[unimaginative2]

Also the cynic in me says the developer proposed the park as a way to quiet any critics. "Look we are adding parkland"

It's more that building actual buildings over the track would require many columns to be added, which would be highly disruptive to the rail corridor. A park could even be cantilevered over the tracks, as is being done at Hudson Yards.


I think some of the casino opponents may have seen that Simpsons episode a few too many times. The opposition to casinos seems quite reflexive. Even a large casino like this one will really not have a massive impact on a city like Toronto. Moreover, the people that are likely to visit are far more likely to be tourists and people for a night out than at the already existing racetrack casinos. If people have a gambling problem, they're already up at Woodbine. I understand Adam Vaughan's opposition, since he doesn't care for nightlife and would like to turn the area into a peaceful vertical suburb, but for people who enjoy a lively downtown, I don't really get the vehement opposition to a 24-hour destination in a rather 9-to-5 part of town. Best of all, most of the revenues go to support government services, which is better than you can say for most bars, nightclubs, etc.

The retail component is what really interests me. A million square feet is almost another Eaton Centre. This area isn't currently a shopping destination, but a complex that large will need a pretty large catchment area--definitely a lot more than the local condos. I wonder if it's likely to be small shops, in which case it would be a pretty massive shopping mall, or mainly large stores like Loblaws or Home Depot. Eaton Centre is successful in part because it was located in an existing major shopping area. This project would be placing a million square feet of retail in a neighbourhood with very few shops around.

 

[Logan]

The reality is, Torontonians are getting on buses and heading down to Niagara Falls or Rama. Having a casino downtown would keep those dollars here (or at least a portion of).
Just because there's a casino in town, doesn't mean everyone is going to rush out and gamble their life savings away. It would create jobs and inject some life into an otherwise dead zone. If you want to see a train wreck, take a walk around clubland at closing and tell me if that's any better!

BTW, Vancouver has a 24-hour casino right downtown with over 500 slots, tables, bars etc. Society isn't falling apart there as far as I know. Or in Hull or in Montreal etc etc.

 

[Tewder]

The bigger question is what kind of city do we want to be? Do we want to make a ghetto for tourists next to the CN Tower, or do we want them to venture out in to the city?

No, you're selling Toronto short! No two tourists are alike, no matter what your personal preferences may be. This type of tourist precinct will appeal to the type of tourist that couldn't give a flying flip for art galleries and hipster restaurants. It's ok. It's all good. What we need is to keep adding depth and layers to our tourist infrastructure so as to capture as many visitors as possible.

If the province are serious about revenue why would they let MGM or Las Vegas Sands operate it? As crappy as the Montreal casino is at least the Quebec gets 100% of the profit and can re-invest it into the local economy.. If all we're going to get is taxes on the profit and taxes on the land, no thank you ma'am.

To be honest I'm not a big fan of governments operating gambling houses, trying to regulate the very thing they are trying to profit from. It's a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation. A conflict of interest, pure and simple. I'd much rather a private corporation run it and the government regulate it and take its fair share of taxes/fees out of the arrangement.

 

[cogito ergo]

Hanlansboy asked for evidence. I gave evidence from a book that was a result of years study by a well respected academic who is a leader their in their field. You gave me this. Alcohol and cigarettes are not the issue here.

You are right!
Common sense is the issue here!
Nothing personal.

I have noticed that the casino idea is rejected mostly by people who describe themselves as progressive thinkers, yet they cultivate the notion of the casino inprinted in their minds by the really old movies or some experiences form the long by-gone era.
I just find it a bit convoluted.

 

[Bogtrotter]

I generally don't like the idea of tax payers paying for the operation of something as morally contentious as gambling. That said I don't think the introduction of a casino is going to be like 'a bomb' going off, which I believe were Adam Vaughn's words. In fact I'm not entirely sure what he meant by that, does he think Al Capone et al are going to roll into town?

 

[Automation Gallery]

I understand Adam Vaughan's opposition, since he doesn't care for nightlife and would like to turn the area into a peaceful vertical suburb, but for people who enjoy a lively downtown, I don't really get the vehement opposition to a 24-hour destination in a rather 9-to-5 part of town.

Yeah, dont get it.....here is what Adam Vaughan had to say about all this development hype

He said the park proposal rolled out with Oxford Place was “impossible.”
“It’s the corporate pornography — they lure you in with this beautiful park and then tell you why they can’t build it afterward but you’re stuck with the casino,” he said.

 

[MetroMan]

He said the park proposal rolled out with Oxford Place was “impossible.â€
“It’s the corporate pornography — they lure you in with this beautiful park and then tell you why they can’t build it afterward but you’re stuck with the casino,†he said.

