[AlvinofDiaspar]

re: architecture

While I am not a proponent of over-the-top, faux historical palaces like the Venetian, there is something to be said about the extant architecture around the Ex - they were for all intents and purposes meant for show for its' time. There aren't any reasons why any casino complex would be any different in that regard - the design vocabulary might be different, but the "look at me" intent is the same.

AoD

 

[Frankie1984]

Toronto waterfront among five areas proposed as new site for casino

The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. issued a formal Request for Information on Thursday to expand the province’s gambling operations.

The RFI identifies five geographic areas where the province could build a new casino and entertainment complex. Within the Greater Toronto Area, the lottery corporation says a business case can be made in four different sites - Toronto’s waterfront, a section that includes the aging Ontario Place complex and the Woodbine racetrack, Mississauga’s waterfront, Markham and Brampton.

Source http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...oposed-as-new-site-for-casino/article2435758/

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Source http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...oposed-as-new-site-for-casino/article2435758/

Looks like Woodbine is specifically excluded from consideration (from the RFI, Sched. B):

Proposed gaming zones in Central Ontario
...
C1: Includes areas along Lake Ontario in Toronto and Mississauga, and areas of Markham and Richmond Hill
C2: Includes the Woodbine site
...
B. Potential gaming zones that allow for new facilities
OLG has received direction from Government to establish up to five new gaming sites in designated zones. The five proposed zones that allow for a new site are: C1, C7 (Collingwood/Wasaga), E2 (Belleville), N4 (Kenora) and N5 (North Bay).

 

[astroturf]

I definitely share coolcanadian's enthusiasm with having a great resort/casino - definitely Ontario place being a fantastic spot. After all, the place was closed because A) it failed to attract enough visitors to cover costs B) became a drain on the public's purse - with a lack of ongoing investment to adequately maintain this location as an attractive attraction.

I'm annoyed by holier than though types on this thread. Your 80's experience of Ontario Place as a family-fun facility has long since sailed - it's obviously no longer relevant in this day else it wouldn't have closed. Time to reinvent the entire place, in whatever context, to not only make an under-used facility relevant again - but also self sustaining in the long term.

 

[bAuHaUs]

Looks like Woodbine is specifically excluded from consideration (from the RFI, Sched. B):

Proposed gaming zones in Central Ontario
...
C1: Includes areas along Lake Ontario in Toronto and Mississauga, and areas of Markham and Richmond Hill
C2: Includes the Woodbine site
...
B. Potential gaming zones that allow for new facilities
OLG has received direction from Government to establish up to five new gaming sites in designated zones. The five proposed zones that allow for a new site are: C1, C7 (Collingwood/Wasaga), E2 (Belleville), N4 (Kenora) and N5 (North Bay).

Can someone post the full RFI?

 

[themarc]

Looks like Woodbine is specifically excluded from consideration (from the RFI, Sched. B):

Proposed gaming zones in Central Ontario
...
C1: Includes areas along Lake Ontario in Toronto and Mississauga, and areas of Markham and Richmond Hill
C2: Includes the Woodbine site
...
B. Potential gaming zones that allow for new facilities
OLG has received direction from Government to establish up to five new gaming sites in designated zones. The five proposed zones that allow for a new site are: C1, C7 (Collingwood/Wasaga), E2 (Belleville), N4 (Kenora) and N5 (North Bay).

Funny how the C1 zone includes the Island. As if...

 

[TrickyRicky]

"There used to be a day when politicing was reserved for election time and governing was the focus in between. These days (at all levels of government) we see people prepping for the next election just as soon as the votes are counted on the last one. I get that people in politics have two jobs...first, get elected and second govern/administer. It just seems to me that the second job (the one that we voters/citizens care most about) is set aside while they constantly work on the first one."

Couldn't agree with you more on this one TOareaFan. Also, I think the sharks circling the city are really excited because frankly there just aren't many cities in the world left that don't already have casinos.

astroturf, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ontario place already effectively ruled out based on the following observations: The Ontario place board itself is not considering a casino, potential developers have already indicated the landform is not an appropriate size, locating at Ontario place would deny the city of annual property tax revenue because it is provincially held lands therefore because council has a veto over the matter any Ontario place proposal will almost certainly be voted down.

 

[TOareaFan]

I'm annoyed by holier than though types on this thread. Your 80's experience of Ontario Place as a family-fun facility has long since sailed - it's obviously no longer relevant in this day else it wouldn't have closed. Time to reinvent the entire place, in whatever context, to not only make an under-used facility relevant again - but also self sustaining in the long term.

Well, the fact that the current form of Ontario Place was not attracting families there does lead to the conclusion that OP needed to be redone. It does not (IMO) lead to the conclusion, necessarily, that it needs to be redone as a casino. It could be redone to a 21st century attraction for families....or are families, and family fun, themselves just not relevant in the modern world?

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Can someone post the full RFI?

