to decide whether it gets built. Or maybe they'll have to do a vote first before the competition. In which case, the public might favor against it without any solid plans.

Its actually kind of exciting! We really could have something great here.

 

[Thanos]

"millions of people"
"billions of money"

A lot of the opposition to casinos can be traced back to farcically inflated claims like these for projects that haven't even been proposed.

According to Casino Rama they get 13,000 visitors a day. That would be 4 million visitors a year. The Montreal Casino gets about 10.5 million visitor/year. Are you implying that a downtown Toronto casino would not only be less then those casinos but about a quarter the Casino Rama and 1/10 the Montreal Casino? Are people really that clueless?

 

[coolcanadian]

According to Casino Rama they get 13,000 visitors a day. That would be 4 million visitors a year. The Montreal Casino gets about 10.5 million visitor/year. Are you implying that a downtown Toronto casino would not only be less then those casinos but about a quarter the Casino Rama and 1/10 the Montreal Casino? Are people really that clueless?

Exactly!! 16 million people a year in Melbourne, which is a much less accessible city than Toronto. The fact that the Casinos in montreal and Rama are much smaller and not complete attractions like our potential development means that we could dsee more than 16 million per year.

 

[TOareaFan]

Exactly!! 16 million people a year in Melbourne, which is a much less accessible city than Toronto. The fact that the Casinos in montreal and Rama are much smaller and not complete attractions like our potential development means that we could dsee more than 16 million per year.

I have no doubt that a casino in Toronto would see visits of this amount......the issue some have (I think) is how you measure the "net effect" on toursim/economic activity. If a large number of those "visits" are just Toronto people going to the casino rather than some other entertainment option, the net effect is not great.

I have my own (non-substantiated/anecdotal) gut feel on where gambling is on the tourim driver scale these days. Hate to sound like an "old guy" but there was a time (within my adult life) where the only "outlets" for casino gambling were Vegas/AC/Monaco. At that time gambling/casinos were are real tourist draw. Now we have spun forward and a lot (most?) major cities/regions of the world have access to casinos/gambling.

I don't think, for example, people visit New Orleans because they have a casino adjacent to the French Quarter.....but people visiting for Mardi Gras or JazzFest might make a trip to the casino. Similarly, a casino in Toronto (IMO) does not all of a sudden become a tourist desitnation.....but an adjunct to the other things we offer as a destination....so, when trying to attract a big convention, we can throw in a "world class casino" as one of the city's "pluses" along with things like major league sports, fine restos, museums, theatre, etc. It is another arrow in the quiver but that is probably it. Full on "gambling junkets" are still going to be the realm of Vegas and the like and, I imagine, the bulk of our casino's visits are going to be from people already here (either because the live here or they are here for some other purpose).

That is not, necissarily, a bad thing....it just makes it difficult to measure the impact if one of its impact is just helping us not lose business that we may otherwise have lost.

Now, if someone only had some really cool pictures of world class casinos that would really add to this discussion ( )

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

coolcanadian:

The Melbourne example has been raised as an example of what could work. However, the fact you posted photos of the Portlands and suggested that as a site that would have no impact on its' surroundings is wrong, considering that plans are already drawn up for the redevelopment of that stretch and a complex of this nature might not be a good fit at all. The Ex would have been a far better site for such a project.

And yes, you should know that using the term "world class" in a booster-ish way tend to be looked upon uncharitably on here, with good reason. If you want to make a case for a casino/entertainment-plex, there are better ways to do so in an urban issues forum than to post photos of garish hotel rooms and gambling halls while ignoring how these projects engage the city in an urban planning/design level.

AoD

 

[coolcanadian]

I have no doubt that a casino in Toronto would see visits of this amount......the issue some have (I think) is how you measure the "net effect" on toursim/economic activity. If a large number of those "visits" are just Toronto people going to the casino rather than some other entertainment option, the net effect is not great.

