[TOareaFan]

Is this really what people want to put on our Waterfront? Are you people INSANE?

mgm by queer_central, on Flickr

mgm-thumb-610x335-42634 by queer_central, on Flickr

This is the furthest thing I'd want to happen to Ontario Place. Do you see people walking in this picture? It's a terribly inhospitable area to walk and not pedestrian friendly at all. I feel so isolated walking around these parts of Vegas. It may look good from a distance but once you experience it at street level, it becomes quite alienating walking by these huge, tacky monsters, which is why people in Vegas do very little walking to get around. Pedestrians stick to the small but crowded amusement area, with the flashy roof thingy and the fast food joints.

mgm_back by queer_central, on Flickr

While I agree that part of the strip is not very walk friendly... as a non-gambler who has made a few trips to Vegas to hang out with friends, I have spent more than a few hours walking and people watching - you have picked the most inhospitable portion to show here..that is not true of the entire strip.

That said, you have chosen to display something just because it has the MGM name on it without noting that:

A). This is an older property and may not be reflective of what they build now
B). This is a single building casino.....they have specifically said if that is all Ontario wants they are not interested
C). The property they are referring to when they talk about a resort (including a casino) is shown here: http://www.citycenter.com/

As for Melbourne....here is image.of their ruined waterfront that my 'puter gave

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=melb...&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:82&tx=104&ty=25

 

[Torontovibe]

The project could be flashy (hopefully not trashy) and I don't mind the MGM Grand (hotel tower) at all, but I can't see us getting anything that big here. There are a half dozen great looking buildings in Vegas but as you say in some areas they don't create a very pedestrian friendly environment. That needs to be a requirement by the City if such a project were to be introduced downtown - which is where I think a casino should be so that tourists & such have easy access to it.

Show me any major casino in North America that created a walkable, animated, pedestrian-friendly environment and didn't destroy the near by neighbourhood? I've been to many major casinos in Canada and The USA and I have not seen one that improved an area. They always create terrible places to walk or else, like Atlantic City, they completely destroy huge areas surrounding the casino. Even the new casino in Niagara Falls is a terrible area to walk around. It's lifeless, boring and just plain tacky. If in deed, there are any nice areas created by new casinos, they are the exception to the rule and not the norm. With that overwhelming evidence, why would anyone believe that Toronto's casino would be the one magical place that defies the odds? It won't, it will be just a dreadful as all the others, no matter what the MGM guys tell us. After-all, they probably believe their Vegas casino is the most amazing place on earth.

This is a huge mistake that I do not want this city to take. It's just not worth the risk.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Hahaha, interesting what people show and tell when they dont want a Casino

 

[Automation Gallery]

All of a sudden these guys are now a player

Woodbine construction to start soon: developer

Faced with questions about why it has yet to break ground, a U.S. developer says it is poised to start construction “shortly” on the giant entertainment shopping complex called Woodbine Live!.

The Cordish Companies also signalled on Wednesday it might add its name to the list of companies potentially vying to build a casino in Toronto.

“There is no better site for a full casino in North America than Woodbine Live!” the company said in a statement.

Cordish has teamed up with Woodbine Entertainment to transform 80 hectares of underused land at the Etobicoke racetrack into a centre with retail, restaurants, clubs, a hotel and eventually homes.

Woodbine Entertainment is also interested in snatching the casino prize dangled by the provincial government, which wants to build a new complex in the Toronto area


With more than six million visitors a year and 3,000 slots machines, Woodbine bills itself as the “logical” place for a full-fledged casino. It may have some stiff competition from Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International, which have already expressed interest in building a sprawling complex that includes shopping, shows and conference space.
More.........http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/19/woodbine-construction-to-start-soon-developer/

 

[taal]

pffft ... yea right ... with all the tax credits they were given they should be booted out of the city now, they haven't managed to do anything ...


You know, after seeing those pictures of casinos I threw up a little, and continues to have night mares throughout the night ..... Markham Vip it's all yours !

Meh, I think we can do a better job with it here. Context is important, heck I bet Markham could even do a better job.

 

[coolcanadian]

Is this really what people want to put on our Waterfront? Are you people INSANE?

This is the furthest thing I'd want to happen to Ontario Place. Do you see people walking in this picture? It's a terribly inhospitable area to walk and not pedestrian friendly at all. I feel so isolated walking around these parts of Vegas. It may look good from a distance but once you experience it at street level, it becomes quite alienating walking by these huge, tacky monsters, which is why people in Vegas do very little walking to get around. Pedestrians stick to the small but crowded amusement area, with the flashy roof thingy and the fast food joints.

Hi.

As I said before, you cannot compare this to the MGM hotel. That is actually considered rather low end.

It had a construction cost of $1 billion. Ours would be six times that.

You can, however, compare this to other projects.

City Center

Marina Bay Sands

Projects like that.

