[denfromoakvillemilton]

Sounds pretty exclusive and condescending, Adma. And I thought these forums were for reasonable exchanges of opinion. So we're not all of the same mindset... I would think that's a good thing. You don't have to like coolcanadian's enthusiasm for the projects he's interested in but neither is it incumbent of you to reinforce some kind of artificial agenda here; doing so strikes me as needlessly heavy-handed and snobbish.

Adma has no idea how to hold an argument. We all don't have to have the same idea, and we don't have to belittle others for doing so. Credit to coolcanadian for hanging in there, no insults or the sort.

Both of them stick to their points without a willingness to hear the other side.

 

[AKS]

So, anything that an Ontario Government announces will happen inevitably happens? I'd missed that phenomenon.

In this case, it's true. Markham wants the casino it seems. So if an entertainment complex isn't built in Toronto. A 100% casino facility will probably be built in Markham. Toronto will feel any negative effects from it even if it's not located downtown.

coolcanadian, stop posting photos of casinos. You constantly keep posting and re posting photos. Different casinos have different designs. I doubt anything that gets proposed in Toronto will look like other casinos. It will look look different. You're trying to impose an image of a casino that isn't even planned yet. You're misleading people.

 

[Lenser]

Yep. OLG really seems to want this so it's not a question of "if" as it is "when" and "where."

And the effects, positive and negative alike, will reverberate throughout the GTA.

 

[Automation Gallery]

coolcanadian, stop posting photos of casinos. You constantly keep posting and re posting photos. Different casinos have different designs. I doubt anything that gets proposed in Toronto will look like other casinos. It will look look different. You're trying to impose an image of a casino that isn't even planned yet. You're misleading people.

He is misleading no one, it most likely will look different, but the concept of an entertainment casino centre is pretty well the same no matter were you go.
I say, have a referendum...and at the same time include booze sold in corner stores, and the approval of brothels through-out the city

 

[AKS]

He is misleading no one, it most likely will look different, but the concept of an entertainment casino centre is pretty well the same no matter were you go.
I say, have a referendum...and at the same time include booze sold in corner stores, and the approval of brothels through-out the city

There's already brothels everywhere. You just need to know where to access them. I've heard there's hookers at cityplace too. There's private ones in Scarborough as well. I think you mean "night clubs"?

I don't go gambling, but I've been to the casino in Macau out of curiosity sake and it was packed. I couldn't even move around well and there was a lot of smoke, so I just squeezed out of the area. I don't know how busy one in Toronto will be. But as long as they don't take up much of the entertainment complex, it should be okay. I think giving up 5% for the casino to gain 95% for the entertainment complex isn't too much. If it was built well, it might even attract people to come film in Toronto which will help the film industry. And if people see the location in the film, they might be interested to see the site in Toronto as well. Another thing I want to mention is that cities are always growing and changing. They need new attractions to attract visitors to come visit. If they're always the same old attractions, it gets stale. "Been there, done that". Wonderland works well because they are always adding or changing their games so visitors want to go back to try out new things. The complex might be only temporary as something new, but at least it's something. The government would be better off leasing the land as well instead of selling it off. If the complex does flop over a decade or so and the lease expires. The city can get the land back.

 

[Lenser]

The Toronto film and television industry is doing very well as it is. It's pretty much at capacity and has been going that way for some time. There would have to be additional facilities and infrastructure built in order to accommodate even more business than it currently has. If anything, it may be overdue for a down phase of the cycle. That's the way the business has gone for decades now - tremendous booms followed by fallow periods in which many people are sidelined and forced to find other work to make ends meet.

The way the city is portrayed in film and television has changed significantly in the past ten years. Now, more than ever, Toronto plays Toronto. Many dramatic TV series are set in the city. That's a real accomplishment, especially compared to the old days when Toronto played a host of American name places - Chicago, Detroit, New York, and various smaller centres - anything but itself.

 

[coolcanadian]

Sounds pretty exclusive and condescending, Adma. And I thought these forums were for reasonable exchanges of opinion. So we're not all of the same mindset... I would think that's a good thing. You don't have to like coolcanadian's enthusiasm for the projects he's interested in but neither is it incumbent of you to reinforce some kind of artificial agenda here; doing so strikes me as needlessly heavy-handed and snobbish.

