Tewder
Senior Member
No matter, it's still not a neighbourhood in any traditional sense, which is my point.
- Thread starter Conrad Black
- Start date
No matter, it's still not a neighbourhood in any traditional sense, which is my point.
Tewder
Senior Member
But it is a neighbourhood. The composition of a downtown neighbourhood is different from that of a suburban one, but that doesn't make one right and the other wrong. They are just different. Non traditional in your view perhaps, but actually rather traditional from an urban point of view. Mixed used urban neighbourhoods have existed for hundreds of years in places like Europe. Downtown neighbourhoods are part of the changing face of Toronto, and traditional or not doesn't make them any less neighbourhoods.
Lenser
Senior Member
Ditto what PinkLucy said. Increasing numbers of people are living downtown in this city - do they count less just because the dynamic areas they live in serve multiple purposes?
I was just reading Richard Florida's stance in the Huffington Post. By his reckoning, downtown casinos are for cities "without options" rather than cities that are signalling their arrival on the world stage. Can't say I'm an ardent fan of Florida but on this matter I agree with him.
I was just reading Richard Florida's stance in the Huffington Post. By his reckoning, downtown casinos are for cities "without options" rather than cities that are signalling their arrival on the world stage. Can't say I'm an ardent fan of Florida but on this matter I agree with him.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
But, Lenser, there are downtown casinos in plenty of cities that we would already regard as 'world class': London, Berlin and Madrid being among them.
jje1000
Senior Member
Aren't those casinos drastically different in form than the North American-style casino being proposed for Toronto?
RC8
Senior Member
They are, and they are much easier to regulate, too. I for one wouldn't oppose casinos or gambling in various forms in Toronto if done in the right way: with an eye to giving people and tourists the chance to gamble, but with an onus on protecting communities.
The idea about this being nimbysm is laughable. People living in downtown condos are actually the only ones in the city who can brag about not having the infrastructure they use heavily subsidised by someone else.
Ironically downtown residents and cyclists - the only 2 subgroups in the city who are not heavily subsidised by anyone within the City of Toronto - are the ones most affected by Mr. Respect for Taxpayers' plans.
DtTO
Active Member
Again, the argument is not about the casino itself, but rather about the location. I am definitely against a casino being built in the GTA, but since that is already out of the question, I don't want it built anywhere outside of downtown. Why should we have busses taking tourists away from the city's biggest tourist hotspot when we can keep them here, gain a new tourist attraction, and build a mega project that would otherwise be severely watered down?
Tewder
Senior Member
PinkLucy,
I'm not criticizing the unique nature of downtown as a community, or bringing judgement against it as better/worse than other established neighbourhoods that are primarily residential. I'm merely pointing out the inherent mixed nature of downtown, that a casino development would not destabilize this type of area in the way that it would a more traditional neighbourhood. In fact, people choose to live downtown because it is a mixed area, a financial area, an entertainment area and a tourist zone, all in one. To seek to stop development in any one of these sectors under the banner of 'neighbourhood stability' is hypocritical because there wasn't any 'stability' there to start with.
... and again, this is not a debate about gambling or whether it's right for society or not. That boat sailed a long time ago under a previous government. This is about the reality of the eventuality of a casino development in the GTA and where it goes. In this case the choice is obvious: the Front St. site makes the most sense from the pro-casino perspective and poses the least risk of destabilization from the anti-casino perspective (local nimbys notwithstanding).
Hank
Active Member
Well said. I used to live at Richmond and Spadina and I would have welcomed the casino when I was living there (I suppose my vote is less impactful given that I don't live there any more, but when I was there I often grew tired of the NIMBY-like nature of a number of the posters I would see around the area, for example for the "King-Spadina Residents Association"; they certainly didn't speak for me).
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Tend to agree with Tewder on this one - the area in question is transitional (from large scale commercial/institutional uses to high-rise mixed residential to the west and southeast (across the rail corridor). Direct impact on purely residential sites (which is almost non-existent) is going to be minimal.
AoD
AoD
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
What's the difference? People are going in there to gamble, aren't they? Supposedly, the same criminal elements will proliferate because the same activities (ie. gambling) take place inside. Wasn't that the reason why people here are opposing it?
Maybe it's the scale. But the London one looks pretty big to me.
Jaye101
Active Member
Quick, someone email these intelligent thoughts to Adam Vaughan.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Isn't it interesting we have the proxy war going on between CF and Oxford manifesting as the casino issue - one wanted to preserve their downtown mall retail monopoly (Eaton Centre) by building a new complex out at the Ex while eating into MTCC using the Direct Energy expansion; the other wanted to preserve their MTCC investment and expand into higher end retail through the casino. It's almost like at the end of the day the casino being used as the perfect vehicle but is otherwise a complete non-issue.
AoD
AoD
Mithras
Active Member
Pretty much sums it up. Go look at the retail planned for the Hudson Yards project Oxford is doing in NYC so see what the MTCC would end up being like (and the parks as well). I think that's more of a blow to CF than the expanded convention centre space at the CNE would be to Oxford.