 

[canmark]

So do you actually think that a City Center-like complex ($9+ billion; 6,000+ hotel rooms plus condos; tram line; luxury shopping complex) is going to be built in Toronto? That sounds more like a Doug Ford-like ferris wheel/monorail fantasy.

Just because eager developers are throwing around the $B word and talking about lakefront "resorts", doesn't mean it's going to happen--and doesn't mean they aren't going to want huge tax and land concessions (and the prospect of keeping most of the casino profits), too.

These casino people are not dumb. They've seen how gullible the Ford brothers can be. And now they may have a willing partner in the province. But you don't get money for nothing. Nobody's going to build a multi-billion dollar resort unless they think they can make billions of dollars of profit.

While I'm not totally against the casino, I think we need to think long and hard about all aspects. And we also need to be realistice about costs, incentives, job creation (are blackjack dealer and cocktail waitress good jobs to create?). Let's look at examples like Montreal, Vancouver, Windsor, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. What were the projections (costs, job creation, benefits to the city) and what was the reality 5, 10 years later.

Casinos do not integrate well with the city. They draw people in (to gamble, eat, shop, sleep), the don't want them to leave the property. Do we want to draw people away from our downtown and our neighborhoods, or do we want attractions that are integrated with the city?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

So do you actually think that a City Center-like complex ($9+ billion; 6,000+ hotel rooms plus condos; tram line; luxury shopping complex) is going to be built in Toronto? That sounds more like a Doug Ford-like ferris wheel/monorail fantasy.

Just because eager developers are throwing around the $B word and talking about lakefront "resorts", doesn't mean it's going to happen--and doesn't mean they aren't going to want huge tax and land concessions (and the prospect of keeping most of the casino profits), too.

These casino people are not dumb. They've seen how gullible the Ford brothers can be. And now they may have a willing partner in the province. But you don't get money for nothing. Nobody's going to build a multi-billion dollar resort unless they think they can make billions of dollars of profit.

While I'm not totally against the casino, I think we need to think long and hard about all aspects. And we also need to be realistice about costs, incentives, job creation (are blackjack dealer and cocktail waitress good jobs to create?). Let's look at examples like Montreal, Vancouver, Windsor, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. What were the projections (costs, job creation, benefits to the city) and what was the reality 5, 10 years later.

Casinos do not integrate well with the city. They draw people in (to gamble, eat, shop, sleep), the don't want them to leave the property. Do we want to draw people away from our downtown and our neighborhoods, or do we want attractions that are integrated with the city?

Where is Markham planning their new NHL arena? Given that Buttonville Airport was supposed to get developed, would Markham agree to host the casino in order to get the arena/etc/etc built there (or elsewhere)?

The casino in Montreal (or Ottawa/Hull) are specifically designed to be away from downtown. Why would any of these guys want to 'integrate with downtown' now?

 

[taal]

Where is Markham planning their new NHL arena? Given that Buttonville Airport was supposed to get developed, would Markham agree to host the casino in order to get the arena/etc/etc built there (or elsewhere)?

The casino in Montreal (or Ottawa/Hull) are specifically designed to be away from downtown. Why would any of these guys want to 'integrate with downtown' now?

The arena, and giant sport facility, is going in Downtown Markham on the east end of the site. Closer to the 407 / Kennedy.

I'm sure Markham will be more then happy to take this, as has been discussed earlier.

 

[jaycola]

MGM grand in Las Vegas was built in 1993. I think MGM will have had some dew design inspiration in the last 20 years.
Whatever they build, will be spectacular if not to everyone's tastes.

The Ontario place site is approximately 100 acres. The Ex grounds another 200 acres. Add in the surrounding parkland and you have between 350-400 acres with which to work with to create a new year round entertainment/tourism zone.

Sell off or lease some of the buildings at the Exhibition grounds to private enterprise for year round use. We have some beautiful underutilised buildings there that could add to the vitality of the casino project.

Add a direct link from the island airport to the casino. Maybe even run fast shuttles from Union over to the Exhibition Go station between Go and rail trains.

Toronto needs this project in downtown Toronto and as we are in need of redeveloping this site, which is available today, this makes the most sense in my mind.

 

[Torontovibe]

Hi.

As I said before, you cannot compare this to the MGM hotel. That is actually considered rather low end.

It had a construction cost of $1 billion. Ours would be six times that.

You can, however, compare this to other projects.

City Center


Projects like that.[/QUOTE]

Those developments look great from afar, just like the ones in Vegas but do you have any pictures of how they look at ground level and what kind of pedestrian traffic there is? See, that's where the problem is for casinos. They all look great from the sky but they are completely alienating at street level, which is why there is so little life or animation around them.