I have my own (non-substantiated/anecdotal) gut feel on where gambling is on the tourim driver scale these days. Hate to sound like an "old guy" but there was a time (within my adult life) where the only "outlets" for casino gambling were Vegas/AC/Monaco. At that time gambling/casinos were are real tourist draw. Now we have spun forward and a lot (most?) major cities/regions of the world have access to casinos/gambling.

I don't think, for example, people visit New Orleans because they have a casino adjacent to the French Quarter.....but people visiting for Mardi Gras or JazzFest might make a trip to the casino. Similarly, a casino in Toronto (IMO) does not all of a sudden become a tourist desitnation.....but an adjunct to the other things we offer as a destination....so, when trying to attract a big convention, we can throw in a "world class casino" as one of the city's "pluses" along with things like major league sports, fine restos, museums, theatre, etc. It is another arrow in the quiver but that is probably it. Full on "gambling junkets" are still going to be the realm of Vegas and the like and, I imagine, the bulk of our casino's visits are going to be from people already here (either because the live here or they are here for some other purpose).

That is not, necissarily, a bad thing....it just makes it difficult to measure the impact if one of its impact is just helping us not lose business that we may otherwise have lost.

Now, if someone only had some really cool pictures of world class casinos that would really add to this discussion ( )

1.) I understand what you are saying. People from far away are not going to say "lets go to Toronto so we can gamble..." However, if we have an impressive gambling facility, people from NY and other parts of Ontario or around would probably come to Toronto because it is closer.

Now, when attracting conventions a 2000 room hotel will surely be a plus.

This place probably will not be the reason people visit Toronto, however, it ill be an attractive feature.

2.) If this was built in Mississauga or Markham or another suburb, it would be just another gaming facility, and tourists would likely not even use it. It would be mainly residents.

If built in the heart of our city and including a huge, luxury hotel, shops, restaurants, shows, rides(?), spa, etc. It would likely be used by both tourists and locals. Look at places like Singapore and Melbourne: not thought of as "casino towns" but still use the casino/ent complex as a major attraction.

When you think about it, there are no major, luxury casino complexes in the area. Theres Vegas and AC (our casino would be a larger project than AC casinos) and thats really it. The entire area around us would be attracted. Michigan, NY, Quebec.

And even if it was hypothetically only used by people living here, why can't we have a nice place for us? Should it only be impressive if it is used to attract tourists?

coolcanadian:

The Melbourne example has been raised as an example of what could work. However, the fact you posted photos of the Portlands and suggested that as a site that would have no impact on its' surroundings is wrong, considering that plans are already drawn up for the redevelopment of that stretch and a complex of this nature might not be a good fit at all. The Ex would have been a far better site for such a project.

And yes, you should know that using the term "world class" in a booster-ish way tend to be looked upon uncharitably on here, with good reason. If you want to make a case for a casino/entertainment-plex, there are better ways to do so in an urban issues forum than to post photos of garish hotel rooms and gambling halls while ignoring how these projects engage the city in an urban planning/design level.

AoD

I am not in the position to decide on a location, and agree that the Ex is a much better fit. I am just saying that I feel this complex would benefit our city.

Another thing, I feel that people on this forum who are against a casino have no problem with showing pictures of ugly casinos, but when an impressive one is shown they get upset. I am not talking to you directly, I'm just saying.

I also did more than just show photos. I used numbers from Melbourne and other info.

I think that if a design competition takes place, which it likely will, we will see many great designs. Each company wants to build it, so they will strive to get the best plan.

A better thing to say would be "find a $5 billion dollar casino that is bad" rather than "there are bad casinos"...

This could be our sydney opera house. It would be iconic. A design competition!! Lets get something great!!

 

[TOareaFan]

1.) And even if it was hypothetically only used by people living here, why can't we have a nice place for us? Should it only be impressive if it is used to attract tourists?

