Markham VIP
New Member
LOL does that make sense? Why do I feel the casino doesn't belong in an urban city like Toronto because this is an urban forum? What does the urban forum have to do with it?
|
|
|
- Thread starter spider
- Start date
LOL does that make sense? Why do I feel the casino doesn't belong in an urban city like Toronto because this is an urban forum? What does the urban forum have to do with it?
coolcanadian
Banned
You are correct, we do not know exactly how much will be invested...
However, if this casino goes in Markham (or any other part of the GTA) I would suspect it would cost less than $1 billion.
Also, the fact that MGM, Caesar's, and others all want a casino resort here indicates that the best one will probably be accepted (should it come to that). They will probably go all out.
If this is part of OP/The Ex, then it will be much more than a casino. I would't be surprised if it was $6 billion.
Also, saying it doesn't belong in Toronto because we are an urban city ( I assume thats what you were trying to say? @denfromoakvillemilton) is not right. Many urban cities have casinos. We also have OP. This could go great at OP with a bunch of other things.
The truth is, 2 - 6 billion is significantly more that what would be spent outside of Toronto.
Look at what is being built in vancouver for $400 million. It looks great!!
adma
Superstar
Just highlighting your tendency to use easily-impressed-12-year-old vocabulary again.
You sound like the kind of person who thinks this is great architecture.
Y'know, not "boring glass boxes", etc
AKS
Senior Member
It's better to spread it out I think. Too much of anything is not good. Too many clubs creates problems and they're being pushed out to various areas now. Too much poverty in one area isn't good, so the city is trying to mix neighbourhoods. Too many casinos in one area will create havoc as well.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
I quoted you by mistake. I was talking about adma. Did you mention Jacobs? No.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
I was just explaining adma's point of view. that's all.
coolcanadian
Banned
Just highlighting your tendency to use easily-impressed-12-year-old vocabulary again.
You sound like the kind of person who thinks this is great architecture.
Y'know, not "boring glass boxes", etc
I'm using words that you will hopefully understand. Why would I think that is great architecture just because its not a glass box. That's pathetic. I'm saying that we could have an opportunity for a great facility, and we should see what they have to offer and make it as good as it can be.
I dont't understand what your problem is...
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Let's stop with the shots and get back on topic here. This is a casino thread for TORONTO. Not urbanity, markham or anything else.
adma
Superstar
I think the problem is that your use of so-called "words that you will hopefully understand" is so cloyingly overwrought, you're shooting yourself in the foot. And through those glossy accompanying images of "great casino facilities" elsewhere, may I tell you, point blank, here: That. Is. The. Most. Godawfully. Kitschy. Thing. You. Can. Inflict. Upon. Toronto. To claim such stuff to be "beautiful, magnificent, awesome, amazing, grand" etc etc will only earn you horselaughs around these parts.
You seem to be totally, bubbleheadedly oblivious to the nature of the backlash to Doug Ford's ferris-wheels-and-monorails portlands scheme
coolcanadian
Banned
I am saying that a billion dollar casino project proposed by a major company with only 5% of a casino can be a great project. It can be a huge tourist attraction that is used by visitors and residents. It can include stuff for the entire family.
Why don't you stop putting a potentiality great project down until we see some renders or get further details. Because there are many successful, beautiful examples, and this will help tourism.
Why don't you stop putting a potentiality great project down until we see some renders or get further details. Because there are many successful, beautiful examples, and this will help tourism.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
A 4-6 billion dollar investment at OP/EX sounds good to me......bring it on
adma
Superstar
May I tell you something: go back a couple of pages, where you post "If built in Toronto for billions as part of a complex we could see something like this", and then the next image we see is this
And may I ask you: why would you want to inflict something like that upon Toronto? Or for that matter, why you would present an image like that with a straight face in a "what Toronto needs" spirit? You're like a 12-year-old boy who wants to marry someone who looks like Holly Madison. You're truly naive, even infantile, in your urban visioning.
As I said, it's like proposing the biggest, bestest Thomas Kinkade gallery in the world for Toronto
...like, I suppose, Toronto doing for Kinkade what it did for Henry Moore back in the day. And it, too, might be claimed as a "huge tourist draw"--after all, hasn't Kinkade been North America's most popular artist in recent times?
Yeah, sure. Offer that idea; and watch the horselaughs come your way...
coolcanadian
Banned
^Just because you don't think this is a nice building, and would not be cool at OP with a mega entertainment complex, doesn't mean that others agree with you. Obviously it's not going to look like this.
I think that's a nice building. It needs to be something iconic and grand.
You sound like the kind of person who wants to see this at OP...
I think that's a nice building. It needs to be something iconic and grand.
You sound like the kind of person who wants to see this at OP...
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
as a neutral in the adma v coolcanadian war, can I just say that I wish you guys could debate your visions for any potential casino (either at OP/EX or elsewhere) without the petty namecalling and insults?
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
^ Ditto.
Adma: I think we all know that, if a casino is built, there's very little chance that it won't contain a significant amount of overwrought kitsch. As such, to have any sort of realistic conversation, we have to deal in relative aesthetic merits, rather than absolutes. I.e., yes, it will be fugly, but hopefully not New York Towers fugly.
CoolCanadian: By the same token, you would do well to refrain from citing overwrought kitsch and using Fordian/Lastmanian adjectives in support of your arguments. The retractable-roof mall and year-round waterpark are saleable ideas (even in this forum), IMHO, but only if they're not conveyed with inane/overblown/huckster vocabulary.
Adma: I think we all know that, if a casino is built, there's very little chance that it won't contain a significant amount of overwrought kitsch. As such, to have any sort of realistic conversation, we have to deal in relative aesthetic merits, rather than absolutes. I.e., yes, it will be fugly, but hopefully not New York Towers fugly.
CoolCanadian: By the same token, you would do well to refrain from citing overwrought kitsch and using Fordian/Lastmanian adjectives in support of your arguments. The retractable-roof mall and year-round waterpark are saleable ideas (even in this forum), IMHO, but only if they're not conveyed with inane/overblown/huckster vocabulary.