Thank you!!

I would like to note that I only post those photos to show that not all casinos are bad. When every post by adma is about how we shouldn't have a casino, I use photos as proof of good casinos.

 

[adma]

But, truthfully, CC, with me anyway, you're doing yourself a disservice in posting these ridiculously garish casinos. They look almost exactly the opposite to what I envision for a new waterfront! I'd love to see Ontario Place/CNE get new all year features with a great lakeside stroll and restaurants, but these pix look like an arena-sized building with a lot of attempts to hide an arena-sized building with frippery. No thanks -- I think I've tipped into the 'no casino' crowd.

Maybe not so much ridiculously garish casinos, but ridiculously garish images of casinos--after all, caehlan's posted photos of Melbourne's facility go a ways t/w bringing that place down to earth in a way that UTers can comprehend, without having to go all hysterically anti-casino-antiurbanism about it. And I reckon they'd almost be enough to tip you back into the "maybe though still probably not" casino crowd.

To use all those glossy photos to pitch the idea of casinos to UTers is a little like posting glossy photos of Victoria's Secret models in a women's issues forum.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The Toronto film and television industry is doing very well as it is. It's pretty much at capacity and has been going that way for some time. There would have to be additional facilities and infrastructure built in order to accommodate even more business than it currently has. If anything, it may be overdue for a down phase of the cycle. That's the way the business has gone for decades now - tremendous booms followed by fallow periods in which many people are sidelined and forced to find other work to make ends meet.

The way the city is portrayed in film and television has changed significantly in the past ten years. Now, more than ever, Toronto plays Toronto. Many dramatic TV series are set in the city. That's a real accomplishment, especially compared to the old days when Toronto played a host of American name places - Chicago, Detroit, New York, and various smaller centres - anything but itself.

Ha, I am remember. Toronto was Detroit in exit wounds with steven seagal Lenser. Check it out. Great movie.

 

[coolcanadian]

Fine...

adma, and everyone else, I would like to sincerely apologize for posting ridiculous, glossy photos of casinos around the world. I should not have ever done that, and I am sorry.

Happy now? But, from no on, don't post pictures of bad, ugly casinos either. There is the good and there is the bad. We have no idea what Toronto's is going to look like. All we know is that major companies want to spend around $5 billion dollars on an entertainment complex along the waterfront that has approx. 2000 hotel rooms, convention space, theatres, spas, restaurants, shops, other entertainment options, and a casino in 5% of the complex.

Instead of saying that there are examples of bad casinos around the world (there are examples of good ones too), lets just be excited to see what proposals are made.

I think it will be very interesting to see the various 5 billion dollar designs, and I think that there is a very likely chance that whatever is proposed will benefit our city, and be pedestrian friendly. Let's not say it will be bad until we see what is planned. Because, we do not know.

When I posted those god forsaken photos, I was using them to show scale and other features. Of course I do not think that the design will be similar at all.

However, I take an educated guess and say that the design will likely be magnificent.
Where do I get this idea from?

1. Something worth 5 billion dollars is expected to be somewhat impressive, to say the least.

2. There are several companies who want to build the casino, so I'm sure they will all try to submit the best possible proposal

3. MGM has said they want to make a great addition to our skyline and our city, meaning they will probably not make a dull, ugly block.

Other non-design benefits I suspect will be that a 2000 room resort with large convention space and theatres (not even including the casino or the rest of the complex) will provide many jobs and attract tourists.

Another thing I know for sure is that, if this is not built downtown, it will go in Markham or another suburb. I am 100% certain on this. I also know that if it is built in a suburb, it will be much, much less impressive. It is possible there won't even be a hotel attached. It will be used solely by locals, as opposed to locals and tourists. It will not be an "attraction". It will not provide nearly as many jobs.

I also know that a casino is present at the CNE during the summer, and that does not "destroy our city".

Let it also be said that I am not backing away from my argument that a resort would go bad here, I was just talking about the pictures before.

From now on, I don't think anyone should say casinos are ugly and will look bad on the waterfront. First of all, even if every other casino in the world was ugly, we have not yet seen a design for this, so we cannot comment on that.

Secondly, there are countless examples of nice casino complexes in the world.