Not at all.....but I was simply pointing out that when you start tossing "visits" out as some kind of proxy for economic impact you have to understand the difference between a vist by a local and a vist by a tourist. A visit by a tourist may be a net positive impact (if you can show that tourism rises because it is here) whereas a visit by a local (however you define that) is more likley just a shift away from some other kind of local entertainment......which means the "net" spend/impact is likely somewhere around nil.....and could be negative if you consider that one of the features of gambling is just a "skim" for the house....but calculating that is beyond my skills so we will leave it as neutral.

 

[coolcanadian]

Not at all.....but I was simply pointing out that when you start tossing "visits" out as some kind of proxy for economic impact you have to understand the difference between a vist by a local and a vist by a tourist. A visit by a tourist may be a net positive impact (if you can show that tourism rises because it is here) whereas a visit by a local (however you define that) is more likley just a shift away from some other kind of local entertainment......which means the "net" spend/impact is likely somewhere around nil.....and could be negative if you consider that one of the features of gambling is just a "skim" for the house....but calculating that is beyond my skills so we will leave it as neutral.

I see what you are saying. I would completely agree with you if it wasn't inevitable for the GTA to be getting a casino anyway. If Toronto does not get a casino, then the locals who do gamble will just goto whatever suburb build one. Those who gamble will gamble, whether its downtown or somewhere else. However, if it is built in a suburb, not as an amazing resort, then almost any tourism benefits will be gone.

If we get something downtown, it would definitely be a tourist attraction, especially at a cost of 6 billion.

Something I would like to compare this too (and yes, I will use pictures) is the proposed Resorts World Miami. Look at it! Iconic, grand, a positive addition. With a design competition, we could see something even nicer.

Its downtown. Its on the waterfront. Hmm, sound familiar?

I don't post this to show another fancy thing and blah blah blah.

The reason I post these photos is because I think it's very relevant.

Miami is a North American city. The proposed casino/entertainment complex is to be built downtown and on the waterfront. There is to be a huge hotel, condos and convention space. It will include restaurants and luxury shops.

The provide will provide many jobs. It will attract tourists.

Why is this relevant? Well, its 2012. Most of the 'bad' casino projects that are mentioned in this forum are older. Urban design has changed. A huge facility with a casino will benefit our city.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think that the largest "tourist" group going to a centrally located Toronto casino would be southern Ontario and GTA patrons who live outside the city itself. So from the provincial perspective one could view this as "shifting" revenue but from a local Toronto perspective one would view this as a huge revenue draw. I'm talking about the kind of people who say like to watch a Jay's game once and a while and have some fun, but have a slight to open distain for teh city and urbanity as it is preached by Adam Vaughn or Ken Greenberg. To this sizable chunk of the population it just doesn't matter how cool the newest urban strip is or how much the arts scene is thriving. We could say we don't want these kind of tourists or activities that service their needs, but if so what exactly are we saying about ourselves and about our commitment to a city that fosters and celebrates diversity?

As for tourists from national and international destinations I think the argument is simple and self evident. While these national and international visitors to a casino in the GTA would always be a minority of patrons, they just won't exist at all if the casino is located anywhere but in the central city or by the airport.

 

[coolcanadian]

I think that the largest "tourist" group going to a centrally located Toronto casino would be southern Ontario and GTA patrons who live outside the city itself. So from the provincial perspective one could view this as "shifting" revenue but from a local Toronto perspective one would view this as a huge revenue draw. I'm talking about the kind of people who say like to watch a Jay's game once and a while and have some fun, but have a slight to open distain for teh city and urbanity as it is preached by Adam Vaughn or Ken Greenberg. To this sizable chunk of the population it just doesn't matter how cool the newest urban strip is or how much the arts scene is thriving. We could say we don't want these kind of tourists or activities that service their needs, but if so what exactly are we saying about ourselves and about our commitment to a city that fosters and celebrates diversity?