When I saw this I was ecstatic but shortly after reality took hold. This is a fantasy proposal.

It hinges on City Council approving a casino and then on the casino operator choosing the convention centre location instead of the Ex or the Portlands.

I hope that Foster stays on to build those awesome twin towers above the covention centre but I don't have much hope for the park which I think is the best part of this plan.

 

[Big Daddy]

^ it sounds like he's negotiating through the media. He wants strong commitments from Oxford and he can't appear as a developer's lackie (even though the benefits to the city in terms of revenue are huge) - so he is publicly setting out terms that the developer will either have to meet or guarantee in some way. Vaughn is the guy the developer must swing and he is making it clear to the developer that they need to come to the table with plenty of benefits for the city.

 

[Automation Gallery]

When I saw this I was ecstatic but shortly after reality took hold. This is a fantasy proposal.

It hinges on City Council approving a casino and then on the casino operator choosing the convention centre location instead of the Ex or the Portlands.

I don't have much hope for the park which I think is the best part of this plan.

Im all for a Casino, and think the city should stick to its guns and demand what they want, and whats best for its residents
anything less, is not acceptable ....afterall are we not in the drivers seat

 

[MisterF]

However to put in perspective, a casino on Front would be like a casino in the Quartier international. Montreal's location is ideal - the St. Lawrence acts as a natural buffer from the city, yet easy access is provided via subway/bus.

I have yet to see a good explanation in this thread about why a casino should be buffered from the city.

 

[greenleaf]

No, you're selling Toronto short! No two tourists are alike, no matter what your personal preferences may be. This type of tourist precinct will appeal to the type of tourist that couldn't give a flying flip for art galleries and hipster restaurants. It's ok. It's all good. What we need is to keep adding depth and layers to our tourist infrastructure so as to capture as many visitors as possible.

To be honest I'm not a big fan of governments operating gambling houses, trying to regulate the very thing they are trying to profit from. It's a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation. A conflict of interest, pure and simple. I'd much rather a private corporation run it and the government regulate it and take its fair share of taxes/fees out of the arrangement.

On your first point: Fair enough. Different strokes for different folks.

On your second point: do we want someone like Sheldon Adelson of the Sands coming in here and taking our hard earned cash? The same Sheldon Adelson dropping millions on the Romney campaign. His values don't seem to match the average Canadian's values.

 

[greenleaf]

You are right!
Common sense is the issue here!
Nothing personal.

I have noticed that the casino idea is rejected mostly by people who describe themselves as progressive thinkers, yet they cultivate the notion of the casino inprinted in their minds by the really old movies or some experiences form the long by-gone era.
I just find it a bit convoluted.

Yes, common sense is the issue. In the end, it is the citizens and taxpayers that pay for the long term deleterious social effects of gambling in casinos.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

greenleaf:

As much as I dislike the individual and his politics, the City can't pick and choose who they do business with on that basis - especially considering the fact that we don't apply that standard to everyone. It's far more productive to focus on what concessions the city should extract from the operator if the decision is made to have a casino instead.

MM:

Well, the city can impose conditions through the approval process - the proposal will require rezoning and as such, a whole series of "only if" conditions can be applied.

AoD

 

[gabe]

On your first point: Fair enough. Different strokes for different folks.

On your second point: do we want someone like Sheldon Adelson of the Sands coming in here and taking our hard earned cash? The same Sheldon Adelson dropping millions on the Romney campaign. His values don't seem to match the average Canadian's values.

The Billionaires are lined up to donate to Romney's campaign, since they'll get billions in tax cuts under Romney/Ryan's plan. Adelson stands to get 2 billion in tax cuts IF Romney gets elected. I despise his over the top tacky casinos.

 

[000]

All these casinos are suffering big time and stretching for growth. I can't imagine the government would really do worse than Caesar's (take a look at their IPO worth less than half than it was in February..), plus the province has complete control of the gaming operations in their jurisdiction... that helps a lot considering the number one issue in a casino's long term strategy is margin compression from competition.

Wynn Resorts seems to be the only casino that recovered from the recession and it's no thanks to the North American market -

Wynn gets almost 80% of its revenues from Macau, China where the casino industry grew 40% in 2011 from 2010. The balance of its revenues come from Las Vegas which had a tailwind growth rate of 6.5% last year.

I'm totally against the idea of foreign operators coming here and taking double or triple-digit millions revenue back to the US where none of us will never see it again. I'm for the idea of letting OLG operate it.