 

[Torontovibe]

He is misleading no one, it most likely will look different, but the concept of an entertainment casino centre is pretty well the same no matter were you go.
I say, have a referendum...and at the same time include booze sold in corner stores, and the approval of brothels through-out the city

And how about bars able to sell booze until 4 am or even later? What about just letting people drink when and where they want? (of course, I don't mean in cars or wherever they are a danger to others)

 

[GenerationW]

And again with the Atlantic City comparison. Actually, you're absolutely right GenerationW. Casinos turns cities into giant slums. Montreal, Melbourne, Vancouver, London, etc. All these cities are decaying hell holes. How do the people live in such wastelands. I do not understand why anyone would want to live in a city with a casino. It's soul sucking.
Everything about Atlantic City has been a disaster. And it has very little to do with the Casinos.

The point of the article is that a casino does little or nothing to promote local economic development beyond the casino complex itself. So what would be the main purpose of having a casino in Toronto? To be a cash cow for the government(s)? There's an argument for that. A tourist destination? Maybe. But if the main selling point is that a casino would be a great engine for further development, then we should pass.

We will not let them build something that has a negative impact! With so much interest, this would be amazing! It could be great for the waterfront, and the area.

There's no guarantee what we might let them build if Council were to give the go-ahead.

 

[coolcanadian]

The point of the article is that a casino does little or nothing to promote local economic development beyond the casino complex itself. So what would be the main purpose of having a casino in Toronto? To be a cash cow for the government(s)? There's an argument for that. A tourist destination? Maybe. But if the main selling point is that a casino would be a great engine for further development, then we should pass.

Are you kidding me? Stop comparing to AC or Vegas. Your trying to grasp onto any anti-casino information you can to make your argument. AC is a Casino destination. It is also pretty low-end and cheap. There are no 5 star hotels in AC. You cannot compare a casino complex in Toronto to something in AC.

Also, as I have already said, Toronto does have a casino every summer at the CNE, and we do not see a huge spike in crime, etc., etc.

A 2000 room resort with convention space alone would be a great engine for future development. A huge entertainment complex is a great engine for future development also. The fact that only 5% of this will be a casino does not give u s a reason to pass on this opportunity.

I'm sorry if you hate casinos, and yes there are bad ones in the world, but you can't give examples in places like AC of Vegas or Detroit or any other part of Canada. Why? AC and Vegas are gambling destinations. Detroit was in terrible shape, if anything the casino helped them (and provided the nicest hotel in the city by far). The rest of Canada has no casinos that are even close to a $5 billion development.

The only things this could fairly be compared too would be the Crown Melbourne, because Melbourne is similar to Toronto, the casino is on the water front, and close to the CBD, and the only other project perhaps the Marina Bay Sands.

They are both iconic, and did very well for their cities. You can't compare a casino-hotel in AC to an entertainment-complex-resort that includes a 5% casino. It's just as bad as me posting "glossy" photos, if not worse.

There's no guarantee what we might let them build if Council were to give the go-ahead.

And here we go. The good old "Toronto council wants to destroy our city argument"....

With a competition and many designs, I think that we will get something good. I also think our city government actually wants whats best for Toronto, even if they do not always make the best choices.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The point of the article is that a casino does little or nothing to promote local economic development beyond the casino complex itself. So what would be the main purpose of having a casino in Toronto? To be a cash cow for the government(s)? There's an argument for that. A tourist destination? Maybe. But if the main selling point is that a casino would be a great engine for further development, then we should pass.

There's no guarantee what we might let them build if Council were to give the go-ahead.

Where have you been? That's the WHOLE , ENTIRE point of this.

 

[Lenser]

Ha, I am remember. Toronto was Detroit in exit wounds with steven seagal Lenser. Check it out. Great movie.

Can't say I'm a fan of Steven Seagal movies in general, denfromoakvillemilton. I've seen sticks of wood with better acting abilities. I think he and Chuck Norris are in the same abysmal camp that way. Great action guys but not actors per se. But if I ever run across that particular flick on late night TV, I'll try to watch it for a bit without flinching.

__________________________

Of course the casino is intended to be a major money spinner. That's definitely the whole point. The larger question is whether it would, when all is said and done, amount to a net gain for the city.