As for tourists from national and international destinations I think the argument is simple and self evident. While these national and international visitors to a casino in the GTA would always be a minority of patrons, they just won't exist at all if the casino is located anywhere but in the central city or by the airport.

I think the one thing that people are overlooking is the potential scope of this project. A $6 billion dollar complex is right on par with the best of Vegas. It would be a tourist attraction because there is nothing else like it anywhere nearby. The possible advantage of a 2000 room hotel include larger conventions and tourism. If there is a Cirque Du Soleil type show, ferris wheel, etc, it could really become a great attraction for the city enjoyed by tourists and residents alike.

When you think that it won't attract tourists because there are other casinos in the world, you do not take into account the scale of this project. The nicest casinos in the world are similar in cost. Why shouldn't Toronto have the nicest casino in Canada, if not an even larger area?

When people say many major cities now have a casino, why should Toronto not? Toronto is a major city, no? It would add to what we have to offer. Are all of those cities bad because ether have a casino? No.

 

[timeo]

Issues, and a possible framework for analysis

I was initially anti-casino, but I'm kind of on the fence now. I think there are a lot of issues we really need to explore rationally and thoroughly, and take each issue to its logical end without resorting to knee-jerk reactions on both sides of the debate:

1. Are casinos morally good or bad? - I think most Canadians can agree that gambling is a moral vice that is not to be encouraged. However, we already have a slew of casinos, the Ontario government's broke, and let's not forget that OLG is also planning for new casinos in Kenora, Belleville, Collingwood, and North Bay to bolster government coffers (which is the end goal of this entire thing anyways). This is important to note because if we're going to build a casino in the GTA, we really need to make sure that it's not going to cannibalize casino earnings in those new Northern and Central Ontario casinos, and instead they're encouraging people from other provinces or countries to spend their money in Ontario. If we're going to play the morality card, we need to make sure that no new casinos are built at all. A 2% increase in HST in response to the feds' tax cut could work just as well as building all these casinos without having to delve into this quandary, but if we must build, then;

2. Where do we build it? - OLG identifies 4 sites in the GTA (Richmond Hill, Markham, Mississauga, and dt Toronto @ Exhibition Place, Ontario Place, or Portlands). As coolcanadian notes, if a casino is definitely going to be built, then the ability to attract out-of-province visitors will be severely limited if we build the casino in the suburbs (ie. major casino operators are not interested, poor transportation connections, general smaller scale). Hence all this talk about 'world-class' etc. If we must build a casino in the GTA and we're trying to attract out-of-province dollars, what is the best way to accomplish this?

3. But what are the opportunity costs of building at Exhibition Place, Ontario Place, or the Portlands? - The Portlands already have a considered and well-reasoned plan ready for implementation, so that shouldn't be a place to put the casino. Ontario Place and Exhibition Place on the other hand, are places that are currently languishing for all/most of the time. I love the Ex as much as anybody else, but rationally speaking, should we let our fondness for something that happens a month each year cannibalize all this space that could be put to better use on a regular basis? It's like building mall parking lots to the maximum specifications for December 23rd. Further, what does Councillor Wong-Tam propose we do with this piece of land for Expo 2025? (or indeed, is there anything wrong with leaving Exhibition Place as it is now?) If we're going to build a casino, and have chosen downtown Toronto at one of these two sites though;

4. What are the possible impacts of building and how do we mitigate any negative impacts? - As some people have mentioned already, most people have a fixed entertainment budget, so spending money at a casino or its integrated entertainment facilities will take money away from our established 'more organic'/'independent' entertainment facilities in the rest of the city. What impacts will the casino have on restaurants or 'in-city' businesses? Does crime increase near casinos? Do casinos really promote economic development and boost the local economy? I haven't seen any definitive proof showing either non-refutable benefits or costs on these questions, especially in relation to our sites which are 'in' downtown, but not exactly 'of' it (in terms of distance and walkability/transportation).