You have to go through Merx to get it, which has strict terms of use that I wouldn't want to be found to have breached. Sched. B of the RFI is, however, freely available on the OLGC's website:

 

[bAuHaUs]

You have to go through Merx to get it, which has strict terms of use that I wouldn't want to be found to have breached. Sched. B of the RFI is, however, freely available on the OLGC's website:

Thanks!

 

[Torontovibe]

In fact, there are many examples of Casino resorts that have a great street presence. Have you seen the Cosmopolitan?


Have you ever actually been to Las Vegas? There is a huge pedestrian life there. The streets are never empty.

This will be a huge resort, and people will be in and around it.

It will not be like Vegas because we are not Vegas. The city will probably choose the best design submitted.

Yep, I've been to Vegas and there were only 2 streets that had pedestrian traffic and what I realized, is that people almost always, only walked one block. (from one casino to the next one over) The reason for that, is all the twists and turns you have to make, taking escalators, over each street. It takes 20 minutes just to go one block. The main strip on the highway is full of people BUT did you walk one block off that strip? I did, and guess what I saw? Parking lot, after parking lot and a few run down strip malls/fast food joints but there were almost no people walking. (just driving)

Then you have the old downtown strip with the LED roof and that is actually a pretty dead area most of the time. It's only crowded when they have some big event going on. It was popular at first but those big, glitzy attractions seem to wear out really quickly. Again, one single block away from this street and you have streets that look run down and deserted.

Most people who visit Vegas never go off the 2 main strips, so they never see the shitty side of Vegas. They go in on the highway, that goes right through that main strip. They park their car at the hotel and they stick to that 6 or 7 block of glitzy attractions. You didn't notice that Coolcanadian? Take a look using Google and I'm sure you will see what I mean.

What I remember most about Vegas, is everything seemed to be made of cheap stucco. Does anybody know what those huge hotel complexes are made out of? None of them looked like real stone or marble, it just all seemed like fake materials, mainly stucco. If anybody has the info, please post it. I don't mean the inside of the casino complexes, I mean the outside materials. What kind of quality are we talking here?

 

[coolcanadian]

First of all I love Toronto city hall.

Second, I meant 75 million not billion. And it would attract millions of people. Crown casino in Melbourne attracts up to 16 million people each year.

I do not want the venetian. I do not want a fake stucco building. I want something great. Something with good architecture, something that goes well with the city. And it can be done.

I think you should really wait until you see a render or concept before you shoot this down. It can be amazing for the city.

Is this ugly?

I want something nice, and with wow factor.

You obviously did not get my point before.

I do not want to see a Bellagio.

And I do not want everything to be fake and stucco.

What I want is a well designed complex that provides jobs, attracts tourists and fits in with our city.

MGM said they want to add to our positive skyline. They want to use transit in the city.

They know Toronto is different.

 

[coolcanadian]

If you want to keep in the mind set that a casino will ruin our city, go ahead.

I, however, am open to change. I think a billion dollar complex that provides hotel and convention space, adds many jobs, has a great design and attracts many people would go great in Toronto.

 

[coolcanadian]

I was just thinking, and I remember someone one this forum complaining at me because in one of my examples I said Canada's Wonderland is a world class place.

To begin, saying that this place is not world class because it requires a car to get too, does not interact well the the surroundings (debatable?) and is not intellectual, is very stupid.

The park attracts millions of people, has the second largest number of roller coasters out of any park in the world, and provides thousands of jobs. It is known worldwide, and has some very iconic features, like Wonder Mountain.

Now, just because you may not like Wonderland does not mean it is not a world class attraction.

Be aware, I am not at all saying that I want a Wonderland built downtown on the waterfront.

My point is, even if you don't enjoy the amusement park, doesn't mean millions of others won't.

If you prefer this kind of world class attraction, which I also love and am very proud of, there is no problem with that.

However, it does not mean we should not build other types of facilities because you do not like them.

Getting to my point, the fact that we might build a billion dollar resort that happens to include a casino on our waterfront does not prevent us from building a huge museum elsewhere. It simply adds to our diversity and variety.

If we wan't to be a major city, then we need a wide range of attractions.

A casino resort can be world class. I assure you that if this is build, it will be enjoyed by millions, and be a positive addition to our city.

If you do not like the casino, then don't go there. If you do not like roller coasters, don't go to Wonderland. There is no problem with that at all. However, millions of people like casinos. Millions would come to our city and stay at a 5 star resort, and enjoy it very much.

The same way that many people like Vegas and many don't.


However, we are not Vegas. Nor are we Orlando. If you don't like casino's, you will probably not goto Vegas. If you don't like roller coaster's, you will probably not goto Orlando. However, Toronto is lucky in that it is a huge city, not a tourist town. If you like rides, you can ride them. If you like museums, you can goto them. If you like casino's, why should't you be able to goto them in our city?

Conventions, shows, clubs, etc will also be there for those who don't gamble. The design can be very good, we have not yet seen a concept.

The fact is, different people like different things. We need to have a variety.

 

[adma]

And, once again if we may extend such logic...

"World class artist". Just because we don't enjoy his work, it doesn't mean millions of others won't. Right?