I am not anti-casino, although I do realize there is a price to pay, when building them. (I go to the Niagara casino when my family wants to go) What I am against is putting a casino in a valuable waterfront location, like Ontario Place. A casino does not require waterfront property. Vegas does quite well without a waterfront. If they put the casino at Woodbine Live, I would have no problem with that. In fact, I'd probably go every once in a while. Casinos create dead zones and I figure Etobicoke is pretty much a dead zone now, so there really isn't much to lose, in terms of a lively, animated pedestrian area. I guess the same goes for most of Markham, so either would be fine by me.

 

[Grimace]

According to Tripadvisor the Crown Casino is ranked #66 on the list of top attractions in Melbourne. These rankings are of course skewed, but it is interesting to read the reviews. There are a few people who are anti-Casino and only give it 1 star, but far more whose reaction is just "meh".

These massive entertainmocomplexes are all the same. Their main feature, other than a casino, is to provide a bunch of things a city like Toronto already has, but under the convenience of one very large roof. Five star hotels, restaurants, spas, nightclubs, convention facilities. To take an upscale example, instead of staying at Windsor Arms, lunching at the Studio Cafe, enjoying a massage at the Stillwater, some shopping in Yorkville, taking a taxi for dinner at Nota Bene, a show at the Four Seasons, and back to the Hyatt for a drink on the roof, you can do all these things without ever leaving the entertainmocomplex and seeing the city you happen to be visiting (or live in). Instead of supporting a local restaurant chef/owner, and the occasional local shopkeeper, and the local symphony/opera company/ballet company/actors/musicians, you can stay in a complex where the profits will all flow to the government and MGM, with some stipends to celebrity US chefs and performers, with service wages for all the local staff.

Now, I'm well aware that we have lots of US and international hoteliers, and starting to have some US chefs, and lots of US and international stores, and I have no problem with that. My problem is the creation of massive entertainmocomplexes where the benefits all flow in one direction and the business model is based on trying to discourage patrons from supporting the rest of the City's economy. What fascinated me most about Vegas, for all its purported debauchery, is the sterility of all the main resorts. They all have the same shops, the same shows, the same type of restaurants (and frequently the same chefs). If MGM was allowed to build this thing and it were successful, it would cannibalize our local restauranteurs, clubowners and shops. If it is unsuccessful, it would be a depressing mistake (though probably better for the city overall).

 

[Torontovibe]

this makes the most sense in my mind.

Well what the heck is wrong with your mind? It's pretty sad that you don't see the potential of Ontario Place without a casino. You may not have the imagination required to see the potential of what is obviously an amazing location but maybe others do and they should be allowed to explore other options than a tired casino. McGuinty promised to redevelop Ontario Place into a great park, not a gambling mecca. I'm gonna hold him to his word and scream my head off if he goes in the wrong direction. Ontario Place should be for everyone, not just for gamblers/adults. We have much better locations for a casino.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Show me any major casino in North America that created a walkable, animated, pedestrian-friendly environment and didn't destroy the near by neighbourhood? I've been to many major casinos in Canada and The USA and I have not seen one that improved an area. They always create terrible places to walk or else, like Atlantic City, they completely destroy huge areas surrounding the casino. Even the new casino in Niagara Falls is a terrible area to walk around. It's lifeless, boring and just plain tacky. If in deed, there are any nice areas created by new casinos, they are the exception to the rule and not the norm. With that overwhelming evidence, why would anyone believe that Toronto's casino would be the one magical place that defies the odds? It won't, it will be just a dreadful as all the others, no matter what the MGM guys tell us. After-all, they probably believe their Vegas casino is the most amazing place on earth.

This is a huge mistake that I do not want this city to take. It's just not worth the risk.

I've been to Vegas, Atlantic City & the casinos in Windsor, Niagara Falls, Montreal and Winnipeg, the only one I can think of that didn't kill the area was the one in Winnipeg though my memory of it is vague as it was in the mid-90's when I was there. So I agree with you, I'm just saying that any design must meet a set of criteria so that it doesn't do what those listed above do to an area.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I've been posting consistant defenses of the idea of a casino but to be honest I don't really mind if the casino is built in Markham or Vaughan or Mississauga or whatever.

Perhapes the main issue I want to confront is this notion, the Ken Greenberg notion, that Casino's don't create lively walkable neighbourhoods. The point I want to make is that I 100% agree. Casinos don't make lively walkable neighbourhoods. But that's not the point. I'm 100% on side with Greenberg's vision of how to create lively walkable sustainable communities. But wanting to cover every square inch of the city in lively walkable neighbourhoods is as bad as wanting to pave over the city in highways and single use zoning. A city must be a conglomeration of a host of diverse usages. Almost all the proposed sites including Ontario place or the Exhibition grounds, are not, and were never, and should not be turned into lively walkable sustainable communities. So frankly I expect a casino to not play nice with the neighbours but to me it's a non-issue unless the casino is dropped into the existing urban fabric of an already vibrant strip.