5. If we figure out how to solve the previous four issues or still think it's worth it, this is when we decide whether the planning and architecture of the casino complex itself is worth it. - How do we make the casino feel part of the rest of the city and not some sort of tacky addendum? Some other cities' casinos have been bandied about as models: Singapore's Marina Bay Sands, Melbourne's Crown Casino, Miami's proposed Resorts World Miami, but they're all very close to downtown, easily walkable or surrounded by other uses that encourage pedestrian traffic, which is not an exact analogous fit to Toronto's casino sites. The 511 goes to Exhibition Place, but not Ontario Place and pedestrian links to Liberty Village on the other side of the GO Lakeshore West line are very poor. Planning, architecture, and business leasing agreements will have a major role to play here in making this place more part of the city (though this goal also conflicts with the desire to limit local gambling addiction). Will it be cheap tacky ugly architecture a la Las Vegas or can it be something 'world-class'? Will the businesses and restaurants within just be cookie-cutter uninspiring schlop or can we make this something more local and in-taste with how we want our city to be like? I imagine that the business part in particular will consist of another vapid Louis Vuitton store and the latest blah restaurant by the Ivy Restaurant Group.

I think only when we've seriously thought and planned for at least these five issues (I'm sure there are many more), that we should even start considering digging.

 

[timeo]

When people say many major cities now have a casino, why should Toronto not? Toronto is a major city, no? It would add to what we have to offer. Are all of those cities bad because ether have a casino? No.

This is a terrible argument. Venice has canals, why shouldn't Toronto? Dubai has supertalls, why shouldn't Toronto? Hong Kong has neon signs everywhere, why shouldn't Toronto? Just because some cities have casinos doesn't mean that Toronto should have one. San Francisco doesn't have a proper intercity train station - doesn't mean they should blow up entire blocks of SOMA just for shits.

 

[coolcanadian]

This is a terrible argument. Venice has canals, why shouldn't Toronto? Dubai has supertalls, why shouldn't Toronto? Hong Kong has neon signs everywhere, why shouldn't Toronto? Just because some cities have casinos doesn't mean that Toronto should have one. San Francisco doesn't have a proper intercity train station - doesn't mean they should blow up entire blocks of SOMA just for shits.

My point is, a casino does not ruin those cities. It just increases what they have to offer. Just as a sports team or amusement park. A casino is possible to build, and we can build it. The fact that other major cities have it and not just resort towns means we could too.

@timeo - great post!

I think that the fact that MGM (among other companies) wants to build a billion dollar enter-casino complex shows that there is a market downtown. I think that, if built by one of these reputable companies, it would attract tourists. If MGM just wanted to build a gaming facility, even if it included a hotel, they would not map the casino only 5% of the project. 95% of this project will not be a casino! People are members of MGM rewards clubs, and would come to Toronto if something great was built here.

It's not like there making something small for us to gamble in. It would attract tourists for many reasons.. Conventions, attractions, even the casino.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

coolcanadian:

Why is this relevant? Well, its 2012. Most of the 'bad' casino projects that are mentioned in this forum are older. Urban design has changed. A huge facility with a casino will benefit our city.

I think you are equating architecture (more aptly, Starchitecture) with urban design.

AoD

 

[adma]

And the Miami case: you're presenting renderings. You're not presenting a real building in a real urban context--or for that matter, in a manner that isn't glossied-up to look super-photogenic. Even relative to what you're presenting of a fait-accompli case like Melbourne, we're left wondering what the ground-level reality is. You seem incapable of posting anything au naturel; all you're presenting of your "world class examples are images slathered with photographic whore makeup.

And in cases like this, I fear that reality might be a modern-day version of the Wizard-Of-Oz insularity of 70s spectaculars like Detroit's Ren Cen.

You really need to stop being overimpressed, and to recognize that there's a significant contingent that recognizes all this Trump-ian or Doug-Ford-ian stuff as world crass, not world class.